kjv against the rest. Is it as bad I as I am led to believe?

I chose that rendering because it is the one sitting in front of me, in my Bible. If I had questions as to renderings in this Book, then I would not have the confidence to tell others it is the Word of God. God makes no mistakes.

 

The common man can find it in the Reina-Valera. Why do you reject it? It meets your standards of being the Word of God.

 

You're philandering like others here do.

The general English speaking people are not even familiar with the term "pascha" until they read this in a forum such as here.

It is very deceiving to say the least that a translation of a Greek word to meet the past understanding of a point in time which has been established in the very English we speak to NOT reference the Resurrection of Christ but rather make a distinction ONLY to the past and DEAD ritual practiced BEFORE Christ.

What this insistence upon "the passover' does is align the belief in the O.T. practice into ritualism and is therefore and underlying denial of Christ and IS actually related directly to the spirit of being anti-christ.

The KJV translators understood this, I understand this, why do modern versionists not understand this!:tear:

 

So did God perfectly preserve His word in 1 John5v12 in 1611 or 1769 (or 1762, I get confused with Oxford and Cambridge) and how do we know that?

 

I can't speak for the Spanish, I don't know Spanish. I do have a RVG on the shelf and intend to learn Spanish, but that will be for later. The KJV is God's Word for the English speaking people, in case you missed that part.

 

He can find it in the Greek and Hebrew that underlies any translation.
I am a missionary. How can I go to different nations that speak different languages (some of them illiterate in their own language), and tell them that the KJV is the only infallible Word of God? Do they have to learn Shakespearean English before they can learn how to read even their own language to understand the Bible?

 

It is now unless you wish to deny the Resurrection of Christ.

We celebrate in the spirit of The Resurrection the day known as Easter as a commemoration.

We do NOT celebrate the day of the fertility goddess as you'd like to suggest and I find your remarks to be a direct attack upon anyone who you say this towards.

You demand a version to FIT today's language but then go directly in the opposite direction and DEMAND an understanding of something that is a PAST rendering of a PRESENT day word.

talking about hypocritical!:type:

 

Nope, easster is a present day understood to celebrate and commemorate the Resurrection of Christ.

Go read any PRESENT day dictionary and ARGUE with it and it will still tell you the same thing.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Then why didn't the translate the present day word "Sunday" instead of "the first day of the week," if that is your argument.
Why didn't they translate behaviour, instead of the archaic "conversation" if that is your argument.

Easter was a wrong translation. The one and only correct translation of pascha is passover. Why can't you accept that? Why do you deny the facts here? We don't define things by an English dictionary. Look in a Greek Lexicon. Pascha is passover, not Easter. Your definition is wrong.

 

This completely negates what you said earlier, which is that the KJV is the only Word of God. So now, you acknowlege that people are entitled to a translation of scripture into their native tongue. I agree completely.

The KJV is the Word of God for those who speak a mixture of Middle English (ca1050 to ca1470) and Early Modern English (ca1450 to ca 1650) . I don't speak Middle/Early Modern English. I speak American Modern English. I am entitled to a translation of scripture into my native tongue, and the KJV isn't it.

 

Yes. Because I have it sitting right in front of me. I believe it. I practice it. I teach its inerrancy. You speak of inerrancy and infallibility, I'm sure, but you can't possibly mean it. There comes a time when you have to choose just exactly where your final authority is. Mine is in my Bible, where is yours? You are your own, perhaps? Maybe it is Metzger or Nestle or someone else?

 

I know this was directed to refreshed, but the KJV is not Shakespearian English, there are distinct differences between "Shalespeare" and the English of the KJV.

Your saying it is Shakespearian is either deceitful of a misunderstanding.

 

So did God perfectly preserve 1 John5v12 in 1611 or 1769? Which one is inerrant? How can you decide?

I continued a discussion with you because I thought you were above questioning my faith in God's word because we differed. Since I erred I now withdraw from the discussion.

 

It certainly does not "completely negate it." You must be reading into my post something that is not there. The KJV is understandable by all. My kids understand it fine, I'm sure you can too with a little brain power applied. What do you want, a Bible that uses no words you have to look up in the dictionary? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Stay on topic if you don't mind and deal with what I said without detracting the conversation.

Sunday is the first day of the week, then and now.

Because they used the grammatical sense of conversation as that behavior which is communicated to others by our actions. The Lord does want Christians to know their behavior speaks more than just the words that come out of their mouths!

Just plain stupendous! You speak to me regarding the Bible in English and expect me to go to a Greek or Hebrew lexicon to know what you're telling me.:thumbs:

easter is the Day of Christ's Resurrection, the Passover is not.

Your words speak to all who read them you'd rather give credence to the Passover and keep everyone under the law.

Some just might call that Judaism. Is that how you wish to be understood?

 

Brother, that is awfully immature, and wrong to say that about your exchanges with refreshed.


I have never called your faith into question.

I wonder if you might claim I have like you claimed he did?

 

You seem to make a claim that puts everyone under your authority. To make such a claim, I'll have to ask you for the Scripture which backs this claim?


Does this mean you're a modernist? I am, but I'll stick with the KJV!

(how'dja like that, DHK! I'm calling MYSELF a modernist!) maybe i should report myself!:type:

 

You stated earlier that the KJV, and only the KJV, is the preserved Word of God. I asked you to affirm that this is your position, and you said "yes, that is my position".

Now you're saying that it is not the only preserved Word of God.

The KJV is NOT understandable by all. Harold Garvey, for example, thinks that "meat offering" in the KJV means an offering of animal flesh.

 

That's only partially true. Shakespeare wrote in Early Modern English. The KJV uses a mix of Early Modern English and the older Middle English.

Is it your belief that no one is entitled to a translation of scripture in their native tongue?

 

But just how many of those do you need? Surely there are more than enough MV English translations, yet every year more appear. All somehow, "newer, better".