J
JamesTucker
Guest
Timotheos said:
Lol, can't we all just get along? KJVO not included, lol.
Lol, can't we all just get along? KJVO not included, lol.
L
Lisa Ruby
Guest
Bro Blue said:
There are some that blatantly contradict each other. I think that should be enough to cause some alarm bells to go off -- "key issues" or not.
L
Lisa Ruby
Guest
Lisa Ruby said:
There are some verses that blatantly contradict each other. I think that should be enough to cause some alarm bells to go off -- "key issues" or not.
Below are a few examples:
Hosea 13:9 KJ: "O Israel, THOU HAST DESTROYED THYSELF; but
IN ME [IS] THINE HELP."
ESV: "HE DESTROYS YOU, O Israel, for you are
against me, against your helper."
COMMENT: Here is a splendid example of how new version
'scripture' is often made to say exactly the
OPPOSITE of what was given by inspiration of
Almighty God.
2Sam. 14:14 KJ: "... neither doth God respect [any]
person: ..."
HCSB: "... But God would not take away a life;
..."
COMMENT: Are those two verses ANYTHING alike?
Daniel 3:25 KJ: "... and the form of the fourth is like THE
SON OF GOD."
ESV: "... and the appearance of the fourth is
like a son of the gods."
COMMENT: 'A son of the (plural) gods'? It was Jesus
Christ, THE SON OF GOD (Big G), who was in
the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Messach,
and Abednego. It was Jesus Christ who
protected them and it is Jesus Christ who
saves us from the fiery furnace (i.e.
from hell).
Matt. 5:22 KJ: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry
with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in
danger of the judgment: ..."
ESV: "But I say to you that everyone who is
angry with his brother will be liable to
judgment; ..."
COMMENT: What? The ESV says you can't be angry with
your brother?!!! The Apostle Paul was ANGRY
and withstood the Apostle Peter to his face
(Gal. 2:11). Jesus was ANGRY with the
Church at Pergamos because of the erroneous
doctrine of the Nicolaitanes (Rev 2:15). The
Bible says to BE ANGRY but sin not (Eph.
4:26) and it says not to let the sun go down
on YOUR ANGER (Eph. 4:26). The King James
is CORRECT: Whosoever is angry with his
brother WITHOUT A CAUSE is in danger of the
judgment. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between
those two verses.
For more examples see:
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/KJvsESV.TXT
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,187
- Reaction score
- 134
- Points
- 63
Lisa, let's use the same standard on the King James Version. Omissions concerning the deity of Christ.
Acts 16:7 "of Jesus" is missing in the KJV
Romans 1:4 "Jesus Christ our Lord" is missing in the KJV
Romans 8:34 "Jesus" is gone in the KJV
1 Corinthians 6:11 "Christ" disappears in the KJV
Galations 5:24 "Jesus" is missing in the KJV
Ephesians 3:6 "Jesus" is once again missing in the KJV
Colossians 4:12 "Jesus" is missing in the KJV
Jude 25 "through Jesus Christ our Lord." is marked out in the KJV
When I was involved in KJV Onlyism I did the same thing you did to try to convince myself that I was right and everyone else was wrong. I was sincere in my belief but dishonest! I never even considered that I might be wrong because it was such an emotional issue with me and I refused to look at other arguments. If you are honest watch this video which is part one. Then watch the other parts on Youtube.
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 1
Acts 16:7 "of Jesus" is missing in the KJV
Romans 1:4 "Jesus Christ our Lord" is missing in the KJV
Romans 8:34 "Jesus" is gone in the KJV
1 Corinthians 6:11 "Christ" disappears in the KJV
Galations 5:24 "Jesus" is missing in the KJV
Ephesians 3:6 "Jesus" is once again missing in the KJV
Colossians 4:12 "Jesus" is missing in the KJV
Jude 25 "through Jesus Christ our Lord." is marked out in the KJV
When I was involved in KJV Onlyism I did the same thing you did to try to convince myself that I was right and everyone else was wrong. I was sincere in my belief but dishonest! I never even considered that I might be wrong because it was such an emotional issue with me and I refused to look at other arguments. If you are honest watch this video which is part one. Then watch the other parts on Youtube.
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 1
L
Lisa Ruby
Guest
Obviously you don't want to talk about why "a son of the gods" is supposedly the same thing as the Son of God so we will address the first verse you mentioned but did not quote from the King James Bible: Acts 16:7.
Act 16:7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not. King James Bible
You wrote, "Acts 16:7 "of Jesus" is missing in the KJV."
Exactly who is the Spirit of Jesus? He is the Holy Spirit.
The verses I cited showed that the verses contradicted each other. Using the term, "Spirit of Jesus" is not contradicting the term, Spirit (as in Holy Spirit.)
When a key word is removed it is a contradiction. In this verse, nothing was contradicted.
However, when the King James Bible (translated from 99% of manuscripts that agree with each other) contradicts modern versions (translated from 2% of the manuscripts -- many of which don't agree with each other) the King James Bible is right. It was right for the Reformation, it was right for the Great Awakening, and it is right for today.
Act 16:7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not. King James Bible
You wrote, "Acts 16:7 "of Jesus" is missing in the KJV."
Exactly who is the Spirit of Jesus? He is the Holy Spirit.
The verses I cited showed that the verses contradicted each other. Using the term, "Spirit of Jesus" is not contradicting the term, Spirit (as in Holy Spirit.)
When a key word is removed it is a contradiction. In this verse, nothing was contradicted.
However, when the King James Bible (translated from 99% of manuscripts that agree with each other) contradicts modern versions (translated from 2% of the manuscripts -- many of which don't agree with each other) the King James Bible is right. It was right for the Reformation, it was right for the Great Awakening, and it is right for today.
L
Lisa Ruby
Guest
JamesTucker said:
Be polite to each other? Yes indeed. Walk together where we are not agreed? Not according to the Bible.
Lisa Ruby said:
You misunderstand Amos...
But since you are living in your misunderstanding of that verse, we all witness your agreement of Avery and your "walking" with him. Lisa, do you deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,187
- Reaction score
- 134
- Points
- 63
Some arguments are so absurd they don't deserve a response. I have a hard time understanding your convoluted reasoning. Concerning Daniel 3:25, I believe it could be translated either way since a pagan king believed in many gods. In defense of the King James Version rendering; there is no reason to believe that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't familiar with Hebrew scripture (Daniel 1:4, 20). He may have very well read the part of Proverbs 30:4 where it says:Lisa Ruby said:
"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?"
Nebuchadnezzar's response would be no different than the Queen of Sheba's when she told Solomon in 1 Kings 10:9 "Blessed be the Lord thy God, which delighted in thee, to set thee on the throne of Israel: because the Lord loved Israel for ever, therefore made he thee king, to do judgment and justice.
Concerning Acts 16:7, I did not misquote it. Every modern translation I have ever seen has "Jesus" in it including the New World Translation! The bottom line is you refuse to put the King James Version on the same standard you put all other translations when you cherry pick verses. You believe Satan is more powerful than God when it comes to preservation of scripture. If God isn't powerful enough to give English speaking people the scriptures in modern English, what kind of God is he?
The King James Version (which I love dearly) was "written for the English (another country) when they spoke another language (what we commonly call King James English). Satan didn't say "Yea, hath God said?" (unless you think Satan and Adam and Eve spoke English). The verse was originally written in Hebrew, but was translated into English by some kind folks so that English speakers in the 1600's could understand the Word of God." (The Evidence Bible)
You are a dishonest person dealing with this issue just as I used to be and only God can open your eyes concerning these matters.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=Lisa Ruby ]There are some verses that blatantly contradict each other. I think that should be enough to cause some alarm bells to go off -- "key issues" or not.
Below are a few examples:
Hosea 13:9 KJ: "O Israel, THOU HAST DESTROYED THYSELF; but
IN ME [IS] THINE HELP."
ESV: "HE DESTROYS YOU, O Israel, for you are
against me, against your helper."
COMMENT: Here is a splendid example of how new version
'scripture' is often made to say exactly the
OPPOSITE of what was given by inspiration of
Almighty God.
[/quote]
LOL no, but it's an example of a much-needed correction of a bad translation in the KJV.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/hos13.pdf
The Hebrew literally says:
he-mruins
Below are a few examples:
Hosea 13:9 KJ: "O Israel, THOU HAST DESTROYED THYSELF; but
IN ME [IS] THINE HELP."
ESV: "HE DESTROYS YOU, O Israel, for you are
against me, against your helper."
COMMENT: Here is a splendid example of how new version
'scripture' is often made to say exactly the
OPPOSITE of what was given by inspiration of
Almighty God.
[/quote]
LOL no, but it's an example of a much-needed correction of a bad translation in the KJV.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/hos13.pdf
The Hebrew literally says:
he-mruins
R
redgreen5
Guest
Lisa Ruby said:
Then why did the KJV leave it out?
When clueless KJVOs try to claim that the NIV changes "son" to servant", and the NIV person responds that Christ is both Son and Servant, somehow that isn't good enough for the KJVO clowns. According to KJVOs, the NIV verse itself must state it clearly, we can't stretch the NIV and assume that it means both Son and Servant.
But now you are trying to stretch Acts 16:7 in the KJV to include concepts not actually spelled out by the printed KJV text itself.
LOL double standards and Lisa Ruby: they are always found together, just like Satan and sin.
No, as I just demonstrated in my previous post:
those verses show that you don't have a nickel's worth of education about Greek or Hebrew, and less than a penny's worth of personal integrity and Christian honesty.
You heard it here first, folks. According to Lisa Ruby, the word "Jesus" isn't a key word and it's OK to be left out -- that is, providing that it's the KJV that is leaving it out.
Wrong.
The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus, and from less than a dozen copies of the TR.
Not only that, but the Textus Receptus is not the Majority Text; not at all.
The Textus Receptus differs from the Majority text in over 1,800 places.
That's one thousand, eight hundred different contradictions between the KJV and the actual Majority Text.
Let's see if Lyin' Lisa has the courage to address that point.
And all of those contradictions in 1/5 of the Bible (New Testament)