Why was the KJV Bible given to Anglo Saxons Only?

Wrong, Michelle. We take what you say to mean what you said.

Many times you have claimed that the King James are the EXACT words that God spoke. Not the English translation of the words the writers wrote, but the actual syllables uttered by God into the ear of those He inspired to write the Scriptures.

So, how is this fiasco of yours NOW any different than what you have said before, except that several people have called you on it? Things that are the same usually are the same.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I remember Will K saying (what happened to him?) that God would say to the faithful servants, "Well done thou good and faithful servant"-that b/c that's what it says in our English Bible of 1611/1769, God had to say it that way!

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michele, the charactered thing to do would be to say, "Oops, I misspoke. That's not what I meant. Jesus didn't actually use the same words in Palestine in 30 AD as they wrote in the AV in 1611 AD. My mistake. I knew what I meant but it didn't come out that way."
--------------------------------------------------

I didn't mispeak. Many here are not reading properly, what I wrote. I said, exactly what I meant. I did not mean, nor did I say, Jesus spoke English. It is not my fault many people here, have no comprehension abilities. They have made this quite obvious. I am really quite amazed, and upset that many here have no respect enouph for another, that they would purposely and continually try to twist and misrepresent what someone has said, taking anothers words from their post liberally, only to paint an untrue picture of that person. This is unacceptable to me. You all complain continually, that Gail Riplinger is at fault for ripping quotes out of their context to give a false impression of a person. You all do the very same exact thing to others. You have done it to me, on many occasions, and others also. In this case you are twisting my words to say something they do not say. I do not, nor will I accept this. You all need to try a little harder understanding what someone has written, instead of making such untrue statements.

I would not write it differently, as I did not misquote anything, as I said it exactly the way it was meant. You all need to comprehend better and stop misunderstanding, instead of telling me I misqouted or wrote it wrong. The only way you all can do this, if you stop looking constantly to find something, any little thing you can use, to paint an untrue picture of someone. This is the real reason why many are not understanding what I have written.

Yeah, go ahead again with your mockeries.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
King James Version Onlyism is however false and something that Christians must seperate from. It is Gnostic in its intent. It tries to teach that there is further revelation after Christ in 1611
--------------------------------------------------


What I believe is scriptural. My belief is supported not only with scripture but evidence - HISTORY and the HOLY BIBLE I can hold in my hands, read, memorize, live by, study, etc. My belief is also reliant upon faith in those scriptures and in the Lord Jesus Christ of those scriptures.

Now please explain to me, how having the word of God - the scriptures - the word of truth, cannot be accurately translated into my language from the origional languages perfectly? Does God allow the scriptures to have errors? I would like scriptural support for your belief first and foremost.

Please also explain to me how my belief fits under the definition of further or new or advanced revelation:


revelation: 1. a revealing 2. something disclosed; esp., a striking disclosure 3. Theol. God's disclosure to humanity of himself - [R-] the last book of the New Testament

advanced: 1. in front 2. old 3. ahead or higher in progress, price, etc.


Please explain to me also, how believing the scriptures are without error in my own language is unbiblical? Please support with scripture.

Please also explain how this is gnostic with gnostic intent?

Many really have nerve calling my faith and the faith of many others, including generations past, in the infallible word of God in our own language to be gnostic, when the very mv's that you all condone, are based upon texts and methods (which are gnostic) of two men who were actually gnostics, and to which is also evidenced in the versions coming from those texts.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I did not say what you think I mean. I mean I think I meant what I said. But you cannot know what I mean because you have to understand to understand. At least that is what I definately mean so don't try to comprehend because you can't know!!

 

Good conclusion to this thread .