KJV The Received Text

[Jordan]

(ffbruce;62166)
(Super Kal;62165)
(ffbruce;62163)
The former.The reason I didn't respond to the second half is because it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
actually, yes it does, ffbruce... if you actually sat down and read it.to say the KJV is the only text where it shows the Word of God is a joke at best.I'm sorry, but I have no idea what your second sentence means.Kal is saying that to think the KJV is inspired in a joke.I say to think a bible that uses and isn't Textus Receptus that attack Christ is inspired... Now that's a joke.

 

[ffbruce]

(Jordan;62167)
Kal is saying that to think the KJV is inspired in a joke.I say to think a bible that uses and isn't Textus Receptus that attack Christ is inspired... Now that's a joke.
"Is inspired in a joke." I'm assuming there's a typo in there, so...And you believe that translations, other than the KJV, attack Christ?

 

[tomwebster]

(ffbruce;62168)
"Is inspired in a joke." I'm assuming there's a typo in there, so...And you believe that translations, other than the KJV, attack Christ?
ff, little off topic but I think you said somewhere that you were a Pastor, I was wondering if you were able to read any Hebrew or Greek? Just curious is all, I enjoy being able to at least check out the original languages as I study Scripture.

 

[Super Kal]

on the issue on what stone said in the opening post
...that the Textus Receptus was God's preserved word in the original New Testament language.
i personally believe that this is a load of hogwash. God will use a rock to spread His Word if necessary, and besides the NWT, all translations still hold the Gospel of Jesus Christ to what it was meant to be seen as

 

[Super Kal]

(tomwebster;62169)
ff, little off topic but I think you said somewhere that you were a Pastor, I was wondering if you were able to read any Hebrew or Greek? Just curious is all, I enjoy being able to at least check out the original languages as I study Scripture.
I do the same thing... it helps to have even a very small grasp on what the original language says

 

[ffbruce]

(tomwebster;62169)
ff, little off topic but I think you said somewhere that you were a Pastor, I was wondering if you were able to read any Hebrew or Greek? Just curious is all, I enjoy being able to at least check out the original languages as I study Scripture.
Not without helps, no. At least, not anymore.

 

[ffbruce]

(Super Kal;62170)
on the issue on what stone said in the opening posti personally believe that this is a load of hogwash. God will use a rock to spread His Word if necessary, and besides the NWT, all translations still hold the Gospel of Jesus Christ to what it was meant to be seen as
The OP is filled with factual errors and - on one level - really needs to be discarded.

 

[Jordan]

(ffbruce;62168)
(Jordan;62167)
Kal is saying that to think the KJV is inspired in a joke.I say to think a bible that uses and isn't Textus Receptus that attack Christ is inspired... Now that's a joke.
"Is inspired in a joke." I'm assuming there's a typo in there, so...And you believe that translations, other than the KJV, attack Christ?Some Bibles earlier than KJV uses Received Texts, so no. Others later than the KJV like NIV, NWT, CEV, NASB, ASV, RSV, NRSV, etc...Yes, they attack Christ, for the author of confusion is Satan.

 

[ffbruce]

(Jordan;62174)
Some Bibles earlier than KJV uses Received Texts, so no. Others later than the KJV like NIV, NWT, CEV, NASB, ASV, RSV, NRSV, etc...Yes, they attack Christ, for the author of confusion is Satan.
No, you're wrong. These newer translations do NOT attack Christ. To say they do is to perpetuate confusion and errors.

 

[Jordan]

(ffbruce;62175)
(Jordan;62174)
Some Bibles earlier than KJV uses Received Texts, so no. Others later than the KJV like NIV, NWT, CEV, NASB, ASV, RSV, NRSV, etc...Yes, they attack Christ, for the author of confusion is Satan.
No, you're wrong. These newer translations do NOT attack Christ. To say they do is to perpetuate confusion and errors.Ok sir. You can keep thinking of that opinion.

 

[ffbruce]

(Jordan;62176)
Ok sir. You can keep thinking of that opinion.

I will do exactly that - unless you can provide some credible, scholarly evidence to back up your assertions.

 

[Jordan]

(ffbruce;62177)
(Jordan;62176)
Ok sir. You can keep thinking of that opinion.

I will do exactly that - unless you can provide some credible, scholarly evidence to back up your assertions.My thread. + I don't need a scholar to see common sense from God.

 

[ffbruce]

(Jordan;62179)
My thread. + I don't need a scholar to see common sense from God.
What if scholarship proves you wrong? Still going to go with your own opinions?By the way, I've read your thread. And when you take away all the fancy colors, the bold and huge letters, it's not really saying anything at all. It is, first of all, based on the erroneous assumption that the KJV translation is always correct. It is also erroneous in trying to say that different sentence structure cannot say the exact same thing. So... I guess you're going to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless.

 

[Jordan]

(ffbruce;62180)
(Jordan;62179)
My thread. + I don't need a scholar to see common sense from God.
What if scholarship proves you wrong? Still going to go with your own opinions?By the way, I've read your thread. And when you take away all the fancy colors, the bold and huge letters, it's not really saying anything at all. It is, first of all, based on the erroneous assumption that the KJV translation is always correct. It is also erroneous in trying to say that different sentence structure cannot say the exact same thing. So... I guess you're going to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless.And you will never find me saying that at all. And now you are making an assumption and adding words to my mouth. But that's ok, you are going to believe what you believe anyway. I do wish to help though. Guess it's one's choice then.

 

[ffbruce]

(Jordan;62182)
And you will never find me saying that at all. And now you are making an assumption and adding words to my mouth. But that's ok, you are going to believe what you believe anyway. I do wish to help though. Guess it's one's choice then.
Actually, I've repeatedly studied through the whole KJVO controversy - and done so on far more than one occasion. So thank you, but I know for a fact that the modern translations are not making Jesus a liar, they are not denying his divinity, etc. That simply isn't true.If you want to only use the KJV that's perfectly fine with me. That's certainly your choice. But you really should not be so critical of those who - for reasons that are very good and sound - choose to read other translations as well.

 

[Jordan]

(ffbruce;62196)
(Jordan;62182)
And you will never find me saying that at all. And now you are making an assumption and adding words to my mouth. But that's ok, you are going to believe what you believe anyway. I do wish to help though. Guess it's one's choice then.
Actually, I've repeatedly studied through the whole KJVO controversy - and done so on far more than one occasion. So thank you, but I know for a fact that the modern translations are not making Jesus a liar, they are not denying his divinity, etc. That simply isn't true.If you want to only use the KJV that's perfectly fine with me. That's certainly your choice. But you really should not be so critical of those who - for reasons that are very good and sound - choose to read other translations as well.What's so good and sound about removing bible verses? And what's so good and sound about changing it's meaning as well? And what's good and sound removing words that is necessary?And lastly do you really want to put words in my mouth? Do you really think I'm a whatsa called a KJV-Onlyism?

 

[ffbruce]

(Jordan;62197)
What's so good and sound about removing bible verses? And what's so good and sound about changing it's meaning as well? And what's good and sound removing words that is necessary?And lastly do you really want to put words in my mouth? Do you really think I'm a whatsa called a KJV-Onlyism?
Everything you've posted, in any way related to this topic, evidences a complete KJVO mindset.And has it occurred to you that the KJV could be the translation that is wrong? Has it occurred to you that some of the thousands of manuscripts found after the KJV was translated have actually clarified and corrected the modern translations? Or how about the fact that the Textus Receptus went through several revisions, because they found gross errors?There are many reasons to not be so hung up on the KJV. It's a good translation, but it's not the only translation. And honestly, when compared to the original Greek & Hebrew, it's not the best.

 

[Jordan]

(ffbruce;62205)
(Jordan;62197)
What's so good and sound about removing bible verses? And what's so good and sound about changing it's meaning as well? And what's good and sound removing words that is necessary?And lastly do you really want to put words in my mouth? Do you really think I'm a whatsa called a KJV-Onlyism?
Everything you've posted, in any way related to this topic, evidences a complete KJVO mindset.And has it occurred to you that the KJV could be the translation that is wrong? Has it occurred to you that some of the thousands of manuscripts found after the KJV was translated have actually clarified and corrected the modern translations? Or how about the fact that the Textus Receptus went through several revisions, because they found gross errors?There are many reasons to not be so hung up on the KJV. It's a good translation, but it's not the only translation. And honestly, when compared to the original Greek & Hebrew, it's not the best.Again more words to trying to be added into my mouth. So quit making that assumption. By far KJV is far better than the translation of modern versions, this I say I've done my research. Thank you. While KJV is not perfect, but again far better than modern versions. That's why I use a KJV + strongs when needed.BTW, you had even answer my questions... so...

 

[ffbruce]

(Jordan;62207)
Again more words to trying to be added into my mouth. So quit making that assumption. By far KJV is far better than the translation of modern versions, this I say I've done my research. Thank you. While KJV is not perfect, but again far better than modern versions. That's why I use a KJV + strongs when needed.BTW, you had even answer my questions... so...
Yes, it's exactly as I said earlier. You're a KJVO advocate. And what you write - especially in the thread your signature links to - is virtually word for word what Gail Riplinger wrote.And no, KJV is NOT "far better" than modern translations. In your opinion it's better.

 

[Jordan]

(ffbruce;62209)
(Jordan;62207)
Again more words to trying to be added into my mouth. So quit making that assumption. By far KJV is far better than the translation of modern versions, this I say I've done my research. Thank you. While KJV is not perfect, but again far better than modern versions. That's why I use a KJV + strongs when needed.BTW, you had even answer my questions... so...
Yes, it's exactly as I said earlier. You're a KJVO advocate. And what you write - especially in the thread your signature links to - is virtually word for word what Gail Riplinger wrote.And no, KJV is NOT "far better" than modern translations. In your opinion it's better.I don't even know who Gail Riplinger is. I only heard the name. Ok, you can believe what men says, I'll believe what God says.