I Cor 14:1-33

No confusion? You deny MVs caused the confusion, then you deny 1 Cor. 14:33. </font>[/QUOTE] How am I denying 1 Cor 14? 1 Cor 14 is about prophecying and speaking in other languages in an orderly fashion through a spiritual gift as a sign to unbelievers. Using different versions in church is not using different languages. There is no confusion at my church; we are very orderly, do Bible studies in SS, and follows the sermon with our Bibles. No one is confused. I Cor 14 has nothing to do with Bibles or versions! Keep in mind when this was written, they did not have the complete scriptures and had to pass around what they did have. This is not talking about Bible versions!!!!

 

Only about one to two percent of the population could even read at that time.

 

mjwegs42 said:

Read this scripture I Cor 14:1-33 in the KJV please. Then let me know what you think about my questions.

Sure. When you allegorize Scripture, you can make it say anything you please, even have everything come up KJV-onlyism.

 

Your statement is incorrect.
I've looked in several MVs that I have.
All include the idea you have bolded.

Isaiah 11:10 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible)
On that day the root of Jesse
will stand as a banner for the peoples.
The nations will seek Him,
and His resting place will be glorious.

This is much clearer than the unspecified version
that you quoted. The convention of capatlizing
the pronouns referring to members of the Holy Trinity
shows that both the "root of Jesse" and
the "banner" refer to the appropriate member
of the HOly Trinity, which is the Messiah: Jesus.

IMHO you err here because you do not currently have
a MV to validify your past story.

BTW, this aludes to the blessed name:
Jehovah-nasson: God my Banner.
I thought for awhile it might compare the root of
Jesse to a low ranking Naval Officer (Ensign)

 

--------------------------------------------------
Your statement is incorrect.
I've looked in several MVs that I have.
All include the idea you have bolded.

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

I am not a liar Ed. I witnessed this with my own two eyes! You must not have this version then. Don't ask me what version it was, because this person used many different versions, and this happened some time ago.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

......and you have missed the POINT.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I have not been around for a while, but I am amazed to see the same old attacks given by KJVO crowd that says someone who does not believe the KJV is the only translation containing the Word of God is a KJV hater or tries to disprove the KJV.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is an attack used to both emotionalize the subject and to redirect the actual subject. The point being is that where in the Bible does it say that the KJV is the only correct translation. The Vulgate has been around longer than the KJV, is it not the correct Word of God, if you consider length of history?

 

No Michelle, you are not a liar, but serious Bible students also understand that there ARE bad translations out there, such as the Jehovah's Witness version, or (not a translation) but a paraphrase called the Living Bible, before they devised a translation.

Obviously, in your view the KJV is a correction of the Bishop's Bible? Did they get it wrong back then and had to write an MV called the KJV to correct it?

No translation made by man is going to be 100% perfect. If that were the case there would have been no need for all of the upgrades to the KJV since 1611.

I still predict that after a generation passes, the NKJV will become the new KJVO version, just like the 1869 version.

Since you cannot remember which version you saw this "confusion" in, then it becomes a moot issue because there is no reference brought forth, only your word for what you say you saw.

The same thing when a person says, "The Holy Spirit told me that." If you knew 100% certainty what the Holy Spirit said, write it down because it would become later-day scripture. I am NOT saying the Holy Spirit does not talk to people, indeed He does; but you have to remember, more people who believe the Holy Spirit talked to them and inspired them through MVs.

I still say that the fact you wish to use the KJV as your only Bible is absolutely fine, but to try to force such a false belief on everybody else is not right. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say a Bible finally corrected in 1969 is going to be a 100% accurate translation.

As I said before the translators had 13 different manuscripts of different passages in Revelation of Jesus Christ. They met and pieced them together using what eventually was refined into textual criticism. This being the case, there was obviously no correct English Bible before 1869 (let alone 1611) and if there was, why did it have to be changed? Why did the 1611 have to be changed?

Personally I love the beautiful language of the KJV,but to study it is much easier to understand the NKJV (if you wish to believe that the TR which was pieced together from many pieces of manuscripts is more accurate than Alexandrian).

Our church also uses multiple translations and nobody is confused. In fact, the pastor spends more time having to explain the words in the KJV. Because so many words have changed, they have different meanings and although you think that you understand them, there is a possibility that you might not. In actuality, he usually uses words from the NIV to explain what the KJV is saying in an older version of our language. It makes the verses much clearer for the church goers.

Thanks and have a great week!

 

Summary of what I was trying to say: You do not have a reference because you do not know what tranlation was being used. You were responding to a statement that the KJV was TR while the NASB was not. As you know by now this applies ONLY to the New Testament, so obviously one of the translations was either misunderstood by YOU or one might have not translated it as well--how do you know which?

By the way, what is a prophecy revival? It sounds to me like this pastor didn't know what he was talking about anyway. People try their best to fit things in the Bible with current happenings, only to be wrong a lot of the time because some prophecy is very obvious and much of it is not--so therefore preachers who like to delve into prophetic scripture often come up with some very strange theories--all of which we should consider as ONLY theory, unless it is quite clear.

The only problem with the KJV is that many KJVO's on this site say that their children have no problem understanding the KJV; I beg to differ that many words do not mean the same today and though they might understand parts of it, it is my opinion that major parts are misunderstood, but not just by children--by adults too.

I think most Baptists believe the prophets quit after the canon was completed. If you tell us you heard from God that the KJV is the only right English translation, am I to assume that you are receiving direct and later-day revelation of a prophet for which you have declared when you say that was what you were told? So, are you right and all of the other Christians who have heard from the Holy Spirit and are not KJVO wrong? And, if so, how does this happen?

[ September 13, 2004, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

Michelle: “Well, there was certainly confusion for me, one time when I went to a prophecy revival at my neighbors church, and the mv version used (which many different ones were used for this presentation) differed from what the scriptures said pertaining to Jesus Christ being referred to as the root of Jesse. The reason this pastor used this version, was to prove his assumption that the Israeli flag was quite possibly the sign being spoken of in this passage.”

Aside from such a peculiar and nonsensical identification paralleling typical prophecy conference claims, e.g. modern automobiles prophesied in Nahum 2:4 (which I heard in a “prophecy conference” years ago and find *still* being repeated, even though totally nonsensical), the matter of translational omission here is interesting, even if the translation is not specifically identified.

Isa 11:10 (KJV) And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; [[to it shall the Gentiles seek]]: and his rest shall be glorious. (The [[ ]] is the clause supposedly omitted by some modern translation).

Michelle: “I am not a liar Ed. I witnessed this with my own two eyes! You must not have this version then. Don't ask me what version it was, because this person used many different versions, and this happened some time ago.”

Michelle: “How this version, and the preacher PREACHED NOT THE TRUTH being spoken of in this verse, to what it was speaking of is OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST?”

Rather than blaming the version used, it is more likely that in the enthusiasm of preaching the prophecy preacher simply skipped over the clause “to it shall the gentiles seek” as opposed to the clause actually being omitted in any specific translation.

The reason? Because there are *no* variants at this point in either the Hebrew Massoretic text nor in the Septuagint, nor in any ancient version or manuscript; i.e. at this point *all* ancient sources agree that the original autograph contained the phrase “to it shall the Gentiles seek”.

I also made a quick scan of virtually every version translated into English over the past 150 years (I have a collection), and *none* of them -- including the JW’s, the liberals, or the Roman Catholic Bibles -- omit this clause; thus, it had to have been the preacher skipping the phrase by accident.

But one further item: If the root of Jesse is indeed the Lord Jesus Christ (which seems clear), does the use of “it” to describe our Lord in Isa 11:10 sound like the Holy Spirit being called “it” elsewhere? Are MV’s therefore *more* accurate when they say something like “to Him shall the Gentiles seek” instead of calling our Lord an "it"?

 

A hearty "Amen!~" natters.

AVL1984

 

Could you please post proof that the brother is using a mismatch of versions, translations and tongues. If I recall correctly, there were different versions, translations, etc, involved in the KJV translation as well going back to the received text. The bread the brother brings is just as good as the KJV. And saying one holds little faith because they do not hold to the KJVO position as you do, is not only a false accusation, it is just plain silly on your part, Mike.

AVL1984

 

--------------------------------------------------
Rather than blaming the version used, it is more likely that in the enthusiasm of preaching the prophecy preacher simply skipped over the clause “to it shall the gentiles seek” as opposed to the clause actually being omitted in any specific translation.

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

First of all, that verse wasn't there in that version to be skipped over. It was omitted, and not there as He provided it on the screen!


And God has said differently about His word of truth:


Deuteronomy 4

1. Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you.
2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
3. Your eyes have seen what the Lord did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the Lord thy God hath destroyed them from among you.
4. But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day.
5. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
6. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.


Proverbs 30

5. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


Rev. 22

16. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "First of all, that verse wasn't there in that version to be skipped over. It was omitted, and not there as He provided it on the screen!"

Have you considered the possibility that whoever made the slide or video that was projected on the screen left it out, likely by accident? Or maybe that your memory is not as clear on this as you think it is?

Unless you can name the specific translation, there's not much more to talk about regarding this. All you have is a incomplete memory of what appears to be a preacher's mistake.

 

--------------------------------------------------
But one further item: If the root of Jesse is indeed the Lord Jesus Christ (which seems clear), does the use of “it” to describe our Lord in Isa 11:10 sound like the Holy Spirit being called “it” elsewhere? Are MV’s therefore *more* accurate when they say something like “to Him shall the Gentiles seek” instead of calling our Lord an "it"?
--------------------------------------------------


Yes is is correct. First of all the word "it" is referring back to the "root". A root is not a person, but a thing. Secondly this is symbolism representing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Thirdly, and most importantly, it is the word of truth in our language that God has so wonderfully not only provided for us, but also preserved for us.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Have you considered the possibility that whoever made the slide or video that was projected on the screen left it out, likely by accident? Or maybe that your memory is not as clear on this as you think it is?

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

No. The version was indicated as to what it was with that verse on the screen that was being used. I am NOT LYING ABOUT THIS, nor am I not remembering correctly. The only reason I remember it, is because I witnessed this with my own two eyes and was horrifed at it. At the time, I was not concerned about what version it was from, but the FACT that that verse was OMITTED and therefore a false teaching was being taught, AND BELIEVED.


Secondly, you are TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

This is the strangest and most far-fetched interpretation of Scripture I think I have ever read. This should not even be a matter of discussion as it has no validity. The longer it goes on the stranger it gets.

Bro Tony

BTW--If I had a "Bible teacher" in my church treated the Scripture in this fashion, I would remove him/her right away.

 

--------------------------------------------------
BTW--If I had a "Bible teacher" in my church treat the Scripture in this fashion, I would remove him/her right away.
--------------------------------------------------


Yeah, maybe you would Tony, but many others don't know any different. You are also completely missing the point.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "No. The version was indicated as to what it was with that verse on the screen that was being used."

That does not preclude someone making a mistake with the slide, typing in the verse wrong or something.

michelle said "I am NOT LYING ABOUT THIS"

I never said you were.

michelle said "nor am I not remembering correctly"

Yet you are unable to remember which version "was indicated".

michelle said "The only reason I remember it, is because I witnessed this with my own two eyes and was horrifed at it."

But what did you witness? You did not witness the translation itself, in your own hands. You witnessed a slide projected onto a screen. Someone had to make that slide. It is very likely that the slide was not an accurate representation of what was in the indicated translation, that someone made a mistake in creating the slide.

michelle said "Secondly, you are TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT."

Perhaps I am. What is the point I am missing? That someone had a wonky interpretation of scripture, and that you personally got confused because of it and a difference between a projected slide and your KJV? I'm asking honestly.