KJBOism?

Perchance if you use a larger fount
your statement will become truer

The word 'sodomite' appears only in one
verse in the KJV1769: Deut 23:17.
How do you explaine this verse?

Deu 23:17 (Geneva Bible, 1586):

There shalbe no whore of the daughters
of Israel, neither shall there
be a whore keeper of the
sonnes of Israel.

Is the Geneve Bible of 1586 a 'modern version'?
Why doesn't it use 'sodomite'?
Which of your doctrines is based on this
ONE AND ONLY THIS ONE VERSE?

I contend that a God who can preserve
His Holy Written Word (the Bible) throughout
all generations can figure out how to write
it so if individual words, phrases, verses
or even books are omitted
GOD'S Holy Written Word still shines
throught - iluminating the whole soul
of those who will study the scriptures
(and not limit the scriptures to
one and only one book in one and only one
language.

 

Rev Lowery: //Matthew 6:13 KJV "And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
NASB puts the last two phrases in brackets and says
they are not in the oldest and best texts (which
are the Catholic corrupted texts out of Alexandria Egypt).
It's a lie that cannot be proven; in fact the opposite
is easily proven. Many verses are done this way.//

By constrast, note that while the NASB documents the existance of
source variations, most of the currently available KJV1769 Editions
DO NOT DOCUMENT the source variation (which the original
KJV1611 Edition had).
So thus the NASB is 'gigged' for telling the truth; the KJV1769
which hides the truth, is not penalized for lying.

Strangely enough, there is no doctrinal difference made by
this addition tothe Bible added to the KJV1769.

Strangely, here is a doctrinal difference made by misuse
of the KJV1769 (the ones with no translator notes):

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV1769 Edition):

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,
son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground,
which does weaken the nations!

The English word 'Lucifer' comes from the Latin, meaning
'light bearer'. The KJV1611 has a TRUTH TELLING translator
note that shows 'Lucifer' could be translated 'Day Starre'.
The term in the Greek is for Day Starre.

I prefer to make my own Baptist type Priesthood of the Beleiver
kind of judgement about this scripture an other scriptures.
As such, I choose KNOWINGLY that 'Lucifer' is NOT the name of
the Lead Devil.

Those who withold from Baptists the information (which not going
to seminary, some might not have gotten) about the translator
footnotes or deceived their flock calling THE TRUTH false -
these are the ones who withold THE TRUTH about the translations.

Rev Lowrey: //Most of the new translations have attacked the Virgin Birth
of the Lord Jesus Christ by substituting the word "virgin"
with "young woman" or "maiden." A young woman or a maiden
is NOT necessarily a virgin. Mary, the mother of Jesus,
WAS a virgin. In fact, Matthew tells us so in Matthew 1:23
when he QUOTES Isaiah 7:14 and uses the word "VIRGIN."
What does YOUR translation say in Isaiah 7:14?//

YOur statement is a false charge against the some 60% (which is
'most' i guess) of the Modern Versions that do translate as
'young woman' in Isaiah 7:14. However, to incorrectly translate
as 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14 hides the truth - Jesus read a different
source of the Bible which did say 'Virgin' there.

But when you read Luke 2 which part of Mary's claim she
"had not known a man" says anything other than 'virgin'?

 

William,

More riddles and evasion!!! Please, we haven't gotten enough yet.

You've been here for like a month, and you evade 99% of the questions posed to you.

I honestly wonder if you would still be a KJVO if you answered them. I will go out on a limb and say that if you were to answer FULLY and TRUTHFULLY just a few simple questions about KJVO, you would no longer be a KJVO.

Do you have the courage to do so?

 

Ed the reason for the different spellings is the language of the times and the type set used in the printing process it was done to sway would be counterfeiters. When I say KJV 1611 I mean KJV 1611 the one with the Apocrypha in it, The original, The truth, The 100% inerrant word of God. And just because someone thought it could be better like with all MV's they placed there own intellectual prowess before Gods.

I own and/or the church I pastor owns at least 1 of each version of KJV, NIV, NASB, NWT's, NKJV, The Message, AB, NLT, CEV, I would like to get a Stephanus New Testament or Westcott-Hort but seeing as I cant read Greek yet I'll wait. Last I checked we have at least one of these I will check with our clerk and my mom to make sure if not I will be getting them asap I like to know what ppl are going to use as ammunition.

See the thing is Satan will do what ever it takes to drive a wedge between us and God and he does it little my little with perversions of Gods word we see no problem with a missing word here or there, "Oh thats OK" we tell ourselves it doesn't take away from the Gospel. That what we said when the NIV came about then look at The Message. Before you know it the Bible will not even have God or Jesus or Blood in it. It will say, "Some guy came from somewhere and did somethings and he was good and we go to heaven AMEN."

But, this is what ppl want to hear and this is what THE WORD OF GOD SAY'S.

John 3:19 (KJV 1611)
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loued darknesse rather then light, because their deedes were euill.

Now to show you the contrast and the difference in then and now.

John 3:19 (The Message)
The Message (MSG)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson

19"This is the crisis we're in: God-light streamed into the world, but men and women everywhere ran for the darkness. They went for the darkness because they were not really interested in pleasing God.

Where is the condemnation and they where not interested...hummm why are they not interested in pleasing God The message doesn't say? Oh and "God-light" leaves room for other religions Gods and there light to shine and not "light" which means TRUTH........The Message totally deludes and negates the evil that man is at his heart and sin nature.

 

Rev. Lowery, you accept the apocrypha?

I'm not trying to pick at you, but I've just never heard of a KJVO who kept the apocrypha.

As far as the Message goes...I doubt very many of us would endorse it.

 

How about my Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Bible?

Two of my friends who are fluent in Greek certainly do not make such a claim. Your claim tosses out the original text. </font>[/QUOTE]I said translation the originals are in Greek, Hebrew, and Armaic so therefor they are not translation if they are simply copied they are well copies.

 

I do accept the apocrypha why would I not ??

If its in the KJV 1611 I stand on it 100%

 

Though I disagree with you about this whole issue, I do respect your position's consistency.

If you believe the apocrypha is the inspired word, then you have a rock-solid case for people intentionally removing what you believe to be inspired scripture.

I'm just amazed to hear someone who actually means 1611 when they say 1611!

 

Look you cant say oh I am a Christian but only by the parts that suit me. Brother you gotta take it all and take it in and pray and pray and ask God for guidance and wisdom and understanding. Men dont pray like they did in the time of Moses, Daniel, and Jesus its rare ppl pray for more than 1 hour now adays get on those knee's and pray for a week solid and see what God will do for you. With all your heart seek God in prayer, fasting, and weeping.

 

Rev. Lowery: //The Message totally deludes and negates the evil that man is at his heart and sin nature.//

And you can determine this from examining ONE VERSE?
I've been here for over three years discussing versions/translations
on this forum. NOBODY has claimed that THE MESSAGE
is worth discussing. So why are we discussing it.

IMHO it is a sin to color all versions with the taint of THE MESSAGE.

BTW, more English speakers now
understand "This is the crisis we're in"
than understand "this is the condemnation".

Anyway, God can save people using THE MESSAGE,

As my 4-year-old nephew taught me:

GOD IS BIGGER THAN THE BOOGIE MAN!
BIGGER THAN GOZILLA AND THE MONSTERS ON T.V.
GOD IS BIGGER THAN THE BOOGIE MAN!
AND HE WATCHES OVER YOU AND ME!

God is big enough he can preserve His Holy Written Word
in even the meanest translation, and THE MESSAGE
is one of the meanest

 

StefanM but you see the difference in the KJV 1611 and The Message do you see how Satan is little by little removing God and Christ from Christianity. This is why I believe for scripture KJV 1611. Now dont get me wrong I read modern versions and I enjoy The Evidence Bible KJV very much but its a tool and that is all.

 

Ed I never said ppl cant be saved from reading The Message and why do you say, "And you can determine this from examining ONE VERSE?" I have shown other verse's other problems other errors.
If your an MV'er how can you not accept The Message as Gods Word? By MV'ers standards everything is Gods Word? Are you saying that The Message is NOT the Word of God?

How do ppl not know what condemnation is they knew what it was in 1611 how could we not know now, you assume ppl are dumber now than then? Not only that the MV'ers assume that ppl need the scripture to be watered down ask yourself why that is. Its because we have not grown to accept the MEAT of Gods word there are to many babies still needing the milk and they never move on to the meat of the scripture. Ed I really dont know what to think about you, you seem to believe everything and nothing, I would think people would want a solid rock as a foundation and not one that can be washed away by a mans intellectual deviations. Do not take what I say the wrong way. You just seem lukewarm on what is scripture and what is not.

Romans 8:28

 

ohhhhh and if you quote me plz quote my whole statement and not just the part you wish to use.

Romans 1:27(The Message)
and
Romans 1:27 (KJV 1611)

Read those and tell me if you see a big difference. I can go on and on and on but every time I do no one responds or explains why they believe or why they do not believe one version or the other. I have shown why I believe why do ppl believe in MV's.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep quoting from The Message? I doubt that anyone here thinks that it's a good version, and it's certainly not a good translation.

 

BTW The Message is a version and not a translation it is a variation or version.

trans·la·tion (trns-lshn, trnz-)
n.
The act or process of translating, especially from one language into another.


The Message is the newest MV and it shows the greatest influence by Man on Gods Word.

If all versions are the Word of God then why not The Message by what measure are we comparing it ?????

If I say we must compare to the KJV 1611 people will say oh what makes it the final authority if ppl say MV's are the Word as well as the KJV then why is The Message not??? To whom do we give the final authority Man or God ???? if your MV then Man, if the KJV then God.

You see when people say it isn't good but oh it is still Gods Word you make God fallible. My God is the Father of Jesus Christ, The Maker of all that is, was, and will be. The Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, Perfect and without spot or blemish and by his grace through faith in Christ Jesus I am saved! My God doesn't make mistakes and doesn't make bad translations if your translation is bad its caused by Man thinking he is better than God.

 

Amen, Rev. Lowery!

People want to say their translation is more accurate, yet they also say it has mistakes. That makes the God of their translation very much fallable, IMO.

God has preserved His perfect Word in this earth, man has subtly and methodically changed the Word over the years to where it no longer is written as intended.

I think that is why the Psalmist wrote, 'Thy Word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against Thee.' They can destroy the written Word, but they cannot tear it from the hearts of those who hold it to be truth.

 

But, the Message is not even a translation.

Why not compare translation to translation?

Why do KJVOnlyists try to obfuscate and distort to "prove" their point?

 

So SFIC , all translations have mistakes in them .The mistakes are not that significant , for the most part . No translation is inspired , only the original autographs . Some translations are more accurate than others . Of course " accuracy " is in the eye of the beholder .

I would put The Message in a separate category along with The Cottonpatch Gospel .

 

No translation is inspired? Then why do people claim all the translations since the 1611 KJV are more accurate? Why stand for them if you do not believe they are inspired? Isn't that being sort of hypocritical?

That is like fighting for the legalization of crack cocaine even though one knows it can kill after the first use of it.

 

RL , do you know that some of the KJV revisers put out other translations within 30 years after the KJV first came out ? Does that taint their reputation in your eyes ? What about Mr. Miles Smith ( I am not sure of his name ) who wrote that long preface ? He quoted only the Geneva Bible in that masterful prologue . If you really do have an orginal 1611 ( copy or otherwise ) you must have looked at it . What do you think ? If you will read it seriously , you may forsake your KJonlyish ways .