Featured The Ooooh Song

Roby,

Respectfully but honestly, I know few people on this forum that are as interested as you are in debating...
Especially about this very subject.

While I value open discussion and looking at things from every angle, I know what I stand on and am convinced of, and am also willing to concede that others may disagree with me without personally offending me.
But I stop at the threshold of demeaning people for the translation that they prefer to use.

I hope that you are willing to do the same, sir.

I agree...

To me, it's called the "Authorized" and I feel that it's the best.
If I had to pick another, it might be the "KJV 2000" or one of the other "ports" of the AV into modern English.

You are, of course, free to disagree and I promise not to be offended.

 

And that's why He continues to cause translations in our English to be made,
because He knows that one good one in the modern English of today is simply not possible?

Roby...
Are you listening to yourself?
Are we there yet, my friend?
No.
Do you think we'll ever get there?

Today's kids can read the English of 100 years ago with no trouble,
yet we continue to have new translations in the English pop out of the oven every 5 years, on average...
Most of them within the past 30-40 years.

Do you see anything strange in that?
I do.
But hey...
We've already discussed it in other threads and you still disagree.

I'm OK with that.
Despite our disagreements, I wish you well ( as always ), good sir.

 

Um, it's a metaphor, not a parable.

 

Yes, it was God - the Word is God - God is Spirit, and His message, I mean His Word, was sent to Moses through Michael, who is One in God the Father, and in JESUS.

Moses was face to face with Michael, the Archangel; and Michael talk and revealed many things to Moses from God, even the summoning Moses to bring the Hebrew people out of Egypt- Exodus 3:v.10.

The long dialogue between Michael and Moses, it can be seen and read by God's people, as a whole, in Exodus chapters 3 and 4, and so on.

Michael introduced himself to Moses with the Power he had received from God - the Word - He was One in God the Father and in JESUS. Actually, in that moment Moses needed to know, and feel, and see, and fear the Power of God, and when Michael said:"I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob", in fact Michael was accredited by God Himself - Exodus 23: v.21 - to present himself that way not only to Moses at that moment, but at all times. That's how Michael introduced himself ALSO to Joshua after Moses' death. Joshua 5:v.13-15. God Himself did give unto him this support.

Oh it is evident Michael could not make holy that ground, you should knew, equally as Michael already knew, that that place was already holy since a long time, for God - the Word is God - had already chosen Mount Sina according His will, whose Mount would go to correspond to the Sara's Egyptian slave or servant of Sarah, and to the Jerusalem of this present time or which now is, and is in bondage with her childre

 

IF this is not 100% True, and the likes of the NWT used by the JW's are included as "Inspired" and other "translations", then we have "Bibles" that are NOT the Word of God! Some here argue that man-made translations like the KJV are Inspired but the Holy Spirit, which must make the KJV 100% error free, which it most certainly is NOT! Then we save some editions of the LXX and Latin Vulgate the include the books of the Apocrypha, like the Roman Catholic bible has, which teaches HERESIES like purgatory; are these translations also "Inspired" by the Holy Spirit? If not, then why not?

 

I won't diss your choice to use the KJV, but I use it very little myself. When I witness, I'd rather convey the messages of the pertinent Scriptures in the language both I & my audience uses, & not hafta stop & explain the meaning of a passage that's in obscure, archaic language.

The NKJV is a KJV remake in MODERN English that corrects many of the KJV's goofs such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

 

The authorization of a human king for God's word doesn't mean squat. If one wants to ger technical, the ONLY "authorized English version is the "Great Bible" made by COMMAND of Henry VIII. KJ only gave the Anglican clerics permission to make a new Bible version in English.

It's the LANGUAGE that changes, not the meanings of Scripture. The KJV was made for the British of 400 years ago. The NKJV is made for TODAY'S English users.

The MAIN thing I'm against is the false, man-made doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English version out there. That doctrine is clearly false & a myth. We point out the KJV's goofs & booboos to prove to diehard KJVOs that the KJV is not perfect.

 

What an imagination you have ! That was no more Michael in the burning bush than it was the pope ! And he would NOT have called himself GOD ! !

 

Oh, that is your imagination, no?

What does the Word of God say? The Word is God, understand?

Your answer makes remember 2Cor.13:v.8 - We can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth. God is Truth. You said that because you do not live, neither walk on the Truth. But the Lord left clear, saying: Mat.12:v.35-37 - 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Deuteronomy 18:v.20- The Word is God
The prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

 

Your stuff is all in vain, as GOD, not Michael, said from the burning bush, "I AM THE GOD...". Michael would NOT have said that !
Matter settled !

 

What prevails is the Word of God. The Word is God.

Exodus 7:v.1-2-CJB - Complete Jewish Bible
1 But Adonai said to Moshe, “I have put you in the place of God to Pharaoh, and Aharon your brother will be your prophet.
2 You are to say everything I order you,...


I quoted Scriptures literally, in which you have showed that believe not, and also you deny the written God's Word I have quoted LITERALLY.

Regarding the archangel Michael:

The powerful testimony of Stephen to the Jews, even him who saw JESUS sat at the right hand of God, while he was testifying as is written in Acts 7:v.30:

30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to Moses in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. 32 Saying, (LITERALLY) I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold. 34 ... And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.

35 This Moses ... God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the ANGEL WHICH APPEARED TO MOSES IN THE BUSH. 37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, LIKE UNTO ME; him shall ye hear.
38 This is he, that was in the CHURCH in the wilderness with the ANGEL which spake to Moses in the Mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

No, it is not settled. Who is speakng tghe Truth?

Deuteronomy 18:v.20- The Word is God
The prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

 

You simply refuse to deal with the FACT that no angel of GOD'S would DARE say, "I am the God..." Besides, the ground around the bush became holy. No angel can make holy ground.

 

In fact, your spirit simply refuse to confirm the written or the EXPRESS Word of God, unfortunatelly, and invents false literal conceptions of Scriptures. Your spirit abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him, when he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own.

What prevails is the express Word of God. The Word is God. God is the Truth. Thus says the Word of God: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them". Isaiah 8:v.20

It is not settled. Who is speaking Truth?
Deuteronomy 18:v.20- The Word is God
The prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods(god of this world-2Cor.4:v.4), even that prophet shall die.

 

What part of "I am the God..." don't you understand ? Please tell us what angel of God's would dare say that !

 

Have you not read the Word of God? The Word is God, He Himself sent His angel to give His message to Moses, and the God's angel spoke with Moses such as God had commanded him. By the way, this same angel, JESUS sent him to speak with John in the isle of Patmos, and to the churches too-Revelation 1:v.1 and 10-16 and 22:v.8-9and17. In fact he is an archangel.

Deuteronomy 18:v.20- The Word is God
The prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods(god of this world-2Cor.4:v.4), even that prophet shall die.

 

You're utterly smitten with your hooey.

 

What you say to me by your spirit means nothing, it is insignificant.

The worst are the words that you will hear from JESUS now at the Judgment. It is already written. Get ready. The Word is God. God is the Word made flesh.

 

All the words in typical present post-1900 KJV editions are not the same as the words in the 1611 edition.

There would be around 180 whole words added to post-1900 KJV editions that are not found in the 1611 edition, and around 45 words omitted in post-1900 KJV editions that are found in the original 1611-"He" edition.

It has not been soundly proven that all the changes to the 1611 edition were merely the correction of printing errors. Some scholars see some of the changes as correcting errors made by the KJV translators.

Historical evidence from the 1600's suggests that the 1611 rendering at 1 Corinthians 12:28 was a deliberate one in order to take away a rendering which had been used to advocate Presbyterian church government.

According to Thomas Hill’s 1648 sermon, one of the reported 14 changes made by a prelate or prelates to the text prepared by the KJV translators involved 1 Corinthians 12:28 (Six Sermons, p. 25). Since the 1611 edition’s rendering “helps in governments” is said to be introduced intentionally by a prelate or prelates, it cannot soundly be assumed to be the fault of the printer. “Helpers, governours” was the rendering of Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles at this verse. The 1557 Whittingham’s and 1560 Geneva Bible have a marginal note for helpers: “As Deacons” and a marginal note for governors: “As Elders.” The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible and a 1672 edition of the KJV have the following marginal note for helpers or helps: “the offices of deacons” and this marginal note for governours or governments: “He setteth forth the order of elders, which were the maintainers of the churches discipline.“ At this verse, the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible has these notes: “helps [that is, who take care of and help the poor and sick] governments, [that is, they that are appointed to keep the Church in good order, and to guide them, which are the elders, Rom. 12:8, 1 Tim. 5:17].”

Benjamin Hanbury quoted the following from the preface to the reader in the Just Defence of the Petition for Reformation that was printed in 1618: “1 Corinthians 12:28 is translated, both by the Genevan and former Church translation [Bishops’] ‘helpers, governors,‘ but the new translators, herein worse than the Rhemists, translate it ‘helps in governments;‘ foisting into the text this preposition ‘in.‘ Why? They cannot abide elders to assist the minister in governing Christ’s Church. So their churchwardens are but the prelates’ promoters” (Historical Memorials, I, p. 131). In his exposition of Ezekiel, William Greenhill (1598-1671) asserted that 1 Corinthians 12:28 “is faulty in this place, reading those words thus, ‘helps in government,‘ which was done to countenance all the assistants prelates had in their government” (p. 551). In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill maintained that helps in governments “is a most horrible prodigious violence to the Greek words; for they are both the accusative case, helps; there are elders; governments, there are deacons; now to obscure these, you must put it, helps in governments” (Six Sermons, p. 25).

In his 1593 book advocating that prelatic or Episcopal church government is apostolic, Bishop Thomas Bilson, who would be co-editor of the 1611 edition with Miles Smith, acknowledged that some use 1 Corinthians 12:28 as one verse that they cite for Presbyterian church government. Thomas Bilson wrote: “There remained yet one place where governors are named amongst ecclesiastical officers, and that is 1 Corinthians 12” (Perpetual Government, p. 197). Thomas Bilson wrote: “Why should they not be lay elders or judges of manners? Because I find no such any where else mentioned, and here none proved. Governors there were, or rather governments” (p. 199). Bilson claimed that “Chrysostom maketh ‘helps’ and governments’ all one” (p. 212). In 1641, George Gillespie maintained that “Chrysostom, expounding this place, doth not take helps and governments to be all one, as Bilson hath boldly, but falsely averred” (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 19). The 1611 edition of the KJV does exactly what Bishop Thomas Bilson suggested by connecting the words “helps” and “governments” with “in.” David Norton pointed out: “1611, uniquely and apparently without justification from the Greek, reads ‘helps in governments” (Textual History, p. 34).

Was this change deliberately and purposely introduced in order to attempt to take away a verse that had been used by those who advocated Presbyterian church government, making it a change with doctrinal implications? Did Bishop Bilson or other prelates take advantage of their positions of authority to attempt to undermine or obscure a favorite text used to support Presbyterian church government?

What truth of the original demanded that this doctrinal change be introduced into the 1611 edition? In 1641, Scottish reformer George Gillespie wrote: “We cannot enough admire how the authors of our new English translation were bold to turn it thus, ’helps in government,’ so to make one of two, and to elude our argument” (Assertion, p. 19). Andrew Edgar suggested that George Gillespie “recognized in these words a covert attack on the constitution of the Church of Scotland” (Bibles of England, p. 299, footnote 1). In 1646, George Gillespie wrote: “Whereas he [Mr. Hussey] thinks, helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles; antilepsis kubernesis was read thus, helps in governments: but afterwards, the prelates themselves were ashamed of it, and so printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, governments” (Aaron’s Rod, p. 103). Could the 1611 edition’s reading/rendering at 1 Corinthians 12:28 be considered to contain a change purposefully inserted into the text for doctrinal reasons?

 

Would that also mean that every word added by man and every error made by man in copying, in printing, or in translating would not be pure or do you try to claim that errors introduced be men are pure?

 

Are you suggesting that you are advocating following your personal opinion?