And I will. As soon as you prove the KJV has that authority. From God.
Companion Thread for KJV only debate
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
PaulMcNabb
New member
AVBunyan,
Can you please explain to me why you are sure the NIV translators based their decision on Origen instead of from the text?
If the NIV has better translated that passage than another version, why should the NIV be "chucked"?
Should a Bible translator try to translate a passage into the best corresponding English as possible, or should the translator take liberties with the text in order to have the English better support true doctrine?
In your mind, AVBunyan, should our doctrine determine the Bible or should the Bible determine our doctrine?
Can you please answer these questions?
thanks.
paul
AVBunyan
New member
Are you OK with a version that teaches Jesus is not from eternity thus attacking his deity in Mic. 5:2?
AVBunyan
New member
1. When the NIV translators use the text the NIV is based upon they arre using Origen's work for the text the MVs are based upon are from Origen's 5th column of his hexaphla - The majority of MVs come from ORigen's work - he was a lost phliosopher - why would a true saint read a "bible" that was influenced by his heretical teachings - unless may the reader is still in darkness and cannot see the difference - I Cor. 2:14; II Cor. 4:3-6.
2. The NIV has never transalted a passage better than the AV - they both come from different texts and sources - the NIV from Egypt and the AV from Asia Minor. Do you think the NIV is just and updated AV with newer and better manuscripts and translating methods? :kookoo:
3. The scriptures determine doctrine but if a person is coming from a darkened and unregenerate mind then he can't know doctrine anyway so any version will do.
The NIV teaches Jesus is not deity so chunk it but this wouldn't bother you for it appears you do not believe Jesus was God manifest in the flesh anyway - yes or no? So, in your case any ole version will do.
brandplucked
New member
quotes from a Biblical illiterate
quotes from a Biblical illiterate
Where did Christ ever say we were not supposed to worship Him? Did God Himself get it all wrong in Hebrews 1:6? "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."
Or how about all the angels, beasts and elders round about the throne in Revelation 5:11-12?
"And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing."
Looks like they were worshipping the Lamb, doesn't it?
Acts 7:59 "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Looks like Stephen prayed directly to the Lord Jesus Christ, doesn't it.
Will K
quotes from a Biblical illiterate
Where did Christ ever say we were not supposed to worship Him? Did God Himself get it all wrong in Hebrews 1:6? "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."
Or how about all the angels, beasts and elders round about the throne in Revelation 5:11-12?
"And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing."
Looks like they were worshipping the Lamb, doesn't it?
Acts 7:59 "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Looks like Stephen prayed directly to the Lord Jesus Christ, doesn't it.
Will K
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
-10 points, -10 points, -10 points, I declare victory!
Muz is more interested in winning a debate than the truth.
Muz is more interested in winning a debate than the truth.
I have never understood it to be an attack Christ's deity. One verse does not fully define Jesus nor does one verse completely destroy all the rest of scripture pertaining to Him. I am okay with my translation.
Should we look at what Jesus said about prayer?
Luke 11 (NIV)
Jesus' Teaching on Prayer
1One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples." 2He said to them, "When you pray, say:
" 'Father,[a]
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.[b]
3Give us each day our daily bread.
4Forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.[c]
And lead us not into temptation.[d]' "
Jesus said to pray to His Father.
John 15:16
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
Jesus says to ask the Father in His name.
Matthew 6:5-9 (New International Version)
Prayer
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
Matthew gives us more than Luke did but again, Jesus is teaching us to pray to the Father.
As for worship, Jesus said this,
Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' "
But there are there are many instances in the NT where people did worship Jesus and the angles also worship Jesus. And people, such as Stephen, do pray to Jesus. The Bible is clear about that. But Jesus is also clear in His teachings on prayer and Who it should be directed to.
robycop3
Member
Sir, you seemta sell Christ short. Christ doesn't have, or NEED faith; He knows all and sees all. He doesn't have faith; He has full, empirical knowledge, and the power to do anything. WE have faith in Christ; we've never seen Him but we fully believe in Him. OTOH, there's nothing Jesus hasn't seen.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Did Jesus believe what the Word said about him?
Did Jesus believe that if he was separated from the Father for 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth (for our sin) that the Father would raise him up again?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Robocop - I suggest you read Gal 3 KJV very very carefully, word for word,
and maybe you will see who's faith is being talked about.
and maybe you will see who's faith is being talked about.
robycop3
Member
It's easy to prove the KJV is not inerrant. Here are two booboos the KJVOs cannot get around:
"Easter": in Acts 12:4
"the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10.
Both Brandplucked and SaultoPaul have tried to justify these booboos, but the basic fact remains that they simply AREN'T CORRECT. Facts are stubborn things; they're quite immune to mens' opinion and guesswork. So, let's look at some FACTS:
Easter is the memorial observance of Christ's resurrection. It was known to the AV men who placed an "Easter-Finder" in the AV1611.
Passover is the memorial observance of God's delivering the Israelis from their bondage to Egypt. It is a WEEK-LONG observance, according to Ezekiel 45:21.
Easter did not exist when Luke wrote Acts in the 60s AD.
The Hebrew word, used by GOD to Moses, for passover, is 'pesach'. This was transliterated in Greek to 'pascha'. In Luke's time, pascha meant only Passover.
In Luke's writings, he consistently used the word 'pascha' for passover. Whenever he referred to resurrection, he used the Greek word 'anastasis'. In Acts 4:12, he used the word 'pascha'; therefore he was referring to PASSOVER. He COULDN'T have been referring to Easter; it didn't then exist! Therefore, "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 is a booboo.
While 'sin' & 'evil' aren't exactly synonymous, can anyone name an evil in the sense of wickedness that isn't a sin? And aren't all sins evil?
We all can name many evils (sins) not done for love of money. Therefore, the love of money is *NOT* *THE* root of *ALL* evil. The Greek allows for the CORRECT rendering; "the love of money is *A* root of *ALL KINDS* of evil."
The KJV's rendering here is another booboo. The KJVOs have no satisfactory justification for the KJV's reading.
"Easter": in Acts 12:4
"the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10.
Both Brandplucked and SaultoPaul have tried to justify these booboos, but the basic fact remains that they simply AREN'T CORRECT. Facts are stubborn things; they're quite immune to mens' opinion and guesswork. So, let's look at some FACTS:
Easter is the memorial observance of Christ's resurrection. It was known to the AV men who placed an "Easter-Finder" in the AV1611.
Passover is the memorial observance of God's delivering the Israelis from their bondage to Egypt. It is a WEEK-LONG observance, according to Ezekiel 45:21.
Easter did not exist when Luke wrote Acts in the 60s AD.
The Hebrew word, used by GOD to Moses, for passover, is 'pesach'. This was transliterated in Greek to 'pascha'. In Luke's time, pascha meant only Passover.
In Luke's writings, he consistently used the word 'pascha' for passover. Whenever he referred to resurrection, he used the Greek word 'anastasis'. In Acts 4:12, he used the word 'pascha'; therefore he was referring to PASSOVER. He COULDN'T have been referring to Easter; it didn't then exist! Therefore, "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 is a booboo.
While 'sin' & 'evil' aren't exactly synonymous, can anyone name an evil in the sense of wickedness that isn't a sin? And aren't all sins evil?
We all can name many evils (sins) not done for love of money. Therefore, the love of money is *NOT* *THE* root of *ALL* evil. The Greek allows for the CORRECT rendering; "the love of money is *A* root of *ALL KINDS* of evil."
The KJV's rendering here is another booboo. The KJVOs have no satisfactory justification for the KJV's reading.
robycop3
Member
Can you name anything Jesus hasn't seen, or doesn't know? He knew exactly what was gonna happen to Him. The human part of Him dreaded it, but He knew what was coming.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Robocop - I suggest you read Gal 3 KJV very very carefully, word for word,
and maybe you will see who's faith is being talked about.
robycop3
Member
It is the faith of Abraham, and other men of old, in God, as well as the faith of Paul. He is exhorting the Galatians to have that same faith.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Who's the promised seed of Abraham?
AVBunyan
New member
Oh Robo - SaulToPaul raised a good point - How does Gal. 3 tie into Rom. 3:22 and Gal. 2:16?
Waiting for an answer........this should be interesting. :chuckle:
AVBunyan
New member
This wins the dumbest statement award for the year! :banana:
Yes, today saints celebrated Easter because they don't know any better. Back then (from Babylon's beginning) the Babylonians had a celebration where they honored their pagan gods and rituals (bunnies, eggs, sex) - they called it Easter. :wave2:
Documentation - Hislop's "Two Babylons" for starters. :jump:
brandplucked
New member
God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible
God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible
Yes, and he gives himself points when he has in fact lost them. Lord willing, I will get around to addressing his remarks about the Leningrad codex, the Hebrew and the King James Bible - they are all right. They don't prove error in the KJB at all. I defend every one of those numbers. It is the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV that change them and not even in the same places. They don't even agree among themselves!
And his remark about how he prefers the literal reading of the Greek in Mark 4:31 is a classic case of the blind leading the blind. The KJB and even the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, etc. ARE the literal reading. It is the NIV and Muz who are flat out wrong.
Right now I'm busy with teaching Spanish but I will try to get to it in a day or two.
Will K
God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible
Yes, and he gives himself points when he has in fact lost them. Lord willing, I will get around to addressing his remarks about the Leningrad codex, the Hebrew and the King James Bible - they are all right. They don't prove error in the KJB at all. I defend every one of those numbers. It is the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV that change them and not even in the same places. They don't even agree among themselves!
And his remark about how he prefers the literal reading of the Greek in Mark 4:31 is a classic case of the blind leading the blind. The KJB and even the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, etc. ARE the literal reading. It is the NIV and Muz who are flat out wrong.
Right now I'm busy with teaching Spanish but I will try to get to it in a day or two.
Will K
- Status