What makes you think that satan was not at work in the development and translation of the KJV just as much as with newer translations?
KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- 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.
What makes you think that satan was not at work in the development and translation of the KJV just as much as with newer translations?
It is an occult axiom and has no place in the Bible! Blavatsky used that exact phrase in the 1800s in Isis unveiled. Albert Pike used it in Morals and Dogma in the same century. You need to figure out whose side you are on! A christian didn't insert the phrase into the Message Bible...an occultist did!
You are accusing Eugene Peterson of being an occultist. I think you need more evidence than a single questionable phrase.
Shall I remind you that most of the major pseudo-Christian cults were founded when the KJV was the primary Bible in English? Shall I remind you that many heterodox beliefs on the fringes of Christianity are the result of misinterpreting the KJV? Do you really want to reduce this issue to half a verse taken out of context?
That is a fact because he put an occult axiom into his bible in an attempt to pervert the word of God! The evidence is in his fruit.
"O thou man of God, there is death in the pot. And they could not eat thereof." (2 Kings 4:40)
That would be his knowledge God is referring to. I don't think he is suggesting a complete course of occult study.
Are you the Gematria fellow that thinks the entire universe is built on the number 37 by any chance?
You're using circular reasoning. Try presenting evidence of a link or a belief of Peterson's, other than that single phrase.
And they had to add to the Bible (Book of Mormon) or change the Bible (New World Translation) to prove their doctrines. Why don't you apply the logic you spout to your own arguments and examples?
Did I say the entire universe is built on the number 37? If not then the answer would be no. I will however address anything I have said concerning the number 37 in the appropriate thread.
"as above so below" does not equal ""Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."
Is the phrase "as above so below" an occult axiom or not?
I do examine my posts for logic, and though I occasionally have to edit things, this isn't one of those times. You quoted, "By their fruits you shall know them" in response to my question, "What makes you think that satan was not at work in the development and translation of the KJV just as much as with newer translations?" My rhetorical questions follow the flow of thought.
Can you find evidence of any actual person promoting a false teaching that is based entirely on the wording of a recent translation? Alleged false teachings based on a KJV-onlyist's interpretation of something in a recent translation do not count. Since you argue for examination of fruit, please present the fruit for examination.
Who cares? Its totally unrelated to the question if it should be in the Bible or not. You would need to tear your KJV totally, if you wish to get rid of everything this world misused.
Concentrate on Christianity, not on the world.
Of course the one phrase does not "equal" the other... that's why it's called a paraphrase. However, given that KJV-onlyists will argue that any change in wording makes the other version "not equal", I would disregard this line of reasoning as irrelevant.
Nobody needs to deny the occult usage of the phrase; that is a burden-of-proof reversal. You need to provide evidence of the linkage and intention instead of simply pointing out a correlation which could as easily be quite innocent.