The Gipper shoulda stuck to football...

--------------------------------------------------
How about the truth?

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

Matt.7, Luke 12:27-40,John 8:31-32, 14, 16,17 ,Acts 24-29, Gal.1, Heb.11,

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The Bible For Today website has #1442. You need to look for this number. Order it for yourself. </font>[/QUOTE]I prefer my own observations to those
of Rev. D.A.Waite. Here are my observations
about the 1984 New King James Version (nKJV).

1. the most frequent comment against the
nKJV is against the Triskelion symbol on
the title page. Not that symbols on the
title page have anthing to do with the
accuracy of the translation, but it is the
most common objection to the nKJV.

2. I have been a Christian for the last
52 years, since April 1952. I have seen
the rise of 99.9% of the KJVonly movement.
In the late 1970s the KJVOs of the time
said that if a translation was made
from the Textus Receptus (TR), then it would
be accepted as a valid substitute for the
KJV1679. nKJV did that. It was not accepted.
In fact, the way that the KJV1769-onlyiests
rejected it, the KJV1769-onllyists can never
have another Bible. Their Bible can never
be improved, never be changed, never be
converted into the language of the people.

Sorry folks, that is the way history came down
and i saw it myself. Let me tell you a sad
story. Some of the translators of the nKJV were
Baptists. The translators of the KJV1611
(the real translators, not the respellers)
were sons of Baptist killers. The translators
of the nKJV represented the major denominations
in the USofA. They were aware of the
Westcott/Hort collection (not translation)
of the Greek source of the New Testament.
The translators of the nKJV put the
Westcott/Hort variations in the FOOTNOTES.
The nKJV translators practices the same truths
that the original KJV tranlators used:
admitting in the margin notes that the
sources themselves vary. But no, the terminally
dense KJVOs don't like margin notes. My theory
is that margine notes are beyond their
understanding. Like the ones described in
2 Peter 2, the ones who can't figure out the
margin notes NOR explaine the margin notes
to others are in a deep panic about the
margin notes. Here is a quick lowdown
on the KJV1611 margine notes (they are
sidenotes, not footnotes, in the original).

1. "Or" means there is more than
one good way to translate a source language
term. I know in modern Greek "o-he" means
"yes", "no", "hi", "um hum", etc. No one
English word is even close.

2. "Heb." means a variation in the
Old Testament source. Most the O.T. sources
are in Hebrew, but the LXX source is in Greek.

3. "Gr." means a variation in the
New Testament source. Most of the N.T. sources
are in Greek, but certain early Latin
and Syric sources are also used.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Yep. William Tyndale coined the word in translating the OT. If he'd had more time to revise his NT, he probably would have excised Easter from it entirely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow, this really amazes me. God has given so many people today this amazing ability to be able to know what it is people from the past "thought" or "would have" done.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

That's nothing compared to the your efforts to dictate to God the way His Word must be preserved and communicated... in spite of the evidence He has given that contradicts your beliefs.

 

Well, brothers & sisters in Christ love God's Word: the accuracy AND the inaccuracy. I wonder why MOST of them love the inaccurate Word of God. </font>[/QUOTE]Simply not true. Roby takes the same position as the AV translators, "a variety of translations is profitable for gaining the sense of the Scriptures"...(they, quoting Augustine)

 

Michelle,

I love Scripture as well as anyone, but slinging it around is not impressing anyone.

If you won't answer questions, then don't. But why take up so much space trying to show how well you can cut-and-paste. We all know how to look up references, not that it matters since you keep posting the same old ones that have been repeatedly shown to not support your claims.

If you're gonna debate, debate. Otherwise, go home.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

The combing of two words, "pass" and "over" hence, "Passover" </font>[/QUOTE]oops! I just reread my post and noticed it should've read "combining"

 

So what-or who did Herod worship? Islam was not even in the area yet..

 

He worshipped Ishtar(Asteroth,Ashtoreth),as the Scripture I quoted in page two reflects...

Easter is correct!!

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, I patiently and closely read Acts 12 that you posted, in several different versions, and there's simply NOT ONE WORD about herod's religion. This is simply another of your non-sequitur replies, where you're actually trying to cover up the fact that you're CLUELESS in Scriptural proof for your KJVO stuff, instead of providing any correct answers.

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


Acts 12
21. And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.
22. And the people gave a shout, saying, it is the voice of a god, and not of a man.
23. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.


Do you see it now? Was he worshipping God? Was he worshipping as a Jew? What was it that he said to cause the people to say he was a god and not a man? Why is it he was not stoned by the people? What is religion robycop? What other scriptures have similiar stories to this? What other religions appear as this? Do you know what pagan Easter is about?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Herod was intent on pleasing the Jews (Acts 12:3). He waited until the week of Passover was over, for killing someone during the Passover week, or worshipping Istar, would NOT please the Jews.