What doctrines are wrong . . .

This is exactly WHY we stick with the King James Bible, Phillip, we DON'T have these "problems"

 

Yes we do. Look at the confusion that has arisen by the use of words like "behemoth", "unicorn" "Easter" and OT appearances of the word "Jesus". I can't tell you how many people I know with KJV's think that "brass" in the KJV means "brass".

 

Bronze. "Brass" in the early 1600's referred to the alloy we call "bronze". Today, brass is a different alloy altogether. Brass is a somewhat contemporary invention. The alloy that the OT and early NT folks used was bronze. Cool, huh?

 

There goes my salvation by brass theory

 

Plain ol' Ralph said:

This is exactly WHY we stick with the King James Bible, Phillip, we DON'T have these "problems"

Nah, just a whole different set.

 

POR:This is exactly WHY we stick with the King James Bible, Phillip, we DON'T have these "problems"

Maybe not the probs Phillip mentioned, but if you believe the KJVO myth, you DO have some MAJOR-LEAGUE probs whether ya realize it or not.

 

The weakness (to use your word) of the Living Bible are in my opinion two-fold:
1. It is produced from a single person's point of view. Doctrinal bias will be reflected in such a paraphrase and such is the case with the Living Bible.

2. The work is from another translation, (New American Standard, I think) and not the manuscripts. So in effect you are "translating" someone else's translation.

Remeber the Living Bible was created to help a devoted Christian relate the teaching of the bible better to his own children, not to be a study bible for pastor's and scholars. If used for it original purpose, it can be helpful as you read the bible and try to apply to your daily living.

 

Uh.no. All you have done is PROVEN our need to be certain what the Bible is, and IS NOT!

Since the KJB is accurate, all the others are "paraphrases" Time you. and many,many others learn that. So the "doctrine", as you call it, is true, right, necessary.

 

Yes we do. Look at the confusion that has arisen by the use of words like "behemoth", "unicorn" "Easter" and OT appearances of the word "Jesus". I can't tell you how many people I know with KJV's think that "brass" in the KJV means "brass". </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry you wrest at the scriptures, I've learned to depend on a dictionary to fully understand anything I haven't been schooled on when it comes to those words, especially the first definition, which the KJB uses vehemently, NOT the more modern "re"-defintions to meet up with the fantasy aspects of today's g-g-g-g-generation.

 

Bronze. "Brass" in the early 1600's referred to the alloy we call "bronze". Today, brass is a different alloy altogether. Brass is a somewhat contemporary invention. The alloy that the OT and early NT folks used was bronze. Cool, huh? </font>[/QUOTE]Wow! And just how did you come to that conclusion? And how much brass do you think helps make up content of bronze? HMmm? I wonder if somehow the spiritual aspect of brass being judgement is negated as well? Probably.

 

Naughty, naughty. It's called the "Living Bible" and by the standards of modernologists, it carries the same weight as any "Bible"

 

Oh, and "inane" just what does thus meaneth? Shal I depndson the usage of a dictionary, or can I count on yo?

 

Hmmm.... So, instead of having a translation that says "bronze", I need to have a KJV and a dictionary? Sounds like more KJVO hypocrisy.

The first definition of the word "brass", "unicorn", "behemoth" etc, in the dictionary do not correspond with the source texts that the KJV was translated from. Your assertion is not only false, but refutes KJVOism instead of supporting it.

How did I "come up" with it? The FACT that the OT/NT civilizations used bronze (not brass) is a historical FACT. The FACT that the words in the source text are translated bronze (not brass) is a translational FACT. Only someone ignorant of the FACTS would even question this issue. OTOH, revisionism and KJVOism are often bedfellows. It is for this reason that all who love the KJV, as I do, need to stand up and defend it from the false doctrine of KJVOism.

 

Can you cite a specific person here that believes that the LB or any other paraphrase carries the same weight and authority as direct translations?

If not, please burn that straw man and actually engage in factual debate.

 

Uh.no. All you have done is PROVEN our need to be certain what the Bible is, and IS NOT!</font>[/QUOTE] We know what the Bible is and is not. It is the KJVO that stumbles on this simple point. It is not limited by your arbitrary choice of the KJV.

It is apparently time you learn the most elementary facts on this issue. New versions, not even the NKJV, are "paraphrases" of the KJV. Accurate or not, the KJV is not the standard by which other translations must be judged.

God chose Greek and Hebrew and also chose to preserve His Word providentially through men who were neither perfect in copying nor translating.

You also fail on a very simple point of logic. The truth that one method is accurate cannot prove exclusivity.

How many "accurate" descriptions could be given of the best way to get from your house to the Varsity in Athens? How about if you expand it to the many world languages?

KJVOnlyism is neither true scripturally, factually, nor logically. If fails on all three accounts.