Could this be the stone?

Originally posted by michelle:


The question was directed at the critical greek text, to which the translations for the modern versions come from.

I am curious what you consider the critical Greek text.

 

Michelle:No, this is not what I have said. What I have said, and continue to say, is that it was guided by the providence or care of God.

As He's done in many other versions.


Do you deny this power of God? This is in no way saying the KJV translators had advanced knowledge or were prophets (I don't believe they were), they just were great scholars, knew the languages (which all things are given to us by God) and he used them to bring forth his pure words of truth for English speaking people and at that time.

Just as He'd done before that time, just as He's doing now.


Refining the works of previous translations, not that they were any worse, but because God chose to refine them, as we see was done. I see God's hand in this, not man's as many here do.

Difference is, YOU see His hand ONLY in the KJV while WE see His hand in EVERY valid English version.

No, I expect that Jesus will recieve us up unto himself, at any moment (the rapture, or gathering together of the saints to meet the Lord in the air), and so I don't look at this the way you might, or seem to. I don't worry, nor focus upon the what if's, and what not's, for they do nothing to edify. I trust that God will do as he says he will, preserve his pure words for every generation and forever. I don't question it, and I don't need to, because God is Almighty God and always in full control.

And the evidence is quite clear that God has provided His word in English for every generation beginning with those to whom He first presented it, through today, in the English current for the time. He did NOT retire in 1611.

 

So are you saying that out of the 35 different TR texts the KJV is the correct one? How would you know? Have you examined each of them?

BTW, Psalm 12 was originally written in Hebrew.

 

Michelle:Many posters have provided you with the PROOF of alterations, as well as many other christians elsewhere, in books, videos, conferences, etc. You are just in DENIAL of the truth, or you just don't listen.

Actually, we've shown those "proofs" are incorrect, and consist of opinion and fishing stories.


I don't believe that if God's words were altered, he would allow that to stand as His preserved pure words, as HE would see fit to CORRECT it, as HE promised he would preserve his pure words for every generation, and forever.

Then the very fact of the existence and popularity of the MVs you seem to detest should dispel your KJVO myth. Or, is this another of your oxymorons or points of convenience that you believe only when it agrees with the KJVO myth?


You also deny this. I have God's pure words in my language of English. You choose melting pot versions of God's words mixed with errors.

What errors? What you call errors are simply things that don't jive with the KJV. You cannot prove they're real errors.

 

Askjo:When the KJV arrived, there were NO errors!

Then, WHY was it changed?????????

 

While I might agree with much of what you say michelle, yes, I for one doubt it. Why? Because the parent Church of Rome (of whom the Church of England was an illegitimate daughter) made the same mistake concerning the Latin Vulgate long before the KJVO wanabee Anglicans:

Here is their impeccable reasoning:

Found in the public-domain online at: http://www.marianland.com/bible20.html

Are you ready to say that the Latin Vulgate which held the pre-eminence in the Church over all other translations for 1100 years was the “pure” Word of God. If not why not?

Was the character and doctrine of the Church of Rome better or worse than their progeny the Church of England (which King Henry VIII founded to have his marriage "annuled").

Just because you and some others make a claim means nothing. Others have made the same claim for their Bible with better reasoning. We didn’t believe them, why should we believe you?

Not so!

Michelle, this is an example of The Anglo-KJVO error compounded by circular reasoning and indeed must be treated by the judgment of believers (such as the Bereans) from the beginning.

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Please show us where the Bible (any version) where it says or even infers that the KJV or any translation is the Only Word of God or even infers the same.

HankD

 

Michelle:But the point and evidence you miss out on, is the FACT that God has provided it for us in our OWN LANGUAGE already,

Right. In the Old English of C.1000AD, the Elizabethan-Jacobean English of the 17th century, and in the current English.


[/i]making the Hebrew and Greek irrelevant to us now. This was by God. You doubt it?[/i]

Yes, I do-the irrelevance, that is. If a Bible isn't made from the Greek & Hebrew sources which are as close to the originals as possible, then it's not a valid Bible. Since we don't have the originals, we must use what we DO have.


NO, you would rather leave judgement up to your OWN SELF as to what God said, rather than believing what he said already to you in your own language. Very dangerous and unwise.

But...YOU think it's OK to do the VERY SAME THING to try to comply with the KJVO myth. A clear example of this is Ps. 12:7. Do YOU know more about the Hebrew that the Geneva translators called "him" & that the AV translators called "them" and left a marginal note saying the Hebrew actually meant "him", than those translators did? You've extolled their scholarship more than once, but when that scholarship clashes with your myth, then that part of it becomes wrong. I see...

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle quoted:

They are not God, and what God provided through them is good enouph for me.

robycop quoted:

So YOU pick-n-choose what God provided them. You agree with them only to the point of where it seems to support the KJVO myth? So, when they explain their rendering of a certain word ot phrase & it doesn't agree with your delusion, they're wrong? I see...

--------------------------------------------------

I don't pick and choose anything. I see and believe what God has said he would do and did through them as it is evident. You however, are the one who is picking and choosing what you believe, rather than believing what God has evidenced he has already done.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
What I do is reject a man-made myth-KJVO.
--------------------------------------------------

What you have rejected is the power and providence of God concerning and over his words, and deny the evidence therof. Believing this is NOT MYTH, but FACT and FAITH in God and what God has said. You are the one believing the man made myth that God has not preserved his pure words, and all of them as he has said. You are believing the lies of men, which are contrary to God's words, to which make it a myth, or the fables of men.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
So, did God tell the AV men that Psalm 12:7 was referring to people or to His word? Or, did the AV men suddenly lose their connection to God and use their imagination to make their marginal note?
--------------------------------------------------

The problem in this thinking/question is that you aproach God's words with doubt, and hold the opinions of men and interpretations of men, over and above that of Gods words and what God has promised, done, and evidenced he has done, in order to justify not having any final authority to claim. It is wishy washy, doubtful and faithless (in trusting God and his words) to suit and justify your "own" man made myth of understanding/belief to which is contrary to what God has said in the whole of the scriptures regarding his words and to what he has evidenced he has done.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

We have all made our choices. I have chosen the Traditional Texts of the original languages as the representative texts of those mss, others the Anglo-Catholic KJV of the Bible, others the eclectic texts influenced by Aleph and B (and a few other Uncials).

Each has an element of faith involved because we do not have the originals.

Prove by whatever means you can that the earliest Uncial/Alexandrian type manuscripts available are/were "corrupted".

it is unwise (even by innuendo) to compare your own choices as superior to the choices of your brother or sister.

Give us evidence or Scripture to back up your claims or you will convince no one but spin not only your own wheels (as is evident) but everyone elses.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle:What the KJB translators thought, doesn't mean a thing to me.

So, they're the greatest, long as they seemed to have supported your myth, but wrong when they didn't. I see...

--------------------------------------------------

I do not put the translators in this light or on this pedastal, you are the one doing this, and claiming falsely that I do. I believe God chose to did this through them, as it is evidenced, not the other way around.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle quoted:

What you don't understand is that we don't believe this either: " What we DON'T believe is that He's limited to just one English version."

robycop quoted:

Then, what other specific versions would you recommend?
--------------------------------------------------

Read this next part of the origional post, and read closely, and then you will have a better understanding of my answer and your statement regarding my answer, if you are at all really trying to understand. From what I have observed you seem not to want to understand, but only argue.


--------------------------------------------------
What has been shown to you by many is WHY we don't ACCEPT the current mv's as being God's pure words with scripture and FACTS/EVIDENCE/PROOF as to why. (just the fact the verses of scripture are missing from the mv's should be evidence enouph as to why they are not)
--------------------------------------------------

In other words, God is not LIMITED to ONE English translation, however HE HAS EVIDENCED that the MV's are NOT the pure words of God by way of what he has ALREADY PROVIDED and those things judged to what HE HAS ALREADY PROVIDED, which have been found in ERROR.


Your below statement is incorrect.

--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

So far, your "evidence" is that "it aint the KJV".
--------------------------------------------------

To correctly state it: the evidence shows that the WORDS of Gods ARE in the KJB and not fully, nor accurately in the WORDS of the MV's.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

If you ignore any Greek or Hebrew texts and use only the KJV 1611/1762/1769 as your standard than all of the MV differ from your standard.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle quoted:

Just because you DENY this evidence, doesn't make it NOT EVIDENCE/PROOF, and in no way makes us LIMIT GOD.

robycop quoted:

Not only have we DENIED your 'evidence'; we've DISPROVED it.
--------------------------------------------------

Oh you most assuredly have DENIED the EVIDENCE, but you have NOT, nor CAN DISPROVE IT, for it is EVIDENT. Unless of course you lack faith in God and his power over and truth concerning his words, to which then you CAN'T see the EVIDENCE because your unbelief concerning this BLINDS YOU.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle:History in the churches has proven that God chose the word to be "Easter" and not passover.

No, it hasn't. The early RCC made sure to establish Easter so it could never fall upon 1st day of Passover when the paschal lamb is eaten by the Jews.

--------------------------------------------------

God has preserved this word to be "Easter" as to not confuse the day of "passover" in English, for Easter is the day of resurrection, not that of the crucifiction. You are lacking knowledge and understanding of this verse of scripture, the feasts and the "timing" of them. This is why you are in error, to which is caused by your believing of the lies of men, rather than God.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

We've plainly shown the current booboos, and I'll stand on that evidence, rather than on your shifting KJVO sand.

--------------------------------------------------

Then by this statement, it is your belief that you have no final authority from God Almighty himself, nor do you believe what He has said concerning them in his words. Your faith is then built on sand and you have no final authority to lay claim to except what "you think" is the word of God, rather than what God has PROVIDED and EVIDENCED is the word of God.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
It is your mv's that have the booboos, and they aren't printers, nor spelling error booboos either, but translational and textual.

Proof, please? Just because "they aint the KJV" won't cut it.
--------------------------------------------------

Many people have given and shown you and all the PROOF you "claim" you require, but you choose to DENY IT, and excuse it away because of your UNBELIEF in this issue. Will Kinney is one that has done an EXCELLENT job showing you all here on these boards. If you really cared to understand the TRUTH in this issue at all, rather than to argue and fight a manmade and false label, then I can direct you to where he has many articles concerning this issue. There are also many books written about this that also show the evidence. OR you can unblind your eyes, believe God's words about his words, and approach this issue with FAITH AND BELIEF first, and research this yourself.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:I don't pick and choose anything.

Yes, you DO, every time you deny the validity of God's word because you don't like the version it's in..


I see and believe what God has said he would do and did through them as it is evident.

So do I, but I didn't quit looking after seeing His evidence through 1611. I continued, and continue, to look at what He's done since then, & is still doing.


You however, are the one who is picking and choosing what you believe, rather than believing what God has evidenced he has already done.

Surely thou talketh to thyself.

 

--------------------------------------------------
So, you're taking the easy way out, avoiding the things of the past that disagree with your myth. If it's so irrelevant, why support a Bible of the past, the KJV, while rejecting a bible of the past, the Geneva Bible, which is only 51 years older than the KJV?
--------------------------------------------------

I DO NOT REJECT the Geneva Bible as you claim, but I see that God had chose to refine an already good English translation, to one that is better and to which HE has evidenced is his words from that point, even up until today. That cannot be said of the modern versions out there today, for the many reasons, I and others have explained to you already and to why we REJECT THEM.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle