My KJV Debate with Jeffrey Dollar
- Thread starter Bible_Highlighter
- 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.
You keep bleating about the dangers of “the modern Bible movement” and the “false doctrines” that these Bibles teach, but you don’t provide evidence. Step up!
Provide evidence from ONE modern translation that supports your assertion. Not one bit from one translation, another bit from another, and a third from a third translation; show the “errors” in a SINGLE translation. Provide the passage references for a single translation. Since you are so convinced, share your “knowledge”. Your otherwise empty rhetoric will never convince any thoughtful person.
Provide evidence from ONE modern translation that supports your assertion. Not one bit from one translation, another bit from another, and a third from a third translation; show the “errors” in a SINGLE translation. Provide the passage references for a single translation. Since you are so convinced, share your “knowledge”. Your otherwise empty rhetoric will never convince any thoughtful person.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Right, Sam Shamoun believes in the Trinity, but he believes in praying to Mary and the saints. That does not mean that the Trinity is not true because he does these other crazy things. Not all KJV-only Christians do this. To suggest otherwise is a false smear campaign. But this is different than the origins of the Modern Bible Movement because the text itself was influenced by Unitarians, liberals, and Catholics. So, it should not be any surprise we find false doctrines in Modern Bibles.
….
….
If you watched the debate, you would see "my list of false doctrines" I gave. In fact, I gave a different list to you many times before, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. But a few posts back, I did give a few of them again here.
If you want a more detailed analysis: At the 23 minute and 17 second mark of my debate, you can see the doctrinal section of my slides that show you the differences between the Modern Bibles and the KJV that I believe are very serious.
....
If you want a more detailed analysis: At the 23 minute and 17 second mark of my debate, you can see the doctrinal section of my slides that show you the differences between the Modern Bibles and the KJV that I believe are very serious.
....
Fredoheaven --------your Quote ----
Please check Luke 3:33 and you can spot the difference.
here are the 2 scriptures ---
i say ====Now here we see different names ----buy if you research this you will see that they say the same thing --------no difference
Esrom or Hezrom Matthew 1:3-----same for Ram and Aram -----
Strong's Lexicon
Aram: Aram -----
Meaning: Ram, son of Hezron
The Greek name Phares (Φάρες) is a proper noun that appears in the New Testament of the Bible. It refers to Perez,
luke 3 NIV
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[a]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
luke ===
King James Bible 1611
3:33
Which was the sonne of Aminadab, which was the sonne of Aram,
which was the sonne of Esrom, which was the sonne of Phares, which was the sonne of Iuda,
Please check Luke 3:33 and you can spot the difference.
here are the 2 scriptures ---
i say ====Now here we see different names ----buy if you research this you will see that they say the same thing --------no difference
Esrom or Hezrom Matthew 1:3-----same for Ram and Aram -----
Strong's Lexicon
Aram: Aram -----
Meaning: Ram, son of Hezron
The Greek name Phares (Φάρες) is a proper noun that appears in the New Testament of the Bible. It refers to Perez,
luke 3 NIV
33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[a]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
luke ===
King James Bible 1611
3:33
Which was the sonne of Aminadab, which was the sonne of Aram,
which was the sonne of Esrom, which was the sonne of Phares, which was the sonne of Iuda,
-
2
- Show all
I am not sure you fully grasped what the NKJV editors have done with the creation of the NKJV.
In the 1979 New Testament NKJV, they said that they did not want to subject you to the Westcott and Hort text that deletes many phrases and verses from the KJV. But then they lied a few years later by changing their stance by telling you that you now can delete verses you do not think are a part of the text by the Revisers (Westcott and Hort) with the 1982 full version NKJV. In other words, even if we are for the Critical Text, you would have to admit that this is wrong. They decided to get the KJV-only people in by deceptive means. So by reading the NKJV, you are endorsing this kind of deception (Whether you like it or not).
And somehow Moses is miraculously given a pass and we are not. Again, the Bible itself (the KJV) states that it is perfect and pure. So if they are believing what their Bible says you are falsely slandering them by saying they are worshiping their Bible when they do no such thing.
....
In the 1979 New Testament NKJV, they said that they did not want to subject you to the Westcott and Hort text that deletes many phrases and verses from the KJV. But then they lied a few years later by changing their stance by telling you that you now can delete verses you do not think are a part of the text by the Revisers (Westcott and Hort) with the 1982 full version NKJV. In other words, even if we are for the Critical Text, you would have to admit that this is wrong. They decided to get the KJV-only people in by deceptive means. So by reading the NKJV, you are endorsing this kind of deception (Whether you like it or not).
And somehow Moses is miraculously given a pass and we are not. Again, the Bible itself (the KJV) states that it is perfect and pure. So if they are believing what their Bible says you are falsely slandering them by saying they are worshiping their Bible when they do no such thing.
....
I have read the KJV and NKJV, I have yet to find a perfect bible. If you think the KJV is perfect. You are misled.
Moses was inspired by God to write the scripture he wrote. You were not.
But anyone who actually looks at it knows its not perfect.
but sadly. some people are so decieved nothing anyone can say will change their mind.
Moses was inspired by God to write the scripture he wrote. You were not.
But anyone who actually looks at it knows its not perfect.
but sadly. some people are so decieved nothing anyone can say will change their mind.
-
1
- Show all
And I can say that you are misled because you don’t believe the Bible in what it says about itself in that it is perfect and incorruptible, and that Scripture cannot be broken. See, you need to have faith.
I did not translate the KJV. The KJV translators and the underlying original language texts made that possible.
Were they inspired? Well, I would prefer to say that the hand of God was upon them to give us a perfect Bible that we have today (with the Pure Cambridge KJV edition).
Atheists see errors in the Bible where none exist.
Meaning, that while you are not an atheist, your presupposition or worldview that no Bible is perfect is the lens that you look through and therefore you see what you desire to see. You're not looking through the lens of believing the Bible when it talks about how God's Word is perfect and it would be preserved today. Such verses must either go ignored or changed by you to make your man-made unbiblical belief work.
Right, I imagine atheists will say this about us who believe in the resurrection of Christ.
The same must apply to you if you reject the promise in Scripture of the perfect preservation of God's Word (Psalms 12:6-7).
....
I did not translate the KJV. The KJV translators and the underlying original language texts made that possible.
Were they inspired? Well, I would prefer to say that the hand of God was upon them to give us a perfect Bible that we have today (with the Pure Cambridge KJV edition).
Atheists see errors in the Bible where none exist.
Meaning, that while you are not an atheist, your presupposition or worldview that no Bible is perfect is the lens that you look through and therefore you see what you desire to see. You're not looking through the lens of believing the Bible when it talks about how God's Word is perfect and it would be preserved today. Such verses must either go ignored or changed by you to make your man-made unbiblical belief work.
Right, I imagine atheists will say this about us who believe in the resurrection of Christ.
The same must apply to you if you reject the promise in Scripture of the perfect preservation of God's Word (Psalms 12:6-7).
....
the word was written in greek, hebrew some chaldean and arabic.
As written, it was perfect and without error.
What you have is a translation of those words. taken from scribal copies of those words
They used imperfect copies of texts. and used an imperfect language. and made an imperfect. but applicable and useful translation
I have studied for 40 years my friend. I am amazed at how the word could be much more perfect. in fact. if the whole of the bible was truly translated into english, it would be much much larger bible.
I reject your pipe dream of a perfect outdated bible
get that straight
As written, it was perfect and without error.
What you have is a translation of those words. taken from scribal copies of those words
They used imperfect copies of texts. and used an imperfect language. and made an imperfect. but applicable and useful translation
I have studied for 40 years my friend. I am amazed at how the word could be much more perfect. in fact. if the whole of the bible was truly translated into english, it would be much much larger bible.
I reject your pipe dream of a perfect outdated bible
get that straight
H
Hi Studentoftheword,
Actually, I have you my thumbs-up here, that the Niv amd Kjb is saying the same. I simply asked if you are NIV onlyist which I believe you are not. Your argument that "all bibles" say the same thing seems incoorect, if you made your researched welll. I expect you to check other bibles if your argument holds true. Thanks
Hi Studentoftheword,
Actually, I have you my thumbs-up here, that the Niv amd Kjb is saying the same. I simply asked if you are NIV onlyist which I believe you are not. Your argument that "all bibles" say the same thing seems incoorect, if you made your researched welll. I expect you to check other bibles if your argument holds true. Thanks
If only you had asked...
"Jesus said to him, “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”
"Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen."
A believer may harbor unbelief. And I was specific about their type of unbelief: they do not believe the word is in them so they fight to preserve an external representation of the Word.
"Jesus said to him, “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”
Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”
"Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen."
A believer may harbor unbelief. And I was specific about their type of unbelief: they do not believe the word is in them so they fight to preserve an external representation of the Word.
First, the Aramaic sections of the Bible include parts of Daniel (2:4b–7:28), Ezra (4:8–6:18; 7:12–26), and one verse in Jeremiah (10:11). Now, the term "Chaldean" is sometimes used to refer to Aramaic, particularly because the Chaldeans (Babylonians) spoke a dialect of Aramaic. However, biblical scholars generally use Aramaic rather than "Chaldean" to describe these portions of the Bible.
Second, the Bible was not written in Arabic. While Arabic is related to Hebrew and Aramaic as a Semitic language, it did not appear in biblical texts. Arabic translations of the Bible came much later.
Three, Scripture says nothing about how only the originals would perfect or inspired. However, the Bible does teach that His words are pure words and that they shall be kept for all generations forever.
So says you who does not even know the original language intimately.
Many of the KJV translators knew the original languages intimately.
I would rather trust their combined scholarship than yours.
I don’t care what you believe or state. I care about what the Bible says. If you don’t believe the Bible in certain parts of it (like the perfection and preservation of God’s Word), then that is on you. You will have to face God and explain to Him someday why you did not believe those particular verses. Again, your belief is not in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible teach, “Only the originals are perfect.” That is a man-made belief.
…..
,,.,
Second, the Bible was not written in Arabic. While Arabic is related to Hebrew and Aramaic as a Semitic language, it did not appear in biblical texts. Arabic translations of the Bible came much later.
Three, Scripture says nothing about how only the originals would perfect or inspired. However, the Bible does teach that His words are pure words and that they shall be kept for all generations forever.
So says you who does not even know the original language intimately.
Many of the KJV translators knew the original languages intimately.
I would rather trust their combined scholarship than yours.
I don’t care what you believe or state. I care about what the Bible says. If you don’t believe the Bible in certain parts of it (like the perfection and preservation of God’s Word), then that is on you. You will have to face God and explain to Him someday why you did not believe those particular verses. Again, your belief is not in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible teach, “Only the originals are perfect.” That is a man-made belief.
…..
,,.,
And again you sidestepped the question. I'm not asking about translations that was done by the authors within the text; I'm asking about the method the KJV translators used to translate from the Masoretic - was it literal or dynamic equivalent, and why? Where in scripture does it indicate which method of translation to use when going from one language to another? You don't answer because you have no answer; and it undercuts your belief. Jesus used the LXX and the Masoretic as is easily shown by studying the languages. No one translation is perfect, and certainly not one 'ordained' by the bi-sexual King James I.
-
1
- Show all