BV/T or defamation of KJVO

Because if only one Bible in any language can have God's exact words, and if "preservation" means that God must have preserved those exact words in English, then regardless of what the source languages were, parallel passages in the final "pure, perfect, preserved" English translation *must* agree 100%. So whether the chain of translation is

Isa. 61:1-2 (Hebrew) -----> Isa. 61:1-2 (English KJV)

or

Isa. 61:1-2 (Hebrew) -----> Isa. 61:1-2 (Greek of Lk. 4:18-19) -----> Isa. 61:1-2 (English KJV of Lk. 4:18-19),

the final English KJV translations *must* be in exact word-for-word agreement if there's only one Bible. "Things that are different are not the same."

I guess God, for all the centuries before 1611, allowed His English-speaking people to believe corruptions too, eh? I guess God didn't keep His promise to all those English-speaking Christians prior to the KJV?

 

It says he "OPENED THE BOOK, he found THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS WRITTEN,"

Notice it doesn't say "the places", but the PLACE. One place = one passage. The words in Luke are what was written in the one place in the book that Jesus found.

Please just believe what it says! Jesus opened the book and found the place where the words Luke quoted were written. Those words are what was written in the passage (one place, not more than one) that Jesus read from. Are you so invested in your own presuppositions that you ignore what God's word actually says?

This just makes me sad , and I'm not joking around in this post. I really thought that you held what God's word said, at least in the KJV, in the highest regard and I am truly disappointed that instead of embracing what your own preferred version clearly says, you try to wriggle your way out in order to avoid its implications.

 

You honestly don't understand what it means when people say, "You can't prove a negative." This is in the realm of corrolaries, such as "Prove that the KJV is NOT the Word of God." That is the negative that cannot be proven - it is basic argumentation and debate.

 

This passage is a good illustration of the point! If you compare the TR of Lk 4:18 with the LXX reading and the BHS Hebrew text - the LXX lines up significantly better. The LXX word order is near exact - except that the phrase, "to set at liberty they which are bruised" is omitted in the LXX. What does this likely mean? For one thing it means Jesus was likely reading the haftorah from a Greek scroll.

Michelle, if the bible said that God would preserve the AV, the KJB, the TR, or even the KJV then I'd not argue - but He did not say those things. Thus the burden is on those who would assert that the KJB is the ONLY scripture. You raise the arguments about the supposedly corrupted manuscripts. They might have been - but there is certainly no textual proof for sure - and there is no biblical proof! It just seems that you want to start with your endpoint (believing KJB only) and then make whatever arguments need to strengthen that logically untenable position!

 

Read what Luke actually says -- "...he found THE PLACE where it was written..." (Lk. 4:17, KJV). Luke explicitly tells us that Jesus read from *one* place, *singular* (and not two or more *places*, plural). And "the place" was Isa. 61:1-2.

Again, look at what Luke actually says: "And there was delivered unto him THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET ESAIAS. And when he had opened THE BOOK, he found THE PLACE where it was written..." Jesus was handed "the book," (i.e., of Isaiah), and he opened it to "the place" (i.e., the passage). It couldn't be any clearer that.

Yet again, look at what Luke actually says: "The place of the scripture which he read was this..." (Ac. 8:32, KJV). Luke directs us to the exact place in Isaiah and then cites what it says there word-for-word.

Why should there be *any* "word for word differences" if "God only gave one Bible" and "things that are different are not the same?" Why condemn other English translations for doing exactly what the KJV itself does, namely, offering two different versions of the same passage that have the same message?

 

Uh, you KJVOs originally implied that if you posted a single lie to point it out..... How about an implication that those who "defend" the modern versions are not Bible believers? --- Sneaky, aren't you, my friend.

 

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

Archangel7,

You are really stretching it now. God origionally gave his word in the Hebrew for the Old Testament, and the Greek for the New Testament. The KJV translation is the translation of these two languages into one - English. They will differ in many places, but not so as to change the meaning or text. So your logic that the Old Testament reading would be identically the same for the New Testament is flawed, unless the translators of the KJV took the same approach to translation methods as those of the modern versions, which would be wrong, and to which they obviously did not do. Again, the fact is that you are trying to prove your stand for the modern versions with scripture, and you have been found you have nothing to stand on concerning your justifcation of multiple varying versions in one language. Your proof has been shattered.

You are assuming that I have claimed that there could be no other accurate translation in the english language. I have not said such a thing. What I do say, is that the modern versions have altered God's word from the origional meaning and text in many areas, by use of corrupt manuscripts and methods in comparison to those of the received text as contained in the KJV. The two cannot be the same and it is evident that they are not.

You are also assuming that I believe that God has preserved his word only in the English language only for the english speaking people. Never said it, don't believe it, so stop implying this is what I believe. What I do believe is that underlying text of the modern versions have been tampered with and should not and cannot be trusted.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Yeah, Precepts! keep the irony flowing

 

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I prefer this in the NKJV but wanted the KJVO's to read it too.

Diane

 

Charles, This appears to be a post with more sanity and truth in it than many others in this particular discussion.
Thank you, I couldn't have said it as well.

 

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


--------------------------------------------------
quoted:

Again, look at what Luke actually says: "And there was delivered unto him THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET ESAIAS. And when he had opened THE BOOK, he found THE PLACE where it was written..." Jesus was handed "the book," (i.e., of Isaiah), and he opened it to "the place" (i.e., the passage). It couldn't be any clearer that.
--------------------------------------------------

Many of you have stated the above. Now let me ask you, when were passages and verses added to the word of God? Were they in the origional Hebrew scriptures? If not, then the word passage does not apply. It would have been from the book (scroll) of Isaiah, in that place, not necessarily limited to a specific passage. When I open my Bible, I see many passages in some places, and few in others, sometimes only one long chapter. If I did not have any verse numbers or chapter themes and numbers, I could point to any portion of those pages and refer to it as that place in the book of Isaiah. Now what adds even more to this fact, is the scrolls were very much different than our standard Reading Bible, and would have included most likely much more in one place, than that to which I have.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Dr. Bob had something to say about those KJVO's who post a myriad of scriptures and he never knew why. I wonder if Diane will now get that same respect? </font>[/QUOTE]Do hold your breath!

 

You look for the place where it says the same thing that Luke says was written.

Of course, since it says THE place.

Oh, so now place doesn't mean place!? What does context mean except "place"? Con means "with", text means "text". Context means what is written together in one place. It means the text that is immediately adjoining. If you just skip over and pull something out of another part of Isaiah, that's not context.

When its used of a book, it means place. And area or vicinity somehow help you out with this? But why are you appealing to the Greek anyway? Didn't the KJV translators choose the right word?

Of course.....

I'm not limiting Him, but Luke through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is limiting what He read to what was written in one place in Isaiah--and to the words Luke wrote for us.

And the avoidance of scripture dance continues.....

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised or disappointed, but I am. I am disappointed to see God's word treated with such disregard for what it says.

 

Of course it's right.

Of course it is, because they are slightly different translations of the same word of God. Things different can indeed be the same, and the KJV says so.

 

Am I the only one setting back and watching this debate take place.

Somethings I've noticed:
1) KJVO will invent any idea to prove their lies, even to the point of ignoring their own KJV. Michelle, it says in Luke that he stood to READ!!!!!! To say that Christ misquoted the scriptures, first of all is very disrespectful to my Savior!, and second of all would have had him stoned before he got to explain that He was the one they were talking about.
Admit your wrong and repent from slandering our beloved Savior. He read from another version. Any 5th grader could read that and see the truth. Your KJVO myth has you blinded to the truth.

2)Someone said,"Another problem the modern versions have is the reliance upon the greek LXX which is not the preserved word of God. "

Another slander and attack upon a VERSION of the scriptures. This is against the rules.
No MV user on this board would ever think of attacking your beloved KJV like that. But you are allowed to attack the version the apostles used, nay, not only the apostles, But also God himself in the flesh of JESUS! What audacity to think you know more than Christ himself!
Jesus used a different version than what underlies the KJV OT. That is plain to see.

seems like the KJVOs have bought ruckman's ripp's, and gipp's lies hook, line and sinker.