KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

[cranstonroby]

Will Kinney: in essence, what your post suggests is that there is no inerrant, inspired and complete Bible on this earth today.

Actually, he disagrees with YOUR choice, not GOD'S choice.


You are aware, of course, that there are no "originals", aren't you?

And YOU are aware that there WERE originals, aren't you? The mss we DO have weren't just made outta thin air.



There are currently over 25 different printed Greek texts, as well as thousands of partial manuscripts, with literally thousands of variants. If the original Old Testament Scriptures were written in Hebrew, then why do such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard all frequently reject the Hebrew readings, and follow other language sources such as the so called Greek Septuagint, the Syriac, the Latin or just make up their own texts?

You ARE aware that the AV men followed the Septuagint in at least one OT verse...Isaiah 7:14. The HEBREW has "almah", which means, "young woman", while the LXX has "parthenos", which means "virgin".

And what did those men believe about the Septuagint? They recognized it as a lergitimate OT Greek translation of ancient origin. Here are their own words:

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER

(Not Copyrighted)
THE TRANSLATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT OUT OF THE HEBREW INTO GREEK

While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the earth besides was dry; then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrew, one and the same original in Hebrew was sufficient. [S. August. lib 12 contra Faust c32] But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, com- monly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gen- tiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie moulding in Kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent.

While the AV men found some fault with the LXX, there are two important points that we must be reminded of...First, the AV men recognized its antiquity. Ptolemy Philadelph ruled Egypt from 284 to 246 BC. Second, although they found fault with it, they did NOT reject it completely While WE find some fault in the KJV, we do NOT reject it completely as the KJVO does all other versions. The AV was an eclectic mix drawn from several sources, same as are the valid versions of today. The difference is that there are now many more sources available to modern translators than were available to the AV men.
The KJVO allows others to do their thinking for them and make their decisions for them in the most-important thing they'll ever read...GOD'S WORD.

Did you read through my initial post? You mention "how well they line up". Are you aware that there are literally thousands of words omitted just in the New Testament by some of your modern versions?

Are you aware that the KJV or its underlying texts may have ADDED the words the KJVOs claim are omitted from later versions?


There are also hundreds of verses that do not have the same meaning at all, even when translated from the same underlying texts.

For example, Acts 5:30 & 10:39. The KJV reads, "slew and hanged", while virtually every later version reads, "slew by hanging" or something similar giving the CORRECT order of events as hanged(crucified) AND slew. Even the YLT reads," and the God of our fathers did raise up Jesus, whom ye slew, having hanged upon a tree;".


Do you personally believe there is such a thing as The Inerrant Bible on this earth? If so, what is it called?

Yes...and it's called the "KJV" by some, "NIV" by others, "NASB" by others, "Luther Bibel 1545" by others, "Le Bible Du Semeur" by others, "Maori Bible" by others, etc, etc.


BEWARE THE LEAVEN OF THE KJVO...IT'S MADE FROM POISON YEAST.

 

[MartianManhuntr]

As for Easter in Acts 12:4 of the KJV...IT'S NOT CORRECT.

If you made a translation TODAY and you put "Easter" anywhere in the Bible, you would be wrong--100% wrong. But when they said "Easter" back in 1611, it was not optimal, but it was not an error per se. Easter and Passover were 100% synonymous back then. Now? Not so much. So, the error is not theirs. It is ours. We changed the meaning of the word. Its ours fault, not theirs. Would I oppose a revision of the KJV that changed nothing other than updating "Easter" in Acts 12:4 to "Passover"? No. It would be better to say "Passover," but based on the facts, "Easter" was not an error--not in the KJV. In a modern translation, it would be an error, because modern translations are in modern English.

Why? First, there's the very simple, obvious fact that Easter as known in 1611 DID NOT EXIST when Luke wrote Acts, which was no later than 62 AD.

I believe that the entire New Testament was written prior to 70AD, so I'll agree with your dating. But the thing is that in English the Jewish feast of Pesach was originally called Easter, so much so that in Tyndale's first edition he has "Easter of the Jews" and "Easter Lamb" and uses Easter consistantly in the Old and the New Testament. Later, Tyndale himself changed the English language with the literal translation Passover. Should we reject the word "Passover" as well as the word "Easter" and just say "Pascha"? Pascha in Greek, of course, is just a TRANSLITERATION of the Hebrew Pesach, not a TRANSLATION. So, is "Passover" wrong too? Should we say "Passover" when translating from the Hebrew and Pascha when translating from the Greek? (I doubt you'll understand what I mean, but since the Greek is a transliteration you might say the translation of it also must be whereas the Hebrew is the original its translation should be a translation.)

Next, the Greek word pascha, which Luke wrote & is rendered "Easter" in that passage in the KJV, meant PASSOVER ONLY in Luke's day.

Easter meant Passover in 1611. Not now, I know, but in 1611 it did. Was it the best choice? No. Was it an error? No. Would it be an error in a modern translation? YES!!!

The ridiculous theory that Herod was observing a spring rite to Ishtar isn't worth a comment here.

Don't confuse me with Will. That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

First, I like your handle! I have some original "J'onn J'onzz, Manhunter From Mars" comix.

Now...to business. WHICH EDITION of the Textus Receptus do you choose?

As of right now I have several copies of Stephanus 1550 and Scrivener's text. I'm working on getting some of Bezae and Erasmus. I did a collation a year or so ago, to see where the differences were between Stephanus and Scrivener's. Mostly the differences were in the moveable n. In Greek "esti" and "estin" have the exact same meaning, but there is a general rule that you keep the 'n' if the next word starts with a vowel and drop it if it starts with a consonant. One of the texts basically didn't follow that rule. That's not a big deal, since it is just a tool to help in vocalizing (reading aloud) the text (which I don't do since Greek isn't my native language and which I doubt even Greek speakers would do since modern Greek is much different than Koine Greek). If I recal correctly Stephanus also added a sentence "Jesus turning around said to the disciples" which made that statement appear twice in the same context, whereas in Scrivener's it appears only once (which makes sense if you read the passage).

Anyway, that being said, I use Scrivener's text. I don't really want to argue about it either. I'll not strongly oppose anyone who wants to use Stephanus, Bezae, or Erasmus, or Elzevir. But, if you use a modern critical text which is based on Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, then there is a huge problem. The Received Text is based on manuscripts that were actually used by the Greek speaking churches--preservation via usage. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although written in the 4th century, were thrown in the trash by the 5th century, and didn't see the light of day again until the 1840s. In fact, Westcott and Hort (the champions of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) in their intro to their Greek text (which was based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) state that by the early 5th century the Syrian (i.e. Textus Receptus) form of the text was the dominant text EVERYWHERE. Unlike those two, and most of the opposition here, I don't believe that God hid his word from everyone for 1500 years in an Egyptian trash dump (in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). Secondly, I don't believe that he preserved his word in two codices that disagree with each other around 3000 times in the gospels alone (that's the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus mss. which modern Greek texts like UBS and Nestle-Aland are based on). God preserved his word via usage, in the manuscripts that make up the Received Text. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, I have no doubt, were written in Alexandria by the Arians while Athanasius was in exile, and were promptly thrown away upon his return. They are a heretical line, and they are in the minority. They disagree with each other virtually everywhere, but the manuscripts that make up the Textus Receptus are about 95% of the manuscripts in existance and are in substantial agreement (97%). YET the 'scholars' of today worship Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Why? Because today's 'scholars' are nothing more than deists--they aren't Christians.

 

[one4christ]

However, it should be noted that in the Scripture you quoted, what is absolutely necessary are the very WORDS as well as the Spirit. If we say only the Spirit is needed and not so much the words, then we are off into the land of mysticism.

Will,

As I had stated in an earlier post, upholding the integrity of God's word is of utmost importance. By that I meant the written word. The issue being discussed here, whether there is one 'true' inerrant bible available for us today and whether all other versions but this one contain doctrinal errors, shouldn't be taken lightly.

The point I was making here, and one that also shouldn't be taken lightly, is that without the Holy Spirit this issue is irrelevent because God's word must be interpretted through the guidance of the Holy Spirit - something I hadn't heard discussed much here (maybe some were taking this for granted or thought that it was obvious - but I thought it worth mentioning). We've seen what can happen when men try and interpret God's word without guidance from Holy Spirit and the damage that can be done. I think you'd agree that this twisting of truth can happen whether one is using the 'one true' version of God's word, or whether they are using one that has some 'doctrinal errors'.

As a final note, there have been a lot of posts here regarding beliefs, facts and experiences fron either perspecitve and these go beyond my knowledge of any translation. So there is something to be learned here and I'll continue to evaluate some of this information in study and prayer. I am interested in studying more about your post on the NKJV and differences between KJV and will follow with an email if I have further questions.

-Eric

 

[Huldrych]

The only logical position of faith is to believe that if God is true to His words, then He must have preserved His words in a translation of some kind. I believe He did this before the King James Bible as well, but His perfect words were not yet in the English language. From what I know of the historical evidence, the most likely place where the N.T. Scriptures were preserved was in the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and in the Latinized languages of the Waldensians up until the time of the Reformation.

Understanding that you believe the preservation of the Bible to be contiguous from generation to generation (that in each epoch there was a perfect Bible somewhere), have you found a Bible that perfectly lines up with the KJV from one of those earlier eras?

I don't think there is a single complete Old Latin Bible you can point to and prove therefrom that you have the exact words of God as laid out in the KJV. Even the few extant manuscripts from that language don't line up with KJV readings 100%.

As far as the Waldensians go, have you taken the time to find one of their Bibles (or one of their derivatives) and compare it to the KJV to see if your theories are so? You said you had (or at least knew of) historical evidence on the matter--care to share it?

Then you mention the Reformation. Now, whereas Old Latin and Waldensian Bibles are hard to come by, there are lots of samples of Bibles from the Reformation still around--Luther, Tyndale, Christian III, Olivetan, de Reina, and so on. Can you identify from any one of those that the KJV is the perfectly preserved words of God?

If not, it doesn't necessarily mean that God is a liar. It can mean that you've formed opinions about how He operates that do not line up with the truth.

jth

 

[cranstonroby]

Here comes Petrus Cottontail...

Here comes Petrus Cottontail...

Martian Manhunter, first, let me clarify something...I am not confusing you with Will. He is unique. Incorrect, but unique. I made the remark about Herod and Ishtar in passing, as several KJVO authors had written that nonsense before. One of them was Dr. Sam Gipp, author of what I call "the WRONG Answer Book. Here's a link to his article:

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/easter.html

He likes to quote from the KJV...UNTIL IT PROVES HIM WRONG! And just WHAT from the KJV proves him entirely wrong here? There are several verses, but here's the first:

Ezekiel 45:21 (King James Version)"In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten."

As I said, there are others, but this should suffice for now.

Even Will believes this. He is NOT a Herod-Ishtar person. Instead, he attributes the "Easter" thingie to the Holy Ghost.

Problem is....The GENEVA BIBLE, the AV's immediate predecessor in the line of English Bibles, has 'Passover' for 'pascha' every time. And very plainly, the AV men knew the difference between Passover and Easter.

The Oxford English Dictionary provides, in its philology for easter, several examples of its usage for Passover, the LAST EXAMPLE being Acts 12:4 in the KJV. The others are somewhat earlier. Also, Random House states that Easter=Passover was in use UNTIL the 17th C.

I have asked a scholar on another board to provide us with an example of English literature contemporary with the making of the AV that uses Easter for Passover. He has access to several major libraries. So far, he has failed to provide such an example, and he's had three months to do so. And there's plenty of English literature extant from that time, such as the works of Shakespeare, Milton, and King James himself.

As I said yesterday, this Easter thing isn't enough to make me toss my KJVs and repro AV 1611s, but it DOES shatter the "perfection" myth of the KJVOs. I believe its use in the AV is equivalent to calling a respiratory ailment "catarrh", a term not entirely incorrect, but certainly obsolete and unknown to most English readers of today. The other theories concerning the Easter usage contain too many holes to float.

 

[cranstonroby]

Brandplucked: may I suggest you first take a look at my website, Another King James Bible Believer, before you post your list of alleged "errors" in the KJB?

This is an old and unfounded example.

Sorry, Will, it's QUITE "founded". Leviticus 20:16
"And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman,...."

This is but one of many other examples that show the AV men knew the difference between kill and murder, although more often than not they wrote "slay".

Here is my answer to it.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/notkill.html

An answer based upon guesswork, imagination, and wishful thinking.


Also, regarding the book of Mormon examples, would any of you like to prove the existene of an error in the King James Bible, when the book of Mormon plagarizes its readings? I have read these allegations before, and have found them to be totally unwarrented.

I believe we all know the BOM is phony as a football bat....same as is the KJVO myth.

 

[cranstonroby]

WHILE I admit that our 1769KJV Bible could be improved, I insist that it is alone the best available, and that the competing versions are all corruptions - not just rephrasings. If we do not have an agreed upon standard to which all our words are compared, then there is nothing in our disputations other than a competition between boasts of spiritual superiority. www.apostasynow.com Dean

Sorry, Dean, but, as Will does, you're using circular reasoning. Whether you wish to admit it or not, you've believed the propaganda of the "party-line" KJVOs who try to convince us that the KJV is without error and ALWAYS has the best rendering for each & every Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic word or phrase. This has been PROVEN to be false time & again.

Also, the "party-line" alleges that the later BVs omit mucho material. This is THEIR circular reasoning. When one sees a 16-oz. capacity container holding 8 oz. of liquid, one doesn't know if it's half-full or half-empty without any evidence that someone had either put only 8 oz. of fluid in it or had put 16 oz in it and used from it till only 8 oz. were left. Same with comparing BVs or their sources. We do NOT know if some of them actually omitted things that shoulda been there or if others had material ADDED that should NOT have been there.

There is but ONE valid reason to be KJVO...PERSONAL PREFERENCE. All other reasons are wrong. And it's ALWAYS wrong to tell someone who uses another valid Bible version or versions, that they've chosen incorrectly.

 

[cranstonroby]

Bunkum

Bunkum

Great post,Will.The truth is out now.I have noticed that there are many similar false arguments as well,buy the Bible opposers.

You begin your post with the false statement that we who use multiple versions besides the KJV or not use the KJV at all, are "Bible opposers". Typical party-line Steppandfetchit KJVO bunk.


t could be that some are not informed of the heretical nature of the modern versions and their false Alexandrian foundations.

It could be...and IS...that most of us do NOT subscribe to a totally-false doctrine built upon the back of an excellent English Bible version, a doctrine which seeks to make the KJV into something its makers never intended.


You are doing a valuable service to the christian community,by alerting them to this froggie in the ever increasing hotter water senario of the church's compromise

Since WHEN does telling fairy tales to Christians do them any service?



,in these last apostate days of the laodicean church age.
Peter Fuhrman

Peter, do you know the "Church Age" bunk which you evidently believe, as evidenced by your "Laodicean" reference, is nothing more than an apostate doctrine spread in the USA by one William Branham, one of the first of the heretical teleministers and a first-rate CHARLATAN? Branham preached the heresy of "serpent seed", saying Cain was the result of Eve's sexual union with the "serpent". He said that some people, descended from Cain(he overlooked the Flood of Noah) were predestined to a non-eternal hell, to purge and correct them(Compare with the RCC's "purgatory"!) He also taught that the zodiac and the pyramids of Egypt were equivalent to the Scriptures in revealing God's word. He was a Oneness pentecostal.

I could fill two pages with Branham's false prophecies and other apostacies, but these should give you some idea that he was an apostate phony, and as a Christian you shouldn't believe a wrod he said. OH, YEAH...I said ,FALSE PROPHECIES. Here's one...

Branham prophesied that all religions and denoms would become one big false religion by 1977, and in that year the Rapture would occur and the world would explode. He also claimed Divine protection for himself, but if he ever had it, it was not in operation on Dec.18, 1965 as he was badly injured in an auto accident in Arizona, caused by a drunk driver. Apparently it stayed inoperative, as he died 6 days later.

Before you believe ANY doctrines about Scripture, please take the time to CHECK'EM OUT if they're not directly in Scripture. KJVO is neither found nor supported by the KJV itself, and neither is that "Church Age" heresy.

 

[cranstonroby]

Kookoo

Kookoo

Peter A V:Well,maybe you like to defend the heretical 1% Alexandrian manuscripts,that history rejected,but now in these apostate days,is revived by the Necromancers Westcott and Hort.Nice company you keep.

Your personal opinion of Justin aside, the rest of your statement is totally unqualified. The work of W&H is only PART of the material considered by modern Bible translators. The MT is given much more weight. Try LEARNING about those things before you make such statements as above.


The KJV agrees with the 99% majority and you call that gnatism?Excuse me,but when one rejects the overwhelming evidence and goes with the hereitcal material that can't even agree with each other any two verses in a row.That is swollowing a camel.
Let us stop this now,and agree to disagree,before your facts are proved wanton.

Below, you call the KJV "perfect" but here you say"99%" Which is it?

I just believe the the LORD,I simply believe what he said in his word about his words.

And so do I. What i do NOT believe is the KJVO myth made from the false doctrines about the KJV set forth in 1930 by a cult official.



The only Holy Bible that fits this Godly,Biblical criteria is none other than the 1611.All the others,are fakes,and wannabees.

I've seen your posts in other boards. Your Scriptural quotes are from the 1769 Blayney's Edition of the KJV, or from the 1762 Cambridge Edition. I have several repro AV 1611 and I can say with certainty that your quotes are NOT from the 1611.

And, as with most other KJVOs, you employ circular reasoning, arguing "facts" not in evidence. Reminds me of a Conway Twitty song, "It's Only MAKE-BELIEVE".



They side with the Alexandrian heretical material.NASB,ESV,NKJV,etc.They have proven errors throughout.

The only "errors" the KJVOs have REALLY found are that "Dey Aint da KJV".


But the KJV is perfect,just as God would have his word to be.

Despite its PROVEN BOOBOOS??



Pure, Such as "slew and hanged, Acts 5:30

preserved, As in the hundreds of changes between the AV 1611 & later editions

purified,Wasn't God's word PURE to begin with? Two words ago, you called it PURE! Make up your mind!

Inspired, Can you PROVE the KJV is one bit more inspired than the GENEVA BIBLE or the NASB? Newp!

infallible,This is the closest to being right of any of your terminology yet, but it is applicable to ALL of God's word in ANY valid version.

imuttable, Again, this applies to God's word in general, and not to just one version.

impeccable. Wrong. The KJV has PROVEN goofs.


Timothy had the inspired scriptures in his hands,and they were NOT the "originals" now,were they?Never is scriptures mentioned as the "originals".

Nor are they mentioned as being found "only in the KJV", either. But, by your reckoning, there were no British saved before 1611 since they didn't have a Bible, right?

 

[cranstonroby]

No,you are mistaken here.I don't know who lied to you,but the N.T.authors did not quote the LXX[72]for it wasn't around until ORIGEN[200-250AD]not B.C.What happened was the LXX author changed the old testament to suit the New Testament quotes.And or visa-versa.
Nice trick,don;t you think?Just check out all of the blunders that happened,because of it.
Besides,who is going to trust an heretic like Origen,or Jerome and Eusebius?Not to mention the two necromancers Westcott and Hort.
Plus IF this hoax of the LXX was true,66 of the men were in direct disobedience to God.The Text was the work of the LEVITES,and no one else.

Peter, you claim to be KJVO, but as many another KJVO does, you believe the AV translators ONLY to the point where they agree with your KJVO myth. Please read post # 201 of this thread to see the quote from the preface of the AV 1611 where the AV translators speak of the LXX.

And a CLEAR EXAMPLE of the AV men following the LXX instead of the Hebrew Masoretic Text is found in Isaiah 7:14 where they wrote, "virgin". The HEBREW for this verse reads, "almah", which is a young woman, including newlyweds and other non-virgins, while the GREEK of the LXX reads, "parthenos", which means, "virgin"(person or animal, male or female) and nothing else.

Levites? Wrong again. DAVID was a Jew descended from JUDAH, while PAUL was a Jew descended from BENJAMIN.

Once again, KJVO GUESSWORK is proven wrong by Scriptural and historical FACTS.

 

[cranstonroby]

KJVO mishmash

KJVO mishmash

As master of the univ... er, a... as a newly ordained forum moderator, I renamed this thread. Why? I am trying hard to get more people to consider our Open Letter to Dobson exposing that most all Republican Judges are pro-choice. And with this thread title as it was, Bob Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant, the average born-again Christian *WHO AGREES WITH ME* against KJOnly, will see that thread title, and just that may prompt him to leave the forum, *EVEN THOUGH HE ACTUALLY AGREES WITH ME AGAINST KJONLY*, and he would then never even learn what your actual allegation against me is. And in the process, someone your misleading title would chase away might never see our desperate argument about the failed Christian political strategy. So, if you're in the BEL forum, and if I retain this new-found power, I suggest you do not mislead anyone with your thread titles. (Will, I realize of course that you can't possibly even imagine what I'm talking about. But hey, I said it anyway.) -Bob

Pastor, I have been dealing with Mr. Kinney for years on a number of boards. I am a firm enemy of the KJVO myth, as it is a completely-FALSE doctrine, based upon guesswork, hearsay, fairy tales, imagination, doubletalk, fishing stories, wishful thinking, and often a large dose of plain ole-fashioned DISHONESTY.(I oppose all other false doctrines also, of course.) Mr. Kinney, while rejecting most of Ruckmanism, still uses the "party-line" KJVO stuff spread by Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller years ago. That stuff was false then, and is just as false today.

Will loves to answer criticism against his incorrect position with, "You have no fanal authority", notwithstanding the fact that he has built his OWN artificial "final authority" from a false doctrine about a Bible version, rather than upon the TRUTHS as found in Scripture.

I live in Southern Ohio; the nearest city which has radio & TV is Huntington, WV. Does your show reach this part of the world?

BTW, I am the infamous robycop3, the bane of the KJVO crew. I bollixed my registration under that handle by entering it with my Spamguard on, so that the activation link was regarded as spam & was permanently blocked from my mail. I shall try to rectify that situation shortly, and if successful, will explain to the readership in full.

Cranston P. Roby

 

[robycop3]

Got it!

Got it!

To all:

I was able to correct my mistake and re-register under my better-known handle of robycop3. All the "cranstonroby" posts here were by me. My thanx to Ed Edwards for his help!

SORRY if I caused any confusion! I'll bear my 20 lashes with a wet noodle stoically.

 

[robycop3]

Riplinger parroted....

Riplinger parroted....

Peter A VGood question Shimei!
The thing that many are unaware of,is,that the Holy Bible has its own built in dictionary.

This is directly from the codwallop of Gail Riplinger! Phony as a football bat!



Please go to the FIRST time kill is mentioned,and you will see clearly that the BIBLE definition describes Kill here as in an evil selfish motive [aka murder.].

The first mention of "kill" in the KJV is in Genesis 4:15-"And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.[/i]

That would NOT be an evil motive. Cain musta realized that people would hate him because of his fratricide & would consider killing him as appropriate justice. Therefore GOD set protection upon him . "Kill" is mentioned after Exd.20:13 while pertaining to ANIMALS. Pertaining to PEOPLE, it's first mentioned after Exd.20:13 in Exodus 22:24-
"And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless."

That was GOD speaking. You're not accusing HIM of murder, are you?


The first mention of a word in the Holy Bible will give you the basic understanding of the word.Later aplications will further the understanding.Plus,of course,context determines the actual flavour of the Biblical term.Hope this helps you.
Peter Fuhrman

Now Peter, you KNOW that's not a RULE of Scripture.

With all your tall tales, do you have a relative named MARK?

 

[robycop3]

Rimi:I'm not a scholar and I'd like not to get trounced for really wanting to understand this better. I really want to know some things about KJV only-ism. I have questions if someone could help out. . . .

I'm no scholar either; just a steel worker. But I'll try to help.

1. I found that the original KJV included the Apocrypha, and now does not. Well, if it is perfect and inspired, why there and then gone?

If you have a copy of the AV, please note that the translators placed the Apocrypha between the Testaments & never called them Scriptures. However, they were included as study helps, following the same format Martin Luther used in his German Bible version. The publisher of the AV began to omit the Apocrypha in 1629, as more people began to protest that they had no place within a Bible. Neither the Anglican church nor KJ himself recognized them as Scripture. certainly the AV men meant no harm.

2. I found that there were several changes/corrections to the original KJV over the years, so what we read today is NOT the same as what was originally published.

The MAIN changes were in spelling and punctuation, and correcting of printer's errors. However, there are many actual word revisions. Whether or not they may be considered "corrections" is a matter of opinion. The 1611 KJV did not have "of silver" (Exod. 21:32), "of God" (1 John 5:12), and "Amen" (Eph. 6:24) that present KJV's have. These are but three examples of many others. NONE of them are enough reason to toss either the AV 1611 or the currently-used KJV editions.

3. I found that there are mythical creatures in KJV: unicorns an satyrs. It also mentions dragons, but I'm not sure that they're not leftover dinosaurs.

In 1604, most British believed those creatures were real. In fact, King James' royal coat-of-arms from Scotland featured a unicorn. When he took the throne of England, he made a new coat-of-arms that featured both the Scottish unicorn and the British lion.

The Hebrew word rendered "unicorn" in the KJV is re'em. Hebrew scholars tell us that it means some kind of large, powerful herbivorous animal, and the unicorn fit that description

The Hebrew word for satyr is sa'ir & is usually used for goat. However, it also means, hairy or hirsute. Again, the AV men had no reason to doubt their existence. Conversely, newer Bibles are NOT wrong to say "wild ox" where the KJV says "unicorn", or "goat" where the KJV says "satyr.

Another fictional critter the AV men believed existed was the COCKATRICE. here, the Hebrew word is tsepha, which means, a poisonous snake. The cockatrice was supposed to be some kinda "super-snake" with powers and poison greater than the ordinary adder or viper.

As for dragons, the whole world has legends about similar critters. There musta been something that looked like our conceptions of a dragon. This could even have come from the appearance of a comet long ago, as comets are known to have sometimes resembled any one of many earthly objects and creatures. The cult of the golden calf is said to have originated from a comet with two tails and a delta-like pattern in the sky resembling a giant letter "C". Since no known creature can manufacture fire within its respiratory system, we might look to a spectacle in the sky for answers.

But at any rate, the AV translators believed these creatures were real, and had no reason to doubt their existence. They meant no deceptions.

4. One word: "Easter". In Acts 12:4, KJV uses the word "Easter" and not Passover. I looked up Easter in the Strong's Exhausting (to me) Concordance and found that the translation came from the word "Pascha" (from the Hebrew "Pecach") and means "the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it): -- Easter, Passover". Yet per Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, the etymology of Easter is that it comes from the name of a goddess Ostern and her festival. Why would God inspire the translators to use a pagan goddess' name and not the name of the festival He was familiar with?

The ONLY plausible explanation for "Easter" in Acts 12:4 of the KJV is the fact that not all that long before the AV was made, Englishmen used the terms "Easter" and Passover"(paska or pascha) interchangeably. All other explanations by the KJVO folks have been proven wrong. It's quite likely that the AV men accidentally left "Easter" in the KJV. There are other posts within this thread expounding further on this "Easter" thingie.

 

[robycop3]

Corrupt root

Corrupt root

B agrees with Origen's Hexapla omiting the deity of Christ frequently and making other Gnostic and Arian alterations.
Info by NABV Gail Riplinger,pg551,552

By quoting Riplinger, your entire credibility for your post went South.

 

[robycop3]

AVBunyan: Again, with feeling, who taught you that only the originals are inspired?

It's self-evident. Even God Almighty must start something somewhere, sometime. When He first gave His direct words to certain men, there's absolutely no doubt that He inspired those men, or their chroniclers, to WRITE them. And among all the historical accounts written by israelis, He chose certain of them to become Scripture. Reading the Books of Kings and Chronicles, it's evident that other such records existed, as they mention them, but they weren't chosen by GOD to become scripture.

As for translations, God INFLUENCES them, and He's NOT limited to having influenced JUST the KJV in English.

I believe we might be having issues over our different perceptions of INSPIRE and INFLUENCE. I, for one, believe that God has His hand somehow, some way, over EVERY valid translation of His word.

Why do you and others limit God so?

The TRUTH is, it's the KJVO who tries to limit GOD, telling Him how He may or may not present His own word in English.

You can trust God with your salvation but you can't believe God could oversee the AV committee in 1611. Don't you believe God is sovereign or do you leave it all up to man? Strange...

Actually, it's the KJVO who doesn't seem to trust GOD to present His own word in English to us. The KJVOs place their reliance upon a MAN-MADE MYTH, believing the very MAKERS of their fave version ONLY as far as they agree with the KJVO MYTH. They blast the LXX despite the fact that the AV men recognized it as an ancient and reliable Greek translation of the OT. The KJVOs insist upon the "Psalm 12:6-7=Preservation" thingy despite the AV's marginal note PROVING the translators believed V7 was about the PEOPLE mentioned in the verses immediately preceding. Shoot, those dudes/dudettes don't even KNOW the BV they're exalting!

AV Bunyan, you must be a glutton for punishment. Every time you appear upon a BV discussion board, you hawk your same ole wares, get hammered, and make some excuse to opt out. You just cannot accept the fact that most other Christians DO NOT AND WILL NOT subscribe to the KJVO song-n-dance.

Looks as if your stuff has already taken quite a drubbing before I got here, but I'm gonna add my swings as well. How long are ya gonna stay in THIS group? It aint gonna git no better unless you create your own little blog and post to yourself.


Shoot, nobody else is posting here right now, and I'm gonna quit for awhile lest I be perceived as a roadhog.

 

[Turbo]

I live in Southern Ohio; the nearest city which has radio & TV is Huntington, WV. Does your show reach this part of the world?

Presently his show is only broadcast in the Denver area, but his shows are posted in mp3 format at kgov.com shortly after they air.


I wish I had known you wanted a different name. I could have changed your username for you.

 

[robycop3]

Thanx!

Thanx!

Presently his show is only broadcast in the Denver area, but his shows are posted in mp3 format at kgov.com shortly after they air.


I wish I had known you wanted a different name. I could have changed your username for you.

Thanx for the link & for the advice!

I figured out how to get around the prob. I try to be honest as possible & post only under two handles, robycop3 on most boards, & Steelmaker in EZBoard & Delphi.

 

[brandplucked]

Roby's "inerrant bibles"

Roby's "inerrant bibles"

Hi Roby, I posted and you commented:

See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

Roby posts: "Actually, no one valid translation is inspired more than any other, and you, Will, can prove no differently."

Roby, you and I know each other's position on the Bible issue quite well, but others here may not be aware of what it is you believe. Here you say "no one valid translation is more inspired than any other". OK, Roby, let's look at what you say here.

Which versions do you consider to be "valid" translations? Please list them for us. Is the King James Bible among the versions you consider to be valid?

Secondly, are you saying that God inspires errors and that God inspires a Scripture readinig and a non-reading for the same passages, and yet both the reading and the non-reading are equally "inspired"?

And lastly for now, do you believe any Bible in any language is now today the complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible words of God? If so, please list it or them for us.

Thanks,

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

Acts 5:30 and Roby's "inspired bibles"

Acts 5:30 and Roby's "inspired bibles"

For example, Acts 5:30 & 10:39. The KJV reads, "slew and hanged", while virtually every later version reads, "slew by hanging" or something similar giving the CORRECT order of events as hanged(crucified) AND slew. Even the YLT reads," and the God of our fathers did raise up Jesus, whom ye slew, having hanged upon a tree;".


Do you personally believe there is such a thing as The Inerrant Bible on this earth? If so, what is it called?

Roby says: Yes...and it's called the "KJV" by some, "NIV" by others, "NASB" by others, "Luther Bibel 1545" by others, "Le Bible Du Semeur" by others, "Maori Bible" by others, etc, etc.


BEWARE THE LEAVEN OF THE KJVO...IT'S MADE FROM POISON YEAST.

Hi Roby, thanks for answering ahead of time and giving us a partial list of your "inspired" bibles. So, according to your understanding there are at least 6 or 7 versions that you consider inerrant. Yet, these various versions differ radically from each other in both text and meaniings in hundreds and even thousands of instances. You have a very interesting way of using the word "inerrant".

You tell us that the King James Only believer is deceived by a man-made theory and is wreaking havoc on the body of Christ. Why? Is it because we really believe there is such a thing as an inerrant Holy Bible, and haven't yet lost our minds to the point where we call 6 or 7 conflicting bible versions, with hundreds of different readings and meanings "inspired and inerrant"?

I noticed you listed the King James Bible among your inspired and inerrant versions, and yet you continue to post example after example of what you consider to be errors found withiin this Bible. Does that really make sense to you? Something is inerrant and yet it has errors?

Roby, it is obvious that your thinking processes have degenerated to the point of being absurd and self-contradictory. If others here wish to end up thinking the way you do, then let them continue down the road they presently are following.

Here is a response to the example of Acts 5:30. You never would have picked this one out except for James White. And, for anyone interested in seeing the truth about the alleged LXX version, may I again recommend my site where I have 5 articles dealing with this subject. There was no widely accepted, Pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament that was quoted by the Lord and the apostles. The LXX is a giant myth on the same level of Evolution.




Acts 5:30 "whom ye slew and hanged on a tree"


King James Holy Bible 1611

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew AND hanged on a TREE."

Mr. James White says on page 225 of his book The KJV Controversy: "The NKJV corrects the problem seen in the KJV rendering. Peter did not say that the Jews HAD SLAIN Jesus AND THEN HUNG (caps mine) him on a tree. Instead they put the Lord to death BY hanging Him upon the tree. It is difficult to see exactly where the KJV derived its translation, as there is no "and" in the text to separate "slew" and "hanged on a tree."

James White objects to the AV's "and" but has no problem with the insertion of "by" in the modern versions. As a matter of fact the NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, all insert the little word "by". There is nothing incorrect about "adding" the word "and" when used before a participle, as is the case here. In fact, ALL bible versions do this scores of times. To see just a few of the numerous examples of this, look at the NASB adding the word "and" in Acts 2:23; 5:40; 9:37,39; Matthew 2:21; 4:9,13; 26:56 and John 19:2.

In Acts 5:30 the word "and" does not refer to a sequence of events, but to an additional description of what took place. James White reads into the passage something that is NOT there, and then criticises the KJB for something it does not do. He said: "Peter did not say that the Jews HAD SLAIN Jesus AND THEN HUNG him on a tree." He is right; but neither does the King James Bible say this.

The use of "and" in this manner is common English grammar describing events which take place simultaneously. "We watched the college football game, and had a great time, and we ate hotdogs and drank Cokes, and clapped and yelled till we were hoarse."

It is also of interest that Mr. White chose not to use the NASB, for whom he now works, in his faulty illustration. The NASB says: "whom you had put to death BY hanging Him ON A CROSS."

The NASB not only adds the word "by" which also is not in any Greek text, but more importantly it translates the word xulon, which means "tree" or "wood", as "cross". The word for cross is staupos, not xulon, and by translating it as cross instead of the proper "tree", the NASB misses the whole point of what the Holy Ghost is saying through Peter.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says: "And if any man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a TREE: His body shall not remain all night upon the TREE, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (FOR HE THAT IS HANGED IS ACCURSED OF GOD" (caps mine)

We then cross reference these verses with Galatians 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a TREE."

For the Jews to hang another man on a tree was a special mark of the curse of God upon such an individual and was an additional insult upon the gravity of his crime.

Peter is saying in effect, Not only did you kill the Messiah, but you also hung Him on a TREE - marked out as an object of the special curse of God. You humiliated and debased Him to the lowest degree allowed under the law. Peter is drawing the sharp contrast between this Jesus "whom God who exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour", and the shame, degradation and calumny to which the unbelieving Jews subjected Him.

John Calvin remarks in his commentary: "Neither was your cruelty satisfied with a plain and common death; for he was hanged upon a tree."

The King James reading is by no means in error here. Mr. White, with all his professed scholarship, is simply reading something into the passage that is not there, and he misses the whole point of the significance of Christ's being hung ON A TREE.

Not only does the KJB render this verse as "whom ye slew AND hanged on a tree", but so also do Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Cranmer, Luther (welchen ihr erwürget habt UND an das Holz gehänget), John Wesley Etheridge's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1846 "The God of our fathers hath raised up Jeshu whom you killed and hanged on the tree", the Bishop's Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, Green's Modern KJV, the New Life Version 1997, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Another excellent article dealing with this verse and James White's unjust criticism see Marty Shue's comments at http://www.avdefense.com/acts5-30.html

Will Kinney