Why not admit you have no inspired Bible?

Sorry Michelle but it is the same thing. Faithful MV's (especially the formal equivalency ones) say the same thing as the KJV with different words.

If you will look closely at Luke 4:18 vs Isaiah 61:1, the wording is different even if you don't consider whole phrases. No problem unless you are looking to make one up. Same thing with the various word choices of faithful Bible versions... there is no problem until someone desires to make one up.

Your statement assumes facts not in evidence. First, the KJV does not contain the "original" words... not even in English. It primarily borrowed phrasing from earlier translations.

Second, you assume without evidence that the KJV word is the most accurate and therefore any change results in a watering down of the intensity. This is actually demonstrably false. There are places where MV's use words that are more intense and accurate.

They aren't changing anything Michelle. They are translating. Some MV's used the KJV and other earlier versions for guidance but the authority goes back to the original language text. The word translated "deceived" in the NASB is likewise translated "deceived" many times in the KJV. The better question to ask is why the KJV was inconsistent in translating the word God Himself inspired. The "morning star" translation requires some explanation but if you look at the arguments presented on this use on the BB, there is no need for you to consider this a "major problem."

That is because we don't use double standards. We use the same logic to explain the apparent problems in MV's as is used by YOU and US to explain apparent problems in the KJV. If you were biblically consistent in your thinking, these "problems" wouldn't be major problems for you either.

One of the amazing things I have noted over the past couple of years here is that KJVO's won't open their eyes to the purpose of the examples we give from the KJV. I don't think that the KJV has unexplainable problems. What I want you all to do is to apply the same understanding of apparent problems in MV's (or between the versions) as you do to the KJV.

God inspired the Bible in languages of His choosing through men of His choosing. You don't have to like it... but that makes the writings of those men and the languages they wrote in authoritative per God Himself.

I have been here for a few years now... and no KJVO has ever come close to proving that MV's and the KJV do not say the same things. That is simply untrue. They teach the same doctrines and reveal the same God and Savior.

I would suggest my prayer to you. I don't pray that God will show you the truth. Rather, I pray that He will show me the truth if I am wrong and you all the truth if you are wrong. I am not opposed to changing my view at all if I am wrong... but there has to be a basis for this "faith". None of you have shown it from either scripture or history.


Bump to Michelle... I am really interested in your answers.

Bump to Michelle again...

 

I'm not Orvie,
he can speak for himself. I have answer:
Yes we have an inspired, inerrant Bible.

Will: "If Yes, then what is it called, the nasb, niv, esv, rsv, nkjv, or what?"

Yes. I looked at a NASB and found the
Bible there. I looked in a NIV and found
the Bible there. I looked in Third
Millennium Bible (TMB) and found the
Bible there. I looked in a 21st Century King
James (KJ21) and found the Bible there.
I looked in a KJV1611 and found the Bible
there. I looked in a nKJV and found the
Bible there. I looked in a TODAY'S
PARALLEL BIBLE and found four Bibles
there: KJV1873, NIV, NASB, and NLT.

I believe God in His bountiful Divine
Providence has left 100s of the
Bible in many of the English languages:
an inerrant, inspired hyper-blessing.
The milage of others may vary.

 

"It" was "written"? Did Jesus say "it" anywhere in Luke 4?

I believe it's rather "outrageous" and "bizarre" to even think for a moment this passage is "proof" of the Lord's approval of other versions. Yall are demanding a word for word quotation and that is NEVER even hinted to.

If anything this passage proves is that Jesus expounded on what He read from Isaih a little and yall seem to try and command Him that He can't do that!

Yall"s premise is based on nothing but pure speculation and presumption. Jesus has proven by what He said that He was relating the meaning of the Scripture and revealing Himself as the Auithor and the Executor of the actions spoken of by prophesy in Isaiah. Get that, "ISAIAH"?

Why would this be our "Waterloo"? Napolean is dead and has been for centuries. We're not the ones scratching our itch here, yall are! You're having to unbutton your vest, insert your hand into the scritpturee, and scratch at something that really isn't there, it's in your ear where the real itch is.

 

Cranston:"But OF COURSE He can! But remember, Jesus was reading to a skeptical audience, as the rest of Luke 4 clearly shows. These people did not believe Jesus is God. Had He changed one jot or tittle of what was written, this crowd would've instantly gone ballistic."

You're the only one going ballistic here. You seem to try and deny that the ones in attendence weren't as you like to describe them. Also taking this passage and trying to justify other versions is more than a simple stretchy of the imagination. You seem to be trying to FORCE Jesus to be saying something He never said.

These Jews didn't know the scripture all too well. They often added to, or took away from the letter of the Law. Even the pharisees only boasted a working knowledge of the scriptures Jesus often had to reprove them and correct their traditions adopted by men and show them the real meaning of scripture, just like He is trying to show yall now.

Yall keep adding meaning to this scripture that just isn't there, sorry.

 

"Precept: Your making it a LONG stretch because actually you read different places in the Bible. I think Luke is extremely clear that Jesus read a scripture."

No, Sir, Jesus read "the" Scripture from "the" place in Isaiah. You're stretching this into something that is just not ever said in the passage.

Yall will NEVER figure this out, will you? No. your bias and obsession in trying to "prove" other versions is run away with your minds and you cannot come to the knowledge of the Truth, sorry.

"Now, let's just use plain old common horse-sense. Why would Jesus confuse his crowd by skipping around and leaving verses out? Its because he didn't."

Oh, O.K., Now I see the problem, yall are using "horse-sense" top concoct this menagerie, no wonder yall are so confused.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Scott J quoted:

Your statement assumes facts not in evidence. First, the KJV does not contain the "original" words... not even in English. It primarily borrowed phrasing from earlier translations.
--------------------------------------------------


If you believe that the Bible does not contain the very words of God, then you are not believing and trusting his promise to you, and others. I believe him, and not you, or any other scholar or person. I know that God Almighty himself is faithful and true and keeps his promise, and when he tells us repeatedly in his word of truth that man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD, then I will with all my heart and strength believe it, share it, and live it and stand for it. It is up to you, to believe him or not. Apparently you don't.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Do you think that the KJV contains the EXACT words of God - for example, did God say in English, "Let there be light?" If you do not, then the KJV doesn't use the EXACT words of God. If you do, well, then I feel sorry for you, honestly.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Scott J quoted:

They aren't changing anything Michelle. They are translating. Some MV's used the KJV and other earlier versions for guidance but the authority goes back to the original language text. The word translated "deceived" in the NASB is likewise translated "deceived" many times in the KJV. The better question to ask is why the KJV was inconsistent in translating the word God Himself inspired. The "morning star" translation requires some explanation but if you look at the arguments presented on this use on the BB, there is no need for you to consider this a "major problem."
--------------------------------------------------

You still really don't get it or see it do you? My authority goes with what God has preserved for me today, in my Bible that he has been so wonderful and faithful to provide me, and all else in our own language. I praise God daily for this great blessing!

You can believe in a God that can be decieved, and you can also believe in a God that refers to himself as the morning star, while at the same time refering by reference of that same title to that of Satan. Go right ahead. The God I believe in and trust in however, informs me that Satan is Lucifer, and Jesus Christ is the morning star, and there is not one indication of blasphemy. My God cannot be decieved, but many may flatter him with thier mouths, and lie with their tongues, as we also can see indicated in many other places of the scriptures, that their lips/mouths gave honour to him, but their hearts were far from him. And what was the most horrible thing that our Saviour could say to them?

Matthew 7:22-23

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Looks like they did flatter him with their mouth, but most definately did not decieve him in any way, shape or form -and look at the end of them.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

ScottJ,

God is the creator of all things. Yes, this also includes LANGUAGES. God has preserved his word, and I can hold his VERY WORDS in the english language that he meant for me, in my very hands, and not DOUBT ANY OF IT for one moment. You said you feel sorry for me? No need to feel sorry for me, for I believe the Lord and that he will keep and has kept his promise to all generations, as he said he would. This includes his EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD preserved for me personally in my OWN LANGUAGE. Praise God, for he is a wonderful and faithful Lord.

love in Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The Bible contains the Word and words of God but not a translation. God chose three languages and English was not one of them.

 

Yes. According to Luke 4:21, "this scripture" (= "it," v. 17, = "the place," v. 17) which was written (v. 17) was fulfilled in the *ears* of those in the synagogue because Jesus read "it" aloud to them (v. 16).

You're obviously not going to be convinced on this point, since evidently when it comes to a choice between the plain meaning of the KJV and your adherence to the KJV-Only dogma, you'll choose the dogma over the KJV every time.

 

And what you're insinuating is then an impossiblility altogether. God spoke to holy men and inspired them to pen down in their language what God spoke to them. You try to say God spoke in these three: Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, but you have absolutely NO proof of that. All you have is a varied mass of MSS and are not exactly sure which are actually the Words of God. But then they can't be God's Word, you NEVER actually heard God speak so then you don't know anything certain if they are, or they are not, the actual Words of Him. You have now admitted that YOU have NO inspired Bible, Thank You for finally confessing this before all. By your estimation, NNE HAS THE WORDS OF GOD!

So then you should resign your position at OFBC, because you can't teach what God said in any language, because all languages are of men and not God. God speaks through inspiration. He only spoke audibly a couple of times, and not the entirety of scripture.

You lose.

 

Blah, blah, blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah-blah,blah,blah.

Orvie is an interpeter of unknown tongues, if you would like to know what I said ask him.

 

Yes. According to Luke 4:21, "this scripture" (= "it," v. 17, = "the place," v. 17) which was written (v. 17) was fulfilled in the *ears* of those in the synagogue because Jesus read "it" aloud to them (v. 16).

You're obviously not going to be convinced on this point, since evidently when it comes to a choice between the plain meaning of the KJV and your adherence to the KJV-Only dogma, you'll choose the dogma over the KJV every time. </font>[/QUOTE]First you have to make a point before any one can be convinced of "it", and you haven't. Also you are adding to the Word of God by saying the pasage is "proof" that Jesus was reading from another version of Isaiah, not true, and until you stop adhering to your mv dogma"s" you'll never have an inspired Bible, you'll only have a portion of what thus saith the Lord and will never be exactly sure what God said.

We conclude that YOU have NO inspired Bible.

You lose

 

Precepts, you bring up a great point.

"You try to say God spoke in these three: Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, but you have absolutely NO proof of that."


being that the mv lovers place so much emphasis on how we no longer have the originals but only copies (something I don't deny) I ahve never seen them prove how they know what languages the Bible was originally penned in. Without the originals, can they really be sure? Can they really be sure of what they don't have have but doubt that which they do?

What a mess.

 

The Bible contains the Word and words of God but not a translation. God chose three languages and English was not one of them. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for admitting you have NO inspired Bible either.

You lose

 

I know that God spoke in Hebrew, because we see that he communicated to Abraham. I know that God spoke Aramaic, because he spoke to Daniel. I know that God spoke Greek because he spoke to John in the book of Revelation. I know that God speaks English because He speaks to me. God is not limited by language, but can speak to the heart of anyone in any language. However, the issue is what did God speak to those who were writing the language. He most certainly did not whisper to Moses the English, "Let there be light", but the Hebrew equivalent. That is why I can say without reservation that the KJV does not contain God's exact words. It is a translation of God's exact words, which makes them powerful, but still not as good as the originals. Every translation has a few places in which they do not get the English exact, most often because of the nature of the Greek language which can be hard to formally equivocate.

I've heard God speak. Are you saying that you haven't? How do you think God calls people? If it had been Hebrew, I wouldn't have known what He was saying when he told me to follow him and give my life for Him.

Sigh. I didn't admit that, and, frankly, you're absolutely sinning by implying it.

Again, God speaks to me daily, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that He's not speaking to people anymore. I find your words very offensive and call you once again on that fact.

Thankfully, you're not a judge. Stop responding to me.

 

The KJV itself offers us not one, but *two* clear examples of individuals reading the exact words from a different version of a written copy of Isaiah, and in both instances those different versions are called "scripture." We have the instance of Jesus reading from a different version of Isa. 61:1-2 in Lk. 4:16-21, and we have the instance of the Ethiopan eunuch reading from a different version of Isa. 53:7-8 in Ac. 8:27-35. By the testimony of these two Biblical witnesses, the whole notion of "One Version Onlyism" is exposed as unscriptural.

I conclude that while you may believe you have an inspired Bible in the KJV, you don't really believe what your own inspired Bible says -- at least, not on the subject of God's use and approval of different versions.

 

The KJV itself offers us not one, but *two* clear examples of individuals reading the exact words from a different version of a written copy of Isaiah, and in both instances those different versions are called "scripture." We have the instance of Jesus reading from a different version of Isa. 61:1-2 in Lk. 4:16-21, and we have the instance of the Ethiopan eunuch reading from a different version of Isa. 53:7-8 in Ac. 8:27-35. By the testimony of these two Biblical witnesses, the whole notion of "One Version Onlyism" is exposed as unscriptural.

I conclude that while you may believe you have an inspired Bible in the KJV, you don't really believe what your own inspired Bible says -- at least, not on the subject of God's use and approval of different versions. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Archangel7 -- Preach it!

 

Good, then that means the NIV is kosher.

Ed, double standard alert!!

HankD