Comparison Charts

[tinytim]

Laugh, but he has a point.

 

[robycop3]

Tiny Tim:Laugh, but he has a point.

Besides learning some Hebrew, Greek, & Aramaic, we gotta learn a little KJVOese also! Such a reply in KJVOese as Askjo's translates into English as, "He/she got me, but I'll be dipped if I'll admit it".

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Jeffrey H:
Kidz-4-Him,

You started this. I want to hear from you.

--Jeff

Jeff, I call it a drive-by shooting. If it were a battle, you would stay and fight for the "hill" (so to speak). Otherwise, you can be a terrorist and hide, because you know what your doing is wrong.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Out here the LDS will only use the KJV because its archaic and ambiguous readings keep their folks ignorant of the Word. Of course, in most ifb churches, the pastors/elders do a good job of defining and explaining those difficult passages - but in the LDS, without the Spirit of God, it is very difficult for folks to understand.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Of course, in most ifb churches, the pastors/elders do a good job of defining and explaining those difficult passages

But for how long? Perhaps faithful pastors did a good job of this when the Latin Vulgate was first becoming incomprehensible to the average Christian?

I have already seen IFB preachers read into the text of the KJV because of the latitude yielded by its unique wording. These ideas of course disappear when compared to another version or to the original languages but they sound very convincing. In particular, escatology lends itself to all sorts of interpretations. Whether cause-effect or effect-cause... I have noticed that KJVO's often go to extreme fringes on this topic- and dogmatically so.

 

[robycop3]

Yes, I've heard more than one KJVO preacher read some verses & then say, "Now, here's what those passages REALLY mean,...". In many cases, the pastor is sincere & correctly explains the passages, but not in EVERY case.

It's a lot simpler just to read/hear God's word in one's own language.

 

[Jim Ward]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Yes, I've heard more than one KJVO preacher read some verses & then say, "Now, here's what those passages REALLY mean,...". In many cases, the pastor is sincere & correctly explains the passages, but not in EVERY case.

It's a lot simpler just to read/hear God's word in one's own language.

And which, of the many conflicting mv's do you put forth as being God's word for those in the English language?

 

[ScottEmerson]

All of them.

 

[HankD]

Or if one does not know the "originall tongues" then look at a given passage from several mv's and then as the KJV translators suggest compare them and come up with the "sense" of the Scriptures.

HankD

 

[Ed Edwards]

Jim Ward: "And which, of the many conflicting mv's do you
put forth as being God's word for those in the English language? "

1. None. MVs being the Written WOrd of God, the Holy Bible
do not conflict with each other. Thus the phrase
"conflicting MV's" describes the null set (a set with
no members). So i say "none".

2. BTW, MVU (modern version users) are prone to
consider axiomatic "there are no God induced
conflicts between versions of the Bible, there are
the occassional minunderstanding by humans".
Most KJV-Onlyists have this axiom:
"there are no God induced conflicts within the KJV,
there are the occassional misunderstanding by humans."

3. All. This is the answer of Brother ScottEmerson:

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
All of them.

Amen, Brother ScottEmerson -- Preach it!

All of the accurate translations (THE READER'S DIGEST
BIBLE is not all that good ) individuall and collectively
are the Written Word of God, the Holy Bible

4. Personal note: I'm using the new Holman Christiain
Standard Bible /HCSB/ (Holman, 2004). It is a
really wonderful translation - plum uptown!

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Out here the LDS will only use the KJV because its archaic and ambiguous readings keep their folks ignorant of the Word. Of course, in most ifb churches, the pastors/elders do a good job of defining and explaining those difficult passages - but in the LDS, without the Spirit of God, it is very difficult for folks to understand.

David Koresh used the KJV to prove that there would be a sinful messiah and that he was the one. He couldn't do that with a modern version.

 

[robycop3]

Somehow, Heaven's Gate got info from the KJV that they were s'posta catch that comet. Wonder if it'd be a space ship in a MV?

 

[Jim Ward]

Scott, when your beloved mv's disagree with each other, which they do, how do you determine which reading is correct and what Scriptural support do you have for your claims? Please provide for us the passage, or passages, needed to support the view that We will (or do or should) ahve God's word for us in English in versions/translations that conflict and disagree with each other.


Ed...

 

[HankD]

Please provide for us the passage, or passages, needed to support the view that We will (or do or should) ahve God's word for us in English in versions/translations that conflict and disagree with each other.

KJV 1611 Ezekiel 24:7
7 For her blood is in the middest of her; she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke; she powred it vpon the ground, to couer it with dust;

KJV today Ezekiel 24:7
7 For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;

So, did she pour it upon the ground or not?
Which is the Word of God?

There are more when we resolve this conflict.

HankD

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Please provide for us the passage, or passages, needed to support the view that We will (or do or should) ahve God's word for us in English in versions/translations that conflict and disagree with each other.


Ed...

OF course, we cannot
provide the scripture for you incorrect
presise. BTW, you incorrect premise can
cause false conclusions (it can also cause
true conclusions, but there is no way
to tell the difference).

In fact, i assume (believe the axiom)
that all English Versions are the Written
Word of God. So your assumption is NOT
valid in my logical framework.
I note you cannot show in the Bible that
there is one and only one English Bible.
Mostly because in the scheme of things,
English and those who speak it are a minor
part of Christianity, the body/bride of Messiah
Yeshua. Your weak-sister assumption that
there is one and only one English Version
good for all time, is the height of
self-inflating error. How long can you
blow up your ego ballon before it bursts?

BTW, i still have somewhat against you.
You have yet to subscribe to this fact:
God has two Words:
1. the Written Word of God: the Holy Bible
2. the Living Word of God: Messiah Iesus

How can you continue to omit your belief
on this important matter? Every day you
don't express your belief on this matter
your credibility slips further and further
away. Be warned though, if you admit you\
don't agree with this truth, you immediately
fall to credibility = zero.

May all God's good blessings fall unto
Brother Jim Ward, his family, and his
ministry this very week-end. May this be
done so that the Living Word of God:
our blessed Lord and Savior: Messiah
Jesus, will receive the Hhonor and Glory
due His blessed name. Amen.

 

[Jim Ward]

Thanks Ed. I needed a good laugh today. As usual, you provided it. Thank you.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Please provide for us the passage, or passages, needed to support the view that We will (or do or should) ahve God's word for us in English in versions/translations that conflict and disagree with each other.

KJV 1611 Ezekiel 24:7
7 For her blood is in the middest of her; she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke; she powred it vpon the ground, to couer it with dust;

KJV today Ezekiel 24:7
7 For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;

So, did she pour it upon the ground or not?
Which is the Word of God?

There are more when we resolve this conflict.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Hank, Hank, Hank, it seems
my lesson called: PERFECT, PERFECTER,
PERFECTEST went right over your head
Yes, i will continue to pray for you.

 

[HankD]

Yes, i will continue to pray for you.

Thank you Ed, I need it.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Jim Ward, how do you determine which reading is right in the KJV? Was Jehoiachin eight years old or eighteen years old when he began to reign? Did David pay Araunah 600 gold shekels for his property, or did he pay Ornan fifty silver shekels for the property?

Surely the differences between versions carries much-less weight than does the disagreement in narrations of the SAME EVENTS within ONE version.