Where have all the KJV defenders gone?

[staveoffzombies]

I am not interested in etymology, as I am KJVO.

Well, if you aren't interested in etymology then you'll have a really hard time defending your stance...

 

[IronWill]

Hi, IronWill ---

Thanks for the reply, bro; but I'm not interested in what is name isn't - I'm interested in what his name is.

What was Satan's angelic name, before he became 'Satan'?

Please demonstrate that he has one.

 

[IronWill]

I am not interested in etymology, as I am KJVO.

The "O" in KJVO means that I couldn't care less if the word "Lucifer" means "ant hill".

What I'm challenging people to do, is simply tell me his name.

You can spend all day telling me what it isn't --- give me one post telling me what it is.

If you don't know, just say so --- but don't try and make us KJVO's look like we don't know, either.

Fair enough?

I'm afraid you have the process backwards. See, you are making the claim that Satan has an "angelic" name. Next, you need to prove to use that he actually has an angelic name. You need to prove that this name comes directly from the Hebrew. At which point, it will then be my duty to counter your argument.

 

[BereanTodd]

You mean like this?

[bible]Exodus 6:3[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 83:18[/bible]
[bible]Isaiah 12:2[/bible]
[bible]Isaiah 26:4[/bible]

AV, you do realize that the name "Jehovah" was never in the original manuscripts? That it is a completely made up word, correct???

You see, in the Hebrew the name of God is YHWH, sometimes put as Yahweh in the English. But the Jews would never say that word aloud, they considered the word too holy to be spoken. When they came to the word YHWH in the Scriptures, they would instead say "adonai" (lord). Now the Hebrew did not originally have any vowells at all, but eventually they added "vowell pointers", markings near the words to indicate which vowell sounds to use.

Eventually in order to remind themselves never to speak the name YHWH, they added the vowell pointers from 'adonai' to the word YHWH. Jehovah is from the combination the of YHWH and adonai. It is never a word, and never did the Lord call Himself Jehovah. He calls Himself YHWH.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, if you aren't interested in etymology then you'll have a really hard time defending your stance...

Stave,

I don't think you understand the KJVO mindset.

The King James Bible is my etymology.

God's Word is meant to be taught to children, as well as adults, as well as to people in other nations who have never heard the Gospel.

They don't need a lesson in etymology first. They need the Gospel first.

To tell little Suzie in Sunday School, or a tribe deep in Africa:

The Bible says IN THE BEGINNING, now the Greek word for BEGINNING is...

is just plain ludicrous.

You give them the Gospel as is, and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

 

[BereanTodd]

I'm afraid you have the process backwards. See, you are making the claim that Satan has an "angelic" name. Next, you need to prove to use that he actually has an angelic name. You need to prove that this name comes directly from the Hebrew. At which point, it will then be my duty to counter your argument.

Amen. AV, you show us from Scripture that Satan has an angelic name that is given and we can go from there. But remember the Scriptures were not written in English my good sir, but in Greek, Hebrew and aramaic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please demonstrate that he has one.

You have a Bible --- (and I see by your profile, a Bible preference) --- use it.

Show me you can answer even a simple Bible question.

(I guarantee you, there are a lot harder questions I can ask.)

Not one person yet has answered my extremely easy question in Post 44.

Will you be the first?

 

[AV1611VET]

You need to prove that this name comes directly from the Hebrew. At which point, it will then be my duty to counter your argument.

No, I don't.

I don't know Hebrew, so that would make anything I say questionable.

What point are you talking about "countering"?

I haven't made any points, have I?

All I've done is just asked a simple question.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, you do realize that the name "Jehovah" was never in the original manuscripts?

I'm really not interested in "original manuscripts". If I had some, I'd make paper airplanes out of them and see how far they fly.

That it is a completely made up word, correct???

It was a word that God, through the Wycliffe translators, gave us, and that's good enough for me (not to mention our forefathers).

You see, in the Hebrew the name of God is YHWH...

Ya --- I'm familiar with all the boring details --- and I promise you --- not in the least impressed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Amen. AV, you show us from Scripture that Satan has an angelic name that is given and we can go from there. But remember the Scriptures were not written in English my good sir, but in Greek, Hebrew and aramaic.

Oh, really?

You don't consider the Bible today "Scripture"?

 

[talitha]

 

[talitha]

Stave,

I don't think you understand the KJVO mindset.

The King James Bible is my etymology.

That (pardon me) is RIDICULOUS! Do you believe that everyone in the world (Chinese, Norwegian, Egyptian, etc.) needs to learn English in order to have the best translation of things originally spoken or written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

You give them the Gospel as is, and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

I guess I have my answer there.......

 

[AV1611VET]

That (pardon me) is RIDICULOUS! Do you believe that everyone in the world (Chinese, Norwegian, Egyptian, etc.) needs to learn English in order to have the best translation of things originally spoken or written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

No, I don't.

We are to carry the Gospel to them - not have them learn our language.

(We call that the Great Commission.)

Same with the Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic.

They are to give it to us --- not us to them.

The Chinese, as far as I know and hope, have the AV1611 in their language.

 

[Sketcher]

I am not interested in etymology, as I am KJVO.

The "O" in KJVO means that I couldn't care less if the word "Lucifer" means "ant hill".

What I'm challenging people to do, is simply tell me his name.

You can spend all day telling me what it isn't --- give me one post telling me what it is.

If you don't know, just say so --- but don't try and make us KJVO's look like we don't know, either.

Fair enough?

What everyone's trying to tell you is it's lost to history because Lucifer sure ain't it. Given his former position, it would have been similar to Michael and Gabriel. Not that you care about name meanings, but those names when translated are praises to God. And these Hebrew names are just translations of whatever they are in the angelic tongue anyway.

 

[Kenpo]

I read the KJV

 

[AV1611VET]

What everyone's trying to tell you is it's lost to history because Lucifer sure ain't it. Given his former position, it would have been similar to Michael and Gabriel. Not that you care about name meanings, but those names when translated are praises to God. And these Hebrew names are just translations of whatever they are in the angelic tongue anyway.

And therein lies my point. The King James Version and its predecessors exposed Satan for what he was.

An angel similar to Michael and Gabriel (yea, above Michael and Gabriel) who, through pride, lost everything he had.

His name, I'm sure, fit his job description, until he fell; now his new name, I'm sure, fits his new job description.

 

[talitha]

The Chinese, as far as I know and hope, have the AV1611 in their language.

 

[Sketcher]

And therein lies my point. The King James Version and its predecessors exposed Satan for what he was.

An angel similar to Michael and Gabriel (yea, above Michael and Gabriel) who, through pride, lost everything he had.

His name, I'm sure, fit his job description, until he fell; now his new name, I'm sure, fits his new job description.

The question you asked was his original name, and the KJV does not give that. Also, as it has been pointed out before, the name Lucifer doesn't end up in a straight Hebrew-to-English translation. Check any online Tanakh (Old Testament). And I would argue that transliterating "day star" into a name isn't needed. People can tell from the context the story of Satan AND the King of Babylon just from reading the passage.

 

[arunma]

I think we need to ask ourselves here: does this issue even merit debate? To the KJV-onlyist, "the KJV is the only true Bible because it is the only true Bible." Is there really any point in debating a doctrine that isn't even founded in logic, or when its adherants won't listen to logic? Forgive my seemingly harsh statements, but I still am having trouble accepting the fact that competent adults actually believe this (not an insult, I really feel this way).

 

[Sketcher]

I think we need to ask ourselves here: does this issue even merit debate? To the KJV-onlyist, "the KJV is the only true Bible because it is the only true Bible." Is there really any point in debating a doctrine that isn't even founded in logic, or when its adherants won't listen to logic? Forgive my seemingly harsh statements, but I still am having trouble accepting the fact that competent adults actually believe this (not an insult, I really feel this way).

It's the same approach that Catholic hardliners take, really. They have their Tradition, and KJV Onlyists have theirs. And at the end of the day, you're going to hell (or at very least you're in sin) because you disagree with it.