|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/3/2010 9:04:34 AM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2413
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Timcp
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
Matthew 1:25 (King James Bible)
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Matthew 1:25 (New International Version)
25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
What's your point here?
Mary was a virgin first, she had not sons before Jesus, also Jesus being the firstborn has the right under the Law of God to the largest portion of the inheritance. That's the two biggest differences between being the firstborn son, and being born a son thereafter.
Greetings
quote:
25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
I would raised the point that is a misleading statement, and could be left open for some idiot to claim that perhaps they had a daughter first.
That’s the point, it’s not written in the absolute word of God.... and it basically rebukes itself by contradictions in other areas
One thing about the NIV and those translations... they think they have it correct...
BUT... I have noticed that when they pull stuff like this... they forget to change the witness to reflect the same thing down the road or beforehand, thus it causes many contradictions.
I mean even windows 98 moving forward... had sense enough to make it backward compatible
The absolute is....
He "knew her"... not. =PERIOD
= >> covers all angles
This is not a misleading statement.... because it clearly defines the time afterwards that Joseph knew his wife.
Mat 1:25 And knew her not .... till she had brought forth her “firstborn” son: and he called his name JESUS
So if they wanted to make it easier to understand all they had to do was translated the beginning to the end of the verse
“Till” she had brought forth her firstborn son: ....“and” ....he (Joseph) called his name JESUS (Mat 1:21)
Joseph knew her not
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save.... “his people”.... from their sins
Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
“Till” she had brought forth her firstborn son: ....“and” ....he (Joseph) called his name JESUS (Mat 1:21) (that it might be “ fulfilled” which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet Behold, a virgin shall be with child,)
Joseph, knew her not
= beforehand
Changing the prophecy, even with one word, here..... is suggesting Jesus was not conceived of a virgin
This is a misleading statement leaving the time beforehand in question
Had no union with her >>>....until <<<<....she gave birth... “to a son
=there is too much there Open for suggestion
2Pe 3:16
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed "obey My voice"
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/3/2010 10:49:03 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 2710
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
the big issues is that most KJV only advocates do not completely understand the KJV;
And what is the harm in this?
quote:
most of the misunderstandings of the KJV have nothing to do with the "errors," they are simply a misunderstanding of late middle English.
Again, where is the actual harm?
_____________________________
"Believers are saved from their sin, not merely in their sinning!"--drmark
"Our wills are ours, we know not how; our wills are ours, to make them Thine." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/3/2010 11:08:35 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3428
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgodquote:
the big issues is that most KJV only advocates do not completely understand the KJV; And what is the harm in this?quote:
most of the misunderstandings of the KJV have nothing to do with the "errors," they are simply a misunderstanding of late middle English. Again, where is the actual harm? Your'e kidding, right? Misunderstanding what is being said in scripture? That is a BIG load of harm in my book.
_____________________________
Saphira went home from the hospital 11/2/11. She is VERY happy to be home. This pic was taken on her 4th birthday, just after another round of outpatient chemo.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/3/2010 11:19:13 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 2710
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgodquote:
the big issues is that most KJV only advocates do not completely understand the KJV; And what is the harm in this?quote:
most of the misunderstandings of the KJV have nothing to do with the "errors," they are simply a misunderstanding of late middle English. Again, where is the actual harm? Your'e kidding, right? Misunderstanding what is being said in scripture? That is a BIG load of harm in my book.
But I'm asking why, not because I believe there isn't harm in misunderstanding Scripture, but because I'm looking for a specific answer. I'm afraid you jumped in too late on our conversation, Dave. Go back and read from where it began.
_____________________________
"Believers are saved from their sin, not merely in their sinning!"--drmark
"Our wills are ours, we know not how; our wills are ours, to make them Thine." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/3/2010 1:04:25 PM
|
|
|
copybingo
Posts: 77
Joined: 10/15/2009
Status: offline
|
As the OP stated, "the debate rages on"...
When the KJV became available, was the Holy Spirit "satisfied" that because the translators did what they could "to the best of their ability", that was good enough? If not, should we be convicted to read the most "up-to-date", accurate version available because the Holy Spirit wants to reveal the word in the most accurate way?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/3/2010 2:18:08 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
The very same Greek word (μονογενής) can be translated either "only begotten" or simply "only" when referring to a child. The KJV translators recognized this and they translated this Greek word both ways. In Luke the EXACT same word is used and it is translated "only" by the KJV translators several times.
Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. (Luk 7:12 KJV)
For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him. (Luk 8:42 KJV)
And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child. (Luk 9:38 KJV)
As I was looking for examples I came across one instance where 'μονογενής' is used in the LXX and 'יחידה' is used in the Hebrew text; both words mean "only" and yet that is NOT how the KJV translators translated this verse. WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THAT TRANSLATION?
Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions. (Psa 35:17 KJV)
=================================
Here is the BDB listing for this word:
3890 dyxiy" [3891] (Hebrew) (page 402) (Strong 3173)
† dyxiy" adj. and subst. only, only one, solitary (NH id.; Aram. dyxiy", yd;yxiy>, yihÍiydoÀ, yihÍoydoyoÀ id.; Arab. solitary)—1. only one, esp. of an only son, Gn 22:2, 22:12, 22:16 ^d>yxiy> ta $nb ta thy son, thine only one, dyxiy" lb,ae Am 8:10, Je 6:26 mourning for an only son, dyxyx l[ dpsmk Zc 12:10, Pr 4:3 yma ynpl dyxiy"w> xr;; so fem. hd'yxiy> Ju 11:34.
That may be the case when talking about the only child or daughter whomever of a mere mortal human being. But not when dealing with the only begotten Son of God.
As for the Nahash account. Maybe those accounts weren't in the Textus Receptus, or they were added by rabbis of old as commentary. I don't know. Because your manuscripts are used in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus that Westcott and Hort relied on when assembling their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the modern-day versions are based there will be a difference.
The KJB--King James Bible manuscripts are from the Textus Receptus.
But when you compare what's being deleted from the NT regarding miracles and Jesus Christ, in that even Jesus is being deleted, his acts of healing, his directive as Messiah (You can't find this in the ESV: Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost), his rebuking the sadducee and pharisee, how devils are cast out by prayer and fasting. When you compare those verses in the KJB and see they've been deleted in the new versions. It would be like deleting the miracles of God, deleting Genesis 1-11, deleting the Exodus, and all the plagues that God sent upon them.
That's simply not the case in the King James Bible.
< Message edited by Timcp -- 9/3/2010 4:22:54 PM >
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/3/2010 2:48:00 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 1090
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26
KJV Bible: "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. . . . But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. . . . And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp."
Better Translation: "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for Azazel. . . . But the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement upon it and sent away into the wilderness for Azazel . . . And he that let go the goat for Azazel shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp." (Holy Bible in its Original Order Translation)
Comments: The meaning of the word scapegoat is different today than it was during the time of the King James translators. The Online Etymology Dictionary states concerning the word scapegoat and its original meaning that it is:
" . . . a mistranslation in Vulgate of Hebrew 'azazel (Leviticus 16:8,10,26), which was read as 'ez ozel or the "goat that departs," but is actually the proper name of a devil or demon in Jewish mythology . . . "
Today the word scapegoat has the connotation of someone who is UNJUSTLY blamed for the sins of others. The Azazel goat represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/3/2010 3:58:24 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rawr.ben
Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26
KJV Bible: "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. . . . But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. . . . And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp."
Better Translation: "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for Azazel. . . . But the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement upon it and sent away into the wilderness for Azazel . . . And he that let go the goat for Azazel shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp." (Holy Bible in its Original Order Translation)
Comments: The meaning of the word scapegoat is different today than it was during the time of the King James translators. The Online Etymology Dictionary states concerning the word scapegoat and its original meaning that it is:
" . . . a mistranslation in Vulgate of Hebrew 'azazel (Leviticus 16:8,10,26), which was read as 'ez ozel or the "goat that departs," but is actually the proper name of a devil or demon in Jewish mythology . . . "
Today the word scapegoat has the connotation of someone who is UNJUSTLY blamed for the sins of others. The Azazel goat represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.
Why would you make an atonement upon a goat that represents a mythological satan?
< Message edited by Timcp -- 9/3/2010 4:21:09 PM >
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/3/2010 6:24:18 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2557
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
the big issues is that most KJV only advocates do not completely understand the KJV;
And what is the harm in this?
quote:
most of the misunderstandings of the KJV have nothing to do with the "errors," they are simply a misunderstanding of late middle English.
Again, where is the actual harm?
Because I believe that God intends to communcate to us through his word and that the things he intends to say to us are very important, I believe that anything that hinders our understanding of the things God wants to communicate to us is harmful. While there will always be things that do hinder our understanding, we should do all that we can to eliminate as many obsticles as possible.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/3/2010 6:30:02 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2557
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: copybingo
As the OP stated, "the debate rages on"...
When the KJV became available, was the Holy Spirit "satisfied" that because the translators did what they could "to the best of their ability", that was good enough? If not, should we be convicted to read the most "up-to-date", accurate version available because the Holy Spirit wants to reveal the word in the most accurate way?
You miss the most important point. You do not speak late-middle English. Those who haven't learned spanish shouldn't use a Spanish bible and those who haven't learned middle English shouldn't use a middle English bible. One of the big problems with KJV-only'ism is that many of its advocates do not realize how much they misunderstand
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/3/2010 8:25:24 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2557
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Timcp
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
The very same Greek word (μονογενής) can be translated either "only begotten" or simply "only" when referring to a child. The KJV translators recognized this and they translated this Greek word both ways. In Luke the EXACT same word is used and it is translated "only" by the KJV translators several times.
Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. (Luk 7:12 KJV)
For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him. (Luk 8:42 KJV)
And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child. (Luk 9:38 KJV)
As I was looking for examples I came across one instance where 'μονογενής' is used in the LXX and 'יחידה' is used in the Hebrew text; both words mean "only" and yet that is NOT how the KJV translators translated this verse. WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THAT TRANSLATION?
Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions. (Psa 35:17 KJV)
=================================
Here is the BDB listing for this word:
3890 dyxiy" [3891] (Hebrew) (page 402) (Strong 3173)
† dyxiy" adj. and subst. only, only one, solitary (NH id.; Aram. dyxiy", yd;yxiy>, yihÍiydoÀ, yihÍoydoyoÀ id.; Arab. solitary)—1. only one, esp. of an only son, Gn 22:2, 22:12, 22:16 ^d>yxiy> ta $nb ta thy son, thine only one, dyxiy" lb,ae Am 8:10, Je 6:26 mourning for an only son, dyxyx l[ dpsmk Zc 12:10, Pr 4:3 yma ynpl dyxiy"w> xr;; so fem. hd'yxiy> Ju 11:34.
That may be the case when talking about the only child or daughter whomever of a mere mortal human being. But not when dealing with the only begotten Son of God.
As for the Nahash account. Maybe those accounts weren't in the Textus Receptus, or they were added by rabbis of old as commentary. I don't know. Because your manuscripts are used in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus that Westcott and Hort relied on when assembling their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the modern-day versions are based there will be a difference.
The KJB--King James Bible manuscripts are from the Textus Receptus.
But when you compare what's being deleted from the NT regarding miracles and Jesus Christ, in that even Jesus is being deleted, his acts of healing, his directive as Messiah (You can't find this in the ESV: Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost), his rebuking the sadducee and pharisee, how devils are cast out by prayer and fasting. When you compare those verses in the KJB and see they've been deleted in the new versions. It would be like deleting the miracles of God, deleting Genesis 1-11, deleting the Exodus, and all the plagues that God sent upon them.
This kind of gross exaggeration is one of the problems of KJV-only'ism; anyone who has read through any of the modern versions you have criticized understands the fallacy of this statement.
Additionally, there is still a the question about whether the Byzantine scribes added material (as almost all biblical scholars believe), or Scribes many centuries earlier deleted material (as you believe). If biblical scholars are correct, then the manuscripts used by the KJV translators show emendations made by latter Scribes where material was added to Scripture and the resulting KJV translation exhibits these emendations. In other words, all of the examples you have provided just as easily demonstrate corruption in the Byzantine manuscripts; all you have demonstrated is that their are differences in the underlying Greek manuscripts used. What evidence do you have that demonstrates that the conclusions of EVERY major bible scholar about which manuscripts contain emendations are wrong?
< Message edited by benelchi -- 9/4/2010 5:55:20 AM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2010 1:51:41 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 2710
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
the big issues is that most KJV only advocates do not completely understand the KJV;
And what is the harm in this?
quote:
most of the misunderstandings of the KJV have nothing to do with the "errors," they are simply a misunderstanding of late middle English.
Again, where is the actual harm?
Because I believe that God intends to communcate to us through his word and that the things he intends to say to us are very important, I believe that anything that hinders our understanding of the things God wants to communicate to us is harmful. While there will always be things that do hinder our understanding, we should do all that we can to eliminate as many obsticles as possible.
So, like I summarized, the harm in believing the KJV is perfect is because, due to the errors in that translation, it will hinder the individual from understanding God's Word perfectly.
My question then (which I already gave what I thought was answer to) is what IS the belief that has no harm? Obviously you believe that your own belief is not harmful, else you would not believe it to be true. And from what I've gathered, you believe that the "perfect Word of God" exists in many different places, and it is our intellectual responsibility to find it through linguistic knowledge. Correct?
_____________________________
"Believers are saved from their sin, not merely in their sinning!"--drmark
"Our wills are ours, we know not how; our wills are ours, to make them Thine." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2010 3:26:45 PM
|
|
|
SurfFirst
Posts: 30
Status: offline
|
Forgive me for not reading through the 1888 posts already made in this discussion ..........
My argument about the KJV only belief is: What about all the people who don't read English? Do you expect them to learn English in order to be able to read the only "correct" Bible? If one needs to learn the "correct" language to read and understand the Bible, why not learn the original languages in which it was written?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/4/2010 3:28:49 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
My argument about the KJV only belief is: What about all the people who don't read English?
I'm certainly no KJVO supporter, but this argument is generally weak. Most KJVO folks will say that the KJV is God's word in English, but he perfectly preserved it in other ways for other people groups.
Of course, there are a few branches of the KJVO crowd who will say that other languages ought to be directly translated from the KJV, but those are generally few and far between.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 1:07:25 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2557
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
My argument about the KJV only belief is: What about all the people who don't read English?
I'm certainly no KJVO supporter, but this argument is generally weak. Most KJVO folks will say that the KJV is God's word in English, but he perfectly preserved it in other ways for other people groups.
Of course, there are a few branches of the KJVO crowd who will say that other languages ought to be directly translated from the KJV, but those are generally few and far between.
Actually, this argument is much stronger than you are giving it credit. No foreign translation agrees completely with the KJV and where they differ KJV only advocates believe that the KJV is superior. Many believe that when diffferences are found between the TR (Greek text) and the KJV that the KJV is superior. I do not know of any KJV only advocate that believes that Scipture is "perfectly preseved" in any other language; if they believed that then they would have to reconcile the differences between the KJV and these other versions.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:34:29 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Actually, this argument is much stronger than you are giving it credit.
Maybe I just heard it countered from a more moderate KJVOnlyists, and took my apparently unique experience as the norm.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:47:15 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2557
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
Actually, this argument is much stronger than you are giving it credit.
Maybe I just heard it countered from a more moderate KJVOnlyists, and took my apparently unique experience as the norm.
I might be interesting to ask your moderate KJV only'ist to identify one of these other "perfectly preserved" versions, and then hear his response when he is shown where that version differs from the KJV.
The moderates that I have spoken with all see the KJV as the only perfect translation, the extremists see the KJV as an improvement on the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 10:31:15 AM
|
|
|
SurfFirst
Posts: 30
Status: offline
|
quote:
the extremists see the KJV as an improvement on the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
Wow. That's hard to believe someone could think that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 1:33:12 PM
|
|
|
SurfFirst
Posts: 30
Status: offline
|
Thank you evry1needsgod.
I used the KVJ exclusively for a few years, then transitioned to the NASB, simply because I found it easier to read and understand. And, no, I'm not talking about the use of "thee" and "thou", which is what my pastor always pointed to as why people don't like the KVJ. I have simply found that the NASB and some other versions flow easier and I understand them without having to research what words mean. I can't say I dislike the KJV, and there are some verses I prefer based on how they are worded, rather I'm trying to understand WHY that particular version is preferred by KJVOs. It has to be more than the olde English. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 8:17:33 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
The King James Bible is superior in that it is gender specific and uses the masculine reference correctly. Remember it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Read the new versions like the ESV, and you will see the homosexual-equal-rights-unisexual-new-age agenda is 'people' 'person', when 'man', or 'men' is changed. The woman was made from the Man.
Mathew 5:13
KJB
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
ESV
"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 8:22:32 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Remember it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
What modern translation has Adam and Steve?
quote:
The woman was made from the Man.
You're only quoting 1/3 of the equation. Read 1 Cor. 11:12. Even in the KJV, that's clear.
quote:
Read the new versions like the ESV, and you will see the homosexual-equal-rights-unisexual-new-age agenda is 'people' 'person', when 'man', or 'men' is changed.
In many cases, the masculine is used in the ancient sense that implies all people. Do you really think Paul only addressed his letters to men? Or that God only saves men?
Every modern translation I have read retains the gender-specific words when the context demonstrates that it's appropriate to do so.
quote:
Mathew 5:13
KJB
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
ESV
"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.
How, specifcally, does this promote the homosexual-equal-rights-unisexual-new-age agenda?
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 8:25:18 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 2710
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
rather I'm trying to understand WHY that particular version is preferred by KJVOs. It has to be more than the olde English.
It has everything to do with belief, brother. KJVO or not, there is a form or belief and trust in everyone's opinion on this issue. Folks like me believe and trust that the KJV is perfect, while folks like benelchi believe that portions of various translations are perfect and they place their belief and trust in their linguistic knowledge to make that determination. Ultimately, that is why the KJVO'ist prefers the KJV.
_____________________________
"Believers are saved from their sin, not merely in their sinning!"--drmark
"Our wills are ours, we know not how; our wills are ours, to make them Thine." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 8:29:22 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Folks like me believe and trust that the KJV is perfect,
In what sense do you believe it's perfect? (if you've already explained this, feel free to give me a post number instead)
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
