Digging a well.

Well, almost. More precisely Revelation 22:16 has "the bright and morning star". Those three words make a BIG difference.

Additionally, these word are not capitalized as a referrence to Deity. The KJV does capitalize for Deity sometimes: in Deuteronomy 32 there are several mentions of Him as the "Rock"; in 1 Peter you will find the "Shepherd" mentioned a couple of times; and in Numbers 24:17 He is the "Star". There is no other "Star".

Thirdly, do not become overly concerned by these metaphoric comparisons. The Messiah is sometimes called the 'Lion of Judah', and Satan is said to be like a "roaring lion"; the Devil is likened unto an "old serpent", and the Savior was lifted up as the "brass serpent" was in the wilderness.

Fourthly, "I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth..." (Revelation 9:1), and Jesus said "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven..." (Luke 10:18).

Finally, the Latin Vulgate has the word "lucifer" in it three times: Isaiah 14:12, Job 11:17, and (most interestingly) 2 Peter 1:19. Hmmm.

 

While I might well fully agree with what you have posted here, I will not check it out, simply because it came from a PM.

I even doubt that the initial recipient would even object to this post, but I am already on the record on the BB as opposing the making public of any PMs, regardless of the subject. IMO, a PM should remain a PM.

I will choose to be consistent in my response, and hope you do understand this, and not even take this as any admonishment, but rather merely the explanation, that it is.

Thanks in advance for your understanding in this.

Ed

 

No problem. I don't PM often. But I don't say anything in a PM that I couldn't make public. I primarily use PM to avoid sidetracking an ongoing thread. The only reason I posted this one is because I have become tired of typing the same responses (more-or-less) over and over. This may cause me to save my answers to these questions in a central depository for future deployment.

 

My friend you are incorrect. Acts 8:37 is not in the text of the majority of newer versions. The verses go from 36 to 38. Some will have a footnote stating that older manscripts omitted verse 37. If verse 37 is included, it is not in the text but in the footnotes. Footnotes in a Bible are man's opinions and not God's word.

The same goes for Matt.18:11, Mark 11:26, and about twenty more verses that have been omitted from the text of new versions.

[personal attack deleted] --- [There is no need to call another Brother or Sister in Christ a liar because you disagree with them. It will not be tolerated by the board moderators. Thank you!]

 

Sir, I do not hate the word of God. I love the Bible God has provided us. What I hate is sin and satan's attacks on God's word. The devil is a counterfeit, and that is what he is offering mankind today. Counterfeit bibles that remove the diety of Christ, are soft on sin and confusing when it comes to salvation.

Your comparison in I Chron.21:1 and II Sam.24:1 is invalid. It reads the same in both the KJV and NIV. This is not a bad translation. It simply requires proper understanding to comprehend the meaning.

If you choose to continue using a new translation that is completely your choice. If you cannot handle the meat of the word stay on the milk. I choose to enjoy the blessings that come from the God's inerrant, infallible pure word.

 

Yes, let's try a little honesty here. Why did the KJV1611 translators use footnotes? Did they believe that footnotes were "man's opinions"?

Please read the Translator's preface to the KJV1611 and you will find out that your supposition is incorrect. Here is a link for your convenience: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm#s16

Here is a direct quote from that same source that you might find enlightening:

• 9 So, by the story of Ezra and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered that the Temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former wept [Ezra 3:12] when they considered the latter notwithstanding, might this latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the Greeks?
• 10 The like we are to think of translations.
• 11 The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?
• 12 Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and the most learned men to confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God.

 

Please refrain from attack upon brother Christians. I have reported your post.

 

I never said footnotes were bad or evil. I simply said footnotes were not God's word. I use the footnotes in several of my Bibles. I do not always agree with the notes, but I have to agree with the Scriptures themselves.

BTW, I own a 1611 reprint that includes the letter from the translators to the readers. Please read the entire letter. You have taken out one part of one paragraph to support your stance.

I also find it interesting that you would use a resource from a strong KJVO website to support your anti-KJV view. It almost seems hypocritical to do such a thing.

 

I have read the entire preface- several times. I find it interesting that not one time do the translators of the KJV espouse the idea of an 'Only' translation of any sort.

They also said:

• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
• 2 As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
• 3 For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all [James 3:2]) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars.
• 4 No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
• 5 For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

 

I was not attacking a Christian brother. I am standing upon my convictions. I do not intend to offend any. However, I would rather offend man than offend God by keeping silent on an issue as important as the Word of God.

Report me if you must. I will rejoice in that I have been found worthy to suffer persecution. Glory to God!!!

 

"If you cannot handle the meat of the word stay on the milk."

After ALL the things said about the KJV and those who use it that you DON'T consider an "attack", it's pretty hypocritical for you to consider THAT statement an "attack"!!!!????!!!???:BangHead: Heaven help the people on here!

 

Your right to your convictions stops at my brother's nose. When you imply that he is not able to handle the supposed "meat" of the KJV versus the supposed "milk" of other versions you INSULT his intelligence and spirituality. I will not stand by and let you get away with that. Even in the guise of supposed "convictions".

 

Kindly point me to ONE post that insinuates that KJVO'ers or even KJVP'ers are less spiritual than those of us who use MV's and I will apologize.

 

And I must apologize for dragging this discussion off-topic. Personal attacks of any kind either pro or con upset me.

 

I've already done that several times. I won't waste my time again. As I said in another post.....MERRY CHRISTMAS to ALL of you, but I'm just TIRED of the bias and blindness on here. I can see that you need to be one of the "good ole boys" to be taken seriously on this forum, so I will bid you all goodbye. :wavey:

 

Who exactly was insulted? Him or you? I make no apologies for my convictions. I'm glad I still have convictions. If more Christians had firm convictions and were not ashamed to stand on their convictions, maybe our country, and world would be a better place.

I am following the teaching found in the Bible: Titus 1:13 "This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;" If you are offended in this I am sorry, but you need to take that up with the LORD.

Merry Christmas Mexdeaf.

 

My friend, I am not incorrect. Each and every version I cited had Ac. 8:37 in it. I did not say each version had it included in the main body of the text, as opposed to a footnote. That was an assumption you chose to make. Incidentally, some of the versions I cited do have this verse in the text, with a footnote stating the this verse was not found in 'some', 'most' or 'the best' manuscripts. In fact, at least four of the versions I cited actually have Ac. 8:37 in the text with no notes or 'qualifications' or explanations, whatsoever, equivalent to the KJV-1769 flavor.

What I detest is the position espoused by some, including you here, where "You can't win for losing.!"

Because "they" demand the right to determine all the rules, and demand the right to change the rules, when the game is contested, especially concerning so-called MVs, never mind that the KJV is actually a "MV" as well.

If something is not found in the main body of the text that "they" think should be there, "they" object.

If something is not found in the main body of the text that "they" think should be there, "they" object just as vehemently.

If something is found in the main body of the text that "they" think should be there, but with a footnote of differing opinion, "they" still object, just the same.

When one points out that the KJ-1611 had footnotes (actually sidenotes) as well as many MVs, "they" ignore the implications of that.

"They" get to claim advocacy for the KJ-1611, while actually citing a revision, normally the KJV-1769. Should one point this out, "they" usually offer false statements, as to what the KJV actually is, and about any differences in editions.

In fact, not too long ago, one KJVOer on the BB objected to one who actually quoted a KJ-1611 reprint, with the 1611 spelling, I presume because it was not the apparent 1769 spelling.

I could say more, but have to leave, shortly, and do not have the time to compose any more. I have attacked no one, but only refuted a false statement that was made.

Let me ask you to tell me, without looking it up, exactly what is the objection to the AKJ and/or KJ21, both of which I cited? Do you have a clue as to what either of them are, off the top of your head?

My friend, I have offered no deception in anything I have posted, by any stretch. I have merely refused to let you or anyone else make up all the rules, reserving all the rights to them, including the right to change them, as they go along, and/or change them at will, for while I enjoy competing, I simply have no intention of playing in any "rigged" game.

FTR, I just looked at the flyleaf of my own Bible. Like I didn't already know what it said, I still see the words "King James Version" are a part of the book title! Incidentally, I also have a copy of the Greek Majority Text, I use, as well.

Ed

 

Then stop attacking it.

I don't know of any of these. Of the major translations, there has yet to be shown even one instance of such things. These have all turned out to be false.

It is not invalid. It shows exactly the root of the issue, that the same thing can be said about different people.

I can't handle the meat.

We all do. Some of us chose to do it with God's great blessings of a Bible given in our own language. If you wish to use an old translation that uses language that is outdated and sentence structure that is outdated, that's fine. But recognize that God never told us that was the only acceptable translation, and God has given us inspired proof that versions other than the KJV are the Word of God. That should settle it, if you love God's word.

 

No one is asking you to apologize for your convictions. You do owe Pastor Larry an apology for your put-down, IMHO.