The King James Only Debate

[Dan_473]

Matthew 3:14 is telling us that the serpent in the wilderness represented Christ. People looked on the serpent (Jesus) and lived. Some people say the serpent represented the sin that Jesus took for upon himself for us. I believe the serpent represented the human part of Jesus, either view is fine in that they both identify the serpent as being Christ.

Hezekiah broke the bronze serpent into pieces because the people had made IT an idol. They worshipped the idol instead of what it represented - Christ.

I don't think the serpent represents Jesus,

rather, in the same way the serpent was lifted up, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.



JOHN 3:14 "As Moses lifted up the snake on a pole in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.
JOHN 3:15 Then everyone who believes in him will have eternal life."

 

[KJV1611]

I don't think the serpent represents Jesus,

rather, in the same way the serpent was lifted up, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.



JOHN 3:14 "As Moses lifted up the snake on a pole in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.
JOHN 3:15 Then everyone who believes in him will have eternal life."

How about when Abraham offered up Isaac, was Abraham a foreshadow of God and Isaac a foreshadow of Jesus?

 

[Dan_473]

How about when Abraham offered up Isaac, was Abraham a foreshadow of God and Isaac a foreshadow of Jesus?

A foreshadow, sure...
To me, the issue isn’t that manna can be compared to God’s word… it’s saying that the story about manna refers to the kjv… for everybody…
And that the serpents refer to the niv

 

[KJV1611]

A foreshadow, sure...
To me, the issue isn’t that manna can be compared to God’s word… it’s saying that the story about manna refers to the kjv… for everybody…
And that the serpents refer to the niv

Ok then let's say the manna represents all translations then what would the fiery serpents represent in New Testament times?

 

[Dan_473]

Ok then let's say the manna represents all translations then what would the fiery serpents represent in New Testament times?

well, no...

I don't think the manna refers to translations... just the word of God...

the serpents are kind of like the troubles we get into when we don't abide in it.


JOHN 8:31 So Jesus said to those Jews who believed in him, "If you live by what I say, you are truly my disciples.

JOHN 15:4 Live in me, and I will live in you. A branch cannot produce any fruit by itself. It has to stay attached to the vine. In the same way, you cannot produce fruit unless you live in me.

 

[KJV1611]

well, no...

I don't think the manna refers to translations... just the word of God...

the serpents are kind of like the troubles we get into when we don't abide in it.


JOHN 8:31 So Jesus said to those Jews who believed in him, "If you live by what I say, you are truly my disciples.

JOHN 15:4 Live in me, and I will live in you. A branch cannot produce any fruit by itself. It has to stay attached to the vine. In the same way, you cannot produce fruit unless you live in me.

I follow you but does that analogy really line up with fiery serpents injecting their venom into the people. I mean how do we equate serpent venom with "the trouble we get into"?

Also Dan have you noticed that the bible is ALWAYS about contrasts... opposites. Christ - Antichrist, works- grace, pure woman - harlot woman. If mana represents the word of God then serpent venom is going to represent the opposite of the word of God. Does that make sense?

 

[willfollowsGod]

I don't have to work to grow in Christ. I do read the Bible daily and I pray occasionally but I don't do devotions... does God love you more than me? Are you more approved to God than me? The questions are rhetorical, I don't think you think those things. You're caught in the trap of "I'm saved by grace now let me see what work I can to do to please God". It doesn't work that way. I've entered the Sabbath rest, the promised land, I don't work anymore!

As for the NIV preaching works, it does and it has deceived you. See your comment in red above.

"Do YOUR best to present YOURSELF to God as one APPROVED". That says nothing but works, make yourself better to earn God's approval THEN you can be a worker if you're approved by God. One little change in the wording and the meaning of the verse is completely changed.... And this is exactly the way you understood the verse from the NIV - work for approval. See your comment in red above.

2 Timothy 2:15
New International Version (NIV)
15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

Notice the difference in the KJV. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God AS A WORKMAN". No works to be approved by God. Studying the word to prove to God that you are a workman that shouldn't be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth... No works!


2 Timothy 2:15
King James Version (KJV)

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

First, I am not deceived at all, again I do the works because of what Jesus has done in my life and not to earn salvation (you seem to have a problem with my explanation even though I have made it clear). My works do not save me, the mercy and grace offered by Jesus Christ which I have accepted have saved me not my works. Now, since I have made it clear again, you do have to do work to grow in Christ, again it does not save you but helps you to grow. I don't see a work as a bad thing, after all God gave Adam a job in Genesis. God loves you, the same as he loves me, why do you feel I am judging you? I am trying to lovingly correct a misconception you have about the NIV and what the Greek is conveying and not trying to tear you down. I am not caught in the trap, you say I am caught in. I want to grow in my Christian faith like a child grows to be an adult. When I say I do devotions it involves reading the Bible and praying (which Jesus did not do occasionally but a lot, as seen in the gospels where he would go to an isolated space and pour his heart to God the Father in prayer). Also, when you read any verse in the Bible, cross reference it with other verses to make sure you are understanding what it is saying, instead of putting your spin on it, which is what you are doing with that verse. I am not more approved to God than you, since I have accepted Jesus as my personal Savior and sovereign Lord, I have been approved by God. Due to that I want to please Jesus in what ever I say and do to bring honor and glory to the name of the Lord. Now, to the verses I was alluding to.

Philippians 2:12-14
New International Version (NIV)
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

Genesis 2:15
New International Version (NIV)
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

Matthew 7:21
New International Version (NIV)
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Work is not a curse. I rest in God and what he has done for me. Also, I am just learning the differences in the new NIV, but they do not cause me problems, I have the NIV 1984 version. God bless.

 

[Dan_473]

I follow you but does that analogy really line up with fiery serpents injecting their venom into the people. I mean how do we equate serpent venom with "the trouble we get into"?

Also Dan have you noticed that the bible is ALWAYS about contrasts... opposites. Christ - Antichrist, works- grace, pure woman - harlot woman. If mana represents the word of God then serpent venom is going to represent the opposite of the word of God. Does that make sense?

when we don't abide in his word, live by what he says,

we get injected... and we become easy targets to get injected

then

once injected, we attempt to inject others

ROMANS 3:13 Their throats are open graves. Their tongues practice deception. Their lips hide the venom of poisonous snakes.
ROMANS 3:14 Their mouths are full of curses and bitter resentment.


(to be continued)

 

[Dan_473]

I follow you but does that analogy really line up with fiery serpents injecting their venom into the people. I mean how do we equate serpent venom with "the trouble we get into"?

Also Dan have you noticed that the bible is ALWAYS about contrasts... opposites. Christ - Antichrist, works- grace, pure woman - harlot woman. If mana represents the word of God then serpent venom is going to represent the opposite of the word of God. Does that make sense?

living by manna is living by what God provides from above.

MATTHEW 6:26 "Look at the birds. They don't plant, harvest, or gather the harvest into barns. Yet, your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you worth more than they?



the serpent venom is when we rely on what's inside of us

ST. MARK 7:20 He went on: "What comes out of a person is what defiles them.
ST. MARK 7:21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come —sexual immorality, theft, murder,
ST. MARK 7:22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.
ST. MARK 7:23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person."

 

[Dan_473]

I follow you but does that analogy really line up with fiery serpents injecting their venom into the people. I mean how do we equate serpent venom with "the trouble we get into"?

Also Dan have you noticed that the bible is ALWAYS about contrasts... opposites. Christ - Antichrist, works- grace, pure woman - harlot woman. If mana represents the word of God then serpent venom is going to represent the opposite of the word of God. Does that make sense?

so, contrasts

yes, there are many 'black and whites' in the Bible.

there is also nuance and gray... like Daniel staying in Babylon.


and there are also dark sayings

PROVERBS 1:6 To get the sense of wise sayings and secrets, and of the words of the wise and their dark sayings.



some personalities are drawn to 'black and white', others can deal with shades.

does nuance and gray make you feel uneasy, anxious? from your style of posting I think it probably does.



that's why I don't doubt for a moment that God told you to trust only the kjv.

but please realize that other personalities aren't into the 'black and white', so that message isn't for the entire church.

 

[GaryA]

GaryA is the KJV right in using the word Easter?

"Yes - I would tend to think so..."

 

[GaryA]

Are you telling me that the original word pascha in the "original writings" was wrong?

No.

The origianl Greek DID NOT say Easter.

Technically, it did not say 'passover' either; however, the same Greek word was translated into 'passover' - and, in one place - 'Easter'. ( I hope you understand what I am getting at... ) I believe that there was something about the use of the word in that particular circumstance that the translators understood -- that, perhaps, we do not understand as well as they did. I believe / trust that 'Easter' was properly translated. And, if nothing else, it helps us to have a better understanding of what is being said in the passage where it is found. ( Think about it... )

I don't trust the copies of the original manuscripts nearly as much as I do the KJV but I can almost guarantee you that pascha was the right original word. What say you? Original is right or wrong?

I believe in the KJV translation --- but, I would never think that it could possibly be "better" than the original writings in the original languages...

 

[KJV1611]

"Yes - I would tend to think so..."

I thought so.

 

[KJV1611]

Technically, it did not say 'passover' either; however, the same Greek word was translated into 'passover' - and, in one place - 'Easter'. ( I hope you understand what I am getting at... )

I don't want to give out bad information so I am open to your critique. But you haven't convinced me that your right yet.

I know what you are saying - "technically it did not say passover" but actually the Greek does say pascha. Based soley on what the bible says, without adding our opinion of a possible dual meaning of pascha (which can not be substantiated - at least I can't), we know that pascha was translated Easter in the one and only place where pascha had been fulfilled. <---- That is a given and can not be debated.

I believe that there was something about the use of the word in that particular circumstance that the translators understood -- that, perhaps, we do not understand as well as they did. I believe / trust that 'Easter' was properly translated. And, if nothing else, it helps us to have a better understanding of what is being said in the passage where it is found. ( Think about it... )

Just my opinion here GaryA I don't mean this offensively. You believe "there was something about the use of the word in that particular circumstance" because you have a bias against the word Easter for the fulfillment of Passover.

In the last part of the qoute above I think you are referring to "then were the days of unleavened bread". Those words tell us that the DAY of Passover had already passed so the only possible interpretation is that Easter meant the pagan holiday. (You can correct me if I'm assuming wrong lol.)

Two things wrong with that assumption.
1) We have no way of knowing if pascha is talking about the day of Passover or the week of Passover.
2) The Jews at that time didn't celebrate Easter... Herod was trying to please the Jews by waiting until the feast of Passover was done.

I believe in the KJV translation --- but, I would never think that it could possibly be "better" than the original writings in the original languages...

By that statement I meant copies of copies of the original writings.

 

[Zmouth]

By that statement I meant copies of copies of the original writings.

By the original writings do you mean the the two tables of stone written with the finger of God?

Since these other translations start off with God creating the heavens and the earth do you know why they consider the KJV translation of heaven and earth to be a mistranslated?

Basically it would seem they would be saying that beyond the expanse of this finite body of space that forms this physical universe, another heaven was created in which the eternal God dwells. But I don't want to speculate on their reasoning since they don't translate heaven and earth shall pass away as heavens and earth.

But heck I guess I should ask if you consider the heaven in Genesis 1:1 to represent the body of space called the universe or do you have some different interpretation?

 

[KJV1611]

By the original writings do you mean the the two tables of stone written with the finger of God?

Since these other translations start off with God creating the heavens and the earth do you know why they consider the KJV translation of heaven and earth to be a mistranslated?

Basically it would seem they would be saying that beyond the expanse of this finite body of space that forms this physical universe, another heaven was created in which the eternal God dwells. But I don't want to speculate on their reasoning since they don't translate heaven and earth shall pass away as heavens and earth.

But heck I guess I should ask if you consider the heaven in Genesis 1:1 to represent the body of space called the universe or do you have some different interpretation?

By original I mean the words that Ezekiel, Daniel, David, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and all the others who wrote the 66 books of the bible.

I think they say the KJV is wrong in Genesis because they wont to have a gap. But you may be right about another heaven also.

I believe the heavens in Genesis 1 is the entire universe... creation. God is outside of the creation.

 

[Zmouth]

I believe the heavens in Genesis 1 is the entire universe... creation. God is outside of the creation.

Am I reading that right, in Genesis 1:1 and 1:8 as the heavens right?

I agree, God is eternal, and while they can define eternal as this when they are going to and define eternal as that when they are going fro, the principle doesn't change and it doesn't bend it was true from the beginning and it will endure until the end.

 

[KJV1611]

Am I reading that right, in Genesis 1:1 and 1:8 as the heavens right?

I agree, God is eternal, and while they can define eternal as this when they are going to and define eternal as that when they are going fro, the principle doesn't change and it doesn't bend it was true from the beginning and it will endure until the end.

I think verse 1 is an overview.... In the begining God created the heavens and the earth. The next verses are the details of creating the heavens and the earth.

 

[The_Bible]

By the original writings do you mean the the two tables of stone written with the finger of God?

Since these other translations start off with God creating the heavens and the earth do you know why they consider the KJV translation of heaven and earth to be a mistranslated?

Basically it would seem they would be saying that beyond the expanse of this finite body of space that forms this physical universe, another heaven was created in which the eternal God dwells. But I don't want to speculate on their reasoning since they don't translate heaven and earth shall pass away as heavens and earth.

But heck I guess I should ask if you consider the heaven in Genesis 1:1 to represent the body of space called the universe or do you have some different interpretation?

Genesis (1:6-8) - And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Heaven is singular in KJV it represents the heaven where God and the angels dwell. The other two came from the firmament in between the waters of the Earth. Other two being space where the stars are at, and the sky where the clouds be.

 

[Zmouth]

Genesis (1:6-8) - And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

(Gen 1:9-10)9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth;

Heaven is singular in KJV it represents the heaven where God and the angels dwell. The other two came from the firmament in between the waters of the Earth. Other two being space where the stars are at, and the sky where the clouds be.

That is a possible explanation, except if the act of creating is to bring into existence something that has never existed before in nature or substance, then if heaven and earth already existed before Genesis 1:1 wouldn't it have said heavens and earths.

Gen 1:9-10 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth;