King James Version Only...?

[Davy]

The catching away(1st resurrection) is not the 2nd coming.

Most certainly is the "first resurrection".

That is why ONLY those of the "first resurrection" reign with Jesus when He comes!

You poor, poor soul. Who has bewitched you? Don't you realize that if your are not... in that "first resurrection", then it means you are one of the "dead" that live not again until the thousand years are finished, and that means you will still be subject to the "second death" casting into the future "lake of fire"???

Rev 20:4-6
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
KJV

 

[BarneyFife]

We DO have copies of the Original Manuscripts, in the Masoretic Text.



This is so counter intuitive, I don't know where to begin. -- Some Hebrew words have NO direct translation. Hebrew has both Concise Feminine Gender and Masculine Gender texts. They might be analogous to calling a CONCISE "car"/"truck"/"van"/etc., versus the INCONCISE "vehicle", -- as in where the Dan. 9 "weeks" are interpreted as "sevens", the actual diction is the INCONCISE Masculine Text which is found ONLY in the 9th Chapter of Daniel, and not ANYWHERE ELSE in Scripture, including the citation in Daniel 10.

So do we simply "gloss over" these CLUES, or do we search for the deeper hidden knowledge of GOD:

Jeremiah 33:3 Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things which you have not known.​

Secondly, consider these two translations:

KJV -- Dan. 9:25 ... from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall

RSV -- Dan. 9:25 ... from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat​

Clearly the KJV has a FALSE "Jesus Agenda" where the messiah "M" is capitalized, -- although there is NO capitalization in Hebrew. And the KJV combines "seven" with the "sixty-two", as though GOD's intent was to express "SIXTY-NINE". And there is NO PRECEDENT in Scripture or ANY CULTURE in World History where a pair of shoes cost: seven and sixty-two dollars plus tax. They may cost "sixty-nine", but NEVER "seven and sixty-two".


But silly people believe silly things.
Bobby Jo

So you honestly believe that God is allowing His children to be deprived of a knowledge of Him because of these technicalities, as legitimate as they may be? Talk about silly...

 

[Truther]

Most certainly is the "first resurrection".

That is why ONLY those of the "first resurrection" reign with Jesus when He comes!

You poor, poor soul. Who has bewitched you? Don't you realize that if your are not... in that "first resurrection", then it means you are one of the "dead" that live not again until the thousand years are finished, and that means you will still be subject to the "second death" casting into the future "lake of fire"???

Rev 20:4-6
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
KJV

You teach that the Church misses the wedding and supper of Rev 19, then meets up to return with Him somewhere.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Did you know that similar words have different meanings per their context?

Can you not answer my questions? Do they mean the same? Since they birth were translated with the same English word (love)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No, just a solid translation instead of trying to piece the perfect word of God together from hundreds of modern translations.

Solid translation I know if a few. I use them all

but that’s not what you said you said Pure. Ie perfect. Backtracking now?

 

[Bobby Jo]

So you honestly believe that God is allowing His children to be deprived of a knowledge of Him because of these technicalities, as legitimate as they may be? Talk about silly...

Either they are as you cite, LEGITIMATE, or they're SILLY. They're not both, -- unless you have a different agenda ...

And searching the Scriptures for the deeper TRUTHS is not being "deprived", unless you like milk A LOT:

Hebrews 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; 13 for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child.​

Silly people.
Bobby Jo

 

[Truther]

Can you not answer my questions? Do they mean the same? Since they birth were translated with the same English word (love)

They can mean differently per the context of the passage. Just like our language. All languages do that. Even Google can differentiate.

 

[Truther]

Solid translation I know if a few. I use them all

but that’s not what you said you said Pure. Ie perfect. Backtracking now?

Tell me which verses in your modern translations are the pure word of God and let's get together and build a Bible of our own.

 

[JohnDB]

Now one of the most famous known errors in the KJV concerns David and the price he paid for a wife...
Concerning "hands" of Philistines vx foreskins...

Let's just say that the requisite number of hands wouldn't fit in a bag...and Philistines weren't circumcised... adding certification to the item in discussion.
Reality in my mind says that I'm not going to perform a delicate surgery on a dead guy...I'm just going to cut the whole thing off and know that I got it all. Wouldn't want to shortchange King Saul.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

They can mean differently per the context of the passage. Just like our language. All languages do that. Even Google can differentiate.

Can they ever mean the same ? Context did not change in the passage why two words? Why could peter not say he agaped him

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Tell me which verses in your modern translations are the pure word of God and let's get together and build a Bible of our own.

Show me a bible that seperates the different types of love in John 21, let’s start there

 

[YeshuaFan1]

Been done. One can look online for the direct comparisons that show the differences, and also the amount of missing Scriptures in the NIV which the Received Texts have.

That does not prove the Originals had those in them though!

 

[YeshuaFan1]

They were not created by an election process. They were imperfect, yet older.

The Kjv was also imperfect!

 

[Truther]

Can they ever mean the same ? Context did not change in the passage why two words? Why could peter not say he agaped him

Depends on the context. The ancient English and the ancient Greek were the best mates for translating. God knew, so He arranged it.

 

[Truther]

Show me a bible that seperates the different types of love in John 21, let’s start there

You should know that eros/agape and philia mean different things, but one word suits them just fine, contextually that is.

 

[Truther]

The Kjv was also imperfect!

.....says the Bible skeptic.

 

[YeshuaFan1]

.....says the Bible skeptic.

I hold the verbal plenary inspiration of the originals, just not the kjv!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Depends on the context. The ancient English and the ancient Greek were the best mates for translating. God knew, so He arranged it.

Yep and he used two words in the same context

you keep ignoring my question can agape and phileo ever mean the same?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You should know that eros/agape and philia mean different things, but one word suits them just fine, contextually that is.

That’s ridiculous, if the words mean different how can one word be adequate? Especially when used in the same few verses

 

[BarneyFife]

Either they are as you cite, LEGITIMATE, or they're SILLY. They're not both, -- unless you have a different agenda ...

And searching the Scriptures for the deeper TRUTHS is not being "deprived", unless you like milk A LOT:

Hebrews 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; 13 for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child.​

Silly people.
Bobby Jo

I'm not interested in trading insults. I called one idea silly and a group of claims legitimate. There is no discrepancy. The only agenda I have is the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. (Revelation 14:12)