• We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.

Issues with the KJV

PeterAV said:
PS;I thought you were arguing that the few words in Gensis are not word perfect and now you try to make them word perfect.Hu boy here we go with the circular reasoning AGAIN.
And then you make your defence trying to show there are no word for word translations.ouch!!
Guess we got to the real core issue here.
Click to expand...
What I am guessing is that since the accusations of heretic, murder, personal accusations and such just keep flowing from you fingers and all you want to do is preach is that are not going to be here much longer.

Either discuss substance and stop the personal attacks or leave.

I will not tolerate you calling the membership here murders, heretics and more.
 
LuckyStrike said:
Source: Post #44

:order: Good point. A simple, but irrefutable point, which remains unaddressed. Yet, this debate continues, which is the truly silly issue.

I guess we count the hits, but ignore the misses, eh?
Click to expand...
Yep.

The argument that that the phrasing demands Easter because it was not the Feast of Unleaven Bread and the Passover had ended is bogus.

Reading the various verses you see Passover, as a general term, was used to include the Unleaven Bread.

And here are some verses from the KJV to defend that statement.

  1. [*]Luke 22:1
    Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
    Luke 22:1-3 (in Context) Luke 22 (Whole Chapter)
    [*]Luke 22:7
    Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
    Luke 22:6-8 (in Context) Luke 22 (Whole Chapter)
Click to expand...
Does that not say the Feast of Unleavend bread was also called the Passover?

The KJV disproving the KJV.

The KJV is a Bible. But it is neither 100% accurate or the best.
 
[/quote]The KJV is not THE bible nor is it THE word of God.[/quote]
Out of the abundance of the heart,the mouth speaketh.




 
CoreIssue said:
What I am guessing is that since the accusations of heretic, murder, personal accusations and such just keep flowing from you fingers and all you want to do is preach is that are not going to be here much longer.

Either discuss substance and stop the personal attacks or leave.

I will not tolerate you calling the membership here murders, heretics and more.
Click to expand...
This is your saying it NOT mine.You can read anything into it you want,go for it.
You know very well I was refering to the murdering catholics vs the likes of Tyndall and such.Waldensians...
So keep missapplying my quotes to dodge the real issue which is your hatred for the word of God.
If any book in the world deserves anything,it is the good old book.
Eatser?you haven't even given your renition of genesis.
And you think I am dodging.ya.right.
 

The KJV is not THE bible nor is it THE word of God.
Click to expand...
Out of the abundance of the heart,the mouth speaketh.
Click to expand...




[admin]Either get to posts with substance or leave.
Official Warning. Your preaching and accusations are not welcome and are not productive.[/admin]
 
This is your saying it NOT mine.You can read anything into it you want,go for it.
You know very well I was refering to the murdering catholics vs the likes of Tyndall and such.Waldensians...
Click to expand...
No, I don't. You associated it with the KJVO position with your words.
So keep missapplying my quotes to dodge the real issue which is your hatred for the word of God.
If any book in the world deserves anything,it is the good old book.
Eatser?you haven't even given your renition of genesis.
And you think I am dodging.ya.right.
Click to expand...
You are dodging.

No more warnings.
 
PeterAV said:
PS;I thought you were arguing that the few words in Gensis are not word perfect and now you try to make them word perfect.Hu boy here we go with the circular reasoning AGAIN.
And then you make your defence trying to show there are no word for word translations.ouch!!
Guess we got to the real core issue here.
Click to expand...

No, what is clear is that in your blind alligence to the KJV only cult you belong to you are unwilling to see the evidence before you and apply any logic.

Which is why the reasoning fails you and the above post by you is complete nonsense to all the readers here.

I suggest you re-read this post ( which was avoided completely I see ) and reply in a logical and rational manner. Any more attacks or any more rhetoric and you will be banned.

Last chance to see some clear thinking out of you.
 
It sure is amazing to think that now adays if one actually believe the Holy Bible IS the Holy Bible,one gets labelled as in a cult,with blind allegience,which means it is complete nonesense to those that have no faith in a pure Holy Bible.

Don't forget it is state and federal law to answer all posts.Ya right.

Holy Bible
There is only one.
PeterAV
 
It sure is amazing to think that now adays if one actually believe the Holy Bible IS the Holy Bible,
Click to expand...
KJV, NIV, NASB and some others are all Holy Bibles. Not just the KJV.
one gets labelled as in a cult,with blind allegience,which means it is complete nonesense to those that have no faith in a pure Holy Bible.
Click to expand...
Foolish rhetoric.

Christ did not promise a word for word preserved Bible. He promised meaning for meaning preserved scriptures.

Scriptures began as individual letters. The letters were gathered together into Bibles.

The KJV was created from the RT. The RT was a critical creation from 6, not one, manuscrpt. Therefore none alone agree with the KJV.

Tell me then, if Christ promised perfectly preserved word for word, where was it before 1611? For it not to have been there would make Christ a liar if he had indeed made such a promise.

Such a simple question that no KJVO has ever answered. In typical cult fashion they simple act as if they never heard it.

Why? Because it undermines their thinking. And their dogmatic doctrine is more important that the facts.
Don't forget it is state and federal law to answer all posts.Ya right.
Click to expand...
No, it is the rule of any proper debate. One must respond answer challenges or concede they are wrong.

Again, you have been answered.
Holy Bible
There is only one.
Click to expand...
Indeed only one Bible. But in many version forms.

And it is not the KJB. It is the KJV. Further, the scriptures do not belong to KJ. They belong to God.
 
Hi Folks,

Tis truly amazing that after this post..
http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=11834&postcount=17
you still want to beat the poor horse more about Genesis 1:1-2.

Genesis 1:1-2
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.[/FONT]
CoreIssue said:
The form of now used in verse 2 is not a conjunction.
Click to expand...
 If it is technically an adverb tis fine, it matters not, it is in the spot of the Hebrew vav which is commonly translated as a conjunction. And either 'and' or 'now' is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation for the vav.

Harold Holmyard
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028102.html
In Hebrew when there is a wav conjunction followed by a noun and a verbless clause as in Gen 1:2, this ordinarily represents a background circumstance. It introduces a circumstances clause. This is sometimes called an "off-line" clause, since it is off the main narrative advance,giving addtional information.... Either "and" or "now" could work.

Vadim Cherny
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028099.html
Both readings, "and" and "now/when" are not far apart semantically. Sort of deictic shift. When the author says, "and," he means sequence of events, notsimply their conjunction. That could be paraphrased, "It was the beginning,and then the earth was such-and-such."

Karl Randolph
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028109.html
The Waw tacked on the beginning of the second and following sentences indicate continuation of narration. This is not a complex sentence with verse one as a subordinate clause. If you insistthat these make up one sentence, then what we have is a typical run-on sentence connected by "and"s.

Not one person knowledgable on biblical Hebrew would even criticize the "and",
much less yet call it an error. Only folks with a doctrinal ax, little
knowledge of the language, and a desire to fabricate King James Bible errors.
CoreIssue said:
http://custance.org/old/time/3ch2.html
The guy has a MA in Oriental languge.
Click to expand...
Notice what Harold says about your Arthur Custance link on "was" and "become"
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028102.html
"This seems a false statement because hayah stands in Gen 3:1 where the meaning does not seem to be "became" but simply "was" in a predication of existence ..(continues)

The late Arthur Custance did a lot of good writing, but he was fishing for gaps in this one.

With this type of stuff, (and the lampstand fiasco is quite similar) one wonders. We compare the beauty and majesty and purity of the King James Bible, and against that we have the strange spirit of accusation that comes over men, confused, seeking an error, bringing accusations against the Bible. These men cannot accept that God has really given us His word, pure and perfect, readable, in our hands, to be accepted and appreciated by the ploughman, and yes, even available, if they will receive it, for the scholar, those who are wise in this world.

God's word, pure and perfect.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi Folks,

Tis truly amazing that after this post..
http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=11834&postcount=17
you still want to beat the poor horse more about Genesis 1:1-2.

Genesis 1:1-2
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.[/FONT]

If it is technically an adverb tis fine, it matters not, it is in the spot of the Hebrew vav which is commonly translated as a conjunction. And either 'and' or 'now' is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation for the vav.

Harold Holmyard
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028102.html
In Hebrew when there is a wav conjunction followed by a noun and a verbless clause as in Gen 1:2, this ordinarily represents a background circumstance. It introduces a circumstances clause. This is sometimes called an "off-line" clause, since it is off the main narrative advance,giving addtional information.... Either "and" or "now" could work.

Vadim Cherny
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028099.html
Both readings, "and" and "now/when" are not far apart semantically. Sort of deictic shift. When the author says, "and," he means sequence of events, notsimply their conjunction. That could be paraphrased, "It was the beginning,and then the earth was such-and-such."

Karl Randolph
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028109.html
The Waw tacked on the beginning of the second and following sentences indicate continuation of narration. This is not a complex sentence with verse one as a subordinate clause. If you insistthat these make up one sentence, then what we have is a typical run-on sentence connected by "and"s.

Not one person knowledgable on biblical Hebrew would even criticize the "and",
much less yet call it an error. Only folks with a doctrinal ax, little
knowledge of the language, and a desire to fabricate King James Bible errors.

Notice what Harold says about your Arthur Custance link on "was" and "become"
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-April/028102.html
"This seems a false statement because hayah stands in Gen 3:1 where the meaning does not seem to be "became" but simply "was" in a predication of existence ..(continues)

The late Arthur Custance did a lot of good writing, but he was fishing for gaps in this one.

With this type of stuff, (and the lampstand fiasco is quite similar) one wonders. We compare the beauty and majesty and purity of the King James Bible, and against that we have the strange spirit of accusation that comes over men, confused, seeking an error, bringing accusations against the Bible. These men cannot accept that God has really given us His word, pure and perfect, readable, in our hands, to be accepted and appreciated by the ploughman, and yes, even available, if they will receive it, for the scholar, those who are wise in this world.

God's word, pure and perfect.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Click to expand...
No one knowledgable in Hebrew would criticize 'and' and then you address my post where a MA in Oriental Languages did.

And so do a lot of other linquist, including those who translated the NASB, NIV and others.

And so did a lot of others in the past.

If you cannot see the dogmatic doctrine of yours is overriding logic, then I don't know what to say.

But I do know what to say on your blatant disregard for warnings from a Moderator and two Admin about failure to answer questions and attacking people.
:bye:
You are banned.​
 
PeterAV said:
Wrong. The candles and Easter issues alone prove that.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.
Only for you.
Click to expand...

As the Muslims worship the "divine, eternal Qur'an," you worship the "divine, eternal KJV of 1611."

Your preoccupation with the KJV of 1611 is idolatry, pure and simple. You have replaced your first love of Christ Jesus with your current love of the KJV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top