1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by AV, Dec 22, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again Psa 12:6-7 are taken out of context.

    Taking a verse out of context is the same as adding to or removing it.

    There is nothing wrong with CCM, Nor NIV, nor Christmas.

    What is wrong is Christians that call things sin that is not called sin in the Bible, nor the KJV. Again you are adding to the Word of God.

    You would have probably stoned Christ for misquoting Isaiah 61:1-2. (Luke 4:18-19)He certainly didn't quote it like KJV does so.....
    Answer this:

    Who was wrong KJV or Christ?
    Warning: a lot depends on your answer.
    Both can't be right, can they? Remember your KJVO chant, "Things different can't be the same."

    So which is wrong, Christ or the KJV?
    I for one think they both are right.
    For things can be the same although they are different.
     
  2. WordOfAKing

    WordOfAKing New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by gb93433 _______________________________________
    It is a bad translation, if not an erroneous one.
    If you want an erroneous translation, Acts 12:4 translates "Pascha" as Easter. The word is "pascha." Every single time in the Bible pascha is translated passover, without exception. In fact, why should there be an exception? That is the meaning of the word. There is no exception, except when the KJV translators made this glaring error and decided to translate it Easter instead--a pagan festival that worships the false god of Istarte. That is not the meaning of pascha. It means passover, and nothing else. The made a mistake. Swallow it.______________________________________________

    Now, let's look at this "error", and see if error is not on the part of those who mistranslate it Passover. It should NOT be translated "passover", because the Passover had already passed (no pun intended). The days of unleavened bread had already begun according to Act 12:3. "And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)" You say what does this mean? It means the passover was over.
    Look at Numbers 28:16-18. 16 And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
    Num 28:17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
    Num 28:18 In the first day shall be a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:
    Nothing like the Bible to clear up the Bible (Is. 28:10). The Passover was always the fourteenth day of the first month, while the days of unleavened bread ran from the fifteenth through the twenty-first. Herod could not have been waiting for the Passover (unless he was going to wait a whole year till the next Passover). Why would Herod, an unsaved gentile, be concerned with a Jewish feast day in the first place? "Easter" is from the pagan "Ishtar", the goddess that the pagans worshipped, including Rome. It appears the King James translators, being led and guided by the Holy Ghost, made the right choice, indeed the only choice that makes any sense in the context of the passage. You see, the CONTEXT of the passage is somewhat important to the translation of the word or words. I'm no scholor or anything, but I do know that at least.

    Luk 11:44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

    Why does God talk down to the scribes so? Maybe they are similar to modern day bible correctors.

    1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
    1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
     
  3. Bookborn

    Bookborn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    gb93433,
    You still didn’t answer on the NASB’s lies (like ‘no such thing as an idol’ in I Cor. 8:5) or stating Psalms 78:36: "But they DECEIVED Him with their mouth And lied to Him with their tongue." NASB
    Ed tried to accuse us of a double standard since the KJV reading is…
    Psalms 78:36 "Nevertheless they did FLATTER him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues."

    But Ed, you really should think that through…. You’ve committed the fallacy of a false dilemma. The difference between ‘deceived’ and ‘did flatter’ is one of active versus passive. ‘Deceived’ points to God as the recipient (of deception). ‘Flatter’ points to the speaker and is not a reflection on God. The law of identity (properly defining terms) must be established. A help for starters would be a dictionary (now there's a novel idea).
    Let’s look at the definitions of ‘Deceived’ and of ‘flatter.’
    Definition of Deceive:
    1. To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.
    2. Archaic. To catch by guile; ensnare.

    So, according to the NASB, THEY CAUSED GOD TO BELIEVE WHAT IS UNTRUE or misled him. This is the primary definition. The secondary definition doesn’t help NASB adherents either.
    Definition of flatter.
    1. To compliment excessively and often insincerely, especially in order to win favor.
    2. To please or gratify the vanity of: “What really flatters a man is that you think him worth flattering” (George Bernard Shaw).
    See the primary definition of the word ‘flatter’? You were confusing the secondary definition. In the KJV rendering, they merely complimented God excessively. This is not a negative reflection upon God (the NASB rendering is).


    gb93433,
    I just gave you the dictionary etymology of the word for 'baptize.' {[Middle English baptizen, from Old French baptiser, from Late Latin baptzre, from Greek baptizein, from baptein, to dip.]} and your response was… “You are wrong.” And you responded that the word CAN have other meanings. Well, so you haven’t proven the KJV reading is wrong.

    What English translation do you use that doesn’t use ‘baptize’ (including the NASB)?

    People act like the KJV translators were compromising somehow…
    Other English translations used ‘baptize’ before the KJV (like Tyndale, etc.). Shakespeare used it 4 different times:
    • "For we will hear, note, and believe in heart,
    That what you speak is in your conscience wash'd
    As pure as sin with baptism." (--Henry V, I.ii.30-2.)
    • "My Lord of Canterbury,
    I have a suit which you must not deny me:
    That is, a fair young maid that yet wants baptism;
    You must be godfather, and answer for her." (--Henry VIII, V.iii.159-62.)
    • "And then for her
    To win the Moor, were't to renounce his baptism,
    All seals and symbols of redeemed sin,
    His soul is so enfetter'd to her love,
    That she may make, unmake, do what she list . . . ." (--Othello, II.iii.325-9.)
    • "I take thee at thy word.
    Call me but love, and I'll be new baptiz'd;
    Henceforth I never will be Romeo." (--Romeo and Juliet, II.ii.49-51.)
    Keep in mind that the two sources of greatest impact upon the English language are the KJV (first) and Shakespeare (second). EVERYBODY TODAY uses the term baptize. The hypocrisy is that people argue that the KJV is archaic and needs updating, and then the KJV uses a modern word (universally used) like ‘baptism’ and this is somehow in error.

    Gb93433,
    Re: Amos 4:4 – I asked, “Are you suggesting that the Hebrew word 'YOWM' cannot be translated as year? “
    And you said, “Give me one case where it was ever translated as "year".”

    How about in the mouth of two or 3 witnesses?


    “And this man went up out of his city YEARLY to worship and to sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the LORD, were there. “ 1 Sam.1:3 KJV

    “yearly” is the word “YOWM.” But according to your logic, it would be translated that he went up out of his city DAILY to worship and to sacrifice. Wow! This guy must have been rich. He must have owned the cattle on a thousand hills! A DAILY SACRIFICE.

    And the NASB does the same:

    Now this man would go up from his city YEARLY to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests to the LORD there. 1 Sam 1:3 NASB

    Or how about…
    1Sa 1:21 (KJV)
    And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and his vow.
    “Yearly” again is “YOWM.” But according to you it should read the DAILY SACRIFICE.
    How about 2 Samuel 14:26 (re: David’s son, Absalom): "And when he polled his head,(for it was at every YEAR'S end that he polled it) he weighed the hair of his head..."
    According to you, it was every DAY’S END that he polled it. Wow. What a miracle. So, that ‘s the advanced revelation whereof you speak! Amazing. He had to cut his hair EVERY DAY and weighed it. It was supernaturally growing (faster than even Samson’s). Wow. Ha,ha.

    So, YOWM CAN BE TRANSLATED ‘YEAR.’ And thus, Amos 4:4 in the KJV is still preserved without proven error.
    Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three YEARS.

    Nice try though.
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    This is your opinion; your interpretation; your idea, etc. It is your two cents worth. Whatever. The fact is what you wrote above is yours! But the word "pascha" is from God. We must look to the Lord for the meaning of the Word. Pascha only has one meaning. The meaning is Passover, not Easter. Easter is in error in the KJV translations. It is mistake; a wrong translation. Admit it. Pascha means passover. Understand the concept. Words have meaning. Passover does not mean Easter. Passover means Passover. The KJV is wrong in this instance.

    Acts 12:4 When he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of four soldiers each to guard him, intending to bring him out to the people after the Passover. WEB

    Acts 12:4 And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people. ASV

    Acts 12:4 whom having seized he put in prison, having delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep, purposing after the passover to bring him out to the people. DARBY

    The KJV is wrong. Pascha means passover, as other translations also agree.

    One needs only to look at the word "pascha" in this case. Nevermind your rambling theology.
    Pascha is used 29 times in the New Testament. The KJV translators correctly translated 28 times as passover. The made one grievous mistake when they translated it "Easter."
    DHK
     
  5. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,948
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    There were not two meanings of pascha. There was one--passover. This is where you err, and the KJV translators err. Your theology and explanation of the verse doesn't count beans to me. You can figure that out later. You must deal fairly with the translation first. The meaning of the pascha means passover. Correctly translate the verse then find out the meaning. Don't insert your translation and thne fit your meaning of the word to fit your theology in there and translate the word accordingly. That's what the J.W.'s do in John 1:1, when they say "the word was "a god." You are doing precisely the same thing. It doesn't fit your explanation, your theology, so translate it a different way until it does.
    Sorry, but pascha means passover every time. There are no exceptions. I gave you other translation where other scholsars translated it passover and found no problem with it. Why should you?
    DHK
     
  7. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi saints. Bookborn, I am enjoying reading your posts. Not only does the King James Bible properly read "thou hast made him a little lower than THE ANGELS" in Psalm 8:5 but so also do all four Jewish translations I have access to. These include the 1917 JPS, the 1936 Hebrew Publication Society, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, and the brand new 2003 Judaica Press Complete Tanach.

    In addition to these translations that read "angels" in Psalm 8:5 we also have Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, Darby, the Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, New Life Version, the NKJV, New Century Version, Living Bible, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Douay, and the Modern Greek translation.

    Or maybe we should follow the NIV, ESV or the NET version, all of which also disagree with the NASB and say "heavenly beings".

    This is what happens when a person does not believe in nor have an inerrant Bible - "every man does that which is right in his own eyes", and it's every man for himself as his own final written authority. In other words - Bible Babel.

    In His grace,

    Will
     
  8. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
  9. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi DHK, you may find the entire article to be of interest. If you wish to see the whole thing, here is the link. It is called Where was the word of God before 1611?

    In any case, I would like to address the specific questions you just brought up.

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

    Many Whateverists of the "No Bible is inerrant" crowd ask the following questions: (These are actual quotes from one of the Bible clubs) "Why are you hung up on a translation since no translation is perfect? What about the other translations of the other nations of the world? Do you have an answer for them?

    You King James Bible only people limit yourselves to just one language - English. Why are you so afraid to talk about other languages. What about the aboriginals of our nation? Do they have a Bible? If they do, would their translation be just as "perfect" as the KJV? Why or why not? Is your God so narrow-minded and bigoted that He only speaks to 10% or the world--the English part, and consigns 90% of the world to Hell because they cannot read and understand English, particularly Shakespearean English? My God is not that narrow-minded. The Bible says that God so loved the world, not just the KJV understanding crowd. He loves the Crees, the Punjabis, the Hindis, the Maoris, the Inuits, those that speak Urdu and Arabic, etc. But all of these are condemned to Hell because they have not the KJV, right?"

    First of all, God does not condemn people to hell because they are not King James Bible only. God can and does save His people using a multitude of translations in hundreds of foreign languages. The gospel of salvation through the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is found in any bible version out there, no matter how incompletely or poorly translated it may be. Christ only promised that the gospel would be preached throughout all the world.

    Secondly, God never promised that every nation or individual would have a perfect Bible, but He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth. "Seek ye out of the Book of the LORD and read..." Isaiah 34:16.

    God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. There was a period of time when for about 2000 years only one small nation had the true and pure words of God. Psalm 147:19,20 says: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

    God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. God will hold us accountable for the light He has been pleased to give us. We who have the preserved and inerrant words of God in the English language of the King James Bible will be held far more accountable for what we have done with this book than those who cannot read English. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

    And thirdly, the people who pose such questions as this individual asks are actually promoting the idea that there is no complete, inerrant and 100% true Bible in ANY language on this earth today. Not the Hebrew or the Greek, nor in any language. This is what they are being taught in most seminaries today. A recent poll shows that 85% of the students in America's largest Evangelical seminary openly admit that they do not believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture, and the percentages are getting higher each year.


    Will K
     
  10. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
  11. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The simple asnwer is: Because only God is perfect; only God is able to produce a product which has absolutely no mistakes. He did in the original manuscripts which we no longer have. We have copies of them--over 3,000 of them. But only the original manuscripts were inspired by the authors that God chose (the Apostles and prophet) to write them. The alone are infallible and inspired.
    DHK [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Hi DHK, you have made a grand case for your position that there exists NO inerrant, complete and 100% true Holy Bible in ANY language here on this earth. You fit right in with today's Whateverist, contradictory Ballpark approximations of multiple-choice X Files bible versions (the truth it out there somewhere)

    At least you are being consistent in your unbelief.

    You may or may not be interested in the documented facts about where Christiandum is headed, but if you care to read it, I have put together many quotes by modern evangelicals (not KJB onlies).

    The article is titled "There is No inspired and inerrant Bible".

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoInerrant.html

    He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

    Will K
     
  12. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You haven't provided the advanced revelations that you allege are gleaned from Hebrew or Greek that the KJV translators, or a person using the KJV, have missed.

    Did you not read the example of immersion?

    Again I ask you for the third time, which translation is perfect?

    Are you suggesting that the KJV will lead a person astray?

    It will unless they know the king's English. Words such as piss and conversation.

    When I witness to others, I use scripture, and specifically, KJV.

    I prefer to use the Bible they already have in their home.

    </font>[/QUOTE]Hi GB, throughout your post here what I clearly see is that you are your own final authority with your personal preferences. You don't like the word Baptize but prefer immersion. Too bad most Bible translators don't share in your opinions.

    You tell us unicorns is wrong, yet many others of superiour learning disagree with you, and others think it should be buffaloe or rhinoceros.

    Then you don't like "piss" or "conversation" even though the literal Hebrew expression is "piss against the wall", not "MAN". So the KJB gets blasted by you when it is too literal, then blasted when learned men disagree with your personalized "bible version" that agrees with none other on the face of this earth.

    What you should do is write your own bible version. That is the only way you will be happy and, who knows, it may be a best seller for a month or two until some other self-appointed wannabe scholar like you comes along with another personalized bible version that will correct all the silly errors you made in yours.

    Of course, no one, not even YOU, will really think they have an inerrant Bible, but you might impress a few friends and make a truck-load of money.


    "him that pisseth against the wall"

    The Message "May God do his worst to me if Nabal and every cur in his misbegotten brood isn't dead meat by morning!"

    Daniel Wallace NET bible - "God will severely punish David, if I leave alive until morning even one male (22) from all those who belong to him!”

    Then he footnotes: "22tn Heb “one who urinates against a wall” (also in v. 34); KJV “any that pisseth against the wall.”

    Other Bible versions that agree with both the Hebrew and the King James Bible reading: "any that pisseth against the wall" are Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Douay 1950, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and the Italian Diodati.

    Coverdale 1535 reads: "any that maketh water against the wall".

    The KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's Modern KJV 1998, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 all read: "him that urinates against the wall"

    Happy trails,

    Will K
     
  13. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
  14. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,948
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you have any lexicon which covers the usage of the word during the ancient Greek era? Don't rely on the MV's lexicons which are not trustworthy at all.

    If you disagree, you may be confessing that Bible can have errors but Lexicons cannot have errors!

    As for Ishtar festival, please refer to the following sites which mention that Ishtar festival occurred on the first full moon right after Equinox, starting from Friday (Freya) to Sunday after Vernal Equinox.

    http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=6802&catcode=13

    As for Ishtar Goddess Worship itself, you can refer to :

    http://inanna.virtualave.net/ishtar.html

    You can have some indea about how much Ishtar worship was popular and when it happened.
    You can see Ishtar Festival was a little duplicated in the timing, may be a few days later or almost at the same time.

    We need some more verification further on the language : Πασχα

    Do you know how Greek described the Ishtar Festival in Greek? Can you disprove that Ishtar was translated into Pasca in Greek? Of course Onus Probandi is on the KJV side in this case. However, when KJV present the following errors, then Opposition should be able to explain the cotradiction:


    You have not answered to me about the contradiction of the verses! Please give me the answer on the followings:

    WHY PASCA is mentioned as BEING AFTER UNLEAVENED BREAD DAYS?
    Acts 12:3 Then were the days of Unleavened Bread.

    Acts 12:4 Intending after Pasca (Passover) to bring him forth to the people.

    Acts 12:6 When Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping.
    ( Is this after Passover but during Days of Unleavened Bread?)

    Acts 12:17 Peter departed to other place.(after Passover but during Days of Unleavened Bread?)

    Acts 12: 20 Herod commanded that they should be put to death. (Execution during Days of Unleavened Bread?)

    I hope DHK knows that Days of Unleavened Bread are after Passover, have not noticed that he explains why Herod had such intention BEFORE PASSOVER in the MIDDLE OF Days of Unleavened Bread.
    I will await the great answer from DHK.
     
  15. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,948
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
  16. Bookborn

    Bookborn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wordofaking, Eliyahu, and Will K., AMEN.
    Thou hast well said.
    Ha,ha.
    Still laughing at this quote to GB (a lot of truth in it)...
    "What you should do is write your own bible version. That is the only way you will be happy and, who knows, it may be a best seller for a month or two until some other self-appointed wannabe scholar like you comes along with another personalized bible version that will correct all the silly errors you made in yours.

    Of course, no one, not even YOU, will really think they have an inerrant Bible, but you might impress a few friends and make a truck-load of money."

    This dilemma reminds me of what happens when you witness to New Agers. They say, "You're god, I'm god, and we're ALL god."
    But then you get to talking about Jesus and His complete deity and they're like, "Well, Jesus never actually claimed to be God."
    So, EVERYBODY GETS TO BE GOD BUT JESUS!!!!!!
    And the WhatsoeverVersioners say that everything is the word of God... EXCEPT THE KING JAMES VERSION - they can't tolerate that ONE BOOK! If I posted out here that all new versions are the word of God, then that's acceptable, but if I IDENTIFY THE BOOK OF THE LORD FOR ENGLISH WITH SPECIFICITY, they get all thin-skinned (Ps.119:165; I Cor. 13:5)
    Virtually every marketing campaign launched for new versions ATTACKS THE KJV. And their prefaces almost always contrast themselves to the KJV. The KJV is thus the STANDARD.
    I have in front of me an ad for the God's Word translation. It says in bold type: "EASY TO READ...READABLE...READABILITY...EASY-TO-UNDERSTAND...FRESH...CRYSTAL CLEAR... The most accuract, easy to read version of the Bible available on the FACE OF THE EARTH... Ask for the God's Word translation at your local Christian book store!"
    Ha,ha. This is CLEARLY an attack on the KJV. Only the KJV they would say is unreadable, hard to understand, not crystal, and not fresh (1611 - or 1769 - either one).
    Why are they still trying to supplant the KJV after almost 400 years? Won't it just fade away all by itself - being swallowed up by the host of modern versions?
    I trow not.

    [ December 29, 2005, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Bookborn ]
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,531
    Likes Received:
    14

    Hi GB, throughout your post here what I clearly see is that you are your own final authority with your personal preferences. You don't like the word Baptize but prefer immersion. Too bad most Bible translators don't share in your opinions.


    Don't we all have our preferences? Some have good reasons and some do not. All translators share in my opinion when they translate the LXX and extrabiblical secular documents. While you are at it just take a cursory look at Liddell & Scott.

    Read the history of politics surrounding the KJV translation so you will know why such thngs occured. Read about how the pedobaptists developed the word baptize and why.

    You tell us unicorns is wrong, yet many others of superiour learning disagree with you, and others think it should be buffaloe or rhinoceros.

    Some "of superior learning" don't know Christ too.
    Does your opinion line up with them? Does your opinion line up with some of the "of superior learning" pedobaptists who translated the KJV?

    Greek mythological beings are right?

    Then you don't like "piss" or "conversation" even though the literal Hebrew expression is "piss against the wall", not "MAN". So the KJB gets blasted by you when it is too literal, then blasted when learned men disagree with your personalized "bible version" that agrees with none other on the face of this earth.

    I do not have problem with being literal. I have a problem with being vulgar and using coarse words which is against the teaching of scripture.


    Of course, no one, not even YOU, will really think they have an inerrant Bible, but you might impress a few friends and make a truck-load of money.

    Why are you so offended when I ask which Bible is perfect? You failed to answer that question. So what is your response? If you know the answer it can be answered in just a few words.

    Daniel Wallace NET bible - "God will severely punish David, if I leave alive until morning even one male (22) from all those who belong to him!”

    Why not quote Dan Wallace on his view of the KJV too.


    Other Bible versions that agree with both the Hebrew and the King James Bible reading: "any that pisseth against the wall" are Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Douay 1950, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and the Italian Diodati.

    Coverdale 1535 reads: "any that maketh water against the wall".

    The KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's Modern KJV 1998, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 all read: "him that urinates against the wall"


    Why does the KJV not agree with the MT and LXX but the NAS does?
     
  18. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,531
    Likes Received:
    14
    So you prefer to trust the pedobaptists of the Anglican Church who translated the KJV?
     
  19. WordOfAKing

    WordOfAKing New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tiny Tim said __________________________________________

    Again Psa 12:6-7 are taken out of context. Taking a verse out of context is the same as adding to or removing it.
    _________________________________________________

    I gave you two succesive verses in the bible. How, pratell, do you judge context? The whole verse? The whole chapter? The whole book? Or, the whole bible? I would copy the whole Bible, and paste it here, but first of all, my clipboard will not hold the entire thing. Secondly, I do not think folks would appreciate me wasting the space here. Lastly, if you think a broader context brings out some meaning which I have falsely taught, show us the context so no one will be confused. Personally, I don't think you can get any better sense of the passage than looking at Ps 12:7 and seeing that it refers to keeping the words of God.

    ____________________________________________________________
    There is nothing wrong with CCM, Nor NIV, nor Christmas.
    ____________________________________________________________

    Nice emphatical statement. Were all so impressed by this great truth you have presented here.

    ____________________________________________________________
    What is wrong is Christians that call things sin that is not called sin in the Bible, nor the KJV. Again you are adding to the Word of God.
    ____________________________________________________________

    By your definition of "adding to the Word of God", you have committed this sin by saying "There is nothing wrong with CCM, Nor NIV, nor Christmas". You added to the word of God by making this statement. None of these words or statements are found in any Bible anywhere. Pro 30:6 "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
     
  20. Bookborn

    Bookborn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    tinytim said,

    "Again Psa 12:6-7 are taken out of context.

    Taking a verse out of context is the same as adding to or removing it.

    There is nothing wrong with CCM, Nor NIV, nor Christmas. "

    There are 31,102 verses in the King James Bible.
    Of course it was quoted OUT OF CONTEXT. The ONLY WAY TO QUOTE SOMETHING IN CONTEXT IS TO PUT ALL 31,102 VERSES. Selah.
    That's the usual response to somebody who can't handle a verse. Well, you quoted that out of context.

    There's NOTHING wrong with CCM, NIV, or Christmas? Ha,ha.
    Is there anything wrong with Amy Grant saying she goes to nude beaches, enjoys other Christian's liberty that she smelled marijuana at her concerts? How about Elhanan the son of Jaar-Oregim killing Goliath in 2 Sam. 21:19 in the NIV. Is that wrong? (Hint: David killed Goliath). Is there anything wrong with the name "Christmas" (Hint: check a dictionary. Christ's MASS. Is Jesus' perpetual blood shed WRONG?)
    Even people who are pro-CCM, pro-NIV, and pro-Christmas wouldn't say THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM.

    Final question for you (regarding your logical fallacy of False Dilemma in Isaiah 61:1-2 and Luke 4:18-19). Both Jesus and the KJV were right. Let not your heart be troubled. Could Jesus Christ, God Almighty in the flesh, ADD to His words while on earth ('recovering of sight to the blind")? And wouldn't this make the religious leaders WANT TO KILL HIM (Luke 4:28,29)?
    Modern versions omit 'heal the broken hearted' in Luke 4:18 (NASB) for example.
    And... Your NIV that 'NOTHING' IS WRONG WITH...(HA,HA).
    "The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to preach good news to the poor.
    He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
    to release the oppressed..."

    What happend to "heal the brokenhearted"?

    You are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel (Mt. 23:24 KJV), mine friend.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...