So, are Daniel 7:25 and Amos 8:11-12 related in prophecy?
- Thread starter The Parson
- 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!
Here's some more...
We know from the experience and expository preaching of the fundamentalists that the King James has not changed since the 1771 updating of the spelling in the Authoized version. So how would this happen without the editing of human hands? They didn't. So what else would have caused this?
We know from the experience and expository preaching of the fundamentalists that the King James has not changed since the 1771 updating of the spelling in the Authoized version. So how would this happen without the editing of human hands? They didn't. So what else would have caused this?
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Yes, the KJV and the New KJV both read "are destroyed" for lack of knowledge. And you're saying that in the various quotes it is being said, instead, that they "perish" for lack of knowledge. To be honest, I don't have a history of the changes in these synonyms. But that's all they seem to be to me--synonyms!
You might personally see in the word changes a significant change in meaning. I don't, to be honest with you. "Perish" and "destroy" mean the same thing, as I hear it. Why many used to use "perish" when the current versions use "destroy" I don't know? Did these versions used to read "perish?" If so, that would explain why so many of your quotations use "perish."
The fact that current versions use "destroy" doesn't appear to be a significant change in meaning if earlier versions used "perish." The reason translations change is because society and its language change over time. To convey modern meanings, the language has to change too.
That's the problem of the newer versions. People look at even the King James and say "oh, so they changed it here too"... Not so though.
Yes, King James, but if the translation doesn’t satisfy I compare it with texts from other versions that are available, for example, CJB, NIV, NKJV, to get better understanding of the text, and I can discern if text is in tune or in accordance with the intention of the Spirit that inspired it.
In other words, I know what the Spirit means, and I check whether the text's vocabulary matches the Spirit's intention. In essence, the words may be different, but the meaning has to be that which the Spirit has inspired. The Word is GOD, letter and Spirit. GOD is Spirit.
Scriptures are Word of GOD. The Word is GOD, so I would say, by analogy, the Bible is GOD, the book of the LORD here, in the world of Devil.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Yes, the KJV and the New KJV both read "are destroyed" for lack of knowledge.
BibleGateway - Keyword Search: lack of knowledge
BibleGateway - Keyword Search: lack of knowledge
So Randy, if there has been no editing of the King James since the early 18th century, why the change?
But
But
My friend Roy wrote a great song, and the last line kept repeating "Have you seen the Lion and the Lamb in the meadow?"
So I WAS troubled about which animals are laying down with what other ones,,,
but I got over it
I rarely see a 1611 KJV anymore
Most are 1761 or something
even that has "I trow not" "he wist not" etc etc
but I like things that "WAX EXCEEDING GREAT"
Have you ever waxed exceeding great against a same-sized he-goat?
Gotta be careful...
No, in absolute, the Word is GOD, understand? You are saying this because you know not Him. He that is of the earth is earthly, and speaks of the earth: He that comes from above is above all, and what he has seen and heard, that he testifies; and no man receives his testimony. He that has received his testimony has set to his seal that GOD is true. For he whom GOD has sent speaks the words of GOD: for GOD gives not the Spirit by measure unto him.
Unfortunately you know only the letter of Scriptures, but know not GOD, the Word; the letter kills, and according your spirit you can be a killer of souls.
Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which GOD has prepared for them that love Him. And GOD has revealed them by His Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of GOD.
John 8:v. 47 - 47 He that is of GOD heareth GOD's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of GOD.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Clearly there were several KJV editions in this earlier time period, but it's worth saying that the textus receptus itself had to be changed numerous times before the KJV came out.
If the manuscripts that the TR was based on were lacking, and the Byzantine texts themselves had been subject to copy errors, it is meaningless to say that the product of these revisions, though stable, is fully accurate.
The fact the KJV is stable and doesn't change much doesn't mean that the manuscripts upon which they were based, and earlier interpretations of those manuscripts, were fully reliable and beyond scrutiny.
I just said the KJV and NKJV *now* say--quote: "are destroyed for lack of knowledge." And you responded by saying, "No."
Well, they do say what they say *today.* Others in the past may have quoted "perish for lack of knowledge." You think that's due to Satan. I think it more likely that there was a common source, who simply used a synonym for "destroy" and was very influential.
It doesn't matter to me either way. They are *synonyms,* and they don't change the meaning.
Last edited:
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
You keep repeating the word the word, but Paul says
1 Corinthians 4:20 KJV
[20] For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
What do you believe this power is?
Evidently the Kingdom of GOD is not in human words, but in Power of GOD's Word, because the Word is GOD. John 1:v.1
The Power is in the Word. The Word is GOD. John 1:v.1 Is not JESUS the Word made flesh? The Power is in the Word.
What does the Word of GOD say? Revelation 11:v.15
The Kingdoms OF THIS WORLD (of this current Devil's world) are become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.
The Word said - the Word is GOD: Since days began, I have been he. No one can deliver from my hand.When I act, who can
reverse it? Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?
To me, this is a thread about Bible versions.
The KJV of 1769 is the most familiar to me - it is the one most easily memorized, imo.
I recently obtained a Common English Bible - a Wesley Study Bible. The translation itself is 2011 - it incorporates Notes from Wesley (from 1700s)
I like the translation very well except for one phrase - it renders what most versions have as "Son of Man" with "The Human One". This is horrible. I know what is behind it - making the phrase more "gender neutral". Son of Man is what Jesus called Himself all the time. Ezekiel used it of himself also. To me it is just silly to replace Son of Man with "The Human One".
I think this is a great thread. The Parson has brought much to light, but I don't understand his insistence on changes in KJV having a "supernatural" origin.
If he means by that that Satan has influenced translators to use certain words - well, maybe - I don't know if that is true - it could mean that the Parson's cheese has slid off his cracker.
Did a King James Bible of a certain date - either 1611 or 1769 - sitting on a shelf somewhere - all of a sudden have words change within it?
Now come on.
I feel the meaning of "supernatural changes" may lie elsewhere.
The KJV of 1769 is the most familiar to me - it is the one most easily memorized, imo.
I recently obtained a Common English Bible - a Wesley Study Bible. The translation itself is 2011 - it incorporates Notes from Wesley (from 1700s)
I like the translation very well except for one phrase - it renders what most versions have as "Son of Man" with "The Human One". This is horrible. I know what is behind it - making the phrase more "gender neutral". Son of Man is what Jesus called Himself all the time. Ezekiel used it of himself also. To me it is just silly to replace Son of Man with "The Human One".
I think this is a great thread. The Parson has brought much to light, but I don't understand his insistence on changes in KJV having a "supernatural" origin.
If he means by that that Satan has influenced translators to use certain words - well, maybe - I don't know if that is true - it could mean that the Parson's cheese has slid off his cracker.
Did a King James Bible of a certain date - either 1611 or 1769 - sitting on a shelf somewhere - all of a sudden have words change within it?
Now come on.
I feel the meaning of "supernatural changes" may lie elsewhere.
Oh boy I tell myself... Gotta love em. We know we've past from death unto life because we love the brethren fer sure...
And I think it's totally possible that the only ones that may see my point would be those who are totally KJVO sorta brethren.
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
Well, what you said in post 211 was ugly, and I know for certain that Jesus doesn’t like ugly.
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
