Tampering With the Word of God

For Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert I think it meant Pay the Lady.

 

Just in case anyone doesn't know or remember, the phrase "God forbid" is a phrase which occurs 24 times in the KJB (Both OT/NT).

However, only in one place is the word "God" used in this phrase.

The KJV translators were fond of this expression and they took the liberty of using the word "God" in the English text where it did not appear in the Hebrew or Greek phrase (with one exception).

They clearly "Added" to the Word of God.

KJV Job 27:5 God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me.

NKJ Job 27:5 Far be it from me That I should say you are right; Till I die I will not put away my integrity from me.


KJV Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

NKJ Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

There is a similar situation with the phrase "would to God" in the KJB.

The KJVO justify this violation of by the use of the phrase "dynamic equivalence!!", a phrase which normally they equate with the antichrist.

So, "dynamic equivalence" is fine when it comes to the KJ Bible translators additions to the text but an anathema for everyone else.

HankD

 

"The scriptural policy for the Word of God is - HANDS OFF ! Take it just as it is, or do not take it t all. Leave the ivory-towered scholarship to the theological infidels."

In other words, take YOUR fave ivory-towered scholars' word for it, without question?

 

Robycop, the first quote is a quote from kidz.

He doesn't realize it but he has condemned himself by his statement.

He has violated his own advice by taking the word of the 1611 King James Bible translators. A committee of men who were educated in their scholarship in the learning institutes of the Anglo and Roman Catholic theology.

These men held several heretical doctrine (e.g. minesterial priesthood, paedo-baptism) even as they translated the King James Version of the Bible.

In fact, the Church of England was in violation (either in doctrine or practice) of all of the Baptists distinctives at the time of the translation and publication of the Bible in 1611.


HankD

 

Hank, I have to disagree,
Even tho I use other bibles, your history on the K.J.V. translators is off.The translators tried to correct the Roman Catholics corruption in the texts.Not promote it!Why do you think the puritians were so upset,and wanted change?
They did prior, beleive in sprinkling for Baptism.
Only because scripture from the Catholic church taught it.And only the church Bishop was aloud to have access to scripture.Therefore the translators went back to the Manuscripts,or texts, and corrected the errors. alot of the translaters did take a Catholic postion at first, but soon took a differant approach to the scriptures, which lead to Tyndales death.For exsample.

 

The Church of England has always been divided into "high" and "low" factions. The high Church predominated by the aristocracy and clergy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Church

The high Church of England desires to this very day most of the dogma (divorce excepted as an example) and liturgy of Rome without recognizing the Pope as "Pontifex Maximus". Some however do and have always sought reunion with Rome.

Out of the High Church of England came the 1611 King James Bible which is manifest in the introduction, the prologue and the inclusion of the Church of Rome Scripture, the Apocrypha.

HankD

 

Kidz-4-HIM: "The Bible claims PLENARY VERBAL INSPRIRATION (complete word-for-word)
for itself, and DIVINE PRESERVATION of those words Ps 12:6-7. "

Actually Psalms 12:6-7 promises divine preservation on
some people, not on some words.

I missed the part where the Bible claims
PLENARY VERBAL INSPRIRATION (PVI).

Kidz-4-HIM: "To change the words will change the meanings of and
thus the teaching (cf. Jer 1:9, 11:6).

The changing words = changing meanings equation is NOT a
true representation of the physical world. I'm sorry, but
if what you say does not correctly reflect the real
world, especially the easy to understand physical world,
then the believeablity of your statements decline rapidly.
That is just the way things are in the real world: both
the physical real world and the spiritual real world.
Get real, Dude.
Oh, BTW, your proof texts don't prove your statement.

Kidz-4-HIM: //Thus to change "Joseph" to "his father" in Luke 2:33
(see any modern version) weakens the doctrine of
the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.//

I disagree. I believe the doctrine of the virgin birth of
our Lord Jesus Christ is enhansed by the MV reading.

Sorry, you mangled this paragraph so bad i see no reason
to read the rest of your initial message.

 

Proverbs 30:6

 

Proverbs 30

6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

In the words of the apostle Paul "God forbid".

HankD

 

Amen! NKJV Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

NSAB Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

NLT Do not add to his words, or he may rebuke you, and you will be found a liar.

ASV Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

RSV Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

LV ne addas quicquam verbis illius et arguaris inveniarisque mendax

 

I agree with Kidz-4-HIM, but I disagree with you because MVs on Luke 2:33 show that Jesus is a sinner.

 

ASV agrees with the KJV; NASV disagrees with ASV, not the KJV.

 

Tell Wycliffe your complaint against "God forbid."

 

Amen! NKJV Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

NSAB Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

NLT Do not add to his words, or he may rebuke you, and you will be found a liar.

ASV Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

RSV Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

LV ne addas quicquam verbis illius et arguaris inveniarisque mendax

</font>[/QUOTE]Modern versions ADDED non-inspired, unpreserved words in the New Testament only about 180 times!

 

I can't He's dead but nevertheless askjo you have indicted him as well as the KJV translators with your Scripture passage not I.

That is the point I am making, NO translation is without flaws. When you point the finger at the MV's stop and think about who else is guilty.

You don't even realize that most of the time I am basically in agreement with you.

All that I ask is that you use the same standard for everyone. Then and only then can we get to the real issue.

HankD

 

My belief and your belief differ slightly. Most of time we agree each other.

 

True!

However, our belief method of delivery varies considerably.

HankD

 

It seems as if there is a considerable network lag.

Someone should inform the webmaster or DBA.
Although the message went through OK.

HankD

 

Proverbs 30:6 </font>[/QUOTE]Aint no proof of the exclusivity of the KJV-can be applied to any version. Some ole KJVO stuff-an unprovable statement.

 

Proverbs 30:6 </font>[/QUOTE]Aint no proof of the exclusivity of the KJV-can be applied to any version. Some ole KJVO stuff-an unprovable statement. </font>[/QUOTE]Isn't Proverbs 30:6 in every BV?