Women Pastors? Help me.

[garee]

Hosea is about Israel under the Old Covenant, not the Body of Christ under the New Covenant. The Hebrew doesn't use the word 'wife'.

Yes God divorced His wife Israel in respect to an outward Jew according to the flesh, remembering all Israel is not Israel, just as all Christians are not Christians, the new name he named his wife.

She is made up of born again Israelites on the other side of the cross as well as those who have the Spirit of Christ on this side.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Both group of virgins(not married) we waiting for the marriage supper when we receive our new bodies. This is unlike the strange woman who had no oil for her lamp, she was divorced.

The chaste virgin bride of Christ the church did not seek after to fornicate with other gods like the strange woman, the wife of whoredoms.

The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD. Hos 1:1

Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah. Plead with your "mother", plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts; Hos 2:1

The word "mother" is used there to represent the bride of Christ the church,the new heavenly Jerusalem, Zion. There we are informed us she is not the wife (divorced Israel) as the true mother of us all .

Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst. Hos 2:3

That thirst would be a thirst for hearing the word of God .

Hos 2:4 And I will not have mercy upon her children; for they be the children of whoredoms. For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oiland my drink.

The other virgins (un-married) would be the five that had no oil (no redemption). The word five represents redemption in the parables. The other virgins waiting to be married that had oil they went in with him to consummate the marriage: and the door was shut.

A divorce in the Old testament was necessary if one was unfaithful even if they had no consummated the wedding. They were called husband and wife, before they consummated the marriage

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.Mat 1:18

 

[StanJ]

Re: WHO IS THE BRIDE OF CHRIST?

No, I do not believe in two of the Five Points of Calvinists, so they disown me, and the Armenians disown me because I do believe three points of Calvinism. So Conservative Evangelical Christian is the only label you can pin on me.

What you call parroting others is called Discipleship in the Bible, something we are supposed to believe in.

Those played a role in my being discipled are:

The Bible teachers that have played a role in my being discipled
and had the most influence on my spiritual growth are:

Dr. John MacArthur, Jr. - http://www.gty.org/ sermons dating back to the early 70s - free to listen to.
Dr. Adrian Rogers - Listen to Adrian Rogers - Love Worth Finding Radio Online
Dr. Charles Stanley - http://www.intouch.org/
Dr. Richard Lee - First Redeemer Church | Duluth | Cumming | Alpharetta
Dr. Zola Levitt - http://www.levitt.tv/media/watch/118 - some free - videos
Dr. Ed Young - http://www.winningwalk.org/t-bio.aspx
Dr. Gil Rugh - http://www.ihcc.org/ - free sermons dating back to the late 70s - free
Dr. Chuck Swindoll - Listen to Chuck Swindoll - Insight for Living Radio Online
Dr. Walter Martin - https://www.blueletterbible.org/audio_video/martin_walter/
Dr. Ben Haden - Why
Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost - Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost (1915–2014) -
Dr. Dave Hunt - https://www.thebereancall.org/
Eliezer Urbach, associated with Jews for Jesus - Eliezer Urbach - Jews for Jesus

As well as the Pastors of Churches that I attended; especially Pastor Neil Berry and Pastor Gordan Broadbent.


So here is where you went wrong.
The Scriptures say:

Ephesians 4:11-13 (NIV)
[SUP]11 [/SUP] It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,
[SUP]12 [/SUP] to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up
[SUP]13 [/SUP] until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Matthew 28:19-20 (NKJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] Go therefore and make disciples {NOT FREE THINKERS WITH ORIGINAL THOUGHTS} of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
[SUP]20 [/SUP] teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

And thus you drifted way off course with your free thinking and original thought.

Again, calling scripture that is irrelevant to the issue is what you're good at but not understanding scripture is also what you're good at.
The only person at menu respect for and this list of yours is Dr. Walter Martin who died in 1989 and I can tell you he knew his Bible and I learned many things from him.
If Jesus or Paul or any of the authors of the New Testament taught me I would be very happy but the fact is they didn't and the fact is we have to learn how to properly read the Bible which apparently you haven't.
Of course Paul being Apostle to the Gentiles knew exactly what he was talking about and again his words were true and inspired but two thousand years later many people have gone off track including John Calvin and the rest of his disciples. It doesn't matter if you're one, two, three, four, or five point calvinist, if you're a calvinist you follow false teaching.
By the way, didn't you say you're going to go away?

 

[VCO]

Yes God divorced His wife Israel in respect to an outward Jew according to the flesh, remembering all Israel is not Israel, just as all Christians are not Christians, the new name he named his wife.

She is made up of born again Israelites on the other side of the cross as well as those who have the Spirit of Christ on this side.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Both group of virgins(not married) we waiting for the marriage supper when we receive our new bodies. This is unlike the strange woman who had no oil for her lamp, she was divorced.

The chaste virgin bride of Christ the church did not seek after to fornicate with other gods like the strange woman, the wife of whoredoms.

The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD. Hos 1:1

Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah. Plead with your "mother", plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts; Hos 2:1

The word "mother" is used there to represent the bride of Christ the church,the new heavenly Jerusalem, Zion. There we are informed us she is not the wife (divorced Israel) as the true mother of us all .

Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst. Hos 2:3

That thirst would be a thirst for hearing the word of God .

Hos 2:4 And I will not have mercy upon her children; for they be the children of whoredoms. For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oiland my drink.

The other virgins (un-married) would be the five that had no oil (no redemption). The word five represents redemption in the parables. The other virgins waiting to be married that had oil they went in with him to consummate the marriage: and the door was shut.

A divorce in the Old testament was necessary if one was unfaithful even if they had no consummated the wedding. They were called husband and wife, before they consummated the marriage

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.Mat 1:18

I would not have used the term Divorced, because Jews who never established a personal relationship with the LORD GOD, NEVER were part of the Assembly of True Believers who had the Faith of Abraham. Besides that, I have a great problem with trying to justify divorce as being of GOD, when he said to forgive as we were forgiven.

You are right, being born of the right bloodline did not make you part of the Assembly that the LORD has been building; just like sitting on a pew does not make you a Christian. It has always been submitting to HIM out of LOVE, that makes one a member of the Assembly our LORD has been building.

Romans 9:6 (GWT)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] Now it is not as though God's word has failed. Clearly, not everyone descended from Israel is part of Israel.


1 John 2:19 (NKJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.


Those are not Jews that lost their Salvation, they are Jews who never had a Personal Love relationship with the Lord GOD, which is characterized by having the Faith of Abraham.


Romans 4:12 (NCV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP] And Abraham is also the father of those who have been circumcised and who live following the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. {Even circumcision had nothing to do with Salvation, it always has been having the kind of Faith Abraham has.}

Romans 4:16 (YLT)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] Because of this it is of faith, that it may be according to grace, for the promise being sure to all the seed, not to that which is of the law only, but also to that which is of the faith of Abraham,

Galatians 3:9 (ESV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Luke 2:32 (NKJV)
[SUP]32 [/SUP] A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of Your people Israel." {Those are Only the ones who have the faith of Abraham}

Matthew 15:31 (HCSB)
[SUP]31 [/SUP] So the crowd was amazed when they saw those unable to speak talking, the deformed restored, the lame walking, and the blind seeing. And they gave glory to the God of Israel.

Psalm 103:8-9 (NRSV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] He will not always accuse, nor will he keep his anger forever.

 

[VCO]

Re: WHO IS THE BRIDE OF CHRIST?

Again, calling scripture that is irrelevant to the issue is what you're good at but not understanding scripture is also what you're good at.
The only person at menu respect for and this list of yours is Dr. Walter Martin who died in 1989 and I can tell you he knew his Bible and I learned many things from him.
If Jesus or Paul or any of the authors of the New Testament taught me I would be very happy but the fact is they didn't and the fact is we have to learn how to properly read the Bible which apparently you haven't.
Of course Paul being Apostle to the Gentiles knew exactly what he was talking about and again his words were true and inspired but two thousand years later many people have gone off track including John Calvin and the rest of his disciples. It doesn't matter if you're one, two, three, four, or five point calvinist, if you're a calvinist you follow false teaching.
By the way, didn't you say you're going to go away?

Again that is only your opinion.

Where will that leave you, if everything that I have tried to share with you, IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH?


We are finished with our discussion.


Matthew 25:6-8 (NKJV)
[SUP]6 [/SUP] And at midnight a cry was heard: 'Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him!'
[SUP]7 [/SUP] Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] And the foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'

Matthew 25:11-13 (NKJV)
[SUP]11 [/SUP] Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open to us!'
[SUP]12 [/SUP] But he answered and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.'
[SUP]13 [/SUP] Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.


Ten is prophetic symbolism for MANY.


Matthew 7:21-23 (NKJV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP] "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
[SUP]23 [/SUP] And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

 

[StanJ]

The body of Christ is the church. She in respect to her new incorruptible body is referred to as the wife, Christ the husband.

Where exactly is that in the NT?

She in a spiritual way(not seen) is made up of many lively stones called the house of God.She will come down from heaven prepared as His bride. She is made up of all the Old testament saints who have the Spirit of Christ(born again) referred to as gates. Twelve is used to represent all the saints who had the Spirit of Christ in them ,and the saints on this side of the cross who have the same Spirit of Christ (born again) referred to foundations called apostles(sent ones). Together they make up one bride.

Again where does Scripture support these assertions?

1Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Or it could be said the pillar and foundation of truth.
1Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Noman knows what our new incorruptible bodies will be like but we do know we willbe like the angels (no procreation).

Timothy and Peter are using metaphorical language so it's not hard to understand. I have no idea what you're trying to imply?
Actually 1 John 3:2 says we will be like Jesus not like the Angels, so again I'm not sure where you're getting this from?

If He desires to call this new creation His bride why would any person object.It would be like in Isiah 29; shall the thing framed say ofhim that framed it, He had no understanding?

Again where in the New Testament does Jesus call his creation his bride?

 

[StanJ]

Re: WHO IS THE BRIDE OF CHRIST?

Again that is only your opinion.
Where will that leave you, if everything that I have tried to share with you, IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH?
We are finished with our discussion.

No, it's truth which you can't or won't recognize. I have no problem with my future because I know who holds the future but you seem to have a problem with what truth really is?
You keep saying you're finished with our discussion yet you keep on posting so it just like everything else I really don't believe you.

 

[DiscipleDave]

Originally Posted by DiscipleDave

The Word of God and what it actually says:

Watered down version to fit into the last days generation way of thinking:

Those verses say nothing about teaching over a man that is true, this verse does however teach they are not to do so:

1Ti_2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Are you also KJVO?

The most accurate English versions are the NET & NIV.
https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

The context of 1 Tim 2:12 is of a husband and wife. Even the version you quoted says the man not a man or all men. The man is equivalent to the husband.

If you want to know where i stand on what version, please click HERE for that information. i am a firm believer in the KJV, but am not a KJV ONLY person either.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

 

[Dagallen]

There is no perfect version known in the world, due to the fact, we are not a perfect people.

 

[DiscipleDave]

Originally Posted by DiscipleDave

Scriptures plainly teach that Husband shall rule over the wife.

Gen_3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he (HUSBAND) shall rule over thee (WIFE).

I read this passage as a foretelling, not a command. It simply doesn't make sense to me as a command. Again, why would God, Who is good and wise, assign sinful males to "rule over" females? Does it not make more sense that God was foretelling what simply "would" happen, not what "should" happen?

Scriptures makes since, what people thinks distorts Scriptures. Ask all True Christian wives who knows their husband rules over them, and that obey their husbands, if it is a command or not a command. Eve sure felt it was a command. And it lasted all the way to Abraham and his wife Sarah, who called her husband "LORD". Throughout all of History, husbands were the head of the house, and wives were to obey their husbands. It is only during the last days were women think they are equal to men and therefore, now the tables have been turned and women have become the head of the house, and men servants to their wives (Especially in America, the Great Babylon)

Originally Posted by DiscipleDave

And Scriptures plainly reveals that it is important who was formed first, consider:

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (God seems to think it pretty important to mention it in His Word) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Yes, and this passage makes great sense if Paul is refuting a proto-Gnostic heresy. It is awkward otherwise.

Does it matter what you or i think of the verse, does not Change the TRUTH of it in the slightest. Tell me, when the Holy Ghost inspired to write this, do you think the Holy Spirit KNEW that this would not apply to people 2000 years from now, and should not be said? Or do you think the Holy Spirit knew exactly what to say and it would apply all the way up till the time of Jesus Return?

Originally Posted by DiscipleDave

... Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in EVERY THING.

Can you explain what the bolded words mean in the next Holy Inspired by God verse?

Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, OBEDIENT to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Doesn't Obedient mean to OBEY? Aren't the aged women, according to God (the Word), suppose to be teaching the wives to be OBEDIENT to their own husbands? Not in America for sure. Get stoned if you do, in a country where the women have become men, and the men have become obedient to their wives.

Taking one English translation of a word which is translated in several different ways and arguing that it means what you want it to mean is disingenuous. "Subject" and "submit" are far more common selections for the word translated "obedient" above.

So what you are basically saying is that the word OBEDIENT does not mean OBEDIENT? But you say it means something else, is that right? WOW, when God was overseeing the Bible come into ENGLISH, He sure made a lot of mistakes, HE probably should have said some things a little bit differently huh? God Forbid. What God allowed into the KJV is what God wanted in the KJV, else He would have removed it, or caused it not to be added into it.

Originally Posted by DiscipleDave

You teach it is not hierarchy, Scriptures plainly teaches it is. Husband is to Rule over the wife. Wife is to obey her husband. woman was made for the man. Husband is the Head of the wife. Hierarchy for sure. Jesus is over the Church, yes? Is it not instructed of wives to submit to their husband even as the Church to Jesus? Hierarchy.

You're welcome to see it that way. I don't.

And i am guessing you are women who thinks you are equal to your husband, and lives in America, am i right? it is no wander to me, that you see it differently than what Scriptures says it should be.

Because of the way you and I differ on the interpretation of Genesis 3:16, we likely won't agree on the rest of the passages.

No, we don't agree because you are a woman that does not agree with Scriptures which teaches those things that you do not agree with. You justify yourself by saying you disagree with ME, when it is not me that you disagree with but what Scriptures teach concerning wives to their husbands.

I see the hierarchy (among humans) as a direct result of the fall, not the intention of God.

Yes hierarchy was in Heaven as it is suppose to be on Earth as well.

Ephesians 5:21 teaches mutual submission;

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Oh, i see what you have done, you are trying to take this verse out of context to fit into your own doctrine of what you believe, by saying this verse applies to wives. but here is the TRUTH. Eph 5:21 is to All Christians everywhere, women and men. Eph 5:21 has NOTHING to do with husbands and wives, but the very next verse does.

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. (end of paragraph)

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Ephesians verses 1-21 are to ALL Christians, then Paul immediately addresses the wives in verse 22. To use verse 21 saying it is to and for the wives is to take that verse out of context to fit your own beliefs in what you think should be the TRUTH.

Ephesians 5:21 teaches mutual submission; if the husband "rules over" his wife, he is not practicing mutual submission, and it is far more likely that he will become a tyrant than a godly husband if he follows the "rule over" interpretation.

Are you saying for the past 6,000 years every husband who ruled over their wife was a tyrant? For some reason i perceive that you view the word "RULE" as a bad thing, something that should not be done. My Boss RULES over me, he tells me what to do, i do it, he is my Boss. Is He better than me, because he rules over me, Heavens no. Am i his slave? NO is the answer to that also. You are getting hung up on the word "RULE" as if it was a bad thing. Teachers RULE over their students. The Principal RULES over the teachers. The State RULES over the principal. The Federal gov RULES over the States. It is not a bad thing, but is a necessity to keep things in ORDER. Is the principal better than the Teacher? NO. The teachers teach, the principal RULES. Parents Rule over their children, does that make it bad? NO. Now what do you think would happen if children started RULING over their parents? Well we see evidence of that happening even today. There is NO ORDER. Have you ever been on a job with two or three Bosses, Miserable, NO ORDER. Likewise children today have two Bosses, MOM and DAD. if they don't like one answer they go to the other to see if they can get a different answer, why? Because BOTH are Bosses in that family. NO ORDER. It is not God's fault if people are not living by the ORDER that God has set up since ADAM and EVE were created, and has worked for over 6,000 years now. But leave it to the last days generation to desire NO ORDER. Women equal to men, children equal to parents. Children telling parents what they will eat and what they will not eat for dinner. NO ORDER. Parents making several things for dinner to serve the wishes of their children. NO ORDER.

Originally Posted by DiscipleDave

Where is that written anywhere in all of Scriptures Old or New, that interpretation of Scriptures belong to humans? Sure we are to try to understand what Scriptures is trying to teach us or tell us, and sure we are to study Scriptures, knowing what is where, and what is written and what is not written. But when someone interprets the Scriptures to fit into their own false doctrines this is not of God.

Where does it say that the interpretation of Scripture doesn't belong to us? Interpretation includes taking the symbols on the page, assigning meaning to them based on known patterns, and assigning meaning to the collection of patterns. You can't get away from interpretation; you do it every time you read the Scripture. The point Peter was making is that only God can rightly interpret prophecy... he wasn't talking about Scripture in general. As to your last sentence above, I agree.

When a person goes about to interpret Scriptures satan will most certainly get involved. We are to seek the wisdom of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit of Truth reveals to us what the Spirit wants us to know. When people do not wait on the Spirit of Truth, they go to interpret the Word of God themselves, as if they had the authority to do so. It is the WORD OF GOD, do you think you are Holy enough, just enough, Righteous enough to try to interpret the Word of God, through YOUR own understanding, YOUR own interpretations. The Holy Ghost can teach a person things in 10 minutes that it would take a person 4 years of college to understand and grasp. Please click HERE to see the verses about interpretations belong to God not to men.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

 

[DiscipleDave]

There is no perfect version known in the world, due to the fact, we are not a perfect people.

yet there is one version that satan tried to wipe out.
There is one version that God protected from satan and his goals
There is one version that so many of our Christian Brothers and Sisters have died to protect.
There is one version that so many of our Christian Brothers and Sisters have died because they had it.
There is one version that has been around for over 400 years now and have SAVED countless number of souls.
There is one version that will still be here when Christ Returns, even though, people are trying to get rid of it altogether.
That version is the KJV.

What then, should i start living by a version that was created in the last days? Think about that for a moment. The KJV has been saving countless number of souls for God, but leave it to the last days generation to think, NOPE, the KJV is outdated and needs to be replaced, this is what the last days generation believes. and now look there are hundreds of other versions out there today.

satan is good at being a master deceiver. If he can't destroy the KJV Bible like he tried to in the past, he does the next best thing, cause hundreds of other versions to pop up to keep people away from the KJV which God Himself protected from satan.

Are other version WRONG? no. Any Book which can bring a person to the Lord Jesus Christ is not a bad book. But if you are going to study and live by the Word of God, better have a KJV to back up all the stuff you read in other versions, using the KJV as the sole authority over all other versions, hence the Word Of God. If Joyce Meyers wants to come up with her own version, so be it. it is her version and not the Word of God. Not saying her version would be evil, only saying it is not the Word of God it is but her version of the Word of God. All other versions can fit into that scenario as well. The NIV is NOT the Word of God, it is a version of the Word of God, not the Word of God.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

 

[Dagallen]

The KJV is not perfect but it is one of a good version, better than the versions that came after KJV but even KJV came from versions before KJV was ever written.

 

[StanJ]

When a person goes about to interpret Scriptures satan will most certainly get involved. We are to seek the wisdom of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit of Truth reveals to us what the Spirit wants us to know. When people do not wait on the Spirit of Truth, they go to interpret the Word of God themselves, as if they had the authority to do so. It is the WORD OF GOD, do you think you are Holy enough, just enough, Righteous enough to try to interpret the Word of God, through YOUR own understanding, YOUR own interpretations. The Holy Ghost can teach a person things in 10 minutes that it would take a person 4 years of college to understand and grasp. Please click HERE to see the verses about interpretations belong to God not to men.

Please click HERE to see the verses about studying scripture and what it is for.

 

[VCO]

There is no perfect version known in the world, due to the fact, we are not a perfect people.

2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2 Peter 1:20-21 (NKJV)
[SUP]20 [/SUP] knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
[SUP]21 [/SUP] for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Psalm 19:7-8 (ASV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul: The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart: The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes.


So are you saying that the original was not Perfect, or that the GOD who was Powerful and Holy enough to give it via inspiration Perfect through the minds of sinful men in the original manuscripts, is not Powerful and Holy enough to keep it Perfect through the minds of sinful Translators?

 

[Dagallen]

2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2 Peter 1:20-21 (NKJV)
[SUP]20 [/SUP] knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
[SUP]21 [/SUP] for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Psalm 19:7-8 (ASV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul: The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart: The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes.


So are you saying that the original was not Perfect, or that the GOD who was Powerful and Holy enough to give it via inspiration Perfect through the minds of sinful men in the original manuscripts, is not Powerful and Holy enough to keep it Perfect through the minds of sinful Translators?

The original word of God would be perfect but we don't have the original.

 

[VCO]

The KJV is not perfect but it is one of a good version, better than the versions that came after KJV but even KJV came from versions before KJV was ever written.

In fact the KJV is a paraphrase of earlier English Translations, to update the language and correct known errors. I says so in the Original 1611 Preface.

 

[Dagallen]

In fact the KJV is a paraphrase of earlier English Translations, to update the language and correct known errors. I says so in the Original 1611 Preface.

I can agree, however it does not mean the KJV version is perfect

 

[Dino246]

What God allowed into the KJV is what God wanted in the KJV, else He would have removed it, or caused it not to be added into it.

When a person goes about to interpret Scriptures satan will most certainly get involved.

This is not a KJV thread. Regardless, you just demonstrated that satan was involved in the interpretation of the manuscripts and published editions used in the development of the KJV. If God was involved in the development of the KJV, He was equally involved in the NIV, NEB, CEV, etc. Your argument is invalidated by your poor logic.

And i am guessing you are women who thinks you are equal to your husband, and lives in America, am i right? it is no wander to me, that you see it differently than what Scriptures says it should be. ... No, we don't agree because you are a woman that does not agree with Scriptures which teaches those things that you do not agree with. You justify yourself by saying you disagree with ME, when it is not me that you disagree with but what Scriptures teach concerning wives to their husbands.

I have explained already that a blue nickname indicates a male contributor.

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Oh, i see what you have done, you are trying to take this verse out of context to fit into your own doctrine of what you believe, by saying this verse applies to wives. but here is the TRUTH. Eph 5:21 is to All Christians everywhere, women and men. Eph 5:21 has NOTHING to do with husbands and wives, but the very next verse does.

"Out of context": The context includes the next verse, which you say does have something to do with husbands and wives. Illogical, again.

yet there is one version that satan tried to wipe out.
There is one version that God protected from satan and his goals
There is one version that so many of our Christian Brothers and Sisters have died to protect.
There is one version that so many of our Christian Brothers and Sisters have died because they had it.
There is one version that has been around for over 400 years now and have SAVED countless number of souls.
There is one version that will still be here when Christ Returns, even though, people are trying to get rid of it altogether.
That version is the KJV.

...the KJV which God Himself protected from satan.

Again, this is not a KJV thread. Your argument that people died for owning a KJV needs evidence, as does your assertion that God Himself protected it from satan. Your comment from the previous post invalidates this.

The length of time during which a translation is "dominant" in a given language has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is correct. The Vulgate was used for 1100 years, which trumps your "400 year" argument.

A translation doesn't save anyone. Get your soteriology straight.

 

[VCO]

I can agree, however it does not mean the KJV version is perfect

The Key word is KNOWN errors, they missed some that were unknown, because they did not Translate from the oldest original language manuscripts, choosing to paraphrase from older English Versions, and lean on the Latin Version to check their work. THEREFORE, the KJV is purely a Paraphrase and not an actual Translation, as admitted to by the Translation Team in the Original 1611 KJV Preface. Thus some errors in the older English Version were missed, and some errors in the Latin Version were transferred to the KJV. Such as:

1 John 5:7 (KJV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

THAT ERROR, was picked up on and corrected as soon as later actual Translations came out:

1 John 5:8 (ASV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

1 John 5:8 (RSV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP] There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.


Don't get me wrong, the KJV is still a very good Paraphase, but it's wording should always be checked against an actual Translation.

 

[VCO]

. . .
What God allowed into the KJV is what God wanted in the KJV, else He would have removed it, or caused it not to be added into it.
. . .
^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

That statement is a hard sell after you actually read the Original 1611 KJV Preface.

Here is an Excerpt to show you what I mean. I read the whole thing twice, and it totally totally convinced me that the newer Translations were Absolutely NECESSARY:

QUOTE:

KING JAMES VERSION - Original Preface [1611]

The Translators To The Reader

Zeale to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any thing our selves, or revising that which hath bene laboured by others, . . .
. . .
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? . . . so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. . .
. . .
Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather then by making a new, in that new world and greene age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their owne turne, and therefore bearing witnesse to themselves, their witnesse not to be regarded. This may be supposed to bee some cause, why the Translation of the Seventie was allowed to passe for currant. . . . he holdeth the Authours thereof not onely for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperour enjoyning the Jewes his subjects to use specially the Translation of the Seventie, rendreth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlighted with propheticall grace. . . .
. . .
(and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventie were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to adde to the Originall, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sence thereof according to the trueth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greeke Translations of the old Testament. . . .
. . .
There were also within a few hundreth yeeres after CHRIST, translations many into the Latine tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countreys of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latine, being made Provinces to the Romanes. But now the Latine Translations were too many to be all good, . . . Now the Church of Rome . . . Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confesse, that wee forced them to translate it into English against their wills. . . .
. . .
And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to have beene raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posteritie in everlasting remembrance. . . .
. . .
Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, doe endevour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade our selves, if they were alive, would thanke us. . . .
. . .
to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this meanes it commeth to passe, that whatsoever is sound alreadie (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours farre better then their autentike vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may bee corrected, and the trueth set in place. . . .
. . .
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest{ poorest } translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. . . .
. . .
Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. { The very same thing you do to MODERN Translations. } For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? . . .
. . .
But the difference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they bee fit men to throw stones at us:But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in briefe what wee proposed to our selves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survay of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke. . . . { That makes it a PARAPHRASE and not an actual Translation from the original languages. }

http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

 

[VCO]

DiscipleDave:


Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. { The very same thing you do to MODERN Translations. }

I meant to tell you that the blue letters are my comments to KJO Believer years ago. I will change that you to "many KJO Believers want to". I also noticed the TYPO, of the word Translations, and I went back to the same online posting of the KJV Original Preface [1611], AND sure enough the typo was made there. It would be interesting to see if the Typo was made by whoever made that online Post, or whether it was a Type Setter error in 1611. I will look in the oldest KJV that I have in my collection, but I doubt if it is old enough. Nope, my 1872 Pulpit/Family Bible has a different Preface.