King James Version Only...?

[Wrangler]

if we actually translated the greek text. the NT would be twice as large as it is now.

Same with the OT. In todays' devotional reading of the NSRV Cultural Bible, a study note in Obadiah explained how the actual Hebrew words were like a definition of a single word we have today.

If I read a book that did not use "boot" or "team" or "splint" or some other mundane word but instead used the definitions of these words, I would lose interest. I'm far too impatient for such translation non-sense. I have higher expectations from the translators than to waste my time on irrelevant 'word for word' purity standards.

In the fast-paced 21st century America, speed is the key to effective communication. This is why companies have even re-branded themselves. Coca-Cola is referred to as Coke. Federal Express is FedEx. Kentucky Fried Chicken is now KFC.

To the KJV-only-ists, the may cry "But you are changing the word of God!" Nonsense. The word of God is simply being properly translated into a different language. So, I'm big on "thought" translations (often put down incorrectly as 'paraphrases') which faithfully translate whole sentences and even paragraphs.

John The Baptist said he was unworthy to even untie footwear often made of leather that is open to the air allowing for quick drying and typically not worn with socks. How wordy. Sandals!:)

 

[Truther]

You still don't have a clue.

Not all the EVENTS written happen in the ORDER THEY ARE WRITTEN. You cannot just follow the chapters one after another and think everything happens in the exact order it is written. For example, Christ's coming and the day of His wrath is shown on the 6th Seal, and on the 7th Trumpet, and on the 7th Vial.

So which Chapters do those 'events' happen in? Here...

6th Seal - Revelation 6
7th Trumpet - Revelation 11
7th Vial - Revelation 16

It is men's doctrines that have deceived you into thinking the way all the events in Revelation are written are given in sequential order. If that were so, then there's no way Christ's coming should be even mentioned until the 19th chapter! Those men you listen to like to change the order to suit 'their' theories, like the Church is raptured by the time of the Revelation 6 chapter, which is a lie.

Calm down.

The beginning of the GT is in Rev 6 and the end of the GT is in Rev 19.

You cannot look at is cross-eyed.

You do that and you become a mess.

The seals must be opened in 6 before 11 and 16 can be unleashed.

 

[Truther]

That's your opinion. Did you actually watch the videos?

No, I watch you guys.

You know, the KJV debunkers.

You know, the "all translations are wrong-ists".

You know, "the pure word of God is lost to the world-ists".

 

[Davy]

Calm down.

The beginning of the GT is in Rev 6 and the end of the GT is in Rev 19.

I am calm, and very awake!

No, events before, during, and after the great tribulation are given within the Seals, and the Trumpets, and the Vials. The seven main Signs Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse parallel the Seals in Revelation 6.

You cannot look at is cross-eyed.

You do that and you become a mess.

I would be ashamed to have said something like that, it's idiotic.

The seals must be opened in 6 before 11 and 16 can be unleashed.

Nope. That's men's theory of the order of Revelation events. Don't you understand that if the event of Christ's day of WRATH is being spoken about, that is... the day of His wrath? (as per Revelation 6:16-17 on the 6th Seal; Revelation 11:18 on the 7th Trumpet; and Revelation 16:17-19 on the 7th Vial).

 

[Truther]

I am calm, and very awake!

No, events before, during, and after the great tribulation are given within the Seals, and the Trumpets, and the Vials. The seven main Signs Jesus gave in His Olivet discourse parallel the Seals in Revelation 6.



I would be ashamed to have said something like that, it's idiotic.



Nope. That's men's theory of the order of Revelation events. Don't you understand that if the event of Christ's day of WRATH is being spoken about, that is... the day of His wrath? (as per Revelation 6:16-17 on the 6th Seal; Revelation 11:18 on the 7th Trumpet; and Revelation 16:17-19 on the 7th Vial).

Preterism???

 

[Davy]

Preterism???

What about Preterism? I'm not a Preterist, nor a Historicist, nor a Futurist. I follow the flow of God's Word line upon line. Those doctrines of men don't, because they instead pick and choose verses to abuse in order to try and support 'their' made up doctrines. Then they parade their self-important credentials around for the gullible to make them think they know The Bible when they really do not.

 

[Truther]

What about Preterism? I'm not a Preterist, nor a Historicist, nor a Futurist. I follow the flow of God's Word line upon line. Those doctrines of men don't, because they instead pick and choose verses to abuse in order to try and support 'their' made up doctrines. Then they parade their self-important credentials around for the gullible to make them think they know The Bible when they really do not.

You interpret the prophecy like a preterist. I highlighted it above. You are saying Rev 6 happened 2000 years ago there.

 

[Davy]

You interpret the prophecy like a preterist. I highlighted it above. You are saying Rev 6 happened 2000 years ago there.

You must be reading someone else's post. I NEVER said that Revelation 6 was past history! Somehow, you have gotten that idea into your mind from others.

So... if you think... Christ's Olivet discourse of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 was history, then you are grossly deceived, and it would also mean you deject Christ's revelation there about the day of His return and gathering of His saints, which is still future to us (Matthew 24:29-31).

So try Bible study for yourself, instead of heeding men's doctrines that say Christ's Olivet discourse is history already, which that idea that His Olivet discourse is history is actually what Preterists believe.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

I like the basis for the NKJV because I am a fan of William Tyndale and the Received Text.

Then I must have been MISinformed that the nkjv was from the "Alexandrian text"?

Suffice it to say, I am not KJVO, but I am KJV (English) + Textus Receptus + ALL KJV foreign translations from the same. Amen? My personal view:

Bible "versions"

 

[Truther]

You must be reading someone else's post. I NEVER said that Revelation 6 was past history! Somehow, you have gotten that idea into your mind from others.

So... if you think... Christ's Olivet discourse of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 was history, then you are grossly deceived, and it would also mean you deject Christ's revelation there about the day of His return and gathering of His saints, which is still future to us (Matthew 24:29-31).

So try Bible study for yourself, instead of heeding men's doctrines that say Christ's Olivet discourse is history already, which that idea that His Olivet discourse is history is actually what Preterists believe.

i think your posts make you appear to be preteristic. I am a futurist.

 

[Davy]

i think your posts make you appear to be preteristic. I am a futurist.

Probably because of what the Pre-trib doctors have taught you.

No, I'm not a Preterist. Partial Preterism believes most of the Book of Revelation has already been fulfilled. I definitely do not believe that, and my writings clearly show that. So evidently you either don't understand the doctrines of Preterism, or you haven't really been reading what I've written.

Full Preterism believes that Christ's 2nd coming was history in the times of His Apostles, because they claim it was to be a 'spiritual' coming only (whatever that stupidity means). I definitely do not believe that silly idea either, and it's obvious to me how the enemies of Christ were behind that theory.

I most often get wrongly associated with Futurists because I believe much of Revelation is still future, and I see the Book of Daniel connection with it, and the still existing "one week" for the end per Daniel 9:27. Preterists don't see that. But Futurists do, and they often associate the Pre-trib Rapture theory with Futurists. Yet I do NOT believe in a Pre-trib Rapture theory at all.

 

[Davy]

Then I must have been MISinformed that the nkjv was from the "Alexandrian text"?

Suffice it to say, I am not KJVO, but I am KJV (English) + Textus Receptus + ALL KJV foreign translations from the same. Amen? My personal view:

Bible "versions"

Anyone who reads the modern versions based on Wescott and Hort's Greek translation (i.e., like the NIV), can see similar wordage in the NKJV. So someone is telling a LIE...

"Contrary to what the original purpose was stated to be, the NKJV is a new translation, not a mere
language update. Not only that, the translation changes impact key doctrines of the Scripture, such as the eternal punishment of the lost in hell." (from link below)

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles...D229A90560F/An-Examination-of-NKJV-Part-1.pdf

 

[Truther]

Probably because of what the Pre-trib doctors have taught you.

No, I'm not a Preterist. Partial Preterism believes most of the Book of Revelation has already been fulfilled. I definitely do not believe that, and my writings clearly show that. So evidently you either don't understand the doctrines of Preterism, or you haven't really been reading what I've written.

Full Preterism believes that Christ's 2nd coming was history in the times of His Apostles, because they claim it was to be a 'spiritual' coming only (whatever that stupidity means). I definitely do not believe that silly idea either, and it's obvious to me how the enemies of Christ were behind that theory.

I most often get wrongly associated with Futurists because I believe much of Revelation is still future, and I see the Book of Daniel connection with it, and the still existing "one week" for the end per Daniel 9:27. Preterists don't see that. But Futurists do, and they often associate the Pre-trib Rapture theory with Futurists. Yet I do NOT believe in a Pre-trib Rapture theory at all.

I guess our only difference is I am pre-trib.

 

[Davy]

I guess our only difference is I am pre-trib.

Could be....

Nor am I an Amillennialist, which they don't believe the "thousand years" reign of Revelation 20 is literal. I do believe it is a literal period that begins at Christ's future return. So that makes me a Pre-millennialist, just as the 1st century Church fathers also were. Pre-tribs are Pre-millennialists also.

 

[Truther]

Could be....

Nor am I an Amillennialist, which they don't believe the "thousand years" reign of Revelation 20 is literal. I do believe it is a literal period that begins at Christ's future return. So that makes me a Pre-millennialist, just as the 1st century Church fathers also were. Pre-tribs are Pre-millennialists also.

Yes, I am also a literalist per the OT and NT prophecies.

 

[Davy]

Yes, I am also a literalist per the OT and NT prophecies.

I try to steer away from those kind of labels, because God's Word is always literal in the sense that, even with a parable, analogy, idiom, figure of speech, or allegory, it is still ultimately about something real.

A literalist to me is one who mistakes the symbols or metaphors in the parable or allegory being what the real Message is about. It's not. Like Jesus said you don't put new wine in old bottles lest they break, His Message was not about literal wine and bottles; it was about trying to give "strong meat" of His Word to those still on the "milk". Their minds simply cannot handle the "strong meat". The new wine means freshly fermenting wine that needs room to expand while it's aging. The old bottles represents those still sucking on the 'milk' of His Word when they ought to be teachers of His Word after a time (Hebrews 5).

 

[Truther]

I try to steer away from those kind of labels, because God's Word is always literal in the sense that, even with a parable, analogy, idiom, figure of speech, or allegory, it is still ultimately about something real.

A literalist to me is one who mistakes the symbols or metaphors in the parable or allegory being what the real Message is about. It's not. Like Jesus said you don't put new wine in old bottles lest they break, His Message was not about literal wine and bottles; it was about trying to give "strong meat" of His Word to those still on the "milk". Their minds simply cannot handle the "strong meat". The new wine means freshly fermenting wine that needs room to expand while it's aging. The old bottles represents those still sucking on the 'milk' of His Word when they ought to be teachers of His Word after a time (Hebrews 5).

I mean, by literalist, I don't "spiritualize" plain scripture.

I take it at face value.

I am not looking for hidden meanings in a verse or passage.

I leave that to the professional verse twisters.

 

[Davy]

I mean, by literalist, I don't "spiritualize" plain scripture.

I take it at face value.

I am not looking for hidden meanings in a verse or passage.

I leave that to the professional verse twisters.

I don't spiritualize God's Word either, and I take God's Word as HIS Word, not man's, so I realize when man is speaking and when God is speaking (via His Word). Those of His servants He calls, they will speak HIS Word, and not their own. Those He did not call, they speak their 'own' word, because He did not send them (Ezekiel 13).

There are no hidden messages in God's Word, it's only that God's parables and allegories in His Word are foolishness to the profane whom He did not call. Their spiritual eyes He has closed, so they are not given to understand spiritual things, even as Apostle Paul said (1 Corinthians 2:13-16).

 

[Truther]

I don't spiritualize God's Word either, and I take God's Word as HIS Word, not man's, so I realize when man is speaking and when God is speaking (via His Word). Those of His servants He calls, they will speak HIS Word, and not their own. Those He did not call, they speak their 'own' word, because He did not send them (Ezekiel 13).

There are no hidden messages in God's Word, it's only that God's parables and allegories in His Word are foolishness to the profane whom He did not call. Their spiritual eyes He has closed, so they are not given to understand spiritual things, even as Apostle Paul said (1 Corinthians 2:13-16).

Great post.

 

[RLT63]

The problem with the "oldest manuscripts" in existence is that the oldest church fathers quoted scriptures not in them, but are in the KJV. What is the name under which those have been published? I would like to have a copy.

What's missing from your Bible?

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot Note: The following is from a study I did and not taken from the above link. The linked article is very long but very informative. So how did we end up with changes and verses being deleted out of the...

www.christianforums.com