Ed:
Show me one verse in the KJV that tells us that there is a trinity ?
IN Christ - Hervey
Show me one verse in the KJV that tells us that there is a trinity ?
IN Christ - Hervey
Upvote
0
Is all the Bible scripture?
- Thread starter Thunderchild
- Start date
- Status
My goodness - see with what large letters he writes...
One of the clearest verses in the Bible proclaiming the deity of Jesus Christ, that Jesus was God in the flesh, is 1 Timothy 3:16. The King James Bible reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, clearly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh".
The New International Version (NIV) says, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, etc, change "GOD" to "HE". "He appeared in a body
Quote marks are used in the statement that "He appeared in a body." While this is true for the NIV it is false for the NAS which states "He who appeared in a body" The need for an antecedant in the NAS does not exist - "He who" is sufficient of and by itself. It also seems to escape that notice of EdJones that "He appeared" is perfectly acceptable grammatically, as the "he" being referred to is identified beyond doubt. It does say noun OR antecedant, does it not? The pronoun "he" in this case definitely belongs with only one noun.
The NAS states that "God appeared" is the wording of some of the later manuscripts.
But one thing now is certain - the Greek texts that I bought are those from which the AKJV are translated. That clears up doubts that they may have been manuscripts from which other versions derive.
Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,"
WOW! Until now I wasn't aware that anyone had corrected the King James's error. Let us take a quick look at the sentence used in the King James - Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD If I think it not robbery to be equal with God, does that make it that I can be considered equal to God? The Greek in fact says "thought it not robbery, being equal with God, "
As to the claim that the newer versions in this passage deny the deity of Christ - piffle! Do you ever bother to check your sources or even read them through properly, EdJones?
"Who, being in very nature God" as the newer versions have it, is even more an affirmation of the deity of the Christ than that of the AV's "Who, being in the form of God" - unless of course, the concept of "in the form of God" did not, in 1611, mean "looking something like God" but was more definite - There is always the possibility that the wording conveyed more in 1611 than it does in 2002.
Well, yes - it is said in the newer versions that Isaiah was the prophet...where in the Greek that was used for translating the AV shows only "prophets." - My goodness - an actual real criticism - assuming the older manuscripts DO show "the prophets" there has been a mistake in the translation. However, there is a possibility that later copyists chose to alter the "original" manuscripts to correct an error.
In Isaiah 14:12, In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The new per-versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star". According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ! What blasphemy! What perversion! . The Hebrew shows "morning star" or "day star" - "Lucifer" is Latin - the Latin name for the planet Venus in fact. Oddly enough, this correlates with the Hebrew term for the planet Venus - "morning star." Why did the translators of the AV insert the Latin name for Venus in this verse? Was it to avoid the possibility of making the very correlation that EdJones has made here?
However, the passage is part of an oracle concerning Babylon - Lucifer is stated within 2 lines of the word "Lucifer" to be a man, and within two lines of the word "Lucifer", to be the King of Babylon. The King of Babylon was not Satan, and he had nothing to do with the production of ANY English translation of the Bible. Moreover, the statement "how you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning" is declared to be A TAUNT AGAINST THE MAN TAKEN UP BY THE PEOPLE WHOM HE FORMERLY OPPRESSED. It isn't even said in the Bible to be a statement of fact - it is only a taunt.
Luke 11:2-4 in the manuscripts used for translating the AKJV do in fact include the phrases used. However, a note in the NAS states that these phrases are inserted in some manuscripts, being copied from Matthew 6 : 9 - 13. As the newer translations do not alter the record of Matthew - the statement that the difference results in a "devil's prayer" is nonsense - if that had been the intent, why did the translators leave Matthew 6 : 9 - 13 intact? I know the "Devil's prayer" - it more closely resembles the one in Matthew than the one in the newer versions of Luke.
There are arguments about the exact meaning of "Hell." There are no arguments about the meanings of "Hades" or "Sheol" - those meanings are rock solid.
However, Sheol is variously translated by the AV itself as grave (no fewer than 31 times) the same number of times that it is translated as "hell," in fact. However, in 1611 - "hell" had a variety of meanings - including a pit for stowing refuse. And Sheol is the Hebrew word translated as "hell" in the AV or as "the grave" in the later translations.
In 2 Samuel 21:19, they erroneously read, ". . . Elhanan son of JaareOregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." Well well, now isn't that interesting. Does the AV state that "Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Bethlehemite slew the brother of Goliath?" INDEED IT DOES NOT, What it says is "Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Bethlehemite slew [the brother of] Goliath. The Hebrew from which the AV was translated does not make ANY reference to "the brother of" - and the AV itself declares that "the brother of" is added in the translation. The translators altered what is written in the Hebrew to make 2 Samuel 21 : 19 match 1 Chronicles 20 : 5.
One of the clearest verses in the Bible proclaiming the deity of Jesus Christ, that Jesus was God in the flesh, is 1 Timothy 3:16. The King James Bible reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, clearly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh".
The New International Version (NIV) says, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, etc, change "GOD" to "HE". "He appeared in a body
Quote marks are used in the statement that "He appeared in a body." While this is true for the NIV it is false for the NAS which states "He who appeared in a body" The need for an antecedant in the NAS does not exist - "He who" is sufficient of and by itself. It also seems to escape that notice of EdJones that "He appeared" is perfectly acceptable grammatically, as the "he" being referred to is identified beyond doubt. It does say noun OR antecedant, does it not? The pronoun "he" in this case definitely belongs with only one noun.
The NAS states that "God appeared" is the wording of some of the later manuscripts.
But one thing now is certain - the Greek texts that I bought are those from which the AKJV are translated. That clears up doubts that they may have been manuscripts from which other versions derive.
Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped,"
WOW! Until now I wasn't aware that anyone had corrected the King James's error. Let us take a quick look at the sentence used in the King James - Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD If I think it not robbery to be equal with God, does that make it that I can be considered equal to God? The Greek in fact says "thought it not robbery, being equal with God, "
As to the claim that the newer versions in this passage deny the deity of Christ - piffle! Do you ever bother to check your sources or even read them through properly, EdJones?
"Who, being in very nature God" as the newer versions have it, is even more an affirmation of the deity of the Christ than that of the AV's "Who, being in the form of God" - unless of course, the concept of "in the form of God" did not, in 1611, mean "looking something like God" but was more definite - There is always the possibility that the wording conveyed more in 1611 than it does in 2002.
Well, yes - it is said in the newer versions that Isaiah was the prophet...where in the Greek that was used for translating the AV shows only "prophets." - My goodness - an actual real criticism - assuming the older manuscripts DO show "the prophets" there has been a mistake in the translation. However, there is a possibility that later copyists chose to alter the "original" manuscripts to correct an error.
In Isaiah 14:12, In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The new per-versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star". According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ! What blasphemy! What perversion! . The Hebrew shows "morning star" or "day star" - "Lucifer" is Latin - the Latin name for the planet Venus in fact. Oddly enough, this correlates with the Hebrew term for the planet Venus - "morning star." Why did the translators of the AV insert the Latin name for Venus in this verse? Was it to avoid the possibility of making the very correlation that EdJones has made here?
However, the passage is part of an oracle concerning Babylon - Lucifer is stated within 2 lines of the word "Lucifer" to be a man, and within two lines of the word "Lucifer", to be the King of Babylon. The King of Babylon was not Satan, and he had nothing to do with the production of ANY English translation of the Bible. Moreover, the statement "how you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning" is declared to be A TAUNT AGAINST THE MAN TAKEN UP BY THE PEOPLE WHOM HE FORMERLY OPPRESSED. It isn't even said in the Bible to be a statement of fact - it is only a taunt.
Luke 11:2-4 in the manuscripts used for translating the AKJV do in fact include the phrases used. However, a note in the NAS states that these phrases are inserted in some manuscripts, being copied from Matthew 6 : 9 - 13. As the newer translations do not alter the record of Matthew - the statement that the difference results in a "devil's prayer" is nonsense - if that had been the intent, why did the translators leave Matthew 6 : 9 - 13 intact? I know the "Devil's prayer" - it more closely resembles the one in Matthew than the one in the newer versions of Luke.
There are arguments about the exact meaning of "Hell." There are no arguments about the meanings of "Hades" or "Sheol" - those meanings are rock solid.
However, Sheol is variously translated by the AV itself as grave (no fewer than 31 times) the same number of times that it is translated as "hell," in fact. However, in 1611 - "hell" had a variety of meanings - including a pit for stowing refuse. And Sheol is the Hebrew word translated as "hell" in the AV or as "the grave" in the later translations.
In 2 Samuel 21:19, they erroneously read, ". . . Elhanan son of JaareOregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." Well well, now isn't that interesting. Does the AV state that "Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Bethlehemite slew the brother of Goliath?" INDEED IT DOES NOT, What it says is "Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Bethlehemite slew [the brother of] Goliath. The Hebrew from which the AV was translated does not make ANY reference to "the brother of" - and the AV itself declares that "the brother of" is added in the translation. The translators altered what is written in the Hebrew to make 2 Samuel 21 : 19 match 1 Chronicles 20 : 5.
Upvote
0
Jesus said, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: And they are they which testify of me." John 5:39.
A REAL Bible will testify of the Lord Jesus Christ. The true word of God will always EXALT Jesus Christ, and it will NEVER attack Hid Deity, His Virgin Birth, His Blood Atonement, His Bodily Resurrection, His Glorious Second Coming, or any other doctrines concerning His Person. However, the new versions attack ALL of the fundamental doctrines concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at one time or another.
By perverting the many important verses of scripture which deal with the fundamental doctrines of Christ, the new "bibles" have a CONTINUOUS ATTACK launched against our beloved Savior, and this is NOT an overstatement! His Virgin Birth is under attack in Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:34, and Luke 2:33. His Blood Atonement is under attack in Colossians 1:14, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:7, and Revelation 1:5. The Bodily Resurrection is under attack in Acts 1:3, Luke chapter 24, and the last twelve verses of Mark. His Deity is under attack in Acts 10:28, John 9:35, and I Timothy 3:16. The new versions attack the Second Coming in Revelation 11:15, and Titus 2:13, and the list goes on, because the new versions have an extreme bitter HATRED toward the Authorized Version and the way it gives the Lord Jesus Christ the preeminent place.
The new "bibles" have a very consistent record of attacking the Lord Jesus Christ; so they cannot possibly be "the scriptures" that He said would testify of Him in John 5:39. They testify AGAINST him.
The King James Bible NEVER attacks our Lord. More than any book in the world, the Authorized Version of the Protestant Reformation EXALTS the Lord Jesus Christ. If we had no other reason for receiving the Authorized Version as the word of God, this reason alone should be enough to convince any true believer, for how could we not become suspicious of the new versions for making such changes? I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it always exalts the Lord Jesus Christ.
A REAL Bible will testify of the Lord Jesus Christ. The true word of God will always EXALT Jesus Christ, and it will NEVER attack Hid Deity, His Virgin Birth, His Blood Atonement, His Bodily Resurrection, His Glorious Second Coming, or any other doctrines concerning His Person. However, the new versions attack ALL of the fundamental doctrines concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at one time or another.
By perverting the many important verses of scripture which deal with the fundamental doctrines of Christ, the new "bibles" have a CONTINUOUS ATTACK launched against our beloved Savior, and this is NOT an overstatement! His Virgin Birth is under attack in Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:34, and Luke 2:33. His Blood Atonement is under attack in Colossians 1:14, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:7, and Revelation 1:5. The Bodily Resurrection is under attack in Acts 1:3, Luke chapter 24, and the last twelve verses of Mark. His Deity is under attack in Acts 10:28, John 9:35, and I Timothy 3:16. The new versions attack the Second Coming in Revelation 11:15, and Titus 2:13, and the list goes on, because the new versions have an extreme bitter HATRED toward the Authorized Version and the way it gives the Lord Jesus Christ the preeminent place.
The new "bibles" have a very consistent record of attacking the Lord Jesus Christ; so they cannot possibly be "the scriptures" that He said would testify of Him in John 5:39. They testify AGAINST him.
The King James Bible NEVER attacks our Lord. More than any book in the world, the Authorized Version of the Protestant Reformation EXALTS the Lord Jesus Christ. If we had no other reason for receiving the Authorized Version as the word of God, this reason alone should be enough to convince any true believer, for how could we not become suspicious of the new versions for making such changes? I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it always exalts the Lord Jesus Christ.
Upvote
0
No substantive difference between the versions of Isaiah 7:14 as translated by NAS and AKJV.
No substantive difference between the versions of Luke 1:34 as translated by NAS and AKJV.
No substantive difference between the versions of Luke 1:34 as translated by NAS and AKJV. "Joseph" as in AKJV, "His father" as at NAS...hardly - oh, I see - calling Joseph the father of Jesus is deemed to indicate that the Holy Spirit was not the one by whom Mary fell pregnant.
Colossians 1:14 in truth does not mention that we have "redemption in his blood" in the NAS - it is only stated that "we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
Acts 20:28 - no substantive difference between AKJV and NAS
Ephesians 1:7 - no substantive difference between AKJV and NAS
Revelation 1:5 - no substantive difference between AKJV and NAS
Acts 1:3 - minor differences, no change of meaning.
Last 12 verses of Mark? NAS notes a verse "49" which appears in some manuscripts - sometimes immediately after verse 8. A footnote is made that some of the oldest manuscripts do not contain verses 9 - 20. We have full disclosure, which is not made in the AKJV.
Acts 10:28 - No substantive difference.
John 9:35 Son of God AKJV - Son of Man NAS .... Neither of the two can be said by any means to declare that Jesus is deity. Given the number of times that Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man, this criticism is spurious. Textus Receptus does however show theou rather than anthropou - (Westcott Hort.)
1 Timothy 3:16 "God" as against "He who"
the new versions have an extreme bitter HATRED toward the Authorized Version and the way it gives the Lord Jesus Christ the preeminent place. On the contrary - The textual Luddites villify and slander the translators of the new texts - and support those accusations with a lot of hot air and misrepresentation of the AV and more recent translations both.
The only criticisms I can recall of the AV are that the language is no longer readily understood by today's reader, and that the translators did not have access to as broad a range of resources for original material.
Moreover, when criticisms raised by the critics of the newer versions, those answers answers are ignored. The critic merely moves on to yet another list of supposed perfidies.
No substantive difference between the versions of Luke 1:34 as translated by NAS and AKJV.
No substantive difference between the versions of Luke 1:34 as translated by NAS and AKJV. "Joseph" as in AKJV, "His father" as at NAS...hardly - oh, I see - calling Joseph the father of Jesus is deemed to indicate that the Holy Spirit was not the one by whom Mary fell pregnant.
Colossians 1:14 in truth does not mention that we have "redemption in his blood" in the NAS - it is only stated that "we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
Acts 20:28 - no substantive difference between AKJV and NAS
Ephesians 1:7 - no substantive difference between AKJV and NAS
Revelation 1:5 - no substantive difference between AKJV and NAS
Acts 1:3 - minor differences, no change of meaning.
Last 12 verses of Mark? NAS notes a verse "49" which appears in some manuscripts - sometimes immediately after verse 8. A footnote is made that some of the oldest manuscripts do not contain verses 9 - 20. We have full disclosure, which is not made in the AKJV.
Acts 10:28 - No substantive difference.
John 9:35 Son of God AKJV - Son of Man NAS .... Neither of the two can be said by any means to declare that Jesus is deity. Given the number of times that Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man, this criticism is spurious. Textus Receptus does however show theou rather than anthropou - (Westcott Hort.)
1 Timothy 3:16 "God" as against "He who"
the new versions have an extreme bitter HATRED toward the Authorized Version and the way it gives the Lord Jesus Christ the preeminent place. On the contrary - The textual Luddites villify and slander the translators of the new texts - and support those accusations with a lot of hot air and misrepresentation of the AV and more recent translations both.
The only criticisms I can recall of the AV are that the language is no longer readily understood by today's reader, and that the translators did not have access to as broad a range of resources for original material.
Moreover, when criticisms raised by the critics of the newer versions, those answers answers are ignored. The critic merely moves on to yet another list of supposed perfidies.
Upvote
0
God can and does allow the scriptures to disappear from the ken of man - the fact is recorded in the Old Testament itself.
Upvote
0
Reasons why the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible is superior
to any Greek text, or any Greek manuscripts:
Because it is available and the "originals" are not. "A bird in the hand, etc." If the "scriptures" are profitable (2 Tim. 3:16) the "originals" are totally without profit. They don't exist anywhere on earth. You are on earth (Ps. 12:6).
to any Greek text, or any Greek manuscripts:
Because it is available and the "originals" are not. "A bird in the hand, etc." If the "scriptures" are profitable (2 Tim. 3:16) the "originals" are totally without profit. They don't exist anywhere on earth. You are on earth (Ps. 12:6).
Upvote
0
Let's see how your argument holds up:
----
Thanks, Ed for supporting all of the other translations with the same logic. You see, the same argument works for any other translation, and still doesn't show the superiority of the KJV over any Greek manuscript/text.
----
Thanks, Ed for supporting all of the other translations with the same logic. You see, the same argument works for any other translation, and still doesn't show the superiority of the KJV over any Greek manuscript/text.
Upvote
0
Reasons why the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible is superior
to any Greek text, or any Greek manuscripts:
Because it has chapter and verse numberings that the "originals" do not have--if you are to believe those who worship them! With these you can locate any verse quicker and you can spot a counterfeit reading immediately. You could not in the "originals": they didn't even have word separation, let alone sentence separation--if you believe those that worship them.
to any Greek text, or any Greek manuscripts:
Because it has chapter and verse numberings that the "originals" do not have--if you are to believe those who worship them! With these you can locate any verse quicker and you can spot a counterfeit reading immediately. You could not in the "originals": they didn't even have word separation, let alone sentence separation--if you believe those that worship them.
Upvote
0
Ed - am i not saved because i've never read the akjv? i've considered myself to have been a christian for 17 years, and i've never read the kjv bible. how is it possible that i've been saved, that i believe that Jesus is the Christ, that i believe i am saved by grace through faith without ever reading the kjv? or am i still in my sins?
thanks,
shawn
thanks,
shawn
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
you still didn't answer my question. must you always attempt to talk in riddles?
for someone who claims to be part of the only true church, you don't seem to have the love of Christ in wanting to help his fellow man.
want to attempt to answer my question again? and this seriously?
thanks,
shawn
for someone who claims to be part of the only true church, you don't seem to have the love of Christ in wanting to help his fellow man.
want to attempt to answer my question again? and this seriously?
thanks,
shawn
Upvote
0
Ed,
Since I read NIV and I am saved, and I am have recieved the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and I have a call of God on my life and I am faithfully pursueing after it, does that make me since a sinner and destined to Hell? All because I dont read the KJV, oh and by the way, why has the KJV, being the real version, have over 20,000 corrections and changes? hmmmmm?
Since I read NIV and I am saved, and I am have recieved the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and I have a call of God on my life and I am faithfully pursueing after it, does that make me since a sinner and destined to Hell? All because I dont read the KJV, oh and by the way, why has the KJV, being the real version, have over 20,000 corrections and changes? hmmmmm?
Upvote
0
You can't be serious!?
The chapter divisions for the Old Testament text first started with the Latin Vulgate by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury who died in 1228. Maybe we should consider the Vulgate as the inspired text?
But the verse divisions in Hebrew were completed prior to AD 500 probably while translating teh Hebrew into Aramaic as the Hebrew text was read. Looks like the KJV borrowed from everybody, huh?
But closer to the fact, the New testament verse divisions were introduced with Stephanus' Bible in 1551.
Upvote
0
In fact the verse and chapter numbers do not make it easier to understand the verses, though as grid references, they do a very useful job of allowing navigation. Chapter and verse numbers create physical breaks in the bodies of logical sentences and chapters: they in fact increase the likelihood of misrepresentation and misunderstanding going unnoticed.
It should be noted that the written works referred to by Jesus and the apostles did not have chapter and verse divisions - they were called the scriptures by Jesus and the apostles. Obviously EdJones should take issue with Jesus on the matter of his giving a stated authority to an inferior product.
It should be noted that the written works referred to by Jesus and the apostles did not have chapter and verse divisions - they were called the scriptures by Jesus and the apostles. Obviously EdJones should take issue with Jesus on the matter of his giving a stated authority to an inferior product.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
