KJVO and belief in a Flat Earth

[Hammster]

Saying you have proven me wrong does not mean you have done so. You actually need to start using substance and stop using rhetoric.

The rhetoric is you claiming to be right because you are right.

 

[Hammster]

It's a pretty standard practice to understand things in context based on the nature of God.

That's not how context works. Since scripture informs us of God, we need to take what is written in context to learn about Him. The example presented gives a conflicting view of God.

 

[freezerman2000]

That's not how context works. Since scripture informs us of God, we need to take what is written in context to learn about Him. The example presented gives a conflicting view of God.

This is the only way to subscribe on my mobile...subscribing

 

[pgp_protector]

This is the only way to subscribe on my mobile...subscribing

If you're using the Android App, Menu -> Subscribe

 

[freezerman2000]

If you're using the Android App, Menu -> Subscribe

I don't see a menu..I'm new about using 'droid

 

[Vince53]

There are two complete 1611 KJVs in existence. One is in the British Museum,and the other is at the Royal College of Scotland. There are slight contradictions between the two.

We have lost the original KJV text. Case closed.

 

[98cwitr]

It has to be understood in context, like all things. Tempt in James means to compel, whereas tempt in Genesis relates to testing.

then why didn't they use the word "test" instead of tempt so there wouldnt be a contradiction? Must have been a mistake on the part of the translator.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

If I am wrong, prove me wrong. But when you argue with me, you are arguing against the good book.

Your thesis is that the King James Bible is the only acceptable translation of the Bible. That thesis is not found in any Bible, King James or otherwise. Hence, no one here is arguing against the good book by debating your thesis. They are only arguing against you, as far as I can tell.

 

[classicalhero]

Once again, there's nothing in the context to say that Abraham was tested.

No, no, no, no. You are basically being silly with that. If you read the passages as a whole and not take one word out context, then you can understand them, but what you are doing basically mocking the translators of the Bible as if they didn't understand English as it was spoken back then. I am certainly not a KJVO guy but what we have here is sheer studity in the claim that these two verse cancel each other out.

 

[Hammster]

No, no, no, no. You are basically being silly with that. If you read the passages as a whole and not take one word out context, then you can understand them, but what you are doing basically mocking the translators of the Bible as if they didn't understand English as it was spoken back then. I am certainly not a KJVO guy but what we have here is sheer studity in the claim that these two verse cancel each other out.

The problem is that you have to take your presuppositions and come to that conclusion. You can't come to it from the text alone.

 

[Dan61861]

Tempt simply means an urge. You can be temted to do good, you can be tempted to do evil. You can be tempted to buy an ice cream cone.

In Christ
Daniel

 

[Hammster]

Tempt simply means an urge. You can be temted to do good, you can be tempted to do evil. You can be tempted to buy an ice cream cone.

In Christ
Daniel

So God doesn't do any of that?

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: ([bless and do not curse]James‬ [bless and do not curse]1‬:[bless and do not curse]13‬ KJV)

 

[Dan61861]

So God doesn't do any of that?

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: ([bless and do not curse]James‬ [bless and do not curse]1‬:[bless and do not curse]13‬ KJV)

Standing your ground firmly, if you wish to believe the Bible has errors than do so. However, read the whole verse. God cannot be tempted with evil, neither does he tempt with evil.

In Christ
Daniel

 

[Dan61861]

That's not how context works. Since scripture informs us of God, we need to take what is written in context to learn about Him. The example presented gives a conflicting view of God.

I am surprised you say this. You are right, we have to look at context. Yet you take one word, scream conflicting while attributing a meaning to the word that it simply doesn't have. You're whole goal to degrade a version you have problems with.

In Christ
Daniel

 

[Hammster]

Standing your ground firmly, if you wish to believe the Bible has errors than do so. However, read the whole verse. God cannot be tempted with evil, neither does he tempt with evil.

In Christ
Daniel

Please don't falsely accuse me. I never said the bible had errors.

 

[Hammster]

I am surprised you say this. You are right, we have to look at context. Yet you take one word, scream conflicting while attributing a meaning to the word that it simply doesn't have. You're whole goal to degrade a version you have problems with.

In Christ
Daniel

One, where have I attributed a false meaning? And two, how could you possibly know what my whole goal is?

 

[Dan61861]

Please don't falsely accuse me. I never said the bible had errors.

Post 96, KJV fails, based on the english words.

This all started because 98 said in post 11 that the two verses are errant and contradictory.
You than pointed out the two verses, with a oops at the end. In a normal conversation, one would tend to conclude you agree with 98's assessment. Instead of clearly conveying God's word to 98...you follow it with an oops.

In Christ
Daniel

 

[Hammster]

Post 96, KJV fails, based on the english words.

This all started because 98 said in post 11 that the two verses are errant and contradictory.
You than pointed out the two verses, with a oops at the end. In a normal conversation, one would tend to conclude you agree with 98's assessment. Instead of clearly conveying God's word to 98...you follow it with an oops.

In Christ
Daniel

Again, I never said the bible had errors. AV? Yes. But not the bible.

 

[Dan61861]

Again, I never said the bible had errors. AV? Yes. But not the bible.

Forgive, I really am trying to understand. You don't believe the Bible has errors, correct. You do believe the Kjv does...right? Does this mean that the Kjv is not the Bible? If so, which one is the correct one?

The worse lie someone can tell is the one that is mostly true. With this thought, should the Kjv be tossed?

In Christ
Daniel

 

[Hammster]

Forgive, I really am trying to understand. You don't believe the Bible has errors, correct. You do believe the Kjv does...right? Does this mean that the Kjv is not the Bible? If so, which one is the correct one?

The worse lie someone can tell is the one that is mostly true. With this thought, should the Kjv be tossed?

In Christ
Daniel

The originals are the bible. The translations are just that…translations. So no, I don't think the KJV should be tossed. I know many folks who prefer it. But it must be understood that while at the time it was a good translation (though no better than the Geneva), it isn't the only good English translation. And certainly not perfect.