Translate:
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Larry McCune on STREET PREACHER “YouTube”CHALLENGE
- sumnut on STREET PREACHER “YouTube”CHALLENGE
- Bro. Ray McIntire on STREET PREACHER “YouTube”CHALLENGE
- Dave on STREET PREACHER “YouTube”CHALLENGE
- Bro. Ray McIntire on STREET PREACHER “YouTube”CHALLENGE
- sumnut on STREET PREACHER “YouTube”CHALLENGE
- Bro. Ray McIntire on STREET PREACHER “YouTube”CHALLENGE
- Joshua on STREET PREACHER “YouTube”CHALLENGE
- Joseph Benjamin Mendoza on SALVATION PLAN
- Bro. Ray McIntire on No.13 – Quote Bro. Ray On This
May 2024 M T W T F S S « Jul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Here we go with the AV 1611 Idolatry again, everything but Jesus.
Stoveman: Your comments really hurt, that’s if I was as sensitive as Darrell over at http://www.stufffundieslike.com where you hang out and blaspheme. I’m not going to tell the guys bye for you just yet. Think it over before you leave. Talk to h.gual and try to calm down. Pray about it and take a praise break with Benny, Oral, or someone and get back to me. Yours in brotherly love, Bro. Ray
That is precisely why we NEED more translations, to capture the proper nuances of the Greek text.
Ha ha, what?
See, See, SEE how important words are, that’s why the AV1611 used the best of the best and there is no need for another translation. See how the word “inside” changed the dynamic and meaning of what the squirrel was doing? Same thing applies to scripture. Be sure to tell Stover.
High standards? Ray you couldn’t tell the difference between a question and a statement. Your website is ripe with spelling errors and sentence fragments. All of your responses are either a. Insults or b. non-sequiturs. Your blogs are plagiarised; mostly composed of comments you agree with. You have no ground to stand on. You cannot reason, so you ridicule. I am reminded of grade school bullies when I converse with you. I’m honestly worried now that I’m dealing with someone with a learning disability.
The only reason I returned to your site is because you allow comments. Now I have no reason to return. Give my regards to Larry, Dwayne and the rest of the looney toons.
Does this mean you are the squirrel? After all, I’m the one going around and around the cage, implying that I’m outside of it (otherwise you’d have said “around and around inside the squirrel cage”). Since I’m commenting on your blog, I can only conclude that you are the squirrel inside the cage that I am circling around.
h.gual: Lets move on, what do you think of my newest post on False Apostles?
Here he goes again, around and around the squirrel cage.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
By “be careful,” Ray means “stop up your ears, throw illogical statements and insults at the guy, and run for the hills.” Certainly don’t read a word Stover says. You might actually, I dunno, be convinced by the truth instead of hiding from it.
Must have been something silly that you knew I could not post because of my high standards.
Just looked it up, the NKJV bible itself says “like the Son of God” exactly as the KJV does. I admit you did precede it with the statement, “the footnotes”, but that is really irreverent because in my opinion it is just giving a different perspective while keeping the actual text the same.
The reason I would say that the other text is interpreted that way is that no one (including the Jews) at that time had any knowledge of Jesus, the Son of God. They knew a Messiah was coming but not that he was the Son of God. Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan (technically) when he said that. He would have been talking as one at that point because of that. Thus, his response fits for how he was raised and trained.
2. “If it is not then one of the other translations has to be or God is a liar. Chew on that a while.”
Are you assuming that Psalms 12 was written in 1611? I have chewed on that awhile, now I’m throwing up. Also, by your own definition of the word pure, the after mentioned changes to the KJV would make it un-pure.
3. “I am not exactly sure therefore what you are trying to say when you say “think about it”. Please clarify that. As I hope you can see I have done a lot of thinking, studying, and searching for the answers myself. I know that it can be tedious but if you truly want the truth. Do what the scriptures say and “study to show thyself approved”.”
I do study the scriptures as well. Know that I am a brother in Christ. That does not, however, mean that we can agree on this issue. I advised you to think about how the book of Psalms existed for well over a thousand years, in many different manuscripts, before the English language existed. So to imply that the KJV are the pure/word for word, words of God is to say that the KJV is fulfilled prophecy. I do not believe those verses mentioning Gods words as pure as prophetic, and I doubt you do as well.
I’ll respond as best I can to Rays and Amigos responses, respectively.
1.The bible does say that the words of Gods are pure. Both of you quoted various psalms and proverbs. Psalms 12:6-7 are the verses KJV onlyists frequently cite as the basis for their belief.
“6 The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.
7 Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shalt preserue them, from this generation for euer.” -1611
None of us here believe that the words of God are not pure. Certainly Gods words are pure! But these verses (ripped out from their original context, i.e:prooftexting) do not suggest that God has preserved his word in 1 solitary manuscript since its penning. Do you realize that the 1611 was not translated from 1 manuscript? The KJV translators used the Textus Receptus to translate the New Testament. The Textus Receptus is a compilation of 6 greek manuscripts, none of which provide for us the full new testament. The 1611 translators used the Latin Vulgate to fill in the rest.
Now listen carefully, I’m not disrespecting the KJV. It is a fine translation. But if you translate Psalms 12 to mean that God has preserved his word in one solitary manuscript since its penning, then you are wrong. That was not the case for David. It was not the case for Jesus. It was not the case for the Jews who gathered each week in synagogue. It was not the case for the KJV translators as they deciphered the many manuscripts that compose the KJV.
Which leads me to my next point: I believe that Gods sovereignty is displayed by his ability to preserve his word in thousands of manuscripts throughout time. Much of whom agree with one another, and differ only slightly. Gods power is displayed in his ability to preserve manuscripts written in many different languages, from many different cultures worldwide over a period of 2000 years. Now that is power! No other book has been preserved in such fashion! None.
I do believe that there are poor translations of the text. The New World Translation comes to mind (Jehovah Witness Bible). There are many others. However, that does not validate the KJV as the only words of God. Now the verses that you have in your bible, that are not located in the NIV/RSV/ESV etc. Are usually cited in the colomns or at the bottom of the page. For example, John 5:4 is moved to the margins in some newer translations. Reasons being those verses were not located in the majority of/much older manuscripts used by the translators. Mind you, those verses were not removed, but relocated to the margins. The question has to be asked: would you want text in your bible that was not originally penned by the original authors? I assume not.
Now, hopefully you wont make the claim that newer translations committees are attempting to remove the deity of Christ by removing these verses. You certainly cannot use John 5:4 to justify that mistaken belief! Also, if you do make that argument. I could make the same argument against the KJV. The KJV has been revised numerous times since its original penning, the first of which contained the Apocrypha. Yes, the Apocrypha. It was not located in the margins, but in between the Old and New Testamants. Surely you know that the catholic church considered these books to be deuterocanonical.
Here is a list of the hundreds of changes between the 1611 and 1769 bible. Please know that I do not disagree with these changes. As I said before, the KJV is a fine translation.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html
The only thing is, science tells us gold at is purest is still the color gold. It will never be clear/transparent. This is most likely a type of metaphor because the writer had no other idea how to explain the splendors of heaven so that other humans might understand what he was saying about the magnificence of the place.
By “be careful” Ray means “ignore their arguments, throw insults at them, and run for cover.” That’s the only way to deal with reprobates, apparently. Because you certainly can’t prove them wrong with the facts or with logic…
WRONG AGAIN, its hard for me to tolerate apostates and reprobates who put forth ideas that contradict sound doctrine.
What excuse?
Be careul amigodana you are dealing with a reprobate.
What is pure, this is how the scriptures define pure;
Revelation 21:18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
Pure gold = (like) Clear glass
Revelation 21:21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
Pure gold = (as it were) transparent glass
Revelation 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Pure river = Clear as crystal
So the scriptures can define pure in just this way: clear, transparent, and clear as crystal.
Now isn’t it better just to trust Jesus.
Did you read my response to these question below, when you asked before. Or do you feel that the answer I gave was not adequate? If the case is that you feel like my previous answers were not adequate enough, then yes I will try and explain diferantly, but, I will still stay within the scriptures. You see when God says “every word of God is pure” well, that is a matter of fact statement. And he leaves no room for debate within its contexts. As too how I define it, i believe what the bible says. Again search every verse that has the word pure, and see what God says it means. “Let God be true and every man a liar”.
Hah, you ignored my point again. Still can’t face up to the challenge, I suppose. Anyone reading these comments keeping tally?
Amigodana, I will just email you my response. Unfortunately intelligent discussion is unwanted here.
Your excuses get lamer and lamer, Ray.
Wow. So I correct Ray’s misuse of a word, with proof from a dictionary, and his response is that he can’t wait to see me get divinely judged. Overreaction, much?
This guy can’t handle correction, or opinions that differ from his own.
It’s just that you say the same nonsense over and over and your filling up cyber space with it.
Here at Ezekiel3 I take the lead in pointing out heresies and standing up for and upon the words of God Almighty (AV1611 of course). You naysayers are enemies of God with your blaspheming. What gives?
Can’t wait to observe you at the Judgement Seat of Christ if you are fortunate enough to make it there. I hope you do not end up at the White Throne Judgement but I do have doubts because of the way you blaspheme along with C. Stover over at Squirrel’s web-site.
Ray, you are wrong about #2. A question, as any dictionary will tell you, can be defined as “a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information.”
How can they all be right? Because language is fluid, as you admitted elsewhere in these comments.
I feel like you think you are being clever, but don’t actually understand what you are admitting to.
He’s been deleting my comments too. Another method he uses to hide from the arguments of others.
No, simply responding to your responses. In a very respectful manner I might add.
NO, NO, NO!! I believe the Bible and love my Lord Jesus Christ too much to join you reprobates.
Are you just looking for attention my reprobate friend?
If all the newer translations had to be significantly different from the AV1611 and each other how can they all be 100% right? Why don’t you or other reprobates like you take the best parts from the 200+ newer translations and make a perfect BIBLE?
They do?
Join the squirrels, Ray! Join us!
But it is perfectly preserved in the AV1611.
That’s because in many cases modern translations retain the language of the KJV. This is another laughable non-sequitur that has nothing to do with the point being made above.
More non-sequiturs. Do you think that the sheer fact that people disagree with you makes you right?
I’ve already stated I have a high regard for the KJV (AV-1611) and its history. I have a high regard for many different translations. There are many different valid translations of the Word of God. The KJV translators agreed on this point in their preface to the AV 1611.
If I showed you I would be wasting my time because you would not respond or would whine in a fashion not becoming a man of God. The long and short of it is you are an apostate who can be seen blaspheming on http://www.stufffundieslike.com on a regualar basis along with h.gual and the Darrell’s other squirrel chasers. You are of a reprobate mine and cannot know the difference between the holy and the profane. Too bad so sad. Go to http://www.biblebelievers.com for a list of changed verses and doctrines that would do you no good for me to list here. You are of a reprobate mind, listen to your rattle.
Ray, I left a lengthy reply but my comment has not been posted. Could you please confirm that for me?
Ray, you are wrong about #2. A question, as any dictionary will tell you, can be defined as “a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information.”
I feel like you think you are being clever here, and you don’t actually know what you are admitting to.
Impossible to read and understand is it? QUICK, quote John 3:16 with out looking at a bible perversion. Chances are you will quote from the AV1611.
I admit no such thing as tucking tail and running. I just simply learned from you how to be contentious.
So you admit that you are tucking tail and running? Wow, we really are getting somewhere.
(I, meanwhile, have been standing my ground)
Stover, what we have to understand here, that I think many are not quite comprehending yet is, what is textual criticism? You see basically through out history each of the two lines of texts have said differrent things from each other. But each line within itself has agreed with itself from one translation to the next. You can see what I am saying by doing scripture comparisons. I also gave a link to study one study on the matter, that book. If you don’t believe it fine, but don’t assume to know things, put me down, without seeing both sides. That just seems absurd, after all we are limited on space here. Now, what we are saying, and which many agree, is that there are many mistakes in one branch or line of texts. And then there is one textual line, and this is we’re the scriptures are correct by saying it is a stumbling block for the unbeliever, because they just don’t want to believe that “GOD” has kept His promise by providing us an purified protected word. Ultimately, I will tell you that that is going to be a question of faith though. Now you and I can do our do diligence and study these evidences, then come to a conclusion. Now, I have provided resources to help others consider, yes, my opinion is biased. I will try to be as honest and straightforward as I can. But what I am saying is and I hope you would agree, don’t you think that it is of the UPMOST importance to do this study too see if there is any possibly to it. Too understand what I mean when I bring up textual criticism. do the scripture comparisons that are out there, and see for yourself wherein the truth lays. Now, many have asked and still ask what about after the KJV, why is it the last? Well, let’s look at what the scriptures say. It says that it will be purified 7 times, the KJV just happens to be the end of that, research what the translators said about how they translated it. And then you also have scriptures that say
Ecclesiastes 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
There are many books, if you really want to ask the hard questions, they will help answer. By the way just because someone cries “conspiracy theory”, what, are they implying? Does that decide whether its right or wrong, not. That is not even the definition of conspiracy. They use tactics such as these to embarrass people into either not studying to begin with, or manipulating the outcome.
Something to consider is the word Pure. God said in (Prov.30:5) that “Every word of God is Pure”. And in (Ps.119:14)) “Thy word is Very Pure”. And (Ps.12:6) “The words of the Lord are Pure Words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. Then in (Ps.12:7)”Thou shalt Keep them, O Lord, Thou shalt Preserve Them from this generation for ever.” Clearly God said He would give us His Pure Words and then Preserve His Pure Words. Now the word “Pure” means: “Free from anything of a different, inferior, or contaminating kind”, and “Being that and nothing else.” Thus for a Bible to be Pure, by definition, that Bible would have to consist of nothing but God’s exact inspired and preserved words. One word in the entire Book that wasn’t Purely from the mouth of God would taint the entire Book. That Book-Bible would not be Pure, much less Very Pure. For God to be true to His word the KJV must be Perfect. If it is not then one of the other translations has to be or God is a liar. Chew on that a while. It is an undeniable fact, or the 3 verses I started with are all wrongly using the word Pure. Look the word up in any dictionary. Pure must be All of whatever substance it is without any trace of anything else. God is not a man that He should lie. God by nature would not leave us without a Pure Bible. Not with eternity hanging in the balance.
I learned from the best, YOU.
Amigodana
1) How do the scriptures require themselves to be completely “pure”?
2) Define pure.
The scriptures, particularly the book of Psalms (which I believe is where you find validity in your statement), were around for well over a millennia before the english language. Think about that.
3) If that is the case, was God’s word not pure before the 1611?
I’ve reworded my second question for Rays sake.
Define pure, please?
Could you please define pure?
What does pure mean?
Define pure for me.
The word “pure”, how do you define it?
Funny how you can deign to respond about an inconsequential matter like that, but when it comes to the important stuff and the big calibre arguments you tuck tail and run.
By the way I want to say thank you for a reasonable discussion. I promise I won’t turn tale, tuck and run just because you ask hard questions. We may disagree and that’s fine, but, having a respectful and decent discussion is ALL I am here for.
Well you have proverbs 30:5-6, for one example. It’s not scripture relating to past tense but in the present tense. “Every word of God is pure.”
As to how I define a particular word in scripture, well there is a verse that says “God be true and every man a liar”. So I look up every verse with that word in it and I let God teach me His definition. It’s amazing when you just trust in and let God teach you, not man. Try it with the word “pure” and see what it says, I will only tell you what the scriptures say anyway.
As for your last question, and I hope I have that correct. This is why and what for, as too the discussing of this chart. It does show how the scriptures have proceeded through time, in fact the scriptures say that they are purified 7 times in a furnace of fire. I think this is the reference your referring too, See psalms 12:6.
I am not exactly sure therefore what you are trying to say when you say “think about it”. Please clarify that. As I hope you can see I have done a lot of thinking, studying, and searching for the answers myself. I know that it can be tedious but if you truly want the truth. Do what the scriptures say and “study to show thyself approved”.
I just responded, #2 is a statement not a question. See how that feels when someone you want to have discourse with or convince of a matter rambles about nothing.
#2 is not a question, it is a statement or command.
Ray can’t count.
1) How do the scriptures require themselves to be completely “pure”?
2) Define pure.
3) If that is the case, was God’s word not pure before the 1611?
Are we reading the same conversation here? You haven’t responded to me once in a reasonable and legitimate way. Unless you consider randomly selected scripture verses, ad hominems, logical fallacies, and other people’s websites to be reasonable and legitimate ways of discourse.
Ray here, just listening in but only counted 2 questions.
Three questions amigodana, I’ll ask you because Ray downright refuses to answer anybody’s questions.
How do the scriptures require themselves to be completely “pure”?
Define pure.
The scriptures, particularly the book of Psalms (which I believe is where you find validity in your statement), were around for well over a millennia before the english language. Think about that.
If that is the case, was Gods word not pure before the 1611?
That chart represents a lot of truth that bothers you. Have you noticed yours and the venom of others against the AV1611 on this blog? Why is it the pure words of God (AV1611 of course) bring out the worst in many of my readers? Could it be because they do not know the Word that the words of God speak of?
You could try trusting your soul to Jesus Christ. Why stop with just the words that tell about him?
Funny that as soon as I challenge you guys (yet again) to respond to my previous arguments, you declare yourselves “done” and tuck tail and run. Exactly what I expected you to do, actually.
We’ve been arguing? I thought I was raising points and you were ignoring them and responding with bible verses / insults / other people’s websites. That’s not an argument at all.
How were our conversations moving forward or even accomplishing anything? I personally answered his questions and also gave him info he asked for. Only to have the one question I asked continually avoided, and then he only degraded any attempt at an intelligent conversation. He asked no reasonable questions, and is only argumentative. If you will take notice, Tim, asked a legitimate and reasonable question. I answered in a reasonable and legitimate way. I for one am reading what he says and have come to the conclusion that he wants nothing more than to be a thorn in someone’s side. If you can show me where he directly asked a reasonable question, I will answer. So do you have anything legitimate to add to the conversation (questions?), about the topic, or not? If not, then this will also be the last time I respond to you too.
To what should I trust my soul to if not the pure words of God (AV1611 of course) that tell the works and gospel of Jesus Christ?
Ray, I personally am tired of arguing with him just for the sake of arguing. I understand your contempt sometimes, for people like him. It’s just endless and he has no desire to find a conclusion to the matter.
All of this pointless poking and endless bickering is leading no where, and yes, from both sides it is vanity and vexation. So it is in context. Finally, I hope however that maybe you will have an intelligent discussion. That seems to be a reasonable question. The nkjv was a hybrid, which tried to mix the two lines.
However, if you look in the NKJV, in the scriptures which talk about who was with shad rack, me shack, and agenda go.
Sorry my iPad is correcting this and I am still new at using this thing.
Look at the footnotes, it says son of the gods. That is wrong!!!!
It is just as the KJV clearly says. Look up the scriptures and the footnotes, do a comparison and see. This is just one example, there are many more. And these errors are in fact in agreement with the Alexandrian line. If a glass of water has even one speck of dirt, then it is not pure. Remember that the scriptures require it to be pure and perfect!!
I am Done with you it is pointless.
I find it hard to believe that Ray and “amigodanadana” are actually reading H.Guals posts. Their responses are comical.
Don’t trust your soul to a translated writing.
Ray, the more you insult me without responding to my arguments, the more your desperation and insecurity becomes evident.
Once you make the distinction functional like that rather than inherent, you admit that new translations have to be made from time to time according to the fluidity of language. Thus, you agree with me.
No you didn’t.
Trust your soul instead to charts from a random baptist pastor’s website! Much more trustworthy.
Have you looked at the pre1611 translations, you couldn’t ever begin to read them, we or at least I can still read and comprehend the AV1611.
I can lead a heretic to truth but I cannot make him (or her) think.
Someone very important said “thy word is truth”, hmmm, who could that be? Do the research.
Ok, did the research, still know the AV1611 is the very words of God to the English speaking man with out any errors.
Twice does not make an obsession. Besides the second time I tweaked it up a bit by adding “contentious”.
Don’t trust your soul to wikipedia.org
SHOW THE ERRORS IN MY PREVIOUS ARGUMENTS! SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE!!! HOW HARD CAN THAT BE? Oh wait, whenever I bring up an argument you guys refuse to respond and just call be a “heretic” or “atheist” or “ecumenical” (sic). Why should I do what you yourselves cannot?
First of all, the guy’s name is Pilate, not “Pilot.” Second of all, I’m questioning your construal of the truth, not the truth itself (which is Jesus Himself, the logos, the Word incarnate). Third, Napoleon also said “Religions are all founded on miracles — on things we cannot understand, such as the Trinity. Jesus calls himself the Son of God, and yet is descended from David. I prefer the religion of Mahomet — it is less ridiculous than ours.” Still agree with Napoleon’s opinion about Jesus?
This is laughable. You can’t respond to my arguments so you slap a huge chart up there and require ME to respond. Uh, how about you first? How about the 10 or so refutations I posted in a previous thread that Ray refused to respond to because he chickened out? Anyone can post long pages of arguments and demand a response. A quick search of the internet and I can post this or that for you to respond to. That’s not how civilized people dialogue. Civilized people use arguments, not deluges of text from a random website. Copy and pasting websites is self-defeating. Its an attempt to overwhelm the opponent so they stop talking, just because they don’t have time to go over all this crap point-by-point.
A quick search of Google, or a browse through your local university library will blow these claims in your chart out of the water. I already showed they are contradictory, and you dodged that point completely without responding. You keep telling me to do the research myself. I return the challenge to you.
Oh yeah, research entails reading people who disagree with you too. Not just KJV-only ostrich-head-in-the-sand “scholarship.”
Language IS fluid. Glad to hear you admit it. Since that is the case, i.e. since language is ever changing, we require new translations to meet the times, just as other languages require translations and can’t use the KJV. The purpose of a translation is to communicate the meaning of the Greek text into a different cultural context while still retaining the meaning. The KJV is a good translation, but outdated and no longer fully up to the task.
This was the same philosophy of translation that the KJV translators themselves abided by. There were other English translations before the KJV. The KJV improved on those translations. And Bible translations have continued improving. That doesn’t mean all translations are worthwhile (and indeed some paraphrastic translations I find to be quite worthless), but it does mean there is always a place for more translation work to be done.
Ray, misrepresenting the facts as usual. Almost 100 scholars were involved in the translation of the NIV. Roughly the same number with the ESV.
I find it funny that you two keep accusing me of ad hominems. That’s your modus operandi, as your obsession with calling me a “jackass” indicates. Well, where there are no arguments, the desperate must turn to insults.
I am not an expert in the field or anything, but through a quick go-through of the internet it seems to me that the NKJV was translated from the Antioch texts. This chart does not exactly bring up that fact. It does mention that the NKJV footnotes do come from the Alexandrian text, but does not say where the actual Bible itself comes from. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version)
By the way, please stop using verses out of context. If anyone takes the one above at face value, what we are doing here is in vain; one could even go so far as to say reaching the lost is vain taken in the context of just that verse alone.
If you have no contempt for God’s word, state that you believe the AV1611 is God’s words for all English speaking people until the end of the church age. And agree that the AV1611 is God’s only way of speaking to said peoples.
Not true, there were not 49 plus men on the NIV committee. Only a few including a flaming female sodomite and possibly other sodomites and sodomite sympathizers. The NKJ was a Liberty University production done by men who make a living attempting to correct the Bible (AV1611 of course) that they DO NOT believe. I apologize for my previous statement that the word “jack-ass” came to mind when I thought of you, I should have said “contentious jack-ass”.
wow
Uh, you find basic logic to be deep? I guess six inches is deep to a minnow in a puddle…
Ray, just as many men (or more) were on the committees that provided the other translations of the Bible. But I wasn’t referring to the KJV in my above comment. I was referring to the “Forever Settled” book, which is not peer-reviewed. In your haste to reply, it seems you failed to properly read my comment. Slow down, Ray. Just because you can’t come up with a decent argument doesn’t mean you have to panic.
I have no contempt for God’s word, only for your careless misuse of it.
PLEASE, SOMEONE SHOW THE ERRORS IN THIS CHART, AND WITH THE SUPPORT OF EVIDENCE. OR, BE GENTLEMAN AND CONCEDE THAT IT IS TRUE. LETS QUITE WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS, AND THE VAIN ATTEMPTS AT TRYING TO LOOK SMARTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE.
Ecc_1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
SHOW THE ERRORS IN THE CHART, SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE!!! HOW HARD CAN THAT BE?
I think something went over your head in the translation. Subconsciously you are questioning what the truth is (Pilot). Otherwise, why would you be here, and being so argumentative in nature at that. But Jesus is perfect, not like me, and not like you. He will not argue with us, He is willing to let you come to the truth on your own. My friend, I was just like you for many years, at least until I sat down one day and decided that I TRULY, and HONESTLY wanted to know what this was all about. It is not my words or anybody else’s words that will help or heal you. Its only the word of God that will heal you. But, I challenge you to make a honest attempt at searching out the truth. Even the scriptures say to test them.
“Man will believe anything, as long as it’s not in the Bible.” Funny how this is so true!
Here is a great quote from Napoleon:
“Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him. I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than a man.”
Hey, hey, slow down. I am not saying I have gone off and created a Bible. What if I just went through and changed all the “thees and ye” to the modern day equivalent. The result would have literally the exact same message, just in the common vernacular. I do not believe the KJV is impossible to read, it can just be difficult for a newer believer (trust me, I went through it when I was saved); for people who are born and bred on it, the reading would be quite simple.
The problem with language is that it is constantly in flux. Multiple translations are necessary because of this. At some point the language will become so outdated so that it needs to be translated again. It is not a problem with the book, but a problem with the method of delivering that message. For instance, Beowulf–the English epic– is technically in English. That English however is so old and outdated it is impossible for the common man to read. My point is that language grows old and must be replaced at some time.
And so you know, I would definitely not consider myself at enmity with God/Jesus. I know I do not hate either.
“Logic”, First you ask for more then just someones personal words (evidence), then, you only want someones personal words, YOU need to make up your mind. Was it not you that stated “simply telling someone they are wrong is not good enough”? Now it is you doing that to me.
It is a proposition when not knowing what part a is, you imply that there is no proof in it, your question my friend was a loaded question. It was argumentative in nature. This is why it is difficult to debate with you, you flip flop. I don’t have to turn anything around, you are doing that yourself! Yes that book has been peer-reviewed, published, and even publicly debated. Again SHOW me something that proves it has errors. I am still waiting!!!!!!
Eze_12:2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.
AGAIN, show me your source proving that there are “historical and theological errors”, I am still waiting. I showed charity and did all the work of giving you a better copy to read from. Now you return and answer my questions. Where is your proof of errors? And yes you’re correct in this, but its not a question of error but of faith ” If we accept the inspiration of Scripture we must also accept its preservation throughout the ages”. Again, its called faith my dear friend.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Ok, So, have you not read
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
History is evidence of the fact that language is fluid, it changes. I think you only just glanced over that chart, and did not look at it and consider. Now, as many so ignorantly try to point out by saying “well if you follow the KJV then follow the original”.
Gen1:1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.
The spelling changed but the words did not. In fact no where does it say anything different. ONLY the spelling is different. At that point in time it was a mixture of french and English. At that point in time our English language was at a transitional period. God has in fact provided us with a preserved word through out the language changes and time. This chart shows how through the study of textual criticism that there are only two lines of texts, one line has a predominant theme that they all agree on, just as the other line has an unchanging theme. As you follow down the list of translations, it was not the Word that changed but the spelling or language used. There has been no time period where God has left His people without His word. But this is a “stone of stumbling to you” isnt it?
“If we accept the inspiration of Scripture we must also accept its preservation throughout the ages.” But the KJV was not the way Scripture was originally given or written.”
Here, here!
If 5th and 6th graders can read the 1611, why do you not quote the 1611? Have you not passed the 6th grade?
Also, what doctrines have been perverted? Show me please.
WOW! that’s deep.
When I think of you the word “jack-ass” comes to mind, is that patently obvious, rhetorical, or argumentative on my part? Could my thoughts be a “non sequitur”?
YOU clearly have contempt for the words of God. How does your favorite perversion of God’s words explain that verse? Waiting.
Quite WRONG my blaspheming friend. Seven comittees of men consisting of seven men were give the task of translating approx. one seventh of the scripture. Each man in each committee had to approve the translation unanimously that they were working on. Then each of the seven separate committees had to review and approve the other six committees work. Then another translator had to agree that all this approved translation was indeed one more exact translation of the words of God. THERE IS YOUR LONG SHOT!
No it would not be a link on a good chain. The AV1611 translators had every good and perfect word available to them when they began the translation process. The perfect selection of good words is now not possible, now that they have picked the best words. There is no need to do it again. All the translations since the AV1611 have tried to use a “better” word to no avail and have only succeeded in changing the meaning of entire verses, thus perverting good doctrine. What would be your motive for making a contemporary version? That has already been done in the Living Bible and other paraphrases that only divert men and women from the Truth. The AV1611 is 5th and 6th grade English, what do you not understand that the perversions of Scripture have made clearer? This problem you have with the AV1611 is not an intellectual problem it is a heart condition that is at enmity with the God of heaven and his Son, Jesus Christ. REPENT YOU WHO PERVERT THE WORDS OF GOD!!!
“The chart supports the scriptures and the scriptures support the chart.” That’s circular reasoning. Its a logical fallacy. One of the most basic ones.
Thank you! I have a random verse for you as well:
“You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.” (Ex. 23:19b)
Come on, amigodana. I know you are trying not to flatter me and I thank you for that brother. I appreciate your high opinion of me and that you wish to take my arguments seriously. I appreciate you citing John 18:37-38. There was no need for you to cast yourself as Pilate and me as Jesus, but you were humble enough to do so. That’s progress! Thank you for telling me that you find no fault with me. I’m glad I am getting through to you.
amigodanadana, you don’t understand basic logic. Asking a question (in this case, “what does it prove?”) isn’t a truth-claim or a proposition. Its an inquiry, neither rhetorical nor argumentative in nature, about the provided “evidence.” I asked what it was supposed to prove precisely because I couldn’t read it to find that out on my own. If I had been able to read it, I wouldn’t have needed to ask. This is so patently obvious that to misunderstand it requires one to be intentionally obtuse. You are trying to turn my “non sequitur” argument around on me. But I haven’t made any “non sequitur” arguments, and your attempts to show that I have only reveal that you do not comprehend was a “non sequitur” IS.
Strange also is your inability to argue for your position yourself. Instead you want me to buy books or to read lengthy, tedious, fallacious, conspiracy – theory websites. No thank you. Answer my questions and arguments yourself please.
Oh, and the “Forever Settled” book is not peer-reviewed. Not by a long shot.
Thank you! Now the picture can be enlarged and read. Unfortunately it is both theologically and historically in error. Most of these errors are obvious. Just an example: “If we accept the inspiration of Scripture we must also accept its preservation throughout the ages.” But the KJV was not the way Scripture was originally given or written. What was the state of Scripture between the time of the Apostle Paul and the 1600s? That’s a huge time gap in which apparently, according to your historical account, no proper English translation existed and the people of God were left without his word. Your historical and theological claims are contradictory on their face. This is quite obvious – anyone who has been taught basic logic can see this.
Ok, so question: If I created a new text using contemporary language derived from the KJV, it would be perfectly acceptable seeing as it would just be a link on the “good” chain, correct?
Anonymous: That’s deep. NOT
Remember ever finger pointed, three are pointing right back.
O.K. Let me start at the beginning here class. This chart was presented to establish a baseline of discussions due to the dispute on another topic. This will deal with WHERE and HOW we have gotten our Bible’s. And in fact that there are only two distinct lines of scriptures. I provided scripture as well, that does not necessarily prove that the KJV is the only one, but only that the scriptures themselves are accurate in prophesying this very thing. Remember this only to establish a baseline to work from. Two lines of Texts! That, in itself, is amazing to me that a book 6000 years old could foresee this. Now I have been charitable in doing the hard work of research, which yes, I believe will ultimately support the position of KJV only. But, we have not even gotten anywhere near moving forward in this discussion, due to people who are only arguing to argue. (contention) As I have tried to ask h.gual, please provide evidence contrary to anything I have previously stated? As intelligent people we should be able to look for and search more in depth, the info given. But again He wants me to do all the work. You would think that a man who uses big words would also be able to look up a chart in Google search. After all, in order to intelligently debate this chart he would have to look it up anyway. And he only intends to cut me down in the end anyway, that my friend is not what I have time for. Now I am not Jesus, I have not fallen for satans lies.
Isa_14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
I am not and will not be like the most high, in fact I believe the scriptures when they say that:
Gal_3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Hence, the reason we All need Jesus. You h.gual, do not understand what a christian is. My friend we are no different other than as a christian, I believe in the literal truth of the scriptures. And again if you are in fact an atheist or an unbeliever why would I subject myself to ad hominem arguments, or allow myself to be set up with strawman arguments. That is again not what I have time for. Now, if you want to have a serious discussion, we can Or if you just want to trade pokes, well I will eventually walk away from that too. There is no gain in that. My flesh sir, is sinful, and I am guilty before Christ. But I have nothing to answer for or prove to you.
I don’t, its your pompous vanity that is just so comical.
I think the point went over his head, the fact that we are setting up a foundation for discussion on that matter. LOL. Isn’t it funny when they use such big words? Wait, Wait for it, the ad hominem arguments are coming next. Or how about the straw man arguments? Never, do they have intelligent debates staying on topic. oh well. Even though we are CHARITABLE and do the work of digging up and providing research materials, they are still ungrateful. Again, oh well.
One is therefore true, one is false. Just as the scriptures say.
NOW;
2Ti_2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The chart supports the scriptures and the scriptures support the chart.
Two lines of texts = Two lines of words. Isn’t it amazing that all the way from Genesis our Lord prophesied that their would only be two lines of texts, and then, the fact that through some 6000 years it has come true. Think about it my dear friend!
Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Joh 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
You really don’t understand scripture do you!
Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Jud 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
You are a spot in this feast of charity. Clouds without water, you are!!!!!! Foaming out your own shame!!!!
1Co_13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
It will profit me nothing to have charity with you. I have fed you with scripture already and it seems as though it is going over your head. The “Gospel” has already been freely given to you. Again though, you are only a contentious man who desires nothing more than to bring people down to your level. Misery loves company!
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
It is illogical to follow “I cant read it” with “What does it prove”, READ it first. “Non sequitur”, do you need to go back to school?
Rules of debate state that we present evidence that proves truth in and of the One True Word. If you had any desire to know what it said, you could have very easily looked it up. Any junior high student or even elementary student could have figured that out. Hint: Type the title of the chart in Google image search. Easy wasn’t it, LOL.
Now, since you so sincerely what to divert this debate, I will try too bring the topic back into focus. The chart being debated, has been peer reviewed and published in this book;
http://buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Forever.Settled.pdf
You can find it on amazon here;
http://www.amazon.com/Forever-Settled-Survey-Documents-History/dp/1888328061
And yet, I am still being charitable to you. So, will you answer my questions?
Do you have a legitimate SOURCE that refutes what has been presented. Also, read my earlier post! Do you claim to be a christian or are you an atheist?
What verses? be specific.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha, none of these verses remotely suggest that the KJV alone is the word of God, over all other translations. Talk about eisegesis.
By the way, I’m honored that you expect more of me. Glad you are taking me seriously.
“And yet you say ‘Is this chart supposed to prove something?’ How would you know if you couldn’t read it.” I DON’T know, and I CAN’T read it, that’s why I asked the question. This isn’t a non sequitur at all. I wonder if you know what a non sequitur is? (kudos if you can honestly tell us without checking wikipedia or an online dictionary, etc.)
You don’t try to share the Gospel with atheists so that they might go to heaven? You won’t “waste time” with them? I am very thankful that Jesus was not like you.
h.gual if this is all your debate is going to consist of then I would suspect that these scriptures are for you;
Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Jud 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Here is a link since your being contentious, h.gual;
http://graphics.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/2textlines.gif
h.gual, that is all you have, LOL, i would have expected more. You cant figure out how to enlarge the picture and read it? And yet you say “Is this chart supposed to prove something?”. How would you know if you couldn’t read it. Talk about “non sequitur”. Come back when you have a legitimate SOURCE that refutes what has been presented. Also, read my earlier post! Do you claim to be a christian or are you an atheist? If you are a christian, then consider this scripture;
Pro_26:21 As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.
If you are an atheist, well, I wont waste any more time with you. You wont get it anyway!!!
By the way, I don’t hide, and I stand proud by what I say. Click on my name to see exactly who I am.
Zoomed in. Now the type is just blurry. Still illegible.
Silly heretic, just zoom in.
Is this chart supposed to prove something? Its almost completely illegible. The type is too small.
Ray, we should always support these things with scripture, after all, only the Word of God will heal them;
Mat_8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
If they don’t believe Gods Word then they definitely wont believe mine or yours. And remember the rules God has set for us;
Deu_19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
So here it is, two seeds;
Gen_3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Luk_8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Or, how about two images;
2Co_4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Rev_13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
And two fires;
Jer_23:29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?
Lev_10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
I just love Gods word;
2Pe_1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
All through out scripture there are only two too choose from, and I truly hope that people will;
2Ti_2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.