Parents vs father

Well, we are getting close to giving me an excuse to close this because the issue is becoming the KJVO debate instead of the passage.

I was hoping one side would be mature enough to step aside and stop adding wood to the fire so that the fire would go out on its own.

 

There were years and years that the KJV was the only Bible available to most of the common people - and even then it wasn't always readily available. These folks had nothing different so of course they didn't discuss this issue - the KJVO issue didn't exist until someone decided they wanted to sell some books with the KJVO myth as was said already. If someone knows only one version of the bible then they are going to either accept it or reject it and not compare it and discuss it.

We're getting off topic, though. Neither the MVs or the KJV were wrong in calling Joseph Jesus' father or parent.

 

In the KJB, when Joseph is called Jesus' father, it is quoting folks who don't know any better. I don't know of any verses that call Joseph Jesus' father or parent in the narrative.


I just stepped in it, didn't I? :tonofbricks:

 

I know by your statement that you clearly believe that those who don't hold to the KJVOism are not "Bible believers". You are wrong. No version stands on its own. Those who translated the KJV weren't inspired, they translated the inspired message into our English language. A language which btw is constantly in a state of change. There is no problem with the more modern faithful translations of God's inspired Word, except in the mind of those who believe in the deification of a translation.

Bro Tony

 

But did John say "they" were wrong? Newp!

 

The term "bible believer" was meant to refer to folks who believed the KJV was the word of God - I should have said "we King James Bible believers." - sorry, my bad.

If a man came to me and said he believed his bible (whatever version) was the inspired word of God and I really believed he meant it then I don't really have a problem with him - I may not agree but wouldn't hammer him over it because at least he believes what he has in his hands is his authority.

I do not blow a gasget because a man is not KJV only - I really don't - I've got more grace than that. I'm more concernd for this strong support for the newer versions.

So, Bro Tony no disrepect intended, really - I feel bad about theh statement - I posted rather hastily and didn't re-read before I posted.

2. I do not believe the King James translators were inspired but...but what God had them put down and I now hold it in my hands I do believe is inspired. The men were not but what they text they produced was - I takek this by faith.

God bless, Bro Tony

 

Roughly an eight hour warning. If this thred continues to discuss the KJVO issue instead of returning to topic it will be closed first thing in the morning my time, roughly midnight EDT.

 

How silly can you be, Askjo, in your near-fanatical support for the KJVO myth, and some KJVO authors? Every copy I own of the KJV says "parents" at Luke 2:41, and "thy father" at Luke 2:48, in accordance with the Greek. Perhaps you have a King George version that reads differently?

The readings of Luke 2:41& 48 are inescapable facts. Holler, cry, squall, bellow, shout, & bang yer head on the floor all ya like, but you're NOT gonna change one word of the Greek nor of your KJV. Live with it....Joseph was Jesus' legal earthly father. You're simply beating a dead horse & making yourself look ignorant by insisting this isn't so.

Notice I make my point from Scripture as written in every valid version, while YOU hafta add something that isn't there, as well as subtract from what IS there, to have an argument.

 

And to my Brother AV,

I apologize for my abrupt response to you and thank you for your kind response. I too believe the translators translated the inspired Word of God in the KJV, also in the NKJV, NASV, RSV too. I really have no problem with anyone saying "I use the KJV only because I feel it is the best translation". I have alot of trouble with those who say that all the other translations are corrupt and of the devil (which you did not do). I am glad we had this opportunity to share our views.

God Bless you Bro AV

Bro Tony

 

AVBunyan:The term "bible believer" was meant to refer to folks who believed the KJV was the word of God - I should have said "we King James Bible believers." - sorry, my bad.

We Freedom Readers are also KJV believers and Bible believers in general. However, we are NOT LIMITED to just the KJV, nor obsessed with the myth about it.

If a man came to me and said he believed his bible (whatever version) was the inspired word of God and I really believed he meant it then I don't really have a problem with him - I may not agree but wouldn't hammer him over it because at least he believes what he has in his hands is his authority.

We Freedom readers believe the same. And you ARE one of the exceptions to the rule made up by & followed by most KJVOs.

I do not blow a gasget because a man is not KJV only - I really don't - I've got more grace than that. I'm more concernd for this strong support for the newer versions.

I don't see why. That opposition has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. And at one time the KJV was the new kid on the block.

(Message to Bro. Tony snipped)

2. I do not believe the King James translators were inspired but...but what God had them put down and I now hold it in my hands I do believe is inspired. The men were not but what they text they produced was - I takek this by faith.

My beliefs are also based upon faith...faith that God keeps His word updated into the languages in use at any given time. Nowhere in Scripture does He limit Himself to only one version.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...........................

About the "Joseph" thingie...The KJV plainly refers to Joseph being Jesus' father, while Jesus often refers to His NATURAL Father. I fully believe that J&M knew Jesus' earthly conception was of the HOLY SPIRIT. We must remember that such terms as "stepfather" weren't in use at that time in that language.

Now while Luke has the straight skinny about the conception of Jesus, the Nazarenes did not. They only knew Joseph & Mary had left town & returned a coupla years or so later with a child. thus, they supposed Joseph was His father in every aspect.

 

Blammo:In the KJB, when Joseph is called Jesus' father, it is quoting folks who don't know any better. I don't know of any verses that call Joseph Jesus' father or parent in the narrative.

Luke 2:41, KJV..Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

Is this verse parta the narrative?



I just stepped in it, didn't I?

It'll wash.

 

You got me. I expected someone would. I still prefer the KJB. (Is that so wrong?)

 

Food for thought here - come let us reason together brethren.

I wonder if one would do the research from the legal standpoint would one find this...

A parent can be both - the natural father or just a parent of the child or an adopted child. So Joseph can be both - when he is called a parent the word here would fit his role as not being the natural father of Jesus but the "parent".

That is why I believe the Spirit uses the word adoption fro us saints. A natural father can legally disown his natural son but...but if I understand this right - an adopted son cannot be disowned hence the doctrine of eternal security!!! Gloriiieeee!!! :thumbsup:

But when Luke (a physician) put down Joseph in Luke 2:33 I firmly believe here (by faith) that the Lord was protecting the virgin birth in this verse so if all else was in question then Luke 2:33 would settle the matter.

Again, this is why I believe (by faith) that firstborn belongs in Matt. 1:25.

Folks - my whole point in these discussions is not to knit-pick a verse but to show the precisenss of a King James Bible - it never contradicts or leads astray - the verses always interprets itself. I believe the cross references are lost somewhat in the modern versions vs. the King James.

God bless fellas :wavey:

 

Nope...Long as it's by personal preference and not from the goofy idea that it's the ONLY valid English bible version.

BTW...What's YOUR take on the "Joseph-earthly father of Jesus" thingie?

 

AVBunyan:Food for thought here - come let us reason together brethren.

I wonder if one would do the research from the legal standpoint would one find this...

A parent can be both - the natural father or just a parent of the child or an adopted child. So Joseph can be both - when he is called a parent the word here would fit his role as not being the natural father of Jesus but the "parent".

My point exactly.

That is why I believe the Spirit uses the word adoption fro us saints. A natural father can legally disown his natural son but...but if I understand this right - an adopted son cannot be disowned hence the doctrine of eternal security!!! Gloriiieeee!!! :thumbsup:

What about Hebrews 6:4-6?

Actually, according to Ohio law, an adult can disown any other adult.

But when Luke (a physician) put down Joseph in Luke 2:33 I firmly believe here (by faith) that the Lord was protecting the virgin birth in this verse so if all else was in question then Luke 2:33 would settle the matter.

I believe that matter was settled earlier when the narrative in Matthew calls Mary a virgin(parthenos) and Mary told Gabriel she'd never had relations with any man. It wasn't really necessary to state it that many times.

[/i]Again, this is why I believe (by faith) that firstborn belongs in Matt. 1:25.[/i]

And again, I believe, by the same degree of faith, that it isn't necessary because the overview of Scripture makes it plain that Jesus was her firstborn.

Folks - my whole point in these discussions is not to knit-pick a verse but to show the precisenss of a King James Bible - it never contradicts or leads astray - the verses always interprets itself. I believe the cross references are lost somewhat in the modern versions vs. the King James.

The point of Askjo's starting this thread was a desperate attempt to try to trick another set of Christians to believe an old and FALSE part of the KJVO myth. the simple facts are that Joseph was Jesus' earthly father, according to the laws of man. Now, while JESUS isn't bound by mens' laws, J&M were bound, both by Roman and Jewish law. And since J had married M before Jesus was born, Joseph became Jesus' legal earthly father. Thus saith the Greek; thus saith the KJV; thus saith every other valid version. The KJV is no more precise than any other version is. And if you wanna play Will Kinney's versions comparisons game, you'll find the KJV is more precise in some passages, less precise in others.

God bless fellas :wavey:

Again, same to ya!

 

This KJV only myth phrase is so tired Robo. Before these modern versions flooded the market there was only a KJV so this "myth" doctrine of yours was based upon a truth - the truth that preachers, evanglelists, missionaries, etc. took this "myth" of yours all over the world and God blessed their works as will never be blessed again. There will never be another period as what we've been blessed to have records of since 1611 to 1890 or so.

Those days are gone forever.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVBunyan
A parent can be both - the natural father or just a parent of the child or an adopted child. So Joseph can be both - when he is called a parent the word here would fit his role as not being the natural father of Jesus but the "parent".

That is why I believe the Spirit uses the word adoption fro us saints. A natural father can legally disown his natural son but...but if I understand this right - an adopted son cannot be disowned hence the doctrine of eternal security!!! Gloriiieeee!!! :thumbsup:

But when Luke (a physician) put down Joseph in Luke 2:33 I firmly believe here (by faith) that the Lord was protecting the virgin birth in this verse so if all else was in question then Luke 2:33 would settle the matter.

Again, this is why I believe (by faith) that firstborn belongs in Matt. 1:25.

You really gotta' be kidding! After eight pages of this nonsense, no less. I answered the essence of the Joseph thing, and in detail, at that, in the very first response to your OP. Maybe I should try this :BangHead: every day, whether or not I need to. Actually, maybe more than I should :BangHead:- things might eventually get forced inside the skull.

Anyhow, as is today said, in the vernacular, "I'm outta' here!"

Ed

 

For any and all of all POV(s). Folks, get your facts straight- not just opinion, as most of the above, unfortuantely is! Not to mention, assuming to know what God will or will not do in the future, by 'prophesying' "Those days are gone forever!"

FTR, speaking of "myths", I believe you will find that the myth is that of "Before these modern versions flooded the market..." nonsense. Unless I am mistaken, among English versions of all flavors, the only version to ever overtake the modified (new and improved maybe???) KJV in sales, in any year, has been one that I personally do not care for, the NIV. Not the ASV; not the RSV; not the NASB; not the HCSB; Not the whatever New or Old version you or any other, wishes to mention. And I do wonder what this post I have hereto responded, has to do with the OP. God bless all, but I choose to pull the plug on any life-support I'm giving this dying thread. I'm outta' here!

Ed

 

Do you really care what I think? I bet I am more interested in what you think. You see, I don't know everything yet, I'm still learning.