Search results

Elsewhere in Scripture, yes. Not here.

That’s arrogant, “spiritualizing” hogwash. Unless you admit that the KJV wording obscures as much as it illuminates, all you’re doing is pretending to make a valid point.

Look again; this is a different issue.

If “a faithful witness will not lie”, then why does the KJV contradict itself between 2 Kings 8:25 and 2 Kings 9:29 regarding the year in which Ahaziah ascended the throne? Which is it? We need to know! The multiple versions create confusion! How can we walk out our Christian faith without all...

Your argument is based on speculation. There is an adage, “The man with one watch always knows the time; the man with two watches never does.” While that might sound like wisdom, it involves the massive and unsupportable assumption that the one watch is correct.

And don’t underestimate the God Who gave the word in the first place. That’s exactly what you are doing by implying He is unable to use an “imperfect” translation. Of course, your hypocrisy is evident given the many imperfections in the KJV.

Dr. Mark Ward calls these “false friends”.

The Apocrypha were included for reference, not as "Scripture"... just as maps and other helps are included in many modern editions. Some parts of those books are useful for historical and cultural context, and even help to understand certain obscure parts of Scripture.

You really don't get it. God commanded the Israelites to bring LITERAL foodstuffs. There is no need to speculate about anything beyond the plain text.

Do you get some weird satisfaction from making things up out of thin air? You pretend to teach, but it's clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. The above is utterly meaningless as neither of your "symbols" is sound.

Once again, you can't simply defend your position, but you know there's something wrong with your attack on those who differ with you so you grey it out. And please, stop adding the blank lines and white ellipsis at the end of your posts. There is absolutely no need for it, and it's annoying...

Or the false doctrines from the KJV. You mean... like you did in your opening statement of your debate when you left out some of the words of 1 Peter 1:23?

But implies that you believe in double inspiration. Do you?

I’m late to the party, I see. Oh well. Lazarus came forth and got his life back. I came fifth and got a toaster.

Here I was sure His name was Andy… Andy walks with me Andy talks with me Andy tells me I’m His own…

Another repeated trope. You’re not convincing anyone.

Any particular aspect you'd like to continue? It's a long thread, but you might want to read through it to get a sense of the issues.

Don't bother unless you treat the KJV with exactly the same degree of critical assessment. Use ONE set of measures, not differing measures depending on your personal preference. Start with an objective standard for the text, and that is NOT the KJV itself. The KJV is not the standard used for...

Please, do your own research instead of repeating these tired tropes.

While I admit that I'm not aware of such cases, I still hold that the translation (by itself) is rarely the core problem.