Why so much against KJB-only?

Bro tinytim, why are you confusing the issue with facts?



HankD

 

Sarcasm again.

 

I meant it! I just wanted to throw a bit of cold water on your implication that W/H were selfless champions of the truth no matter the cost.</font>[/QUOTE] If I implied that it was unintentional. I don't think they were selfless at all. I doubt the profit motive moved them. Personally, I would suspect that it was the same kind of motivation (pride, prestige, position, respect, etc) that typically motivates academics. Not unlike Erasmus.

My point was about their objective, not their motivations.

 

Perhaps I inferred something which wasn't there.

They did make a lot of money from their Greek NT.

Quite possible.

What? You got to be kidding! Why, everyone knows Erasmus was completely sanctified and dead to self! He was a shining example of . . . . uh, well, never mind.

 

Bro tinytim, why are you confusing the issue with facts?



HankD </font>[/QUOTE]If only the most spiritual can understand the 17th century language, they should be able to follow some facts. (well, maybe. )

 

Or in the "inspired" words of Paul "would to God ye did".

HankD

 

Now you have conclusively proven yourself wrong. I understand the 17th century language of the KJV and I'm not spiritual!

 

Skan Man, I gotta hand it to you, at least you're consistent, even when it comes to your version of choice, uh the KJV.

 

So, looking at the history of the English Bible versions is causing division? I guess that means we should just throw out all history books and take your word for it without question.

 

Poor and meek can have similar meanings... but they are not the same in absolute meaning nor extent. Some poor people are meek, some are not. Some rich people are meek, many are not.

These are again similar but not exactly the same. To "bind up" does not mean a person is healed. It means they have been cared for. To "heal" means that the care has a definite effect.

Again, liberty and deliverance are similar but not exactly the same in meaning or extent.

[/qb] These are significantly different according to the standards you use to claim that MV's differ from the KJV. "Bruised" and "bound" are not the same. The don't mean the same thing nor are their meanings very similar.

By cross referencing these two passages, one can possibly make these words complimentary rather than contradictory. However, taken independently, these two statements don't mean the same thing.

The bold phrase does not come from Isaiah 61. As you have been arguing, it appears elsewhere in the King James version of Isaiah.

The major obvious weakness of your explanation is that the phrase is inserted into the list of Isaiah 61 in the middle. It was not added to the beginning nor end which is what we would see if Jesus had skipped to another section of scripture.

 

Michelle, 16 Feb: "Is satan the morning star?
OR rather is Jesus Christ our Lord the morning star, or day star?"

Satan is not the morning star.
Jesus is not the morning star.
Jesus is not the daystarre.

Consider these definitions:

METAPHOR -- a figure of speech in which two unlike
things are implicitly compared

SIMILE -- a figure of speech in which two unlike
things are explicitly compared (usually
with "as" or "like")

In Isaiah 14:12 the King of Babylon is LIKE
the morning star or daystarre.
(By type, Satan is LIKE the King of Babylon)

In Rev.22:16 and 2 Peter 1:19 Lord Jesus is LIKE
the morning star.

 

Bro tinytim, why are you confusing the issue with facts?



HankD </font>[/QUOTE]If only the most spiritual can understand the 17th century language, they should be able to follow some facts. (well, maybe. ) </font>[/QUOTE]Follow the fact there is nothing that Jesus said in Luke 4 that isn't found in Isaiah, but only that yall are demanding that Luke 4 be verbatum. Seems yall are holding a higher standard than God Himself.

 

So, looking at the history of the English Bible versions is causing division? I guess that means we should just throw out all history books and take your word for it without question. </font>[/QUOTE]No. I believe yall should take God's Word without question, you know, like Adam did, and not Eve.

 

Follow the fact that there is nothing said in the KJV that isn't found in faithful MV's, but only that y'all are demanding that MV's be verbatum. Seems y'all are holding a higher standard for qualifying something as a legitimate version of God's Word than God Himself.

 

So, looking at the history of the English Bible versions is causing division? I guess that means we should just throw out all history books and take your word for it without question. </font>[/QUOTE]No. I believe yall should take God's Word without question, you know, like Adam did, and not Eve. </font>[/QUOTE]We do. No one here has denied the the KJV is the Word of God.

It is you that denies God's Word as given to us in faithful MV's like the NASB, NKJV, etc.

 

Yeah, but we're talking about when God said those words and not when you've said them.

Uh, when Jesus cares for some one, believe me, well Him, they're HEALED! And Jesus doning the caring does have the definite, eternal EFFECT! So put your hand on the radio and repeat after me...

O.K., then instead of asking you how God meant that, then let's ask Him. He told me when my accusers "deliver" me to the judges, He will set me at LIBERTY and I can go FREE!

O.K., so let's take them dependently upon what they really mean in context rather than by modern terminology which lacks comprehension in most circumstances when it come to understanding what Thus Saith The LORD: "Bound" simply means to be restrained by cords, as in bound by cords and restrained from movement, but "Bruised" more accurately represents the idea of prison life, or proper imprisonment that the person was "bruised" by the normal "beating" entailed upon imprisonment. Subsequently, Jesus was bruised for our transgressions, He was imprisoned by our sin and abused for our iniquities, and I am only glancing off the surface of just how deep the word "bruised" can go as far as Biblically defining "BRUISED"

Just ONE more reason we need to get back to the Bible, modern English in no way can really compare. It has only newly configured and invented, while complex, wording, but lost true meaning in the process of simple words like the word "bruised".

O.K., but let me shoot that concept right in the heart. I never said, Luke never said, God never said, only yall have said the phrase is not found in Isaiah 61, but we have always said it is found in Isaiah. Jesus read from I saih, not just what we might refer to as Isaiah 61, anyone can see by simply reading Is 61 that the phrase doesn't appear, but I am not looking for a contradiction to the Word of God, am looking for where the Lord was refering to when He had the onloker's gaze fastly set upon Him.

Yall keep demanding something of the Scripture that just isn't there by your little box you keep trying to make the Lord stay in.

Now if Luke had said, "The Lord read from Isaiah 61:1,2 these exact words", then I would agree with you on this point, but he DIDN'T.

This works much in the same way where Jesus said things like: "Ye have said..., but I say...."

Big difference when the Lord says what He meant instead of what yall keep saying He said, but all the while in futility.

 

Follow the fact that there is nothing said in the KJV that isn't found in faithful MV's, but only that y'all are demanding that MV's be verbatum. Seems y'all are holding a higher standard for qualifying something as a legitimate version of God's Word than God Himself. </font>[/QUOTE]I John 5:7,8

 

Yes you do when you attack the KJB and say, "But it doesn't say...."

Then God says the mv's are lacking in their content and also misleading by using deficit wordings that don't mirror the image of God's REAL Word found in our AV 1611 KJB. God has proven it over and over to yall, and I agree with God.

 

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

TC, yes indeed Tyndale recieved martyrdom for his work. The translators of the KJV did not. Does this make the translators of the KJV unreliable because they did not suffer physical persecution(martyrdom) for their work? Did you know that many of the translators suffered financially at this time? Now please show me where the KJV tranlators changed Tyndales work where they wanted to, as you claim? The KJV translators were tranlating from all available manuscripts of the Received Texts, for they consist of God's word. IN fact, the RCC opposed the KJV, even to this day! They are very supportive of the modern versions however! Why? Because the modern versions have watered down God's word so much, that they have been one of the leading glues to the ecumencal movement.

Is it not okay that Jesus, who was God manifest in the flesh, quoted slightly different than what was written? Was it the same message? Did Jesus have the authority to do this? Do translators have the authorization to do this same thing when translating God's word to another language? Is what you are saying, that since Jesus quoted something that was from a different version(which we do not know if he did), then he is basically telling us other versions are okay? What if the version is corrupt? What if the translators have added to, or deleted from his word? You see, I do not think that you have any idea of what a translation is. Was Jesus translating? OR was he reading from and preaching?
There is no room for adding, or deleting from God's word in a translation from one language to another by men, unless inspired by God to do so.God has said that every jot and every tittle (the smallest marks of the word of God in hebrew) shall not pass away.God views his word very important. Otherwise, it waters down the message, or worse, gives a false message. This is the danger.

First of all, I am not a KJVOnlyite. Let us clear this up. I believe that the Lord God Almighty preserved his word, as he promised, for the english speaking people in the KJV, and I am sure by faith, He has done this for people of other languages, and throughout the ages. I believe that it is the most reliable and accurate Bible for the english speaking people, and has been for over 400 years. I have NEVER ACCUSED, nor implied, nor believe that if one uses a modern version they are not saved!!!! I would never even think of such a thing!! Where you get this idea from I have not an idea. I have never heard anyone say such a thing. I do strongly, however, believe that those who rely upon and study the modern versions are in danger of not having the full meat of God's word and his revelation of himself, and will possibly hinder their walk with Christ Jesus our Lord in his will. That their armour of God is being weakened with big holes. I desire the full armour of God, with no holes that the enemy will not even have a chance at piercing it. I strongly and faithfully believe God's promise that he would preserve his word forever, and to claim that his word has errors in it, is denying the innerancy of scripture, and outright denying this promise of God to those who love him. Is all the modern versions God's pure and uncorrupted word? Why then do so many of them differ, and take out, or add to his word? Would God bless a translation that has altered his pure and holy word of truth that he holds above all else? I think not. Could God bless someone through a corrupted version? Absolutely! Does this make the corrupt version okay for us to use? Absolutely NOT! We should be taking a strong stand for the purity and holiness of God's word, and warning of those things that would, do, or have corrupted it. I have been saved for a little over 3 years now, and I have been in isolation, leaning upon God and trusting in him alone and his word alone. God speaks to me through his word, but I cannot say that with the modern versions. I learned many things about the churches, as the Lord led me, and he prepared me for the day I would look for a church. I knew already, without knowing any information yet on this debate, that the bible I had was his word of truth preserved. He led me into this topic to learn more about it, and I have heard and read both sides of this issue. I agree with those who warn against the modern versions because this is what the Lord has shown me.

I did not say that "you - TC" said we would lose our salvation, nor did I say that you said we said you would lose your salvation. I was referring to someone else who made the accusation. Sorry, I thought I made that clear in my post. I was not accusing you of having said that. Although you did relate to it in your last post, that someone would tell one to throw out the modern version in the trash, and use the KJV, otherwise they aren't saved. I did not ever say this, nor do I believe it.

You say that if God can save someone from the modern versions then that version must be of God. I beg to disagree. Would God condone one to regularily use a quija board, or seek out a spiritist, a prayer to Mary answered, if God used that person/thing to bring them to him? This has happened to people. So if God blesses someone through something is it automatically ok for us to condone it and continue in it? And if we do not condone it, are we opposing the work of the Lord? And how would you know, what would you base it upon?

How is it doctrine for a pastor to only allocate reading in his church congregation reading one translation of God's holy and pure word doctrine? Hello, but where does one's doctrines come from? The word of God! We would not know doctrine, or what doctrine to obey without the word of God! If a pastor sees the errors and corruptions of the modern versions,and or understands that to give an okay to use of various forms of modern versions in the church, how then can any order come from that? Which version shall one bring to church with them? How confusing for those who have a different version than the one being used from the pulpit? God commands that we do things in an orderly fashion. God is not the author of confusion.

I can tell you of a recent experience I had regarding bible versions. I went to a prophecy revival where David Reagan was the speaker at my neighbor's church (she invited me). He was using a variety of versions for his presentation, and during one part of his presentation (I do not know which version he used- but it was not the KJV)he tried to prove that the word of God possibly prophesied the Israeli flag as being a sign of the last days. I was curious, and as I always bring my Bible to church with me, I looked it up, because I did not remember the verse of scripture he used to say such a thing. To my amazement and I was very upset to say the least, that this verse that he used out of the version he used, omitted a most important part in that verse. HE used it because it seemed to fit his theory and many gullible, vulnerable or lazy christians would see this verse up on the big screen and think this is what the verse actually says, and maybe in their version it does. It does not! It is deceiving and misleading and takes away from the true prophetic message of Jesus Christ in that verse. I will quote here for you, the verse as indicated in the KJV, and then show you the part that was blatantly omitted from the verse he used in that version.

Isaiah 11:10

10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

omitted: "to it shall the Gentiles seek:"

rendering it to be: And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; and his rest shall be glorious.

His emphasis was upon the ensign and focused upon this ensign being the Israeli flag! This is clearly not what this verse, nor the context of this chapter is speaking of, which is the Lord Jesus Christ, and not some kind of flag or physical sign. Now with this version's omission of the important part "to it shall the gentiles seek" could now be interpreted as any sign, as David Reagan himself suggested/proposed. This is dangerous, and takes away God's intended message and truth. This church speaks volumes about the state of it, and the slippery slope of apostacy they are in. They use the NIV and they are also involved in the Promise Keepers,the Alpha Course, the purpose driven church and the purpose driven life, contemporary worship services, etc.

We are to stand for the truth and the purity of God's holy and precious word. Anything, and anyone who would corrupt it, even in a subtle way, should be pointed out for the benefit of those who might be led astray by it. Out of love for the word of God and out of love for others whether we be martyred for it or not. The point isn't being martyred, the point is standing for and proclaiming the truth!

Do I believe the modern versions are Satan's bible? I believe that evil men have crept in unaware, leading astray many, helping to weaken one's armour against him.

Thank you for explaining to me TC, and Ed, and any others who might have answered my question on what IMO means. That is very helpful.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

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

Ed, please read the following, and tell me where it says "LIKE": (it rather says "I am")

Revelation 22:16

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you, these things in the churches. I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

11 Peter 1:19

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do wll that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. (is Peter speaking of Satan here?)

Even though this is metaphorically speaking of Jesus Christ our Lord CLEARLY in these two passages, how then can we say that this same metaphorical term could apply to Satan, ecspecially when Jesus Christ himself indicates "I am" the bright and morning star? Do you not see the confusion this can cause to those who read the versions that take out the reference to Satan alone, by the name of Lucifer, and make this the morning star? Lucifer is refered to as the son of the morning, NOT THE MORNING STAR as I clearly pointed out in that last post regarding the Hebrew word "Helel". PLease stop trying to excuse obvious blasphemy for your love of the modern versions.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle