God's word

[robycop3]

Homebound:Then why do you keep going back to the originals?

Because they SHOULD be the basis for every translation we use.

It seems like you're still searching for God's word.

Not really. Unlike some people I know, I'm NOT LIMITED to only one version. The AUTHOR isn't thus limited; why should I be?

Though I would agree that the modern versions do carry some truth, after all, a person can get the Gospel from some of them, however, they are not absolute.

And the KJV alone is?? Yeah, riight...

 

[robycop3]

There are two translators' side notes generally ignored by KJVOs, and while the KJVO praises the AV translators, he ignores them where they shoot down the KJVO myth. The side notes commonly ignored by KJVO are: "or, O day starre" for Isaiah 14:12 and for Psalm 12:7, it's "Heb. him, i. euery one of them".

Not to mention they ignore the words of the translators themselves concerning their work, that they wrote in their preface.

 

[HankD]

It seems to me that the only "double-think" going on here is yours. Why did you leave out the part of the quote from the 39 Articles which list the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as "canon" but lists the Apocrypha under "other?"

I said, summarized or included everything you said I left out for brevity's sake but here is the whole thing from the site:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

I will repeat and will add "IMO".

IMO their statement is double-think/double-talk.

In the Daily Scripture reading calendar of the First Edition the CofE 1611AV includes Apocryphal readings and cross-referenced Apocryphal passages in the body of the text.
In the body of the text the Apocryphal writtings are presented in the same manner and format as the "non-canonical".

Their actions speak louder than their words.

If it looks like a dragon, flies, breathes smoke and fire, guess what in spite of whatever they equivocate, It’s an apocryphal dragon (see Bel and the Dragon which you can read for example of life and instruction of manners;).

I repeat, to me it would be similar to pasting a Watchtower article in my Bible?

After all the Watchtower is certainly non-canonical.

I also repeat that the radical KJVO error of second inspiration is what is being opposed, to which the romish 1611 CofE contributed by their actions and persists in one form or another to this very day.

HankD

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Slambo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Apocrypha are found between the covers of the AV 1611, as is the smiling illustration of Mr. Sun on the cover.

But not as inspired Scripture.It is in BOTH TESTAMENTS in the texts,as inspire scripture, behind todays Bibles.Fact!</font>[/QUOTE] Here's another fact for you. The NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV were not published with the Apocrypha at all.

Here's yet another. We have no real way of knowing what the copyists/users of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus thought of the Apocrypha. The Canon of scripture itself was only universally recognized after the 4th century.

No amount of spin,or skulldrudgery will change that.

The original KJV contained the Apocrypha while the MV's that you condemn didn't. At one time, it was against the law to print the KJV without the Apocrypha so obviously the contemporaries of the KJV translators thought it to be an important part.

And... no amount of spin or skulldrudgery will change that.

Yet another snafu on your account!

Do you know what the acronym "snafu" stands for? BTW, it violates the obscene language guidelines for the board:

"situation normal, all f***ed up"


PS on a more friendly note- I grew up in western NC, right on the southern border of the Great Smokie Mountains NP. Are you close?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Do you know what the acronym "snafu" stands for? BTW, it violates the obscene language guidelines for the board.

I think that's a bit extreme, but I suppose that's up to the mods to decide.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Moderator note:

SNAFU can also mean - Situation Normal All Fouled Up

Thats how this moderator will interpet it

.

 

[Slambo]

Here's another fact for you. The NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV were not published with the Apocrypha at all.

Why? The Apocrypha was in the nestled in the text as Scripture.Maybe the newbie BV translators thought the same as the KJV translators;it not scripture.

so obviously the contemporaries of the KJV translators thought it to be an important part.

It does in fact serve well historicaly,and therefore is of some value;just not scripturaly.

Do you know what the acronym "snafu" stands for? BTW, it violates the obscene language guidelines for the board:

"situation normal, all f***ed up"

No I did not realize that was an acronym;nor was I aware that it is what it ment.However,I do not condone language like that and it is the opitomy of bad taste and ignorance.

PS on a more friendly note- I grew up in western NC, right on the southern border of the Great Smokie Mountains NP. Are you close?

Nope,sorry.Keep heading southward.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Slambo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Here's another fact for you. The NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV were not published with the Apocrypha at all.

Why? The Apocrypha was in the nestled in the text as Scripture.Maybe the newbie BV translators thought the same as the KJV translators;it not scripture.</font>[/QUOTE] You're partly right. The MV translators didn't think it was correct to put the Apocrypha in a book then put the name "Holy Bible" on the outside cover. And don't try to make the comparison to study guides, concordances, cross-references, margin notes, etc. The Apocrypha was in the original KJV in book form as if it were scriptural text.

If it had remained common practice to place the Apocrypha between the Testaments after the original preface stopped being included... you wouldn't have any indication that it was not to be considered scripture.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> so obviously the contemporaries of the KJV translators thought it to be an important part.

It does in fact serve well historicaly,and therefore is of some value;just not scripturaly.</font>[/QUOTE] Some must have thought more of it than that... you don't write something into law that is only of "some value".

BTW, the Apocrypha is historically flawed. I haven't read the reasoning for quite some time but you can probably find the arguments with a simple web search.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Do you know what the acronym "snafu" stands for? BTW, it violates the obscene language guidelines for the board:

"situation normal, all f***ed up"

No I did not realize that was an acronym;nor was I aware that it is what it ment.</font>[/QUOTE] Sorry. I didn't realize that this read as condescending as it must have.

I only know since it is an unofficial military creation. It appeared in a book I read during college about one man's Vietnam experience. It wasn't anti-war... it was part of the ROTC curriculum to read related books and report.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

Then why do you keep going back to the originals?

Because the original language text is the standard against which *all* English translations are to be measured.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But if you think that's an excuse to omit things like Blood,Christ's deity,the commandment to study the Bible,and so forth-not to mention the JW's reading in John 1:18-then someone has lied to you and YOU FELL FOR IT..

Who here is using a Bible like this? I haven't seen anyone doing this and I have been here a long time. No one has appealed to a Bible that doesn't have the blood in it, or that doesn't teach the Deity of Christ. No one here has appelaed to a Bible that omits a command to study it.

The one who has been lied here to is obviously you, since you think these things are true. They are not. They are needless and useless attacks on God's word. </font>[/QUOTE]Then why does the NIV, NASV leave it out? Check this scripture:
Colossians 1:14. The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." This just doesn't sound right, let us look at the KJB:
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." If the shedding of blood was not done, forgiveness of sin was not there. Thanks God for that blood sacrafice. </font>[/QUOTE]The NIV doesn't leave it out: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." (Eph. 1:7, NIV)

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

The apocorypha was never considered scripture, but used for historical value, that's why it was placed between the old and new testaments.

If the Apocrypha didn't have at least *some* authoritative status in the eyes of the KJV translators, why did the 1611 KJV include passages from the Apocrypha in its list of lectionary readings to be used in public worship?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

I think I posted that I don't believe that sidenotes are to be considered scripture.

An interesting comment, considering that the KJV itself is sometimes translated from the Hebrew "sidenotes" rather than the main text. Apparently the KJV translators considered some of those "sidenotes" to be Scripture.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why not consult the Holy Spirit. He is there to guide you in all truths. All I use is the King James Bible and a dictionary.

Why do you need a dictionary? Is the Holy Spirit not good enough for you? </font>[/QUOTE]Why are you trying to be mean? Of course I use the Holy Spirit, I did mention it didn't I. </font>[/QUOTE]The Holy Spirit is a "he," not an "it." The KJV makes that mistake too, and denigrates the personality of the Holy Spirit. But I still don't understand the why you need a dictionary. If the Holy Spirit is able to give you understanding of the 400 year old English, what are you using the dictionary for? Something to sit on?? That doesn't make a lot of sense. It does show one of the inherent fallacies in your position. When someone claims that the KJV English is hard to understand (and it is), you always claim that they Holy Spirit reveals it to you and gives you understanding. But apparently, He is not doing a good enough job since you still need a dictionary. </font>[/QUOTE]Because God is not going to do for you what you can do for yourself. As far as the Holy Spirit being a "He," well duh, of course "He" is. As why I used "it," that is kinda hard for me to explain. It's like refering to this or that. Like, "I mentioned that or it 5 days ago and it still is not here." Can you see the difference? I believe you can, you're just trying things to start. This is a perfect example of why I call some non-Bible believers, they question God's word instead of believing it. Not saying that you don't believe the Bible, I just believe it 100%.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Because they SHOULD be the basis for every translation we use.

But if the originals are lost, how can a translation today be perfectly correct? Hint: They cannot.

Not really. Unlike some people I know, I'm NOT LIMITED to only one version. The AUTHOR isn't thus limited; why should I be?

Why would God continue to write/inspire new versions. Is there something new that he has yet to reveal? I don't think so.

And the KJV alone is?? Yeah, riight...

Yes, it really is. Is it really to hard to hold to a absolute truth?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:

Then why do you keep going back to the originals?

Because the original language text is the standard against which *all* English translations are to be measured. </font>[/QUOTE]But how can you refer back to the originals when the originals are lost.? Since the originals are lost there can be no perfect word of God unless you believe it one, which I do. The originals had their purpose, then God saw fit to put the originals in the language that was going to be the dominant language, English.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:

I think I posted that I don't believe that sidenotes are to be considered scripture.

An interesting comment, considering that the KJV itself is sometimes translated from the Hebrew "sidenotes" rather than the main text. Apparently the KJV translators considered some of those "sidenotes" to be Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Really, where?

 

[HankD]

But how can you refer back to the originals when the originals are lost.? Since the originals are lost there can be no perfect word of God unless you believe it one, which I do. The originals had their purpose, then God saw fit to put the originals in the language that was going to be the dominant language, English.

"Since the originals are lost there can be no perfect word of God unless you believe it one, which I do"

Which one HomeBound? There are several different versions called the 1611KJV and in reality they are not the same. There are hundreds of differences between the several revisions (1611 through 1853) and editions (Oxford, Cambridge, Nelson).

We have been told for years by the KJVO and KJVO wannabees that "things which are different are not the same", so using that criteria which one of the several revision/editions of the AV is the "perfect" Word of God?

BTW HomeBound, the original archetype master manuscript which the KJV translators produced was lost somewhere around 1647. So in your own words "Since the originals are lost there can be no perfect word of God".

HankD

 

[Pastor Larry]

Because God is not going to do for you what you can do for yourself.

So then you agree that God will not help you understand outdated and archaic language when you can pick up a modern translation?? At least that is a start in the right direction.

As far as the Holy Spirit being a "He," well duh, of course "He" is. As why I used "it," that is kinda hard for me to explain. It's like refering to this or that. Like, "I mentioned that or it 5 days ago and it still is not here." Can you see the difference? I believe you can, you're just trying things to start.

No actually, I can't see it. To refer to a person as an "it" it inappropriate. That's all.

This is a perfect example of why I call some non-Bible believers, they question God's word instead of believing it. Not saying that you don't believe the Bible, I just believe it 100%.

It is clear that you do not. The Bible gives clear and undeniable evidence that versions other than teh KJV are the word of God, but you don't believe that. The Bible clearly testifies that God's word in a language in not limited to one version, but you don't believe that. YOu have absolutely not biblical basis for your belief that the KJV is perfect. You do not believe that Bible 100%. I actually do and can support what I believe from Scripture. You know this. You have been around long enough to see it and know the truth. You have simply chosen to reject it in favor of satisfying your own mind. You have itching ears and listened to teachers who will satisfy that itch.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by HankD:
Which one HomeBound? There are several different versions called the 1611KJV and in reality they are not the same. There are hundreds of differences between the several revisions (1611 through 1853) and editions (Oxford, Cambridge, Nelson).

I don't accept spelling, printing, textual corrections as a revision, so therefore all (as far as I know) have the same doctrine and meaning. I use a Old Scofield Study Bible which is 1769 I believe. However, I am going to get a Cambridge 1769 without any cross references.

BTW HomeBound, the original archetype master manuscript which the KJV translators produced was lost somewhere around 1647. So in your own words "Since the originals are lost there can be no perfect word of God".

HankD

Really, I didn't know that, thanks. I do however believe in God's perfect word, which I believe to be found in the King James Bible.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
So then you agree that God will not help you understand outdated and archaic language when you can pick up a modern translation?? At least that is a start in the right direction.

Why, the modern versions use words that are either archaic or a word that only ET would recognize. There is no need to rewrite the Bible for a word that has not been used in a while, just get a already published dictionary. BTW, most words can be explained by carefully reading and studying God's word.

No actually, I can't see it. To refer to a person as an "it" it inappropriate. That's all.

You have never or you have never heard someone refer to a new born as "it?"

It is clear that you do not. The Bible gives clear and undeniable evidence that versions other than teh KJV are the word of God, but you don't believe that. The Bible clearly testifies that God's word in a language in not limited to one version, but you don't believe that. YOu have absolutely not biblical basis for your belief that the KJV is perfect. You do not believe that Bible 100%. I actually do and can support what I believe from Scripture. You know this. You have been around long enough to see it and know the truth. You have simply chosen to reject it in favor of satisfying your own mind. You have itching ears and listened to teachers who will satisfy that itch.

Okay, I must have missed that, can you show me again.? Also, I really just don't understand how you can believe that there is more than one perfect Bible, especially when they all say something different. But, that is what you believe, just like I believe in only one. If you preach the Gospel, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that you can only be saved through the blood of Jesus, then I say Amen to you. The other things will have to come by prayer and fasting.