To KJV-Onlyist.

[charisenexcelcis]

so if the majority of preversion are taken from the minority corrupt text, that still does not uncorrupt the text,so are you saying that the inspired word of God, from the God that can not lie can be corrupt and this is ok with you??? / HHHHMMMMM very interesting!!!!!!!

I saying that if a theta is in one text is a phi in another, that does not mean either is corrupted, only that one is misspelled. It effects neither inspiration nor God's work in preserving His word. You think that divine preservation ended in 1611, I do not. There is not a single verse in the KJV that I would consider "corrupt", but it is not in my language nor yours. If I use the same evaluative criteria for manuscripts that they used in translating the KJV how is that any less correct than the KJV? I think that beyond one verse in I John, you couldn't name a single difference between the Textus Recepticus and the Nestle text. You don't make a manuscript a perversion just by calling it so.

 

[Thaddaeus]

I do medieval re-enactment, and am facinated by "olde english". If someone didn't tell me in modern language what some of what they were saying said, i would be so lost it's not even funny. What's the point of reading something if you don't understand it? It loses all meaning to you. Some people simply don't understand the KJV. They read the words, but it doesn't settle in their mind, it's like staring at a riddle, you know what all the words are, you can read it, but it simply doesn't make sense to you. Some people can read it just fine, good on them. I'd rather read my NIV, understand what it's saying, get a feeling for it, and then go read the KJV with a modern understanding of what it's saying.

so let's trash all of our books, all of our newpapers, and don't forget that dictionary with all those hard words in it , once again let me state that God said If ye seek ( look ) for wisdom to ask Him , Don't change His Word. and if all it did was change words like raiment into clothes then I wouldn't. well maybe wouldn't have a problem. but with the NSAB john 4:29 the woman let the well says about Jesus "This is not the Christ, is it?" and the NIV matt 5;22 taken out "without a cause" stating that if a man is angry with no exception then he is endanger of judgement then later states That Jesus looked on some men with anger, thus making The perfect one in danger of the Judgement, this is cause to stand against them

 

[Nuhen]

ok let's start with the author of the paper he makes a quote that he read the scriptures five times but yet feels that it is more important, to just do as well as we can, than to study the word,,,HHHHMMMMMM!!!!! that's a little contradiction within it self is it not. from the beginning God told Cain if thou doest well, will thy not be accepted, but how can we strive to be the best according to God, if we have not studied His Word, take note I know one job of the Holy Spirit is to recall to rememberence of what Jesus Did, but again how can we remember what Jesus did if we do not know what he did, and how can we know without the Word that tells us this. second the author of this paper states



if we all could read Hebrew and greek then why would we need a english translation, If I could read hebrew and greek then: That would be the scripture That i would use > HHHHHMMMM let's see, we have an AUthorized English version The KJB, already been approved By scholars not an individual intrepetation ( which the Bible warns us that the Word of God is not for an individual intrepetation) so we have a team of scholars that agree that "STUDY" should be the word used in 2tim 2:15 and we have one person who claims to be a hebrew and greek scholar no proof of this with a individual saying that a team of scholars were wrong , and He the individual is right. and who do we believe????

now let me address the dead sea scrolls I watched the show on the History channel on the dead sea scrolls , now over time the scrolls have become so brittle than there were good sizes chunks or pieces of the pages actually missing, so the intrepeters had to reference other manuscripts to fill in the missing parts . if and which was the case they referred to the minority manuscipts which most folks will agree that the minority mansuscripts were for the most part not used up to 1900's in translating to english, because they were credited for being corrupt manuscripts, and these are the same manuscripts that most if not all of our modern day bible are translated from. because old the dead sea scrolls have have used which used the corrupt manuscripts to fill in the gaps. I was once told that a comptuer is only as good as the data that is put in to it , in other words if you program a computer that 2+2 = 5 then it will always caculate 2+2=5 , so the same with translating if you use a corrupt manuscript I don't care how much you know about translating, your results will always be corrupt.

as far as the old words such as raiment, if we are reading a newspaper and we come across a word that we do not know , or a word that is not used much anymore, do we discredit that newspaper, or do we just look up the word or ask someome else, hey what does raiment mean. God says if we seek wisdom to ask him, Not change His word!! I could go on maybe another post, some other day. if it seems evil to you to use the authorized version of the Holy Word, than use what ever you will but as fas as me and My house we will use the KJB.

The irony here is that you're making the same arguments the Catholic church made in regards to the Latin Vulgate.

G-d's Word was in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek for a LOT longer than 400 years, so by your logic, it is much more authorized than the KJV. So when are you going to start learning Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek?

 

[Thaddaeus]

I saying that if a theta is in one text is a phi in another, that does not mean either is corrupted, only that one is misspelled. It effects neither inspiration nor God's work in preserving His word. You think that divine preservation ended in 1611, I do not. There is not a single verse in the KJV that I would consider "corrupt", but it is not in my language nor yours. If I use the same evaluative criteria for manuscripts that they used in translating the KJV how is that any less correct than the KJV? I think that beyond one verse in I John, you couldn't name a single difference between the Textus Recepticus and the Nestle text. You don't make a manuscript a perversion just by calling it so.

sir when I call the minority text corrupt< i am just going by what a lot of other people have said that know far more about it than I ever will. but i have listed a couple of verses that are different in my post to harley angel and believe me there are many many more>

 

[charisenexcelcis]

sir when I call the minority text corrupt< i am just going by what a lot of other people have said that know far more about it than I ever will. but i have listed a couple of verses that are different in my post to harley angel and believe me there are many many more>

And if the minority text is the KJV, would you call it corrupt?

 

[Thaddaeus]

Would you be willing to be tested regarding your ability to understand Early Modern English? From the KJV?

can I use a dictionary if I need to and will tell you when i do??

 

[Harley_Angel]

If we seek God, we will find Him. Do you think God is going to let a translation get in the way between you and Him? Do you think when you are kneeling at the feet of your Father He is going to cast you down into hell because you studied His word from a certain translation of the Bible? How do you know which one is more correct? Have you taken both translations and referenced them against the original language as a professional in semantics and linguistics? Just because one says something one way and the other says it another, doesn't make either one corrupt. If I describe the sky as blue and you describe it as azure, it doesn't change anything unless you decide to pick it apart and say that azure specifically refers to a certain hue/tone/whatever whereas blue is more of a generalization, blah blah blah. God gave us a spirit of discernment. If I'm reading my Bible, SEEKING Him, and something doesn't make sense or comes off as fishy, or against His word, He'll let me know. He's not going to let his little childen be led astray if we are running into HIs arms. I'd rather read my Bible, understand it, be able to put it into context and truly absorb it, than read a bunch of words that have no meaning to me. FOr some people they might as well be reading the KJV in Hebrew for all that they truly understand it.

 

[Thaddaeus]

We have almost a whole new language, way of thinking, culture - a whole different mindset etc etc from when the KJV was actually translated. It was culture appropriate, language appropriate and understandable at the time. But times have changed and we have new and better translations that will help people understand what God is actually trying to say.

I disagree with the Better part of todays translations

 

[Thaddaeus]

Well considering that is the Old Testament and Dr Brown does have a Ph.D in semitic languages and literature, I would go with Dr Brown over the KJV. But of course not OVER God. God is above all things. But you were trying to say the KJV is God? I disagree.

well if dr brown attacks the word of God then you also have just went with dr, brown over God

 

[Harley_Angel]

Oh c'mon, it's not attacking the Word of God to say you prefer one translation over another and then give your factual reasonings behind it. That's being a little dramatic. You make it sound like anybody who disagrees you is automatically going against God.

 

[Maranatha_Yeshua]

well if dr brown attacks the word of God then you also have just went with dr, brown over God

Why would you say correcting the KJV is attacking God?

 

[Harley_Angel]

If the NIV corrects some of the KJV, that means the KJV had errors, too. So how come the KJV is still infallible if it also had errors?

 

[charisenexcelcis]

sir when I call the minority text corrupt< i am just going by what a lot of other people have said that know far more about it than I ever will. but i have listed a couple of verses that are different in my post to harley angel and believe me there are many many more>

In the John passage, the KJV she says, "Is this not the Christ?" If you were a speaker in a non metaphoric language you would think that she had just claimed that Jesus was not the Christ. The NASB: "This is not the Christ, is it?" Both are optative. She wants to believe that He is the Christ. All the NASB is trying to do is to reflect the original order as reflected in both the Textus Recepticus and the Nestle text. But I think if you read the NASB rather than refering to your notes you would not have noticed the difference because both are set up with the statement: Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done."
If you want to go over the hundreds of differences I am willing but not tonight, too late. I also may not always agree with the translation because inspiration occured in the autographs....

 

[Thaddaeus]

So as a KJV-Onlyist, you would agree no other English translation is God breathed or, inspired?

If so, are there any non-English bibles that you would consider inspired?

I would agree that if any contradicts the KJB( The Word of God) then No It Can Not be of God? I have not saw ever translation that is, so I could not make that statement you want me to make. but the ones I have saw and searched can not be of God, look satan twists The word of God he doesn't change every word , he even qoutes parts of scriptures when he twists them, so my prayer is that all things work together, so I pray that even if they are not of God that God can still use them for His purpose , but as far as me and my house we will use the KJB, , but I know it is wrong before God to attack anything that is of God

 

[Thaddaeus]

The irony here is that you're making the same arguments the Catholic church made in regards to the Latin Vulgate.

G-d's Word was in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek for a LOT longer than 400 years, so by your logic, it is much more authorized than the KJV. So when are you going to start learning Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek?

and what might that be??

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

let me add here also my main problem with the new preversions , in order to sell or get people to use them just as this person did , You have to attack the authorized English version of the Holy Scripture, and doesn't God say if I be for you, who can be against you, so how can we claim to be for God and attack the Holy Word of God that has been the authorized English version/Bible for almost 400 years now.

Have you heard of the Geneva Bible or Douay Rheims, both these Bibles and many other are older English versions of the Bible.

 

[Nuhen]

and what might that be??

The argument? Interesting that you ignored the bit about learning Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek...

 

[Thaddaeus]

And if the minority text is the KJV, would you call it corrupt?

No that is crazy, I am talking about two text that were used way back when people were starting to translating scriptures into english. there was two text the majority was called this because 99% of the english at that time were translated from this text, and the minority was called due to only about 1% of the english bible were taken from this text because it was consider corrupt . it doesn't matter if the Kjb has now become the minority bible used, thats stupid, the text that It came from is what I am using, and I know that there are some web sights that say the KJB came from the minority text also , but that is another attack to discredit it.

 

[Harley_Angel]

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Ver1.htm

This has some interesting thoughts about inherent problems with the NJV. I admit I haven't read up on the source or studied into any of what they said, but everyone need a place to start. It does show that the NJV did have things added to it that weren't in the original language, things paraphrased so people would understan it, things taken out, re-scribed, and changed entirely.

 

[MahogonySnail]

oh wow!!! hello snail,l once again you are the one WRONG, there are many spirits that are of God, . here is just a small sample:

Ga 6:1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the SPIRIT OF meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.Eph 1:13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy SPIRIT OF promise,Eph 1:17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the SPIRIT OF wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
one of these eph 1;13 is capital S but the other two are not, but all these spirits were of God, so if your preversion uses the capital S maybe it is wrong.

The verse in question gives only 1 spirit and it can only be the Holy Spirit, unless you think God gave Him a demon!!!? Demonic spirits are not capitalised, and human spirits. God's Spirit should be capitalised.