Is this all it really takes ...

RR said "Oh really, if I said, "Get thee behind me Satan" what Bible would you pick up to see if Jesus really said this? Don't say NIV or NASB because it's not there."

Jesus didn't say "Get thee behind me Satan", for that is in English, and is a translation.

But suppose for a moment that you had a point - what would it be? That familiarity equals inerrancy?

 

The King James Bible was done in 1611. I have a 1769 edition not revision. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I beg to differ. It has been revised several times, and an abundance of evidence has been posted in many threads on this forum to prove it. If the KJV was done in 1611, then there should have been no need for revisions in spelling or anything else. Yet, there was a need for such. And to make it even more strange that you would say that there are no revisions is the fact that there are two different versions of the KJV, the Cambridge and the Oxford. Hmmmm....somethings not right here with your story.

AVL1984

 

I haven't run across anyone who has, C4K.

AVL1984

 

Oh really, if I said, "Get thee behind me Satan" what Bible would you pick up to see if Jesus really said this? Don't say NIV or NASB because it's not there. </font>[/QUOTE]I seemed to have found it in mine....Both versions! So, you intentionally misrepresent these versions, RR.

AVL1984

 

Oh really, if I said, "Get thee behind me Satan" what Bible would you pick up to see if Jesus really said this? Don't say NIV or NASB because it's not there. </font>[/QUOTE]Did Jesus say "Get thee behind me Satan" or did He say "Get thee hence Satan"?

If you cross reference this event in the KJV you could really get confused. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you don't understand the militant order Jesus gave to satan to "get thee behind me", we find the same militant order Jehu gave in I Kings , "What hast thou to do with peace, get thee behind me"

Jesus was speaking directly to satan, not to Peter as presumed.

&lt;questioning of salvation deleted&gt;.

[ September 29, 2004, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

I haven't run across anyone who has, C4K.

AVL1984 </font>[/QUOTE]I heard a "preacher" tell his audience, "Read... and it doesn't matter which version you have"

Sounded pretty confusing to anyone who was trying to listen!

 

POR, I said I would not respond to you in the other forum, and after this post, the same will go here, as you twist and pervert peoples words and are consistant in misrepresentation. You're previous two posts are proof enough. You imply that I don't have the Spirit of God and that I don't understand what Jesus was saying. On both counts, untrue. You've put yourself in the place of the HOLY SPIRIT in making those two judgements, and that's pretty much good enough for me to make sure everyone here knows why I won't respond to you, and why others, too, have chosen not to respond to you.

In the last post you said that it sounded pretty confusing...that is just your conjecture, which is what I find that you are good at posting. It doesn't prove that anyone actually found it confusing.

As this is my last post to you, have a nice life. Adios.

AVL1984

 

Oh really, if I said, "Get thee behind me Satan" what Bible would you pick up to see if Jesus really said this? Don't say NIV or NASB because it's not there. </font>[/QUOTE]Did Jesus say "Get thee behind me Satan" or did He say "Get thee hence Satan"?

If you cross reference this event in the KJV you could really get confused. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you don't understand the militant order Jesus gave to satan to "get thee behind me", we find the same militant order Jehu gave in I Kings , "What hast thou to do with peace, get thee behind me"</font>[/QUOTE] Do you actually check out the references you use? The passage you cited didn't have anything to do with Peter. It was the dialogue between Jesus and Satan after the 40 days in the wilderness. So please answer my question. Which phrase did Jesus use?

Depends on which passage your dealing with. In the passage that has Peter in it, the KJV clearly says: Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

So your error is supposedly an indictment of my spiritual understanding?

Are you accusing me of being a "natural man"?

I understand just fine. You are not honest enough to look at the cross referenced passages in the KJV and note that the words attributed to Jesus are different.

Some MV's don't contain the rebuke of Satan in Luke while they do in Matthew. But then again, all cross references of Jesus' words in the KJV are not identical either. Some times one gospel (KJV) records words that Jesus said while others do not.

For instance in the KJV, Luke records that Jesus forgave one of the criminals being crucified with Him. Mark doesn't. Does that mean one or the other is wrong? You and I would agree that it does not and that there is a reasonable explaination for the difference.

Where we part ways is that I allow that same rule to apply to MV's while you employ a double standard. Double standards are dishonest and ungodly.

 

Your demeanor is what is ungodly, it is due to your utter confusion to what is stated by Scripture.

Peter is NOT satan, as you would have it read, he was putting the influence of satan before the will of God for Jesus to go to Calvary.

I find you judging my character as offensive as you're insinuating me to be. If the shoe fits, sir, WEAR IT!

But then again, that is the norm for the newer version advo's, you tell them the truth, they backlash with derogatory remarks, guess it's because when you throw a rock in a pack of dogs, the one you hit yelps the LOUDEST!

 

Praise the LORD!!!

 

And when you cast aspersion's on others' salvation because they disagree with you that's godly? Pot meet kettle.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus was speaking directly to satan, not to Peter as presumed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depends on which passage your dealing with. In the passage that has Peter in it, the KJV clearly says: Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

POR, why don't you just admit you made a mistake? In your first post regarding this phrase you assumed it was Matt. 16:23 as the referenced passage. Instead, the referenced passage was from the temptation narrative. Simple miscommunication, no harm, no foul.

The text itself begins, "he (Jesus) turned and said, to Peter..." Jesus was speaking to Peter in Matthew 16:23. Nobody here is saying that Peter is Satan. That is a misrepresentation of the words posted. They are simply saying that Jesus was addressing Peter in that particular passage which you seem to agree with as well, because as you put it, he (the Lord) was speaking to him, (Peter), because he put Satan's way over the will of God for Him to go to Calvary. Nobody is disagreeing with that assessment. Instead, you make a Staw Man argument, a misrepresentation of another person's argument, usually made to discredit the person whose argument is being misrepresented.

 

Please cite examples.

The most contentious things I said was that you weren't honest enough to look at cross references in the KJV then acknowledge different wording and that you were employing double standards. Both of these are true statements. You still have not dealt with the fact that in the parallel passages I cited, the KJV attributes two different phrases to Jesus.

When MV's supposedly leave something out or change something, you rant and rave. When the same standard is applied to the KJV you attempt evasion and start in with personal attacks.

That is a false charge. I am not utterly confused about what is stated by Scripture. In fact, I quoted the KJV verbatim.

Do I think Peter was Satan? Absolutely not. But the passage doesn't say that Jesus was addressing Satan directly. It says that He was addressing Peter directly.

I think the statement was two-pronged. One, He was convicting Peter of allowing Satan to use him and for his attempt at rebuking Jesus. Two, He was indirectly rebuking Satan.

I am not judging your character. I am judging the behavior you have demonstrated in numerous posts on this board.

BTW, the shoe does not fit. You are in no position to make blanket statements about my spirituality or discernment. I make no claims to perfection. I am still learning. But I am not a novice.

The two attacks you have made against my understanding demonstrate that you are willing to falsely accuse me in order to avoid dealing with the truth.

The KJV is my primary Bible and the one we use at church. Once again you have made a sweeping statement from a position of ignorance.

You're joking right? I am trying to get you to deal with facts truthfully. It is you that have avoided the facts and instead attacked my sprituality and discernment.

I have only confronted you with the two facts I know about you. One, that you are wrong on the issue of versions. Two, that you have a habit of attacking people personally when they say something you don't like but can't refute in a factual way. This is not Christlike on your part nor does it indicate a love for the truth.

Why would a Christian want to through rocks at other Christians? You have made a good analogy though. You would rather cast stones than "reason together".

 

"satan" is of semitic origin and common to both Hebrew and Aramaic.

It's primary meaning is "adversary" from Strong's 7854
1) adversary, one who withstands
a) adversary (in general - personal or national)
2) superhuman adversary
a) Satan (as noun pr)

Jesus was probably using it and labeling Peter in the primary meaning with the knowledge that it was a title-name of the chief adversary of God, to humble Peter.

HankD

 

Most rationalistic defenders of MVs denied it, too. You are one of them.

MASSIVE manuscripts had this verse. MVs omitted it. Contradict? Yes, it is the confusion that you get.

MASSIVE manuscripts had this verse.

Honest? No, massive MSS had this verse, but MVs/Critical Greek texts omitted this verse because they were rationalistic destroyers. You are a rationalistic one who ignores the manuscript evidences.

 

Askjo, the NIV and the NASB DO have the verse. I've already stated that previously in this thread, I believe.

AVL1984

 

I don't think confusion takes place. I have never been "confused" sitting in church reading out of my KJV when someone preaches out of another version.

 

Neither do I, C4K. Nor do I have trouble reading from the NIV or another version while someone is reading from the KJV.

AVL1984