"the Christ" in the KJV

--------------------------------------------------
I wonder what the Christians did before English existed?
--------------------------------------------------

This is really not something for us today to worry about, as God KNOWS his faithful, and it is for HIM only to know.

2 Timothy
22. Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
23. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26. And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
There's nothing wrong with saying "the Christ" when referring to Jesus, since Jesus is the ONLY real Christ. The source from which you read that it was a New Age term is part of the great KJVO double standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You might better understand what it is I said regarding this issue by going back to those posts that I wrote and really TRY to understand what it was that I was saying. And "the Christ" is a New Age term, used by New Agers. Don't take my word for it, reasearch this yourself.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
In the LXX the same word is used and never translated baptism. That same word was used in secular society and it meant dip, immerse, sank, or wash. So the KJV folks transliterated a word to skirt the real issue--false theology.
--------------------------------------------------

The words of God in the English language have always been "baptize" as this is EVIDENT in what God chose to render it throughout the generations in English. The very NAME of our denomination is evident of this - Baptist! I don't have a problem with those other definitions being rendered, but you seem to only have a problem with this definition. This is not the same problem as is evident with the heretical beliefs of the men who were responsible for the texts that underline the mv's, to which has been evidenced in the mv's. And you have been shown this many times, and CHOOSE to DENY it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Simply not true. The word "baptize" entered the English language as a transliteration hundreds on years before the KJV translators and was an established ENGLISH word by the 1600s.


Lacy from another (closed) thread:

 

I'm not sure, but it appears Bro Lacy has a point when it comes to the word "baptism."

Especially if, as I assume, the Shakespeare quotes are accurate.

 

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by michelle:
I wonder what the Christians did before English existed?

This is really not something for us today to worry about, as God KNOWS his faithful, and it is for HIM only to know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, NOT A CLUE
--------------------------------------------------

No, in other words: IRRELEVANT. 2 Tim.22-26


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I did research.
I did it 8-10 years ago.
"The Christ" is NOT a new age phrase.
We researched this matter also last
week-end. A person with pre-christian
experience in the New Age (she was a new
age guru) says "the Christ" is no more
new age than "Christ" itself.

Why do we need to do more research.
No amount of our research will overcome
your doubt.

Praise Iesus, the Sonne of God!

 

michelle you are rationalizing your position because I pointed out a truth.

I quoted the 27th article of Religion from the Church of England’s “39 Articles of Religion”.

It stated that those who are baptized are “grafted” into the Church. They went on to say that this includes young children and in fact infants as is their practice now and in 1611 as well. This is a form of baptismal regeneration which is a grievous error.

This is/was their error (along with many others).

Now, the KJVO error:

Now those who claim to be KJVO or are KJVO wannabees (those who say they are not KJVO yet they reiterate the claims of the spokesman and spokeswoman of the movement) and say that the AV1611 (actually they don’t know which of the revisions/editions is the “pure” words of God, neither can they definitively tell us) are the "pure" Words of God. The KJVO spokespersons tells us that these words which came forth from the translators are the “inspired” words of God, the "very" words of God and also contains “advanced revelation” of the Holy Spirit. This goes against the Scripture which tells us that the words of the prophets and apostles who spoke and wrote these words are the inspired words of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Nowhere in the Scripture do we find that King James of England and his priests and scholars (who held/hold to many of the heresies of their parent, the Church of Rome) were so commissioned by God as well with "re-inspiration" being moved by the Holy Ghost neither did they themselves claim it. I choose to believe them over the non-scriptural second-guessing of the KJVO leadership and also because they indeed proved that their witness was true when in 1613 they became "Bible correctors".

But if it were true, then by implication, the Church of England is therefore The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in that they therefore have been endued with this apostolic power of re-“inspiration” and “advanced revelation” also an error as was the very same error committed by leadership of the Church of Rome concerning the Latin Vulgate (an important witness to the Word of God but still only a translation).

The KJV of the Bible or any translation of the Bible CAN be called the inspired Word of God with the understanding that a translation is derived inspiration and that inspiration is in accord to its faithfulness to the words of the original language.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
michelle you are rationalizing your position because I pointed out a truth.
--------------------------------------------------

You pointed out an IRRELEVENCE and at the same time ASSUMPTION regarding the truth of this issue.

2 Tim. 2:22-26


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

To summarise a minority point of view being expressed here:

If you present an argument I don't like it is irrelelvent.
If you don't get what I get from the Bible you don't understand.
If you disagree with me it is because you are biased.
If you would let God spek to you you would agree with me.

Any guesses who I am summarising? No names needed here please.

 

--------------------------------------------------
It stated that those who are baptized are “grafted” into the Church. They went on to say that this includes young children and in fact infants as is their practice now and in 1611 as well. This is a form of baptismal regeneration which is a grievous error.

This is/was their error (along with many others).
--------------------------------------------------

Again, this has no bearing nor relevance to this issue. We are talking about the words of God, not what some church denomination believes regarding them.

There is not a "greivous" error concerning the words of God, because God's words have made it very clear what the mandate for salvation is, and in the very Bible you are trying to prove was "altered" based upon those beliefs. Your belief and statement is purely 100% incorrect.

It is an altogether clearly different matter concerning the mv's and those responsible for it, as it is EVIDENCED that their heretical beliefs AFFECTED the versions that followed to which is where we see it being altered from what the churches have been provided and in use for generations in believing churches.

This is just another "strawman" being built by many to AVOID the truth.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Can't you folks grasp this:

The heretical beliefs of the KJV translators mean nothing.
The heretical beliefs of the MV translators mean something.

Can't you understand that?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Now those who claim to be KJVO or are KJVO wannabees (those who say they are not KJVO yet they reiterate the claims of the spokesman and spokeswoman of the movement) and say that the AV1611 (actually they don’t know which of the revisions/editions is the “pure” words of God, neither can they definitively tell us) are the "pure" Words of God. The KJVO spokespersons tells us that these words which came forth from the translators are the “inspired” words of God, the "very" words of God and also contains “advanced revelation” of the Holy Spirit. This goes against the Scripture which tells us that the words of the prophets and apostles who spoke and wrote these words are the inspired words of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------

Just the same as you all (who condone and stand for those alterations evidenced in the mv's) also "reiterate the claims of the spokesman" (and the scholars/man) of the AUTOGRAPHS-ONLYISM positions. The FACT of the matter is there is revealed a unity of Spirit. One in the truth and one in the lies. Those in the unity of the Spirit of Truth, have the truth, and the truth in the scriptures support the truth. Those in the unity of the Spirit of lies, have the lies, and are only supported by those lies, to which contradict the scripture truths. The truth exposes the lie.

John 16, Gen.3:1

--------------------------------------------------
(actually they don’t know which of the revisions/editions is the “pure” words of God, neither can they definitively tell us) are the "pure" Words of God.
--------------------------------------------------

We have EXPLAINED this, you just don't LISTEN AND/OR DENY IT to justify your erroneous and unbiblical view.


--------------------------------------------------
contains “advanced revelation” of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------

I have NEVER SAID THIS.


--------------------------------------------------
This goes against the Scripture which tells us that the words of the prophets and apostles who spoke and wrote these words are the inspired words of God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------

Your belief that God did not promise to preserve his pure words, for every generation of the faithful is the denial of the truth (and overall truth regarding this issue given in the scriptures) in the scriptures and the EVIDENCE of this truth.

The EVIDENCE: - our Holy Bible the scriptures, the very pure words of God in English and for generations of the faithful, that has been labeled in recent years as the KJV.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:

There are two problems of translation concerning baptism in this passage.
The word “with” in the original is en. Should be - “I indeed baptize you IN water” It doesn’t take the proverbial rocket scientist to see why the pado-baptists sprinklers prefer the instrumental preposition with over the locational in

I realize that most transaltions follow this poor choice, some don't. Spurgeon used "in" when he preached form this text.

Same with the “he shall baptize you IN the Holy Ghost” rather than with.

This problem has contributed to the error of the charismatics IMO.

This is another issue. Admit you are wrong about the issue above and we can go on to this one.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
Can't you folks grasp this:

The heretical beliefs of the KJV translators mean nothing.
The heretical beliefs of the MV translators mean something.

Can't you understand that?
--------------------------------------------------

If many of you UNDERSTOOD this point being made and the issue we are discussing, we might not be having this debate.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Wow! and I thought I was being sarcastic .

 

--------------------------------------------------
There are two problems of translation concerning baptism in this passage.
The word “with” in the original is en. Should be - “I indeed baptize you IN water” It doesn’t take the proverbial rocket scientist to see why the pado-baptists sprinklers prefer the instrumental preposition with over the locational in
--------------------------------------------------

Because you lack understanding of this scripture does not indicate error. I can't help you to understand this scripture. You <attack snipped>, and ask the Lord to give you the meaning of this scripture. Because you have lacked the understanding in this, you have turned to your "own mind" and the "wisdom of men" in order for you to come to an understanding that is outside the truth, and then have the NERVE to say this is an error. Shame on you. You should very well KNOW the meaning of this scripture if you KNOW the Lord.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ July 30, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

--------------------------------------------------
This is another issue. Admit you are wrong about the issue above and we can go on to this one.

HankD
--------------------------------------------------


If I was wrong I would admit to it and repent for it. You are saying God is wrong. You are the one who is wrong, and you need to repent of it. You are saying that the truth of God in this passage is error, because you lack understanding of it. This is a shame to you. Please repent of this, so that you may see it. Clue: you might not want to make the word "water" your focus of attention.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle