Featured KJV hate

Isn't 75 % of the Kjv itself merely Tyndale repackaged?

 

indeed, as they did include variants readings in margins, and also the Apocrypha. Do Kjvo agree with them on including those additional books?

 

The word of the Lord referred to then was the Hebrew and later on Greek books!

 

Thanks for explaining further. My comment below was in response to the meaning of blocks access, so it no longer applies as a reply to your comment.

 

The passage I quoted from Hebrews merely said the word of God is quick. It did not say just the Hebrew was quick or the Hebrew and the Greek, He actually wrote this statement to the Hebrew people in the Greek language. It said the word of God is quick. Then, it began to say what it is and what it does and what it can do and most translations use a personal pronoun when referring to it.

What else in the scriptures is said to be quick? What does it mean to you when the scriptures describes themselves as being alive? Or, is the word of God in the epistle to the Hebrews a reference to Jesus Christ and the author is actually referring to a person, as if Jesus Christ and the word of God is one in the same? Is there a passage in scripture where Jesus Christ is actually called the word of God?

Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

This proves without a doubt that the word of God has personality. No?

 

Some KJV-only advocates incorrectly attempt to suggest that the Lord Jesus Christ and the Scriptures are one in the same when they are not. The Lord Jesus Christ is not an inanimate written scroll or printed book. The same name or term can be used in different senses for two different things.

The written or printed word of God does not reproduce itself, making copies of itself or even making translations of itself without any need for imperfect human beings to do the reproducing (copying or printing) or the translating.

 

My repro AV 1611 is packed with marginal notes, from Gen. 1 onwards.

 

It is despising What makes you think modern versions are more accurate?..
MB

 

better researched, more available manuscripts and better resources and references materials...

 

Not a good at all. Not an ideal translation, but not s good. I am sure it was thought out and the decision made to use Easter. Good would be an accident.

Not archaic at all.

 

So not ageeing with myth of KJVO means hating Kjv?

 

I am not sure if it is my statements you disagree with or with the scriptures. I just quoted what the scriptures stated and made some logical deductions.

Let's see, you claim that the author of Hebrews is not speaking of my KJV or your NIV when he says the word of God is quick or alive. right? That it cannot do the things it claims it can do because it is inanimate? That Hebrews 4 and Rev 19 is not referencing the same word of God?

Okay, I got you. I know where you are coming from. Thanks.

 

That is just a bunch of hype
MB

 

You are kidding...right?

 

We have many more manuscriptsto look at then 1611 had, and much better reference tools to use, computer, software, lexicons, grammars etc!

 

Hi Thomas.

Kidding about what?

In 1 Peter 1, Peter told the strangers to whom he addressed his epistles the following.

Being born again, not by corruptible seed but by incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.

This is the second place I have quoted that says the word of God is alive. Am I suppose to believe that? Do you believe it? How do you handle a statement like that in the context of your belief system?

 

No matter who made the decision, it's a goof. Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts" & in his time, pascha meant only passover.

Yes, it is. Please tell us why you think it's not.

 

Very easy. They read the correct "passover" in Acts 12:4 rather than "Easter"; they correctly read "murder" rather than "kill" in Ex. 20:13,; they correctly read "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10 rather than "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil." That's just for starters.

 

I think you are just kidding for the joy of kidding.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

Your inability to learn anything about this is the biggest goof of all. Both Easter and Passover are English words that did not exist when Luke wrote the book of Acts. If your line of reasoning were valid, it would be wrong to make translations of the Bible, for all specialized words would not have existed in the receptor languages before the Bible was brought to them.