RLT63
Well-Known Member
Just because I spoke too soon does not make me ignorant, it’s this type of personal attack that makes it impossible to have a conversation with you, and insinuating that I have some hidden agenda is ridiculous
King James Version Only...?
- Thread starter LC627
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
RLT63
Well-Known Member
RLT63
Well-Known Member
For those faithful followers of Jesus Christ, the strong meat of this KJV matter vs. the modern corruptionists can found in the Thread I started at the link below...
Oldest and Best, Really??
There is a difference between New Testament Bible translations today. Depending on which one you use, it comes from one of two different types of Greek text. And it DOES matter which one you rely upon for The New Testament. The authors of the Critical text (Wescott and Hort) claimed that the...www.christianityboard.com
In that Thread, I gave links to documented proofs of 19th century Bible scholar's Wescott and Hort's affiliations with the 'ghostly guild' at Cambridge, which later because the Society For Psychical Research, an Occult experimentation group that existed in London in those days, and still today. In the personal letters of Hort, he admits his association with the group.
That means the two 19th century British Bible scholars who presented the 1881 Bible version committee with a 'new' Greek text of the New Testament, were associated with Occult movements in Britain. That suggests influence by ANOTHER SPIRIT in their work.
And all... later post 1881 Bible versions using the Critical Greek text by Wescott and Hort for the New Testament translation, are manipulations by that 'another spirit' through them.
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot
There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...
www.bereanpatriot.com
RLT63
Well-Known Member
RLT63
Well-Known Member
No I spoke too soon . When I thought about it I remembered Nathan confronting David and if you check my post I said there were times when God commanded Israel to kill everyone including children.
Yeap, Michael the Arch Angel even when disputing against satan over the body of Moses did not bring any railing accusations up. But simply said, the Lord rebuke thee
Hmmm, I am a faithful follower of Jesus Christ and use modern versions because I cannot read the KJV.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Me too. Our Lord and Father God is gracious. His goodness leads us to repentance. For it is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure. For it is in Him we live, move and have our being.
I am not a KJV only advocate. But it is my favorite and the bible God started my journey with. With that being said. A webster's dictionary was also part of the package. Plus a Strong's concordance.
J. P. Green has a literal translation I love and use based on the same Greek text as the KJV. Here is a link LITV - Green's Literal Translation (LITV)
Prayers my friend.
I do not want to have to use a dictionary when I read the Bible. That is also distracting to me, like the thees and thous. I don't know when the last time I used a dictionary was in everyday life.
I just want to read the Bible and not have distractions because of the language of the Bible. It's why I won't use the KJV. I have no issues with others reading it if that is the Bible they choose.
I also don't get into the difference in texts and stuff like that. It matters not to me.
My choice is the NRSV Catholic Edition as I an Episcopalian and that version goes well with the daily office readings.
So you know the meaning of every modern English word used in the bible you read? In my experience with the people in my sphere, most don't.
To this day I am always using a Websters or some dictionary in all my readings, and my reading level is and has been at college level since the 8th grade.
At the very least one should have a dictionary by their side when reading anything, especially the Bible, so we understand what we readest.
Last edited:
Actually, yes. Context means alot. If I don't understand a word, I will understand it by reading on. I cannot do that with the King James because there will be another word I don't know within that sentence.
I do not want to use a dictionary when reading the Bible. If I am reading in my own vernacular, I won't need a dictionary.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
See Post #756. It seems our friend deleted evidence of his position during this amusing discussion. Fortunately, the record is preserved in Post #756.
You are like John Kerry being for the war before he was against the war. You say there was a reason God kills children and babies AFTER you said you reject the notion 'for any reason.'
In another post, you said you were KJV-only about 30 years ago. I believe you have had the Bible in your life for as long as you say. Please consider why you don't have what the Bible says in your heart. Why do you:
Relying on copy and pasting again! My questions proves IDOLATRY but you don't have eye to see. The same as above, you answer "B" only after about 12 posts dodging the question and accusing me of all manner of debauchery.
I doubt if I can prove these divisive and argumentative posts now because I'm not sure if you deleted them, like you deleted the post I responded to in Post #756. I suppose you would not want to share why you deleted the post where you wrote, "I reject the notion that God kills children for any reason?"
The only time you graciously accept rebuke is when you rebuke yourself.
You are like John Kerry being for the war before he was against the war. You say there was a reason God kills children and babies AFTER you said you reject the notion 'for any reason.'
In another post, you said you were KJV-only about 30 years ago. I believe you have had the Bible in your life for as long as you say. Please consider why you don't have what the Bible says in your heart. Why do you:
- first vehemently argue an incorrect position, then
- claim the opposite is what you said, then
- claim who you are arguing with is <INSERT INSULT HERE> and incapable of having a civil conversation, etc.
Your frustration is palpable. I'll pray for you, my friend.
. Your question proves nothing
Did God Order the Killing of Babies? - Apologetics Press
Skeptics and atheists have been critical of the Bible’s portrayal of God ordering the death of entire populations—including women and children. For example, God instructed Saul through the prophet Samuel to “go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But...apologeticspress.org
Relying on copy and pasting again! My questions proves IDOLATRY but you don't have eye to see. The same as above, you answer "B" only after about 12 posts dodging the question and accusing me of all manner of debauchery.
I doubt if I can prove these divisive and argumentative posts now because I'm not sure if you deleted them, like you deleted the post I responded to in Post #756. I suppose you would not want to share why you deleted the post where you wrote, "I reject the notion that God kills children for any reason?"
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Like I said I spoke too soon, you have to accept that children were killed in the flood, and there were times God instructed that everyone be killed.That doesn’t mean I am ignorant and if you remember you started this conversation by ridiculing my post. I didn’t dodge your question you asked someone else first then when I answered you ignored it because I didn’t stipulate A or B. I finally had to put the answer as B so you could understand it. Someone who dishonestly selects portions of what someone says and takes it out of context shouldn’t complain about a post being deletedSee Post #756. It seems our friend deleted evidence of his position during this amusing discussion. Fortunately, the record is preserved in Post #756.
The only time you graciously accept rebuke is when you rebuke yourself.
You are like John Kerry being for the war before he was against the war. You say there was a reason God kills children and babies AFTER you said you reject the notion 'for any reason.'
In another post, you said you were KJV-only about 30 years ago. I believe you have had the Bible in your life for as long as you say. Please consider why you don't have what the Bible says in your heart. Why do you:
- first vehemently argue an incorrect position, then
- claim the opposite is what you said, then
- claim who you are arguing with is <INSERT INSULT HERE> and incapable of having a civil conversation, etc.
Your frustration is palpable. I'll pray for you, my friend.
Relying on copy and pasting again! My questions proves IDOLATRY but you don't have eye to see. The same as above, you answer "B" only after about 12 posts dodging the question and accusing me of all manner of debauchery.
I doubt if I can prove these divisive and argumentative posts now because I'm not sure if you deleted them, like you deleted the post I responded to in Post #756. I suppose you would not want to share why you deleted the post where you wrote, "I reject the notion that God kills children for any reason?"
Last edited:
You and anybody that says they don't need a dictionary from time to time in reading anything. Most just gloss over when reading. We have been teaching various Bible classes for over 20 years and without fail every time when the class was asked about a specific word, there were people who either gave a wrong understanding of the word brought up or a false acknowledgement that they understood said word.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Not all need a dictionary when reading an obsolete language? WTH?! This shows the KJV-only crowd has no compassion for those who rely on translators to translate God's word in the own vernacular.
Similar threads
