Bible Answers to Member Questions

reply to post by Lazarus Short

OK, point taken, and I see that it is a matter of faith with you. Now that I think about it, it makes sense to me that God would have insured the survival of accurate Bibles, whatever the language.

Yep, if does have an element of faith that goes along with it, but not blind faith, as there are just to many proofs and examples of God honoring His KJV over any 20 top new bibles combined! As for different languages, if they are translated into a different tongue using the Received Text that the KJV was translated from, then they are just as persevered as the KJV. (maybe not as much inspired though, as the KJV has some WILD stuff in it that other languages do not have....more on this later if your interested.)

[Had to exit for a bit.] KJV1611, I am still in total awe of your mindset on this whole thing. I wish you would go into depth on this. I always thought of the KJV as one of the very best English Bibles, and I know the scholars who did the work spent much time in prayer, revised and reviewed. and produced an excellent Bible. I know this because my father was a KJV loyalist, even to the point of offering to pay for KJV Bibles for the pews in our church. You know, you know what they did ...NIV's got put in the pews.

Them sorry devils! nah, I'm sure they had good intentions though (of course we all know where good intentions lead). The problem is Christians are just blame ignorant about the different bible versions and the attack on Jesus Christ that the new bibles constantly pursue.

Your faith goes so far as to say God gave them better inspiration than the original NT writers, yes?

Yes, that is exactly what I believe. But not without much proof and conformation from God through His use of the KJV and the advanced revelations from God found within the KJV text that is not in the greek or Hebrew (and I am NOT talking about some secret bible code either...)

It all hinges on whether we see the KJV as just a good translation, or whether we view it as the Word of God for English speaker in the present age. Does that make sense?

You have summed up my belief perfectly, in every way! Guess what? If I was Spanish born and spoke Spanish...I would use the Valera Spanish Bible. If I spoke Russian, I would use the Elizabeth Bible. If I spoke German, then I would use Luther's Bible. Diodati's Bible for Italy, Erdosi's Bible for Hungry, Olivetan's Bible for France, Brest's Bible for Poland, Gottskalksson's Bible for Iceland (yes Iceland), and Liesveldt's Bible for Holland with about 300 other Bibles translations based on the same Greek majority byzantine manuscripts from Antioch that the KJV was translated from. (over 5000. ALL new bibles are translated from ONLY 2 manuscripts, with about 7 others used for clarification. The KJV came from Over 5,000 manuscripts. Some one isn't telling the whole truth about the "new, better" translated bibles....)

But since I am a ENGLISH speaking American.....I use the King James Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures. Not only do I use this version, I believe in this version as the persevered, inspired, infallible, error less "words" of God Almighty. I feel sorry for "christians" who call them self followers of Christ and they're not even sure they have the words of Christ to follow!!. How hypocritical.

Thanks for your reply Laz! I think you finally "get" me.

reply to post by KJV1611


Yes, I would be interested in hearing about that "wild" stuff. Also, this may sound like a stoopid question, but what do you think of non-1611 KJV's? I admit that I have been hesitant to use the NKJV, but how many editions is the common, everyday KJV removed from the original 1611?

You mention modern versions being based on two manuscripts, and I am well aware of what they are. That is why I have no use for Ferrar Fenton's New Testament, even though his Old Testament is a wonder.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by KJV1611

 

I was hoping you would come back with some greek/septuagint mumbo jumbo

You think that the king James is the perfect creation of God.
I think that belief is the product of profound ignorance.
You think that opinion from me is the sign of lack of faith.
I believe you an idolater.

This coming from a anti-semite, pure gold.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


For starters, I, as well as 240 years of people before me use the 1769 Oxford "edition" of the KJV. This edition was the one with standardized spelling finally!!! Before the English finally came up with set rules of phonetics for their langauge everyone would just spell something as it sounds. (which would work for me!!)

There were about 14 or so editions before the 1769 one. Now each of these editions DID NOT change the TEXT of the 1611 at all. They either fixed spelling, added chapter and verse headings (THANK GOD) fixed printing errors, corrected punctuation as grammar improved, but never changed the actual text itself as the grossly corrupt NKJV does (they also say the NKJV is just another "edition" of the KJV, they lie. The NKJV changes the actual text hundreds of times).

As for the "wild" stuff, that will take me a few days to complie for you as I have notes every where and I have been needing to consolidate these notes on this topic anyway. Might as well do it for you and me

reply to post by daikaiju


May I ask, how do you define an "anti-semite"?

Is it someone who questions jewish "chosenness"??? If so, I will not let jmdewey keep that that label all to himself.

If you define it as something else, please feel free to correct me.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n
I think this might be a hold-over from his (d.) posting on my thread about the name, Jesus.
He (d.) may be referring to the "ignorance" comment (by me), to KJV1611, where to him (daikaiju), being an antisemite is the epitome of ignorance. And antisemitism to him (d.) is saying the name, Jesus.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Ah no, there you go changing history to suit your fantasy, you have proven by your own statements that you are against the Jews having their own country thus be definition Anti-Semitic.

I called you out on it but you instead of standing up and actually admit that you have issues with the Jew you try and spin it.

At least the other gentleman will stand up and admit he is one cause he does not agree with the Jewish ideal of being God's chosen race.

Star for you Skorpion for at least standing up for what you believe in.

reply to post by daikaiju

. . .against the Jews having their own country. . .

That is not the definition of antisemitism.
What is going on is murder and theft of other people's country, all for the sake of creating an ethnically pure state.
Being against that is just supporting norms of morality, and international law, and treaties and the Geneva Convention, and the United Nations Charter, and the very declaration which allowed there to be a Jewish state in the first place.

. . .you have issues with the Jew. . .

OK, I just addressed one "issue", which is not with "the Jew" but this criminal regime currently illegally occupying Palestine. What other "issue" do you think I have with "the Jew"?

Originally posted by daikaiju
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Ah no, there you go changing history to suit your fantasy, you have proven by your own statements that you are against the Jews having their own country thus be definition Anti-Semitic.

I called you out on it but you instead of standing up and actually admit that you have issues with the Jew you try and spin it.

At least the other gentleman will stand up and admit he is one cause he does not agree with the Jewish ideal of being God's chosen race.

Star for you Skorpion for at least standing up for what you believe in.

edit on 13/10/2011 by daikaiju because: (no reason given)

Bollocks! Most of the Jews in Jewish-Occupied Palestine (the country is grossly mis-named) are not Semitic (read Shemitic) - they are descendants of Japheth. I believe in religious toleration, but now that the Jews have created their own SECULAR country, they can no longer hide behind the banner of tolerance. They now have to take it on the chin like any other nation-state. Most Palestinians have more Israel blood than their Jewish neighbors, and the Jews know it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by daikaiju

 

. . .against the Jews having their own country. . .

That is not the definition of antisemitism.
What is going on is murder and theft of other people's country, all for the sake of creating an ethnically pure state.
Being against that is just supporting norms of morality, and international law, and treaties and the Geneva Convention, and the United Nations Charter, and the very declaration which allowed there to be a Jewish state in the first place.

Via wikipedia which you love to use as a source

New antisemitism
Main article: New antisemitism

Starting in the 1990s, some scholars have advanced the concept of New antisemitism, coming simultaneously from the left, the right, and radical Islam, which tends to focus on opposition to the creation of a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel, and argue that the language of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are used to attack the Jews more broadly. In this view, the proponents of the new concept believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to antisemitism. It is asserted that the new antisemitism deploys traditional antisemitic motifs, including older motifs such as the "Blood Libel".

Critics of the concept view it as trivializing the meaning of antisemitism, and as exploiting antisemitism in order to silence debate and deflect attention from legitimate criticism of the State of Israel, and, by associating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, misused to taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies

reply to post by daikaiju
Here is a video about what Zionists do on Wikipedia.

reply to post by daikaiju

Star for you Skorpion for at least standing up for what you believe in.

Believe what?
I asked you for your definition of "anti-semitism".

If one who questions jewish "chosenness" is an "anti-semite", then I guess I am one in your view... along with Jesus, who didn't care about their "chosenness" when he said God could make descendants for Abraham using rocks.

reply to post by daikaiju


So in other words, a jewish person/entity is completely immune to criticism, because it might fall under a new category of "anti-semitism".

Furthermore, there are plenty of JEWS who criticize zionism and use "anti-zionist language"... so yeah, the idea of using "anti-zionist language" to attack the Jews more broadly holds no water.

Now, let me guess, JEWS who criticize jews for what they do in Palestine are "self-hating" jews, since they cant be "anti-semites", right?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Why can't they be anti-semites? By definition they would be.

You want to drink JMD's Kool-Aid by all means just beware of the aftertaste that will come with it.

reply to post by daikaiju

You want to drink JMD's Kool-Aid by all means just beware of the aftertaste that will come with it.

Dunno about JMD ...
But I've made it clear here that I oppose the zionist regime for the SAME reasons that I oppose the Nazis.
I sympathize with the victims of Zionist brutality for the SAME reason that I sympathize with the victims of Nazi brutality.

And you are still to state what YOUR definition of "anti-semitism" is.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


My personal definition is in the Jews case is any hate against them for them being Jews. Kind of simple, now do I agree with what is going on in Israel now with the Palistine (sp?) no,i am sure they can find a way to co-exist with both their own countries.

My issue with JMD is his doctrines which have no biblical support and in many of his past (and odd) postings he has shown he has a problem with the OT and the Jews, but when confronted on it, he spins words and back tracks and has even lied (blatantly I might add and i did point it out to him with his own texts but he still denied the lie)

I am not the only one who has caught him like this.

If you believe in something, then stand by it, like you did with what you called the jewish entitlement and how you do not agree with it. Thats fine, JMD is against it but again when called on it he is afraid to man up.

Nothing personal toward you Skorpion.

reply to post by daikaiju


I will not involve JMdewey, but....

My personal definition is in the Jews case is any hate against them for them being Jews. Kind of simple, now do I agree with what is going on in Israel now with the Palistine (sp?) no,i am sure they can find a way to co-exist with both their own countries.

So then what about people (like me) who sympathize with jewish suffering during WW2? Are WE still anti-semites?

If you believe in something, then stand by it, like you did with what you called the jewish entitlement and how you do not agree with it.

I also referred to Jesus questioning "jewish" chosenness.
If you see me and Jesus as anti-semites then so be it.

As for what I believe....
I believe I must view the palestinians under Israeli boots with the SAME attitude as I would view jews under Nazi boots during WW2 , nothing more, nothing less...and I will stand by it.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by daikaiju

 

So then what about people (like me) who sympathize with jewish suffering during WW2? Are WE still anti-semites?

I also referred to Jesus questioning "jewish" chosenness.
If you see me and Jesus as anti-semites then so be it.

As for what I believe....
I believe I must view the palestinians under Israeli boots with the SAME attitude as I would view jews under Nazi boots during WW2 , nothing more, nothing less...and I will stand by it.

Do you believe that both countries can be made? If yes then I cannot call you a anti semite. both have the right to exist.

reply to post by daikaiju
There is another sub-forum on ATS for Middle-East Policies.
That's a pretty good place to get into such debates.
This sub-forum should be concerning the religious aspects.
Such as you can say your God is bigger and badder than my God.

reply to post by daikaiju

. . .but when confronted on it, he spins words and back tracks and has even lied. . .

This is a debate you keep talking about that supposedly happened somewhere between us but you can not point it out.