Does God Deceive People? Ezekiel 14:9

Yawn. The word in question is pathah, which is translated in the KJV as "entice" more than it is translated "deceive." Pathah is also translated as "persuade." Interestingly enough, one of the passages that Will mentions as proof is I Kings 22:21-22, and both of those verses have the word pathah in them, and the translators translated both as "persuade."

And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

So, I really don't have a problem with either the KJV or the newer versions. All of them accurately represent the text. Personally, I like "entice" better than "deceive" because it more accurately represents the word in question, I think.

Another long post that really doesn't say anything of note.

 

Thank you, BroWill~I appreciate your posts!

 

I agree, Scott. The exact word doesn't matter all that much. God can do ANYTHING. If He wills that a "prophet" believe a certain thing, it will be done. He willed that the Chaldean "prophets" of Nebuchadnezzar tell him to attack Jerusalem, causing them to derive their "prophecy" from that cutting-edge marvel of prognosticism, examining the lines on a goat's liver. There's an infinite difference in the human devices of persuasion, enticement, or deception, and God's simply willing that someone believe something.

By that same infinite power, God has presented His word to us as HE chose, not subject to the whims of man.

 

robycop wrote:

You probably didn't mean that like it sounds...

"Every word of God is pure..." Prov 30:5

 

Rbrent,

I see you noticed that too. He and Scott are both talented in that area. Why look at Scott's last statement in his post, now we will have to determine how long is "long".

Brother Will, you've done another excellent job of showing us all the superiority of the AV 1611 KJB over the mv's.

Cranston and Scott, yall too have done an excellent job also, of showing the fallacies of your belief system by contradicting yourselves about any certain words in the Bible.

I would have to say the KJB translators have given, again, the more sense of the word in the context.

Uh, CONTEXT, The mv killer!

Oh, and Cranston, I do agree with your last statement, you ought to learn to quit "whimmin'" so much.

On second thought may be you should stick to whimmin', some body will think something if you start sticking to min.

 

Man, you're a riot! "The Probably Close Enuf Club"

 

No apathy at all. If I were apathetic, I wouldn't have responded. The yawn was to show that it's the same old-same old argument. I notice that you didn't answer my refutation, only avoided it.

The Scriptures say pathah, which the KJV translators themselves translated it as entice more than deceived. Therefore, based upon both the definition and the context of the passage in question, either word suffices in a English translation.

 

You have finally admitted that my posts have given you the insight to consider the context now. Only if you would begin to view the real aspect of the context to determin the definition of the word.

 

Notice willie adds to God's Word: "He that hath ears to hear, let him (or her, Granny) hear." willie, go out on the street now and speak in public in 17th Century English, go ahead I'll wait...now did you do it? Prob not. Why? because you don't wanna sound silly, yet you expect God to sound silly. Earth calling willie, earth calling willie, God does not have "speech impediment" as another said. He is not limited to speaking to His children in an Anglican-biased translation based on olde Ingles. No translation, including the one you worship is 100% perfect. As Roby said, name one verse in the KJV that says "The KJV is inspired" you can't, therefore you have a man made doctrine. That's why for the umpteenth time you got to go to the source that the 1611 was based upon. Simple, isn't it? Why haven't you and qs gone to the "Double Standard" thread and attemted to refute the Double Standard(s)? the many, many, many double standards and inconsistencies of your position. All you do is pick out certain verses that you think proves your point, based on the King James Translation, even more so than it's source and attempt to prove your point. Well, go to the aforementioned thread and give it a shot. Pastor KevinR, BrianT, Robycop3, etc would love to see how you and qs double-speak your DECIEVED selves out of your man made tradition. ...that makes my post alright, doesn't it, qs?

 

"Aforementioned" "Aforementioned"?

You contradict yourself in your own post.

I'm believing what I see is you and others are propigating an mv man made doctrine. God has already established Doctrine, e did so inthe AV 1611 KJB for English speaking people, including, uh, well, YOU!

Brother Will's points are valid, The LORD in His Word, the witness of the Spirit, and I also agree.

Nah-nah,ni-boo-boo!

 

"Nah-nah, ni boo-boo!" Okay, we're finally in agreement
About the other part of your post I've quoted: Please name one verse that says anything at all about one version in any language being preserved, especially to us that version is almost 400 years old. You have pickled it! The Word of God is like bread, it's got to be fresh , not stale.

 

Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 in the AV 1611 KJB. Is that enough for you, or do you need, uh, less?

 

but does that incl. the deuterocanonicals Waite n Riplinger n Ruckman between the testaments?



there's no way anyone cld wind up w KJBOism without those important books!

 

I'm still amazed at 12 years old the Lord made it clear in my heart the AV 1611 KJB is the Bible for today, and y'know sumthin'? Today is forever settled in Heaven!

 

Then are you going to actually use one this Sunday. If you use a 1769, then you have went against God.

Do you actually use the 1611, or are you lying?

 

Bro R, I believe your analogy fails because it holds up the one English translation as the Final Authority, when we should go to where that very translation is based upon. I belive the statement should be, "Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21 in the Original writings" (Just like the AV translators said. ) One of my preacher friends said, "I believe the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to maps !"