The Deaconess Phoebe

Hoping2 · May 13, 2025

Strong in Him said:
In your opinion.
Not in the opinion of many church leaders.

By their departure from us, they show that they were not of us. (1 John 2:19)

Dale · May 13, 2025

Hoping2 said:
By their departure from us, they show that they were not of us. (1 John 2:19)

The KJV is not the "Word of God," it is only a translation. Defenders of the KJV will lecture you all afternoon about the greatness of the Greek Received text, or Textus Receptus. The New Testament KJV was based on the Greek Received. So what is the Greek Received text? It is seven manuscripts collected by Desiderius Erasmus.

The New Testament KJV is based on seven manuscripts.
The New International Version, NIV, and other modern translations are based on almost seven thousand manuscripts.
Think about it.

Hoping2 · May 13, 2025

Dale said:
Hoping, it seems that you don’t trust any translation except the KJV.

That is the truth.
It seems every other version of the KJ bible leaves out, or changes the meanings of the words God originally gave us.
This "Phoebe" exercise, is a perfect example of that.

Dale said:
I believe you have it backwards. It is the KJV that has been proven wrong on many points. Let me give you an example of how messed up you can get relying on the KJV.

Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.
Psalm 5:6 KJV

Fortunately I decided to check another translation before blowing up the nearest leasing office.

Perhaps you should look up the word "leasing" in old English, before going to that extreme.

Dale said:
You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the LORD abhors.
Psalm 5:6 NIV
It seems that hundreds of years ago, “leasing” could mean deception, that is, lying. Yes, we need more modern translations.

Thankfully, with the gift of the Holy Spirit, such confusion is easily remedied.
I can tell a false version of scripture using the verses that use, or don't use, the word "perfect".
It is the imperfect that delete or redefine most references to obedience to God being absolutely necessary for salvation.
The devil doesn't want men to know the real requirements for eternal life: or that they are in fact doable !

Hoping2 · May 13, 2025

Dale said:
The KJV is not the "Word of God," it is only a translation.

You are welcome to use that argument on the day of judgement.

Dale said:
Defenders of the KJV will lecture you all afternoon about the greatness of the Greek Received text, or Textus Receptus. The New Testament KJV was based on the Greek Received. So what is the Greek Received text? It is seven manuscripts collected by Desiderius Erasmus.

The New Testament KJV is based on seven manuscripts.
The New International Version, NIV, and other modern translations are based on almost seven thousand manuscripts.
Think about it.

If the later versions of the King James bible offered the same content, they may be worth something...but they don't.
They all water down the requirements for eternal life, and press an ungodly agenda.

Strong in Him · May 14, 2025

Hoping2 said:
By their departure from us, they show that they were not of us. (1 John 2:19)

Rubbish.
They have not departed from the faith, they just don't read the Bible in the same way you do.

Strong in Him · May 14, 2025

Hoping2 said:
You are welcome to use that argument on the day of judgement.

If the later versions of the King James bible offered the same content, they may be worth something...but they don't.
They all water down the requirements for eternal life, and press an ungodly agenda.

If you are a "King James Only" person, that attitude is forbidden in these forums. There use to be many discussions on this with KVJO folk saying that Christians using other translations were deceived, did not have the truth and implying they were not saved. Questioning someone's salvation is not allowed - and it's also false to say that other translations of Scripture are wrong.

Strong in Him · May 14, 2025

Hoping2 said:
That is the truth.
It seems every other version of the KJ bible leaves out, or changes the meanings of the words God originally gave us.

The KJV was not the first Bible; it wasn't even the first Bible to be written in English. It's only 400+ years old, whereas people have had God's word for many years.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, translated into Latin and then into English. So the English words that you have in your translation of the Bible are not exactly what God gave, or spoke, to the prophets and Apostles.
Or course, it could easily be the case that words appear in other Bibles which don't appear in the KJV because further manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV was written - i.e the newer Bibles are more accurate.
But we can't expect a KJV only person to accept that.

Dale · May 14, 2025

Strong in Him said:
The KJV was not the first Bible; it wasn't even the first Bible to be written in English. It's only 400+ years old, whereas people have had God's word for many years.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, translated into Latin and then into English. So the English words that you have in your translation of the Bible are not exactly what God gave, or spoke, to the prophets and Apostles.
Or course, it could easily be the case that words appear in other Bibles which don't appear in the KJV because further manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV was written - i.e the newer Bibles are more accurate.
But we can't expect a KJV only person to accept that.

Strong: "The KJV was not the first Bible; it wasn't even the first Bible to be written in English. It's only 400+ years old, whereas people have had God's word for many years."

True. The KJV was actually the eighth version to appear in English. The Bible most widely used while the KJV was being translated was called the Bishop's Bible.

Hoping2 · May 14, 2025

Strong in Him said:
Rubbish.
They have not departed from the faith, they just don't read the Bible in the same way you do.

If they can't read it as I do, to what do they credit their unbiblical insights ?
It certainly isn't the God who had it written originally.

Hoping2 · May 14, 2025

Strong in Him said:
If you are a "King James Only" person, that attitude is forbidden in these forums. There use to be many discussions on this with KVJO folk saying that Christians using other translations were deceived, did not have the truth and implying they were not saved. Questioning someone's salvation is not allowed - and it's also false to say that other translations of Scripture are wrong.

I am glad then, that all I am questioning is the veracity of replacement doctrines based on replacement scriptures.

Hoping2 · May 14, 2025

Strong in Him said:
The KJV was not the first Bible; it wasn't even the first Bible to be written in English. It's only 400+ years old, whereas people have had God's word for many years.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, translated into Latin and then into English. So the English words that you have in your translation of the Bible are not exactly what God gave, or spoke, to the prophets and Apostles.
Or course, it could easily be the case that words appear in other Bibles which don't appear in the KJV because further manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV was written - i.e the newer Bibles are more accurate.
But we can't expect a KJV only person to accept that.

You are correct.

Strong in Him · May 15, 2025

Hoping2 said:
If they can't read it as I do, to what do they credit their unbiblical insights ?

It's only your opinion that they have unbiblical insights.

Strong in Him · May 15, 2025

Hoping2 said:
I am glad then, that all I am questioning is the veracity of replacement doctrines based on replacement scriptures.

What "replacement Scriptures"?

Hoping2 · May 15, 2025

Strong in Him said:
It's only your opinion that they have unbiblical insights.

That is correct, and I have the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Hoping2 · May 15, 2025

Strong in Him said:
What "replacement Scriptures"?

This is stating to go beyond the OP's parameters, so if you want my answer, either PM me or start a pertinent thread.

Dale · May 15, 2025

Hoping2 said:
By their departure from us, they show that they were not of us. (1 John 2:19)

Hoping, your quote doesn’t apply. People who use a different translation from the one you prefer have not left the Body of Christ.

The pastor of the church I go to does not use the KJV or recommend it. He has done a great deal of charitable work, and he is scripturally and theologically conservative.

Here is a passage that you seem to have overlooked.

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in
your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one
of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No-one who does a miracle
in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about
me,
or whoever is not against us is for us.
Mark 9:38-40 NIV

Think about that. Whoever is not against us is for us. Jesus said it for us.

Strong in Him · May 16, 2025

Hoping2 said:
That is correct, and I have the gift of the Holy Ghost.

So do the rest of us.
We can't be born again, or declare that Jesus is Lord, without the Holy Spirit.

Strong in Him · May 16, 2025

Hoping2 said:
This is stating to go beyond the OP's parameters, so if you want my answer, either PM me or start a pertinent thread.

It's not very fair to make a statement in a public forum and then refuse to, publicly, explain what it means.
But I think I'll pass, since it will probably turn into an argument about why you consider the KJV to be the most reliable Bible.

Perhaps a more constructive question would be to ask how you define "deacon", "servant" and "Minister"?

Dale · May 16, 2025

Hoping2 said:
That is the truth.
It seems every other version of the KJ bible leaves out, or changes the meanings of the words God originally gave us.
This "Phoebe" exercise, is a perfect example of that.

Perhaps you should look up the word "leasing" in old English, before going to that extreme.

Thankfully, with the gift of the Holy Spirit, such confusion is easily remedied.
I can tell a false version of scripture using the verses that use, or don't use, the word "perfect".
It is the imperfect that delete or redefine most references to obedience to God being absolutely necessary for salvation.
The devil doesn't want men to know the real requirements for eternal life: or that they are in fact doable !

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations, by James R. White

James White is a Baptist minister. I read this book years ago and learned a lot from it. I highly recommend it.

Hoping2 · May 16, 2025

Strong in Him said:
It's not very fair to make a statement in a public forum and then refuse to, publicly, explain what it means.
But I think I'll pass, since it will probably turn into an argument about why you consider the KJV to be the most reliable Bible.

Perhaps a more constructive question would be to ask how you define "deacon", "servant" and "Minister"?

Good idea.
A deacon fulfills all the requirements listed by Paul in 1 Tim 3 in order to even be a deacon. His duties are varied.
A minister ministers. (in the context of God's church, he could minister teachings and knowledge; or he could minister dinner and drinks.
A servant could do almost anything in service to God or man.
Though all three seem to have over-lapping definitions, only the deacon is defined using Paul's parameters.

The Deaconess Phoebe

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads