NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Posted by michelle:
In other words, if you don't agree with michelle you are blinded by the devil.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Final Authority before 1611?
- Thread starter Cix
- Start date
--------------------------------------------------
Maybe you miss the point. What Jesus read from Isaiah, and called scripture, does not match the KJV's rendering of Isaiah. They are different.
--------------------------------------------------
No, rather you missed the point and the truth:
Michelle said "I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said."
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Maybe you miss the point. What Jesus read from Isaiah, and called scripture, does not match the KJV's rendering of Isaiah. They are different.
--------------------------------------------------
No, rather you missed the point and the truth:
Michelle said "I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said."
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle said "The KJB is the word of God perfectly in the English language. Several others are not, as it has been EVIDENCED they fall short of perfection because they alter/change/omitt/add the words of God."
Circular argument.
--------------------------------------------------
Since when has a factual statement become a circular argument? You don't understand what circular argument is, do you?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle said "The KJB is the word of God perfectly in the English language. Several others are not, as it has been EVIDENCED they fall short of perfection because they alter/change/omitt/add the words of God."
Circular argument.
--------------------------------------------------
Since when has a factual statement become a circular argument? You don't understand what circular argument is, do you?
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
A difference of opinion concerning a verse of Scripture does not constitute calling God a liar by either party.
Danger.
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not offended, but I think Albert Barne's would be, since that's the person I copied the text from.
BARNES, ALBERT (1798-1870), American theologian, was born at Rome, New York, on the 1st of December 1798. He graduated at Hamilton College, Clinton, N.Y., in 1820, and at the Princeton Theological Seminary in 1823, was ordained as a Presbyterian minister by the presbytery of Elizabethtown, New Jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor successively of the Presbyterian Church in Morristown, New Jersey (1825-1830) and of the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia(1830-1867). He held a prominent place in the New School branch of the Presbyterians, to which he adhered on the division of the denomination in 1837; he had been tried (but not convicted) for heresy in 1836, the charge being particularly against the views expressed by him in Notes on Romans (1835) of the imputation of the sin of Adam, original sin and the atonement; the bitterness stirred up by this trial contributed towards widening the breach between the conservative and the progressive elements in the church. He was an eloquent preacher, but his reputation rests chiefly on his expository works, which are said to have had a larger circulation both in Eutope and America than any others of their class. Of the well-known Notes on the New Testament it is said that more than a million volumes had been issued by 1870. The Notes on Job, the Psalms, Isaiah and Daniel, found scarcely less acceptance. Displaying no original critical power, their chief merit lies in the fact that they bring in a popu~lar (but not always accurate) form the results of the criticism of others within the reach of general readers. Barnes was the author of several other works of a practical and devotional kind, and a collection of his Theological Works was published in Philadelphia in 1875. He died in Philadelphia on the 24th of December 1870.
roby:Since Scripture is our highest written authority, any theory ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture, plain and simple. The KJVO myth cannot pass this simple but absolute test.
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle:Now you are lying.
Talking to yourself? Lemme recommend a good doctor...
You have been provided abundant scriptural proof, and you deny it, because you refuse to see the truth in them.
No, I don't deny what the Scriptures actually say. what I DO deny is the twisted and ignorant rants made from a vivid but unlearned imagination about the Scriptures, made by you and other KJVOs, saying the Scriptures say this-n-that when there's not ONE HINT, either direct or circumstantial, that the Scriptures say what YOU say they do.
Just because you deny it, doesn't mean it hasn't been provided, nor does it mean that what was provided to you is wrong.
No, the Scriptures aren't wrong, of course, but your wild imaginations about what they say is wrong, and has been PROVEN wrong. Circular reasoning, remedied by Occam's Razor.
You cannot prove the truth wrong.
And, I'm not trying to. But YOU sure are, by adding your imagination to the meanings of the Scriptures.
You are the one to misinterpret and twist the scriptures to deny the truth that is within them, in order to justify your false belief, that we cannot have God's word of truth without error.
Wrong, as usual.
I believe what the Scriptures actually SAY, and not someone's imagination of what they'd LIKE them to say. I "test the spirits" for the ACCURACY of any given translation. The KJV has some PROVEN ERRORS in it, as we've shown about Easter and Acts 5:30. Those errors are on paper; they've been there since long before our day, they'll be there long as the KJV exists.
This is not biblical, and you have not ONE IOTA of scriptural proof that indicates God would allow errors in the scriptures. Not one! Nor will you find it, cause it is not there.
Nor is there any where He promises us a PERFECT TRANSLATION, either.
I believe the AV came out as GOD WILLED...and so did the NIV, NKJV, NASB, Tyndale's, Geneva Bible, etc. God DID NOT LIMIT HIMSELF to any one of these. And He allowed IMPERFECT men to handle His PERFECT word.
The opposite of what you believe is there, to which you DENY when faced with it and the evidence of it, and falsely accuse others of misinterpreting the truth, when in reality this is what you are doing, to justify your compromise with error.
No, there's no compromise...but YOU add to the Scriptures by conjuring up some wild imaginations that simply aren't in Scripture. Adding to the Scriptures can be inventing a meaning for them which isn't in them, which you have a habit of doing, as every other reader here can testify...just as much as directly adding words to them can be.
Again, do you know what CIRCULAR REASONING is? That's assuming that what you're trying to prove is already true, without that proof...that is, A causes B because B causes A. And basically that's all you do. This has been pointed out to you by many members here; yet you comtinue to go South on a street that's one-way North.
Now, do you know what OCCAM'S RAZOR is?
It was proposed by William of Occam(or Ockham), a philosopher of the 1300s. Briefly, it states that ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily'', or, "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
Broken down a little, it says knowledge on a given subject is based upon experience and self-evident truths, and on logical propositions resulting from those two sources.
In the case of the Scriptures, they each state certain concrete things. We have no authority to add to what they say, either by directly adding words, or adding to the clear meanings.
In his writings, Occam stressed the Aristotelian principle that entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary. This principle became known as Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor or the law of parsimony. A problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms. In science, or the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures, the simplest answer that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected. Thus, you're making something out of nothing with your wild idea that Scripture supports KJVO, and by the principles of Occam's Razor, we "shave" the spurious imaginings you derive from Scripture.
I've read the Bible cover-to-cover many times in many versions, and there's simply NO SUPPORT for ANY version-onlyism, KJVO or otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle:Now you are lying.
Talking to yourself? Lemme recommend a good doctor...
You have been provided abundant scriptural proof, and you deny it, because you refuse to see the truth in them.
No, I don't deny what the Scriptures actually say. what I DO deny is the twisted and ignorant rants made from a vivid but unlearned imagination about the Scriptures, made by you and other KJVOs, saying the Scriptures say this-n-that when there's not ONE HINT, either direct or circumstantial, that the Scriptures say what YOU say they do.
Just because you deny it, doesn't mean it hasn't been provided, nor does it mean that what was provided to you is wrong.
No, the Scriptures aren't wrong, of course, but your wild imaginations about what they say is wrong, and has been PROVEN wrong. Circular reasoning, remedied by Occam's Razor.
You cannot prove the truth wrong.
And, I'm not trying to. But YOU sure are, by adding your imagination to the meanings of the Scriptures.
You are the one to misinterpret and twist the scriptures to deny the truth that is within them, in order to justify your false belief, that we cannot have God's word of truth without error.
Wrong, as usual.
I believe what the Scriptures actually SAY, and not someone's imagination of what they'd LIKE them to say. I "test the spirits" for the ACCURACY of any given translation. The KJV has some PROVEN ERRORS in it, as we've shown about Easter and Acts 5:30. Those errors are on paper; they've been there since long before our day, they'll be there long as the KJV exists.
This is not biblical, and you have not ONE IOTA of scriptural proof that indicates God would allow errors in the scriptures. Not one! Nor will you find it, cause it is not there.
Nor is there any where He promises us a PERFECT TRANSLATION, either.
I believe the AV came out as GOD WILLED...and so did the NIV, NKJV, NASB, Tyndale's, Geneva Bible, etc. God DID NOT LIMIT HIMSELF to any one of these. And He allowed IMPERFECT men to handle His PERFECT word.
The opposite of what you believe is there, to which you DENY when faced with it and the evidence of it, and falsely accuse others of misinterpreting the truth, when in reality this is what you are doing, to justify your compromise with error.
No, there's no compromise...but YOU add to the Scriptures by conjuring up some wild imaginations that simply aren't in Scripture. Adding to the Scriptures can be inventing a meaning for them which isn't in them, which you have a habit of doing, as every other reader here can testify...just as much as directly adding words to them can be.
Again, do you know what CIRCULAR REASONING is? That's assuming that what you're trying to prove is already true, without that proof...that is, A causes B because B causes A. And basically that's all you do. This has been pointed out to you by many members here; yet you comtinue to go South on a street that's one-way North.
Now, do you know what OCCAM'S RAZOR is?
It was proposed by William of Occam(or Ockham), a philosopher of the 1300s. Briefly, it states that ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily'', or, "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
Broken down a little, it says knowledge on a given subject is based upon experience and self-evident truths, and on logical propositions resulting from those two sources.
In the case of the Scriptures, they each state certain concrete things. We have no authority to add to what they say, either by directly adding words, or adding to the clear meanings.
In his writings, Occam stressed the Aristotelian principle that entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary. This principle became known as Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor or the law of parsimony. A problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms. In science, or the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures, the simplest answer that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected. Thus, you're making something out of nothing with your wild idea that Scripture supports KJVO, and by the principles of Occam's Razor, we "shave" the spurious imaginings you derive from Scripture.
I've read the Bible cover-to-cover many times in many versions, and there's simply NO SUPPORT for ANY version-onlyism, KJVO or otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle said "The NIV does deny the deity of Christ in many verses"
False witness. You do not understand the meaning of "deny".
--------------------------------------------------
And you are having a difficult time comprending what has been said:
"The NIV does deny the deity of Christ in many verses"
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle said "The NIV does deny the deity of Christ in many verses"
False witness. You do not understand the meaning of "deny".
--------------------------------------------------
And you are having a difficult time comprending what has been said:
"The NIV does deny the deity of Christ in many verses"
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
No, you are. You are saying God is limited to one version. You are saying God is powerless and unable to preserve his word in more than one version. We do not believe God is this powerless and limited.
--------------------------------------------------
I have never said God was limited to one version. God does not preserve errors/corruptions, He exposes/reveals them.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
No, you are. You are saying God is limited to one version. You are saying God is powerless and unable to preserve his word in more than one version. We do not believe God is this powerless and limited.
--------------------------------------------------
I have never said God was limited to one version. God does not preserve errors/corruptions, He exposes/reveals them.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
I have been faced with nothing but guesswork, opinion, and propaganda.
--------------------------------------------------
This is true, but sadly you bought into it hook, line and sinker.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
I have been faced with nothing but guesswork, opinion, and propaganda.
--------------------------------------------------
This is true, but sadly you bought into it hook, line and sinker.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle said of the KJV and the Geneva "There were no errors in either one."
Yet they were different. If they already had a inerrant preserved Bible, the KJV was not needed, and only caused confusion where they differed.
Michelle said "This false label that you fight are the sunglasses put onto you by the devil"
Actually, I think a KJV-onlyist first came up with the term "KJV-only". Most KJV-onlyists are proud to call themselves KJV-only, I am only using the term that the majority of KJV-onlyists call themselves, for convenience and simplicity.
Michelle said "No, rather you missed the point and the truth: "I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said.""
Yes, I know you do. I read exactly what Jesus said to. What he said was this: what he read from Isaiah was scripture. What he read from Isaiah is different than the KJV's rendering of the same passage. What Jesus said when reading Isaiah aloud from the scroll he called scripture differs than what anyone else would say when reading Isaiah aloud from the KJV.
Michelle said "Since when has a factual statement become a circular argument? You don't understand what circular argument is, do you?"
Yes, I do. You however, appear not to. To say the KJV is the word of God, and that others are not the word of God because they add/omit from the KJV is circular:
premise: the KJV is the word of God
examination : others are not because they differ from the KJV
conclusion: therefore the KJV is the word of God
The conclusion is the same as the premise. Circular. Round and round you go. If I said "The NIV is the word of God perfectly in the English language. Several others are not, as it has been EVIDENCED they fall short of perfection because they alter/change/omitt/add the words of God." that would also be a circular argument.
Yet they were different. If they already had a inerrant preserved Bible, the KJV was not needed, and only caused confusion where they differed.
Michelle said "This false label that you fight are the sunglasses put onto you by the devil"
Actually, I think a KJV-onlyist first came up with the term "KJV-only". Most KJV-onlyists are proud to call themselves KJV-only, I am only using the term that the majority of KJV-onlyists call themselves, for convenience and simplicity.
Michelle said "No, rather you missed the point and the truth: "I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said.""
Yes, I know you do. I read exactly what Jesus said to. What he said was this: what he read from Isaiah was scripture. What he read from Isaiah is different than the KJV's rendering of the same passage. What Jesus said when reading Isaiah aloud from the scroll he called scripture differs than what anyone else would say when reading Isaiah aloud from the KJV.
Michelle said "Since when has a factual statement become a circular argument? You don't understand what circular argument is, do you?"
Yes, I do. You however, appear not to. To say the KJV is the word of God, and that others are not the word of God because they add/omit from the KJV is circular:
premise: the KJV is the word of God
examination : others are not because they differ from the KJV
conclusion: therefore the KJV is the word of God
The conclusion is the same as the premise. Circular. Round and round you go. If I said "The NIV is the word of God perfectly in the English language. Several others are not, as it has been EVIDENCED they fall short of perfection because they alter/change/omitt/add the words of God." that would also be a circular argument.
--------------------------------------------------
You say you're NOT KJVO. Yet, when asked what other version(s) you recommend, you chose not to answer at all for awhile, then you finally said, "Any version thich follows the same sources as the KJV, the Textus Receptus, the Masoretic Texts...but when I asked for a SPECIFIC version(s) you go back into "silent" mode. This can be verified by just about every reader here! Your "silence" simply shows us you're clueless.
--------------------------------------------------
I have answered this many times. You require a specific answer that would cause you to come away with a different understanding than that of the truth, because of your lack of understanding of this issue. So I do not answer specifically, because I do not want to cause an added stumblingblock to your blindness. I do this to cause you to think about what has been said. To which none of you are doing, because many are sadly too caught up in fighting against a false man-made label. You are all sadly in bondage to a false label.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
You say you're NOT KJVO. Yet, when asked what other version(s) you recommend, you chose not to answer at all for awhile, then you finally said, "Any version thich follows the same sources as the KJV, the Textus Receptus, the Masoretic Texts...but when I asked for a SPECIFIC version(s) you go back into "silent" mode. This can be verified by just about every reader here! Your "silence" simply shows us you're clueless.
--------------------------------------------------
I have answered this many times. You require a specific answer that would cause you to come away with a different understanding than that of the truth, because of your lack of understanding of this issue. So I do not answer specifically, because I do not want to cause an added stumblingblock to your blindness. I do this to cause you to think about what has been said. To which none of you are doing, because many are sadly too caught up in fighting against a false man-made label. You are all sadly in bondage to a false label.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle said "And you are having a difficult time comprending what has been said: "The NIV does deny the deity of Christ in many verses""
Step 1: look up "deny" in a dictionary.
Step 2: find a verse that you think "denies" the deity of Christ in the NIV
Step 3: again look at the dictionary definition of deny
Step 4: if you still think you have a verse in the NIV that "denies" the deity of Christ, post it so that we can show you how you are confused on the meaning of simple English words.
Michelle said "I have never said God was limited to one version."
You have, however, implied that God is limited in perserving his word in a way other than you personally think he has.
Step 1: look up "deny" in a dictionary.
Step 2: find a verse that you think "denies" the deity of Christ in the NIV
Step 3: again look at the dictionary definition of deny
Step 4: if you still think you have a verse in the NIV that "denies" the deity of Christ, post it so that we can show you how you are confused on the meaning of simple English words.
Michelle said "I have never said God was limited to one version."
You have, however, implied that God is limited in perserving his word in a way other than you personally think he has.
--------------------------------------------------
In the late 1800s, the WH text was produced, and the church in general has accepted it - there are pockets here and there that still prefer the TR over WH, but the idea that the TR is what the church "ALWAYS had" is folly. It is what the church had for about one fifth to one quarter of church history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, and no personal offense to you, but this is due to the fact that most of the churches have become apostate, and falling away from the faith once delivered unto the saints. It is because they have become:
Rev.3
14. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15. I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18. I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
In the late 1800s, the WH text was produced, and the church in general has accepted it - there are pockets here and there that still prefer the TR over WH, but the idea that the TR is what the church "ALWAYS had" is folly. It is what the church had for about one fifth to one quarter of church history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, and no personal offense to you, but this is due to the fact that most of the churches have become apostate, and falling away from the faith once delivered unto the saints. It is because they have become:
Rev.3
14. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15. I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18. I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
Did you know that there was a practicing lesbian and sodomite on the NIV commitee?
This is not a good recomindation to me.
Some of this sounds so much like NABV by G.(god and)A Riplinger!
Michelle, you might want to consider helping Mrs."god and" write her next book! Since the two are you are so good at spin maybe the two of you could come up with a new KJVO proof text that is not the same old junk that has been around since 1930.
Michelle, you might want to consider helping Mrs."god and" write her next book! Since the two are you are so good at spin maybe the two of you could come up with a new KJVO proof text that is not the same old junk that has been around since 1930.
roby:Their non-answers simply show they're clueless. But I keep on asking, to remind everyone else just how clueless the myth and its advocates are, when they see the KJVO responses, or lack thereof.
--------------------------------------------------
As you are also revealing your true intentions of slandering others first and foremost because you REFUSE to see the TRUTH to justify your COMPROMISE with error, and lack of and for the truth.
Circular reasoning. You assume YOU have the truth automatically, and that you don't need to PROVE it.
In other words, you do not care, nor love the truth, so in order to hide from this truth (keep from admitting/acknowledging the truth), from not only others, but yourself, you must paint a distorted and untrue picture of those coming to you with that truth.
My, MY! You must really enjoy typing to yourself!
You are running from the truth, and must make the messengers of that truth, seem as though they are lying, to make yourself feel better.
There's no "seem" to it; you've actually DONE it, and more than once. Your credibility is in Davy Jones' locker. You said I was "autograph-only, and when I asked you, POLITELY at first, to please paste any post in which I said that, directly or indirectly, you responded with a torrent of silence. That's just one of the LATEST of such actions by you.
You are reflecting toward us, what is the truth of your own self, because you refuse to admitt the truth.
I don't HAVE to admit the truth; it's self-evident to every other reader. You're not dealing with first-graders; every reader here has at least average intelligence and comprehension skill, and the fact that you're dealing in codwallop is self-evident to almost the entire readership. many of them are more polite than I am, and since I missed out on taking "Couth 101" in school, I follow Jesus' example of calling down the purveyors of bunk.
It is called excusing away one's fault and error, at the expense of others who share with and expose this truth to you.
No, it's called denying a GREAT BIG FAT MAN-MADE FALSE DOCTRINE.
Why are your running and hiding robycop?
Can't you get ANYTHING right? Tell me, O other readers, am I running & hiding from ANYTHING on this board? As God and the readership are my witnesses, I've answered everything asked of me, unless I missed the post. You may not have liked many of my answers, but they ARE answers nonetheless. If you feel I haven't answered any question you may have for me, I apologize immediately and ask you to please ask it again, as I prolly have missed a post here or there.
Now...please answer THIS: You've said, several times, that you're NOT KJVO. What other specific version(s) do you recommend? Please STATE THE NAME OF THE VERSION(s), not just the features .
Is it to much for you to admit you are wrong, and repent and change your ways?
Yes, because it would be LYING.
Or do you just like believing lies better?
If THAT were the case, I'd believe YOU. You've proven many times you're operating by CIRCULAR REASONING, and you've shot your own credibility...no one's done that for you. While others may not be as blunt as I am, and polite enough to not ridicule for being so wrong, I am NOT. But I WILL ask you to take stock of your situation. WHAT FACTS do you have for your position? Are you pleasing JESUS CHRIST by adding to the meanings of His word? Are you RIGHT, whatsoever? isn't GOD'S WORD much older than the KJV? And isn't the KJV much older than the KJVO myth? Please use Occam's Razor to assess your own position, rejecting that which is pulled from thin air.
PLEASE THINK HARD ABOUT IT, MICHELLE! You said your husband is unsaved. Are you unintentionally helping him stay unsaved by preaching a man-made theory about Scripture instead of Scripture itself? Did you ever stop & think he may find your line as ridiculous as WE do?
THINK!
--------------------------------------------------
As you are also revealing your true intentions of slandering others first and foremost because you REFUSE to see the TRUTH to justify your COMPROMISE with error, and lack of and for the truth.
Circular reasoning. You assume YOU have the truth automatically, and that you don't need to PROVE it.
In other words, you do not care, nor love the truth, so in order to hide from this truth (keep from admitting/acknowledging the truth), from not only others, but yourself, you must paint a distorted and untrue picture of those coming to you with that truth.
My, MY! You must really enjoy typing to yourself!
You are running from the truth, and must make the messengers of that truth, seem as though they are lying, to make yourself feel better.
There's no "seem" to it; you've actually DONE it, and more than once. Your credibility is in Davy Jones' locker. You said I was "autograph-only, and when I asked you, POLITELY at first, to please paste any post in which I said that, directly or indirectly, you responded with a torrent of silence. That's just one of the LATEST of such actions by you.
You are reflecting toward us, what is the truth of your own self, because you refuse to admitt the truth.
I don't HAVE to admit the truth; it's self-evident to every other reader. You're not dealing with first-graders; every reader here has at least average intelligence and comprehension skill, and the fact that you're dealing in codwallop is self-evident to almost the entire readership. many of them are more polite than I am, and since I missed out on taking "Couth 101" in school, I follow Jesus' example of calling down the purveyors of bunk.
It is called excusing away one's fault and error, at the expense of others who share with and expose this truth to you.
No, it's called denying a GREAT BIG FAT MAN-MADE FALSE DOCTRINE.
Why are your running and hiding robycop?
Can't you get ANYTHING right? Tell me, O other readers, am I running & hiding from ANYTHING on this board? As God and the readership are my witnesses, I've answered everything asked of me, unless I missed the post. You may not have liked many of my answers, but they ARE answers nonetheless. If you feel I haven't answered any question you may have for me, I apologize immediately and ask you to please ask it again, as I prolly have missed a post here or there.
Now...please answer THIS: You've said, several times, that you're NOT KJVO. What other specific version(s) do you recommend? Please STATE THE NAME OF THE VERSION(s), not just the features .
Is it to much for you to admit you are wrong, and repent and change your ways?
Yes, because it would be LYING.
Or do you just like believing lies better?
If THAT were the case, I'd believe YOU. You've proven many times you're operating by CIRCULAR REASONING, and you've shot your own credibility...no one's done that for you. While others may not be as blunt as I am, and polite enough to not ridicule for being so wrong, I am NOT. But I WILL ask you to take stock of your situation. WHAT FACTS do you have for your position? Are you pleasing JESUS CHRIST by adding to the meanings of His word? Are you RIGHT, whatsoever? isn't GOD'S WORD much older than the KJV? And isn't the KJV much older than the KJVO myth? Please use Occam's Razor to assess your own position, rejecting that which is pulled from thin air.
PLEASE THINK HARD ABOUT IT, MICHELLE! You said your husband is unsaved. Are you unintentionally helping him stay unsaved by preaching a man-made theory about Scripture instead of Scripture itself? Did you ever stop & think he may find your line as ridiculous as WE do?
THINK!
KJVBibleThumper said "Did you know that there was a practicing lesbian and sodomite on the NIV commitee?
This is not a good recomindation to me."
The lesbian that was consulted by the NIV committee was not known to be a lesbian at that time. There was no known sodomites on the NIV committee.
I wonder how many sinners were on the KJV committee? I wonder if it even matters?
This is not a good recomindation to me."
The lesbian that was consulted by the NIV committee was not known to be a lesbian at that time. There was no known sodomites on the NIV committee.
I wonder how many sinners were on the KJV committee? I wonder if it even matters?
Michelle:There are no translational errors in the King James Bible.
That you'll acknowledge. They are there; you simply refuse to admit the truth.
The word of God is accurate and without error in our translation, as provided by God in his providence.
Correct, except "translation" should be plural, to make it 100% correct.
What you call errors in the word of God are your wrong interpretations of a language you do not know, rather than understanding the truth withing the scriptures in your own language. Please show to me an error in the KJB? You cannot, because it does not exist.
Easy!
"Easter" in Acts 12:4.
"Slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30.
"The image of" in Romans 11:4.
"God forbid" in most places it's found in the KJV NT.
And this is a SHORT LIST only.
That you'll acknowledge. They are there; you simply refuse to admit the truth.
The word of God is accurate and without error in our translation, as provided by God in his providence.
Correct, except "translation" should be plural, to make it 100% correct.
What you call errors in the word of God are your wrong interpretations of a language you do not know, rather than understanding the truth withing the scriptures in your own language. Please show to me an error in the KJB? You cannot, because it does not exist.
Easy!
"Easter" in Acts 12:4.
"Slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30.
"The image of" in Romans 11:4.
"God forbid" in most places it's found in the KJV NT.
And this is a SHORT LIST only.
--------------------------------------------------
KJV translates… Textus Receptus actually says…
"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
--------------------------------------------------
That is your own interpretation of the greek.
--------------------------------------------------
"Lucifer" Is 14:12
"O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
--------------------------------------------------
You are making the translators footnotes to be the Hebrew, to which is not, and says no such thing. Lucifer is correct, and IS satan, and if you rightly divide the word of truth, you will understand why this is Satan (the King of Babylon), and not the king of Babylon as Nebachaneezer.
--------------------------------------------------
"Easter" Acts 12:4
"Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!)
--------------------------------------------------
Again, the word "passover" is not in the Greek text. Passover was the name invented by Tyndale to indicate the lamb sacrificed for the blood put on the doorpost of the Hebrews so that the Lord would pass over them. Hence, you have your own interpretation of the Greek, outside of what the scriptures in our language say about this.
--------------------------------------------------
"Baptism" (entire New Testament) Acts 2:38; 22:16
immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.
--------------------------------------------------
This shows your lack of understanding the meaning of Baptism in English.
--------------------------------------------------
"Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
"all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase)
--------------------------------------------------
We are required to give as the Lord leads and as much from the heart, with no requirements put onto it, as they had in the Old Testament. This would include from all I possess, since all I possess is from God in the first place. If I only gave from what I aquired from what I already had, would be neglecting that God has provided the entire, and is therefore not up for giving. The KJB got it right. It is your false interpretation of the Greek, and that truth that is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
"Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
"attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
--------------------------------------------------
The schoolmaster is the one who taught us and continues to teach us of our sins and need of redemtion, to which Christ is the fulfillment of. Your interpretation of the Greek is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
"God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
"May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
--------------------------------------------------
This is highly speculative and unsubstantiated, as this is the same meaning as May the King Live. The request was to God to save the King. Hence, God save the king. This has nothing to do with King James, but only in your foolish attempts to insinuate and imply a lie due to your lack of understanding.
--------------------------------------------------
"God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
"may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
--------------------------------------------------
Nothing wrong with formal equivalence such as this, because it mirrors the truth exactly, and more perfectly to the context of the passage in our language.
--------------------------------------------------
"sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
"soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
--------------------------------------------------
No, it was sweet smelling to the Lord, not smooth. Smooth is your own interpretation, and to which is incorrect, and soothing does not describe the aroma to God. The offer was sweet as in pleasant, not smooth. Something could be smooth, but not necessarily pleasant.
--------------------------------------------------
"ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
"bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
--------------------------------------------------
1 Kings 20:38
35. And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him.
36. Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the Lord, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him.
37. Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him.
38. So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face.
39. And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver.
40. And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it.
41. And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets.
42. And he said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.
43. And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased, and came to Samaria.
The ashes were a disquise for his face, not a covering for the eyes like you claim it should be. You are incorrect.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
KJV translates… Textus Receptus actually says…
"robbers of churches." Acts 19:37
Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
--------------------------------------------------
That is your own interpretation of the greek.
--------------------------------------------------
"Lucifer" Is 14:12
"O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
--------------------------------------------------
You are making the translators footnotes to be the Hebrew, to which is not, and says no such thing. Lucifer is correct, and IS satan, and if you rightly divide the word of truth, you will understand why this is Satan (the King of Babylon), and not the king of Babylon as Nebachaneezer.
--------------------------------------------------
"Easter" Acts 12:4
"Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!)
--------------------------------------------------
Again, the word "passover" is not in the Greek text. Passover was the name invented by Tyndale to indicate the lamb sacrificed for the blood put on the doorpost of the Hebrews so that the Lord would pass over them. Hence, you have your own interpretation of the Greek, outside of what the scriptures in our language say about this.
--------------------------------------------------
"Baptism" (entire New Testament) Acts 2:38; 22:16
immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.
--------------------------------------------------
This shows your lack of understanding the meaning of Baptism in English.
--------------------------------------------------
"Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12
"all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase)
--------------------------------------------------
We are required to give as the Lord leads and as much from the heart, with no requirements put onto it, as they had in the Old Testament. This would include from all I possess, since all I possess is from God in the first place. If I only gave from what I aquired from what I already had, would be neglecting that God has provided the entire, and is therefore not up for giving. The KJB got it right. It is your false interpretation of the Greek, and that truth that is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
"Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24
"attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ)
--------------------------------------------------
The schoolmaster is the one who taught us and continues to teach us of our sins and need of redemtion, to which Christ is the fulfillment of. Your interpretation of the Greek is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
"God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25
"May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
--------------------------------------------------
This is highly speculative and unsubstantiated, as this is the same meaning as May the King Live. The request was to God to save the King. Hence, God save the king. This has nothing to do with King James, but only in your foolish attempts to insinuate and imply a lie due to your lack of understanding.
--------------------------------------------------
"God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14
"may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.)
--------------------------------------------------
Nothing wrong with formal equivalence such as this, because it mirrors the truth exactly, and more perfectly to the context of the passage in our language.
--------------------------------------------------
"sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18
"soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR)
--------------------------------------------------
No, it was sweet smelling to the Lord, not smooth. Smooth is your own interpretation, and to which is incorrect, and soothing does not describe the aroma to God. The offer was sweet as in pleasant, not smooth. Something could be smooth, but not necessarily pleasant.
--------------------------------------------------
"ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38
"bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
--------------------------------------------------
1 Kings 20:38
35. And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him.
36. Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the Lord, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him.
37. Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him.
38. So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face.
39. And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver.
40. And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it.
41. And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets.
42. And he said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.
43. And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased, and came to Samaria.
The ashes were a disquise for his face, not a covering for the eyes like you claim it should be. You are incorrect.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle