No, you're getting a dig, it's what you do. However, the joke went over your head.
King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?
- Thread starter Dai3234
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, you're getting a dig, it's what you do. However, the joke went over your head.
LOL
This is ridiculous. The whole refined 7 times verse is taken out of context for starters, if Gods word has to be refined 7 times, then that means the WHOLE bible. If you look at the Bibles this cult claims are the 6 preceding KJV, then you will see it is impossible to have the whole Bible refined 7 times.
Tynsdale's Bible, which is first in line, was never finished, half the Old Testament is missing, so half the old testament in the KJV 1611 has only been refined 6 times. Epic fail and oversight and should be enough to stop this cult in its tracks, or at least have people see it for what it is and avoid the cult altogether.
Yeah, God had to try seven times to get it right.
Spare me, I know the passage you rip out of context to arrive at your false teachings.
I don't see anything in English that points to a direct quotation. I'm interested in why kathós makes a direct quote in Greek.And I said that in Daniel 9:13 "hoti" is missing, but is in Mark. Also there is kathós instead of hós. Which makes Mark 7:7 a direct quotation.
BTW, you still did not respond to my comparison of Mark and OT:
OK, it got mixed.
We should not compare the KJV New Testament to LXX, but KJV New Testament to KJV Old Testament and see if it fits better than the Greek NT fits with the Greek OT:
------
English "consistency":
Is 29:13
"...this people... have removed their heart far from me,
and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men."
Mk 7:6,7
"It is written,
This people... their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
------
Greek consistency:
Is 29:13
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος... ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ·
μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας
Mk 7:6,7
ὡς γέγραπται,
Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς... ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ.
Μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων.
-------
Summary:
a) In English, we have these problems:
- heart is far vs they removed their heart far
- the part about "vain worship" disappeared completely
- the part about fear is added
- the word "doctrines" disappeared
- the word "commandments" disappeared
- meaning is changed: "their fear is taught by something" vs "they worship me in vain, because they are teaching something", passive vs active change
b) In Greek, we have these problems:
- word "kai" (and) is added in Mark
Conclusion: The English is perfect and not corrupted at all Right? If you simply compare it this way you must see how futile it is to defend the KJV "version"....
The words of Christ is the Spirit of Christ.
John 6:63 KJV
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
That doesn't compute in my brain, I can't see God's word being any different than God himself.
Yeah, God had to try seven times to get it right.
What concerns me is that he keeps repeating it, despite having been shown that it is a bad argument. He repeats his arguments in cycles. It's like reasoning with a wave... it keeps coming back again, slightly rearranged, with nothing new to offer.
Yes I can prove this claim. In the statement below is "the word of God" the written word of God or Jesus?
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
If Jesus were standing in front of you, and said something, and you wrote it down, would you worship what was written or the Person before you? That's the crux of the difference. We worship the person. We are concerned that you worship what is written, and are therefore engaged in idolatry.
I appreciate your concern, truly I do. I'm human and I have desires for physical things and would certainly rather interact with Jesus face to face... it's part of being human. But I don't love Christ for his body, I love him for WHO he is. By who he is, I mean his personality, his character, his love, etc which I can only describe as his spirit or essence.
If my spirit can connect to Christ in that way through written down words, what difference would it make if I worshipped him in bodily form or through the words he speaks to me through the pages of the bible? Both are just carriers for the Spirit who I truly love and worship.
In this world and in my humanity I would rather have his physical body before me and even though I don't have that right now, I can still commune with the true essence of Christ through the written word and I honestly don't think I would know him any better if he was standing right before me because his spirit and essence literally are right before me on the pages of the bible.
Last edited:
KJV1611...
By what authority can you claim the KJV is God's preserved word for English speaking folk? Why was it not the Bishops or Geneva bible that God chose? How can you know beyond any doubt the KJV is the word of God and not those one of those other two?
By what authority can you claim the KJV is God's preserved word for English speaking folk? Why was it not the Bishops or Geneva bible that God chose? How can you know beyond any doubt the KJV is the word of God and not those one of those other two?
Bingo!! I told John146, I think it was him, he was Peter Ruckman incarnate.
I have watched a few of his sermons when we had Direct TV. I admit I enjoyed his drawing, but man, some of the loose things he said had me wondering. He had a bully-like mentality in the pulpit.
He was a few fries short of a happy meal, iow...
I don't have any authority and I can't convince anyone the KJV is inspired any more than I can convince someone to believe in Jesus. If God doesn't reveal it, it wont happen.
I think the toy is missing too . No joy with that guy . I only hope he found peace before he passed .
Blessings
Bill