Why was the KJV Bible given to Anglo Saxons Only?

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

I think this is one of the original quotes.
But in answer, English was non-existent in the first century. It was not formulated until centuries later. It is an Indo-European language, in the Germanic class of languages. Old English did not appear on the scene until 1100 A.D., well after the resurrection of Christ. Shakespearean, or that of the KJV translaters was still another 500 years coming.

No translation is inspired because man makes mistakes, even the translators of the KJV. They were humans, fallible humans like you and I. Meaning is lost in any translation--lost in the translation of idioms which can never be translated perfectly from one language to another. Any person having a fluent knowledge of more than one language knows this. Words are inspired, not men. God inspired the WORDS of the holy men of God: the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles of the New Testament. No other WORDS were inspired. Those WORDS were written down on manuscripts that have long since disappeared, but have been preserved in copies of manuscripts that we have today. The KJV were anything, but, holy men of God. Study their biographies. They were high Anglican/Catholic. It is a good possibility that some of them were not even saved. They were indeed scholars in their own right, very good scholars. But scholarship in and of itself does not make a person a saved individual. There is an enlighening book called "The Men behind the KJV" which gives their biographical information--very informative. The bottom line--they were not the holy men of God that the Bible (2Pet.1:21,22) was speaking about.
DHK

 

Thanks C4K. Just when I thought michelle couldn't go any further with the extremisms, she still has some surprises left. Simply amazing.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle - you stated clearly that Jesus spoke the exact words of the AV1611 English.

When called down on such an odd teaching, you said it was because he had foreknowledge of the language.

Where on earth are you getting this teaching from? It is more than bothersome; it is so heterodox that I can't understand how anyone could believe it.

Thanks for giving the source. I need to look it up and see who/what is behind it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I cannot help that you all cannot understand plain English. I really would appreciate you all to stop twisting and misrepresenting what I have said, and then have the nerve to say that I am hetorodox, "trolling", etc. Look in the mirror at your own selves.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Where did I say such a thing? NO, what I have been saying and will continue to say and believe, until my last dying breath, or until my Lord Jesus Christ comes to take us home is: what Jesus spoke, in the Old and New testament is what we have today in our English language perfectly. Same words, same meaning. Exactly how God desired for us to have.
--------------------------------------------------


Please show me where in the above quote, did I say that Jesus spoke English? You won't find it, cause I didn't say it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Thats exactly what your quote says michelle.

 

michelle said "Please show me where in the above quote, did I say that Jesus spoke English? You won't find it, cause I didn't say it."

You said "what Jesus spoke, in the Old and New testament is what we have today in our English language perfectly." and "Same words". If Jesus didn't speak in English, he didn't use what we have in our English language, and he didn't use the same words.

 

Michelle wrote:

Why is it that when Michelle makes some outlandish statement, and others call her on it, she claims that those who object to her have the problem? Does the following satire seem all-too familiar to anyone else?:

Michelle: (stated plainly & emphatically) I say that 2 + 2 = 675!

Anyone Else: (incredulously) Really, how did you reach that conclusion?

Michelle: What conclusion?

Anyone Else: That 2 + 2 = 675.

Michelle: Who says that?

Anyone Else: You just did!

Michelle: No, I did not. Where did you ever get that idea? Stop twisting my words! Can't you understand english?

 

This has gone past the new page 5 rule.

Unless there are objections it will be closed around midnight CDT tonight.

No debate here - just back to "he said, she said."

 

From another (prematurely closed) thread:

Michelle: “you are not being honest because you have all attacked the true word of God. The scriptures do not have errors. You all claim the scriptures have errors. In fact, you claim all versions have errors, and therefore you all have no scriptures by your own admission.”

Michelle: “God inspires a translation, and the scriptures from them are also therefore inspired under His providence.”

Time to play “Fallacy, fallacy, who’s got the fallacy” once more:

Fallacy #1: Despite the rhetoric, no one here has “attacked the true word of God”; the problem is that *you* have *redefined* “the true word of God” to mean the KJV and the KJV alone. This is the root of the subsequent fallacies.

Fallacy #2: “The scriptures do not have errors” is a correct statement; however, “you all claim the scriptures have errors” is incorrect. The problem once more derives from Fallacy #1 above. It is *you* *redefining* the term “the true word of God” to mean the KJV and the KJV alone.

Not one of us here attacks “the true word of God” once it is no longer redefined into a single particular translation of that “true word of God”. Likewise, we do not “claim the scriptures [the true word of God] have errors” in them, once more because we do *not* equate “the true word of God” with any single humanly produced and possibly fallible *translation*.

We may (and do) say that *human translations* of the scriptures (which alone are the “true word of God”) may have errors, inaccuracies, inconsistencies of rendering, etc. But this is a *far* cry from saying that the scriptures themselves have errors -- and you certainly are totally without warrant in claiming that “you all have no scriptures by your own admission”. We most definitely *do* have the scriptures -- and in our own language at that! -- in many highly accurate and reliable *translations*. The only difference is that we do *not* elevate a specific translation over and above the level of respect to which it (as any humanly produced work) should be entitled.

Time to stop telling us that we “have no scriptures”; we most definitely do, and they are accurate and without error; and we can read them in *many* highly accurate and reliable translations, *despite* any human failings that might appear in any single translations. Got it? .... I didn’t think so. And why not? Because of your precise (and fallacious) statement quoted above:

Michelle: “God inspires a translation”

Says it all....

 

--------------------------------------------------
Thats exactly what your quote says michelle
--------------------------------------------------

No, that IS NOT what I said. Read with comprehension, then you will understand. I am telling you that is NOT WHAT I SAID. Don't sit there and tell me, what it is I said, or did not say. Did my words come out of your mouth? or did they come out of my own? I KNOW WHAT I SAID, and it is not what you all have MISUNDERSTOOD. Read without a bias. Then maybe you will at least try to understand what I ACTUALLY SAID.

If you all continue to pull this trickery, and this twisting and misrepresenting of what I have said, I will no longer discuss issues with you. This is really unbelievable, unacceptable, and not worth my effort. You have not enouph respect for me, to not only try to understand what I have said, but trying to prove something I didn't say in order to misrepresent me purposely. Then when I clearly show you, and clearly tell you that you have not understood, you continue to say I am lying about what I said. This is very disrespectful, and I want no part of it. This is unchristian like behaviour. It really is. It is like a bunch of childish games you people play with words, rather than trying to understand what those words and in the context mean. Now I can see even better why you all cannot see the errors in the mv's. You don't even try to comprehend anything.

Go ahead, with your continual mocking of me because of the truth that you all do not understand.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z please put this thread out of its misery.


HankD

 

Maybe we need a thread only michelle is allowed to post on, and she can debate herself for a while.

 

Michelle, I accept your apology. Thank you.

 

I missed it. When did Michelle actually start discussing the issues?

 

I know they are going to close this thread, but I want to make one last effort with Michelle.

Michelle,
1. You say that the KJV has the "pure words" of God, you are implying that these words are inspired. They are not; they are a translation.
1. You keep repeating that we have God's words "in our own language," but you seem to think God does not do this for people who speak other languages. In fact, by saying "our language," you even assume everyone readint that is a native English speaker. You did not directly answer my question from before about people in other countries -- you would not say that the Bible in other languages is also God's word. This is a serious thing if you believe non-English speaking people can't have God's word and since you did not say they did (you said they had the "whole counsel" of God but would not explain what you mean by that). It makes it look like you think God gave English speaking people His word but He did not give it to others and it looks very arrogant and smug. It's also not true. God gives his word to people in other countries in their language, too.
3. You said that Jesus spoke the "same words" as the KJV. The "same words" means the same. So if I say "book" in French, "le livre," those are words that mean the same thing but they are different words. Jesus did not speak English; his actual words are not the same words as in the KJV or as in any English Bible.

 

This reminds me of an oldie but a goodie-----
"You would understand if you would understand"

Bro Tony

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! It has finally happened! The pot has officially called the kettle black.

michelle, this is exatly what you have done since the first day you popped in on this Board. By your own admission, you have never read any other version than the KJV, yet you continually rant and rave against the lies and ungodliness contained in the abominable "modern versions (hiss, hiss)".

The only authoritive "word" you have on this are the cultic individuals you have looked up online (Cloud, Riplinger, Gipp, and other assorted idiots). But never once have you ever tried to find out for yourself. Instead, you willing swallow the poison these deranged lunatics spew forth.

I have watched you degenerate from a misinformed seeker of the truth into a hardned zealot of the King James Version Only sect. And it is sad, really, in that you have a sharp mind, and a heart that is/was very gentle and open. So much more the loss.

I am sure that if you respond to this post at all, it will be to quote a single sentence:
By your own admission, you have never read any other version than the KJV, yet you continually rant and rave against the lies and ungodliness contained in the abominable "modern versions (hiss, hiss)". To which you will respond about not having to use drugs to know they are wrong, blah, blah, blah. But, you know, it doesn't matter. Until someone took the initiative, no one knew just how beneficial penicillan would be, either.

In Christ,
Trotter