KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So the man non the street is your "proof," not actual facts that go against popular misconceptions?
Got it.
It is anything goes with you KJVO's. Inconsistent standard after inconsistent standard, then double standards as well. One standard for those who use MV's, then another one for yourselves that contradicts this same standard. These are well known facts that exist in the KJVO camp used as arguments to "prove" their cause for a version.
Got it.
It is anything goes with you KJVO's. Inconsistent standard after inconsistent standard, then double standards as well. One standard for those who use MV's, then another one for yourselves that contradicts this same standard. These are well known facts that exist in the KJVO camp used as arguments to "prove" their cause for a version.
Given your statement, you must believe that which was not the word of God somehow became the word of God when it was published in 1611. That is effectively transubstantiation of the Bible, and it isn't consistent with the Bible.
Again, if the KJV was translated/adapted from that which was not the word of God (previous English and Greek editions), how can it be the word of God? You are the one who effectively affirms this, so please consider and answer it.
This isn't a matter of theology; we aren't discussing the nature of God. Your position is logically and historically untenable, and instead of thinking through the implications of it, you are avoiding the issue with a redirect. It isn't going to fly. While I can accept your reasoning in your last sentence above, you must also recognize the inverse: it doesn't mean God was involved (to the degree you claim) either.
You are basing your argument on your speculation that John did not know his role. While that is plausible, it is not certain. John could have known his role quite well, and still answered truthfully, because until Jesus stated that John was the Elijah who was to come, the Scripture they knew declared that another was to come "in the spirit and power of Elijah". That didn't make John a resurrected or returned Elijah; he was still John, but he fulfilled that prophecy nonetheless. Truth can have more than one level.
If your "theology" is logically untenable, the problem is not with logic.
Again, if the KJV was translated/adapted from that which was not the word of God (previous English and Greek editions), how can it be the word of God? You are the one who effectively affirms this, so please consider and answer it.
This isn't a matter of theology; we aren't discussing the nature of God. Your position is logically and historically untenable, and instead of thinking through the implications of it, you are avoiding the issue with a redirect. It isn't going to fly. While I can accept your reasoning in your last sentence above, you must also recognize the inverse: it doesn't mean God was involved (to the degree you claim) either.
You are basing your argument on your speculation that John did not know his role. While that is plausible, it is not certain. John could have known his role quite well, and still answered truthfully, because until Jesus stated that John was the Elijah who was to come, the Scripture they knew declared that another was to come "in the spirit and power of Elijah". That didn't make John a resurrected or returned Elijah; he was still John, but he fulfilled that prophecy nonetheless. Truth can have more than one level.
If your "theology" is logically untenable, the problem is not with logic.
