THE WOMEN OF THE CHURCH

Exactly, every time the word saved or salvation is used, it is not necessarily speaking of eternal salvation.

Saved from being deceived...context, context, context.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Saved from what? There is a IF they continue in faith. Faith is of the spiritual typically linked to salvation.

According to what you have said, only the KJV is pure.

Since the first King James Bible, there have been over 400 word changes to the
KJB. At what point did the KJB become the perfect Word of God? Was it in 1612,
1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, or 1769? The KJB was edited in each of those years. Was
it the Oxford edition or the Cambridge edition? Victorian text? The Pure Cambridge
Edition? Collins editions? The Concord text? The Scrivener’s Edition? For example:

Oxford: Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man
his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure,
to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

Cambridge: Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man
his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure,
to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

Bingo!

This has been addressed over and over on the KJV threads. Did your question come about honestly or from a website? 99% of the changes you are questioning are spelling as in "feare" to "fear".

Bible agnostics and unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in any language are always bringing them up in an effort to prove to us that the King James Bible is not the inerrant words of God. Of course they themselves don't have one they will ever show us, but they seem to want us to hold the same position of unbelief they do.

Some King James Bible believers sincerely ask: "Why didn't God intervene to preserve the printing process so that the KJB was absolutely perfect the first time?" I think this is a legitimate question and I have some ideas on why God did it this way.

The originals never did make up an entire Bible - not even close to it. Only God knew which texts and readings and meanings were the ones He intended and inspired.

And just as God, who is the ruler among the nations, and who sees the end from the beginning, used imperfect yet believing men to give us those never seen originals in the first place, so too did He used a group of imperfect yet believing men to gather together into one Book His perfect, infallible and inspired words.

But the text of the King James Bible has never been "revised". Spelling and punctuation have been updated. In 1611 and even much later in the history of the English language, the rules of spelling were not as fixed as they are today.

We start out with a perfect underlying text; the specific Hebrew and Greek texts that God guided the King James Bible translators to use as the basis of The Holy Bible. And just as words sometimes dropped out of the manuscripts by copyists, or were misspelled, (often just one letter as "he/she" or "ye/he"), so too with the continued guidance of God they were soon caught and corrected to their original purity. We see this same process to a much smaller degree having taken place in the printings of the King James Bible. No other book in history has undergone such rigorous examination and attention to detail.

So rather than seeing the accidental occurrences of minor printing errors that were soon caught and corrected as a stumbling block that causes unbelief in an inerrant Bible, what we see is an illustration of the process the originals themselves went through until God had gathered them all together into one perfect Book of the LORD. (Isaiah 34:16)

all because you revere the KJ above the truth

what a predicament to be in. you cannot even acknowledge your error because if you do, it would mean momentous life changes which you are most likely not capable of enacting

you are not the reed which bends in the storm. you are the tree that snaps in half because it cannot bend and is stuck where it grows

so this thread has now turned into a defense of the King James Bible only cult, by those who pursue the mistaken idea that this translation is on equal footing with the original writers and is itself inspired as though an edition to the originals

The fundamentalist movement is cocooning itself into a safe web of tradition that will eventually squeeze the very life out of it. It used to be that independent Baptists separated themselves from other Christians over important doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ or the inspiration of the Scriptures. Today, the independents are separating, even among themselves, over issues such as Bible translations, music style, and dress.
Rising to the forefront of the fundamentalist squabbles is the King James Only controversy. Some groups are claiming that this is the hill on which to die, the main issue by which to tell a fundamentalist from a liberal.
So what is it anyway? The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda. This theory manifests itself in various forms, some of which are more extreme than others. the gospel coalition

Actually, the opposite is true. How freeing it is to know I have a Bible I can trust every word. Praise you Lord!

And the new perverted versions have brought about the current Laodicean Church.

There's a huge difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact. The root of the conspiracy is found in the machinations of Westcott & Hort (and their collaborators). Since you do not believe that that was a real conspiracy, please take the time to read and invest the money in The Revision Revised by John William Burgon. You can purchase it from Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+revi...+revision+,aps,189&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_1_13

oh baloney

the Bible does not tell us to trust in it

it tells us to trust in Christ who is our Savior

you already tried that one. it is nonsense

well hang on cause I have more to share

you really do not know what I believe or understand.

it seems that some KJ onlyists do not know the actual history of their particular translation or if they do, they excuse the facts and prefer the myth

the KJ translators used Byzantine texts from the 11th and 12th centuries; these were not the oldest texts. since these texts were used, many older and more reliable manuscripts have been found and they are closer to the original writings of the Bible authors.

what KJ only folks refuse to admit to, or ignore because it is discomforting, is that the earlier manuscripts reveal additions of scribes copying from the older text and not only that, but actual errors in the newer texts...such as the ones used by the KJ translators... which of course leads to a translation that is anything but pure and perfect

the KJ only person will then tell you that the errors are what God wanted and the changes are inspired. of course this is nonsense and one of the reasons the KJ only group is referred to as a cult by many. it is now believed by scholars and those who are historical experts in these manuscripts, that the Byzantine texts are altered and the Alexandrian text...the older manuscripts...are closer to the originals

why then, a person actually wanting what is the truest version might ask, are the Greek scholars who follow only the KJ, not coming up with a modern English translation based on the older texts? They stray from their own ideology in this behavior and it becomes a little obvious that the textual issue is actually hiding another reason as to why a better translation is not underway.

they believe any update of the KJ is tampering with God's word...the irony is that the version they have has already been tampered with!

Do you trust what it says about the Savior? The two cannot be separated.

Not arguing this, but wanting to know how you know this. Were you there? Are you getting info from a website? If so, can you share the website?

this verse does not apply to all women. if it did, which again it does not to anyone with any solid biblical understanding or understanding in how to do proper exegesis, that would mean a woman without children is not saved. further, the Bible is adamant that only the blood of Christ forgives our sins and we must believe in Him and see our need of Him and trust IN Him for our salvation.

a person who thinks all women must bear children to be saved is just downright ignorant and teaching this is adamant to leading people astray. further, it diminishes the actual gospel and again, places women below their actual worth in the eyes of God who tells us there is neither male nor female in Christ

therefore, we can be certain that women do not need to have a child or children in order to secure their place in God's plan of salvation

the scripture is referring to Eve who is saved through the fact of bearing children in continuity (as Eve is the mother of all)and through her comes eventually the promise of Jesus who is the Savior of all mankind (meaning available to all, not meaning everyone is saved)

in fact, you can see how certain literal expressions can give rise to error when a person does not have a solid understanding of the Bible as a whole and picks out certain passages or studies by topical index only and comes to understand that ALL mankind will be saved when the Bible teaches no such thing

in the same manner, we see this type of error introduced in the teaching that women are saved through childbirth. they are not

there is actually grammatical proof of the above but no point in going into it since those who oppose looking at the Greek, will refuse to see it anyway and the rest of us probably already have a different understanding

It would mean that a woman without children may be more susceptible to deception. Salvation is not the context of the passage.

Agreed, however, the passage is not talking about eternal salvation, but being saved from being deceived. Eve as deceived. Adam was not deceived. Paul is using them as examples.

Again (as usual), you need to do your homework. Paul was refuting cultic teachings prevalent in Ephesus at the time.