The MOST dangerous profession....

Yes, of course. The point is, that translation adds/removes *words*. That's what your objection to Rev 22:19 was, "words". Translations aim to preserve the *meaning* of the words, by replacing/adding/deleting words: words from one language to another. So again, I instead believe that Rev 22:18-19 is about adding/taking away *meaning*, not literal "words" - or else *any* translation is cause for damnation (and again, this is why Muslims won't accept translations of the Koran).

Why - because it carries the same *words* (which it doesn't, there are over 40,000 more words in the KJV NT than in the TR), or because it carries the same *meaning*?

 

Nope, just the only inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God, the King James Bible.

I’m glad that I could be your comic relieve for tonight. But, you all talk about the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts. Why? We don’t have the originals, so what is the use? Why not use the King James Bible that God has supplied us with for over 400 years, knowing that not all manuscripts are from God. You may laugh at me, but I laugh at you. You thing we must know Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic just to know who God is and what God wants us to know about all other things. Do you stand behind your pulpit and look at all the people who don’t know Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic and laugh at them?

WOW! Then we can put all of the bible versions aside and call Pastor Larry because he has Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts that is the final authority for all bible versions. Wait a minute…isn’t there over 5000+ mss? You have them all, the originals? I don’t think so.

How much do these so-called mss cost? Why waste my time trying to read Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts when I have God’s preserved word found in the King James Bible? Again I ask, those in your church, how many know Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic? Do you tell them that they cannot understand God’s word unless they know Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic?

 

For a KJVO'er to assert this contradicts the KJVO position, since the form of English we speak today is not the English of the KJV. If an NIVO or NASBO made this assertion, it might hold some water. But ultimately, a KJVO, NIVO or NASBO position is unbiblical and heretical.

 

Luke says Jesus read from the Scripture.
He said He opened the book, found the Isaiah passage, BUT the passage which Jesus read adds the words "and recovering of sight to the blind" NOT FOUND in the Masoretic text or the KJB corresponding passage in Isaiah, but FOUND in the LXX. Then Jesus "closed the book" without saying anything about the added words.

This wasn't Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit changing the Scripture it was Jesus reading from a version of the Scripture which had words added to it by a scribe, or the Hebrew texts we now have has the words deleted.
It has to be one or the other (or perhaps someone has a better explanation).

20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture. fulfilled in your ears.

Jesus called the passage with the extra words "Scripture", these extra words are found in the LXX here and not in the Masoretic text.

HankD

 

Nope, just the only inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God, the King James Bible.

"Inspired"-According to the AV translatoes themselves, they were NOT inspired.

"Infallible"-The word of God is infallible in ANY language or valid version.

"Inerrant"-It's been amply demonstrated that there ARE some booboos in the KJV.

"The only"-This is a phrase that you cannot even BEGIN to prove in reference to the KJV. Why post such a gaffe?

 

That is correct, THEY did not believe that they were inspired, but God did. Maybe the KJB translators meant this in a humbling way.

Curious, you said valid version. What authority makes one valid?

When you compare non-perfection to perfection, of course you have booboos. Who has demonstrated? There has never been any factual prove that there are errors in the King James Bible.

Because it’s my conviction that the King James Bible is God’s “only” inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God. If you don’t believe that then please tell me what you believe.

 

>> That is correct, THEY did not believe that they were inspired, but God did. Maybe the KJB translators meant this in a humbling way.

or maybe they were prophesying tacitly the coming of WH, who wld be the two final witnesses to confirm God's Word to the English-speaking world.

yeah, just "maybe"

>> Curious, you said valid version. What authority makes one valid?

if even the KJB's testimony is rejected, what hope can anyone have of finding a valid authority? just when the evidence is presented, maybe they were just trying to be humble!

>> When you compare non-perfection to perfection, of course you have booboos. Who has demonstrated? There has never been any factual prove that there are errors in the King James Bible.

ostriches have always managed to explain away any n all imperfections. "what imperfections?" imagine what KJBOs wld say if there were at least 136 substantial differences betw the 1611KJB n the 1881Revision. o wait a minute, didn't that figure come fr comparing another revision?

>> Because it’s my conviction that the King James Bible is God’s “only” inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God. If you don’t believe that then please tell me what you believe.

i think the quote marks around "only" is ironic, n apropos.

me? i believe we can leave out the "only" bit. version-onlyism only insults the KJB's teaching abt NT quotations of the OT n leads one back to Romanist Vulgate-onlyism.

the Scriptures r inspired, infallible, n inerrant. nuff said!

 

Does the Bible ever mention a time when God spoke through someone and he or she didn't notice it? It would seem that if the translators were being directly inspired by God, they'd know it - after all, those are His words, right? That just doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Yes it does mention it.

From "The Answer Book" by Dr. S. Gipp.

When John the Baptist was accosted by the Levites in John chapter one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ plainly stated that John was Elijah.
Did John the Baptist lie? No. Did Jesus Christ lie? Of course not. The answer is very simply that John was Elijah but he didn't know it! Thus we see from our Bible example that a man can have God working through him and not know it. Likewise, God could easily have divinely directed the King James translators without their active knowledge.

 

Here's a much better explanation than thinking that John didn't know he was being used by God (How could he not? Would he not have remembered the prophecy given to him?)

Elijah is not John the Baptist

The Old Testament promised that Elijah would come to the Jewish people. Some who believe in reincarnation think this is what occurred with John the Baptizer being the fulfillment of Elijah's coming.

The Angel Gabriel announced to Zecharias that his son's name would be called John in Luke 1:13. He goes on to say in verse 15 that he will be great in the sight of the Lord and “shall drink no wine or strong drink and will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb.” Verse 17 says of John, “he will also go before Him (The Lord) in the Spirit and power of Elijah,” which is a ministry of reconciliation, would have the “hearts of the fathers turned to the children and children turning to their fathers.”

To claim that Elijah is John the Baptist is to teach reincarnation. The premise is that a spirit in a former body comes back to be born in another body. At the very least, it is transmigration. The Bible has never taught this.

In Matthew 11:13, Jesus states: “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.” (Jesus calls him “John” not “Elijah.” Elijah is included with 'all the prophets' who came before John. In verse 14, Jesus says “and if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.” John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt and preached in the wilderness. This was the same attire that Elijah wore (2 Kings 1:8), bringing attention to the Jews of the similarity of John's mission to that of Elijah's. Prophecy has many patterns and sometime dual or more fulfillments.

Malachi had predicted that before the Messiah's appearing, Elijah would come as a forerunner (Mal. 4:5-in relation to the day of the Lord). If the people had been willing to receive Jesus as the Messiah, then John would have filled the role of Elijah. Jesus then tells them to heed His words. If John fulfills Elijah's coming then Jesus is the Messiah.

Jesus pointed to John the Baptist as the fulfillment of Elijah's coming but he was not a reincarnation.

This is proven in John 1:20 when the Jews sent out the priests and Levites to investigate John's ministry. They ask him if he is the Christ. He states emphatically “No!” They ask him again if he is Elijah, John answers “I am not.” This is not a temporary memory loss for John that Jesus has to correct later. In verse 25, John the Baptist is asked, ‘Why do you baptize if you are not the Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet?’ In verses 25-27 John points to the Messiah who is coming after him. He states that it is he who is the forerunner of Malachi 3:1. In Luke 1:76, we see that John's father, Zecharias, is filled with the Holy spirit and says that his child will be called the prophet of the highest and will “go before the face of the Lord and prepare His ways again.' This relates John's ministry to Mal. 3:1, 4:5, and Luke 1:17. John labored in the same Spirit and power of the former prophet by calling people to repentance and he was preparing them for the salvation that Christ would later bring.

In Mal.4:5 we are told the prophet Elijah will come before the great and terrible day of the Lord (the tribulation). In Luke 4:18 when Jesus stood up in the temple and quoted Isa.61:1-2 he stopped at proclaiming the acceptable year of the lord and did not read of the day of vengeance of our God. This is reserved for the tribulation period in which Elijah will preach before the day of the Lord! Which makes it clear that John could not be Elijah for it was not the Day of Vengeance; it still is in the future. Again, if we go back to what the angel Gabriel said: he (John) would come “in the spirit and power” of Elijah (Luke 1:17), coming in this ministry does not make him literally Elijah the prophet.

One of the strongest testimonies that John is not Elijah is on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3; Luke 9:30; Mark 9:4-5). Elijah and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him as Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist. One must either concede that they are 2 different people or that John the Baptist turned back into Elijah. Again, this would promote reincarnation or transmigration of a spirit going from one body to another. The Bible does not teach either. If one insists on this view then they must deal with II kings 2 where in vs. 9 Elisha asks for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit upon himself. He is promised this will be so if he sees his mentor taken to heaven. In vs. 11-12 he does see this event and Elijah's mantle falls on Elisha. In vs. 14 he struck the water and it divided just as it did before with Elijah. The Sons of the prophets see this and say, “The Spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha.” If Elijah’s spirit was upon Elisha then he was not taken to heaven! John had the same Spirit upon him that Elijah did. This did not change Elisha to be Elijah but gave him the same authority through the ministry of the Spirit. If one is going to use the Scripture that John the Baptizer literally came in the Spirit and power of Elijah then how did he rest on Elisha and become a double portion no less. Obviously verse 9 this means in like ministry, and function, to having authority. John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah,” the similarity being his fiery preaching and being in the wilderness (Luke 1:17; John 10:41). There are patterns that repeat themselves in the scriptures as a certain aspect is expressed in different people.

Let’s now sum up this unbiblical view. In II Kings 2:1, we find Elijah taken bodily into Heaven. For one to enter Heaven they must be transformed (1 Cor. 15:50-54) and changed to an immortal body, a body which is no longer subject to death since corruptible flesh cannot enter into Heaven. If Elijah came back as John the Baptist, and was killed, this would be impossible according to Scripture. For one who has had a changed body to be equipped for Heaven, does not turn back to mortality. If we look at it more carefully in II Kings 2:11 Elijah never experienced physical death so for him to come back in another body means he reincarnated not only in Spirit but in body too, and the Bible never teaches either one of these. Elijah did not die, so the Scripture is not talking about his reincarnation as John the Baptist (2 Kings 2:1,11).

It's obvious that when Jesus spoke in Matt. 11:13-14, concerning John being “Elijah who is to come.” He was not speaking in a solid, literal sense. Jesus was metaphorically comparing 2 different things that also shared some similarities and functions. The Jewish scriptures always taught resurrection, not reincarnation. Each person is given 1 body to live in and will be reunited with that same body in the resurrection. When one takes the whole body of scripture instead of isolating verses, we find the consistent teaching that refutes any concept of Elijah becoming John the Baptist and then becoming Elijah again.


---------
http://www.letusreason.org/NAM2.htm

 

Well, I guess then some countries will be condemned to hell because they do not have Revelation in their Bibles. But one of those countries I am aware of is on fire. The secular society will shut down the schools to have an assembly when someone wants to share the gospel. Can we do that in the US? I know because I have a friend that has been there for 26 years and just left to return toi the US. His children have had a hard time adjusting to the pseudo church in America. They see the church as very lukewarm here. They had gone through communism when it was illegal to witness and to have more than four unrelated people in your home. All the time informants would show up at their Bible studies.

So how does the church in the US stack up? It has all the books except the second and third letters to the Corinthians. Also where is the letter to the church of Laodicea? I guess not much ever happened until the books of James and Hebrews were accepted in the canon too.

 

I'm not too worred about it. I can say with much certainty that the verse is talking only about the book of Revelation. Besides, my trust is in Christ, so that's all that I need. I don't have to rely upon a belief in whether or not a word or two is added or taken away in Revelation to be sure of my salvation.

 

If a is a member of set B,
and if set B is a member of set C;
Then a is a member of set C.

If a is contained in set B,
and if set B is contained in set C;
Then a is containted in set C.

Both statements are the same, for
"member of" and "contained in" mean
the same, in this context.

Say you replace "Christ" with "Messiah".
Is this not the same as removing "Christ"
and adding "Messiah"?

So the rules are broken twice by a simple
substitution? I don't think so

Is it alright to remove that which has
been wrongly added?
Is it alrilght to add that which has
been wrongly removed?
I think so.



ANd Happy New year!!

 

Timothy 1769: "I hold to the KJV as a faithful
and accurate translation, without error,
providentially provided by God for English speaking people."

God bless you. YOu know the KJV1769 was good English
probably for 100 years until the KJV1873 came along.

I hold to the KJV as a faithful
and accurate translation, without error,
providentially provided by God for English speaking people
of the 18th Century (1701-1800).

I hold to the nKJV as a faithful
and accurate translation, without error,
providentially provided by God for English speaking people
of the 21th Century (2001-2100).

I hold to the ASV as a faithful
and accurate translation, without error,
providentially provided by God for American
English speaking people of the 20th Century (1901-2000).

 

Forget it

Take whatever the Lord gives you from it and I will do the same.



HankD

 

At the time John wrote Revelation, how could he have known his Apocalypse would be the last book in the English Bible? I think the stricture is intended only for his writing. Notice how the verse says "prophecy" and we all know the entire Bible is not prophetic.

 

Yes but personally, I'de rather believe the written witness of the KJ Bible translators than a "could have".

Why would God give them the power of "re-inspiration" and then confuse people about it in the Intro?

HankD