Are King James Bible believers "Idolaters"?

  • 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.
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
How tall was Goliath the giant? Dan Wallace's NET "brillancy"

Here is another example of Dan Wallace and company's NET "brillance". By the way, Tanner, did you actually READ the article about the liberal RSV and how the NET perversion has now gone back to these perverted readings?

How tall was Goliath?

In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Hebrew texts tell us that the height of Goliath was SIX cubits and a span, which would make him about 9 feet 6 inches tall. That indeed is a giant. However the LXX tells us that Goliath was a mere FOUR cubits and a span - "ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς" - which would make him only 6 feet 6 inches tall, which would hardly be much among NBA players today. All Jewish translations, like the JPS 1917 or the Complete Tanach of 2004 or Hebrew Names Bible follow the Hebrew texts and say "six cubits and a span". A cubit was about 18 inches and a span was the length of an open hand between the tip of the thumb and the tip of the little finger, or about 6 inches. This means Goliath was around 10 feet tall. Not even the Message or the NIV 2011 follow the LXX reading here. They agree with the Hebrew text and the KJB as do even the liberal RSV, the NRSV, ESV, 2001-2011, NASB, 1995, Common English Bible 2011, Holman Standard 2003 - "HE WAS NINE FEET, NINE INCHES TALL", The Voice 2012 and the NKJV. The Modern Greek Bible has now followed the Hebrew reading of "six cubits and a span" instead of the corrupt LXX reading. The Modern Greek Bible says: υψους εξ πηχων και σπιθαμης· = "height SIX cubits and a span"

However there are a few loonies out there like Daniel Wallace and gang's NET version that says: "His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was CLOSE TO SEVEN FEET TALL." Then in Daniel Wallace and company's goofy, faith destroying footnotes they tell us: "Heb “his height was six cubits and a span” (cf. KJV, NASB, NRSV). A cubit was approximately eighteen inches, a span nine inches. So, according to the Hebrew tradition, Goliath was about nine feet, nine inches tall (cf. NIV, CEV, NLT “over nine feet”; NCV “nine feet, four inches”; TEV “nearly 3 metres”). However, some Greek witnesses, Josephus, and a manuscript of 1 Samuel from Qumran read “four cubits and a span” here, that is, about six feet, nine inches (cf. NAB “six and a half feet”). This seems more reasonable; it is likely that Goliath’s height was exaggerated as the story was retold."!!!

Actually, the so called 1 Samuel Qumran manuscript is more confusing that what Dan Wallace tells us. I have a copy of 'The Dead Sea Scroll Bible' translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich. When dealing with the passage of 1 Samuel 17:4 on page 229 they show the first part of the number placed in [brackets], meaning that part of the number was lost and not in this text. It looks like this, meaning that all the words between the brackets were NOT found in the manuscript. [Then] a cha[mpion named Goliath, who was from Gath, ca]me out [of the Philistine camp. His height was f]our [cu]bits and a span." So what they have actually written in this manuscript scrap is: "a cha me out our bits and a span." Pretty conclusive, huh?! Then on top of all this, they footnote telling us that the number 'four' is from the 4QSam mss. and some LXX copies, but that other LXX copies read "FIVE" and other LXX copies read "SIX" along with the Hebrew Masoretic text! What utter confusion. Yet on the basis of this obviously false reading that would have the "giant" Goliath to be surely no taller than king Saul himself who was head and shoulders above most other men of Israel, into a man no more than 6 feet 6 inches tall.

There are also a few other perverted bible versions like the new ISV (International Standard Version) that says: "A champion named Goliath from Gath came out from the Philistine camp. HE WAS SIX AND A HALF FEET TALL."

Among the Catholic versions the Douay-Rheims 1610, the Douay 1950, and the newer New Jerusalem bible of 1985 say he was "SIX cubits and a span", but the previous St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 had "HE WAS SIX AND A HALF FEET TALL" thus following the corrupt Greek Septuagint reading and rejecting the Hebrew text. We also can see the newest Catholic version called The Catholic Public Domain Bible of 2009 and it also has gone back to the Hebrew reading and says: "whose height was six cubits and a palm."

We should ask ourselves about the total inconsistency of people like Dan Wallace and company's NET version and the ISV. Why would they follow the corrupt reading of "FOUR cubits and a span" from ONE copy of the so called Greek Septuagint here in 1 Samuel 17:4 (remember, another copy says "five" and another one says "six"), and yet in the book of Jonah 3:4 where the Hebrew texts all have Jonah preaching: "Yet FORTY DAYS, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." the so called Greek Septuagint actually says: "Yet THREE DAYS, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." = "ἔτι τρεῖς ἡμέραι καὶ νινευη καταστραφήσεται"

Do either Dan Wallace or the ISV follow the Septuagint reading here and have THREE DAYS instead of FORTY DAYS? Nope. Not even a footnote. They both say: "At the end of FORTY DAYS, Nineveh will be overthrown." and so do the ESV, NIV, NASB and the Modern Greek Bible - "Ετι τεσσαρακοντα ημεραι και η Νινευη θελει καταστραφη." Such is the true nature of their so called "science" of textual criticism.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
EG, neither eros nor storge are in the New Testament and there is NO difference in meaning between agape and phileo.
Storge is found in the new testament, a few times.

There is a MAJOR difference between agape and phileo love, You are fooling yourself if you think there is not. The things people will go to to prove themselves right just amaze me.


They tell us that such a case is found in the New Testament use of two distinct words for love - agape and phileo. You will constantly hear these scholarly types tell us that agape means God's unconditional love, while phileo means a friendship type of love.

Well, let's take a closer look at how God uses these two words and see if there is really something to what they say or not.

John 3:16 "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..." The verb used here is form of 'agape', so we are told it always means a God-type unconditional love. OK, but what do we then do with these verses using the same verb?

John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Agapao

John 12:42-43 "they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God." Agapao

Luke 6:32 "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them." Agapao

2 Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..." Agapao

2 Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness." Agapao

1 John 2:15 "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Agapao

It should be abundantly clear that the scholar who insists the word 'agape' means an unconditional, God-type love has no idea what he is talking about.
I would agree.

Agapeo means sacrificial love. A love more than yourself. Where phileo love is a lesser type of love.

Agapeo love is self sacrificing. I can love a friend, But not in a self sacrificing type of way. This would be phileo. There is a reason Peter could not tell Jesus he agapeo loved him when jesus asked him, and he could only say I phileo love you. This is a HUGE difference. And your fooling yourself if you think otherwise.


And agapeo love fits in every one of those passages, Where phileo, although it may fit also. would not have the same deep meaning if it were used.


Well, what about phileo then? Does it always mean a friendship type of love and not the love of God?

John 16:27 "For the Father himself LOVETH you, because ye have LOVED me, and have believed that I came out from God." Phileo

Revelation 3:19 "As many as I LOVE, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent." Phileo

1 Corinthians 16:22 "If any man LOVE not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." Phileo

Well, then do these two words actually mean the same thing? Let's compare some Scriptures.

Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo

Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao

John 5:20 "the Father LOVETH the Son" Phileo

John 10:17 "therefore doth my Father LOVE me" Agapao

Titus 2:4 "women to be sober, to LOVE their husbands..." Phileo

Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to LOVE their wives..." Agapao

Hebrews 13:1 "Let brotherly LOVE continue" Phileo

1 Peter 2:17 "LOVE the brotherhood" Agapao

If it be asked: "Then why did God use two different Greek words (agapao and phileo) to often mean the same thing?", then we answer that God used not just two but six different Hebrew words in the Old Testament to refer to love.

The various Hebrew words translated as love are # 157, 1730, 2836, 5690, 7355, and 7474. Number 157 ah-hehv is used in Deut. 4:37 "because the Lord LOVED thy fathers", and in 1 Kings 3:3 "and Solomon LOVED the Lord", but the same word is also translated as "friends" and "lovers".

The Hebrew word # 1730 dohd is used in Proverbs 7:18 "let us take our fill of LOVE" and in Song of Solomon 4:10 "How fair is thy LOVE", but the same word is also translated as "uncle" in Leviticus 10:4; 20:20, and 1 Samuel 10:14-16 "Saul said unto his UNCLE..."

The Hebrew word # 2836 ghah-shak is used in Deut. 7:7 "The Lord did not SET HIS LOVE upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people..." and in Isaiah 38:17 "but thou has IN LOVE to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption." But the same Hebrew word can also mean "filleted" as in Ezekiel 27:17 "the court should be FILLETED with silver."

The Hebrew word # 5690 gagah-veem is used in Ezekiel 33:31 "with their mouth they shew MUCH LOVE". Number # 7355 rah-gham is found in Psalm 18:1 "I will LOVE thee, O Lord", but it also means "to shew mercy", to pity" and "to have compassion". See Exodus 33:19 and Psalm 103:13. In like manner the Hebrew word # 7474 rag-yah is used in Song of Solomon 6:4 "Thou art beautiful, MY LOVE." Six completely different Hebrew words, yet each of them can be used to express the same idea in certain contexts - "love"; yet most of these same words can mean other things in different contexts.

Don't let the Greek scholars steal your Bible from you or make you think they have inside information that you do not have if you only read the English of the King James Holy Bible. The believing Bible reader will often have far more spiritual understanding than the educated scholar who thinks he can correct or improve upon the Holy Bible God has given us.

Regarding the passage in John 21 that is frequently the occasion of the scholar's assaults, Dr. Thomas Holland has these insightful words of encouragement.

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson01.htm

Dr. Thomas Holland.

The question was asked: "When Jesus confronted Peter and thrice asked, 'Do you love me?' he used two different words in Greek, why wasn't this captured in the English translation?"

The passage is found in John 21:15-17 which reads as follows.

15: So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16: He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17: He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

There are two different Greek words translated as love in this passage. One is agape and the other is phileo. According to the Greek text the first two times Jesus uses the word love He uses the Greek word agape. Both of these times Peter responds with phileo. On the third time, when Jesus speaks the word love, the word phileo is used by Christ. To this, Peter responds with phileo. Some suggest that the Greek word agape means a deeper love, while the Greek word phileo means friendship or affection.

The King James Bible is not alone in translating both words the same way. The standard Spanish translation is the Valera. What the KJV is to the English-speaking world, the Valera is to the Spanish- speaking world. Each time the Lord asks, "me amas?" to which Peter replies, "Si, Senor; tu sabes que te amo." In every case, the Spanish word for love is used, not two different words.

The standard French Bible is the Louis Segond. All three times the Lord uses the word, "m'aimes-tu," and Peter replies with "t'aime." It is the same French word for love.

The Italian Bible is the Giovanni Diodati. In the gospel according to Giovanni (John), the Italian word "amo" is used throughout the passage.

And, of course, Luther's German Bible uses the German word for love, which is, "lieber."

Even the NIV, NASV, NKJV, RV, ASV RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, and NEB translated both Greek words as love in this passage. So the KJV is not at all alone in its translation.

Most scholars teach the two different Greek words agape and phileo, mean two different things, or at the very least, two different types of love (such as, I love my wife and I love pizza). However, this does not bear itself out in the Greek New Testament. The simple fact is that these two words are used interchangeably, both meaning love. If phileo means friendship and not godly love, then why does Christ use it in Revelation 3:19? "As many as I love, I rebuke."

Both words mean love and are used interchangeably.

Finally, the real issues here was not the change of Greek words. Peter was not grieved because Christ had changed Greek words. He was grieved because he asked three times. It was not the change in words or tense that disturbed Peter. It was, "because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?" Does not this passage in John 21 prove the point that agape and phileo are interchangeable? Jesus asks, "lovest (agape) thou me" (vs. 15), "lovest (agape) thou me" (vs. 16), and "lovest (phileo) thou me" (vs. 17). When Christ asks this last time, the texts states, "He saith unto him THE THIRD TIME" (vs.17). This is true only if these two words are interchangeable. If they are not interchangeable and carry different meanings, the text is in error, for it was not the third time. If the two words carry the same meaning, the text would be correct as it stands in the Greek manuscripts. (end of Dr. Holland's comments)

The simple reason the Lord Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Him was because Peter had denied the Lord three times. Christ was restoring His wayward servant to fellowship with Himself.

You can also see an online article about these two different Greek words and their use in the Bible here

Truth and Song - Rick Schworer's Articles: Eight Hidden Doctrines We Can Learn From Agape and Phileo - The Pseudo-Scholars' Lie

Will Kinney
alot of fluff and personal opinion here.

the great thing about the greek language is unlike the neglish, they have different words with different meanings for the same.

this poster wants us to believe peter used a different word, with the same meaning as the word jesus used. talk about doing whatever you can to prove your point! amazing, just amazing..

God inspired the word. but he would confuse us this way, again amazing. i am sure the origional readers who were fluent in the greek language must have been confused as to why God had John write different words, when they all mean the same. i mean why bother??
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
[/B][/COLOR]
While it's hilarious, watching your pride run your piehole, it's not laughable. Do the leg work yourself. AGAPAO was used for sex more than once. It was used as Phileo more than once. It was used for an incestual rape act in the Septuagint. If you don't have the tools, or know how to find or use them, I'll help you. I know full well the differences in the words, in this case it's you who's running their mouth to shame themselves.



[/B][/COLOR]Well, that's pretty brazen of you. Since you don't even know where and why I base my comments on, yet you can accuse me of changing God's word. You are truly shameless aren't you. Why don't you stop posing as the big bad king of the hill, and stop embarrassing yourself and walk WITH people not at them?So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.”<<<< love there is Phileo. "GOD'S LOVE" was Phileo. digest that.
2 Pet 2:15 (NIV) who loved [agapao] the wages of wickedness.<<<< does that fit into your theology?
[TABLE="class: bibleTable, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: bVerse"]
[TD="bgcolor: #F8F8DA"]2Ti 4:10[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F8F8DA"]for Demas, having loved G25 this present fnworld, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to fnGalatia, Titus to Dalmatia.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: bibleTable, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: bVerse"]
[TD="bgcolor: #F8F8DA"] 2Pe 2:15[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F8F8DA"]forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved G25 the wages of unrighteousness;[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Yeah, raping your sister, what sorta love is that? Septuagint translated it as agapao.
[/B][/COLOR]


[/B][/COLOR][TABLE="class: bibleTable, width: 614"]
[TR]
[TD]Jhn 5:20[/TD]
[TD]“For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
That one is Phileo, not Agapao.


The diff in phileo and agapao has nothing to do with feeling. IF IT DOES then God was only fond of His Son, in the JOhn 5 vs above. Do you ever slow down from being right all the time to consider and research something before you speak? You've already answered, don't bother.

[/B][/COLOR]

A great example of a little information goes a long way....



......down the wrong road.
i see ya got banned. Your pride was your fall.. responses like this prove you do not have the agapeo for the lord yourself. and you expect people to listen to you? I doubt you even have phileo for him, for if you did. you would not be so proud!
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
This was your claim. I assumed you made an honest mistake and the mushrooms/hallucinogenic joke was making light. I really didn't feel like just correcting you and making you look........ whatever.

Here.... I broke theie paragraphs up. This is from <<<< there.

Match the reds......
Version Information


The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale's New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). ...


In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.


To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text...

The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work.


Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries.



The ESV is an "essentially literal" translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. It seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original. More about the ESV translation philosophy...


This is just part of the KJV only conspiracy. Obviously the KJV came after the ESV. :)
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
Are King James Bible believers "Idolaters"?

Over the years I have talked to literally hundreds of different people about the Bible version issue and whether or not there exists such a thing as a Bible in ANY language that is the complete, inspired and 100% true and inerrant words of the living God.

/QUOTE]

This argument is similar to Catholics saying that they started the church

We just assume that the KJV bible is innerant because it was the first one of the English language? Like the english language is inerrant itself?

Because someone prayed that God would open the kings eyes to translate the Bible into English? Whose name appears nowhere in scripture, is not an apostle, etc - What if I prayed that the king of some foreign country would allow a translation to be done in their language - would i assume that, the version is inerrant?

or should I just believe that the Holy Spirit witness to our spirit through the Word of God, that 2 or three sentences that might be off a bit, but does not change the message at all - will damn someone

We just assume that peter is the first pope, therefore Catholics assume that they were the first church


There are too many things that we would have to assume to be true to come to these conclusions
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
113
63
This is just part of the KJV only conspiracy. Obviously the KJV came after the ESV. :)

The ESV is a revision of the 1971 edition of the RSV (Revised Standard Version). And the RSV did not even come on the scene until 1946.
And that wasn't even the complete RSV either, since its old testament was not published until 1952 (6 years later).

So your notion about the ESV coming before the KJV is wrong.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
So your notion about the ESV coming before the KJV is wrong.
So, then why do KJV-Onlyists espouse that the KJV can correct the autographs, and the manuscripts used to even produce the KJV? It appears that the KJV-Onlyist believes Paul the apostle wrote the KJV.
 
C

Canchristiansgetalong

Guest
I honestly believe that there is no bible available that is does not have some translational errors. I love the bible and I am so thankful for what we do have. It is a miracle that it is still here after 2000 years. Seriously, that tells me God watched out for it. But, anything that is translated thousands of times, is going to lose some of its original meaning. That is why I believe that God himself is the source we need to look to for truth. If we pray to him to understand and find truth, we will be lead and guided to truths after truths. The bible is one of the main sources he uses to teach us, but I have learned truths from many many other resources. For example, by observing nature, I have learned that everything has its purpose and when all working together, they are self-sustaining, but at the same time each thing is dependent on everything else. People are the same way.
 
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
So, then why do KJV-Onlyists espouse that the KJV can correct the autographs, and the manuscripts used to even produce the KJV? It appears that the KJV-Onlyist believes Paul the apostle wrote the KJV.
Hi Jimmy. I have no idea who supposedly says things like this. The fact is, Jimmy, you do not have ANY Bible nor any "originals" that you honestly believe IS now the complete and infallible words of God, so they only thing it seems you can do is to post lies about what we King James Bible believers actually think and believe about the Bible.

Can you show us or give us a link to what you honestly believe IS the infallible words of God and when other versions differ from it either in texts or meanings, then yours is right and the others are wrong? Not a chance. It ain't gonna happen - EVER.

Thanks.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
Hi Jimmy. I have no idea who supposedly says things like this. The fact is, Jimmy, you do not have ANY Bible nor any "originals" that you honestly believe IS now the complete and infallible words of God, so they only thing it seems you can do is to post lies about what we King James Bible believers actually think and believe about the Bible.

Can you show us or give us a link to what you honestly believe IS the infallible words of God and when other versions differ from it either in texts or meanings, then yours is right and the others are wrong? Not a chance. It ain't gonna happen - EVER.

Thanks.
I have explained to you that 2000 year old autographs are too fragile to go into a scanner, they're not hosted online. Yet, you seem to think the internet is the only place you can learn something.
 
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
I have explained to you that 2000 year old autographs are too fragile to go into a scanner, they're not hosted online. Yet, you seem to think the internet is the only place you can learn something.
Hi Jimmy. My previous statement still stands - You simply do not have ANY Bible in any language that you believe IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. This present position of yours can accurately be called being a Bible agnostic (you don't know for sure what God may or may not have written in hundreds of instances, and you are an unbeliever in the Inerrancy of the Bible - any Bible in any language.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
Hi Jimmy. My previous statement still stands - You simply do not have ANY Bible in any language that you believe IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. This present position of yours can accurately be called being a Bible agnostic (you don't know for sure what God may or may not have written in hundreds of instances, and you are an unbeliever in the Inerrancy of the Bible - any Bible in any language.
Try going where the autographs are, instead of trying to find 2000 year old documents scanned onto the internet. That old of material does not scan without being severely damaged. You're not interested in the truth. You just want an idol.
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
Hi Jimmy. My previous statement still stands - You simply do not have ANY Bible in any language that you believe IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. This present position of yours can accurately be called being a Bible agnostic (you don't know for sure what God may or may not have written in hundreds of instances, and you are an unbeliever in the Inerrancy of the Bible - any Bible in any language.
what? this is a ridiculous statement based on an absurd presuppositions. I don't understand, God is kind of pro-intellegence/logic/reasoning and to say that the KJV version is the only Infallable word is a little crazy - The Bible is useless unless the Holy Spirit does the work in the Word, it shows the Living Word - check the prayer of Jesus to the Father - if you can't believe that the Holy Spirit is the one who illuminates, and brings truth - you are left with what the Pharisees did - when Jesus said they searched the scriptures because they believe in them they have eternal life, it is Him they are talking about - that is idolatry
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
i guess if you want to know if someone is truly an idolater, ask them, can a person be saved without reading the KJV -- if they were to say yes - that's adding to the Gospel, therefore Idolatry
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
113
63
Try going where the autographs are, instead of trying to find 2000 year old documents scanned onto the internet. That old of material does not scan without being severely damaged. You're not interested in the truth. You just want an idol.

The original autographs vanished shortly after they were written. Therefore we do not have the original autographs.

What we do have though are copies and translations.
 
Last edited:
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
The original autographs vanished shortly after they were written. Therefore we do not have the original autographs.

What we do have though are copies and translations.
Sounds like you're an autograph atheist. You don't believe they exist. Maybe that's how you prop up the KJV, you deny the REAL Word and put up for sale a substitute. It was only driven on sundays by a little old lady to church.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Sounds like you're an autograph atheist. You don't believe they exist. Maybe that's how you prop up the KJV, you deny the REAL Word and put up for sale a substitute. It was only driven on sundays by a little old lady to church.
They must think we are fools!

1. God can not keep his origional text intact.
2. God, Who wrote the text in three very poetic, deep and very complex languages meant to write it in english. A very basic, simple and (to be honest) horrendous language which has many words with many different meanings..
3. God saved his word which as Chosenbyhim said "disappeared very shortly after they were written" by having some dude inspired to write it some 1600 years after the origional was written. And gave it as the word for the world.
4. Meaning. For some 1600 years. The world had NO inspired word of God.. how did the church survive?? How could anyone possibly be saved with no word of God for 1600 years??

Boggles my mind.
 
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
Try going where the autographs are, instead of trying to find 2000 year old documents scanned onto the internet. That old of material does not scan without being severely damaged. You're not interested in the truth. You just want an idol.
Huh...jimmy, I know this may come a a bit of a shock to you, but there ARE NO autographs. You have an invisible and imaginary "bible". And you think you have the truth? You have GOT to be kidding, right?

"If you mess with the Book God will mess with your mind."

or as the Bible puts it: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Cor. 1:19-20

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
Huh...jimmy, I know this may come a a bit of a shock to you, but there ARE NO autographs. You have an invisible and imaginary "bible". And you think you have the truth? You have GOT to be kidding, right?

"If you mess with the Book God will mess with your mind."

or as the Bible puts it: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Cor. 1:19-20

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
Why are you such a bible atheist?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Huh...jimmy, I know this may come a a bit of a shock to you, but there ARE NO autographs. You have an invisible and imaginary "bible". And you think you have the truth? You have GOT to be kidding, right?

"If you mess with the Book God will mess with your mind."

or as the Bible puts it: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Cor. 1:19-20

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
According to you there was no bible for almost 1600 years..

Oh ye of little faith! Your messing with the power of God.. You should be ashamed.