Which Bible Would Jesus Use?

[faroukfarouk]

That's the problem you all are depending on everything but the word of God!

Actually I love and use the King James.

The language in which it was written was approximately one thousand, six hundred and eleven years after the Bible was completed, though (give or take a few decades). And the Hebrews spoke Hebrew, and the Greeks spoke Greek, not English.

 

[Andrea411]

Jesus gave what was given to him to give nothing more; and he used the scriptures always.
I'm sorry your statement is ignoring the fact you misquoted me and you can understand my speech because you can't hear my words.
And until you start following the thought line you never will.

I don't read minds or hearts... the Lord does. IDK how I could misquote you since I used the quote button...

 

[JacobLaw]

I don't read minds or hearts... the Lord does. IDK how I could misquote you since I used the quote button...

You misquoted me admit it.

 

[faroukfarouk]

First of all you misquoted me; and since you can't follow the thought line there is no need to expound it to you.

Since Ms Andrea used the quote button, the onus is you, Sir, to prove that she did in fact misquote you, as you allege.

Blessings.

 

[Andrea411]

The mormons are KJVO. Coming from Utah are you sure they haven't poisoned you?

 

[JacobLaw]

The mormons are KJVO. Coming from Utah are you sure they haven't poisoned you?

LOL, Mormons are just like people who use versions of the bible, although they call their bible the King James Bible they have the same position as those Version Christians, they only believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly, just like most all the denominations of Christianity, except they are more honest about it. They don't go about saying they believe in an inerrant infallible word of God that they don't have and can't produce, funny how Mormons seem to be more honest about this subject than so many of the version Christians, LOL.

 

[faroukfarouk]

LOL, Mormons are just like people who use versions of the bible, although they call their bible the King James Bible they have the same position as those Version Christians, they only believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly, just like most all the denominations of Christianity, except they are more honest about it. They don't go about saying they believe in an inerrant infallible word of God that they don't have and can't produce, funny how Mormons seem to be more honest about this subject than so many of the version Christians, LOL.

Well, it's 'nice' to know that you seem to trust a Mormon approach to the Bible more than one based on recognizing that the King James is a translation.

 

[JacobLaw]

Since Ms Andrea used the quote button, the onus is you, Sir, to prove that she did in fact misquote you, as you allege.

Blessings.

No I don't, and just because she used the quote button doesn't mean anything!
But you seem to be holding to the same comical blindness let me just point out the misquote, so you can apologies too.

Her misquote was this:

"I have no proof the original scriptures weren't in the King James English???... "

Now show me were I said the King James English, and twisting the truth doesn't count.
See how blind you become because of your bias?
I will wait too hear your apology and distraction of claiming I said something I never said.

Show me in the quote button you claim verifies I said King James English, everyone is waiting.

And of course I mean this respectfully *(unlike you and her who are making things up and by inference are calling me a idolater), I am only looking to show you that your mind makes things up that you think are true but are not and I am doing it respectfully.

I would love for you to see the line of thought, but think you may be willfully ignorant to what I am saying, which makes me feel sorry for you.

May you find the blessing of God

 

[BryanW92]

I'm sorry your statement is ignoring the fact you misquoted me and you can understand my speech because you can't hear my words.
And until you start following the thought line you never will.

Andrea411 did quote you verbatim and then paraphrased your statement in her post. Are you saying that they "pure language" of King James is not English?

You have no proof the original scripture (the end of the sixth day) was not in the pure language found in the King James, that is just your assumption.

(Emphasis added)

What does "following the thought line" mean? Are you saying that we won't understand the way you think unless we think the way you do?

 

[JacobLaw]

Andrea411 did quote you verbatim and then paraphrased your statement in her post. Are you saying that they "pure language" of King James is not English?

(Emphasis added)

What does "following the thought line" mean? Are you saying that we won't understand the way you think unless we think the way you do?

I knew there would be a try to twist the truth; no apology, really?
Did she misquote me or not?

Why should or would I answer your extended questions until your apology is extended?
The misquote is obvious and real and it took all these post to draw the truth out, image what it would take to articulate spiritual things with you?

I'm not seeing the love from you guys just judgment and disrespect.

 

[BryanW92]

I knew there would be a try to twist the truth; no apology, really?
Did she misquote me or not?

Why should or would I answer your extended questions until your apology is extended?
The misquote is obvious and real and it took all these post to draw the truth out, image what it would take to articulate spiritual things with you?

I'm not seeing the love from you guys just judgment and disrespect.

You weren't misquoted. She quoted you verbatim and then asked a question to clarify your own words. How is that disrespect?

Even if you were, it wasn't by me, so I have nothing to apologize for. Now, about the "pure language of the King James" and "following the thought line": what do you mean by these?

 

[Andrea411]

I knew there would be a try to twist the truth; no apology, really?
Did she misquote me or not?

Why should or would I answer your extended questions until your apology is extended?
The misquote is obvious and real and it took all these post to draw the truth out, image what it would take to articulate spiritual things with you?

I'm not seeing the love from you guys just judgment and disrespect.

I went back into some of your old King James Only arguments. You extend the threads with this silly nonsense. You don't even have an argument just an opinion.
God help you open up your blind eyes. What would you do if you were taken hostage and not allowed to read the bible. You'd have to memorize it. Then if you wanted to share the gospel would it change if you explained it in words that the person could actually understand?

Sad. If you'd put have the time into sharing Christ as you do your opinion you might actually get someone into the kingdom.

 

[faroukfarouk]

No I don't, and just because she used the quote button doesn't mean anything!
But you seem to be holding to the same comical blindness let me just point out the misquote, so you can apologies too.

Her misquote was this:

"I have no proof the original scriptures weren't in the King James English???... "

Now show me were I said the King James English, and twisting the truth doesn't count.
See how blind you become because of your bias?
I will wait too hear your apology and distraction of claiming I said something I never said.

Show me in the quote button you claim verifies I said King James English, everyone is waiting.

And of course I mean this respectfully *(unlike you and her who are making things up and by inference are calling me a idolater), I am only looking to show you that your mind makes things up that you think are true but are not and I am doing it respectfully.

I would love for you to see the line of thought, but think you may be willfully ignorant to what I am saying, which makes me feel sorry for you.

May you find the blessing of God

The word 'English' was part of her comment and not in the quote itself, so she did not misquote, but she made what she thought was a reasonable comment about your meaning.

Talking of misquoting, I don't recall saying anywhere that you are an idolater.

Blessings.

 

[faroukfarouk]

You weren't misquoted. She quoted you verbatim and then asked a question to clarify your own words. How is that disrespect?

Even if you were, it wasn't by me, so I have nothing to apologize for. Now, about the "pure language of the King James" and "following the thought line": what do you mean by these?

Polite question to JacobLaw: What do you mean by the 'pure language of the King James'?

Blessings.

 

[pescador]

JacobLaw, why don't you write your posts in the language of the King James version? If that is the way that God speaks, shouldn't you be speaking the same way?

Undoubtedly the reason that you don't write this way is that you want to be clearly understood. To 21st Century minds the King James is open to all kinds of misinterpretation simply because nobody thinks, writes or talks using that archaic language.

For example your signature reads "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent." Would you please explain what that means? (If one looks at a modern translation the meaning is clear. Isn't that the point?)

 

[abysmul]

1 John 5:21Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.




1 Corinthians 10:14Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

 

[standingtall]

Nothing to see here. Just another KJVO cultist spouting off the usual nonsense.

 

[kiwimac]

LOL, Mormons are just like people who use versions of the bible, although they call their bible the King James Bible they have the same position as those Version Christians, they only believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly, just like most all the denominations of Christianity, except they are more honest about it. They don't go about saying they believe in an inerrant infallible word of God that they don't have and can't produce, funny how Mormons seem to be more honest about this subject than so many of the version Christians, LOL.

God alone is infallible, God alone is inerrant. No translation of scripture is or can be either.

 

[JacobLaw]

Polite question to JacobLaw: What do you mean by the 'pure language of the King James'?

Blessings.

First of all to all those that want to continue to ignore the fact of the misquote with very imaginable twist of the fact that I did not use the word “English” and that a more than a chide of inference was that I consider the King James Bible to be “the English language” if fact all you that use versions verify that you don’t really consider it English in its pure and present form.
That is why you all are correcting and adding and taking from it as a matter of your nature. You all consider it some old archaic form of English but not really the true English of today. You appose yourselves.

She misquoted me and that’s a fact.

And now to your polite question sir; what is “pure language of the King James”

1. Pure language is a phase you will find in the Holy Bible; it is a promise of God.
2. The promise is related to the pure word of God, which happens to be what is called the King James Bible; for reasons of and by many infallible proofs! (And that is your calling to rightly divide the one true word of God from versions)
3. All the words of God are pure, his word is very pure, thus a pure language.
4. The language by extension has never been spoken before, because it’s pure. (All other languages are confounded; including Hebrew and Greek)
5. The language is self-defining, because it’s pure.
6. The pure language is one and only original word of God connected to all God's promises, literally finish on the 6th day of creation, it is the work of God, purified in the furnace of earth.
7. The Holy Bible that we differentiate by calling it the King James Bible is God's pure language that he promise that contains all truth, is the truth and there is no other, it is truth, the word of truth, the word of God, wherein you can communion with God by the Holy Ghost in this world. (All others are feigned words, vain babblings that lead to more ungodliness)

Now if you want faith you must hear the word of God, if you want wisdom you must learn the language and if you want understanding well you must humble yourself and repent and believe God.

This pure language is not English; in fact, thinking you can understand God's pure language because you know how to speak English, well, you’re gravely mistaken and you hinder yourself, thinking you know something and you know nothing, it would be better if you didn’t know English, because your mind's renewing has been vexed, you literally need to be born again by the incorruptible word of God.
The devil, man, have worked very hard to redefine God's pure words, to pervert them, corrupt them and diminish them; using fleshly wisdom instead of spiritual discernment, by the same subtilty used in Eden.
The point is that if you will not believe earthly things, how are you ever going to believe spiritual things?

And that's all I care to share right now.

 

[EdwinWillers]

First of all to all those that want to continue to ignore the fact of the misquote with very imaginable twist of the fact that I did not use the word “English” and that a more than a chide of inference was that I consider the King James Bible to be “the English language” if fact all you that use versions verify that you don’t really consider it English in its pure and present form.
That is why you all are correcting and adding and taking from it as a matter of your nature. You all consider it some old archaic form of English but not really the true English of today. You appose yourselves.

She misquoted me and that’s a fact.

And now to your polite question sir; what is “pure language of the King James”

1. Pure language is a phase you will find in the Holy Bible; it is a promise of God.
2. The promise is related to the pure word of God, which happens to be what is called the King James Bible; for reasons of and by many infallible proofs! (And that is your calling to rightly divide the one true word of God from versions)
3. All the words of God are pure, his word is very pure, thus a pure language.
4. The language by extension has never been spoken before, because it’s pure. (All other languages are confounded; including Hebrew and Greek)
5. The language is self-defining, because it’s pure.
6. The pure language is one and only original word of God connected to all God's promises, literally finish on the 6th day of creation, it is the work of God, purified in the furnace of earth.
7. The Holy Bible that we differentiate by calling it the King James Bible is God's pure language that he promise that contains all truth, is the truth and there is no other, it is truth, the word of truth, the word of God, wherein you can communion with God by the Holy Ghost in this world. (All others are feigned words, vain babblings that lead to more ungodliness)

Now if you want faith you must hear the word of God, if you want wisdom you must learn the language and if you want understanding well you must humble yourself and repent and believe God.

This pure language is not English; in fact, thinking you can understand God's pure language because you know how to speak English, well, you’re gravely mistaken and you hinder yourself, thinking you know something and you know nothing, it would be better if you didn’t know English, because your mind's renewing has been vexed, you literally need to be born again by the incorruptible word of God.
The devil, man, have worked very hard to redefine God's pure words, to pervert them, corrupt them and diminish them; using fleshly wisdom instead of spiritual discernment, by the same subtilty used in Eden.
The point is that if you will not believe earthly things, how are you ever going to believe spiritual things?

And that's all I care to share right now.

Total malarkey. The assertion that the King James Version is "pure language" is nonsense - particularly when coupled with the assertion that Hebrew and Greek are "confounded" languages - the latter of which was what the KJV translators um, translated. It seems to be your contention that God's inspired word didn't come to mankind in written form until the 17th century, which is beyond absurd. You further contend that God's word wasn't spoken prior to the 17th century, which is borderline heresy.

The only thing that's "self-defining" here are your unfounded opinions.

Haveth thou thineself a fine day.