The KJV Issue – Faith Vs. Facts

Funny - no one has answered this yet.

 

ROFLMHO!

You've got to be kidding!?! You really couldn't be this uneducated to the facts of the matter could you?

AVL1984

 

No, turst me - they are TOTALLY serious.

All of America's problems come from the rejection of the KJV. They really and truly believe it.

Hold on and wait for the links to sermons that prove it.

 

You truly have no grasp on the gravity of Bibliolatry, do you? Where was the Bible before the KJV, psr.2? If the KJV is the only Word of God, we're all in a lot of trouble. Do you know what the "V" in AV stands for? VERSION. It is nothing more than a VERSION. Grow up and admit what even the translators admitted , or at least admit that you have no grasp on reality.

AVL1984

 

Funny - no one has answered this yet. </font>[/QUOTE]You mean no KJVO has answered??? What a pity!

AVL1984

 

Funny....I don't remember the KJV translators, or even King James saying that it was anything other than a VERSION. Seems simple enough for me to understand that it's a version.

AVL1984

 

--------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by natters:
psr.2 said "Any time you remove the name of God or his Son or the blood atonement you change doctrine."

You mean like this?

Phil 1:14 NIV "Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly."

Phil 1:14 KJV "And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny - no one has answered this yet.
--------------------------------------------------


No one is answering this, because it is OUTSIDE the parameters of what was being spoken of.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

How about because it will uncover another KJVO double-standard.

HankD

 

Of course - the question is faith vs facts and the facts are in this case the NIV names God and the KJV does not.

 

av1611jim said:

Oh..one more thing Ransom. That link shows folks doing what they did 20 YEARS ago.

Well, they've had plenty of time to grow up, then. Too bad they obviously wasted it.

Would you like to see some MV clowns doing things just as stupid if not more so to reproach the gospel?

No, that would be beside the point.

Have you SEEN the pictures of so-called "christians" AT A ccm CONCERT in their halter tops, tattos, and piercings?

Changing the subject, eh? I don't blame you.

 

Charles Meadows said:

Never mind that Psr2 hasn't proven that the KJV is the sole standard for judging.

Psr2 hasn't proven anything, because he is a .

 

No they don't. Someone has lied to you and you haven't taken the time to learn the truth.

 

No Larry you lie and reject truth. I know the truth from my KJB. You cannot see the truth.
Now I know you will complain about being called a liar and the moderators will jump to defend you.
If you can call someone else a liar then you should be able to take being called a liar.

Of course that is why folks reject the KJB because they want something easier, watered down.

 

Phil 1:14 NIV "Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly."

Phil 1:14 KJV "And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear."

The way to test the translational accuracy is to examine the underlying Hebrew and Greek of any given translation. In the present case, the Byzantine/majority text, the Textus Receptus, and the NA27/UBS4 all agree in reading "to speak the word". They are not wrong so to translate on the basis of their underlying Greek text.

On the other hand, the more strongly Alexandrian Westcott-Hort text reads "to speak the word of God".

Obviously, the NIV at this point chose to depart from its usual critical text standard (NA27/UBS4) and reverted back to the Westcott-Hort reading, supported as it is by the usual lineup of predominantly Alexandrian MSS. Equally, the NIV translators are not wrong so to translate on the basis of their underlying Greek text.

Note that the NA27/UBS4 editors here chose to read with the Byzantine/majority/TR text, primarily because papyrus 46 happens to have that reading in this location, even though the primary Alexandrian manuscripts differ; this then is one of the places where the modern critical texts depart from the W-H tradition.

The _real_ issue in all of this is not translational KJV vs NIV or any other, however, but concerns the underlying Greek text and which variant happens to be correct (even though the context implies the same meaning in both texts at this point).

 

Where does the KJV say what you believe about versions? Answer: Nowhere. So whatever it is you think you know, does not come from the KJV or any other version.

Most people attribute your source to an SDA... but there was an earlier group that were version-onlyists. They beleived that there had to be a single perfect text and that it should be in the language of the church-kindom... that was the RCC and the Vulgate.

Historically, they are the only group to believe like you believe... not surprising. Satan seems to pull out the same tricks over and over.

 

No I don't.

I have a KJV myself, two or three of them. I also have copies of many modern versions and I know that it is an indisputable facts that the MVs have not removed or changed any doctrine. Anyone who says they have is lying.

Why would I complain? I find it sad that you don't know the truth yet. Your only resort is to change the subject and attack me.

I doubt it, but we will see.

I don't think I called anyone else a liar here, but I don't remember. The fact remains that when someone says that the MVs remove or change doctrine, they are lying. The truth can be very easily seen by comparing the versions.

Of course that is why folks reject the KJB because they want something easier, watered down.

 

Again, you don't address the underlying issue of differing texts used for translation. Dishonesty get's you nowhere. The doctrines have not been changed. They are all intact.

 

He did? I must have missed the announcement! When did this exciting development occur????


AVL1984

 

How about because it will uncover another KJVO double-standard.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]This is exactly what it is. Michelle has proven herself to be less than knowledgable on the subject which she is debating, and continues to prove herself thus every time she posts.

AVL1984

 

Not necessarily, psr.2. You show again your lack of knowledge concerning anyone or anything. Many use the MV's because they were saved through the ministering of the word using the MV's and that is what they comprehend best. Again, calling the MV's watered down is a complete misrepresentation which in your case I will call an outright lie! Why? Because you are a troll and a &lt;snip&gt; to boot!

AVL1984

[ August 23, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]