Featured KJV 2

A bit hard to keep up with 5 or 6 of you all at once

Doing the best I can Captain. Got 5 or 6 asking questions and I already answered your Easter and Rev 16 question.

 

When you said “So, you believe that the KJV is correct in telling us not to revile false gods?” you added the word ‘false’ to fit your narrative or interpretation, for it does not read ‘false gods’ it just says ‘gods’ referring to rulers and judges, even as the latter end of the verse gives context, “nor curse the ruler of thy people (Exodus 22:28) KJV. Thus this verse is not referring to false gods, even as you said yourself, ‘it should read not to revile the judges’ which is exactly what the KJV is already saying in this verse within the context of ‘all’ the Scriptures (Isaiah 28:9-13) KJV.

 

Sorry, Sir; you didn't answer them a bit correctly. Not trying to be condescending or smart-aleck, but your answers were very-unsatisfactory.

Easter & passover are different observances. EASTER DIDN'T EXIST when Luke wrote Acts. Easter is man-made, while passover was ORDAINED BY GOD for Israel, FOREVER. "Pascha" did NOT mean Easter when Luke wrote Acts; indeed it's the same word JESUS is quoted for using for passover. (Unless you believe He observed Easter ! LOL)

As for Rev. 16:5, the ONLY correct answer to my question would ba an ancient Greek manuscript of Rev that has those words in that verse. With all due respect, Sir, your answers failed on both accounts.

 

I'm sorry you think I took you out of context. I certainly did not mean it that way, and I apologize for any offense.

Here's the thing, though. I felt your reply was somewhat disjointed. You have the pre-understanding that the KJV is a perfect translation (though you can't say how or when that happened historically). Therefore, you get offended when anyone suggests the KJV is mistaken, as I did. Since I believe the originals were inspired, I get all hot and bothered when anyone suggests the originals are not inerrant. After all, God did not give His Word in English, but in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

‘Yet you seem to think it's okay to let idolaters get by, simply because the KJV allows it,”

Okay, now you are taking me out of context. I DID NOT say that the Bible allows allows for idolatry, but just the opposite. I said the KJV allows for idolatry. It is a translation, not what God gave the Bible in. Translations cannot be inerrant.

You believe the KJV is inerrant against the clear evidence of the Hebrew. You put Man's translation (however great the translators were) over God's original Word.

Here is the BDB Hebrew lexicon definition for elohim (אלהים), proving my point that it could be translated "judges":
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
2e) God

Nope. I didn't actually say that, but that is certainly one possibility, based on the meaning of the Hebrew word. But I'm pretty sure "all modern versions" don't say that.

The word "gods" still refers to idols in the rest of the OT. You can't change that. The context you refer to says it should have been translated "judges." I'll stick to that--and I'm a Bible translator.

Boy is this mixed up. I don't think you understand what I said at all.

Let me clarify. The KJV has "gods." In much of the rest of the KJV, "gods" refers to idols. Thus, for any English translation to translate "gods" there--"Thou shalt not revile the gods"--means the reader should not revile idols.

Ex. 20:23, just before our passage: "23 Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold."

Ex 23:13, just after: "And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth."

Thank you for pointing out another verse where the KJV got it wrong.

I'll let you alone now. You are obviously not going to change your presupposition that the KJV is inerrant, even though:
1. You can't tell me when that happened.
2. You defend very obvious errors in the translation.
3. You think a translation is superior to God's holy Word as it was given in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
4. You yourself have never translated, yet see yourself as qualified to tell translators how to do their calling from God.

 

Any "gods" other than the LORD are false. That's a given. You are twisting every which way to avoid what the KJV actually says about "gods." You are compromising on idolatry just to keep the KJV inerrant in your own mind.

I have seen people bow down in idolatrous worship to Buddha, their ancestors, and Shinto gods. Any God other than the true God is a false god. If you don't see that, stay away from the mission field, Catholic churches, or anywhere else idolatry occurs. You are too easy on it. You think "gods" with a small "g" are no big deal. I was a missionary to an idolatrous country for 33 years, and I know that IDOLATRY IS EXTREMELY EVIL. Any translation that allows it in the slightest way, including the KJV, is in error. Defend it all you want, the KJV is wrong here.

 

Just be careful not to use the KJV version in which a single comma was removed that made Jesus sound like a criminal - Luke 23:32. Seems the latest version of the KJV update had to patch that one up.

 

How ironic that KJVO sees the 1611 translators as having an inspiration granted them by God they refuse to see were to the Originals themselves!

 

Between the 1611 and 1769 Kjv were what, hundreds of changes?
How can the perfect translation have "any patches?"

 

Psalm 82:6 is an exception, where elohim (אלהים) is used -- and is translated "gods" in most English Bibles (I believe I few have "elohim," and The Message has "judges"). The reference is to rulers who are judges, called gods/elohim. However, we might be quite hard put to figure out the context and meaning of what Jesus was saying in John 10:32-36 if we only read it as "judges."

 

I guess we agree to disagree on Easter. I think Nick Sayers may be able to shed some light on this below....



Did you read his book on Rev 16:5 that I sent you?

As for Rev 16:5. Do you really think one Greek manuscript will turn your opinion on that verse when I John 5:7 in the KJV has Greek support yet you don't believe that reading either?

"“For Christ oure esterlambe [Easter Lamb] is offered vp for vs” (I Corinthians 5:7, Tyndale’s 1526 English Translation).

 

So you admit then that all modern versions have it wrong in reading “you shall not revile, blaspheme, or curse God”?

Nope. I didn't actually say that, but that is certainly one possibility, based on the meaning of the Hebrew word. But I'm pretty sure "all modern versions" don't say that.

‘but that is certainly one possibility.’

One possibility? You are not sure then?

‘But I'm pretty sure "all modern versions" don't say that.’

Actually they do John.

“Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people” Exodus 22:28 (NIV).

“You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people” Exodus 22:28 (ESV).

“You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people” Exodus 22:28 (NASB).

“You must not blaspheme God or curse a leader among your people” Exodus 22:28 (CSB).

“You must not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people” Exodus 22:28 (NET).

“You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people” Exodus 22:28 (RSV).

“Thou shalt not revile God, nor curse a ruler of thy people” Exodus 22:28 (ASV).

So which is it John? Is it ‘do not revile the gods’ or ‘do not revile God’ the Father with a capital “G”?

If you are not sure, that is ok, I understand, but if you know which reading is correct please be honest if you think all the modern versions are incorrect here. I am not asking about any interpretation here, or anything regarding our past dialogue. It is a basic multiple choice question.

A) The reading is ‘gods’
B) The reading is ‘God’ with a Capital ‘G’
C) It is a possibility but I am not sure

Either way John, it has been a blessing to talk with you and I honestly do wish you the best in your venture to get the Word of God to the Japanese people, for Lord knows the world needs it. I hope our dialogue has been productive in that at least it has given you something to ponder. But as you yourself said, most likely our positions are both set in stone. My book at www.kjvdebate.com talks about this and may have some things in it that will be unique for you.

Yours in Christ,

Bro. Mike

 

Yes. Nick Sayers, IMO, is a quack. I have debated him more than once on Facebook. He cannot respond satisfactorily to several other anti-KJVO myth points that I won't mention now, and his "evidence" for Rev. 16:5's KJV reading is largely his imagination or misreading of the actual facts. ONCE AGAIN, THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER TO THE REV. 16:5 QUESTION WOULD BE AN ANCIENT GREEK MANUSCRIPT OF REV THAT HAS THOSE WORDS IN THAT VERSE ! The oldest sources for the entire New Testament is those ancient Greek mss. All CORRECT NT translations are made from them ! Virtually ALL other sources used to make Bible translations are made from them! And I believe Sayers made his book to try to milk the KJVO cash cow; it goes for $15 US dollars! (I wouldn't give $0.01 for it!)

And yes, we'll disagree on Easter long as you believe the false idea that it belongs in Acts 12:4, or Scripture, PERIOD. Again, Easter simply didn't exist when Luke wrote Acts! And if it had, none of those who wanted Peter dead would've left off dealing with him to have observed it ! And it doesn't matter what pascha means NOW ! What matters is what it meant to LUKE. The KJVO myth keeps you from realizing those FACTS !

Both you & Sayers have been beguiled by that false KJVO myth til you might actually BELIEVE it, which is sad. The fact that it has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in the KJV itself, should raise a red flag for you, as you're also a Baptist. You both should pray got God to have the HOLY SPIRIT open your eyes so you can see how phony that myth is.[/B]

 

How many quacks does it take to make a duck?

 

You have only listed seven. Are you aware that there are hundreds more? And what about the 100s in other languages? Have you checked them? And have you checked the commentaries?

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: "gods — a word which is several times in this chapter rendered “judges” or magistrates."

I'll repeat: there are two good possibilities. I lean towards the one you haven't mentioned here: judges.

It's not a "reading," which would refer to the original, which is the same in all manuscripts to my knowledge: elohim, which can mean any of those possibilities listed in the Hebrew lexicon I quoted to you. It's a "rendering," a translation of a word or sentence. No offense, but you're thinking like an American who does not speak another language and has never done translation. Words in different languages have different ranges in meaning. But to answer, again you did not give the possibility I prefer, which I have already said:

D) The rendering should be "judges." In English, "gods" invariably means idols.

Thanks for the discussion. Tell you what, I'll try to get ahold of your book if you read my new biography of John R. Rice, ready for preorder at: John R. Rice: The Last Revivalist of the Twentieth Century | On to Victory Press

 

Is Psalm 82:6 also a mistranslation? I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

 

In English, when we say "gods" we do not mean the true God, but false gods. In Hebrew, the same word (a Hebrew plural) can be used for both. The KJV erred in that it took the word for simply "gods," which in English means idols.

 

The ONLY ones with "things set in stone" are those holding to KJVO!

 

Evidently quite a few, as POTUS Reagan forgot to duck.