BV/T or defamation of KJVO

Dr. Bob, are you fully prepared to have your same standard applied to you?

Can you provide the answers as they fit to your beliefs based on the standard you hold Bible believers to, or do you bibles believers get the luxery of being held to a different standard because of how faulty your beliefs are?


Jim

 

Another double standard. Either God WAS deceived in the NASB and God WAS flattered in the KJV, OR man ATTEMPTED to flatter God in the KJV and man ATTEMPTED to deceive God.

Either way, deceived is the word God inspired in Psalms 78:32, and no matter of saying otherwise will change fact into your reality.

 

Chapter and verse from the KJV proving that *any* dogmatic pronouncement about *any* form of "One Version Onlyism" is unscriptural:

(1) Lk. 4:16-21, Isa. 61:1-2 -- Jesus reads from a *different* version of Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth.

(2) Ac. 8:26-35, Isa. 53:7-8 -- Philip uses a *different* version of Isaiah to lead the Ethiopian eunuch to Christ.

Twice the Scriptures sanction the use of different versions. Nowhere do the Scriptures state that any one single version (KJV or otherwise) is *the* sole word of God.

 

Then you are not looking Jim. We have shown you incontrovertible evidence that the Scriptures quote from a version of Scripture that is not the KJV. That is clear, undeniable, BIBLICAL evidence that something other than the KJV is the word of God.

Secondly, we have shown you that no Scripture has been yet shown where God identifies the KJV as his word. That is clear undeniable biblical evidence. You simply are not thinking about this before you speak.

 

Allusive???? Do you know what you are trying to say?? My mind has made no allusions to anything. I usually just come right out and say what I want.

And you will always be wrong when you maintain that other versions in the English language are not. It should have been quite obvious to you that I was not talking about foreign language translations (although that does disprove your point).

Perhaps finally you will be willing to show some evidence for this claim. In all these posts, you guys have yet to show one place where the word of God is detracted from or contradicted. It is time to start putting your money where your mouth is. Step up to the plate ... find an actual example of this.

 

Psalm 78:36 Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.

Who is "him" in the second part of this verse? It is God. Can we agree on that?

Now, understanding Hebrew poetry and the use of parallelism, we should understand that the first line and the second line say the same thing in different ways. (If you doubt me, look up synonymous parallelism and find out for yourself. In fact, that would be good. It is always good for you guys to start learning what you are talking about. It would help prevent you from making these ridiculous charges about God's word).

The first line and second line say the same thing. They were lying to God. Deceit is another word for lie.

The word patach in the piel means to persuade or deceive. (Again, look it up if you doubt me).

So again, when you believe God's word, this verse causes no problem whatever version you use. It is a made up argument.

The KJV itself tells us that at times God came into the knowledge of something (cf Gen 22). Does that mean he didn't know it before? Of course not. All we need to do is understand Scripture.

 

A definition of the modern Webster's lists as a definition for deceive: "To practice deceit." and "To give a false impression." Using the same methodolgy that you have used in the past, we see that deceived is a legitimate word as it doesn't necessarily place the emphasis on he who was deceived, but on the deception that the person attempts. I myself have had people try to make an impression but it was hollow - I could see right through it. There was deception on his end, but not mine.

Using Precepts own methodology, we see that he is simply incorrect in this area.

 

The bigger question is will you ever learn that it doesn't matter what "flatter" or "deceive" means; it only matter what "yepatuhu" means. That is the point since that is the word that God used.

yes I get that. What do you think the Hebrew clearly reads? Since you know so much, get out your Hebrew text and look it up and then get out your Brown-Driver-Briggs and look it up. Or you might use Kohler Baumgartner since that has become a better resource.

Go ahead ... we are waiting ...

What?? You are telling us you don't know enough Hebrew to get it out and look it up??? How can you tell us what a word means when you are unable to look it up in the appropriate resources??

And what I am telling you is that the word "patach" in the Piel means to deceive.

 

Precepts:Is this a Bible versions/translations debate forum or a bash your favorite KJVO proponent?

Actually, it's a forum for telling the TRUTH about BVs and for exposing the false doctrines that have arisen because someeone doesn't like some particular BVs.

 

Translation: Why study the languages God chose to inspire His Word, when you have the language Precepts speaks, far superior to what God chose to write His Word? Yes, the Anglican translators, who couldn't stand Baptists could never make a mistake, since they were prophets, instead of interprets.

 

One reason is this: When we do study, we realize that the statement that God specifically gave the KJV as his only inspired, infallible English version is patently false. Learning the langugage can help you let go of this false doctrine.

We try to tell you that, but you're unable to see because your assumptions are all messed up.

Your a priori assumption is messed up - that's why it's so hard for you to understand our position. We start with the assumption that God inspired the originals, and everything in English is a translation. You seem to start with God inspiring the KJV, so the Greek can only be understood through that translation.

That's just it - we DON'T know without looking into it. Those who have done understand that there are several places where the KJV doesn't give the best rendering for a word.

Why be so self-deprecating?