Inspired Text

Well folks, there ya have it. Craig has proven that he does indeed READ INTO THE TEXT his own point of view. When I mentioned the ERROR of the garden, I qualified it by disclaiming any intention of calling someone satanically inspired. Thereby pointing directly at the WHO in the garden which introduced the DOCTRINE of questioning God's words. Yet Caraig jumps right off that boat and ASSUMES I was talking about Eve's sin. I, obviously was talking about HOW SATAN introduces error.
Sorry gang, you missed "Knowing Your Enemy 101".
Now, when I said, the practice of questioning IF God said it this way or that way is not of God, any 1st year Bible Institute student at any KJB church would instantly know Gen 3, introduces SATANS error of questioning God's words. In fact, any 10 year old in sunday school should know WHO first questioned God's words.
But oh no! No, THIS gang wants you to study for years the ANCIENT languages to REALLY know what God said.
Hey all you fellers???
Where does that leave your third grade child? HUH?
MY third grade grandchildren can read what God said and KNOW it, MEMORIZE it, TRUST it.
Why must you GREEKOLATERS/HEBREWOLATERS keep the scriptures away from children?
Who has the greater sin?
We who BELIEVE one Book in English? Or you who KEEP it out of the common man's hands. Sounds VERY RCC to me.
Don't try your weak excuse that "that's why it needs to be TRANSLATED into the common vernacular." Once more it is the GREEKOLATER/HEBREWOLATER who decides on the Book. He is STILL keeping it from the peole by introducing a NEW one every few years. English has NOT changed that much since 1951, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1982, etc.....So just quit it fellers.
When YOU have been exsposed YOU do the exact same things you accuse us of, so quit it. Just quit it.
Your doubles are showing.
JIM

 

Yes you are correct. It's true right back to the AV 1611. The translators were all "GREEKOLATERS/HEBREWLATORS", they were all pedigreed from Roman/Anglo-Catholic seminaries and universities. They were LATINOLATERS as well because of the influence of Rome. They spoke very highly of "Saint" Augustine and "Saint" Jerome (originator of the Vulgate) and praised his work the Latin Vulgate (from which they adopted several readings). They were, in fact, so infatuated with Rome that they included the heretical books of the Apocrypha in the First Edition of the AV.
But they repented and removed it (well not everyone) and over the years, corrected the several hundred "errors" that had been made in the body of their work, also removing their marginal notes and alternative readings. All the while intoducing new revisions and editions every few years, 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1762, 1769, etc.....

yes you are correct.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
Eve’s sin was not questioning the work of the translators of the King James Version! Eve did not question any TRANSLATION of the Bible, she questioned God and the words that He actually spoke, and she did what He told her not to do. There is absolutely no comparison!
--------------------------------------------------

It seems as though many here do not understand the truth, and furthermore do not understand that the word of God is what we are to live by in every area of our lives. This account of the beginning isn't just because God is telling us a cute little story. Everything that God's word tells us, is there for reproof, rebuke, instruction, etc. for all areas of our lives. I am sorry you do not understand these simple truths. I am also sorry that you cannot seem to take yourself away from the label, and look at the solid truth and evidence! What is your understanding of this account, and how then do you, can you, or have you applied it to your life?This passage of scripture has EVERYTHING to do with this issue, because it is concerning the very words of God, and how God's word was altered and misunderstood, and what happened as a result of it. Instead of looking at the label or title of the word of God as being the KJV, it might do you well to look at it instead, as the very words of God. This might help you to understand better. OR do you rather not believe that the KJV is the very words of God?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Yes you are correct. It's true right back to the AV 1611. The translators were all "GREEKOLATERS/HEBREWLATORS", they were all pedigreed from Roman/Anglo-Catholic seminaries and universities. They were LATINOLATERS as well because of the influence of Rome. They spoke very highly of "Saint" Augustine and "Saint" Jerome (originator of the Vulgate) and praised his work the Latin Vulgate (from which they adopted several readings). They were, in fact, so infatuated with Rome that they included the heretical books of the Apocrypha in the First Edition of the AV.
But they repented and removed it (well not everyone) and over the years, corrected the several hundred "errors" that had been made in the body of their work, also removing their marginal notes and alternative readings. All the while intoducing new revisions and editions every few years, 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1762, 1769, etc.....

yes you are correct.
--------------------------------------------------

To the uninformed person your comments might seem to be true, and that these things were of the same issue, and right to compare. However, the informed does know that comparing these two things, are quite different as compared to night as to day, or apples with oranges. Sorry Hank, but all your facts and logic in this don't hold water to the truth regarding this issue, and trying to make these two things as being the same thing, when in fact, they are two altogether different things, and to compare them would be folly.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
No, but I believe that you and some of your compatriots do. Us Bible-believers do not
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are not a Bible Believer, but a Bibles believer, or better yet a versions believer. Big difference.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Then why did you argue so hard against the rendering 'morning star' in Isaiah 14:12 while knowing that the marginal note says, "or O day starre" if that note is meant to show what the passage means? Do I smell the great KJVO DOUBLE STANDARD at work here?
--------------------------------------------------

Actually God's word, precept upon precept defines what that word is supposed to be and it is Satan who indwells the antichrist. The marginal notes are just that, the opinions and interpretations of the translators, and have no bearing necessarily upon the truth. The Lord gives us the truth if we ask and desire to know.
Are you going to listen to the Anglican translators who you continually bash, and say they were pro-catholic, only to prove your own understanding and view (hypocrates!), but only when it suits your argument? Do you love winning (as you all so think, but is only your opinion)the argument instead of being in and in spite of the truth?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

As usual, a denial of the facts without substantiation ended with an ad hominem innuendo.

Prove it!

HankD

 

Michelle:Actually God's word, precept upon precept defines what that word is supposed to be and it is Satan who indwells the antichrist. The marginal notes are just that, the opinions and interpretations of the translators, and have no bearing necessarily upon the truth.

The context is provided at the beginning of Ch. 14 with the mention of the king of Babylon. We know that Belshazzar, son of Nabodinus, was ruling as regent in his father's place while Nabodinus was off fighting the Persians elsewhere. We know Belshazzar was the ruler who saw the handwriting on the wall, and was killed by the Persians. We know that Nabodinus made a peace treaty with the Medes & Persians & continued as their vassal, and that Cyrus' father Darius ruled the "homeland" while Cyrus was off fighting. I'm sure the king of Babylon mentioned in Ch.14 was Belshazzar. By all accounts, he was a haughty man who looked down upon God, and was a confirmed pagan.


The Lord gives us the truth if we ask and desire to know.
Are you going to listen to the Anglican translators who you continually bash, and say they were pro-catholic, only to prove your own understanding and view (hypocrates!), but only when it suits your argument? Do you love winning (as you all so think, but is only your opinion)the argument instead of being in and in spite of the truth?

No, Michelle, the TRUTH is just the opposite. This is distinctly a KJVO practice, as this very thread proves. While the KJVO proclaims the TEXT of the KJV to be the greatest thing this side of heaven, he totally ignores the comments of the very men who made that text! The fact is, they could just-as-easily made Isaiah 14:12 read, "O day starre" instead of Lucifer, and could have rendered Ps. 12:7, ...thou shalt preserve him as they indicated in their note. The most likely reason they said "them" rather than "him" is the fact that the Geneva Bible reads "him" and KJ's dislike of the GB was well-known.

It's fourth and long, Michelle-you'd better drop back 17 yards & punt.

 

Originally posted by robycop3:
Askjo:The notes in the AV gave their meaning or possible other words to be used. They are to understand what the passage means.

robycop:Then why did you argue so hard against the rendering 'morning star' in Isaiah 14:12 while knowing that the marginal note says, "or O day starre" if that note is meant to show what the passage means? Do I smell the great KJVO DOUBLE STANDARD at work here?


Askjo:These notes are not always correct.

They're as correct as the text is, as they're notes mabe by the translators as they made the translation of the text. If the note is wrong, then so is the text to which it refers. Common sense. If you believe the text is right, then you must believe the notes made by those who wrote the text are right. If you don't, then you're using the great KJVO double standard.

 

michelle:"I am sorry you do not understand these simple truths. I am also sorry that you cannot seem to take yourself away from the label, and look at the solid truth and evidence! What is your understanding of this account, and how then do you, can you, or have you applied it to your life?This passage of scripture has EVERYTHING to do with this issue, because it is concerning the very words of God, and how God's word was altered and misunderstood, and what happened as a result of it. Instead of looking at the label or title of the word of God as being the KJV, it might do you well to look at it instead, as the very words of God. This might help you to understand better. OR do you rather not believe that the KJV is the very words of God?"

Again, you are taking your idea that the KJV is the 'only word of God' and making your mental substitutions. Sorry, it just doesn't hold water. Eve doubted what God said after the serpent began to question God's words, His actual words that He had physically spoken to Adam.

 

michelle:"To the uninformed person your comments might seem to be true, and that these things were of the same issue, and right to compare. However, the informed does know that comparing these two things, are quite different as compared to night as to day, or apples with oranges. Sorry Hank, but all your facts and logic in this don't hold water to the truth regarding this issue, and trying to make these two things as being the same thing, when in fact, they are two altogether different things, and to compare them would be folly."

Actually, Michelle, Hank is dead on. The very things that the KJVOlators accuse modern scholars of are the very things that the KJV translators did. No difference, other than the scholars of today have much more information available than did the Anglicans of 1611.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

michelle:"You are not a Bible Believer, but a Bibles believer, or better yet a versions believer. Big difference."

A bible is a bible is a bible. All translations (even those done by the likes of the JW) are bibles. As the KJV translators put it, "even the meanest" contain the word of God, and are thus to be considered bibles.

And, to be totally honest, contrary to what is posted here by KJVOlators, we who use the more modern versions do not hate the King James Version. We use it and value it as a translation of the word of God, just like all the others.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

michelle:"The marginal notes are just that, the opinions and interpretations of the translators, and have no bearing necessarily upon the truth."

The marginal notes were put there as an act of honesty by the translators. They are there to let the reader know if there was any question as to the rendering of a verse, the origin of a translation, a difference in manuscripts. Marginal notes are as much a part of the text as the words in the column.

michelle:"The Lord gives us the truth if we ask and desire to know."

So, basically, you're saying that we have no desire to know the truth. And if having to swallow the KJVO myth is part of it, I want no part in it. God has given us His truth in the many different translations available in the English language.

I love you as a true sister in Christ, Michelle. But I do not agree with your view of the KJV, and I never will.

In CHrist,
Trotter

 

Amen, Brother -- Preach it!

Personally i frown upon books that say
"Holy Bible" on them yet do not tell inside
even which flavor they are (usually this
happens with KJV1769 edition,
or is that KJV1762?) Such Bibles frequently
do NOT have the internal honesty of the
translator notes.

 

michelle said:

The marginal notes are just that, the opinions and interpretations of the translators, and have no bearing necessarily upon the truth.

You gotta laugh.

 

Huh?

And the translation itself isn't?

Translation: An act, process, or instance of translating : as a rendering from one language into another.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=translation

or the translation itself?

Translation: An act, process, or instance of translating : as a rendering from one language into another.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=translation

HankD

 

Translation: "I believe what the translators of the King James Version says. I believe what the translators of the King James Version said in the King James Version. If the translators of the King James Version used 'trust' one time and then 'hope' the next, that is the translators of the King James Version perfect word. We are in no place to correct the translators of the King James Version's word. I do not question the translators of the King James Version's word, I believe it."

***Translator's Note*** Of course, the above is but a loose translations from a manuscript compiled by an out of work RCC priest, who only had a few incomplete, conflicting copies of HomeBound's post, some of which he had to back-translate from Kenyan due to missing sections toward the end of the message.

In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry you don't believe God's word. I will pray for you. BTW, what do you believe?

 

What did I twist? I said I believed the Bible, how is that twisting?

Are you saying that the King James Bible is not God's word? BTW, if you're trying to refer back to the Greek, then why not supply us with a Bible translated from that Greek.

Can't we assume that if God can inspire the Greek, he can also inspire the King James Bible? Why would God stop at the Greek?

Unfortunately God's word has had many attempts to correct it. The modern versions would be those attempts. If this is not correct, why all the versions?

 

Homebound, do you not understand that God inspired the Greek word that is sometimes translated "hope" and sometimes translated "trust?" God did not use "hope" or "trust" but inspired the same Greek word in both places. The translator decided which was best. God did not inspire any English words or English translations. Or do you think He did? If so, then how can you explain the mistakes sometimes made by translators?

Translations are not inspired; only the original autographs are. Notes are not inspired. </font>[/QUOTE]I understand what the Greek may say, but I believe the King James Bible to be inspired by God, therefore there is no mistakes. I ask you as well, if God can inspire the Greek, why not the King James Bible?