KJV Only

[JMWHALEN]

Much division in the body has occurred due to the KJO stand. Its become a divisive and silly issue.

No one is denying that God has left us His Word. I know of people who were saved reading a paraphrase. God is NOT limited. Truth is truth.

Enuff already.

____________________
"Much division in the body has ocurred due to the KJO stand"

This is the same argument that many "non dispensationalists", and even "Acts 2" dispensationalists, use(actually throw in our face)in their criticism of dispensationalists/mid-acts dispensationalists, respectively, i.e., much division in the body has occured due to the dispensational stand.

And this is the same argument, and the same mind set that is the rage of "the world", that is the premise of "religion", in which they use in their opposition to Christianity, i. e., "you are so divisive, mean-spirited, intolerant, close-minded........="Can't we all get along?"(Rodney King)=All roads lead to Rome, they are all the same(like all "the Bibles"), so quit being so divisive.

The Lord Jesus Christ was not divisive?All forsook Him, did they not? What about our apostle Paul? Divisive? All forsook him, did they not?

By this argument, let's close the dispensational portion of the board, go home, and, if anyone paid any $s to enter this dispensational forum, let's refund their money. We are being "too divisive".

Eph3Nine, you, more than anyone on this board, have witnessed, and experienced personally, the amount of divsiveness that inevitably will result from taking a strong stand(conviction) on dispensationalism. You have been the target of "strong words" for your eloquent,uncompromising, and proper defense of right division. You should know this principle.

If debating and taking a stand on the issue of whether God has made good on His promise to preserve His inspired word without error in a book we call "the Holy Bible" is a "silly" issue, then call me silly. And why don't we just "revise", or better yet, why don't we just delete "...for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name"(Psalms 138:2)? If we can't stand for the word of God without error as a present possession, for what can we stand? Dispensationalism? Calvinism? Covenant Theology? Pentecostalism?..........? This may shock many fellow dispensational believers on this board, but, if given a choice between choosing giving my life for the stand, the conviction that the LORD God has made good on His promise to preserve His inspired without error word as a present possess, or giving my life for dispensationalism, my choice is easy: I choose the former. For any stand for dispensationalism must be rooted in the premise, the foundation, that the source for this doctrine is flawless, i.e., a faulty foundation can not support any walls.


"No one is denying that God has left us His word"

Nor did I. But I do deny, if scripture's own testimony is to be believed, that a "the Bible" can be considered "His word" if it has errors, for:

"Thy word is true from the beginning." Psalms 119:160

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." John 17:17

"Truth is truth"

Not if it has errors. Did you read my examples? Did you even read Ephesians 3:6 in the NIV? Given your excellent, correct dissertation on "more than one gospel" on this forum, did you read carefully in the NIV Galatians 2:7:

"On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews." NIV


Is "truth is truth" here? This NIV verse, in no uncertain terms, "blows a big wide whole" in the dispensational premise that Peter and Paul preached different "the gospel"s="things that are different are really the same."

"No one is denying that God has left us His word"

Most probably not on this board, but tell that to most of "the world", which denies that the Holy Bible is the sole, exclusive, inerrant revelation of the one true God.

And tell me that Christians can, without hypocrisy, state that "His word" can be considered such if it has errors, or is flawed in any sense.

And tell me that most Christians can say they can hold in their hands, press to their heart, and with conviction, and without reservation, say "I believe this is the inspired, perfect, pure, sure, right and preserved word of God-this is 'His word'; this is 'it'"? Tell me they can say, with conviction, "I do not doubt it, I do not correct it, I do not criticize it, and nor do I "prefer" it-I believe it, and submit to it as my final authority."

And tell me that the message of right division can be effectively legitimized and communicated if the source of this doctrine is corrupt.

"I know of people who were saved reading a paraphrase".

And I know of a person who was saved out of a corrupt "St. Jerome's" "the Bible"-me. I also know of people who found a diamond ring in a dumpster. That doesn't make the dumpster a jewelry store. A tract, a "paraphrase", a biblical commentary, and A Strong's Concordance may "contain" portions of the word of God, but that does not make them the inspired, without error preserved word of God. And if they have errors within them, they are not the word of God-it is that simple.

"God is not limited".

This presumes that God is the author of every single "the Bible", and that by EXCLUDING any version we are "limiting God." The word of God is to limit us, not vica versa. An never mind, that Christianity, by definition, is "limiting", and is "exclusionary."

Yes, I am King James Bible ONLY, just as I am Christianity ONLY. Truth divides. And it truth hurts even more when you don't tell it. Split, split, and keep splitting.

Hopefully, I will never come to the point of "Enuff already" when it comes to the issue of defending the inspired, without error, without contradiction, preserved word of God word. Priorities.

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

 

[eph3Nine]

Let it go, John. No one is saying that there isnt a Word of God for the taking.

By the way...errors have abounded in the translations...thems just the facts. We dont have the original documents, which are the ONLY ones that were God inspired, God breathed. I do believe that God has preserved His word, in as much as the MESSAGE is clear.

God isnt falling off his throne if someone doesnt use the KJV. The issue is understanding and communicating the MESSAGE.

I wont respond to you again on this. Lets get back to sharing the message. Huuuugs

 

[JMWHALEN]

Let it go, John. No one is saying that there isnt a Word of God for the taking.

By the way...errors have abounded in the translations...thems just the facts. We dont have the original documents, which are the ONLY ones that were God inspired, God breathed. I do believe that God has preserved His word, in as much as the MESSAGE is clear.

God isnt falling off his throne if someone doesnt use the KJV. The issue is understanding and communicating the MESSAGE.

I wont respond to you again on this. Lets get back to sharing the message. Huuuugs

_______________
"Let it go, John."

You may "let it go" go, if "it" is defending the inspired, without error, preserved word of God as a present possession(and not in some "original documents" that no one alive has seen, no one alive has touched, no one alive has read, and no one alive would be able to recognize even if they appeared), but I will not. Your statement is not an argument.

"No one is saying that there isnt a Word of God for the taking."

My point and premise, had you read it, was not that some are "saying that there isnt a Word of God.' My point was that one post suggested, as you do in this post, that only "the originals" are the inspired word of God. And the only logical conclusion we can draw from this, since the "originals are long gone", if it is a valid premise(and it is not), is that we do not have the inspired, without error, preserved word of God. The one follows logically from the other. So, you say we do have inspired the word of God on one hand, but on the other hand, you say we don't, since you say "the original documents, which are the ONLY ones that were God inspired, God breathed.". and ".errors have abounded in the translations."

So, where is this preserved "a word of God" that is inspired,without error? Do we have it now? 2 Timothy 3:15 says "is inspired", not "was inspired", does it not?

a" word of God? Again, wrong premise, wrong conclusion. "The" word of God, "the" book, "the" Holy Bible. Wrong premise of yours, and thus wrong conclusion: that some so-called "a Word of God" can have errors, and still be the inspired, preserve word of God. No, if the "a Word of God" has errors(your "errors have abounded in the translations), then it is not the word of God. This is scripture's testimony, and therefore mine. Again, there seems to be a tendency of yours not to read my recent posts on this thread, and therefore you merely dismiss them. I can accept that. I ignore many posts, and many threads, primarily because I have determined that I am not qualified to respond on that particular issue. But perhaps if either you feel that my argument is invalid, or that you are not qualified in this issue to comment, then please either address my points, or refrain from merely making assertions without any support. You are too experienced in debating effectively to miss this point.

This "a" word of God language, and this "errors have abounded in the translations"/"no translation is perfect " nonsense has brainwashed most into subscribing to the notion that the word of God is some "mystical, hidden, theoretical" document that we just can't "get a handle on", and that God just "couldn't get it right" all these years, and that he needs the help of these so-called "experts"/"scholars" with 15 titles before and after their name to "help Him out". And thus, 200+ "versions", 200+ "the Bible"'s in the last 100 years-and more on the way. This is the never-ending search for the without error inspired, preserved word of God-"The Paper Chase". You'd think with all this technology, with all this "expert" brain power, with all these "experts" correcting the King James Bible, The Holy Bible, with such "scholarly" musings as "The translators got it wrong here-in my humble opinion a more proper rendering would be", "The Greek says"(and by the way, there is no such thing as "The Greek"), "This should read"................................... they would have "gotten it right" and given us a perfect "The Bible" by now! $$$$$$? Nah!


"By the way...errors have abounded in the translations......We dont have the original documents, which are the ONLY ones that were God inspired, God breathed"

So, we do not have God's inspired, without error, preserved, pure word, since "errors have abounded in the translations", and "We dont have the original documents", since they crumpled into dust hundreds of years ago? Non sense! Some would say unbelief.

"the original documents, which are the ONLY ones that were God inspired, God breathed"

Scripture please? Did you read my post? Nowhere does scripture say this. Who taught you that a translation cannot be inspired? Where in the word of God(please cite/quote a specific passage from either a version,or from the 5000+ manuscripts)does being a translation invalidate a work from being the word of God?If this is true, then even the "originals" would be condemned(see Acts 8:32,33/Is. 53:7,8/Heb. 3:7-11, 10:15/Psalms 95:7-11.....) Even the "originals" contained translations.

If no translation can be inspired, then approximately 40 verses in the NT are not inspired, since they, even in the "original autographs", were Greek translations of the Hebrew OT. How do you reconcile the "verbal inspiration" of the NT, and yet allow for 40 uninspired verses?

Consider Hebrews 10:15,16, which is from Jer. 31:33,34, when the writer writes in Greek from the Hebrew-it is obvious the Holy Spirit is also a witness, when the Hebrew was translated into Greek. If from Hebrew to Greek, could not God have His word translated from Greek to English, Spanish.......?

No translation can be inspired? This would be news to Moses! Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharaoh were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-they were "translations". How about Joseph in Genesis? He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers(Gen 42:23). Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation.

What about the sign that was nailed to the cross? That consisted of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew-at least 2 had to be translations. Were these not inspired?

Matthew27:46? The Lord Jesus Christ cried out in Aramaic, and yet in the very same verse there was given a translation.


Preservation provides us a biblical basis for our faith to "rest on". God has pledged to preserve His word throughout history in a multiplicity of without error COPIES-the COPIES are the issue in preservation, NOT the "original" autographs or manuscripts.Please read my previous post should you insist on making assertion, not an argument. As just one example:

"...he shall write him a COPY(emphasis mine) of this law IN A BOOK(emphasis mine) out of that which is before the priests the Levites...." Deut. 17:18

If you, or anyone, call a book "the Bible", you are calling it the word of God. And if it is the "word of God", it then must be inerrant; if so, and if no translation is inerrant, which you stated, or infallible, then properly you cannot call it the word of God, or properly , "the Bible". Therefore, I believe from now on you, or anyone else, should revise your vocabulary and refrain from calling any translation "the word of God", if you are going to be logically consistent with the meaning of language.

"...thems just the facts."

No, that is your assertion, not "the facts." I have in my hands God's inspired, without error, perfect, sure, right word. No one has proven any errors in the KJB, and no one ever will. This Holy Bible has broken many people who have made this attempt. And it will break more.

"I do believe that God has preserved His word, in as much as the MESSAGE is clear."

The words are inspired, not "God's intent". The JWs say there "message" is clear in the New World Translation.

"God isnt falling off his throne if someone doesnt use the KJV."

This is an emotional plea, and not an argument. And, by that same argument, God is not falling off His throne if someone does not "use" any "the Bible", or if someone does not accept dispensationalism, or if someone is not saved, or......... And I never said He was. And again, you did not read my initial argument, as witnessed by your phrase "use" the KJV. I do not "use" the Holy Bible, I do not "prefer" the Holy Bible, I do not correct/revise/change/criticize the Holy Bible, and I do not say "errors abound" in the Holy Bible. I believe every word of the Holy Bible, it is perfect, and I submit to it as the final authority. No final authority can be corrected, revised, changed, or criticized. If it can be, it is the person doing the correcting. revising. changing, and crriticizing that is the final authority.

"The issue is understanding and communicating the MESSAGE"

Not on this thread, it is not. And no "understanding" and"communicating the message" is legitimate if it comes from a corrupt document.

On this issue, I will not compromise, for as it is written:

"Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food."Job 23:12.


"I wont respond to you again on this. Lets get back to sharing the message. Huuuugs

I will continue to defend(and enjoy!) the word of truth rightly divided with you. However, that "word of truth" must be truth, and not "abounding in error." Then I ask you to consider, and all fellow believers, to ask themselves: o you believe Psalms 12:6,7 as written in the AV 1611, the Holy Bible? If you do , where can I find a copy of the inspired, WITHOUT ERROR, preserved scriptures? Before you answer, I would like to clarify. I am looking for the scriptures that God inspired and preserved "from this generation forever". Do you have this here today? If you do not believe the AV 1611 is the pure, inerrant word of God and absolute authority, does your final authority exist on earth in pure,inerrant,tangible form in any language? If yes,what and where is it found? I would like a copy. And if no, why not? The LORD God can raise His only begotten Son from the dead, and we rightly defend this vigorously based on God's promise, and yet we cannot, or will not, defend His promise to preserve His word without error with the same vigor? The death, burial, and resurrection(1 Cor. 15:1-4), the foundation of our faith, absolutely depends on the integrity of the document from which it is derived. I thank you in advance for directing me to where I can obtain my own copy of the inspired and preserved by God scriptures.



In Christ and with Christ,
John M. Whalen

 

[eph3Nine]

I understand all about the corrupt documents. Ive done study after study on this. Its simply NOT an issue with me.

I wont argue it with you either. I believe it, and will continue sharing its message.

God bless you John

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

1. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
2. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
3. Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
4. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember — you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Only!]
5. Was a man correct in his statement "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12? Tithes were paid on income, not on assets.
6. Heb 4:3,5 the KJV misquotes Ps 95:1 The NIV and NASB do not.
7. Isa 45:7 KJV “I make peace, and create evil:” NASB: “Causing well-being and creating calamity”. Is God the source of Evil?
8. Does the inclusion of the word “unknown” in 1 Cor 14:4 (not found in Greek) allow some to mis-represent that tounges were actually unintelligible babble instead of identifiable foreign languages? Good translations place the word “unknown” in italics or omit it altogether.
9. Which is the better understanding of Ex 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill”, or “Thou shalt not commit murder”? How many liberals use the weaker translation to condemn capital punishment, or consider this as a contradiction due to a weak translation?
10. Is the Holy Spirit really an “it”, a neuter “thing” as is implied by Rom 8:16, 26? You can be assured that if the KJV had a masculine pronoun here and any other English translation had a neuter pronoun that Riplinger and every other KJV only proponent out there would be all over this one. They never mention this one. It is just as wrong for a Bible to diminish the personality of the Holy Spirit as it is to diminish any other Personality of the Trinity. In order to hold a KJV only position, you must insist that the use of “He” here is a corruption and that the only tolerable understanding is “it”– WOW!!

 

[JM]

D, your questions are directed at such a small part of the AV onlyists, even Dr. White lists more then one camp within the KJVO movement [I think it's seven].

Any Ruckmanites on the forum to give D some answers?

 

[TheScottsMen]

D, your questions are directed at such a small part of the AV onlyists, even Dr. White lists more then one camp within the KJVO movement [I think it's seven].

Any Ruckmanites on the forum to give D some answers?

What are Ruckman's credentials on this topic? Its my opinion that anyone whos had at least one semester of Biblical Greek would find the topic of "KJO" absolutely absurd. Do we come to such conclusions because of laziness of studying Greek?

I agree Eph3 on this topic, the message is clear in the KJV on salvation, dispensationalism, etc.. but I also find it just as clear in the NASB.

As for inspiration, the originals carry this. The KJV is as much inspired as Moby Dick.

 

[WAB]

Let it go, John. No one is saying that there isnt a Word of God for the taking.

By the way...errors have abounded in the translations...thems just the facts. We dont have the original documents, which are the ONLY ones that were God inspired, God breathed. I do believe that God has preserved His word, in as much as the MESSAGE is clear.

God isnt falling off his throne if someone doesnt use the KJV. The issue is understanding and communicating the MESSAGE.

I wont respond to you again on this. Lets get back to sharing the message. Huuuugs

Astoundingly, I must say that you get for this post (from me at least), an unqualified.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Young's LT or Rotherham's has the KJV beat hand's down. I use these 2 to compare all others.

 

[JM]

What is the "Holy Bible?"

 

[TheScottsMen]

What is the "Holy Bible?"

A complete set of the orignal Hebrew/Greek texts

 

[JM]

A complete set of the orignal Hebrew/Greek texts

Who told you it was only in the orignals [hint BB Warfield] that we have a Holy Bible?

What's your final authority?

Do you own a complete set of Hebrew/Greek orignals?

 

[TheScottsMen]

Who told you it was only in the orignals [hint BB Warfield] that we have a Holy Bible?

What's your final authority?

Do you own a complete set of Hebrew/Greek orignals?

I'll address my opinion on this subject tomorrow as I'm exhausted this evening.

 

[johnlf]

John,

Your posts have been a great blessing to me. Please don't become frustrated and give up because you feel that your message is falling on deaf ears. It is not. This issue was resolved for me many years ago after reading Gail Riplinger's book. A perfect book? no. A zealous defense? yes. Convincing? very.

Why is it they can't hear? Why won't they listen when the proof is so clear? I cannot say, and I have agonized for years over it. I have found over my 20 or so years as a Christian that we are often confronted with a fork in the road. At that point we must make a decision. If we take the wrong path, the road grows bumpy, overgrown with weeds. We are given warnings that we are on the wrong path, but if we ignore them, it gets worse and worse until we are finally "lost" in the woods. Our situation will remain "fruitless" until we admit we are wrong and backtrack back to that fork and take the other path.

The KJV debate is in my opinion one of those issues where God allows those who miss the turn to end up lost in the woods. It is that important. After missing that turn they become responsible to turn around and go back. Much of what they do also becomes "fruitless". They say light rejected brings judgement. Sad but true.

King James Version of the Bible
Book of Matthew
Chapter 15

15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

King James Version of the Bible
Book of Matthew
Chapter 13

13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

King James Version of the Bible
Book of 1 Timothy
Chapter 6

6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

 

[TheScottsMen]

My final authority is the Bible. Be it the NASB, the KJV, NIV, or another translation that convey the original meaning of the author. We don't have the original manuscripts today, why God has decided to convey his message through copies, I don't know, but I also don't question that he has. Does this mean that God can't keep His word? Of course not, but he has entrusted his Word to people, and people are not perfect.

So the question is, what is the word of God? Is a literal translation from copied Byzantine manuscripts the Word of God? Translating all scripture literally will soon bring problems with Hebrew and Greek idioms. For example, lets say In English I said "Your Killing me!." If I were to translate this for my in-laws from English to Portuguese, literally, (they don't speak English) would they understand the intended meaning? Of course not! The same is true with the Bible. While the original words are important (though we don't have the original manuscripts) it is the meaning of the author that needs to be conveyed in the message. When you translate the meaning of scripture, no matter what language, you still end up with the Word of God.


Paul for instance used the Greek Septuagint with he quoted from the Old Testament; the Septuagint is a translated copy of the Hebrew. Would you stand to say that Paul was not quoting the word of God because he was quoting from the Greek translation? The Greek translation had variations from Hebrew, they were not identical, so what one was the Word of God: both? neither?


God's Word has spoken throughout history. There are variations of languages and each language changes over time. But it is the meaning of what He said which is important. And this can be translated and retranslated into languages people can understand as there are diversity of languages and each language varies over time.

 

[WAB]

My final authority is the Bible. Be it the NASB, the KJV, NIV, or another translation that convey the original meaning of the author. We don't have the original manuscripts today, why God has decided to convey his message through copies, I don't know, but I also don't question that he has. Does this mean that God can't keep His word? Of course not, but he has entrusted his Word to people, and people are not perfect.

So the question is, what is the Word of God? Is a literal translation from copied Byzantine manuscripts the Word of God? Translating all scripture literally will soon bring problems with Hebrew and Greek idioms. For example, lets say In English I said "Your Killing me!." If I were to translate this for my in-laws from English to Portuguese, literally, (they don't speak English) would they understand the intended meaning? Of course not! The same is true with the Bible. While the original words are important (though we don't have the original manuscripts) it is the meaning of the author that conveys the message. When you translate the meaning of scripture, no matter what language, you still end up with the Word of God.


Paul for instance used the Greek Septuagint with he quoted from the Old Testament; the Septuagint is a translated copy of the Hebrew. Would you stand to say that Paul was not quoting the Word of God because he was quoting from the Greek translation? The Greek translation had variations from Hebrew, they were not identical, so what one was the Word of God: both? neither?


God's Word has spoken throughout history. There are variations of languages and each language changes over time. But it is the meaning of what He said which is important. And this can be translated and retranslated into languages people can understand as there are diversity of languages and each language varies over time.

Well, once again, we agree on a fundamental issue;(always tickled when that happens). Although as you are well aware, we do not agree on every doctrinal issue.

That aside, would like to point out that in the KJV in the book of Matthew alone, there are 25 instances of the use of "dynamic equivalency", and 14 of them were by our Lord Jesus Christ.

It would take too much space to put the whole study here, but if someone desires, will post all refs. Here is just a final observation from that study...

Although many commentators have castigated anyone who would dare to enter into the area of "Dynamic Equivalency", and use the term to critique modern Bible versions that indeed fall far short of the true Word of God, yet the above would suggest that at the very least they are using the wrong term as well as the wrong approach.

Perhaps a definition of the words DYNAMIC and EQUIVALENCY might be appropriate. "dynamic.... fr. Gk dynamikos powerful.... 1 a: of or relating to physical force or energy b: of or relating to dynamics: ACTIVE 2 a: marked by continuous usu. productive activity or change.... b: marked by energy : FORCEFUL..."

"equivalence... 1 a: the state or property of being equivalent...." i.e. equal.
Both from Webster’s Dictionary.

To declare the KJV to be without error (check out "Easter"), and to declare that every other translation (not paraphrase) is not the Word of God is to actually denegrate His Word.

By the way, I have several copies of the KJV from different sources, including a 1611 reprint. In one of them the word "he" is used in a particular ref. and in another issue the word "she" is used at the same verse.
Which one of these "inerrant" copies of the KJV is right?

Shalom... WAB

 

[TheScottsMen]

Well, once again, we agree on a fundamental issue;(always tickled when that happens). Although as you are well aware, we do not agree on every doctrinal issue.

As am I! I don't expect either of us to agree completely until were both in glory, but until then, I enjoy our discussions

 

[JM]

My final authority is the Bible. Be it the NASB, the KJV, NIV, or another translation that convey the original meaning of the author.

A friend of mine wrote this, hope you enjoy.

Picture this:

Elder Dim Whit, “Welcome everybody to the Truth of Truth Ministry’s weekly Bible study. Thanks for being here. I’m stoked. Our passage to study tonight is John 11:35 Jesus wept. Let’s see what we can learn from this passage. Who wants to go first?”

Bob, “Well, my New English Common Vernacular version doesn’t read Jesus wept but that “Jesus groaned.”

Mary, “Interesting, you know the Greek word there for wept is ‘awahuu’ – I got this from Nestle.”

Bill, “Wow, profound!”

Bob, “But my version, The “Newest English Super Common Version” says grunt.”

Jack, “You mean Jesus grunted?!?!”

Mike: “My new “Authentic Expository Rendition” matches Vaticanus! And didn’t they find this great manuscript in trash can in the Vatican library?

AVBunyan: “Yes, they did – maybe they should have left it there.”

Harry, “I have a Greek lexicon from the 4th century Syrian that says the word for wept is really, ‘awahooie’ which makes a major difference in the phrasing! Wow, I get so excited when I use the Greek – makes me feel, well, just enlightened like an angel of light!”

Elder Dim Whit, “I can see this is going to be a very uplifting night. Nothing like some real dynamic equivalent renderings using the aros tense of the subjective superlative!”

Bill, “Harry, where did you learn Greek?”

Harry, “I don’t really know Greek I just read it in Zodiates book, “How to Master Greek in 30 Days.”

Martha, “Well, I have a Greek lexicon from the 14th Century revision of the Lollard #3 and the word wept can also be translated moaned.”

Martha, “You have to understand the trials and tribulations for the times for without this information you can’t enter into the emotional congatative condiveness of the sureality.”

AV, “What am I missing here – we are only talking about two words.”

Harry, “Hush, AV, you’ve got a bad attitude! What about all those poor people before 1611?”

Elder Dim Whit, “Hush, AV you are not exhibiting the sweet spirit of the Christ here. Also, what about all those people in other countries who can’t even speak English?
Now let’s get back to our Bible study. Who has some more nuggets on, Jesus wept?”

Mr. Brilliant, “My new updated ‘Antioch Gratulative Retention Bible’ speaks of the word wept being in the past tense conjegative thus meaning that Jesus was weeping before he ever got there. This really touched my heart.”

Mary, “Oh, I feel my life is now completely changed based upon that nugget – thanks Mr. Brilliant.”

Mr. Brilliant, “By the way my new version is special for the translators of this great work translated it so there are no words with less than 9 letters long so as to bring out the most demonstrative and subjectivelatuative meaning of the words thus enabling me to get all that can be gotten from the most complicated renderings thus making me even more brilliant in the eyes of unenlightened believers.”

Harry, “I still think we need to examine the different 3rd century renditions of the Greek word ‘awahooe’ so we can see how other Greek writers used the word so we can determine the most reliable and effective use of the word for the most authentic rendering of the verse thus pulling from it all the vast riches of this profound word ‘awahooe’.

AV, “But how do you decide who is right?”

Mike, “AV, you are so narrow-minded! How can you read a Bible with Easter in it anyway?”

Nancy, “How do we even know John 11:35 was really in the originals?”

Neal, “I found a scholar who read of a professor who talked with his gardener who knew an archeologists who was able to gaze upon the famous fragment P734075439.479 1/2 from the collection over in Dead Sea Visitor’s Center, oh I mean the ‘Dead Sea Museum of Ancient Artifacts’ and he says it is there.”

Nancy, “Wow, could the archeologists read Greek?”

Neal, “No, but the janitor could and he told him that P734075439.479 1/2 contained the verse as it stands in many of the modern versions.”

Elder Dim Whit, “Well, that is great – I think we can call this Bible study a great success. Let’s meet next week so we can have some time to digest these great truths. Then we will be prepared to really dig into John 11:35 verse using all the modern tools and resources available.”

Mary, “You are not coming next week are you AV?”

AV, “No, I think I’ll just stay home and watch some Captain Kangaroo reruns, thank you for asking and for being so thoughtful.”

 

[TheScottsMen]

A friend of mine wrote this, hope you enjoy.

Picture this:

Elder Dim Whit, “Welcome everybody to the Truth of Truth Ministry’s weekly Bible study. Thanks for being here. I’m stoked. Our passage to study tonight is John 11:35 Jesus wept. Let’s see what we can learn from this passage. Who wants to go first?”

Bob, “Well, my New English Common Vernacular version doesn’t read Jesus wept but that “Jesus groaned.”

Mary, “Interesting, you know the Greek word there for wept is ‘awahuu’ – I got this from Nestle.”

Bill, “Wow, profound!”

Bob, “But my version, The “Newest English Super Common Version” says grunt.”

Jack, “You mean Jesus grunted?!?!”

Mike: “My new “Authentic Expository Rendition” matches Vaticanus! And didn’t they find this great manuscript in trash can in the Vatican library?

AVBunyan: “Yes, they did – maybe they should have left it there.”

Harry, “I have a Greek lexicon from the 4th century Syrian that says the word for wept is really, ‘awahooie’ which makes a major difference in the phrasing! Wow, I get so excited when I use the Greek – makes me feel, well, just enlightened like an angel of light!”

Elder Dim Whit, “I can see this is going to be a very uplifting night. Nothing like some real dynamic equivalent renderings using the aros tense of the subjective superlative!”

Bill, “Harry, where did you learn Greek?”

Harry, “I don’t really know Greek I just read it in Zodiates book, “How to Master Greek in 30 Days.”

Martha, “Well, I have a Greek lexicon from the 14th Century revision of the Lollard #3 and the word wept can also be translated moaned.”

Martha, “You have to understand the trials and tribulations for the times for without this information you can’t enter into the emotional congatative condiveness of the sureality.”

AV, “What am I missing here – we are only talking about two words.”

Harry, “Hush, AV, you’ve got a bad attitude! What about all those poor people before 1611?”

Elder Dim Whit, “Hush, AV you are not exhibiting the sweet spirit of the Christ here. Also, what about all those people in other countries who can’t even speak English?
Now let’s get back to our Bible study. Who has some more nuggets on, Jesus wept?”

Mr. Brilliant, “My new updated ‘Antioch Gratulative Retention Bible’ speaks of the word wept being in the past tense conjegative thus meaning that Jesus was weeping before he ever got there. This really touched my heart.”

Mary, “Oh, I feel my life is now completely changed based upon that nugget – thanks Mr. Brilliant.”

Mr. Brilliant, “By the way my new version is special for the translators of this great work translated it so there are no words with less than 9 letters long so as to bring out the most demonstrative and subjectivelatuative meaning of the words thus enabling me to get all that can be gotten from the most complicated renderings thus making me even more brilliant in the eyes of unenlightened believers.”

Harry, “I still think we need to examine the different 3rd century renditions of the Greek word ‘awahooe’ so we can see how other Greek writers used the word so we can determine the most reliable and effective use of the word for the most authentic rendering of the verse thus pulling from it all the vast riches of this profound word ‘awahooe’.

AV, “But how do you decide who is right?”

Mike, “AV, you are so narrow-minded! How can you read a Bible with Easter in it anyway?”

Nancy, “How do we even know John 11:35 was really in the originals?”

Neal, “I found a scholar who read of a professor who talked with his gardener who knew an archeologists who was able to gaze upon the famous fragment P734075439.479 1/2 from the collection over in Dead Sea Visitor’s Center, oh I mean the ‘Dead Sea Museum of Ancient Artifacts’ and he says it is there.”

Nancy, “Wow, could the archeologists read Greek?”

Neal, “No, but the janitor could and he told him that P734075439.479 1/2 contained the verse as it stands in many of the modern versions.”

Elder Dim Whit, “Well, that is great – I think we can call this Bible study a great success. Let’s meet next week so we can have some time to digest these great truths. Then we will be prepared to really dig into John 11:35 verse using all the modern tools and resources available.”

Mary, “You are not coming next week are you AV?”

AV, “No, I think I’ll just stay home and watch some Captain Kangaroo reruns, thank you for asking and for being so thoughtful.”

Funny stuff

But in all honesty, one could write a satire on any subject one disagreed with. Christians see it done by Atheist all the time.

 

[JM]

It was quoted to make ya smile.