The King James Bible

[Joseppi]

Wow, you got all that from this one post.
I guess God can't reveal Himself to men unless you approve the translation they use, or they attend some Bible school that you approve of. Exactly what part of my post instigated such a condemnation? Was it the part about God being a Spirit? Maybe the part about Spiritual understand that you imply I am void of.
"Any notion", no come on. Be honest here. You aren't speaking about "Any Notion", you are speaking about your notion, nothing else. I mean, your judgment and condemnation means little to me. I am just curious as to how you came to it by this one short post.

I reject and criticize what I consider a dummed down, casual, approach to scripture that suggests that whatever any one reads as scripture is, ok.
I see you name yourself Studyman, and I can't reconcile that name with any thing goes approach to modern versions that disagree among themselves, create confusion, promote false doctrines and many other ills evident in todays churches.

 

[Joseppi]

Different words can have the same meaning.

How does a train go when it's running at full speed?

1) The train goes quickly
2) The train moves fast
3) The train travels speedily

Which one is the truth?

In the context of a mechanical object I suppose those three words equate.

In the context of scripture those three words don't equate.
Thinking that different words equate is indeed, a casual notion.
The word of God is quick.
That word choice is destroyed and weakened by changing "quick" to "fast" or "speedily."
If you look closer at those words you will find one of them incorporates meaning that goes beyond the limitations of the others.
The Holy Bible tends to present a word that is not so limited in meaning.
And, the God is precise in his consistency of use of a word, which is why I remarked on numbers, and words as God uses them in his Holy Bible.

 

[John146]

In the context of a mechanical object I suppose those three words equate.

In the context of scripture those three words don't equate.
Thinking that different words equate is indeed, a casual notion.
The word of God is quick.
That word choice is destroyed and weakened by changing "quick" to "fast" or "speedily."
If you look closer at those words you will find one of them incorporates meaning that goes beyond the limitations of the others.
The Holy Bible tends to present a word that is not so limited in meaning.
And, the God is precise in his consistency of use of a word, which is why I remarked on numbers, and words as God uses them in his Holy Bible.

Philippians 3:8
KJV - Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

NASB - More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,


I wonder why the new versions didn't change the word dung to it's new updated perverse four letter word? I'm sorry but rubbish is not the same as dung. New version fail once more...

 

[Joseppi]

That's an interesting question; if the NT can quote the OT with variants, then it does beg the question why this is not permissible with many Bible translations.

I agree, its a relevant question that needs to be answered.
Some may assert that because of the above observation, it is evident that the Holy Bible and all other versions are therefore, ok. Which conclusion is the one sought, sold and then bought in bookstores. (But not for making money?)
A good question is, Are all the variants presenting the truth?

If we know God doesn't disallow diversity in quotes...then...does that mean that all diversity is good?

I see that God, by allowing diversity in his Holy Bible, is teaching us how to avoid the falsehoods found in other bibles claiming to be of God. Compare.

We compare fruit and refuse to buy what we judge as fruit having poor quality.
Taste and see that the Lord is good.

 

[trofimus]

[/I]I wonder why the new versions didn't change the word dung to it's new updated perverse four letter word? I'm sorry but rubbish is not the same as dung. New version fail once more...

"Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Mt 4:7, KJV

"You shall not test the LORD your God, as you tested him in Massah."
Dt 6:16, KJV


I am sorry, but tempting is not the same thing as testing. The KJV fails once more.

 

[Joseppi]

What the blazes are you talking about?
Get thee behind & get thee hence are both from the KJV. There are no thees in the NIV at all.

And the two words as used in the Holy Bible don't contradict the truth they present.

 

[Joseppi]

Thats so sad that your KJV does not have what Jesus quoted. Thats probably because your KJV is perfect.

The quotes provide teach two diverse points that if you study the difference will give you a fuller understanding of what sustains spiritual life and how.

 

[Joseppi]

Joseppi, even I remember that the word proceedeth from the mouth of God. Proceedeth. It doesn't just "come from God" as you posted.

I covered the difference between Matthew and Luke.
Proceedeth, teaches us that we need the word of God as he is speaking now to them that hear him.

 

[Joseppi]

There is nothing "complex" about quoting the OT and seeing if it matches the OT text. And if not, there is no reason for your dogma of "God's word must be perfectly preserved and translated in the only one way".

You are still obfuscating.
Or, you are revealing that you don't understand the complexity of what your dealing with.
I told you that you invented a man made premise of what "perfection" is.
And I alsopointed out that your notion of perfection is not only false, but simplistic.

 

[Joseppi]

You come at this point having apparently made the a priori assumption that the verse (whatever verse it may be) is Scripture... "without any question". The reality is that there is a question. There is nothing wrong with identifying as questionable something the translators find questionable! Your argument is just another nuance on "the KJV is the standard of completeness and accuracy" and it is invalid for the same reason.

The Holy Bible is the standarn, as the word, holy, signifies, and comparison against all other texts proves.

 

[Joseppi]

The NIV doesn't state that God authored confusion at pentecost, and I cannot explain why it doesn't, other than I don't think God did. I couldn't find a version that does state this, including the kjv. That leads me to continue to believe that God DIDN'T author confusion there. People were "confounded (most popular adjective), amazed, bewildered, yes confused, surprised, agitated, startled" but nowhere does any version say God was the "author" of the confusion, but that confusion was their reaction to what God had done regarding the many languages.

The scripture says that God is not the author of confusion.
The niv agrees in that same passage. Since, I suspect they know better than to lie too boldly.

If my memory serves me, the niv, then turns around and states that at Babel, God "confused" the languages. (I don't read the niv, correct me aboutitif I'm wrong)
And, the niv states that at Pentecost, the hearers were "confused."
But, the Holy Bible states "confounded" in both instances regarding what he did in each circumstance.
Confound, means that a perso is puzzled. They are puzzled because of something they can't yet comprehend.
A confused person is presented with something which wisdom can't correct because confusion results in noise not information.

 

[Joseppi]

The fact is the KJV translators acknowledged differences within the available Greek texts and made notes to the fact as do modern versions.

As can be seen they noted:

"This verse (36) is wanting in most of the Greek copies":

Stick that up yer KJV pipe and smoke it...

Which is why I rely on the Holy Ghost.
Scholars and such, tend to go down rabbit holes, and then wander about the rabbits interconnecting tunnels arriving no where in particular with more even more uncertainty. Then they try to fix things.
This one reason God put the translators under the palpable fear of King James, who tended to reject nonsense.

 

[trofimus]

The Holy Bible is the standarn, as the word, holy, signifies, and comparison against all other texts proves.

So when I will write the word "Holy" on front cover of NIV, it has become a standard? Interesting.

 

[trofimus]

You are still obfuscating.
Or, you are revealing that you don't understand the complexity of what your dealing with.
I told you that you invented a man made premise of what "perfection" is.
And I alsopointed out that your notion of perfection is not only false, but simplistic.

You should read what the KJV only guys are posting here, so that you will stop accusing me of inventing it.

The issue is very complex to you, because its so obviously against the KJV onlyism. Not to me.

 

[Joseppi]

"Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Mt 4:7, KJV

"You shall not test the LORD your God, as you tested him in Massah."
Dt 6:16, KJV


I am sorry, but tempting is not the same thing as testing. The KJV fails once more.

Dueteronomy 6:16 Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.
The Holy Bible.

 

[Joseppi]

So when I will write the word "Holy" on front cover of NIV, it has become a standard? Interesting.

You doas pleasesyou.
But, you have no authority to call what is unholy, holy.

 

[Joseppi]

You should read what the KJV only guys are posting here, so that you will stop accusing me of inventing it.
The issue is very complex to you, because its so obviously against the KJV onlyism. Not to me.

No comment.

 

[trofimus]

Dueteronomy 6:16 Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.
The Holy Bible.

OK, what is King James 2000 Bible? I am confused from so many KJV versions.

 

[trofimus]

You doas pleasesyou.
But, you have no authority to call what is unholy, holy.

Neither have you nor the English King.

 

[preacher4truth]

OK, what is King James 2000 Bible? I am confused from so many KJV versions.

The devil did this!