Non-KJBO lies

I'm glad someone else noticed the flat contradiction in RR's two statements. RR, pick one position regarding the printers- you can't have it both ways.

 

The same source texts that the KJV translators used are readily available today. The "lost original" smokescreen is yet another KJVO myth.

For non-English speakers: Because we're entitled to a translation in our own language, just as the folks in 1611 were entitled.

For Eoglish speakers: Because we're entitled to a translation in the language we speak today, just as the folks in 1611 were entitled to a translation in the language of their day.

And where the KJV differs from their TR source texts, which is in error?

 

And where are the originals (the finished mss of the translators) of the KJV, to refer back to for comparison in instances of editions of the KJV differing?

Oh, that's right, they've been lost too...........

 

RaptureReady:I don't know about 1121, 1354, 1456, etc, etc, etc. All I believe is that God's word was complete in 1611 and therefore there is not a need for another version.

So it WASN'T complete before then. Wasn't Tyndale's Bible complete? How about the Geneva Bible? Why was there a need for another version just a few years after one had been made, in the language of the time?

 

The "originals", as you call them, no longer exist for the same reason Hezekiah destroyed Nuhushtan ( 2 Kings 18:4- He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan). ).

And, yes, God gave us His word in English...starting with Tyndale and running through today. Nowhere does the bible (in ANY translation) say that God would only do so in one translation. To even think so would be to attempt to limit God. As Robycop loves to put it, "God didn't retire to a park bench in 1611."

You compared "modern versions" (a nice generic term that you KJVOites enjoy using, since you know nothing of the newer translations other than what Gail and Pete tell you) against the King James, and said that the MV's came up short because they were different than the King James. Hello! No kidding!

What is that like? I drive a '93 Escort. It is gold, with a black hood, DS fender, and front bumper, and it is a two-door with a five-speed manual transmission. It is my car. It does what a car is supposed to do. It is dependable. I have had it for many years, and it has borne me many miles. Thus, since my Escort is time-proven and trustworthy, I know that it is a true car. But if I take that a step further and say that it is "THE" perfect car, and that if your car is not exactly like my car (cracked windshield and all), then your car cannot possibly be a car, and it is definately not the car of God.

Silly? Yes. Almost as silly as the man-made lie of King James Version Only. And I would laugh about the whole stupidity of it, if it wasn't so deadly to Christianity.

"King James Verion Only", the cancer of Christianity.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Rapture Ready: "If he wanted to modify the
language he would havbe left off manuscripts, if
he was talking about the lanaguage(sic)."

Ah you refer to HankD saying: " ... the original
language manuscripts."

Actually the English as writ can mean either of
two meanings:
1. (Ed) manuscripts in the original language
2. (RR) original manuscripts in the language

Here I have a great advantage over you,
Brother RR. I know the author personally!
I know Brother HankD cyberf-personally. I've
ready many of his writings. Except for the good
spelling, i know enough about the writings
of Brother HankD that I could write them myself.
I know when he wants to talk about "original
manuscripts" he uses the term "autographs".

RaptureReady said "Okay, then what part is and is not a defect? Would it be the salvation message, or maybe the virgin birth, or did Jesus really raise Lazarus from the dead or was it just a ghost story? How do you and how can you pick and choose?"

Natters: //That's why study and comparison is so valuable. Variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. When all Bibles declare the Virgin birth, we have no need to question the Virgin birth. Same with Lazarus, etc. This is not picking and choosing, this is "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."//

Amen, Brother Natters -- Preach it!

Rapture Ready: //God's word...the principles...the doctrine...the convictions...everything that God wants us to know about him and ourselves is contained in the Bible, perfectly. Now, which you of these is perfect, I believe the King James is.//

Of which King James Version do you speak? Your answer
or lack of it will be used against you in this debate.
Your lack of an answer will be weighed more heavily than
an answer, even a wrong answer. Some answers that
other KJVOs have given in the past:

1. KJV1611, KJV1769, KJV1873 -- all are the same and
it doesn't matter
(this will be mocked, they are NOT the same)
2. the KJV1769 - the KJV1611 is contaminated by
Papist Apocrypha and doubt causing translator sidenotes
(this will be mocked as hypocritical)
3. the KJV1769, i guess, my propagandist didn't
really tell me.
(at least this is honest, if not a tad ignorant)


JohnV: "Yes, everything that God wants us to know about him and ourselves is contained in the Bible, perfectly, regardless of translation, and regardless of which language scripture is being translated to, so long as the translation remains faithful to its source texts."

Amen, Brother JohnV -- Preach it!

Trotter: ""King James Verion Only", the cancer of Christianity."

The only cure -- lots of Son-shine!.

But I love to praise Jesus in 17th Century talk:
Praise Iesus, the Christ

 

--------------------------------------------------
JohnV: "Yes, everything that God wants us to know about him and ourselves is contained in the Bible, perfectly, regardless of translation, and regardless of which language scripture is being translated to, so long as the translation remains faithful to its source texts."

--------------------------------------------------

Then you believe in a god who is the author of confusion and a liar, and who also changes his mind. You are asking to be deceived even moreso than you already are. You rely upon the modern scholars of today first, rather than reliance and trust in God and his providence first. You are justifying and condoning BLATANT ATTACKS on your precious Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the modern versions. This will be and is your folly. As Ed has said he knows his brother Hank. I KNOW MY LORD AND SAVIOUR, and KNOW HIS VOICE. John 16.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

If God changed His mind michelle, He did so when He supposedly reinspired the KJV.

Your last post was way out of line, but I am going to let it stand so that everyone can see what we are dealing with here.

 

michelle said "Then you believe in a god who is the author of confusion and a liar, and who also changes his mind."

YOU are the one that said God "corrected" his word with the KJV. YOU are the one that said the idea that God did not correct Luke was "incorrect".

 

Why do we tolerate this self righteous arrogance?

 

The "originals", as you call them, no longer exist for the same reason Hezekiah destroyed Nuhushtan ( 2 Kings 18:4- He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan). ).

And, yes, God gave us His word in English...starting with Tyndale and running through today. Nowhere does the bible (in ANY translation) say that God would only do so in one translation. To even think so would be to attempt to limit God. As Robycop loves to put it, "God didn't retire to a park bench in 1611."

You compared "modern versions" (a nice generic term that you KJVOites enjoy using, since you know nothing of the newer translations other than what Gail and Pete tell you) against the King James, and said that the MV's came up short because they were different than the King James. Hello! No kidding!

What is that like? I drive a '93 Escort. It is gold, with a black hood, DS fender, and front bumper, and it is a two-door with a five-speed manual transmission. It is my car. It does what a car is supposed to do. It is dependable. I have had it for many years, and it has borne me many miles. Thus, since my Escort is time-proven and trustworthy, I know that it is a true car. But if I take that a step further and say that it is "THE" perfect car, and that if your car is not exactly like my car (cracked windshield and all), then your car cannot possibly be a car, and it is definately not the car of God.

Silly? Yes. Almost as silly as the man-made lie of King James Version Only. And I would laugh about the whole stupidity of it, if it wasn't so deadly to Christianity.

"King James Verion Only", the cancer of Christianity.

In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]Nehushtan: Hey, Trotter...if it was good enough for Moses, it's good enough for me!
Nehushtan Pickled Version Sect

 

Sounds like pick and choose to me. So if 6 out of 10 agree then those 6 are perfect. Since you don't have an "original" you have no idea if those 6 are correct and those 4 are not. Also, let's say that those 6 agree with each other, and those 4 agree with each and you obviously choose the 6 because there are more of. What if 3 more mss are found and agree with the 4? That would make 7 and out number the 6, so now whatya going to do? In other words, you change Bibles as you change your clothes. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry RR, it simply doesn't work that way. Over 98% of N.T. MSS are in agreement, no matter which Family of MSS are used. (the other 2% are non essentials, i.e. not vital doctrines)...imagine this: You have 100 students sitting in a class, while one reads the page of the N.T., inadvertently, several minor mistakes are made, one word slightly changed, or misspelled, or other minor variations...even if ALL 100 have one different mistake, you can still reconstruct the text by comparison. i.e. you don't need to be paranoid of valid M.V.'s!

 

You wouldn't mean like when He instructed the KJV translators to remove the Apocrypha from a book they labeled "The Holy Bible"?

HankD

 

RaptureReady said "Sounds like pick and choose to me."

From one perspective it is. I have picked and chosen to believe the KJV is the word of God. Have you picked and chosen as well?

RaptureReady said "So if 6 out of 10 agree then those 6 are perfect. Since you don't have an "original" you have no idea if those 6 are correct and those 4 are not. Also, let's say that those 6 agree with each other, and those 4 agree with each and you obviously choose the 6 because there are more of. What if 3 more mss are found and agree with the 4? That would make 7 and out number the 6, so now whatya going to do? In other words, you change Bibles as you change your clothes."

No, I don't change Bibles. In the situation you describe, I study out the matter. Places like you describe are rare and minor. The Holy Spirit is not idle, and I have yet to find a difference that has caused me to doubt God's word or stumble in my faith: 30,000 chariots or 3,000 chariots does not affect my faith. The questionable age of Jehoiachin does not make me stumble. The NIV missing 1 John 5:7 or the KJV missing half of Jude 1:25 does not make me question my relationship with Christ. In fact, studying these things strengthens both my trust in scripture and my relationship with Jesus.

 

--------------------------------------------------
You wouldn't mean like when He instructed the KJV translators to remove the Apocrypha from a book they labeled "The Holy Bible"?

--------------------------------------------------

My Final Authority does not have the apocrypha. Those who use modern versions, take the chance of having those inserted into the scriptures of their favorite flavor of the month, as those underlying texts include them. My Final Authority does not attack the doctrines of the deity of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The modern versions do. Herin lies the difference that you all ENJOY ignoring and deceiving others about.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Raptureready:God's word...the principles...the doctrine...the convictions...everything that God wants us to know about him and ourselves is contained in the Bible, perfectly. Now, which you of these is perfect, I believe the King James is.

Based upon what criteria?


Why not a modern version, because it differs from the King James.

Not a very sound reason.

 

Raptureready:I don't know about 1121, 1354, 1456, etc, etc, etc. All I believe is that God's word was complete in 1611 and therefore there is not a need for another version.

I believe the horse and buggy were complete in 1611 & therefore there is no need for a car.

 

michelle said "My Final Authority does not attack the doctrines of the deity of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The modern versions do."

No they don't.