Could this be the stone?

--------------------------------------------------
In fact, it was not. There were two releases, one from Oxford (brave KJVO claim this one as the "perfect" one but that has it's problem as well) and one from Cambridge.

They were different in several places. Then starting in 1613 each of these editions were revised for "errors" both of substance and typography.

This went on until the 1850's.
--------------------------------------------------

The errors you speak of are not translational or manuscript errors as seen in the mv's. THe errors are clearly and understandably because of printers errors and spelling changes that occurred to words during the mentioned dates, ex. Gothic to Roman typeset, etc. These were corrected, but our Bible today does not conflict or is different from them in any other way than these things mentioned. You are trying to compare this comparison to versions that are based upon completely different manuscripts and to which the differences between them is not only great but the difference from them to the long standing scriptures in the history of the churches is very great. It is trying to compare the flower to <snip> again.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ July 25, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

"Things that are different are not the same."

 

--------------------------------------------------
Again, I can say the exact same words as you do - amazing!!
--------------------------------------------------

Instead of mimicking what I say and avoiding the issue, why don't you state your reason? Can you answer my questions posed to you?

You find it "amazing" that I cannot honour nor respect something that calls itself the words of God and final authority while it has altered the very pure words of God? Why is it you find this amazing? Does God tell us to put up with error and to compromise with it? If so, please by all means, show me where?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Does God tell us that every English traslation after 1611, er...1762, er...1769, well whenever it was done...is a compromise?

I am not mocking you - pointing out that I can use your exact same logic from my point of view.

Its 1100 - I'm going to bed - if you can come up with some proof that modern versions compromise the Word of God let me know.

 

--------------------------------------------------
"Things that are different are not the same."
--------------------------------------------------

They aren't different, and that was my point. Just to remind you: God does not change, he is the same yesturday, today, and forever. So are his words, for they also are eternal. You focus too much on the past irrelevant things (in order to excuse the mv's away), rather than looking at what is right in front of you here today, and not seeing it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Amen! What does that have to do with the NKJV?

Having a great time - but its time for bed here (1100).

 

The same applies to you. I have not seen you use the scriptures but rather an outdated translation innacurate at best because English has changed since the translation done in 1611. Even the typestyle has changed too.


Are you saying that it is by faith and that faith is in your god of self and inner conviction. My what evidence!! The Mormons would totally agree with you.

I always use the scriptures as my standard. That is the reason why I place no faith in any translation. I took the time to learn the languages instead of relying on someone else's opinion and translation such as that which was originally tranlsated by Anglicans.

Again, the scriptures are not a translation but rather the text God gave. It preceded the KJV by over one millenium. So I wonder why you place such trust in a translation that came along over one thousand years later? Fromn what I can tell you have no knowledge with which to even compare. Or do you trust the ignorance of another. Throughout history in many diferent languages a new translation has been met with opposition from the older folks who like their archaic translation better. There have always been those who are unwilling to change. Where I live I see those KJVO churches dying while they do nothing to reach people. They sit by and preach KJVO and do nothing to reach the world with the gospel.

Again I ask show me where any of the Bible writers ever made any translation an issue. Could you give me the book along with the chapter and verse?

 

The same arguments you use were the same arguments brought against those who sought to bring music back into the church after about one thousand years of no music. The very music you sing to today is the same music the old church was against saying it was of the world. So according to those who precede you, you are worldly. Just a casual study of church history will reveal how you have the same attitude toward change as many who preceded you.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Does God tell us that every English traslation after 1611, er...1762, er...1769, well whenever it was done...is a compromise?

--------------------------------------------------

God doesn't talk about translations or versions, but his pure words and that HE will preserve them FROM THIS GENERATION FOR EVER. For God also has told us (and preserved for us)this truth three times in the scriptures, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD. These are God's words, not mine. I believe them, do you? I don't argue against it, nor do I deny it, why is it that you do?

Those were not errors that could not be or were not corrected. They could be corrected and were corrected and having nothing to do whatsoever with the translation or the underlying texts. God saw to it, that they were corrected. The mv's aren't being corrected with the errors within them, because those errors come from the translation of the texts that underline them to which are in error and different from the texts that underline the KJB.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
The same applies to you. I have not seen you use the scriptures but rather an outdated translation innacurate at best because English has changed since the translation done in 1611. Even the typestyle has changed too.

--------------------------------------------------

THis is your opinion and not at all correct. Does good still mean good? Does love still mean love? Does sin still mean sin? Does blood still mean blood? Does behold, still mean behold? etc., etc. Please stop your lame and very old excuses. If my children who are 6 and 9 years old can understand the KJB, then anyone can. It is the understanding of the scriptures that many today seem to have trouble understanding, not the English of the KJB.

You have not seen me use the scriptures, because you probably ignore my posts, or do not actively read them, but only passively, or you are just plain lying.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Certainly what you describe are the original autographs. But I assume you mean the KJV instead. So you would say that the KJV is the very words of God in English, the Luther Bible are the very words of God in German, the Reina Valera are the very words of God in Spanish? So in every language the first translation of the Bible is the very words of God, is that what you are saying?
So I would assume you are saying that every translation that was the first in any language could be used to translate in to another. So the English KJV could be so trusted that I could use it to translate the Bible into German and Spanish and into any language that has not been written yet. But you do know that Wycliffe Bible translators would not agree with you in that idea.

 

Amen, Sister Michelle -- Preach it!

Yet what you say has noting to do with what I said.
I am sorry you do not seem to understand the important point that God wanted me to make.

Praise the Logos described in the Rhema
Praise the Word described in the Word

 

You are right. Your attitude toward a translation ought to shock you. The problem lies in that the KJV is not the very words of God but a translation of the word of God into English. If you don't understand that then there is no debate because you do not understand translation. The scripture only speaks of inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20,21 not second hand inspiration. Second hand inspiration is exactly the same as the doctrine of progessive revelation that Mormons believe.

 

-----------------------------------------Are you saying that it is by faith and that faith is in your god of self and inner conviction. My what evidence!! The Mormons would totally agree with you. ---------------------------------------------

Instead of treating me as a fellow saved born again believer in Christ, you always treat me as someone who is not. Shall I now compare you to some heretic or false religion because of your view regarding this issue? No, two wrongs do not make a right, and I will not do that. You are falsely accusing me of something I am not, just because I believe and share with others that we have God's pure words of truth 100% today in our very language, and this hardly qualifies me of being a heretic or apostate in my faith and rather agrees with the scripture, for this is where I recieved understanding of this wonderful truth.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

You have not used the scripture but a translation.

Now how would you translate agapao. phileo, and eros? They are all transalted with the same word in English. Each of them are very different. Does that mean anything to you?

 

It is awful that you cannot see the line of reasoning you possess. It is much the same as the Mormons I share my faith with.

 

--------------------------------------------------

You are right. Your attitude toward a translation ought to shock you. The problem lies in that the KJV is not the very words of God but a translation of the word of God into English. If you don't understand that then there is no debate because you do not understand translation. The scripture only speaks of inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20,21 not second hand inspiration. Second hand inspiration is exactly the same as the doctrine of progessive revelation that Mormons believe.
--------------------------------------------------

If you do not believe you have the very words of God to you, I am very saddened for you. Where then do you claim your final authority from? The origionals? Got news for you, they do not exist in their origional form, but we do have them in the copied form and in our very language - 100%. By your understanding regarding this issue, you have made it very clear to me, that you do not believe God could and has preserved his words for every generation even through a translation. You are clearly denying this promise of the Lord, and his power and ability to see it done. I do not need to understand translations, but I do need to understand what God has said, and acknowledge what God has done and I give him thanks and praise for this everyday. Your focus seems to be on those things that you THINK the Lord cannot do, nor did do, even at the expense of denying that God said he would do it. You approach this issue with humanistic thinking and logic first, then with rhetorical questions such as what if God this, and that. Let us stick to what God said, and what he has done, and get off the world like thinking and mindset concerning the things of God.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
You have not used the scripture but a translation.

--------------------------------------------------

What do you not understand about this: The words of the Lord are his words, in any language they are the same and are the Lord's words and are scripture and are authoritative. By your line of thinking, no one would ever be able to be saved unless they knew the greek and Hebrew scriptures. This is faulty and unbiblical thinking. YOur focus is on the language and translations, more than it is on the very words of God. This is unbalanced and spiritually unhealthy. God and his words concerning his words should be your starting point. However, you have made it quite clear to me, that your starting point is from the former (language and translations).

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
It is awful that you cannot see the line of reasoning you possess. It is much the same as the Mormons I share my faith with.
--------------------------------------------------

So is an insult supposed to edify me in your eyes? This is very unfriendly and unloving, uncaring, unedifying and untrue and quite harsh treatment towards your sister in Christ. I do not compare at all with mormons, for they believe in a completely different Jesus, than my Lord Jesus Christ who I know personally and believe in.

I am finished debating this issue with you. May the Lord bless you and give you understanding concerning this issue. May you also continue to grow in his abundant grace and mercy.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Now how would you translate agapao. phileo, and eros? They are all transalted with the same word in English. Each of them are very different. Does that mean anything to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Context defines it, the rest of scripture. But thanks and praise to the Lord, that I do not have to worry about such things. He has already provided his words of truth to me in my own language and need not to know these things. I just praise Him for what He has done and believe he has done it.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle