John 5:39

"You diligently study the Scriptures <font color="red">( OT )</font> because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me <font color="red"> ( Jesus )</font> , yet you refuse to come to me to have life."


You believe that the book of John is OT?

I think what he is saying is that the Scriptures Jesus would have been referring to in that context would be what we call the Old Testament. I'm not sure why he is saying that. I cannot follow this thread at all!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1172807855110808149

In light of the fact that I asked you these first, I think I've been more than fair in answering your questions. Now, will you please address these questions before moving on to anything else?

1. Which KJV edition is "PERFECT," since it was revised five times?

2. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, or as you put it "PERFECT," then why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

3. Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is "PERFECT" there would be no alternates to offer by those who were supposedly used by God to give us the "PERFECT" version.

4. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

5. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words � would you say the KJV was "PERFECT" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?



Here is my first answer for you- As far as I have found on the revision questions you've asked.
#1- Look at what was revised. Some words were replaced with new words that meant the SAME THING-synonyms. This IS NOT changing the context or meaning of the words/verses, simply making them more understandable to people in this time period. That is different than para-phrasing. The KJV is a word for word translation, not an interpretation of the majority text. I believe there were over 3000 copies of this preserved in which they used to translate the word from greek and hebrew for our understanding. The 2nd text that is used by most all modern versions comes from a completely different source, in which there were around 300 copies, and these were from egypt and outside countries, not where the church was started.

#2- God did not impose his power on the printers. His power is in the WORDS. That's why you can say you have the very WORDS of God in any language that is translated word for word. This allows the Word to be taken and understood anywhere. The modern versions don't allow for this, due to their "interpretations and para-phrasing". The languages across the globe are all different right? Some of the languages have gender specific wording. An example is Spanish, with El and La. The greek has this also. When the words were interpreted in these newer bibles, those recognizing words are changed.

#3- Did God say to put marginal notes in the Bible? I do not believe, nor can I find where those marginal notes are inspired of God. But, there are different words that mean the exact same thing that can be used. Although some of the marginal notes are at times helpful in a study, they are not inspired. Again it was the WORDS. The same goes with the "Red Writing" in the Bible, the 4 Gospels. God never told anyone to make Jesus' words red, as if they are somehow more important then the rest of the bible. In my opinion, that is one of the main deceiving tricks of Satan. He has tried to put emphasis on Jesus' red writing words then the rest of the bible. I believe that Jesus was preaching, teaching and fulfilling the LAW in all of those books with the red writing. He was made under the law, came to fulfill the law, and was the END of the law. See Gal 4:4, Matt 5:17, John 1:45, and Rom 10:4. Religious people everywhere say they are saved by Grace, but Grace is not what Christ was preaching and teaching in the 4 gospels, it was Law.

#4- Weren't those men that did this? They were not "filled" with the Holy Ghost as a prophet or Apostle of times past. The words are inspired, not the men that translated it. As long as they TRANSLATED it, and not interpretated it there is no problem.

#5- See #'s 1 &amp; 2. Again, there is a difference in substituting a word that means the same thing, then changing the context and paraphrasing things. Take a look at these "minor differences"
KJV, Galatians 2:7-9
[7] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
[8] (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
[9] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
NIV, Gal 2:7-9
On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[a] just as Peter had been to the Jews.[b] 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

Notice in verse 7, The gospel OF the Circumcision, and the Gospel OF the Uncircumcision? It may not look like much, but what that says is that they has 2 different gospels. One to the circ and one to the uncirc. That "of" shows ownership and a distinction. By replaceing it with "to" it takes that away. When you read the NIV version, your understanding is that they have the SAME gospel, and are just to take it to different people. The KJV preserves that ownership, and shows that distinct Gopel that was given to the Apostle Paul. Look at some of these verses, they show and teach that he has a "different" or "new" gospel:
Gal 1:11- he did not preach a gospel of or after man. The 12 apostles preached a gospel after man, Jesus. They BOTH received or were taught the gospel. BUT, 1 group was taught by the Man Jesus Christ, and the other-Paul was taught By the RISEN lord, JC. There is a huge difference. Look at 2 Cor 5:16. Though we HAVE (past tense) known Christ after the flesh, yet NOW HENCEFORTH (from now on) know we him NO MORE. Paul is saying that we have known Christ after the flesh (Matt, Mark, Luke, John), but from now on, we are NOT to know him that way. Paul preached the RISEN Lord, not the earthly Jesus.

Also read Eph 3:1-10. It shows that he received the "Dispensation of the Grace of God" and that before he received it, it was NOT MADE KNOWN (vs 5) Vs 9 he calls it the "mystery", and says again, it was hid from the world.
See also Colossians 1:25-26, same thing. The mystery-which was hid, the dispensation of God, etc.

Now go to 1 Tim 1:15-16 Paul says " IN ME FIRST", that he is the "pattern" for them who shall believe on JC to life everlasting. Was Paul saved first or the 12 apostles? Of course the 12 apostles. But, Paul got a NEW message, the revelation of the Mystery, which before had been "hid in God" "hid from ages and generations" Rom 16:25, Rom 11:13, That's why Paul can say IN ME FIRST. That's why it is so important to recognize the difference in the gospel OF the circumcision and the gospel OF the uncirc. Gal 3:8-9, Eph 6:18-19, Col 1: 25-27, Paul tells of his distinct message, the mystery, and says he was given it to FULFILL the word of God.

There is a big difference in "of" and "to".

I believe I have answered your questions sufficiently. Look at some of the verses I've listed and see the importance of the simplest of words. I hope you will take the time to study these things out.

I don't know why some of the words turned out bold. I did put some words in all caps to emphasize their importance but didn't intend for anything to be in bold. I'm not very good on computers.

Thanks for your response.

Remember, your claim isn't that the KJV is a good, or even a great version, but rather it is a "perfect" version. Modifying for up-to-date language change is one thing, but that isn't where the revisions stopped. Far from it. Partial explanations for (as you said) "some words" simply doesn't explain the hundreds of changes made to the KJV over the years.Your claim isn't that the KJV is "partially perfect."

This has been a long weekend, I simply can't respond in full tonight. I'll try to get back to you soon. Thanks again...

I do believe it is the very "inspired" words of God. Again, my main arguement or disagreement with the other versions is the text they are taken from. Words DO mean something. It has been a long weekend for me also, especially since the TN FG kicker just chokes on a 34 yarder. BOO TN! Hard to become a fan when they do stuff like that.

Question to all:

Mark 16:14-16 says:

14] Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
[15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

The 1st part of Verse 16 says " he that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved:

With that being said, what are your ideas on how Jesus could have told that thief next to him that he would be in paradise with him if baptism was REQUIRED? (Luke 23:42-43)

K J V
#1. The KJV, in all/any of its revisions, is the inspired Word of God .... because
it is a �word for word� translation of the Majority Text (or Received
Text) manuscripts (less than 3,000 of them). Other versions
were based upon a different line of manuscripts (less than 300 of them),
which we believe are corrupt (as did the �majority� also .... that�s why it is
called the �Majority Text�). Its foundation is the Textus Receptus (Latin:
�received text�). Corruption of God�s Word is an old problem, of which
many were guilty, even in Paul�s day:
2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but
as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

#2. Surely you understand the use of synonyms. Even if synonyms are
switched, it does not mean that one word was wrong and another word
right. Margin notes and words were also used in this way.

#3. We do not believe the KJV translators were inspired, nor the printers.
Neither do we believe that God �supervised� the translation of the KJV. The
simple point is, when the original words were translated into the English
language, then we have the very words of God in English. The translators
translated the actual words from the right text. They did not paraphrase
with their opinions, as did many other modern �versions.� Translating does
not corrupt the text:

#4. We believe in �plenary verbal� inspiration, that is �all� the �words�
were breathed from God�s mouth. The words, not the people, are the issue.
God dictated the words of the scripture through human authors.
The WORDS that God�s prophets wrote were inspired:
2 Tim 3:16,17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good
works.
The original writers wrote down the WORDS God gave them:
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away.

#5. Because those Hebrew and Greek words were inspired .... when those
�very� words were transposed into any other language, then the �new�
translation became the inspired word of God in that language. The
Bible is not for English people only. But the KJV, for English speaking
people, is an accurate, authoritative copy of God�s words. For example,
�agua� in Spanish is �water� in English.

#6. Anyone who is reading anything (the Bible, a novel, a magazine,
whatever) and comes across a word they don�t know (haven�t
heard, aren�t sure of its meaning) .... surely has the common sense
to look it up in a dictionary! There is nothing WRONG with that! In
fact, that is what we were taught to do in school.
I have a public high school education. When I read Jer 38:12 (and
13), I was able to figure out what an �armhole� is by the context. In my
understanding, I would refer to that body location as the armpit. It is obviously
the cavity under the shoulder, where one would pad with raggy fabrics,
so as not to be skin-burnt by ropes that would be tied there when pulling
Jeremiah up out of the dungeon. So, since a �hole� is another term for
a �pit� .... then I personally have no trouble with the KJV�s word.
Regarding �winefat� .... by the context, I figured it was a thing that
had something to do with the production of compressing grapes to capture
their juice in the making of wine. But I had to look that one up in a dictionary
(which I found by an internet search), and this is what it said, �a vessel
placed under a press to receive the expressed juice of the grapes, a pit.�
My guess wasn�t that far off.
A �bloody flux� -- I understand the bloody part, but I confess I didn�t
know the flux. So I looked it up in a dictionary also. It is a moving or flowing.

#7. I do not think the �Holy� Bible is a �casual� book, and thus to read it
�incidentally, haphazardly, randomly, or passingly� (college thesaurus for
�casual�) is not a good intention. However, I do acknowledge the power of
the Holy Spirit�s faithful words in both convincing and convicting, to persuade
the gainsayers of the truth.

#8. I need a Bible I can trust. I understand that you think that the KJV is
not a �perfect� translation. Now I�ll be a �wiseguy� .... I ask you to find a
Bible for me, in English as I am not bi-lingual, that has no errors in it, so I
may believe the words I read. Or could I give you a copy of the KJV and let
you mark all the errors and make the corrections for me. If there isn�t a
pure Bible available, then I cannot know God�s word, and all hope is lost
.
#9. I�ve answered your letter briefly on a lengthy subject. So I�m not
avoiding a town hall meeting, but if we can�t get past the issue of final authority,
then ANY verse I give you, will be of no consequence to you because
you don�t believe what the Bible says.

'Word for word' translation is impossible. It may work sometimes - every now and then computer programs actually get extremely short translations right - but it will eventually fail.

I'll give you an example. If I say (in German): "Ich bin auf dem Hund," and you translate that 'word for word' you get "I am on the dog." It's a German idiom for "I'm very tired." Because every language has idioms, you simply can not translate 'word for word.'

Additionally, languages have phrasal verbs which change the meanings of verbs - you should try to explain the word get to a group of non-English speaking students! And, there are many words that can not be translated by a single word or even translated at all. Try to translate Zeitgeist or d�j� vu into English.

Back to your discussion. Although I can't believe you're really arguing over which version of this historical fantasy is the right one! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Quote:


In light of the fact that I asked you these first, I think I've been more than fair in answering your questions. Now, will you please address these questions before moving on to anything else?

1. Which KJV edition is "PERFECT," since it was revised five times?

2. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, or as you put it "PERFECT," then why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

3. Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is "PERFECT" there would be no alternates to offer by those who were supposedly used by God to give us the "PERFECT" version.

4. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

5. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words � would you say the KJV was "PERFECT" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

Here is my first answer for you- As far as I have found on the revision questions you've asked.
#1- Look at what was revised. Some words were replaced with new words that meant the SAME THING-synonyms. This IS NOT changing the context or meaning of the words/verses, simply making them more understandable to people in this time period. That is different than para-phrasing. The KJV is a word for word translation, <font color="red"> ( Not possible ) </font> not an interpretation of the majority text. I believe there were over 3000 copies of this preserved in which they used to translate the word from greek and hebrew for our understanding. The 2nd text that is used by most all modern versions comes from a completely different source, in which there were around 300 copies, and these were from egypt and outside countries, not where the church was started.

<font color="red">So which edition is "perfect?� The fact that �some� words were replaced for synonyms does not address ALL of the many changes. I agree, some updated word changes are not �paraphrasing.� But here is just a couple examples of where the KJV actually DOES paraphrase.

<font color="blue"> Paraphrasing the Greek words <font color="green"> mee ginomai </font> as ��God forbid.��

The word �God� is not a translation of any Greek word in this case. Thus it is not a �perfect� translation. Even if one feels it expresses the �meaning� of the Greek in an imaginative way, it is simply not a perfect translation (�May it not be� is a literal translation). Defending it by saying that the word �God� is in italics is not the point. That just raises a further question - is this particular italicised word a perfect, infallible choice? If not, the KJV is not perfect. Note also that in the OT the KJV often uses the paraphrase ��Would God�� (e.g. Num 14:2, where again, there is no word for God in the Hebrew).
</font>
Remember, your claim concerning the KJV is that it is �perfect.� If at ANY point it is shown to be otherwise, what does that do to that claim? Nobody said the KJV was only an �interpretation.� Although the KJV is a good version, it is simply that, a "good translation." No more guided than any other good translation.Your answer, although very true concerning words that were changed to update to modern language, does not address the question. Are you saying that �all KJV versions are perfect?� </font>

#2- God did not impose his power on the printers. <font color="red"> How have you come to know this as fact? </font> His power is in the WORDS. That's why you can say you have the very WORDS of God in any language that is translated word for word. This allows the Word to be taken and understood anywhere. The modern versions don't allow for this, due to their "interpretations and para-phrasing". The languages across the globe are all different right? Some of the languages have gender specific wording. An example is Spanish, with El and La. The greek has this also. When the words were interpreted in these newer bibles, those recognizing words are changed.
<font color="red">
Are you aware that the argument you are making is that the marginal notes are not inspired, and yet even MANY KJV words are taken from marginal notes found in the texts they translated from? Look up �the qere.� Pronounced �keh-ray.� Qere are notes found in the margins of the text. It basically means �to be read.� The actual text that the qere was associated with was called �ketiv.� Pronounced �keh-teev.� It basically means �to be written.� Your argument that the KJV translation is only the �Words of God� contradicts the facts.
�Many times, the KJV-translators translated from the "qere" (the marginal note in the Masoretic Text), rather than the "ketiv" (the actual text itself of the Masoretic Text).� This doesn�t mean the KJV is wrong, it simply means the translators went with what evidence they had at the time that they thought was best. Admirable, useful unto salvation and more times than not, accurate, but not �perfect� and not �word for word.�

You have repeatedly slammed �other versions for agreeing with the KJV's marginal notes instead of the KJV's text, when that's exactly what the KJV is doing with the Masoretic Text!� This point alone (among many) proves how self-contradictory the KJV only doctrine is. I can provide an extensive list of �qere� and �ketiv� examples. However, no amount of evidence that contradicts the KJV only doctrine seems to matter so far...
</font>
#3- Did God say to put marginal notes in the Bible? <font color="red"> That wasn't the question. </font> I do not believe, nor can I find where those marginal notes are inspired of God. But, there are different words that mean the exact same thing that can be used. <font color="red"> That�s fine, but they aren�t just alternate words that say the �same thing.� If they were guided by God to write the �perfect� translation, then why would they offer ALTERNATE MEANINGS? </font> Although some of the marginal notes are at times helpful in a study, they are not inspired. Again it was the WORDS. <font color="red"> And those �words� were offered alternate meanings by people guided by God to give us a �perfect� translation? What exactly is your basis of fact to support such a belief? I am suppose to believe that God guided those men to produce a "perfect" translation but wouldn't keep them from adding alternative meanings in the margins as well as preserving that protected work in the printing process? My oh my...
</font>
<font color="red">The rest of your answer has nothing to do with the question: </font>

The same goes with the "Red Writing" in the Bible, the 4 Gospels. God never told anyone to make Jesus' words red, as if they are somehow more important then the rest of the bible. <font color="red"> Who has EVER told you they are �more important?� That is your own conclusion of why they do that. In my opinion, </font> In my opinion, that is one of the main deceiving tricks of Satan. He has tried to put emphasis on Jesus' red writing words then the rest of the bible. <font color="red"> It is simply a way of distinguishing His own words from the words spoken under inspiration by others. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using red to distinguish a literal quote of what Jesus said. </font>

<font color="red"> More unrelated topics... </font>

I believe that Jesus was preaching, teaching and fulfilling the LAW in all of those books with the red writing. He was made under the law, came to fulfill the law, and was the END of the law. See Gal 4:4, Matt 5:17, John 1:45, and Rom 10:4. <font color="red"> Who said anything disputing this idea and what does this have to do with why the translators of the �perfect� version used alternate translation options? </font> Religious people everywhere say they are saved by Grace, <font color="red"> Because they are...</font> but Grace is not what Christ was preaching and teaching in the 4 gospels, it was Law. <font color="red"> Jesus did live and teach under the law and told His disciples to follow the Law while it was active, but He most certainly preached grace. Why else would John say the law CAME from Moses but truth and GRACE COMES from Jesus? If He didn�t come to teach, preach and give His grace, then John wouldn�t be telling the truth. The KJV says in John 1:17 �For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.� Once again, this has nothing to do with the question. </font>

#4- Weren't those men that did this? They were not "filled" with the Holy Ghost as a prophet or Apostle of times past. The words are inspired, not the men that translated it. As long as they TRANSLATED it, and not interpretated it there is no problem. <font color="red"> Those "men who translated it" even say "it wasn't the only "word of God!" Where they were wrong in recognizing their own human limits in the work they did for King James? They didn't even know what they were doing (producing the "perfect" version) but somehow, you do? Once again, you've avoided the question, which was, "were the translators of the KJV liars for saying that the KJV wasn't the only word of God?" </font>

#5- See #'s 1 &amp; 2. Again, there is a difference in substituting a word that means the same thing, then changing the context and paraphrasing things. <font color="red"> Once again, I am not talking about exchanging one word for another just like it. </font> Take a look at these "minor differences" <font color="red"> The following simply goes to illustrate my point. I can study the verses you�ve quoted �til I am blue in the face, it doesn�t mean the KJV is a �word for word� (which is an impossibility) and �perfect� translation. Pointing out the flaws in the NIV doesn�t make the KJV �perfect.�

Again, this doesn't address the question. "Which one was "perfect?"</font>

I believe I have answered your questions sufficiently. Look at some of the verses I've listed and see the importance of the simplest of words. I hope you will take the time to study these things out.

<font color="red">Cam, I have spent too much time addressing this with you. On the "Disc Golfers for Jesus" thread, I supplied you with enough information to fill a book. I have no desire to continue this any more. It was a settled issue with me when I studied it thoroughly over twenty years ago. If you continue to believe it, that's your choice. Personally, I think it is a flawed theory and easily dismantled by it's own logic and countless other evidences. I also think it is a very divisive doctrine that doesn't unite, but seperates. Just look at the way we've talked to each other? Just look at what you've come to believe about me? You've said that I would need "good luck being raised from the dead!" Not because I don't believe in Jesus but because I don't soley read from one version of a copied text!? I am sorry, but I believe that shows more of a belief in a man made doctrine than anything found in scripture.

At some point man, no amount of evidence is going to convince you. I have tried very hard to share a lot of info and feel I've presented you with all the facts you need to see that the KJV is not the only version of God's word that is acceptable and sufficient to lead to a saving belief in Jesus. At times I've been frustrated with your words and reacted with sarcasm. For that I sincerely apologize, again. I pray that both of us will continue to mature in our studies and grow in the wisdom and grace of Jesus.

Say what you need to say in response to this post if you wish. You certainly have that right. Due to the fact that I've asked questions in this post, it would be crazy to expect you to not respond. If you choose to reply, please do so in a way that shows you understand that I am done. I've had enough of it to last a lifetime. </font>

Quote:


In light of the fact that I asked you these first, I think I've been more than fair in answering your questions. Now, will you please address these questions before moving on to anything else?

1. Which KJV edition is "PERFECT," since it was revised five times?

2. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, or as you put it "PERFECT," then why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

3. Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is "PERFECT" there would be no alternates to offer by those who were supposedly used by God to give us the "PERFECT" version.

4. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

5. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words � would you say the KJV was "PERFECT" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

Here is my first answer for you- As far as I have found on the revision questions you've asked.
#1- Look at what was revised. Some words were replaced with new words that meant the SAME THING-synonyms. This IS NOT changing the context or meaning of the words/verses, simply making them more understandable to people in this time period. That is different than para-phrasing. The KJV is a word for word translation, <font color="red"> ( Not possible ) </font> not an interpretation of the majority text. I believe there were over 3000 copies of this preserved in which they used to translate the word from greek and hebrew for our understanding. The 2nd text that is used by most all modern versions comes from a completely different source, in which there were around 300 copies, and these were from egypt and outside countries, not where the church was started.

<font color="red">So which edition is "perfect?� The fact that �some� words were replaced for synonyms does not address ALL of the many changes. I agree, some updated word changes are not �paraphrasing.� But here is just a couple examples of where the KJV actually DOES paraphrase.

<font color="blue"> Paraphrasing the Greek words <font color="green"> mee ginomai </font> as ��God forbid.��

The word �God� is not a translation of any Greek word in this case. Thus it is not a �perfect� translation. Even if one feels it expresses the �meaning� of the Greek in an imaginative way, it is simply not a perfect translation (�May it not be� is a literal translation). Defending it by saying that the word �God� is in italics is not the point. That just raises a further question - is this particular italicised word a perfect, infallible choice? If not, the KJV is not perfect. Note also that in the OT the KJV often uses the paraphrase ��Would God�� (e.g. Num 14:2, where again, there is no word for God in the Hebrew).
</font>
Remember, your claim concerning the KJV is that it is �perfect.� If at ANY point it is shown to be otherwise, what does that do to that claim? Nobody said the KJV was only an �interpretation.� Although the KJV is a good version, it is simply that, a "good translation." No more guided than any other good translation.Your answer, although very true concerning words that were changed to update to modern language, does not address the question. Are you saying that �all KJV versions are perfect?� </font>

#2- God did not impose his power on the printers. <font color="red"> How have you come to know this as fact? </font> His power is in the WORDS. That's why you can say you have the very WORDS of God in any language that is translated word for word. This allows the Word to be taken and understood anywhere. The modern versions don't allow for this, due to their "interpretations and para-phrasing". The languages across the globe are all different right? Some of the languages have gender specific wording. An example is Spanish, with El and La. The greek has this also. When the words were interpreted in these newer bibles, those recognizing words are changed.
<font color="red">
Are you aware that the argument you are making is that the marginal notes are not inspired, and yet even MANY KJV words are taken from marginal notes found in the texts they translated from? Look up �the qere.� Pronounced �keh-ray.� Qere are notes found in the margins of the text. It basically means �to be read.� The actual text that the qere was associated with was called �ketiv.� Pronounced �keh-teev.� It basically means �to be written.� Your argument that the KJV translation is only the �Words of God� contradicts the facts.
�Many times, the KJV-translators translated from the "qere" (the marginal note in the Masoretic Text), rather than the "ketiv" (the actual text itself of the Masoretic Text).� This doesn�t mean the KJV is wrong, it simply means the translators went with what evidence they had at the time that they thought was best. Admirable, useful unto salvation and more times than not, accurate, but not �perfect� and not �word for word.�

You have repeatedly slammed �other versions for agreeing with the KJV's marginal notes instead of the KJV's text, when that's exactly what the KJV is doing with the Masoretic Text!� This point alone (among many) proves how self-contradictory the KJV only doctrine is. I can provide an extensive list of �qere� and �ketiv� examples. However, no amount of evidence that contradicts the KJV only doctrine seems to matter so far...
</font>
#3- Did God say to put marginal notes in the Bible? <font color="red"> That wasn't the question. </font> I do not believe, nor can I find where those marginal notes are inspired of God. But, there are different words that mean the exact same thing that can be used. <font color="red"> That�s fine, but they aren�t just alternate words that say the �same thing.� If they were guided by God to write the �perfect� translation, then why would they offer ALTERNATE MEANINGS? </font> Although some of the marginal notes are at times helpful in a study, they are not inspired. Again it was the WORDS. <font color="red"> And those �words� were offered alternate meanings by people guided by God to give us a �perfect� translation? What exactly is your basis of fact to support such a belief? I am suppose to believe that God guided those men to produce a "perfect" translation but wouldn't keep them from adding alternative meanings in the margins as well as preserving that protected work in the printing process? My oh my...
</font>
<font color="red">The rest of your answer has nothing to do with the question: </font>

The same goes with the "Red Writing" in the Bible, the 4 Gospels. God never told anyone to make Jesus' words red, as if they are somehow more important then the rest of the bible. <font color="red"> Who has EVER told you they are �more important?� That is your own conclusion of why they do that. In my opinion, </font> In my opinion, that is one of the main deceiving tricks of Satan. He has tried to put emphasis on Jesus' red writing words then the rest of the bible. <font color="red"> It is simply a way of distinguishing His own words from the words spoken under inspiration by others. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using red to distinguish a literal quote of what Jesus said. </font>

<font color="red"> More unrelated topics... </font>

I believe that Jesus was preaching, teaching and fulfilling the LAW in all of those books with the red writing. He was made under the law, came to fulfill the law, and was the END of the law. See Gal 4:4, Matt 5:17, John 1:45, and Rom 10:4. <font color="red"> Who said anything disputing this idea and what does this have to do with why the translators of the �perfect� version used alternate translation options? </font> Religious people everywhere say they are saved by Grace, <font color="red"> Because they are...</font> but Grace is not what Christ was preaching and teaching in the 4 gospels, it was Law. <font color="red"> Jesus did live and teach under the law and told His disciples to follow the Law while it was active, but He most certainly preached grace. Why else would John say the law CAME from Moses but truth and GRACE COMES from Jesus? If He didn�t come to teach, preach and give His grace, then John wouldn�t be telling the truth. The KJV says in John 1:17 �For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.� Once again, this has nothing to do with the question. </font>

#4- Weren't those men that did this? They were not "filled" with the Holy Ghost as a prophet or Apostle of times past. The words are inspired, not the men that translated it. As long as they TRANSLATED it, and not interpretated it there is no problem. <font color="red"> Those "men who translated it" even say "it wasn't the only "word of God!" Where they were wrong in recognizing their own human limits in the work they did for King James? They didn't even know what they were doing (producing the "perfect" version) but somehow, you do? Once again, you've avoided the question, which was, "were the translators of the KJV liars for saying that the KJV wasn't the only word of God?" </font>

#5- See #'s 1 &amp; 2. Again, there is a difference in substituting a word that means the same thing, then changing the context and paraphrasing things. <font color="red"> Once again, I am not talking about exchanging one word for another just like it. </font> Take a look at these "minor differences" <font color="red"> The following simply goes to illustrate my point. I can study the verses you�ve quoted �til I am blue in the face, it doesn�t mean the KJV is a �word for word� (which is an impossibility) and �perfect� translation. Pointing out the flaws in the NIV doesn�t make the KJV �perfect.�

Again, this doesn't address the question. "Which one was "perfect?"</font>

I believe I have answered your questions sufficiently. Look at some of the verses I've listed and see the importance of the simplest of words. I hope you will take the time to study these things out.

<font color="red">Cam, I have spent too much time addressing this with you. On the "Disc Golfers for Jesus" thread, I supplied you with enough information to fill a book. I have no desire to continue this any more. It was a settled issue with me when I studied it thoroughly over twenty years ago. If you continue to believe it, that's your choice. Personally, I think it is a flawed theory and easily dismantled by it's own logic and countless other evidences. I also think it is a very divisive doctrine that doesn't unite, but seperates. Just look at the way we've talked to each other? Just look at what you've come to believe about me? You've said that I would need "good luck being raised from the dead!" Not because I don't believe in Jesus but because I don't soley read from one version of a copied text!? I am sorry, but I believe that shows more of a belief in a man made doctrine than anything found in scripture.

At some point man, no amount of evidence is going to convince you. I have tried very hard to share a lot of info and feel I've presented you with all the facts you need to see that the KJV is not the only version of God's word that is acceptable and sufficient to lead to a saving belief in Jesus. At times I've been frustrated with your words and reacted with sarcasm. For that I sincerely apologize, again. I pray that both of us will continue to mature in our studies and grow in the wisdom and grace of Jesus.

Say what you need to say in response to this post if you wish. You certainly have that right. Due to the fact that I've asked questions in this post, it would be crazy to expect you to not respond. If you choose to reply, please do so in a way that shows you understand that I am done. I've had enough of it to last a lifetime. </font>



I will bet ten dollars playtowin posts again on this thread within six months even though he says he is done. Any takers?

I will bet ten dollars playtowin posts again on this thread within six months even though he says he is done. Any takers?



I think maybe he's just done with Camerelli. I'd bet I could post something that would have him posting here within 6 hours! :D

I will bet ten dollars playtowin posts again on this thread within six months even though he says he is done. Any takers?



<font color="red"> Trust me, it's not the thread (never said it was), or the person (necessarily). It is the topic. IMO, that really wasn't a hard one to figure out boys. </font>

"but if we can�t get past the issue of final authority,
then ANY verse I give you, will be of no consequence to you because
you don�t believe what the Bible says."

In the "unrelated topics" I showed you some of the differences in what they teach. The gospel "of" the circumcision is very different then the the gospel "to" the circumcision. They teach different things. I told you earlier, we just need to both agree that you're wrong...err I mean that we disagree :D


Do you recognize a difference in the Gospel that Jesus and the 12 were teaching and the Gospel that Paul taught? Did the 12 understand or know what the cross was going to accomplish?

Bill M (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1801874717/bctid1804003569)

love the clip of Robert Tilton.

I'd love to see Maher debate with a true apologist. Ravi Zacharius comes to mind. I'd pay to see that! I recently saw a debate in St. Louis between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D�Souza. It was awesome! I would encourage anyone, atheist or believer, to attend one sometime. That particular series of debates was called "God on Trial."

Adam Murphy? Posting a link in a "bible discussion" thread to a documentary that mocks all religions is one way to contribute, I guess. But is posting links to religious ridicule by people like Bill Maher the extent of what you consider to be a clever way to contrubute to the topic? Please tell me you have more than Maher's pot induced giggles and lessons in distorted reductionism to offer?

Just my 2 cents...you can have your opinion and I will let Cam keep his :)

God forbid

Your "two cents?" :confused:

...Ok, I'll just leave it at that.

It is very difficult to discuss religion with someone who speaks for god, how can they ever be wrong!? I would say we all speak for god, in one way or another, just some judge others more than others.

Just my 2 cents...you can have your opinion and I will let Cam keep his :)

God forbid



Is that all you've got is 2 cents Murph? We've discussed this at the house before...lol.

I just wanted to post this. This seems as good a place as any. This email I got is one of the reasons I changed my stance on choice.





A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:

'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help!

My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I'm pregnant again.

I don't want kids so close together.'

So the doctor said: 'Ok, and what do you want me to do?'

She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help
with this.'

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the
lady:

'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous
for you too.'

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care
of 2 babies at the same time,

let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before
the other one is born.

If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is.

There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime
to kill a child!

'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be ok with it, so I
thought maybe that was the best solution.

When you cast your vote remember:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA "IS" PRO- ABORTION

PTW,

Take a look at this verse in both bibles.


KJV, Colossians 2:18

[18] Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind...


Compare this to The NIV, Colossians 2:18:

18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

KJV says he has NOT seen Angels. The NIV says he has seen them.

How can I come to a full understanding of this verse if they say opposite things?

I read this briefly a while back but the "PTW" eluded my attention.

Neither one directly says either of your claims IMO. That is your own inference, or possibly the teaching you've recieved by the KJV-ONLY propoganda you've chosen to surround yourself with. The point of each verse is not whether angels were seen or not seen by these decievers, the point was to not let anyone take away what you know to be true, that you are saved by Jesus Christ alone.

Not only that, in reguard to the KJV verse you quoted, it simply does not say that "he has not seen angels." You have (or the one you may have recieved this from has) inferred that the "beguiler" has seen angels. The verse clearly says that this "beguiler" has "worshiped" angels though. Paul then say's that he "intrudes into those things which he hath not seen" but does not say that he has seen, or claims to have seen angels. If you told me that you "worship God," can I conclude that you've "seen God?" Of course not. Then why would you conclude that they've "seen or not seen angels" simply because both version said "worshiped angels?"

The NIV verse simply says that this person (the "beguiler" in KJV) who has an unspiritual mind puffed up with idle notions will "go into great detail about what he has seen." Once again, what "he has seen" isn't clear. In both versions, you can easily "understand the verse" because both of them are not focussed on "seen" or "not seen" when referring to angels. Both verses in both versions Paul is saying the same thing. That is, that these people are going to try to decieve you! Don't let'em! Such people are not right in the head! They are phony, frauds, decievers full of false humility.

Both seen and unseen angels are spoken of in the bible. The point of Colossians, and subsequently this verse, is not whether these false teachers saw, or didn't see angles, but rather that they "worshiped them" and somehow they were trying to decieve these Colossian Christians that somehow God was only approachable through said "worshiping of angels." Such false beliefs were just one of many ways they tried to decieve and pull believers away from the completeness of what Jesus did on the cross.

IMO, it is not hard to see that false teachers throughout the bible CLAIMED to have seen angels. But your attempt to make this so confusing that the essential message is lost is almost ad hominem. The essential purpose is not lost or confusing.

IMO you just trying to rehash the tired old topic of KJV-ONLY. I mean this in all sincerity Cam, you need to move on. I have given you enough evidence in the past which you have promptly ignored and I have no desire for anymore of it. Please for the sake of all that is peaceful, do not waste your time trying to draw me into it again? I am not totally against the idea of discussing biblical topics with you, but if everything you discuss biblically just funels to the KJV, then I am out. Jesus is your Lord, not the KJV brother.

There are two reasons why I responded to your post at all. One, because these verses IMO don't even say what you are claiming as far as "seen" and "not seen." I am not debating KJV-ONLY with you here, I am simply talking about the evidence that points to the topic of this vs and chapter.

And two, what was "nailed to the cross" in vs. 14? These Colossian believers in Christ were being bombarded by people who did not trust Jesus, but the law. False humility and the belief that you could only approach God through the worshiping of angels were just a few of the tricks in their bag. They used empty philosophy and human tradition to play upon these believers (see vs.8). Some were gnostics and people who believed in the law to save. They did not trust in Christ alone for salvation. The whole book of Colossians (only 4 chapters) Paul warned against what appears to be two things: Some form of hyper-Judaism and some form of Gnosticism. You tell me, where in this entire book, either in the KJV or NIV do you find it hard to understand that theme? This is the only other reason why I even responded. I think Jesus is the thing you need to focus on.

Please, do not try to convince me of your philosophy of KJV-ONLY anymore. I've asked you many times now. I will not discuss it with you. I am asking you as nicely and as straight forward as possible.

Nice that you can inject your own "interpretation" of the verse in there, instead of just believeing what it says. The verses say opposite things.
Don't act like you are open to discuss Biblical doctrine. I've asked you several other questions about different topics, and so far you've been too good to answer them. You come off as being very arrogant. Are your beliefs above questioning? Pitiful for a so called Christian to have that attitude.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

IMO you've said nothing to support your claim other than "this is my claim!"

You say I am "not open to discussion," "too good," "pitiful," a "so called Christian," "above questioning," and "arrogant." Oh, and the classic, I'll need "good luck being raised from the dead!" Call me anything you want Cam. I know my attitude, I know my intentions and how much I need God's grace and it is not dependant upon your approval or correct interpretation of my "attitude" that you dicipher from a PDGA message board! I'd rather focus on Jesus than your reliance upon the KJV.

BTW, I've asked you for 'bout a year now to please stop interupting anything remotely biblical with your personal belief that the KJV is the only way to be saved and to please stop trying to engage me in KJV discussions and you refuse to do so. What does that say about you?

I've suggested to you before, start a KJV-ONLY thread. Anyone who wishes to discuss it can? If anyone cares to discuss or read anything remotely biblical, are they required to read from what you claim to be the only version of value? If so, and judging by what you've said before, they are, then why not provide a thread where that is clearly defined and expected.

Huh, that's funny, I didn't see the "opt in" choice for having my own thread and not allowing people to post replies to my posts this year. Where did you find that choice??? Must have come along with your infinate bible wisdom. You stay focused on Jesus, don't want to throw you off track questioning your beliefs. Focus, Focus

This is a "BIBLE discussion" thread, meaning things about the Bible are being discussed on here. Deal with it or leave. I look at it as a challenge when someone questions me, not a threat. Especially when he or she doesn't know what they are talking about. I told you before, we disagree on the bible issue. So what! You still can't talk about other issues? Still too good, or know too much to deal with other issues?

Show me where I said the kjv is the only way to be saved...you talk about others making things up???

Huh, that's funny, I didn't see the "opt in" choice for having my own thread and not allowing people to post replies to my posts this year. Where did you find that choice??? Must have come along with your infinate bible wisdom. You stay focused on Jesus, don't want to throw you off track questioning your beliefs. Focus, Focus

This is a "BIBLE discussion" thread, meaning things about the Bible are being discussed on here. Deal with it or leave. I look at it as a challenge when someone questions me, not a threat. Especially when he or she doesn't know what they are talking about. I told you before, we disagree on the bible issue. So what! You still can't talk about other issues? Still too good, or know too much to deal with other issues?

Show me where I said the kjv is the only way to be saved...you talk about others making things up???



<font color="red"> You said the KJV is "error free" and all others are "lies" because they are "half truths." Tell me Cam, how does anyone talk about the bible without you bringing it back to your belief that the KJV is the only version we should be reading? You don't see that? I suggested a KJV thread so that you could talk KJV all you want without derailing other biblical discussions.

Because I don't hold the KJV belief that you do, you said to me: <font color="blue"> "Good luck being raised from the dead!" </font> Saying that "your belief" is "the kjv is the only way to be saved" wasn't a big leap of logic IMO.
</font>

I pointed out that the bible you preferred to use makes Christ a sinner. I never said that the kjv was the only way to be saved, there you go jumping to conclusions again, assuming- you've gotten quite good at that, as well as dodging other questions.

You also called it quote: "trash," "worthless" and nothing but "lies." If only the "truth sets us free" Cam, and the KJV is "THE ONLY true, error-free word of God" (your words, not mine), then how can anyone be "saved" if they read something other than the KJV? To say "you believe the kjv is the only way to be saved" was NOT a big stretch.

"Worthless trash and lies" are now worthy of saving someone? This is far from "putting words in your mouth." This is also a shameful display of two people discussing bible related topics and I am ashamed to have gotten sucked back into it with you. Not for what I said, but that I even participated again.

I apologize to anyone who finds this KJV-ONLY "conversation" petty and childish. It is my fault and I take full responsibility for it going this far. I will do everything I can to stay away from it, again! I am so sorry.

Say whatever you wish Cam...

God be with ya.

...and also with you! ;)

It was nice to see this with the wife&gt;&gt;&gt; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5lSu6GkC2k
Not yer typical Hollywood production, some might say "cheesy." I think it had a good story, good tunes but most of all, an amazing message!

http://tricitiesgracefellowship.org/

Click on the camera. Message tonight at 5pm EST. Learn about our liberty in Christ.