Excited

Amen, you are just a uneducated KJVO#5.
I'm a KJVO#2. We are fighting on degree
of KJVO-ed-ness

I've typed this here seems like four
times in the last fortnight. When are
we going to get an electronic KJV1611

Pfalmes XII.7 (KIV1611):
Thou shalt keepe them, (O
LORD,) thou shalt preserue +them,
from this generation for euer.

+ Hebr, [/b]him euery one of them[/b]

This footnote says there are two different
sources for the Hebrew Old Testament
which say two different things here.

One (the one the translators thought
most correct), says the best reading
in English is that above. the other
says this is the best reading:

Pfalmes XII.7 (KIV1611):
Thou shalt keepe them, (O
LORD,) thou shalt preserue
him euery one of them,
from this generation for euer.

Well, obviously "him" cannot refer to
the words in verse 6. "Him" must refer
to the people in verse 5.
See how interesting the REAL KJV,
the KJV made in 1611 can be?

Psalm 12:7 (HCSB)
You, Lord, will guard us*;
You will protect us* from this generation
forever.

footnote: * Some Hb mss, LXX, Jer;
other Hb mss read them

This footnote says some Hebrew manuscripts,
the LXX (70) and the "Jer"? sources
say "us" while other Hebrew soruces
say "them". In either case, it is the
people that the chapter is about that
is spoken of in verse 7 NOT the words
of God in verse 6 -- you know, the
words of God that are like silver refined
in an earthen furnace
and purified seven times over.

Back on subject, it is good if one
can learn the Greek. But one can find
out what is in the original sources
if one just reads several of the
MVs other than the KJV1769 (the one
without translator notes).

BTW, speaking of class, be sure to do your
homeword before posting on the Version
board (this reminder for all poor souls who
have to study now).

 

Trust me im doing my homework.
However I present it im going to acused of all sorts of nasty things (as usual) but I am doing as best as I can.

 

KJVBibleThumper, are you going to be open to provable correction when your paper is finished? Are you going to let anyone verify your facts before you present it?

 

And Natters, can you please explain to me these obvious errors and alterations?


http://www.biblebelievers.com/harmon8.html


Your premise should be based upon the truth of and revealed in the scriptures, not premise based upon doubt. I don't want to hear anything about foreign langauges that I don't know, but the scriptures of truth, that we do know.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Uhhh, in case no one has let you know, scripture was written in foreign languages that you do not know. So to disregard something just because it referrs to the Greek or Hebrew source texts is sheer ignorance, plain and simple. Plus, it makes for faulty scriptural understanding.

 

michelle said "And Natters, can you please explain to me these obvious errors and alterations?"

I would be happy to, thanks for asking. I will do so, starting with a premise based up on truth and scripture, and not upon doubt. I will not mention any languages that you don't know. Would you like me to address those here in a new thread, or in email? Either way, it is a very lengthy page and it is going to take me some time to address everything there.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Uhhh, in case no one has let you know, scripture was written in foreign languages that you do not know. So to disregard something just because it referrs to the Greek or Hebrew source texts is sheer ignorance, plain and simple. Plus, it makes for faulty scriptural understanding.
--------------------------------------------------

Uuh, in case you do not know, I, and many other English people do not know these langauges, and many other faithful English speaking people haven't either. I have the scriptures, and many generations of believers, have had the scriptures today and for generations. There is no reason to go to these languages. Debate them for or against them in our own language. Greek and Hebrew is not needed, and I cannot go there. Now, stop hiding behind these foreign langauages for your excuse and calling me and others ignorant for this. My final authority are the scriptures, to which I as well as you, have in our OWN LANGUAGE.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
michelle said "And Natters, can you please explain to me these obvious errors and alterations?"

I would be happy to, thanks for asking. I will do so, starting with a premise based up on truth and scripture, and not upon doubt. I will not mention any languages that you don't know. Would you like me to address those here in a new thread, or in email? Either way, it is a very lengthy page and it is going to take me some time to address everything there.
--------------------------------------------------


Thank you Natters for you reply and your willingness to answer and with my special request. Please do this, however you feel it is best. It is up to you. It doesn't matter to me, anywhere you decide you would like to present it, and if it will take time, I also understand.
By all means, take as much time as you need.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

No one would argue that there are many verses where the wording is different. Two points.

There are verses where the KJB says, "God" and the NIV says , "He" - but these are the minority. The major MVs today all unequivocally support the deity of Christ.

Secondly, the underlying manuscripts differ in places as you know. Thus we cannot tell whether the older manuscripts contain ommissions or the newer Byzantine tradition manuscripts contain scribal additions.

I understand the position that the KJB was first, and for a while was the only available English bible, and thus its readings can be considered approved by God. Thus one argue that the KJB should be given primacy. The arguments which say that the NIV and NASB were deliberate attempts to erode sound doctrine and have been infiltrated with new age theology are honestly a little far-fetched. Indeed these types of arguments do not help some of the VALID points for KJB primacy.

 

True, but the majrity of people have the ability to discern between a source text and a translation, something which you have stated you willingly eschew.

You have no referencing to the source texts of non-KJV translations. Yet you condemn the idea of referencing the KJV source texts.

You can, but you refuse to. When I point out a discrepancy between the KJV and the KJV's source texts, you will stick to the KJV and disregard the source texts. How, then, can you know that scripture is "God-breathed" without knowing that the Greek word for "inrpired" means "God breathed"? Or that "agape" is a different kind of love than "phileo"? Without an understanding of the original language, scripture loses its originally intended meaning in these places.

Scripture tells me to "study to show thyself approved". Refusal to study scripture results in ignorance. That includes knowlege of source text context. The result is ignorance, and, in some cases, adherence to false doctrine.

 

Godd luck and enjoy, Nate.

 

--------------------------------------------------
You have no referencing to the source texts of non-KJV translations. Yet you condemn the idea of referencing the KJV source texts.
--------------------------------------------------


No, I don't condemn it. I say it is unnessecary and most do not have this ability to do this anyway.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
You can, but you refuse to. When I point out a discrepancy between the KJV and the KJV's source texts, you will stick to the KJV and disregard the source texts. How, then, can you know that scripture is "God-breathed" without knowing that the Greek word for "inrpired" means "God breathed"? Or that "agape" is a different kind of love than "phileo"? Without an understanding of the original language, scripture loses its originally intended meaning in these places.
--------------------------------------------------

Because I first of all do not doubt for one minute that the scriptures have errors. I believe God has provided them, and evidenced (in history and by the Holy Spirit of Truth) He has provided them accurately in my own language.

Now, as far as what your opinion is of these foriegn languages, that I have no knowledge in, I go with the scriptures that I have, know, and understand, as well as many christians in the past, even until this very day, rather than believe your opinion, or opinions of men today who say it is in error, or contrary to what the churches have always had and believed. To say that I cannot get the same understanding in my own language, that you have come to understand from these foriegn languages, is neglecting the fact that I have already understood these things, as well as many others, even without knowing the Hebrew and Greek. How? Because the Holy Spirit gives us understanding. Because these words are wrong? Absolutely not. The words are accurate, and the Holy Spirit of truth gives us the full understanding when it is HIS will for us to know. I did not need to know, nor understand the Greek word that was used for love, as I understood exactly the differences, as indicated in my own language and the context of that passage, as well as other passages, and through my own living out and obeying the scriptures. I have the Holy Spirit of truth, dwelling within me, who leads me to all truth (understanding of the truth). I know the full meaning of worship, as the Holy Spirit of truth gives me the understanding, not just of the word, but in my life. I don't need the greek to expound on or give me better understanding of what our English word in the scriptures clearly provides, and the Holy Spirit expounds to one.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Scripture tells me to "study to show thyself approved". Refusal to study scripture results in ignorance. That includes knowlege of source text context. The result is ignorance, and, in some cases, adherence to false doctrine
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, God does tell us to study to show ourselves approved unto God, not men, nor ourselves. What are we to study? The word of God, the scriptures, to which is the word of truth, and without error. I do not need to go to a foriegn language to study the scriptures, when I already have them in my own language. God requires me to study the scriptures. The scriptures I can understand as God gives me understanding as I study, to which is in my own language, not a foriegn one, to which I know not.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Isn't that like saying that the Holy Spirit leads us to stick our heads in the sand??

 

Michelle said "Because I first of all do not doubt for one minute that the scriptures have errors."

But you believe that scripture had errors, and that God corrected them, improving his word. You cannot think this without comparing Bibles. You accuse others of comparing English Bibles with Greek Bibles to determine what is and what isn't an "error", yet you yourself compare English Bibles with English Bibles to determine what is an "error" in other Bibles, Bibles that existed before the KJV was available. If God's promise of preservation was true and fulfilled then (and it was) despite imperfections that needed improving and correcting, then the same can be (and is) true today - you cannot judge others for doing exactly what you yourself do.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle said "Because I first of all do not doubt for one minute that the scriptures have errors."

But you believe that scripture had errors, and that God corrected them, improving his word. You cannot think this without comparing Bibles. You accuse others of comparing English Bibles with Greek Bibles to determine what is and what isn't an "error", yet you yourself compare English Bibles with English Bibles to determine what is an "error" in other Bibles, Bibles that existed before the KJV was available. If God's promise of preservation was true and fulfilled then (and it was) despite imperfections that needed improving and correcting, then the same can be (and is) true today - you cannot judge others for doing exactly what you yourself do.
--------------------------------------------------

Natters, you are wrong. Please go back and read my posts concerning this. This is really becoming tiresome. I have explained this to you over and over again, and you are just plain being argumentative. You either agree with what I said, or you disagree. That is up to you. But you clearly are not making any effort in trying to understand anything at all that I have said. And I am not going to repeat myself.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
How? Because the Holy Spirit gives us understanding. Because these words are wrong? Absolutely not. The words are accurate, and the Holy Spirit of truth gives us the full understanding when it is HIS will for us to know. I did not need to know, nor understand the Greek word that was used for love, as I understood exactly the differences, as indicated in my own language
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't that like saying that the Holy Spirit leads us to stick our heads in the sand??
--------------------------------------------------

Does relying upon the Holy Spirit of truth lead us to sticking our heads in the sand? No, the scriptures say:

John 16

13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.


Where is your scriptural support to your above comment/accusation?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I already know what you believe. I'm asking you to explain what everyone else in this forum sees as a blatant contradiction.

 

The KJV is not scripture. It is a translation of scripture. It is not authoritative in any way over its source texts. You adhere to false and heretical doctrine when you think it does.

I see you're starting circular reasoning again: "The KJV is without error. Therefore, if someone finds an error in it, it must not be an error, because the KJV is without error." This line of reasoning violates the instruction of showing thyself approved.

But you unfortunlately lack the understanding of them, which is apparrant in adhering to doctrine whi is not scripturally supported.

Answer the following question: If the KJV differs from its source text, which is ahthoritative? The KJV over the source text, or the source text over the KJV? I think this is the fourth time I have asked you this very question. You refuse to answer. Kindly answer the question please. I'll bet dollars to doughuts you will not answer the question. I've asked many questions of you that you have refused to answer.