KJVO Lies

Michelle said:

Why did God give us His words in our very own languague of English and then intend for us to study it in Greek?

and

No, but you and others here most certainly do not know nor understand the Greek, Hebrew and English languages as well as the KJB translators did.

Anyone for doublethink?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Our own language" is not 400 year old Elizabethan English. In fact, it was not the common tongue of folks in the 1600's either.
--------------------------------------------------

Many say this, but then they must hide behind the Greek and Hebrew to justify the errors that have been made evident 400 years later.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Because it is not confirmed or reveals in scripture that there is a specific translation that supercedes others. Requiring such a belief is adding to scripture, and as such, qualifies by the definition of many as heresy. In the very least, it qualifies as false doctrine. It doesn't matter if you're KJVO, NIVO, NASO, etc. The very concept of there being one sole authoritative translation for all people is completely unscriptural
--------------------------------------------------

Please provide your belief with scripture. Please provide for me, where God allows standing errors in his words of truth?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I fail to see how having a knowlege scripture in its original language would be detrimental. Your comment, however, does not negate the FACT that Elizabethan English is not what is spoken today, nor was it the common tongue of the day.

 

--------------------------------------------------
No, but you and others here most certainly do not know nor understand the Greek, Hebrew and English languages as well as the KJB translators did.
--------------------------------------------------

How many translators and scholars do you know today that have a working knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek? How many of these people have studied these languages from the time they were children?
How many of these people were educated in the American Public school system?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

When was the last time you heard this in a cafeteria?

Waitress: Greetings unto thee, What wouldst thou have of me?

Poor soul: Having found grace in thine eyes, peradventure, wouldst thou bearest unto me a vessel of coffee prevented by a morsel of apple dainty?

Translation:

Waitress: Hi, what will you have?

Thanks, would you bring me a cup of coffee and a piece of apple pie, bring the pie first.

HankD

 

According to your testimony michelle He does that in several modern translations.

 

Hank do you really think folks have a hard time comprehending this vignette? I think a typical 10 year old could understand it. (They may have a bit of trouble with "prevented" but your context clues are pretty self explanatory)

(I know alot about kids - I teach in public schools.)

Lacy

 

How many of the King James translators were educated in Romish colleges and universities?

HankD

 

I know many of them, and there are ten of thousands more that I do not personally know. And they have very much more than a working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew—indeed, they have a vastly superior knowledge of Greek and Hebrew than did the translators of the KJV.

Are you totally ignorant of the fact that the translators of the KJV didn’t have so much as a Strong’s concordance to work with? They had nothing even close to a comprehensive concordance of either the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament. They had only the most basic Hebrew lexicons and virtually nothing to help them with the Greek language—indeed, they did not even know that they were translating the everyday Greek dialect of the first century because nothing else in that dialect had yet been found. Today, Bible scholars have all of these things, and tens of thousands of volumes of studies on the Greek and Hebrew languages that were nonexistent in the early 1600’s.

Considering that the translators of the KJV had almost nothing to work with, they did a very good job. But contemporary scholars have vast resources available to them, and the good ones take a generous advantage of them.

 

Thanks Lacy, you are correct in regards to "churched" people, but you didn't answer the question: When was the last time you heard this in a cafeteria?

The NT was originally given in "koine", presumably because it is/was the will of God to give us His Word of eternal life "in the language of life". The English of the KJV spans the Elizabethan and Jacobean period which is (for the most part) Shakespearean English which is far from being "koine" English heard and spoken by the common man in the street of the 21st century.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
When was the last time you heard this in a cafeteria?

Waitress: Greetings unto thee, What wouldst thou have of me?

Poor soul: Having found grace in thine eyes, peradventure, wouldst thou bearest unto me a vessel of coffee prevented by a morsel of apple dainty?

Translation:

Waitress: Hi, what will you have?

Thanks, would you bring me a cup of coffee and a piece of apple pie, bring the pie first.
--------------------------------------------------


This is not the same thing as, or as dangerous as the following comparison:

KJB

Acts 8

36. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

NIV

Acts 8

36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"

37 OMITTED.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle, how can we know that verse 37 wasn't added sometime after Acts was written, and God corrected that addition by taking it back out by his providence/guidance and care?

 

--------------------------------------------------
michelle, how can we know that verse 37 wasn't added sometime after Acts was written, and God corrected that addition by taking it back out by his providence/guidance and care?
--------------------------------------------------

Because God preserved this scripture. The corrupt texts underlying the mv's are cause for this deletion.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "Because God preserved this scripture. The corrupt texts underlying the mv's are cause for this deletion."

No, perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not asking you to restate your conclusion, I'm asking about your premise. I'm asking how you know that it wasn't an addition that God corrected.

 

--------------------------------------------------
No, perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not asking you to restate your conclusion, I'm asking about your premise. I'm asking how you know that it wasn't an addition that God corrected.
--------------------------------------------------

Because God has evidenced he preserved it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "Because God has evidenced he preserved it."

Do you know the difference between a conclusion and a premise?

HOW do you KNOW? How you know that the "correction" in modern versions isn't the preserved reading, the other one corrected by God by his guidance in preserving what he wanted us to have?

 

Michelle:Not if by studying of the origional languages one comes away with understanding that is different/contrary to what God has already provided to us in our own language

So, when the first English bible was made, its sources then became invalid?

And God had already provided the Tyndale's Bible in English. By whose authority do you use another version?


and different from the beliefs/teachings from the history of the believing churches.

Everything found in every valid BV has been taught in churches somewhere over the years.


Otherwise, one is left to believe the interpretations of men above that of what God has provided already in our language and opens one up to being carried away with every wind of doctrine (Eph.4, 2 Peter 3).

The KJV is an interpretation of men. It didn't just drop outta the sky.


You all continue to turn to the Greek and Hebrew languages as your rescue (knowing full well that the common person does not know it), yet while you do this, you deny God's divine guidance concerning his words for us in our own language.

That would be a KJVO thing. It's the KJVO who picks-n-chooses among versions, declaring only the KJV to be valid.


I believe God, not man. I am to believe that God allowed standing errors in his words of truth in my own language? You can believe that.

The proof is in the pudding. Deny them till you turn blue, but they're still present for all to see. We've proved "Easter" in acts 12;4 is such a man-made error.


However I can not, nor will I, because I know the Lord has control concerning his words and I believe what He has said and revealed in and concerning his words. We find our strength and safety in his words - from the words of the wicked and deceptions of the world (3:1).

But you put your trust in 47 men whom you hope were right 400 years ago. You "speak" as if you don't trust God to have continued to have provided His word "unto ALL generations" as you insist Psalm 12:7 says.

You say you aren't KJVO. What other specific version(s) do you recommend?

And where's the post of the statement you allege I made?

Your credibility is gone, Michelle!

 

--------------------------------------------------
HOW do you KNOW? How you know that the "correction" in modern versions isn't the preserved reading, the other one corrected by God by his guidance in preserving what he wanted us to have?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Because God preserved it, and that verse is the truth. Please also refer to (John 16,17). The enuch asked what was preventing him from being baptized as he saw the water. Phillip answered him and told him the truth. The NIV leaves one without the truth, and an unanswered question.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
And God had already provided the Tyndale's Bible in English. By whose authority do you use another version?
--------------------------------------------------

John 16 and 17.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle