- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,504
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
This:
You ignore those facts.
So ancient language scholars don't exist or they're just guessing?
Wouldn't that also apply to the KJV redaction?That's why we have translations, obviously.
And as time progresses we have more scholars, more ancient texts that are found, more understanding and communication, etcetera.
First, I want to clarify that I do use Modern Translations to help update the language in the KJV, but the KJV is my final word of authority.
Second, if you were to do a deep side by side comparison with the KJV (based upon Textus Receptus) vs. the Modern Translations (based upon the Critical Texts) you will discover that the Modern Translations are corrupt. If the Modern Translations are corrupt then their source (i.e. the Critical Texts) is corrupt. What am I talking about?
Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.
The NIV says in Revelation 13:1, "The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name."
Yet, the KJV says in Revelation 13:1, "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy."
See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.
Why is this a problem?
Let's look at...
Genesis 22:17 says,
"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"
Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.
For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I"). There are also other examples in Scripture where the devil tries to place his name in place of God, as well. It's very disturbing.
Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).
You said:The KJV redaction would be jealous of what's available today.
No they wouldn't. They would see the corruptions in these texts and reject them. Like I said, the devil's name is placed for God's name, and key doctrines and truths are watered down and eliminated.
You said:Then why stick with an old translation in archaic English?
I will admit that many of my fellow KJV-onlyists are a little irrational on this point. They refuse to look at Modern Translations so as to help update the 1600's English that they are not familar with. This can lead them to the wrong conclusion on what the Bible is saying many times. So I am in agreement with you that KJV-onlyists should NOT just stick to reading the KJV alone. My point is that there can be only ONE Word of God that can be our FINAL Word of authority in the end; And the KJV wins hands down in this department. The bread crumbs or clues are there for those who want to see it.
You said:No, scholars can not make Greek and Hebrew say what they want.
Not true. First, we have no way of knowing what the Greek and Hebrew says without looking at the English. For none of these scholars grew up in Biblical times. Second, not all scholars agree with each other. So somebody within the crowd of scholars is playing a game of smoke and mirrors with us.
You said:They would be rebuked by their fellow scholars.
Okay. So there are groups of scholars who all agree on certain things that are false. Granted, not everything they believe in the Bible is false. I am saying just certain things they believe are.
You said:The essence, the message is the same,
If I told you that a new unflown plane was built on the essence of what the blue prints say, you would not want to fly in that plane. The same should be true for the Bible. Why trust your soul with a book that could be potentially corrupted in places? For me, I would want the real deal. The pure source. The true Word of God.
You said:although the KJV mixes up hell and hades and the lake of fire, maybe because the translators believed God tortures the unsaved for ever and ever (?)
Hell and hades to me is the same thing. Words can have different meanings even in our own language.
For example: I can say that,
"The dog's bark could be heard all the way down the street, He scratched his paws against the bark of tree at the squirrel up in the tree (hoping to get the little guy)."
As you can see there are two words spelled as "bark" but yet they have two different meanings. These are called homonyms and they do exist in the Bible (as I am sure you aware of).
I believe in Dualistic Conditional Immortality. This is the belief that "hell" is a real place but after the Judgment, the Lake of Fire will destroy or erase the wicked after they are punished for their sins. Granted, I do not believe "hell" is a torture chamber or anything, either.
For in the story of "Lazarus and the Rich-man", I believe the rich-man was either:
(a) Tormented by the heat of the flame nearby him.
(b) Slightly discomforted by an unworldly flame that would not cause horrible pain like a real world flame would.
(b) Slightly discomforted by an unworldly flame that would not cause horrible pain like a real world flame would.
For the rich-man was not crying out in pain like a normal person would if they were engulfed by a real fire.
I also believe that the wicked potentially go through long periods of sleep in hell or hades.
The word "forever" (i.e. for ever) in the KJV is not teaching Eternal Concious Torment. It is saying that something is "forever" as long as that thing exists. So they are tormented in the Lake of Fire, but.... this is only as long as the Lake of Fire exists (Which of course is temporary).
Take for example Philemon 1:15.
For it says,
"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;" (Philemon 1:15 KJV).
This is talking about Onesimus. Here is what it says in the New Living Translation,
15 "It seems you lost Onesimus for a little while so that you could have him back forever.
16 He is no longer like a slave to you. He is more than a slave, for he is a beloved brother, especially to me. Now he will mean much more to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord." (Philemon 1:15-16 NLT).
In other words, Onesimus did not return to his master for all eternity here upon this Earth. Onesimus is not still alive. He is not an immortal or anything of that nature. He was mortal and he died. This text is saying that Onesimus went back to his master forever only in view or context to HERE on this Earth. It is not a contradiction. I can say to my wife that I will love her forever as a husband. This is not a contradiction but a metaphor.
You said:They got Deuteronomy 32:8 'wrong' because the Masoretic text has it 'wrong'.
It doesn't sound wrong when I read it.
It fits the context just fine.
8 "...he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."
(Deuteronomy 32:8-9).
You said:Some other examples were given in this topic too.So you think a 17th century archaic English translation is 'perfect for our generation'?
Jesus spoke in parables for a reason. So yes; I think the KJV is perfect. The evidence simply says that it is perfect.
You said:I bet most English speaking people have quite a hard time understanding the old KJV.
This why I would encourage people to use Modern Translations. But I would caution them to make the KJV their final Word of authority because the Modern Translations are clearly corrupt BIG TIME.
You said:See, this is the thing with KJV-only-ists. They just don't know how translations come to be.
But you are guessing that the history you have been told or the documents you have looked at are true. You take it by faith that such is so. When the reality of the matter is that all you have to do is a fruits test on the KJV vs. the Modern Translations to see which one is superior. If you are objective and seeking the truth, you come to discover what I have. If you don't want to see it, then you will continue to see what you have always seen.
You said:I'm not a Bible code believer.
So you are saying that the number 40 is in no way related to a trial or test of any kind and that is just a coincidence of the text? That it is a coincidence that Noah was in a trial in the Ark when it rained for 40 days and 40 nights just as Jesus was in a trial when He fasted in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights? This is just coinidence?
In fact, the Bible actually tells you to a count a specific number as a part of wisdom.
"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." Revelation 13:18).
Is it a coincidence that Ecclesiastes 7:25 and Ecclesiastes 7:27 that talks about wisdom and counting things just so happens to be within the 666th chapter of the Bible (i.e. Ecclesiastes 7), and yet it also relates to the same verse that tells us to count the number 666 (so as to gain meaning) as a part of wisdom in Revelation 13:8? Is this a coincidence, too?
You said:There are some codes in the OT though.
Check out my evidences for the Bible at my blogger article here:
Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God
Anyways, I say all these things not to wound you in any way, but I say these things in love so to lead you closer to trusting God's Word all the more.
I hope what I said today helps.
May God bless you;
And may you please be well.
Last edited:
Upvote
0