The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- 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.
God’s Word teaches that we can have knowledge of the certainty of the words of truth.
Proverbs 22:20-21 says,
Dear reader: Do you truly know whether or not you have the certainty (or assurance) of the words of truth or not?
Dan Wallace one of the creators behind the NET Bible does not seem to have the certainty of the words of truth or not.
Again, Dan Wallace states:
Dan Wallace said,
Source:
(Dr. Daniel Wallace, "Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation")
Proverbs 22:20-21 says,
“Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?”
Dear reader: Do you truly know whether or not you have the certainty (or assurance) of the words of truth or not?
Dan Wallace one of the creators behind the NET Bible does not seem to have the certainty of the words of truth or not.
Again, Dan Wallace states:
Dan Wallace said,
"SCHOLARS ARE NOT SURE OF THE EXACT WORDS OF JESUS. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording."
Source:
(Dr. Daniel Wallace, "Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation")
-
1
- Show all
KJV Only people have been called crazy.
https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/kjv-only-people-are-crazy.28583/
https://web.archive.org/web/2016050...r.yuku.com/topic/6696/The-King-James-Onlyists
I suppose we should not listen to anything a non-KJV believer should say then?
I wouldn't even go that far. Pinpoint Evangelism (Kerrigan Skelly) has much of what I agree with regarding the topics of sin and salvation, but he is not a KJV believer, though. While I may not agree with his calling Dan Wallace a nut exactly, that does not mean he cannot recognize certain various truths by any means. Please keep in mind that I will not even listen to Peter Ruckman because he makes his mission to speak in such an extremely bad way.
But the point here is the Bible says one thing, and Dan Wallace says another thing that contradicts the Bible.
In any event, may God bless you today.
https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/kjv-only-people-are-crazy.28583/
https://web.archive.org/web/2016050...r.yuku.com/topic/6696/The-King-James-Onlyists
I suppose we should not listen to anything a non-KJV believer should say then?
I wouldn't even go that far. Pinpoint Evangelism (Kerrigan Skelly) has much of what I agree with regarding the topics of sin and salvation, but he is not a KJV believer, though. While I may not agree with his calling Dan Wallace a nut exactly, that does not mean he cannot recognize certain various truths by any means. Please keep in mind that I will not even listen to Peter Ruckman because he makes his mission to speak in such an extremely bad way.
But the point here is the Bible says one thing, and Dan Wallace says another thing that contradicts the Bible.
In any event, may God bless you today.
-
1
- Show all
First, Jesus was not illustrating the difference between formal translation vs. proper translation in the examples you have given. Neither can such an application even work with the Scripture you have given because you have latched on to man made methods of translation that exist only in the minds of other Modern scholars or men. But we can tell that a formal equivalence is getting to the form of the words in what they say by comparing the texts (vs. the error of Dynamic Equivalence - which is thought for thought). Words are important because Jesus said Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words will not pass away (Matthew 24:35). Jesus even said if we do not receive His words, they will judge us on the last day (John 12:48). So I would rather have the exact precise words of God and not some proper translation (Which sounds like it is going towards the direction of Dynamic Equivalence) that you speak of that will not give me the precise words of God (even though you believe they are more proper).
Second, the examples in Scripture you have given actually illustrate that God is not always obligated to give us 100% understanding by His words. Why else are we commanded to study His Word if it was to be read like a children’s book? Oh, wait. That verse is changed in your Bible (Note: See 2 Timothy 2:15 in the KJB and then compare it with your Modern Bible). Anyway, Jesus speaking in parables helps to show us that He does not always desire all people to understand even when He speaks. Yes, these parables are now explained to us in the Bible, but there are still many other things that are veiled or hidden that takes study to learn in His Word. Proverbs says, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” (Proverbs 25:2). Jesus also could have easily explained to His disciples about His resurrection and gave them the meaning. According to you, Jesus should have given them the meaning, but Jesus did not do so and God has His reasons as to why He did it that way.
Third, Modern Bibles teach false doctrines in many places. So archaic and correct beats easy to read and incorrect any day of the weak.
I know you think it is ridiculous that God would preserve His words in 1600s English Bible. But God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.
Side Note:
Some believe that the KJB employs Dynamic Equivalence, but this is not the case.
See this article here:
https://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/no-dynamic-equivalence-in-the-kjv.php
Second, the examples in Scripture you have given actually illustrate that God is not always obligated to give us 100% understanding by His words. Why else are we commanded to study His Word if it was to be read like a children’s book? Oh, wait. That verse is changed in your Bible (Note: See 2 Timothy 2:15 in the KJB and then compare it with your Modern Bible). Anyway, Jesus speaking in parables helps to show us that He does not always desire all people to understand even when He speaks. Yes, these parables are now explained to us in the Bible, but there are still many other things that are veiled or hidden that takes study to learn in His Word. Proverbs says, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” (Proverbs 25:2). Jesus also could have easily explained to His disciples about His resurrection and gave them the meaning. According to you, Jesus should have given them the meaning, but Jesus did not do so and God has His reasons as to why He did it that way.
Third, Modern Bibles teach false doctrines in many places. So archaic and correct beats easy to read and incorrect any day of the weak.
I know you think it is ridiculous that God would preserve His words in 1600s English Bible. But God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.
Side Note:
Some believe that the KJB employs Dynamic Equivalence, but this is not the case.
See this article here:
https://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/no-dynamic-equivalence-in-the-kjv.php
I see no relevance as to what your point is concerned. It has nothing to do with the translation of the words of God. It just says some didn’t understand the parables. There was no translation over there. It is ironic to say that critical scholars were trying to restore original language to obtain original meaning which is the goal of scholarship since 1881. Anyway, your presentation is just a sorta of a common logical fallacy of comparing apples to oranges. You need to give examples of why we do not need KJB because its meaning seems to have been obfuscated.
Btw, you have said that 2 Timothy 2;15 may have been an obscure meaning in today's thinking for the word “study”. I asked if there was a difference between the way the 17th century to then now as to the intended meaning? Why KJB is wrong? May I know your reasons? Thanks
Btw, you have said that 2 Timothy 2;15 may have been an obscure meaning in today's thinking for the word “study”. I asked if there was a difference between the way the 17th century to then now as to the intended meaning? Why KJB is wrong? May I know your reasons? Thanks
-
1
- Show all
God’s Word teaches that we can have knowledge of the certainty of the words of truth.
Proverbs 22:20-21 says,
Dear reader: Do you truly know whether or not you have the certainty (or assurance) of the words of truth or not?
Dan Wallace one of the creators behind the NET Bible does not seem to have the certainty of the words of truth or not.
Again, Dan Wallace states:
Dan Wallace said,
Source:
(Dr. Daniel Wallace, "Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation")
Proverbs 22:20-21 says,
“Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?”
Dear reader: Do you truly know whether or not you have the certainty (or assurance) of the words of truth or not?
Dan Wallace one of the creators behind the NET Bible does not seem to have the certainty of the words of truth or not.
Again, Dan Wallace states:
Dan Wallace said,
"SCHOLARS ARE NOT SURE OF THE EXACT WORDS OF JESUS. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording."
Source:
(Dr. Daniel Wallace, "Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation")
John 6:11
NET Bible
Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed the bread to those who were seated. He then did the same with the fish, as much as they wanted.
Parallel verses:
Matthew 14:19
NET Bible
Then he instructed the crowds to sit down on the grass. He took the five loaves and two fish, and looking up to heaven he gave thanks and broke the loaves. He gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds.
NET BIBLE
Mark 6:41
He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. He gave them to his disciples to serve the people, and he divided the two fish among them all.
NET BIBLE
Luke 9:16
Then he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven he gave thanks and broke them. He gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd.
So anyone you disagree with, you place them on ignore?
I can understand placing certain individuals on ignore who may be overly hurtful with their words, and or those who promote a belief that is extremely evil or immoral in the name of God. But to place other believers on ignore involving a Bible topic makes it look like you are biased to your own worldview and you can never be wrong about anything. Yes, I am not expecting you to change your position, but to close communications as if we were Pharisees is not a good place to be in my opinion. People in life are always going to say things that we may not agree with. But to just place them on ignore is not the way to reach them or to be loving and patient with them in order to reach them with the truth.
If there is a real pure Word of God that is based on different underlying texts (and I believe there is), and there is another line of Bible manuscripts that teach different things that are heretical that many Modern scholars have latched on to today, then we can say there is a Modern Bible Movement that has chosen an incorrect line of manuscripts. These scholars also came up with man made theories of translation not found in the Bible, either. Such methods do not include God perfectly preserving His words by His divine hand. So these Modern translations are man centered and not God centered. In fact, what does Revelation 22:18-19 even mean anything in the Modern Bible Movement? I don’t think they really like to address this passage. Even if one wanted to make it about the book of Revelation alone, the Textual Critic who makes their own Bible would still be in trouble with the Lord for adding and or deleting from God’s Word (if indeed God preserved His words through time with a pure Bible). See, this is the danger you run into. What if you are wrong? What if you are backing men who add and take away from Revelation? What would God think, say, or do in this case? In my book, it is too risky. But you are free to play games in not believing what His word says.
Again, we don’t need to look at their methods of translation. God does not preserve His words by men who will not acknowledge Him in the preservation of His words. Man and his translation theories is uplifted over God preserving His words. But at the end of the day, the proof is that false doctrines in those Modern Bibles. I can show you false doctrines. I have already mentioned them several times in this thread but you have chosen to go into ignore mode.
See, the crazy fantasies you entertain when you live in a bubble world?
If you were to even go back and read this thread, you will see that Nehemiah and I do not agree on everything.
But we do agree that the King James Bible is the Word of God for today..
But if we cannot agree on what the text of God’s Word says, then that creates lots of problems.
That is why it is important that we are all to speak the same thing (See: 1 Corinthians 1:10).
Okay, just saying things like this does not prove you are right. You need to bring forth evidence, and sources, and hear our evidence and reply back with evidence of your own as to show why we are not standing on a solid foundation. But we both know you are not able to do that and the ignore button is a nice insulation of protection for you to not have to do that.
It’s actually a good thing you place us on ignore. It makes our job easier to refute your statements without you have to defend yourself in reply. It’s great. So thank you for that. We win, and you lose.
Don’t hold your breath. I believe Nehemiah knows enough on this important Bible topic to never have to ask you anything on this matter. You don’t even accept basic facts by a basic internet search in this kind of discussion (Even when it would not hurt your position to do so at times). You just need to be right and no opposition can stand in your way. This is not the way, my friend. You need to prove your case as to why your actually right and don’t people on ignore. You need to truly investigate the truth on this matter deeper.
Things are not always what they appear to be.
In any event, may the Lord bless you and your family, even if I disagree with you strongly.
I can understand placing certain individuals on ignore who may be overly hurtful with their words, and or those who promote a belief that is extremely evil or immoral in the name of God. But to place other believers on ignore involving a Bible topic makes it look like you are biased to your own worldview and you can never be wrong about anything. Yes, I am not expecting you to change your position, but to close communications as if we were Pharisees is not a good place to be in my opinion. People in life are always going to say things that we may not agree with. But to just place them on ignore is not the way to reach them or to be loving and patient with them in order to reach them with the truth.
If there is a real pure Word of God that is based on different underlying texts (and I believe there is), and there is another line of Bible manuscripts that teach different things that are heretical that many Modern scholars have latched on to today, then we can say there is a Modern Bible Movement that has chosen an incorrect line of manuscripts. These scholars also came up with man made theories of translation not found in the Bible, either. Such methods do not include God perfectly preserving His words by His divine hand. So these Modern translations are man centered and not God centered. In fact, what does Revelation 22:18-19 even mean anything in the Modern Bible Movement? I don’t think they really like to address this passage. Even if one wanted to make it about the book of Revelation alone, the Textual Critic who makes their own Bible would still be in trouble with the Lord for adding and or deleting from God’s Word (if indeed God preserved His words through time with a pure Bible). See, this is the danger you run into. What if you are wrong? What if you are backing men who add and take away from Revelation? What would God think, say, or do in this case? In my book, it is too risky. But you are free to play games in not believing what His word says.
Again, we don’t need to look at their methods of translation. God does not preserve His words by men who will not acknowledge Him in the preservation of His words. Man and his translation theories is uplifted over God preserving His words. But at the end of the day, the proof is that false doctrines in those Modern Bibles. I can show you false doctrines. I have already mentioned them several times in this thread but you have chosen to go into ignore mode.
See, the crazy fantasies you entertain when you live in a bubble world?
If you were to even go back and read this thread, you will see that Nehemiah and I do not agree on everything.
But we do agree that the King James Bible is the Word of God for today..
But if we cannot agree on what the text of God’s Word says, then that creates lots of problems.
That is why it is important that we are all to speak the same thing (See: 1 Corinthians 1:10).
Okay, just saying things like this does not prove you are right. You need to bring forth evidence, and sources, and hear our evidence and reply back with evidence of your own as to show why we are not standing on a solid foundation. But we both know you are not able to do that and the ignore button is a nice insulation of protection for you to not have to do that.
It’s actually a good thing you place us on ignore. It makes our job easier to refute your statements without you have to defend yourself in reply. It’s great. So thank you for that. We win, and you lose.
Don’t hold your breath. I believe Nehemiah knows enough on this important Bible topic to never have to ask you anything on this matter. You don’t even accept basic facts by a basic internet search in this kind of discussion (Even when it would not hurt your position to do so at times). You just need to be right and no opposition can stand in your way. This is not the way, my friend. You need to prove your case as to why your actually right and don’t people on ignore. You need to truly investigate the truth on this matter deeper.
Things are not always what they appear to be.
In any event, may the Lord bless you and your family, even if I disagree with you strongly.
So anyone you disagree with, you place them on ignore?
I can understand placing certain individuals on ignore who may be overly hurtful with their words, and or those who promote a belief that is extremely evil or immoral in the name of God. But to place other believers on ignore involving a Bible topic makes it look like you are biased to your own worldview and you can never be wrong about anything. Yes, I am not expecting you to change your position, but to close communications as if we were Pharisees is not a good place to be in my opinion. People in life are always going to say things that we may not agree with. But to just place them on ignore is not the way to reach them or to be loving and patient with them in order to reach them with the truth.
If there is a real pure Word of God that is based on different underlying texts (and I believe there is), and there is another line of Bible manuscripts that teach different things that are heretical that many Modern scholars have latched on to today, then we can say there is a Modern Bible Movement that has chosen an incorrect line of manuscripts. These scholars also came up with man made theories of translation not found in the Bible, either. Such methods do not include God perfectly preserving His words by His divine hand. So these Modern translations are man centered and not God centered. In fact, what does Revelation 22:18-19 even mean anything in the Modern Bible Movement? I don’t think they really like to address this passage. Even if one wanted to make it about the book of Revelation alone, the Textual Critic who makes their own Bible would still be in trouble with the Lord for adding and or deleting from God’s Word (if indeed God preserved His words through time with a pure Bible). See, this is the danger you run into. What if you are wrong? What if you are backing men who add and take away from Revelation? What would God think, say, or do in this case? In my book, it is too risky. But you are free to play games in not believing what His word says.
Again, we don’t need to look at their methods of translation. God does not preserve His words by men who will not acknowledge Him in the preservation of His words. Man and his translation theories are uplifted over God preserving His words. But at the end of the day, the proof is that false doctrines exist in those Modern Bibles. I can show you false doctrines. I have already mentioned them several times in this thread but you have chosen to go into ignore mode.
See, the crazy fantasies you entertain when you live in a bubble world?
If you were to even go back and read this thread, you will see that Nehemiah and I do not agree on everything.
But we do agree that the King James Bible is the Word of God for today..
But if we cannot agree on what the text of God’s Word says, then that creates lots of problems.
That is why it is important that we are all to speak the same thing (1 Corinthians 1:10).
Okay, just saying things like this does not prove you are right. You need to bring forth evidence, and sources, and hear our evidence and reply back with evidence of your own as to show why we are not standing on a solid foundation. But we both know you are not able to do that and the ignore button is a nice insulation of protection for you to not have to do that.
In either case, may God bless you even if we disagree strongly.
I can understand placing certain individuals on ignore who may be overly hurtful with their words, and or those who promote a belief that is extremely evil or immoral in the name of God. But to place other believers on ignore involving a Bible topic makes it look like you are biased to your own worldview and you can never be wrong about anything. Yes, I am not expecting you to change your position, but to close communications as if we were Pharisees is not a good place to be in my opinion. People in life are always going to say things that we may not agree with. But to just place them on ignore is not the way to reach them or to be loving and patient with them in order to reach them with the truth.
If there is a real pure Word of God that is based on different underlying texts (and I believe there is), and there is another line of Bible manuscripts that teach different things that are heretical that many Modern scholars have latched on to today, then we can say there is a Modern Bible Movement that has chosen an incorrect line of manuscripts. These scholars also came up with man made theories of translation not found in the Bible, either. Such methods do not include God perfectly preserving His words by His divine hand. So these Modern translations are man centered and not God centered. In fact, what does Revelation 22:18-19 even mean anything in the Modern Bible Movement? I don’t think they really like to address this passage. Even if one wanted to make it about the book of Revelation alone, the Textual Critic who makes their own Bible would still be in trouble with the Lord for adding and or deleting from God’s Word (if indeed God preserved His words through time with a pure Bible). See, this is the danger you run into. What if you are wrong? What if you are backing men who add and take away from Revelation? What would God think, say, or do in this case? In my book, it is too risky. But you are free to play games in not believing what His word says.
Again, we don’t need to look at their methods of translation. God does not preserve His words by men who will not acknowledge Him in the preservation of His words. Man and his translation theories are uplifted over God preserving His words. But at the end of the day, the proof is that false doctrines exist in those Modern Bibles. I can show you false doctrines. I have already mentioned them several times in this thread but you have chosen to go into ignore mode.
See, the crazy fantasies you entertain when you live in a bubble world?
If you were to even go back and read this thread, you will see that Nehemiah and I do not agree on everything.
But we do agree that the King James Bible is the Word of God for today..
But if we cannot agree on what the text of God’s Word says, then that creates lots of problems.
That is why it is important that we are all to speak the same thing (1 Corinthians 1:10).
Okay, just saying things like this does not prove you are right. You need to bring forth evidence, and sources, and hear our evidence and reply back with evidence of your own as to show why we are not standing on a solid foundation. But we both know you are not able to do that and the ignore button is a nice insulation of protection for you to not have to do that.
In either case, may God bless you even if we disagree strongly.
-
1
- Show all
Your first paragraph is too obscure. The parables were not understood by some of the people who heard them, because God prevented them from understanding them. Matthew 11:13-14...
This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."
"It is ironic to say that critical scholars were trying to restore original language to obtain original meaning which is the goal of scholarship since 1881" makes no sense. What do you think the purpose of any translation is? Obfuscation?
Do you read what you write??? You wrote, "You need to give examples of why we do not need KJB because its meaning seems to have been obfuscated." That is precisely why very few people should use the KJV.
This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."
"It is ironic to say that critical scholars were trying to restore original language to obtain original meaning which is the goal of scholarship since 1881" makes no sense. What do you think the purpose of any translation is? Obfuscation?
Do you read what you write??? You wrote, "You need to give examples of why we do not need KJB because its meaning seems to have been obfuscated." That is precisely why very few people should use the KJV.
Do the errors of one critic nullify all criticism against Dr. Wallace? No. Do the (manifold) errors of many KJV-only advocates mean all such are guilty of their errors? No. Each is guilty of his own errors, and should be treated accordingly.
And yes, some KJV-only people are indeed crazy.
And yes, some KJV-only people are indeed crazy.
-
1
- Show all
Clearly you need to learn about how the gospels were written.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were NOT Western journalists. Inspired by God, they wrote subjectively to teach lessons to the readers/hearers.
The verses that you cite as evidence of a problem contain the same message in all Bibles! They illustrate Jesus' providing for people as the writers saw them (or heard about them).
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were NOT Western journalists. Inspired by God, they wrote subjectively to teach lessons to the readers/hearers.
The verses that you cite as evidence of a problem contain the same message in all Bibles! They illustrate Jesus' providing for people as the writers saw them (or heard about them).
Hmmm, not seeing it. The only difference here is crowds in Matthew 14:19 whereas the KJB says multitude. But this is not a contradiction because Matthew 14:22 says multitudes in the KJV. The only other differences between the KJV in these passages is that the KJV is teaching that there are disciples who may not be sitting (John 6), and that Jesus blessed the bread (KJV), and He did not simply just give thanks alone for it. Not sure this is a big fish to fry against the Modern Bibles here. Maybe you are seeing something here that I do not see? I do have a good list of doctrinal problems and truths that are changed for the worse in Modern Bibles that are big problems. As you know, these points will be found in my 101 Reasons for the KJB (of which I am still working on).
In any event, blessings be unto you, brother.
In any event, blessings be unto you, brother.
-
1
- Show all
I agree with you for the most part on what you said. There are crazies on both sides of our camps. Crazy folks aside, I think the point I am trying to make here is that folks are not always going to be perfect and yet they can also have really good information. I do not believe Will went too far beyond the breaking point whereby I would not seek out his information. In my view: Will has a lot of good information that defends believing in a perfect Word, and he is definitely not a Peter Ruckman by any stretch. I have seen Will in KJV debates before and he is very nice and respectful (i.e., these vids can be found at Standing For Truth Channel). Now, Dr. Gene Kim is pretty intense. Gene Kim is borderline in my view. Many of Gene’s videos stick to the topic primarily. However, one video, Gene got really angry at James White and the scholars. So much so that you could see him really get mad. He was a little more insulting than usual in that video. In this case, I simply shut the video off. But Gene’s other info. in his other videos has been very helpful (Never-the-less). Gene uses both the Bible and manuscript evidence in his defense.
KJB believers I disagree with are Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, Steven Anderson, and Bryan Dunglinger.
WayofLife.org has articles on the first three. Bryan Dunglinger rejects the standard understanding on the Trinity (Unfortunately).
While the KJB believers above do have things to contribute that are helpful, I do not recommend them to others (unless they are aware of their problems). Peter Ruckman is somebody in whom I will not even listen to or read up on. Ruckman’s attitude is totally unacceptable.
KJB believers I disagree with are Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, Steven Anderson, and Bryan Dunglinger.
WayofLife.org has articles on the first three. Bryan Dunglinger rejects the standard understanding on the Trinity (Unfortunately).
While the KJB believers above do have things to contribute that are helpful, I do not recommend them to others (unless they are aware of their problems). Peter Ruckman is somebody in whom I will not even listen to or read up on. Ruckman’s attitude is totally unacceptable.
-
1
- Show all
HAHAHAHA
Here's a newbie who has come on board to bash the KJB and promote CORRUPT bible versions. He wants to put me on "ignore" because he hates the truth. That is perfectly fine by me. Then he is wondering whether I am Bible Highlighter in disguise. It is amazing how these newbies show up and assume that they have made some new discoveries!
Did you really expect these modern translations to tell you the truth? Yes I have read their prefaces, and they are simply nonsensical and dishonest. Just like your posts. I trust the serious and sober posters will see through all your baloney.
Here's a newbie who has come on board to bash the KJB and promote CORRUPT bible versions. He wants to put me on "ignore" because he hates the truth. That is perfectly fine by me. Then he is wondering whether I am Bible Highlighter in disguise. It is amazing how these newbies show up and assume that they have made some new discoveries!
Did you really expect these modern translations to tell you the truth? Yes I have read their prefaces, and they are simply nonsensical and dishonest. Just like your posts. I trust the serious and sober posters will see through all your baloney.
You quoted the NIV which is Dynamic Equivalence Translation and just failed to recognize the intended meaning of the given verse. I think it is a subtle move to replace its original meaning. The trick here is the insertion of the word ‘and’ which is to distinguish that this worker is indeed industrious and doing his best in his work besides or in addition that this worker can handle the word of truth correctly. Having the word ‘and’ thus “do your best’ is justified. However, we have not found of the Greek ‘kai’ for the English word ‘and’ in both the critical text and the TR. The added word is a product of error of judgment when it can be translated even without the Greek word ‘kai’.
Second, the Greek ‘spoudazo’ is in both the critical and the TR. This so happens that the English word used by KJB translators was ‘study’ in this passage. Some objected that ‘study’ in the sense of learning or having knowledge is not meant here as you are claiming. We have to note that they have used ‘spoudazo’ based mainly on its context as well as the previous English Bible being ‘diligently’ compared. The question is why KJB translators used the word ‘Study’ rather than diligence, care, earnest, labor, and endeavor. Simply because it is overall found in the context. The issue has something to do with the English word used by the KJB translators that ‘study’ means labor and that requires one to do his best. The OED, says’ labor’ concerns both physical and mental exertion. So this is a draw, a stalemate. On the other hand, diligence requires an earnest effort, and yes physical and mental which is another stalemate but once we use the proper context we will be able to know the exact meaning of the Greek word spoudazo. Because there is a plurality of meaning, the context will determine the actual meaning of the word.
Learning starts at studying things of course and it is the process wherein we use our minds, hands, eyes, ears, and tongues to acquire knowledge. Btw, studying in the sense of acquiring knowledge is not a 16th-century old word but rather a 14th-century. Now let’s explore the chapter to know what the intended meaning of the original writer is.
V1 Paul exhorts young Tim to be strong in the grace that is in Christ. Physical? No, this would be spiritual, his faith.
V2 He speaks OF Things that he “heard” from him to be committed to other faithful men
V7. Then Paul says, Tim needs to consider what he is saying and have an understanding
V8, Paul speaks of the gospel to be remembered.
V14, Paul wrote to Tim to remember and charge the people he is pastoring and not to strive about the words to no profit.
v.16 Paul reminded him of vain babblings (but rather)
v. 18 Paul wanted young Tim to speak the truth
Well, this has nothing to do with industry, physical labor, and doing the best you can. This has something to do with either the gospel, the word of God, or the word of truth, and the words he would utter require ‘study’ in the sense of learning and gaining knowledge so that the application of things is what God approves.
Second, the Greek ‘spoudazo’ is in both the critical and the TR. This so happens that the English word used by KJB translators was ‘study’ in this passage. Some objected that ‘study’ in the sense of learning or having knowledge is not meant here as you are claiming. We have to note that they have used ‘spoudazo’ based mainly on its context as well as the previous English Bible being ‘diligently’ compared. The question is why KJB translators used the word ‘Study’ rather than diligence, care, earnest, labor, and endeavor. Simply because it is overall found in the context. The issue has something to do with the English word used by the KJB translators that ‘study’ means labor and that requires one to do his best. The OED, says’ labor’ concerns both physical and mental exertion. So this is a draw, a stalemate. On the other hand, diligence requires an earnest effort, and yes physical and mental which is another stalemate but once we use the proper context we will be able to know the exact meaning of the Greek word spoudazo. Because there is a plurality of meaning, the context will determine the actual meaning of the word.
Learning starts at studying things of course and it is the process wherein we use our minds, hands, eyes, ears, and tongues to acquire knowledge. Btw, studying in the sense of acquiring knowledge is not a 16th-century old word but rather a 14th-century. Now let’s explore the chapter to know what the intended meaning of the original writer is.
V1 Paul exhorts young Tim to be strong in the grace that is in Christ. Physical? No, this would be spiritual, his faith.
V2 He speaks OF Things that he “heard” from him to be committed to other faithful men
V7. Then Paul says, Tim needs to consider what he is saying and have an understanding
V8, Paul speaks of the gospel to be remembered.
V14, Paul wrote to Tim to remember and charge the people he is pastoring and not to strive about the words to no profit.
v.16 Paul reminded him of vain babblings (but rather)
v. 18 Paul wanted young Tim to speak the truth
Well, this has nothing to do with industry, physical labor, and doing the best you can. This has something to do with either the gospel, the word of God, or the word of truth, and the words he would utter require ‘study’ in the sense of learning and gaining knowledge so that the application of things is what God approves.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Yep, the product of having a critical text would contradict the other witnesses about how the Lord Jesus distributed the bread and the fish. The narrative of Matthew, Mark, and Luke says Jesus distributed to his disciples, and his disciples in turn distributed them to the crowd. I don’t believe John being an eyewitness would contradict what the other Apostles saw and critical English Bibles are in error once again. The KJB of course does the right thing and there is no contradiction.
KJB John 6:11
And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
KJB Matthew 14:19
And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.
KJB Mark 6:41
And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all.
KJB Luke 9:16
Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.
KJB John 6:11
And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
KJB Matthew 14:19
And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.
KJB Mark 6:41
And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all.
KJB Luke 9:16
Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.
-
1
- Show all