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.
Right, the book addresses the Masonry charge. Again, you are seeing what you like to see. For example: If a person was once a thief and then they later in life came to Christ, does that mean they always were to remain a thief? One can read in history of their old life and conclude they were always a thief if taken out of context to their whole life. Again, you are believing the agenda on the change in history. Why do you think the Bible was taken out of public schools in the early 1960s? Again, there was an agenda or change in this country that was happening. So you are reading through the filter or lens of those who desired to change history. If that is what you want to see, then by all means. All I can say is look to the other side of the story. If not, have a fun life believing whatever you want to believe. I am not here to convince you on this topic seeing it is something I have neither time nor interest at this time in my life to do so with you. Read the books I recommended in this thread or see whatever you like to see.
This is what is concerning. First, some believers (like myself) hold to the view that when the Bible (KJB) says His Word is perfect and it was preserved, then that means it has no errors in it because that is what the Bible says about itself. It is a faith issue. We are trusting God that the Bible has no errors. So you would be attacking our faith in believing what the Bible says about itself. Secondly, if the Bible has errors in it, then how can we decide what is true and what is false? We then would be sitting in the seat of God and determining what God said and did not say. What if we were in error and we were actually correcting what God said? What if we make our own Bible and take words out and or add words to the Bible? The Bible has serious warnings against this in Revelation 22. And don’t give me it is just Revelation. Modern scholars also alter Revelation so that excuse does not work. Imagine the horror many will face because they created their own Modern Bible. Those who take away words from the Bible will have their names taken out of the book of life.
So if you convinced some KJB believers of an error in the Bible, there is a chance you would end up destroying their faith in the Bible altogether. This is exactly what has happened when many went to Bible and learned of Textual Criticism. Many have fallen away when they went to Bible college. The Textual Critics get people to doubt God’s Word, which was a tactic used by the devil back in the Garden when he said, ”Yea, hath God said….?” (Genesis 3:1). But who cares, right? Let them fall. Let their faith be destroyed. But where is he love for the brethren?
So if you convinced some KJB believers of an error in the Bible, there is a chance you would end up destroying their faith in the Bible altogether. This is exactly what has happened when many went to Bible and learned of Textual Criticism. Many have fallen away when they went to Bible college. The Textual Critics get people to doubt God’s Word, which was a tactic used by the devil back in the Garden when he said, ”Yea, hath God said….?” (Genesis 3:1). But who cares, right? Let them fall. Let their faith be destroyed. But where is he love for the brethren?
-
3
- Show all
There are hints and clues in Scripture of a perfect Bible being in existence.
Isaiah 34:16 is one example.
Watch the video here by Brandon Peterson explaining this Scripture in context.
Isaiah 28:11 says, “For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.“
Yes, this was fulfilled during the early church when they spoke tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:21.
But I believe tongues has most likely ceased today based on various verses in Scripture. At least we do not see tongues spoken correctly by many like we did back in the early church days. The point here is if the gifts of tongues have truly ceased, and you read Isaiah 28:11, then it could be read in such a way that God is speaking to the Jews in another tongue today still even when no foreign tongues are being spoken to them by the gifting of the Spirit like in the early church. So Isaiah 28:11 could have a double meaning in that it is also referring to how God is speaking to the Jew today with the Bible in English with the King James Bible (i.e., the Book of the Lord). Now, I am not saying this is biblical fact, or anything but it is a distinct possibility. There are instances in Scripture whereby they can have a double meaning. In fact, God’s goal is to eventually have one pure language in the Millennium (Zephaniah 3:9). Granted, the pure language in the Millennium will not be English. However, it makes sense that God would be slowly undoing the curse of the tower of Babel, and moving us towards in speaking to us by one Word of God in one language that He has chosen.
What I do know is that the Book of the Lord in Isaiah 34:16 cannot be a bunch of manuscripts one is trying to piece together like some kind of Frankenstein monster. Jesus and others quoted Scripture with authority and with assurance. If there was any doubt in what God’s Word says like in Textual Criticism, then we would see that. But I see the exact opposite being taught in the Bible. The devil is the one who wants us to get us to doubt God’s word like he did back in the Garden. I say, don’t fall for his tricks.
Isaiah 34:16 is one example.
Watch the video here by Brandon Peterson explaining this Scripture in context.
Isaiah 28:11 says, “For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.“
Yes, this was fulfilled during the early church when they spoke tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:21.
But I believe tongues has most likely ceased today based on various verses in Scripture. At least we do not see tongues spoken correctly by many like we did back in the early church days. The point here is if the gifts of tongues have truly ceased, and you read Isaiah 28:11, then it could be read in such a way that God is speaking to the Jews in another tongue today still even when no foreign tongues are being spoken to them by the gifting of the Spirit like in the early church. So Isaiah 28:11 could have a double meaning in that it is also referring to how God is speaking to the Jew today with the Bible in English with the King James Bible (i.e., the Book of the Lord). Now, I am not saying this is biblical fact, or anything but it is a distinct possibility. There are instances in Scripture whereby they can have a double meaning. In fact, God’s goal is to eventually have one pure language in the Millennium (Zephaniah 3:9). Granted, the pure language in the Millennium will not be English. However, it makes sense that God would be slowly undoing the curse of the tower of Babel, and moving us towards in speaking to us by one Word of God in one language that He has chosen.
What I do know is that the Book of the Lord in Isaiah 34:16 cannot be a bunch of manuscripts one is trying to piece together like some kind of Frankenstein monster. Jesus and others quoted Scripture with authority and with assurance. If there was any doubt in what God’s Word says like in Textual Criticism, then we would see that. But I see the exact opposite being taught in the Bible. The devil is the one who wants us to get us to doubt God’s word like he did back in the Garden. I say, don’t fall for his tricks.
-
1
- Show all
I'll read posts directed to me for the time being if I am able. I can't handle external links, especially time-consuming videos. I haven't been able to keep up with the thread with the holidays as it is.
It is not the focus of this thread, but I disagree with you about speaking in tongues. I see nothing in scripture that indicates that the gift of tongues has ceased at this time. Paul will reach a stage like adulthood compared to his former stage with the rest of those who are in Christ at the resurrection.
Double meaning in the 'men of other tongues and other lips' passage? That seems feasi le, or double application, that it applies to both speaking in tongues supernaturally and mundane use of foreign language. But it says tongues, not tongue.
As far as that referring to the KJV? That seems extremely silly to me. It doesn't even say 'tongue, it says 'tongues, so multiple languages, men of multiple languages. This isn't a vese about one Bible translation.
Again, the manuscript lines the KJV is translated from still exist. Why would the inspiration go off of the Bible, leaving it uninspired, and go onto a translation of the Bible, making it inspired. That kind of theory is just plain foolish.
I see no reason that God preserving His word precludes the idea that we might need some variations in the text, and with study, scholarship, and the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
The KJV-onlyists probably feel comfortable with the idea that their favorite translation is perfect and they don't have to deal with this additional study or having to discern certain things. But doctrine should not be based on emotional comfort but on what God has revealed.
The KJV also has some problems with it, so the whole doctrine is unreasable for that reason. Lord willing, I plan to share one shortly.
Can you show me where the Bible teaches that just one of those tongues of those people of those other tongues and other lips was going to have a perfect inspired translation. Your theory doesn't 'make sense' to me. It probably does to you because you have heard and accepted this unrevealed KJV-onlyist doctrine.
What I do know is that the Book of the Lord in Isaiah 34:16 cannot be a bunch of manuscripts one is trying to piece together like some kind of Frankenstein monster. Jesus and others quoted Scripture with authority and with assurance. If there was any doubt in what God’s Word says like in Textual Criticism, then we would see that. But I see the exact opposite being taught in the Bible. The devil is the one who wants us to get us to doubt God’s word like he did back in the Garden. I say, don’t fall for his tricks.[/QUOTE]
It is not the focus of this thread, but I disagree with you about speaking in tongues. I see nothing in scripture that indicates that the gift of tongues has ceased at this time. Paul will reach a stage like adulthood compared to his former stage with the rest of those who are in Christ at the resurrection.
Double meaning in the 'men of other tongues and other lips' passage? That seems feasi le, or double application, that it applies to both speaking in tongues supernaturally and mundane use of foreign language. But it says tongues, not tongue.
As far as that referring to the KJV? That seems extremely silly to me. It doesn't even say 'tongue, it says 'tongues, so multiple languages, men of multiple languages. This isn't a vese about one Bible translation.
Again, the manuscript lines the KJV is translated from still exist. Why would the inspiration go off of the Bible, leaving it uninspired, and go onto a translation of the Bible, making it inspired. That kind of theory is just plain foolish.
I see no reason that God preserving His word precludes the idea that we might need some variations in the text, and with study, scholarship, and the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
The KJV-onlyists probably feel comfortable with the idea that their favorite translation is perfect and they don't have to deal with this additional study or having to discern certain things. But doctrine should not be based on emotional comfort but on what God has revealed.
The KJV also has some problems with it, so the whole doctrine is unreasable for that reason. Lord willing, I plan to share one shortly.
Can you show me where the Bible teaches that just one of those tongues of those people of those other tongues and other lips was going to have a perfect inspired translation. Your theory doesn't 'make sense' to me. It probably does to you because you have heard and accepted this unrevealed KJV-onlyist doctrine.
What I do know is that the Book of the Lord in Isaiah 34:16 cannot be a bunch of manuscripts one is trying to piece together like some kind of Frankenstein monster. Jesus and others quoted Scripture with authority and with assurance. If there was any doubt in what God’s Word says like in Textual Criticism, then we would see that. But I see the exact opposite being taught in the Bible. The devil is the one who wants us to get us to doubt God’s word like he did back in the Garden. I say, don’t fall for his tricks.[/QUOTE]
This is an example of where the KJV translates a passage in a way that disagrees with Christ's interpretation in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, and agrees with the interpretation of the Pharisees. In these chapters, the Pharisees argue that Moses __commanded__ the giving of a divorce certificate. Jesus taught that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts ___allowed__ divorce. The Pharisees were apparently interpret the Hebrew to command the divorce certificate, while Jesus interpreted to allow it.
So Who is right, the Son of God, the Messiah, Who spoke the truth of God's word, or the Pharisees who opposed Him and the KJV translation?
Let us consider the passage i nthe KJV.
Deuteronomy 24
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Notice the KJV writes this up as if it were a command that under this scenario, a man must write this bill of divorcement. Now, the Pharisees in Jesus time had two opposing opinions. Shammai's group believed that a man should divorce his wife for adultery, but the house of Hillel allowed it for burning dinner. 'Orthodox' Judaism to this day, in general, ___requires___ a Jewish man to divorce his wife if she commits adultery and he accepts it as true based on witnesses.
Now, the Hebrew does not _require_ this interpretation. The same types of verbs are used in this passage:
Deuteronomy 22
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
Notice that 'force' and 'lie' are not treated as commands in ths KJV, like the giving of the divorce certificate is in the KJV of Deuteronomy 24.
It is typical for Christian translations of the passage to lay this out as a case, a scenario in which a man gives a wife a divorce certificate:
Deuteronomy 24
1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
(NKJV)
This is just one example where the KJV translation is off. It disagrees with the Lord Jesus' interpretation of a passage, and actually contradicts it, agreeing with his opponents. The KJV translators were not infallible.
@John146 @Bible_Highlighter
So Who is right, the Son of God, the Messiah, Who spoke the truth of God's word, or the Pharisees who opposed Him and the KJV translation?
Let us consider the passage i nthe KJV.
Deuteronomy 24
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Notice the KJV writes this up as if it were a command that under this scenario, a man must write this bill of divorcement. Now, the Pharisees in Jesus time had two opposing opinions. Shammai's group believed that a man should divorce his wife for adultery, but the house of Hillel allowed it for burning dinner. 'Orthodox' Judaism to this day, in general, ___requires___ a Jewish man to divorce his wife if she commits adultery and he accepts it as true based on witnesses.
Now, the Hebrew does not _require_ this interpretation. The same types of verbs are used in this passage:
Deuteronomy 22
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
Notice that 'force' and 'lie' are not treated as commands in ths KJV, like the giving of the divorce certificate is in the KJV of Deuteronomy 24.
It is typical for Christian translations of the passage to lay this out as a case, a scenario in which a man gives a wife a divorce certificate:
Deuteronomy 24
1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
(NKJV)
This is just one example where the KJV translation is off. It disagrees with the Lord Jesus' interpretation of a passage, and actually contradicts it, agreeing with his opponents. The KJV translators were not infallible.
@John146 @Bible_Highlighter
You are DELIBERATELY misrepresenting the KJV since you are an enemy of this translation. "Let him" means allowing to do so. The KJV does not say "shall" (a command) as do other versions. Now notice these translations:
International Standard Version
"If a man chooses to enter into marriage with a woman, but she finds herself displeasing to him because he has found something objectionable about her, he must draw up divorce papers, hand them to her, and then send her out of his house.
American Standard Version
When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Douay-Rheims Bible
If a man take a wife, and have her, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness: he shall write a bill of divorce, and shall give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Darby Bible Translation
When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a letter of divorce, and give it into her hand, and send her out of his house.
English Revised Version
When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
World English Bible
When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
The Hebrew simply says "and he writes her...".
International Standard Version
"If a man chooses to enter into marriage with a woman, but she finds herself displeasing to him because he has found something objectionable about her, he must draw up divorce papers, hand them to her, and then send her out of his house.
American Standard Version
When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Douay-Rheims Bible
If a man take a wife, and have her, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness: he shall write a bill of divorce, and shall give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Darby Bible Translation
When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a letter of divorce, and give it into her hand, and send her out of his house.
English Revised Version
When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
World English Bible
When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
The Hebrew simply says "and he writes her...".
Certain other translations don't agree with Christ's interpretation either. Others present it as a scenario/ case, consistent with Matthew 19 and Mark 10.
I am not an 'enemy' of the KJV. The KJV is not a person. I just don't think it is infallible. I memorized quite a bit out of the KJV. I am not its enemy. I think you are wavering between two opinions here. On the one hand, you supposedly don't think the KJV is inspired, right. You just prefer it. I am not misrepresenting the KJV, which I quoted for all to dsee, but here you are defending a poor translation. 'Let him' is a little loser than the other translations you quoted. But it is still used to translate command forms elsewhere. I am thinking of I Corinthians 14.
It falls short in not presenting this like it does the legal case scenarios in Deuteronomy chapters 22 and 25, for example, which use the same type of verb structure. We actually have words of Christ on how to interpret the passage, which does not line up well with the wording of the KJV.
I never heard of anyone using this translation before.
Yeah, even worse translation, considering Christ narrows down the translation options on this passage so narrowly, and this one so strongly opposed his interpretation.
Never heard of anyone using this one.
Equally bad. I'm assuming 'shall' was a command form this early on. The KJV later seems to use it that way a lot. And this is a Roman Catholic translation, which makes it all the more odd choice of words.
But the KJV does not. So why defend the KJV. it's softer than the other versions you quoted on the issue. You could also go through and quote translations that go with something along the lines of 'and he writes her', which is a superior translation given the inspired interpretation we get for it in Mark and Matthew.
Btw, the same type of verb usage is used as a command form elsewhere, so it is an issue of how to interpret the Hebrew. As Christians, we should accept Christ's interpretation, and not that of the Pharisees who debated this issue with Him, to be correct.
The other translations you quoted may have dropped the ball harder on this issue, but the KJV still drops the ball. And other translations are more in line with how Christ interpreted the passage.
I am not an 'enemy' of the KJV. The KJV is not a person. I just don't think it is infallible. I memorized quite a bit out of the KJV. I am not its enemy. I think you are wavering between two opinions here. On the one hand, you supposedly don't think the KJV is inspired, right. You just prefer it. I am not misrepresenting the KJV, which I quoted for all to dsee, but here you are defending a poor translation. 'Let him' is a little loser than the other translations you quoted. But it is still used to translate command forms elsewhere. I am thinking of I Corinthians 14.
It falls short in not presenting this like it does the legal case scenarios in Deuteronomy chapters 22 and 25, for example, which use the same type of verb structure. We actually have words of Christ on how to interpret the passage, which does not line up well with the wording of the KJV.
I never heard of anyone using this translation before.
Yeah, even worse translation, considering Christ narrows down the translation options on this passage so narrowly, and this one so strongly opposed his interpretation.
Never heard of anyone using this one.
Equally bad. I'm assuming 'shall' was a command form this early on. The KJV later seems to use it that way a lot. And this is a Roman Catholic translation, which makes it all the more odd choice of words.
But the KJV does not. So why defend the KJV. it's softer than the other versions you quoted on the issue. You could also go through and quote translations that go with something along the lines of 'and he writes her', which is a superior translation given the inspired interpretation we get for it in Mark and Matthew.
Btw, the same type of verb usage is used as a command form elsewhere, so it is an issue of how to interpret the Hebrew. As Christians, we should accept Christ's interpretation, and not that of the Pharisees who debated this issue with Him, to be correct.
The other translations you quoted may have dropped the ball harder on this issue, but the KJV still drops the ball. And other translations are more in line with how Christ interpreted the passage.
Most of the Presidents were part of the secret masonic orders because anyone in the top job is targeted to join and some can confess faith while being part of occult. Believing in God isnt always the same as believing in Jesus..we know that many Jews believe God too but dont believe in His son. Demons can believe and tremble.
Of the many US presidents only three come to mind that have shared their born again experience it cant be said that all were believers....And it was assumed that all the founding fathers were christians but it was more they were deists, many came to US to worship how they wanted to worship esp to get away from persecution at the time. Puritans, quakers, anyone 'non-conformist' ..this is how cults in the US have free reign like anyone can make up their own - JWs, Mormons, Scientologists, Christian scientists, 7th day adventists, Children of God, Shakers, WOF, the peoples temple....
Of the many US presidents only three come to mind that have shared their born again experience it cant be said that all were believers....And it was assumed that all the founding fathers were christians but it was more they were deists, many came to US to worship how they wanted to worship esp to get away from persecution at the time. Puritans, quakers, anyone 'non-conformist' ..this is how cults in the US have free reign like anyone can make up their own - JWs, Mormons, Scientologists, Christian scientists, 7th day adventists, Children of God, Shakers, WOF, the peoples temple....
Every translation of the Bible is imperfect because it's impossible to concisely translate everything from one language into another while maintaining the full range of potential meanings, nor to convey the precise meaning from one language to another. Whether it's word-for-word or thought-for-thought translations, all Bible translations make concessions and involve guesswork and uncertainty. There is no such thing as a perfect translation of the Bible. I definitely think that some are worse than others (my least favourites are ones that go beyond what the text actually says and insert words or use very unlikely translations to support a doctrine or belief).
At the moment, I'm using the Literal Standard Version along with an interlinear program on my smartphone, but that's more because I enjoy learning about languages and history; doing so might give me an insight or detail occasionally that others miss, but it doesn't really make one holier overall.
At the moment, I'm using the Literal Standard Version along with an interlinear program on my smartphone, but that's more because I enjoy learning about languages and history; doing so might give me an insight or detail occasionally that others miss, but it doesn't really make one holier overall.
excuse me
what is said in deuteronomy and how Jesus interpreted it was that divorce was allowed for the hard of heart. This does not make KJV wrong. I dont see what the issue is....Jesus knew and quoted from Deuteronomy and of course knew all the laws of the prophets but he was just saying WHY it was so.
He did that with a lot of laws not just divorce, for example woman caught in adultery was forgiven and not stoned and Jesus also asked about the MEN who were stoning her whether they were sinning as well. He interpreted them for the spirit and not the letter, but he actually did write something in the ground so spelled it out for them.
Plus he gave a commandment that were not explicit in the OT eg Love one another as I have loved you.
This does not mean translators actually need to rewrite the OT to conform with what Jesus in the NT interpreted. its actually a mystery not obvious to those who dont have faith for them to seek out.
The forcing of a betrothed damsel just seems like a case of date rape. Its not said whether the rapist is actually the one who is betrothed to her either. Its not related to the divorce secenario, and divorce is not written as command either 'let him write a bill of divorce' is not saying he MUST divorce her.
This is why the Jews who had all the OT scriptures had so many rabbis that interpreted the law in different ways and it was not obvious to many why the laws were so. Jesus opened up scripture for people to undertstand why God had given it to them in the first place!
what is said in deuteronomy and how Jesus interpreted it was that divorce was allowed for the hard of heart. This does not make KJV wrong. I dont see what the issue is....Jesus knew and quoted from Deuteronomy and of course knew all the laws of the prophets but he was just saying WHY it was so.
He did that with a lot of laws not just divorce, for example woman caught in adultery was forgiven and not stoned and Jesus also asked about the MEN who were stoning her whether they were sinning as well. He interpreted them for the spirit and not the letter, but he actually did write something in the ground so spelled it out for them.
Plus he gave a commandment that were not explicit in the OT eg Love one another as I have loved you.
This does not mean translators actually need to rewrite the OT to conform with what Jesus in the NT interpreted. its actually a mystery not obvious to those who dont have faith for them to seek out.
The forcing of a betrothed damsel just seems like a case of date rape. Its not said whether the rapist is actually the one who is betrothed to her either. Its not related to the divorce secenario, and divorce is not written as command either 'let him write a bill of divorce' is not saying he MUST divorce her.
This is why the Jews who had all the OT scriptures had so many rabbis that interpreted the law in different ways and it was not obvious to many why the laws were so. Jesus opened up scripture for people to undertstand why God had given it to them in the first place!
tongues have ceased only means people have literally stopped talking lol
Why do people think it just means everyone must speak the same langauge. Granted english is widespread but its not the ONLY langauge in the world. This is where KJVonly people get silly. Knowing English doesnt necessarily make you holy does it.
As a language though it is versatile esp when written down. The Bible now has been translated into many other languages all over the globe. Oral languages that never had a script before can use the english alphabet because its mostly phonetic. But scriptures in other languages will have different characters/words. Of course.
also the thing with english is words can easily be made up and combined to make new words. We are still living in a polyglot world just like the Jews who had been exiled to other lands had picked up the langauges of the places they had been living in. Does that mean the jewish rabbis today are suddenly going to read the KJV bible and understand it? Um no. They would rather read the Hebrew translation of the NT! They already have scriptures in the tongue God gave to them.
Why do people think it just means everyone must speak the same langauge. Granted english is widespread but its not the ONLY langauge in the world. This is where KJVonly people get silly. Knowing English doesnt necessarily make you holy does it.
As a language though it is versatile esp when written down. The Bible now has been translated into many other languages all over the globe. Oral languages that never had a script before can use the english alphabet because its mostly phonetic. But scriptures in other languages will have different characters/words. Of course.
also the thing with english is words can easily be made up and combined to make new words. We are still living in a polyglot world just like the Jews who had been exiled to other lands had picked up the langauges of the places they had been living in. Does that mean the jewish rabbis today are suddenly going to read the KJV bible and understand it? Um no. They would rather read the Hebrew translation of the NT! They already have scriptures in the tongue God gave to them.
I think a lot of Hebrew can be lost in translation. we might have the literal rendering in English, the transliteration but if you dont know Hebrew then its not obvious that Jesus literally meant Salvation, Mara means Bitter, Edom means red...and all those other Hebrew names in the Bible (and there are many) though the translators tried to make it obvious eg Peter means 'rock'
In Hebrew it would be like if Salvation had a disciple and called him Rocky.
In Hebrew it would be like if Salvation had a disciple and called him Rocky.
Another thing is the different words for love that the Greeks have while in english everything is rendered as Love, though in KJV one important passage is actually translated as Charity that other translators use love.
Or Holy Ghost instead of Holy Spirit. Lots of different meanings and ways of saying the same thing. Its like the argument that english people call passover time Easter while everyone else uses passover in their langauge...and its obvious because in that passage they talk about the time of unleavened bread. To english people thats pancakes day.
Thats not an error its just a different word used with the same meaning.
Or Holy Ghost instead of Holy Spirit. Lots of different meanings and ways of saying the same thing. Its like the argument that english people call passover time Easter while everyone else uses passover in their langauge...and its obvious because in that passage they talk about the time of unleavened bread. To english people thats pancakes day.
Thats not an error its just a different word used with the same meaning.
