Former KJVO whose eyes are now open!

Are gehenna and hades the same place? </font>[/QUOTE]That is a matter of interpretation. The real question is:

Did God use one word or three?

 

Ignore claims 3 and 4....Both are logical fallacies.

Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.


claim 2: You ignore the fact that the KJV and MV's also agree over 99 % of the time

Ignore Claim 1: Genetic Fallacy and Begging the question all rolled into one. Genetic fallacy attempts to count or discount a claim based on irrelevant history or attributes. Example: Finney denied substitutionary atonement. Finney used the KJV. Therefore, we should ignore the KJV.

 

What kind of damage could I cause, phillip? Is she going to lose her salvation? I have affirmed my belief in eternal security, Deborah says she believes in eternal security. What do you believe, and what bible did you learn it out of?

 

Just a single thought here: Whose theology was superior: the NASB translators, who ALL affirmed justification by grace through faith; or the KJV translators, who largely would have affirmed baptismal/works-based regeneration?

 

Askjo, You are spouting the same rhetoric that KJVO's have spouted since the KJVO cult started.

Let us just take one of your superiorities.

Translators: Yep, a bunch of Anglican, Baptist hating, baby baptizers. Hmmmmm, yep, that is a REAL group of translators alright.

400 years----many people saved with KJV.....sure, it is and was a good translation, but today, there are better. And better primarily means that they are not really that much better in the actual translation (even though in many places they are), but they are translated in OUR English language, not that of the Anglican High Priests of the 17th century.

Yes, they were probably good translators----apocrypha and all.

So, Askjo, which KJV is the correct word-for-word 100% accurate version?

 

Are gehenna and hades the same place? </font>[/QUOTE]That is a matter of interpretation. The real question is:

Did God use one word or three? </font>[/QUOTE]It's only a matter of interpretation if I am forced to interpret it. The argument is that we need to update the bibles into the modern tongue for modern people to understand, and then expect them to learn ancient greek and hebrew to interpret? I don't have to interpret it, God has interpretted it for me. The KJV translators did not see a need to cause such confusion, praise the Lord. Why do we? Is the word of God really so elusive that whatever we believe it says is good enough? If gehenna is the lake of fire, why doesnt it get translated as such in MV's? Calling it Hell, then transliterating hades... thats just plain dishonest. That is forcing the interpretation, like a good magician forces your attention onto the hand that is not stealing your watch.

 

Deborah,

Praise the Lord! You have the Word of God in a translation that you can understand and apply to your life. I believe to be an effective teacher one must be able to communicate truth to people in a way they can comprehend it. God gave us His Word so that we can know Him and His will. If a person cannot understand it, then what is the use?

Don't let the pharisetical KJVOist rob you of the great gift God has given you. The gift of understanding His message to you. I praise God for you and encourage you to get your mom that Bible.

Bro Tony

 

Obvious, James, you have cast doubt on her Bible, the Word of God.

If I understood you correctly you used her as an example of how MV's trap people into believing things that are not true such as faith=works.

This casts doubt in the Word of God that she uses. In my opinion it is very dangerous to say that the Word of God is not teaching the right doctrines, when nobody on this board has yet to show doctrinal change.

Now, are you admitting the MV she uses teaches the way to Eternal Salvation? If so, it is certainly not from the devil.

Remember? "a house divided"?

 

Just a single thought here: Whose theology was superior: the NASB translators, who ALL affirmed justification by grace through faith; or the KJV translators, who largely would have affirmed baptismal/works-based regeneration? </font>[/QUOTE]I was wondering if anybody would catch that, LarryN. It's funny, the majority of KJVO's that I know, with the exception of eternal security, are all modified Arminians, not Calvinists or Catholics. The translators of the KJV were largely still Catholic theologically in 1611. Only later, as Scots Presbyterianism from the North and French, Swiss, and Dutch Calvinism entered England from the South, did the Church of England become more Protestant theologically, and, when it did, it ascribed to a Reformed, not an Arminian perspective.

 

Nope. The NASB translators beat the KJV translators on 3 of the 4 hands down.

I believe that the MT is superior to the CT.

Also, none of the NASB translators have persecuted Baptists for disagreeing with them... some of them were actually Baptists.

Nope. 0% support the KJV. The KJV has a reading in Rev 22 that has no Greek mss support at all. All Gr mss say "tree". The KJV following the Latin Vulgate (I think) has "book".

So? The Latin Vulgate was used for over 1000 years. In 100 years or so, the NIV will probably be the most used Bible of all times. That won't make it the best translation by any stretch.

If everything except the NIV were outlawed for 200 years, it might very well take 200 more years to get people to accept a new version.

You have been challenged on this before yet you continue to make unsubstantiated claims.

Its a charge very much like the lie that the NKJV leaves out the "blood" x number of times. Using Bible software, I found this to be nothing but deception. The creator of this lie had counted omissions when words like "bloody" were used instead of the KJV form.

Cite your "200 times" and your proof that they were in the originals and not in MV's.

 

Show me the Scripture that says the modern versions are the only English bibles and which MVs!

"Another lie" is that you called KJVO without evidence.

NIV since 1970's. The KJV since 400 years. I found the report that the KJV is still #1.

You obessessed with the apocryphs for many years.

Which do most churches and preachers use today? Geneva or KJV?

Your Geneva bible weakens Jude 1:25 when compared to the NASB.

 

Askjo said "Show me the Scripture that says the modern versions are the only English bibles and which MVs!"

Nobody is making a doctrine of the use of modern versions, thus one doesn't need to provide scripture for a preference. However, someone that does promote a doctrine (such as what you believe about the KJV) needs to show scripture for it, for doctrines need to be derived from a source of authority.

Askjo said "NIV since 1970's. The KJV since 400 years. I found the report that the KJV is still #1."

What was the "most popular" in 1610? 1611? 1612? Does "the word of God" change according to popularity polls?

Askjo said "Which do most churches and preachers use today? Geneva or KJV?"

Why does it matter?

Askjo said "Your Geneva bible weakens Jude 1:25 when compared to the NASB."

So does the KJV.

 

YOU know it!

No. Jude 25 is already discussed in past posts. YOU know it.

 

Show me the Scripture that says the modern versions are the only English bibles and which MVs! </font>[/QUOTE]No one has ever made that claim - everyone accepts the KJV as a sound translation.

 

Did anybody here say the MV's were the only Bible? I get a little tired of KJVO people saying we are attacking the KJV by not believing that it is the ONLY translated Word of God.

"Another lie" is that you called KJVO without evidence.

So, I guess we should speak Latin because the Vulgate was around for 1600 years? Or for English, we should use the Bishop's because it was around longer than the KJV?

Maybe its because you have never given a satisfactory answer for many years as to why it was included in the 1611?

Actually, probably the most popular would be the book of Islam. By these standards it would rank over the Bible. Nah, bad argument.

Your Geneva bible weakens Jude 1:25 when compared to the NASB. </font>[/QUOTE]What does the Greek say?

 

I have trouble with Greek fonts in this BB. It does not work. I saw Greek fonts on posts from someone who knows how to.

 

Amen, Deborah! My thoughts exactly! But don't hold your breath while you wait on an answer...well, a STRAIGHT answer, anyway.

You might get "If you only understood, then you would understand." Or "You are just not spiritual enough to comprehend what God has laid out so simply in the KJV." Or "You ought to check up and make sure that you got something when you got 'saved', because if you were TRULY saved, then you would understadn the KJV." Or "You would rather read a perversion of the pure, holy, actual words of God, that to read the Holy Scriptures as given to us in the English language?"

Don't let 'em bother you, Debo. It is all the same hooey that they have been spouting for years. As Roby likes to say, "Same garbage, new bag."

The KJV is a grand trasnlation that has stood the test of time, but its archaic words and hodge-podge sentence structure, not to mention horrid grammar, make it hard to read, and hard to understand. Praise God that you have found a translation that opens up the whole of the word of God to you!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

--------------------------------------------------
It is like he was trying to scare me away from what has brought me even closer to God and growth in my faith. Why would a brother in Christ want to do that??? That kind of scare tactic, in my case if I were to believe that, threatens to hinder the growth of faith for me, my mother, my 3 children, my husband, and my neighbor's 15-year-old, 9-year-old, and 8-year-old children that I have been counseling. That is 9 people that are benefitting from God opening my eyes to His words and that I, in turn, am passing along to them to help them grow and understand, something I never had.

Anyway, I hope you KJVO's realize exactly the danger in what you could do to some people who could get confused over all of this arguing by KJVO vs. MV. Would you rather someone spend their whole life reading something they don't understand? And then even giving up on reading the bible alltogether just to avoid studying a MV? I would like an answer from a KJVO for that question, please.

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


Deborah,

I praise God that you are able to understand God and have grown closer to HIM. Amen to that. I would never put you or anyone else down for that. This issue is I believe something that comes from a conviction from God, as it is quite apparent how many posting here are passionate and determined in thier view and understanding of this issue.

I did want to comment on your comments about James comments to you. You have said you feel as though he was trying to scare you, and use scare tactics. James can correct me if I am wrong, but the way I see it and understand it, is that he was only trying to warn you out of love for you, and for his love for the words of the Lord. It is well known that the modern versions have omitted from, and taken away from and twisted the scriptures, in many verses that can in the long run, and for those who have not the background of knowing and studying the whole counsel of God called the KJB, can be dangerous. God has given clear warnings against those who would add to, or take away from HIS words, and if it is something God has warned about, we as his loving servents also should too.
It also can lead many to doubt the inerracy of the scriptures, if they are reading the footnotes. One then becomes confused as a result, not truly knowing for sure if the verse and truth in question are the words of God or not, which can ultimately have them questioning the rest of it. These things are much more serious to be concerned about, than division in the churches, or our ego's being hurt. When there is the truth, and a lie, there will always be a division. No doubt, that the modern versions CONTAIN the words of God, and many have been saved by them, and continue to live thier lives obeying them. But, if our armour has holes, we are more suseptable to being wounded or become spiritually ill.

I have stated before, that it is much better for someone to read an mv (even though I reject them for the above reasons) - then not read any of God's words at all. I am sorry that you had difficulties understanding the words of God in the KJB, but that in no way is a reason for me to accept versions that have clearly altered the word of God for sake of clarity - I and many other common folk understand it. To me, not warning others of this is not loving God, His words, nor is it loving others, and it is a compromise with error, that will have effects in the long run for others in the future, or who do not know any different, as many here fortunately do.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Good question!

Deborah, certainly stick to your guns and press on in your study of God's written word. I think you'll find as you learn and study from the HCSB that it will actually help you to appreciate the KJV more and more as you are able better understand the 17th century English of the KJV. God bless.