More fairness to KJVO's

Michelle says:
"We are not talking about doctrines and fundamentals. We are talking about the very words of God, to where the fundamentals and doctrines come from. As the Lord has repeated three times in his very own words, man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD."

Michelle, we don't have EVERY WORD that proceeded out of the mouth of God. We have copies of what He allowed men to write which eventually became the Bibles we have and have had. We have copies of copies of copies, which over time have had errors in translation, choice of words, etc. This HAS been shown to you time and time again, and "faith" does not negate that fact, unless of course, you are like Peter Ruckman and believe these mistakes were "advanced revelation".

 

Michelle, It is getting a little frustrating to have you call myself and friends of mine on this board as "having lack of faith". You need to stop the personal attacks and keep to the debate subject.

Now, let me ask you a question for the six-hundredth time. The question that YOU cannot answer because YOUR theory is flawed.

Do NOT give me a ridiculous answer such as: "How would we know, we weren't back there. THis is only 400 years ago and history has been well preserved.

What was the 100% word-for-word accurate Bible before 1611 in English and why did the KJV have to be written to replace it if it was perfect?

My guess is that I will get another tyrade or just silence. I DARE you to give me a real, concise answer, Michelle. You cannot answer this with your theory.

 

I thought she was gone and I thought she said she never called anyone a name?????

One of those things that make you go hmmmmmmmm

Bro Tony

 

I have studied four languages and would say, “There will never be a word for word translation.” God has chosen that to be the case. Remember the tower of Babel too?

Tell us how many languages you know to be able to make such inaccurate statements. How much translation work have you done?

 

Just the facts mam. Just the facts mam.

 

Michelle, I understand it a whole lot more than you think. I also understand that on this issue you state in some places "word for word"...that would be one word for one word, not one word for one phrase. See, adding phrases to explain a word opens the door for error, and for the translators own interpretation. This is, no matter how you look at it, adding to the word of God. There have been several here who have pointed out the errors in translation in the KJV, and the poor choices of wording which do not align with the TR.
You accuse me of "lack of faith". This is libelous on your part. You have yet to prove that any of us has a lack of faith. You accuse me of "sowing doubt". The ones who are sowing doubt are those who hold your position, an unscriptural position, that the KJV is the ONLY valid translation. It is not, nor will it ever be. As has been stated before, I held your position for nearly 30 years. After years of research myself and much prayer, I came to the realization that the KJVO position is not scriptural, nor is any position that teaches that one translation is the only word of God.
You owe everyone whom you've libelled here an apology for false accusations of not having faith, for being willfully blind, for sowing doubt. These are very libellous statements Michelle, and very incorrect on your part. Have you even studied both sides of the issues you speak on? I doubt it.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Also, there have been many who have shown you that the choices of words used in the KJV are not the same as the underlying texts. YOU have REFUSED to acknowledge that, though it's been pointed out time and time again. This is error on your part, and against the principles of honesty and truth.
--------------------------------------------------


No one has shown this. They have and will always fail to show this because they rely upon thier own, or others faulty interpretations of the origional languages, not taking into account thier own native language and the context of the scriptures and the faith that God provided his words in our language. In fact, the modern versions have done great damgage in this area of word changes. God is not decieved, nor can he be decieved. One may try to flatter the Lord, but cannnot decieve the Lord. This is just one of the many examples of the would be scholars of today, thinking they are wise, when in fact they have manifest that they are not. Unicorn is the most appropriate word in our English language, because the context, and the beast being spoken of is not specific, but generic. God's word does not say wild ox, nor does God's word say rhinocerous. It is generic one horned beast, that cannot be tamed. Unicorn fits this description, and is accurate in our language to what it is being spoken of. To make this specific, where it is not specific, is altering the word of God. Just because you and others try to make this word pagan, as with Easter, doesn't negate the truth about these words. It only shows your bias, and lack of knowledge in your own native tongue, as well as the origional languages. It may be your opinion that the Lord is speaking of a wild ox, or a rhinocerous, but it is not specifically said. It is only a private interpretation of what God has said, not in a specific manner. To say this word is incorrect rendering only shows forth your bias and misunderstanding of your own native tongue.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

As this is actually page nine of this discussion (including part 1), and has reverted to the same old fight; it is serving no purpose and is hereby closed.