Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?

No.

HankD

 

All these KJVO's:kjbo's should do well to listen, but they just like to argue....

 

Brother Will, do you really expect them to be that honest?

 

I admit I have a complete Bible that God has preserved for me (and you) in the KJV;NKJV;NASV;NIV;ESV;NLT, etc...
You on the other hand have violated Rev 22:18-19 (KJV;NKJV;NASV, etc) by believing in Advanced Revelation, by worshipping an English Translation . You believe a myth, that the Anglican translators were prophets instead of what they themselves declared, that they were merely human interpreters. You also believe that b/c of the prominence of the English language that God is a respecter of persons, by pickling the Word of God in our language, but He failed to do so in the other languages of the world; hence you are a Bible Facist. Our Bible versions including the KJV:kjb, comes from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and all translations should be based on these languages God chose to inspire His Word, and not in the languuage you imagine He has pickled it. I may be wrong here, but you may be in violation of Acts 17:25 since you somehow exalt the KJV:kjb to Divinity.

 

...paranoid. (BTW Mr Ward, it doesn't mean two noids )

 

In all humbleness, I submit that if you want a valid comparison, then you are using apples and oranges. First, you are using the KJV as your "standard". Where does it say that the KJV is the "standard" by which all translations are to be compared? The KJV is only 400 years old, you have no "standard" from 100 AD to 1611 AD. The actual 1611 AD Bible is nowhere close to today's "version" (or "revision", whatever you wish to call it). So, how does a Bible which has been modified at least three times (actually more) and has only existed since it was authorized by an "Anglican King" and translated by "Anglican translators" make it inspired? Where is the solid evidence, besides; the fact that you believe that it is?

A common misconception used by many people who do not understand fully the translation of any language is that we could get ten translators to translate a book from Spanish to English. If this was a large book (let's say the size of the New Testament in number of words), then you would, no doubt, have 3000 or more variations in words between the two, but by picking ONE of those translations to compare the other nine to, does NOT make the other nine into bad translations. When translating from one language to another, we cannot translate word for word, especially with Greek and Hebrew. Greek has far too many variances that are not even possible in English that every translation is a compromise, to a certain extent, because it is impossible to provide and imply the exact meanings to every single sentence.

As you can see, picking out variations from the KJV and the ESV is not an acceptable method of determining which document is the best translation. What if I were to use the ESV as the "standard", it would easily work the same way. I could say that the KJV has many differences from the ESV, so therefore it is not correct. This is bad logic because translations between languages WILL contain differences, depending on the multiplicity of possible words or word-phrases which can be used and still maintain the very same meaning.

Another issue is the fact that so many words have changed in 300 years, that many of the terms used in the KJV are no longer synonymous with words used today. A reader of the KJV may think, he or she knows what they are reading, when in fact the words no longer have the same meaning that they did when they the book was translated. This is ONE reason there are so many variations between modern translations and the KJV, but it is also a good reason to use modern translations during Bible study.

Do NOT misquote me and say that I do not like the KJV, as others have. I love the KJV and its beautiful old and formal English. Especially in Psalms where it has been difficult for modern translators to maintain the flow and poetry. It is a beautiful work of art. The KJV will always be a favorite translation because I grew up with it. But, many young people get frustrated trying to understand it and give up on it, while they will read a modern translation.

I have yet to have a satisfactory answer at "when" this King James Version was actually inspired. If it was the AV 1611, then I can send you a copy on CD and you need to show me how it is even close to the KJV you carry today. DId God inspire the translators or the revisionists? Why would he inspire a book in 1611 that has errors? Only to have to fix those errors at a much later date.

Finally, I have read the KJV, NIV, NASB and most of the ESV all of the way through several times and I must say that the very same theology, doctrine and gospels are permeated through each book in the same fashion. It would be scary for me to accuse a translation of God's Word as having come from Satan...

 

Then I object!

Your are adding to the Word of God and in violation of Revelation 22:18,19. Luke NEVER said Jesus read from "one specific place".

 

Then I object!

Your are adding to the Word of God and in violation of Revelation 22:18,19. Luke NEVER said Jesus read from "one specific place". </font>[/QUOTE]As to your "objection"--what do you object to?

As to "violation of Rev. 22:18,19, let us please be careful in our accusations towards another Christian on this board. We are all guilty of something, but being specifically judgemental on a subjective issue like this is not exactly the right way to provide a response. Quoting what Luke actually says would be more responsive.

 

If you were to be giving a deposition, I would then ask you to please quote book, chapter and verse where the NASB departs from the Hebrew texts, specifically.

 

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Right out of the Good KJV (1769 version)

"the place" refers is definitely singular. Be careful what you accuse someone else of.

 

Will K-"And in the O.T. the NASB frequently departs from the Hebrew texts, and the NIV, ESV even more so."
Does the KJV depart from the Hebrew in its OT when it has Greek names for its books, instead of Hebrew? i.e. Genesis, Exodus,...Ecclesiates , etc?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Precepts quoted:

Your are adding to the Word of God and in violation of Revelation 22:18,19. Luke NEVER said Jesus read from "one specific place".
--------------------------------------------------

Hiya Bro. Ricky! I am so glad that you posted this, because I said (outload) just about this very same thing - they are adding to the scriptures! No, this passage definately does not indicate a "specific" place as they like to claim, and as I have pointed out, as well as you have, why this is not so. Why are so many here blind to the truth?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

So now "the place" doesn't mean "one specific place"? Sounds an awful lot like, "It depends on what your definition of "is" is!

You know, I assume that the reason "the" is called a DEFINITE article is because it refers to "one specific" thing?

I don't know really care to speculate on motives, but maybe it's because they don't like the truth when they see it and instead make up convoluted reasons they can fool themselves with in order to avoid the clear implications of the text.

 

Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

Just what part about "where it was written" do we not understand as "truth"? That is right out of the only translation you will accept and it is very clear to anybody with fifth grade English that "it was written" is "singular" and obviously one specific place. What am I missing here????? Truth, Truth, where are you?

 

michelle,
since you obviously missed this, here is the answer once again.

 

I guess this "Okie" is just blind to the truth. I keep reading Luke 4:17 (and right out of the KJV, TOO!)....am I supposed to get a warm feeling in the gut like the Mormon's claim you get when the truth finally hits you?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

I didn't miss this TC, and that is quite apparent when one will follow the post that Precepts was responding to, and in return I responded to Precepts response to that very post.

You are clearly assuming, that it was a specific place. All the text tells us is that where Jesus was reading was in the place where it was written. It does not say in the exact place where it was written. It takes more assumption for your view than what the plain text says, and you must add to what the text is plainly saying, in order to come to your conclusion - false one at that.
It is what I like to call - stretching it -to prove one's point, or win the debate. Sorry, I am not stupid and do not fall for this kind of trick.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Yes he did. Read it for yourself:

"And when he had opened the book, he found THE PLACE where it was written..." (Lk. 4:17, KJV). Note that Luke says "the place," *singular*, and not "the places," *plural*.

"And he began to say unto them, This day is THIS SCRIPTURE fulfilled in your ears" (Lk. 4:21, KJV). Note that Luke says "this scripture," *singular*, and not "these scriptures," *plural*.

Luke's words are crystal-clear to any reasonable person not blinded by "one-version-onlyist" dogma.

 

There's no assumption involved. Luke informs us *twice* (in v. 17 before the words are read and again in v. 21 after the words have been read) that Jesus read a single scripture from a single place. And we know *precisely* what that single place was because Luke cites it in its entirety in vv. 18-19. It couldn't possibly be any more clear.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Yes indeed. Scripture was fulfilled in their ears that day. Scripture concerning the first coming of Messiah! Amen!


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle