luke 18:16

A fine example of this is 1 Thessalonians 4:15.

KJV- For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
ESV- For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, and are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precedethose who have fallen asleep.
Geneva- For this say we vnto you by the worde of the Lorde, that we which live, and are remayning in the comming of the Lorde, shall not preunt them which sleepe.

Also, one large mistake you are making in your logic is to presume that the King James is right, and the NIV is wrong. (btw guys, the King James is technically Modern English, just in an earlier form)

 

Excellent point.

In Middle/Early Modern English, "prevent/preuent" meant "to come before". In Modern English, it means "to keep from happenning", and "precede" means to come before.

"Precede" replaced "prevent" as more French came into English usage ("precedere" in Old French) in the late 1600's/early 1700's.

 

He can understand it, if fact he does understand it. This is just a ploy to criticize the Word of God, the NIV. Earlier in this thread he commented that Bob should put away his "bent sword" referring to the NIV. He has already make up his mind, but he will post here acting like he wants these differences explained. He doesn't. These threads just give him a way to feel superior to us poor deluded believers who don't have a "final authority" like he does.

People like him aren't interested in the truth or getting out the Gospel. They are interested in winning people over to their shrinking sect of legalists. This is what they call spreading the Gospel.

I know, I was saved and eventually delivered from a church just like his!

 

Methinks you don't have the moral high ground to make any of the accusations you just did.

 

You don't even have a good grasp of King James English. I suggest you work on that first.

 

That's true. When you can't handle the facts, you do indeed attack the one presenting them. At least you're recognizing your actions here.

Nice try, but incorrect application. Definition alone does not deliver context. I don't expect you to understand that, so let me put it more concisely:

The phrase in koine Greek is:

gar toioutwn estin h basileia tou qeou (gar toioutos esti e basileia tou theos), which means, "for the kingdom of God belongs to such".

 

You just confirmed when I said: "I don't expect you to understand that".

Are you kidding? Have you looked in the mirror lately? Do you not realize how much of a fool you're making yourself sound?

 

Harold must not have any mirrors in his house. Or he broke all of them because he didn't like what he saw.

 

I threw no rocks. I just understand the KJVO movement. You specialize in acting superior and then play the victim when confronted.

 

Again, you really want to look in the mirror, because when you post stuff like this, you're presenting yourself to be quite foolish.

The koine Greek disagrees with you, but as already noted, I don't expect you to have an understanding of context. This is the same thing you said about "meat offering", and you still refuse to acknowlege your error there.

Not really. Having discussions with KJVOists usually isn't bitter, because the KJVO position and the claims they make are so easy to refute.

Based on results, obviously not. You categorically refuse to acknowlege any complaints laid upon the KJV.

If you want to argue koine Greek with me, I guarantee, you'll lose. Oh, wait, you already lost this argument, because the koine Greek here means, "for the kingdom of God belongs to such".

It's good that you're now talking to yourself. Perhaps it will help you get over bitterness in conversations such as these.

I love it when HG does something, and then gets mad when the same thign he did is done to him. It's incredibly amusing.

 

That's an encouraging report.

 

Yet another train wreck of a thread...