KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant
- Thread starter brandplucked
- Start date
- Status
Peter A V
New member
Brandplucked has a very good article about the Easter situation,in Acts 12:3,4 also.
I also did a bit of research in the subject and found out that the early christians would celebrate the Pasche[for them it was the resurection].The church in Antioch wanted to celebrate following the Jewish calendar.The Roman Church with more power and sway decided to celebrate The Pasche[Easter]after the Jewish Passover on a Sunday.The Alexandrian Church was given the responsibility of determining the actual dates.And they chose with the Roman church,as opposed to the Antiochan Jewish date. The Alexandrian Church decided to go with the first Sunday after the Spring equinox,if possible.Aparently,it became quite the argument for a few years.
They all understood Easter as Pasche.That was not even an issue.It was an adopted term.
Anyway,here is Will's article on it.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html
I also did a bit of research in the subject and found out that the early christians would celebrate the Pasche[for them it was the resurection].The church in Antioch wanted to celebrate following the Jewish calendar.The Roman Church with more power and sway decided to celebrate The Pasche[Easter]after the Jewish Passover on a Sunday.The Alexandrian Church was given the responsibility of determining the actual dates.And they chose with the Roman church,as opposed to the Antiochan Jewish date. The Alexandrian Church decided to go with the first Sunday after the Spring equinox,if possible.Aparently,it became quite the argument for a few years.
They all understood Easter as Pasche.That was not even an issue.It was an adopted term.
Anyway,here is Will's article on it.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html
Last edited:
Peter A V
New member
Here is one more indepth report about the Easter/Passover issue,by Scott Jones.
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/easter_or_passover1.htm
This one took me by surprize because at the time I first read it,I was convinced of the Pagan Easter senario at the time.I think it was Will that showed this article to me when I first started on the computer.
I'm still learning too,just like you,Roby cop3.I suppose you will get some good input here also,for it does challenge the previous views that some have.Some will never change,for they are content in the place that they are in;others veracious in the learning mode, wanting every stone turned.
By the end of these articles,you will see clearly,that I am not out to lunch on this issue at all,and that a person CAN make sense of this issue after all.It wasn't really that hard at all.
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/easter_or_passover1.htm
This one took me by surprize because at the time I first read it,I was convinced of the Pagan Easter senario at the time.I think it was Will that showed this article to me when I first started on the computer.
I'm still learning too,just like you,Roby cop3.I suppose you will get some good input here also,for it does challenge the previous views that some have.Some will never change,for they are content in the place that they are in;others veracious in the learning mode, wanting every stone turned.
By the end of these articles,you will see clearly,that I am not out to lunch on this issue at all,and that a person CAN make sense of this issue after all.It wasn't really that hard at all.
robycop3
Member
There's a MODERN Peter who's a fisherman...
There's a MODERN Peter who's a fisherman...
robycop3 Let's spend a little time with this stupid KJVO assertion.(NOT calling YOU stupid!)
First, please compare, in the KJV or any other valid version, Isaiah 42:7 and 61:1-3 with what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 16-20 & called SCRIPTURE in V.21. What JESUS read aloud DOES NOT MATCH the Masoretic Text from which the KJV's OT is translated, but it DOES closely match the rendering of Isaiah in the LXX. There cannot be more empirical proof that JESUS APPROVED OF USING OTHER VERSIONS. In fact, FEW OT quotes found in the NT match the Masoretic text, but most DO match the LXX.
When they don't match, there can be only a few possibilities. Whaddya think?
................
I don't deal in possibilities,just the true pure words of God.
In other words, YOU'RE CLUELESS, so ya pretend you have some Spiritual revelation. Which Ruckman pamphlet didja get THAT one from?
OK, what ARE God's pure words? The Masoretic Text, or what Jesus read in Luke 4? They ARE different, according to the KJV and every other valid version.
Time permitted,you will be shown the grasping at straw attitude that you carry because of your man made myth that has no preserved pure Bible that God said he has.
Sorry to hafta remind ya of this, but it's KJVO that's the man-made myth. This is a PROVEN FACT. Virtually all the KJVO false assertions are found in the books of Wilkinson, ray, and Fuller. Wilkinson wrote his error-filled book, Ray plagiarized a lot of it, including most of the errors, while adding some hooey of his own, and Fuller copied from them both, again keeping most of Wilkinson's errors while adding garbage of his own. Here's one PROOF of how shoddy the "research" of all three of'em was...Wilkinson said that Psalms 12:6-7 was about the preservation of God's words, while the AV translators had the following marginal note for V.7..."Heb.him, I. euery one of them". This plainly shows the AV men knew that verse was about the PEOPLE mentioned in the surrounding verses.
You can NOT disprove a single word of the above. I have all three books mentioned above, and, unlike the KJVO, I know what I'm talking about. I deal with FACTS, and not guesswork as the KJVO does.
You forgot about the main reason of scriptures,revelation for mankind.The Lord himself can do what he will with scriptures and add and subtract when he sees fit.
WHY?
Because he does everything with infinite love and infinite wisdom and infinite holiness.
We are not any of those things.So when we do what only God can do,we usurp him and become our own little god,however falible we may be .
Then if you believe God has changed His word, you have absolutely NO argument against multiple versions...not that you have a valid argument anyway.....
Even one mistake cripples it all.God never makes mistakes.Little old me has caught you on quite a few,and the majority I did not even respond to.
Because you're GUESSING, as KJVOs always do. If ya had any evidence of value, youda presented it by now. Presenting any trash from Ruckman or Riplinger isn't credible evidence.
God himself can add to scriptures to help us out,and he can paraphrase or ommit if he sees fit.So your assersion is completely groundless.
No, your KJVO myth is. You're making MY argument now, for multiple versions.
If you take a look at Matthew 2:23,you find a good example of further revelation,and there are many more like it.Go ahead and read the whole OT and see if you can find this one.
Plus there are the names of Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8,look real hard,now.
How silly...There were MANY Israeli writings that didn't make Scripture. For example, there was at least one more book of Kings, and at least one more book of Chronicles, as we see from the ones that DID make Scripture. Those writings are called PSEUDIPIGRAPHA, and there are quite a few of them extant.
As for Jannes & Jambres...those were brothers, the wizards in Pharaoh's court who opposed Moses & Aaron before Pharaoh, until God began doing things they couldn't duplicate nor explain. One of the pseudipigrapha bears their names. PLEASE TRY DOING A LITTKE RESEARCH BEFORE YA TYPE...YA MIGHT KEEP SOME EGG OUTTA YER FACE!
God is God.We cannot be presumptious and usurp him in changing the words.Just because we are caught up in a myth thinking God made a grievious mistake here.
One of your big mistakes is attributing the work of HUMAN TRANSLATORS to GOD. If He actually influenced any of their work, He did it with every translator of every valid version. There's absolutely NO evidence to the contrary.
God never made one mistake.There are no proven errors in the Holy Bible,just as it should be from a perfect God.
But there are several HUMAN errors in the King James version of the Holy Bible, and just about every other translation has some poor renderings or booboos within it. That's been PROVEN, and no KJVO can DISprove it.
Granted there are problem passages,for some,but I believe that these are in there to weed out the hearts of the gainsayers. The word of God is quick and powerful[not alive and active.a slug is alive and active but not very powerful nor quick]and sharper than any two-edged sword.God works on the hearts.While mythological men use a pen-knife to cut portions out of the Book.
More babblings.
Do you actually TRY TO THINK before ya type, or do you just dash off whatever hooey your imagination conjures up? You NEVER seem to reflect upon what you JUST WROTE!
You just said GOD CHANGES HIS WORD, and now ya say He DOESN'T! No wonder most of us believe KJVOs, regardless of intelligence, are addled by their myth to the point they don't USE that intelligence. You waffle more than Bisquick!
Why side with heretics and the Mythological Septuagint?[LXX 72]
Trust the Holy Bible,not a man made myth of opinions.
I DO trust the Holy Bible; that's why I do NOT believe the KJVO myth whatsoever...for one thing, that myth is not found nor even HINTED AT in the Holy Bible, in the KJ version nor any other valid version.
The reason some quotes you think agree with the MYTHOLOGICAL LXX[72]is because Origen Had the New Testament in his lap as he tried to correct God.Then he inserts the New Testament readings back into the Old testament to make sense to him.What an heretic.The founder of the Fabled mythological LXX[72].
If you are in love with the MYTHOLOGICAL LXX[72] so much,why don't you erase afew books of the Bible while you are at it?Any honest LXX[72] would like to have it word for word.So let's see this word for word.Book for Book and apocraphal books as PART of the CANNON not like the KJV that had it inbetween the cannon.And then gave it the boot.
I've several times posted the words of the AV translators, written in the preface of the AV 1611, PROVING they believed in an ancient LXX, written in the 200s BC, made at the command of Ptolemy Philadelph, the Greek ruler of Egypt at the time. I've shown you that the AV men used the LXX at several places in their translation, using Isaiah 14:7 as a clear-cut example. I've reminded you of a reading, as found in the KJV among others, made by JESUS HIMSELF, in Luke 4:16-21, as well as another in Acts 8:32-33, which, when vorlaged into Greek, match the words of the LXX, but if vorlaged into Hebrew, do NOT match the Masoretic Text. This also applies to most of the OT quotes made by the Apostles. Rant all ya wish, but you cannot change the FACTS listed above.
Other readers...Please examine what both Peter and I have said here, by reputable sources such as the AV 1611(repros readily available) Britannica or with a Jewish historian, for veracity. I'm NOT afraid of that challenge.
Be prepared, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE! Guesswork can never defeat FACT.
There's a MODERN Peter who's a fisherman...
robycop3 Let's spend a little time with this stupid KJVO assertion.(NOT calling YOU stupid!)
First, please compare, in the KJV or any other valid version, Isaiah 42:7 and 61:1-3 with what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 16-20 & called SCRIPTURE in V.21. What JESUS read aloud DOES NOT MATCH the Masoretic Text from which the KJV's OT is translated, but it DOES closely match the rendering of Isaiah in the LXX. There cannot be more empirical proof that JESUS APPROVED OF USING OTHER VERSIONS. In fact, FEW OT quotes found in the NT match the Masoretic text, but most DO match the LXX.
When they don't match, there can be only a few possibilities. Whaddya think?
................
I don't deal in possibilities,just the true pure words of God.
In other words, YOU'RE CLUELESS, so ya pretend you have some Spiritual revelation. Which Ruckman pamphlet didja get THAT one from?
OK, what ARE God's pure words? The Masoretic Text, or what Jesus read in Luke 4? They ARE different, according to the KJV and every other valid version.
Time permitted,you will be shown the grasping at straw attitude that you carry because of your man made myth that has no preserved pure Bible that God said he has.
Sorry to hafta remind ya of this, but it's KJVO that's the man-made myth. This is a PROVEN FACT. Virtually all the KJVO false assertions are found in the books of Wilkinson, ray, and Fuller. Wilkinson wrote his error-filled book, Ray plagiarized a lot of it, including most of the errors, while adding some hooey of his own, and Fuller copied from them both, again keeping most of Wilkinson's errors while adding garbage of his own. Here's one PROOF of how shoddy the "research" of all three of'em was...Wilkinson said that Psalms 12:6-7 was about the preservation of God's words, while the AV translators had the following marginal note for V.7..."Heb.him, I. euery one of them". This plainly shows the AV men knew that verse was about the PEOPLE mentioned in the surrounding verses.
You can NOT disprove a single word of the above. I have all three books mentioned above, and, unlike the KJVO, I know what I'm talking about. I deal with FACTS, and not guesswork as the KJVO does.
You forgot about the main reason of scriptures,revelation for mankind.The Lord himself can do what he will with scriptures and add and subtract when he sees fit.
WHY?
Because he does everything with infinite love and infinite wisdom and infinite holiness.
We are not any of those things.So when we do what only God can do,we usurp him and become our own little god,however falible we may be .
Then if you believe God has changed His word, you have absolutely NO argument against multiple versions...not that you have a valid argument anyway.....
Even one mistake cripples it all.God never makes mistakes.Little old me has caught you on quite a few,and the majority I did not even respond to.
Because you're GUESSING, as KJVOs always do. If ya had any evidence of value, youda presented it by now. Presenting any trash from Ruckman or Riplinger isn't credible evidence.
God himself can add to scriptures to help us out,and he can paraphrase or ommit if he sees fit.So your assersion is completely groundless.
No, your KJVO myth is. You're making MY argument now, for multiple versions.
If you take a look at Matthew 2:23,you find a good example of further revelation,and there are many more like it.Go ahead and read the whole OT and see if you can find this one.
Plus there are the names of Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3:8,look real hard,now.
How silly...There were MANY Israeli writings that didn't make Scripture. For example, there was at least one more book of Kings, and at least one more book of Chronicles, as we see from the ones that DID make Scripture. Those writings are called PSEUDIPIGRAPHA, and there are quite a few of them extant.
As for Jannes & Jambres...those were brothers, the wizards in Pharaoh's court who opposed Moses & Aaron before Pharaoh, until God began doing things they couldn't duplicate nor explain. One of the pseudipigrapha bears their names. PLEASE TRY DOING A LITTKE RESEARCH BEFORE YA TYPE...YA MIGHT KEEP SOME EGG OUTTA YER FACE!
God is God.We cannot be presumptious and usurp him in changing the words.Just because we are caught up in a myth thinking God made a grievious mistake here.
One of your big mistakes is attributing the work of HUMAN TRANSLATORS to GOD. If He actually influenced any of their work, He did it with every translator of every valid version. There's absolutely NO evidence to the contrary.
God never made one mistake.There are no proven errors in the Holy Bible,just as it should be from a perfect God.
But there are several HUMAN errors in the King James version of the Holy Bible, and just about every other translation has some poor renderings or booboos within it. That's been PROVEN, and no KJVO can DISprove it.
Granted there are problem passages,for some,but I believe that these are in there to weed out the hearts of the gainsayers. The word of God is quick and powerful[not alive and active.a slug is alive and active but not very powerful nor quick]and sharper than any two-edged sword.God works on the hearts.While mythological men use a pen-knife to cut portions out of the Book.
More babblings.
Do you actually TRY TO THINK before ya type, or do you just dash off whatever hooey your imagination conjures up? You NEVER seem to reflect upon what you JUST WROTE!
You just said GOD CHANGES HIS WORD, and now ya say He DOESN'T! No wonder most of us believe KJVOs, regardless of intelligence, are addled by their myth to the point they don't USE that intelligence. You waffle more than Bisquick!
Why side with heretics and the Mythological Septuagint?[LXX 72]
Trust the Holy Bible,not a man made myth of opinions.
I DO trust the Holy Bible; that's why I do NOT believe the KJVO myth whatsoever...for one thing, that myth is not found nor even HINTED AT in the Holy Bible, in the KJ version nor any other valid version.
The reason some quotes you think agree with the MYTHOLOGICAL LXX[72]is because Origen Had the New Testament in his lap as he tried to correct God.Then he inserts the New Testament readings back into the Old testament to make sense to him.What an heretic.The founder of the Fabled mythological LXX[72].
If you are in love with the MYTHOLOGICAL LXX[72] so much,why don't you erase afew books of the Bible while you are at it?Any honest LXX[72] would like to have it word for word.So let's see this word for word.Book for Book and apocraphal books as PART of the CANNON not like the KJV that had it inbetween the cannon.And then gave it the boot.
I've several times posted the words of the AV translators, written in the preface of the AV 1611, PROVING they believed in an ancient LXX, written in the 200s BC, made at the command of Ptolemy Philadelph, the Greek ruler of Egypt at the time. I've shown you that the AV men used the LXX at several places in their translation, using Isaiah 14:7 as a clear-cut example. I've reminded you of a reading, as found in the KJV among others, made by JESUS HIMSELF, in Luke 4:16-21, as well as another in Acts 8:32-33, which, when vorlaged into Greek, match the words of the LXX, but if vorlaged into Hebrew, do NOT match the Masoretic Text. This also applies to most of the OT quotes made by the Apostles. Rant all ya wish, but you cannot change the FACTS listed above.
Other readers...Please examine what both Peter and I have said here, by reputable sources such as the AV 1611(repros readily available) Britannica or with a Jewish historian, for veracity. I'm NOT afraid of that challenge.
Be prepared, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE! Guesswork can never defeat FACT.
robycop3
Member
More GUESSWORK disproven by FACTS!
More GUESSWORK disproven by FACTS!
You were a little more respectful in THIS post, so I shall act likewise.
There are three simple facts that make all arguments in favor of Easter moot...the simple fact that in Luke's day, 'pascha' meant PASSOVER and nothing else. Pascha is a transliteration of the Hebrew "p'sach", which is the word GOD used for passover in Exodus 12. It was only several hundred years later that pascha acquired the meaning "Easter" if the context called for it. The Greek word for "resurrection" is "anastasis", and if Luke were referring to Jesus' resurrection at all, he woulda used that word or a derivative thereof.
The name "Easter" was NOT applied to Resurrection Day until over 200 years after Luke wrote Acts.
The next fact is that the supposed anniversary of Jesus resurrection was not known to be observed whatsoever until C.155 AD. You may check every reputable source to verify.
The third fact is that Acts 4 was speaking of the same type of legalistic Jew that had jesus crucified. they were very careful to observe the law, including Passover, "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof". They were clearly observing PASSOVER, as Luke noted the events occurred during the days of unleavened bread, which was Passover Week.(Eze.45:21 confirms the entire Passover observance is a week long.)
The KJVOs argument for Easter is incorrect; it has no FOUNDATION.
More GUESSWORK disproven by FACTS!
Peter A V said:
You were a little more respectful in THIS post, so I shall act likewise.
There are three simple facts that make all arguments in favor of Easter moot...the simple fact that in Luke's day, 'pascha' meant PASSOVER and nothing else. Pascha is a transliteration of the Hebrew "p'sach", which is the word GOD used for passover in Exodus 12. It was only several hundred years later that pascha acquired the meaning "Easter" if the context called for it. The Greek word for "resurrection" is "anastasis", and if Luke were referring to Jesus' resurrection at all, he woulda used that word or a derivative thereof.
The name "Easter" was NOT applied to Resurrection Day until over 200 years after Luke wrote Acts.
The next fact is that the supposed anniversary of Jesus resurrection was not known to be observed whatsoever until C.155 AD. You may check every reputable source to verify.
The third fact is that Acts 4 was speaking of the same type of legalistic Jew that had jesus crucified. they were very careful to observe the law, including Passover, "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof". They were clearly observing PASSOVER, as Luke noted the events occurred during the days of unleavened bread, which was Passover Week.(Eze.45:21 confirms the entire Passover observance is a week long.)
The KJVOs argument for Easter is incorrect; it has no FOUNDATION.
Peter A V
New member
Please show some restraint
Please show some restraint
The Bible is the final authority.This is why many take the Pagan Easter as a Valid version.
I'm still up in the air,as to just exactly what is the truth,here.I understand your argument of
Acts with the time issue.But I can understand,other things in this thing too.So for me,it is a no win situation,really.I appreaciate your efforts in posting what you have considered facts.I tend to go more to internal evidence,rather than external.Nevertheless,I do use external evidence if I think at the time that it will enhance the point.I suppose,in your eyes I must look pretty dumb.
The thing with me is,I truly believe that there needs to be a final standard.And my humble opinion is that the KJV has the best evidence in favour of being the very words of God.
Please show some restraint
..........................robycop3 said:
The Bible is the final authority.This is why many take the Pagan Easter as a Valid version.
I'm still up in the air,as to just exactly what is the truth,here.I understand your argument of
Acts with the time issue.But I can understand,other things in this thing too.So for me,it is a no win situation,really.I appreaciate your efforts in posting what you have considered facts.I tend to go more to internal evidence,rather than external.Nevertheless,I do use external evidence if I think at the time that it will enhance the point.I suppose,in your eyes I must look pretty dumb.
The thing with me is,I truly believe that there needs to be a final standard.And my humble opinion is that the KJV has the best evidence in favour of being the very words of God.
Peter A V
New member
robycop3 said:
.......................
Please hold off on the slurs,Roby.You know that it is hard to answer emotional verbage that is purposed to destroy,instead of trying to understand and taking time to listen,instead of jumping in with both barrels.You claim to win,just what did you win?I can't respond properly to verbage like this.It becomes too personal,and that is not really glorifying to the LORD,I do believe.
I think we all understand you have no sympathy for the KJV viewpoint.You have made your expresion very clear.Now,let's get to work,and find out how we can work together,instead of "I can out gun you anytime" mentality.
I agree that you have showed some valid points and also I agree that I did not at some times show you any valid points.But can't we work together?I would love to learn from you.I can tell that you have poured out your heart,more than once,and every once in a while I see your true heart,beyond all of the retoric.
I think you are great,but it is very difficult to carry a lucid conversation with you because of your flying accusations,however true they may at may not be.
Relentless for him,
Peter Fuhrman
robycop3
Member
Final Authority
Final Authority
Peter A V]..........................
The Bible is the final authority.This is why many take the Pagan Easter as a Valid version.
Actually, those who DO take that rendering as valid haven't looked into the matter and have merely accepted one 400-yr-old translation's rendering as dogma. Let us not forget...ANY English Bible, old or new, is but a TRANSLATION, some better, some worse, and is NOT God's exact words. English didn't exist when God presented His words to His penmen to write down. However, I have FULL FAITH that we have what God intends for us to have. After all, it's GOD'S word that HE gives to us so that we may have knowledge of Him.
I'm still up in the air,as to just exactly what is the truth,here.I understand your argument of
Acts with the time issue.But I can understand,other things in this thing too.So for me,it is a no win situation,really.I appreaciate your efforts in posting what you have considered facts.I tend to go more to internal evidence,rather than external.Nevertheless,I do use external evidence if I think at the time that it will enhance the point.
The plain, empirical evidence is that the Greek language had the word "anastasis" for resurrection, any resurrection, and Luke, writing to Aristobulus in Greek, woulda used that word in referring to JESUS' resurrection. Instead, not only did Luke mention the days of unleavened bread, but wrote the Greek word "pascha", the very same exact word JESUS HIMSELF used when He mentions passover, and in Luke's time, still meant only PASSOVER, being a transliteration of the hebrew "p'sach", the word GOD used for passover in Exodus 12, and everywhere else in the OT when He mentions passover.(Passover was coined by Tyndale in the 1530s, as p'sach, pask, pascha were often left untranslated in older Bibles in other languages.) What we have in the KJV is simply a booboo. It doesn't change one peep of doctrine either way.
I suppose,in your eyes I must look pretty dumb.
Absolutely NOT...You prolly have more raw intelligence than I, or quite a few others here.I'm no scholar...I'm armed with a HS diploma & several tech certificates. However, ANY of us are subject to being tricked by the devil. I was(I almost became an Armstrongite till the HOLY SPIRITwoke me up!) and I believe he's misled you and some other devout Christians with this KJVO thingie. While he can't take our salvation, he can trick us into believing some doctrines which can limit the effectiveness of our witness. We've seen the effects of the KJVO myth before...splitting churches, even destroying some churches completely...ending friendships...causing mucho strife.
Please pray & think this over...Can any doctrine that causes so much trouble REALLY be of GOD ? ? ?
What I have is a nose for getting at the TRUTH. Now I KNOW God's gonna reveal HIS truths "line upon line, precept upon precept" as he said, but the truths(and falsehoods) of MEN are much-more-easily found. And through mucho study and reading, I've found that KJVO is a very false doctrine. Now, while it won't send anyone to hell, it CAN limit the individual's quality of witnessing, and might even drive away some lost who also know KJVO is false. And we Christians are to fight against ANY AND ALL false doctrines related to worship.
The thing with me is,I truly believe that there needs to be a final standard.And my humble opinion is that the KJV has the best evidence in favour of being the very words of God.
That's a grand idea on paper, Peter, but the reality is that there can be only one final standard if there was only one final, unchanging language.
And there IS one legit reason to be KJVO...PERSONAL PREFERENCE. The late, great Dr. J. Vernon McGee was KJVO, but he certainly didn't subscribe to the KJVO myth, nor did he put down other versions. He stated he'd grown up with the KJV, but being a student of Greek, he saw that the KJV has several rather poor renderings here & there, including the aforementioned Easter, and in his radio teaching progs, he didn't hesitate to mention them.
While I respect your opinion, long as you don't think MINE is wrong, mine is that the NKJV & NASB now represent God's words best in English, with the AV/KJV being the best of its day, with the Bishop's Bible and Geneva Bible being the best before that. (NONE of'em are the VERY words of God...He did NOT present His words in English.)
Final Authority
Peter A V]..........................
The Bible is the final authority.This is why many take the Pagan Easter as a Valid version.
Actually, those who DO take that rendering as valid haven't looked into the matter and have merely accepted one 400-yr-old translation's rendering as dogma. Let us not forget...ANY English Bible, old or new, is but a TRANSLATION, some better, some worse, and is NOT God's exact words. English didn't exist when God presented His words to His penmen to write down. However, I have FULL FAITH that we have what God intends for us to have. After all, it's GOD'S word that HE gives to us so that we may have knowledge of Him.
I'm still up in the air,as to just exactly what is the truth,here.I understand your argument of
Acts with the time issue.But I can understand,other things in this thing too.So for me,it is a no win situation,really.I appreaciate your efforts in posting what you have considered facts.I tend to go more to internal evidence,rather than external.Nevertheless,I do use external evidence if I think at the time that it will enhance the point.
The plain, empirical evidence is that the Greek language had the word "anastasis" for resurrection, any resurrection, and Luke, writing to Aristobulus in Greek, woulda used that word in referring to JESUS' resurrection. Instead, not only did Luke mention the days of unleavened bread, but wrote the Greek word "pascha", the very same exact word JESUS HIMSELF used when He mentions passover, and in Luke's time, still meant only PASSOVER, being a transliteration of the hebrew "p'sach", the word GOD used for passover in Exodus 12, and everywhere else in the OT when He mentions passover.(Passover was coined by Tyndale in the 1530s, as p'sach, pask, pascha were often left untranslated in older Bibles in other languages.) What we have in the KJV is simply a booboo. It doesn't change one peep of doctrine either way.
I suppose,in your eyes I must look pretty dumb.
Absolutely NOT...You prolly have more raw intelligence than I, or quite a few others here.I'm no scholar...I'm armed with a HS diploma & several tech certificates. However, ANY of us are subject to being tricked by the devil. I was(I almost became an Armstrongite till the HOLY SPIRITwoke me up!) and I believe he's misled you and some other devout Christians with this KJVO thingie. While he can't take our salvation, he can trick us into believing some doctrines which can limit the effectiveness of our witness. We've seen the effects of the KJVO myth before...splitting churches, even destroying some churches completely...ending friendships...causing mucho strife.
Please pray & think this over...Can any doctrine that causes so much trouble REALLY be of GOD ? ? ?
What I have is a nose for getting at the TRUTH. Now I KNOW God's gonna reveal HIS truths "line upon line, precept upon precept" as he said, but the truths(and falsehoods) of MEN are much-more-easily found. And through mucho study and reading, I've found that KJVO is a very false doctrine. Now, while it won't send anyone to hell, it CAN limit the individual's quality of witnessing, and might even drive away some lost who also know KJVO is false. And we Christians are to fight against ANY AND ALL false doctrines related to worship.
The thing with me is,I truly believe that there needs to be a final standard.And my humble opinion is that the KJV has the best evidence in favour of being the very words of God.
That's a grand idea on paper, Peter, but the reality is that there can be only one final standard if there was only one final, unchanging language.
And there IS one legit reason to be KJVO...PERSONAL PREFERENCE. The late, great Dr. J. Vernon McGee was KJVO, but he certainly didn't subscribe to the KJVO myth, nor did he put down other versions. He stated he'd grown up with the KJV, but being a student of Greek, he saw that the KJV has several rather poor renderings here & there, including the aforementioned Easter, and in his radio teaching progs, he didn't hesitate to mention them.
While I respect your opinion, long as you don't think MINE is wrong, mine is that the NKJV & NASB now represent God's words best in English, with the AV/KJV being the best of its day, with the Bishop's Bible and Geneva Bible being the best before that. (NONE of'em are the VERY words of God...He did NOT present His words in English.)
robycop3
Member
Olive branch?
Olive branch?
Peter A V.......................
Please hold off on the slurs,Roby.You know that it is hard to answer emotional verbage that is purposed to destroy,instead of trying to understand and taking time to listen,instead of jumping in with both barrels.You claim to win,just what did you win?I can't respond properly to verbage like this.It becomes too personal,and that is not really glorifying to the LORD,I do believe.
Please understand that I'm a FIGHTER, accustomed to winning, and if I lose, to try, try again. Your "you have no infallible Bible" thingie awoke the fighter in me, as that, to me, was a "Brandpluckedism", and I don't place much stock in anything he says because he's been WRONG so often, and DELIBERATELY wrong at that. That, plus your seeming belief in the garbage of Ruckman and Riplinger, smelled like a coming fight to me.
I think we all understand you have no sympathy for the KJV viewpoint.
Clearly an understatement!(LOL)
You have made your expresion very clear.Now,let's get to work,and find out how we can work together,instead of "I can out gun you anytime" mentality.
We can agree, and work together on many things, but please understand I WILL NOT COMPROMISE when it comes to ANY false doctrine. I hate Universalism. I hate regenerational baptism. I hate salvation by works. I hate the KJVO myth.
I agree that you have showed some valid points and also I agree that I did not at some times show you any valid points.But can't we work together?I would love to learn from you.I can tell that you have poured out your heart,more than once,and every once in a while I see your true heart,beyond all of the retoric.
I'm sure YOU can teach ME a few things, but not about KJVO. I believe we could work together in denouncing the Jehovah False Witnesses, the Mor(m)ons, the 7th Day Adlibbers, and other pseudo-Christian hellbound cults.
I think you are great,but it is very difficult to carry a lucid conversation with you because of your flying accusations,however true they may at may not be.
Relentless for him,
Peter Fuhrman
As I said, I'm a FIGHTER. Now, I fight for the TRUTH. I fought before I was saved, and I've fought since I was saved in 1979. I believe God has called me to fight against cults and false doctrines pertaining to the true worship of God as HE has ordained it.
Few people who know me outside my family know of my internet wars with cults and false doctrine proselytes. I don't do it for any glory, but for the cause of GOD. He could easily get along without me, you, or any of us , in the spreading of His Gospel, but He's commanded US to do it, and I shall endeavor to perform the works He's set before me.
Gotta go for awhile...I have my little E-Biz to run....
Olive branch?
Peter A V.......................
Please hold off on the slurs,Roby.You know that it is hard to answer emotional verbage that is purposed to destroy,instead of trying to understand and taking time to listen,instead of jumping in with both barrels.You claim to win,just what did you win?I can't respond properly to verbage like this.It becomes too personal,and that is not really glorifying to the LORD,I do believe.
Please understand that I'm a FIGHTER, accustomed to winning, and if I lose, to try, try again. Your "you have no infallible Bible" thingie awoke the fighter in me, as that, to me, was a "Brandpluckedism", and I don't place much stock in anything he says because he's been WRONG so often, and DELIBERATELY wrong at that. That, plus your seeming belief in the garbage of Ruckman and Riplinger, smelled like a coming fight to me.
I think we all understand you have no sympathy for the KJV viewpoint.
Clearly an understatement!(LOL)
You have made your expresion very clear.Now,let's get to work,and find out how we can work together,instead of "I can out gun you anytime" mentality.
We can agree, and work together on many things, but please understand I WILL NOT COMPROMISE when it comes to ANY false doctrine. I hate Universalism. I hate regenerational baptism. I hate salvation by works. I hate the KJVO myth.
I agree that you have showed some valid points and also I agree that I did not at some times show you any valid points.But can't we work together?I would love to learn from you.I can tell that you have poured out your heart,more than once,and every once in a while I see your true heart,beyond all of the retoric.
I'm sure YOU can teach ME a few things, but not about KJVO. I believe we could work together in denouncing the Jehovah False Witnesses, the Mor(m)ons, the 7th Day Adlibbers, and other pseudo-Christian hellbound cults.
I think you are great,but it is very difficult to carry a lucid conversation with you because of your flying accusations,however true they may at may not be.
Relentless for him,
Peter Fuhrman
As I said, I'm a FIGHTER. Now, I fight for the TRUTH. I fought before I was saved, and I've fought since I was saved in 1979. I believe God has called me to fight against cults and false doctrines pertaining to the true worship of God as HE has ordained it.
Few people who know me outside my family know of my internet wars with cults and false doctrine proselytes. I don't do it for any glory, but for the cause of GOD. He could easily get along without me, you, or any of us , in the spreading of His Gospel, but He's commanded US to do it, and I shall endeavor to perform the works He's set before me.
Gotta go for awhile...I have my little E-Biz to run....
logos_x
New member
There are three different words indiscriminately translated "hell" in the King James Version. In 2 Peter 3:4, where the Greek word is tartaroo (English transliteration, "tartarus,") the KJV has translated "hell." In Matthew 5:29, where the Greek word is geenna," (English transliteration "gehenna"), the KJV has translated "hell." In Acts 2:27, where the Greek word is hades, (English translation, "unseen"), the KJV has translated "hell." Surely you see the crime in translating three different Greek words (with three very different meanings), by the same English word.
I believe, as do many others, that God had a reason for using three different words, and that man cannot simply dismiss this with a shrug and the flick of a pen. If God had meant to say the same thing in all these passages, He would have inspired the writers to use the same Greek word. To ignore these differences is to belittle God's revelation.
Thank God that He has not left us to trust the KJV translators (or any translator), but has given us concordances (such as Young's and Strong's), with which to check the translator's work. Looking up "hell" on pages 474 and 475 of Young's Exhaustive Concordance, you can confirm with me the separate words hades, geenna and tartaroo. Why did we have to consult Young's concordance to discover this? Because the careless translators did not consider it necessary to define these differences in the text.
Just where are those people going, who we are passing while heading the opposite way as them? Are they going to hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna? To simply say that they are "going to hell" sheds no light on the subject, only confusion. What does it matter where they are going? Well, if it doesn't matter to us, it certainly matters to them (!), and it definitely matters to God, Who created them for His glory. It would be good of us, I think, to look more carefully into the Greek text, and not to treat the fate of billions so flippantly.
Can they be going to Tartarus? Hardly. 2 Peter 2:4 tells us that this place is reserved for "sinning angels." These, obviously, are not human beings. As those we are passing going "the other way" are of flesh and blood, Tartarus is not the place for them.
Are they going to Gehenna? No, not unless they transgress during the thousand-year millennial reign of Christ, which is unlikely if they die in their sins before its inauguration, as most of them will.
Gehenna is literally the "vale of Hinnom," literally ben-Hinnom. Owned then by the sons of a guy named Hinnom, it is a literal valley near Jerusalem that one can visit today, where the city garbage was burned. Some believe it was also the place where children were offered in sacrifice to Molech. Could be. In any case, it will be that place in the kingdom (the millennium) where the carcasses of transgressors will be tossed (Isaiah 66:24), as a detriment to further lawlessness. I think it will be quite effective, myself. (Maybe our American justice system could concoct some equivalent.) Anyway, this is strictly a kingdom judgment and has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called "eternal destiny" of men. How could it, seeing that "the rest of the dead do not live until the thousand years should be finished" (Rv 20:5), at which time Hinnom ceases to be?
This leaves us with hades, which indeed is the "place" where the souls of all the dead go, you and me included, if the Lord does not come for us first. It literally means "un-perceived" or "unseen." This is proven by checking every place this word appears in Scripture. (The Hebrew equivalent of this word, as you know, is sheol. We know this because that word was consistently translated hades in the Septuagint, or the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures).
I wish I had the energy to pursue this subject in depth. Just know that the soul of our Lord Himself went to hades (the unseen, Acts 2:29), as did the soul of David (Acts 2:27). If this is the so-called "eternal torment" of Christianity, how is it that a city resides there? (I'm speaking of Capernaum; see Matthew 11:23). Yes, go to Israel today and try to find the ancient city of Capernaum. You won't be able to do it. Why? Because, as the Lord said, it is abiding in "the unseen." All this means, again, is that it cannot now be perceived. It's gone.
There are unbelievers who will miss out on the life of the eons, or, as literal translations have it, "eonian life" (for the Greek word aion.) And that is painfully true.
To avoid the confusion gendered by the indiscriminate use of the word "hell," you would have to say that the lot of these unbelievers is the lake of fire, which is the second death.In this we need to discriminate, because the lake of fire has nothing whatsoever to do with hell. Bereft of a pattern of sound words, however, many expositors have supposed the lake of fire to be hell. They also suppose that people will be writhing in anguish there. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as the Scriptures show.
Examining the text closely and believing what is written there, and only what is written (we don't want to be "disposed above what is written"- 1 Cor. 4:6), we find that only three are cast alive into the lake of fire. These are plainly stated in Revelation 20:10 to be the Adversary, the wild beast and the false prophet. Here they shall be "tormented day and night for the eons of the eons."
The "eons of the eons" corresponds in literary structure to the phrase "Holy of the holies," or "Holies of the holies," a phrase which isolates a particular holy place, or places, that exceed in significance and glory other holy places to which they (or it) are being compared. As no one of a sound mind would assert that this means "an unending tumbling of holy places upon one another," why is it that the "eons of the eons," or "the eon of the eon" or "the eon of the eons" are given that connotation? Strange that the KJV lumps all of these three, detailed, Scriptural phrases into the English catch-all: "Forever and ever." But the strangeness does not end here. If "forever" means eternity, then what the heck does "and ever" mean? Eternity and then some? God is not so dumb. No, man has cornered that market. The casual handling of these precise Greek phrases not only belittles God's precise vocabulary, but forces the reader to defy logic. As we have seen from the writings of Paul, God does not defy logic, but rather works within this God-given and worthy human framework.
It can be shown in Scripture (from tracing the word throughout Scripture in its contexts) that "eon" (Gr. aion), means time, or, more correctly, "pertaining to the eons." "Eonian," then (the adjective form of the noun), must also relate to time, or the eons, as the basic meaning of a word cannot change with the various forms of its parts of speech (i.e. hour/hourly, day/daily.)
That some suffer eonian separation from God is unquestionable. That these three mentioned will be tormented day and night for the eons of the eons (certainly not "forever and ever" as the KJV translates), is undeniable. We would (or should) have it no other way. The fate suits their crimes. But to lump those human beings (whose portion following the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20:12 is death, which is sleep) with the conscious torment of the three worst transgressors in universal history, is to do unjustifiable violence to the text.
The term "second death" (this is the lake of fire- Rev. 20:14) carries in its name its own definition. It is death. Those in the second death (the lake of fire) are dead. As can be shown in dozens of passages of Scripture (among them Job 14:10-12, Ps. 13:3, Ps. 6:5, Dan. 12:1-2, Ps. 146:4, Is. 38:18, Eccl. 9:5, Jn. 11:11-14, to name but a few) death is unconsciousness.
At death, as you know, the spirit returns to God, the body returns to the soil, and the soul returns to the unseen (sheol, hades), from which it came. The soul, in Scripture, is invariably associated with sensation, and therefore with consciousness. There is no soul, and therefore no sensation, apart from the joining of body and spirit. One beautiful and telling verse from Scripture proves this: Genesis 2:7- "And forming is Yahweh Elohim the human of soil from the ground, and He is blowing into his nostrils the breath of the living, and becoming is the human a living soul." Here we have all three elements of man: body, soul and spirit. Note: Adam did not become a "living soul" until the breath (spirit) of God met with the soil (body) of Adam.
Anyway, back to those billions in the lake of fire. It is not a place of torment except to the Adversary, the wild beast and the false prophet. To all else there, it is merciful unconsciousness (that is, death), until all death is abolished at the consummation, an event described in First Corinthians 15:26.
Cite
If you are interested in the most accurate translation if God's Word into English to date, click HERE
I believe, as do many others, that God had a reason for using three different words, and that man cannot simply dismiss this with a shrug and the flick of a pen. If God had meant to say the same thing in all these passages, He would have inspired the writers to use the same Greek word. To ignore these differences is to belittle God's revelation.
Thank God that He has not left us to trust the KJV translators (or any translator), but has given us concordances (such as Young's and Strong's), with which to check the translator's work. Looking up "hell" on pages 474 and 475 of Young's Exhaustive Concordance, you can confirm with me the separate words hades, geenna and tartaroo. Why did we have to consult Young's concordance to discover this? Because the careless translators did not consider it necessary to define these differences in the text.
Just where are those people going, who we are passing while heading the opposite way as them? Are they going to hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna? To simply say that they are "going to hell" sheds no light on the subject, only confusion. What does it matter where they are going? Well, if it doesn't matter to us, it certainly matters to them (!), and it definitely matters to God, Who created them for His glory. It would be good of us, I think, to look more carefully into the Greek text, and not to treat the fate of billions so flippantly.
Can they be going to Tartarus? Hardly. 2 Peter 2:4 tells us that this place is reserved for "sinning angels." These, obviously, are not human beings. As those we are passing going "the other way" are of flesh and blood, Tartarus is not the place for them.
Are they going to Gehenna? No, not unless they transgress during the thousand-year millennial reign of Christ, which is unlikely if they die in their sins before its inauguration, as most of them will.
Gehenna is literally the "vale of Hinnom," literally ben-Hinnom. Owned then by the sons of a guy named Hinnom, it is a literal valley near Jerusalem that one can visit today, where the city garbage was burned. Some believe it was also the place where children were offered in sacrifice to Molech. Could be. In any case, it will be that place in the kingdom (the millennium) where the carcasses of transgressors will be tossed (Isaiah 66:24), as a detriment to further lawlessness. I think it will be quite effective, myself. (Maybe our American justice system could concoct some equivalent.) Anyway, this is strictly a kingdom judgment and has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called "eternal destiny" of men. How could it, seeing that "the rest of the dead do not live until the thousand years should be finished" (Rv 20:5), at which time Hinnom ceases to be?
This leaves us with hades, which indeed is the "place" where the souls of all the dead go, you and me included, if the Lord does not come for us first. It literally means "un-perceived" or "unseen." This is proven by checking every place this word appears in Scripture. (The Hebrew equivalent of this word, as you know, is sheol. We know this because that word was consistently translated hades in the Septuagint, or the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures).
I wish I had the energy to pursue this subject in depth. Just know that the soul of our Lord Himself went to hades (the unseen, Acts 2:29), as did the soul of David (Acts 2:27). If this is the so-called "eternal torment" of Christianity, how is it that a city resides there? (I'm speaking of Capernaum; see Matthew 11:23). Yes, go to Israel today and try to find the ancient city of Capernaum. You won't be able to do it. Why? Because, as the Lord said, it is abiding in "the unseen." All this means, again, is that it cannot now be perceived. It's gone.
There are unbelievers who will miss out on the life of the eons, or, as literal translations have it, "eonian life" (for the Greek word aion.) And that is painfully true.
To avoid the confusion gendered by the indiscriminate use of the word "hell," you would have to say that the lot of these unbelievers is the lake of fire, which is the second death.In this we need to discriminate, because the lake of fire has nothing whatsoever to do with hell. Bereft of a pattern of sound words, however, many expositors have supposed the lake of fire to be hell. They also suppose that people will be writhing in anguish there. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as the Scriptures show.
Examining the text closely and believing what is written there, and only what is written (we don't want to be "disposed above what is written"- 1 Cor. 4:6), we find that only three are cast alive into the lake of fire. These are plainly stated in Revelation 20:10 to be the Adversary, the wild beast and the false prophet. Here they shall be "tormented day and night for the eons of the eons."
The "eons of the eons" corresponds in literary structure to the phrase "Holy of the holies," or "Holies of the holies," a phrase which isolates a particular holy place, or places, that exceed in significance and glory other holy places to which they (or it) are being compared. As no one of a sound mind would assert that this means "an unending tumbling of holy places upon one another," why is it that the "eons of the eons," or "the eon of the eon" or "the eon of the eons" are given that connotation? Strange that the KJV lumps all of these three, detailed, Scriptural phrases into the English catch-all: "Forever and ever." But the strangeness does not end here. If "forever" means eternity, then what the heck does "and ever" mean? Eternity and then some? God is not so dumb. No, man has cornered that market. The casual handling of these precise Greek phrases not only belittles God's precise vocabulary, but forces the reader to defy logic. As we have seen from the writings of Paul, God does not defy logic, but rather works within this God-given and worthy human framework.
It can be shown in Scripture (from tracing the word throughout Scripture in its contexts) that "eon" (Gr. aion), means time, or, more correctly, "pertaining to the eons." "Eonian," then (the adjective form of the noun), must also relate to time, or the eons, as the basic meaning of a word cannot change with the various forms of its parts of speech (i.e. hour/hourly, day/daily.)
That some suffer eonian separation from God is unquestionable. That these three mentioned will be tormented day and night for the eons of the eons (certainly not "forever and ever" as the KJV translates), is undeniable. We would (or should) have it no other way. The fate suits their crimes. But to lump those human beings (whose portion following the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20:12 is death, which is sleep) with the conscious torment of the three worst transgressors in universal history, is to do unjustifiable violence to the text.
The term "second death" (this is the lake of fire- Rev. 20:14) carries in its name its own definition. It is death. Those in the second death (the lake of fire) are dead. As can be shown in dozens of passages of Scripture (among them Job 14:10-12, Ps. 13:3, Ps. 6:5, Dan. 12:1-2, Ps. 146:4, Is. 38:18, Eccl. 9:5, Jn. 11:11-14, to name but a few) death is unconsciousness.
At death, as you know, the spirit returns to God, the body returns to the soil, and the soul returns to the unseen (sheol, hades), from which it came. The soul, in Scripture, is invariably associated with sensation, and therefore with consciousness. There is no soul, and therefore no sensation, apart from the joining of body and spirit. One beautiful and telling verse from Scripture proves this: Genesis 2:7- "And forming is Yahweh Elohim the human of soil from the ground, and He is blowing into his nostrils the breath of the living, and becoming is the human a living soul." Here we have all three elements of man: body, soul and spirit. Note: Adam did not become a "living soul" until the breath (spirit) of God met with the soil (body) of Adam.
Anyway, back to those billions in the lake of fire. It is not a place of torment except to the Adversary, the wild beast and the false prophet. To all else there, it is merciful unconsciousness (that is, death), until all death is abolished at the consummation, an event described in First Corinthians 15:26.
Cite
If you are interested in the most accurate translation if God's Word into English to date, click HERE
robycop3
Member
So much for Peter's "conciliation"!
So much for Peter's "conciliation"!
Peter A V QUOTE=robycop3][
I,too, shall continue to uphold the Holy Bible in whatever valid version it appears. I believe that so far I've posted more than enough evidence against the KJVO doctrine that anyone oughtta see it's just a myth, an urban legend, created in dishonesty, and cannot be of GOD.
Knowing KJVO to be false, I shall continue, God Willing, to attack it whenever/wherever I come across it.
*******
Peter AV: You have posted nothing that proves that the KJV is not the word of God.
That has never been my aim. Ever since shortly after my salvation I've believed the KJV to be a valid version of the WOG, but I've NEVER believed & never WILL believe the myth that it's the ONLY valid English Bible version.
All you have done is state that you disagree with our conclusions and repeatedly call it a myth.
And I'm RIGHT. you haven't been able to prove ONE POINT of the KJVO myth while I've presented FACTS, EMPIRICAL PROOF against those points i've gone after. All YOU'VE offered in rebuttal is GUESSWORK.
I'm here bud!It ain't no myth.It's real,and thats what scares you.
How silly...I'm not a BIT scared. I have the learning of over 22 years' research to use to prove your myth WRONG, while all YOU'VE shown us is GUESSWORK, and your opinions based upon no evidence to hope to prove your myth is NOT merely a myth.
I suppose you are going to defend you favorite bible ,whatever that may be at any given verse or chapter or word?
Let's see,I know for sure that you have the Nkjv as one of your favorites.
Let's check it out,and see if it passes the simple test of little old me.
Well, let's see just how legitimate your lil ole test IS.
Well look at that! I didn't even have to open the book and it gave itself away.Look at the logo!Good old New Age and Satanic 666.You can see that same one on works by Aleister Crowley,Plus the album of Led Zephlin,and on the New Age best seller's "The Aquarian Conspiracy"
Naughty,naughty,momma gonna spank.
And to think that God forbade that stuff by Christians 2000 years ago.Acts 17:29.
POPPYCOCK. You've been reading junk from that paragon of wisdom TERRY WATKINS. His "resaarch" is non-existent. Please read any good encyclopedia such as Britannica to see the CHRISTIAN history of the triquetra. And your history is a little behind...the triquetra is no longer on the cover of the NKJV, not because of any KJVO lunacy, but because several new occult orgs, and the TV show Charmed have adopted it for use. It is a sign not rooted in our consciousness as a Christian symbol as is the CROSS.
There's no doubt that Jesus was crucified upon a "crux immissa", the Latin Tau(Our letter "T") cross. Now, how was this very symbol used in other civilizations?
# Scandanavia: The Tau cross symbolized the hammer of the God Thor.
# Babylon: the cross with a crescent moon was the symbol of their moon deity.
# Assyria: the corners of the cross represented the four directions in which the sun shines.
# India: In Hinduism, the vertical shaft represents the higher, celestial states of being; the horizontal bar represents the lower, earthly states.
# Egypt: The ankh cross (a Tau cross topped by an inverted tear shape) is associated with Maat, their Goddess of Truth. It also represents the sexual union of Isis and Osiris.
# Europe: The use of a human effigy on a cross in the form of a scarecrow has been used from ancient times. In prehistoric times, a human would be sacrificed and hung on a cross. The sacrifice would later be chopped to pieces; his blood and pieces of flesh were widely distributed and buried to encourage the crop fertility.
In reality, it was a more common PAGAN symbol than the triquetra was. That means if your KJV has a cross upon it, according to your own expressed opinion, it's a pagan book. If your church edifice has a cross upon it or within it, then according to your own expressed opinion, it's a pagan church.
Again, try STUDYING a little before popping off & getting egg in your face again. You have failed your own test.
Well,I suppose that it is much better to be accused of believing a man made myth than to have a Bible that is corrupted through and through.
Again, you're making an entirely up-in-the-air statement which is mostly FALSE. Your "proof" for "corruption " consists of, "It aint da KJV." That stinx. You must LOVE eggs.
Looks like those false accusations of Roby's is backfiring again.
Oh, REALLY? you haven't proven ONE of 'em incorrect, and, long as you're using guesswork vs FACT, you NEVER WILL.
It appears that Roby is puposfully creating a ruckus himself!
By telling the TRUTH? If that creates a ruckus among the liars, then so be it.
So,Herb Evans WAS right,that there are "certain rude and lude"on both sides of the issue."Certain lousy arguments"etal.
So, you cite Evans as an "authority"? That figures. HIS arguments are as pathetic as yours, and he's afraid to actually DEBATE the opposition cuz he knows he'll LOSE.
Gotta love your effort though.We know where the real MYTH is.LXX[72]
So the KJV translators were wrong when they ascribed the LXX to Ptolemy Philadelph in the 200s BC? I posted EVIDENCE, written by the AV translators, from their preface To The Reader, while YOU'RE GUESSING! Evidently you are as a Mormon; they believe the KJV "only as far as it's correctly translated" which means, "only as far as it fits Mormon doctrine. Seems YOU believe the AV 1611 ONLY AS FAR AS IT, AND ITS TRANSLATORS AGREE WITH THE MAN-MADE MYTH ABOUT IT. You've proven it yourself by showing you DON'T believe what those translators wrote about the LXX.
All YOU can do is BADMOUTH me, while I've proven YOU WRONG from your own fave Bible version.
Prophecy.Roby can't hold his tongue now.There is a tiny fire there.Well,blaze away buddy,we know you are wrong,and God is right,no matter how convinced you are of your own arguments.
I'm not arguing with GOD; I'm arguing with an unlearned guesswork specialist who doesn't know fact from fiction, who is gullible to the garbage posted by certain authors whose assertions I HAVE EXAMINED against legitimate reference materials, and found badly wanting in VERACITY. Once again, other readers, who has posted FACT, and who has posted GUESSWORK?
I have the Holy Bible.
So do I, in several versions.
Proven to be without error.
On the contrary, proven to be WITH error. Here's one to digest: Acts 19:37, "robbers of CHURCHES". Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples". Feel free to CHECK IT OUT.
Yours is riddled,from the outside in.Repent. Again, you lack the first quark of PROOF for your silly statement. How ignorant of you to just toss around unfounded statements which you cannot even BEGIN to prove. YOU need to repent of treating God's word so frivoulsly.
It's plain to me that you were holding out a hand of 'peace' while holding a gun behind your back in the other. You wanna play this game? Fine...YOU'RE GONNA LOSE, AND LOSE SOME MORE, as you've already done.
Let's see your sources:
Peter Ruckman
Gail Riplinger
Terry Watkins
Jack Moorman
Lawrence Vance
Sam Gipp
David Cloud
Mister, I've read all the works by all those authors and a lot more besides them, and I've checked out all their assertions, KJVO & otherwise, while apparently all YOU'VE done is read a little of them and automatically taken their assertions as dogma without one whit of proof or verification. That's why your stuff always blows up in your face...YOU HAVEN'T DONE YOUR HOMEWORK! Therefore, all you have is a trunk full of GUESSWORK!
MY sources? Here are the ones I've used TODAY:
Encyclopaedia Britannica
Collier's Encyclopedia
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
The Menace of Modernism, 1917, William Bell Riley
And last in the list, but certainly not least: THE AV 1611 ITSELF!
Feel free to try to refute them!(LOL)
So much for Peter's "conciliation"!
Peter A V QUOTE=robycop3][
I,too, shall continue to uphold the Holy Bible in whatever valid version it appears. I believe that so far I've posted more than enough evidence against the KJVO doctrine that anyone oughtta see it's just a myth, an urban legend, created in dishonesty, and cannot be of GOD.
Knowing KJVO to be false, I shall continue, God Willing, to attack it whenever/wherever I come across it.
*******
Peter AV: You have posted nothing that proves that the KJV is not the word of God.
That has never been my aim. Ever since shortly after my salvation I've believed the KJV to be a valid version of the WOG, but I've NEVER believed & never WILL believe the myth that it's the ONLY valid English Bible version.
All you have done is state that you disagree with our conclusions and repeatedly call it a myth.
And I'm RIGHT. you haven't been able to prove ONE POINT of the KJVO myth while I've presented FACTS, EMPIRICAL PROOF against those points i've gone after. All YOU'VE offered in rebuttal is GUESSWORK.
I'm here bud!It ain't no myth.It's real,and thats what scares you.
How silly...I'm not a BIT scared. I have the learning of over 22 years' research to use to prove your myth WRONG, while all YOU'VE shown us is GUESSWORK, and your opinions based upon no evidence to hope to prove your myth is NOT merely a myth.
I suppose you are going to defend you favorite bible ,whatever that may be at any given verse or chapter or word?
Let's see,I know for sure that you have the Nkjv as one of your favorites.
Let's check it out,and see if it passes the simple test of little old me.
Well, let's see just how legitimate your lil ole test IS.
Well look at that! I didn't even have to open the book and it gave itself away.Look at the logo!Good old New Age and Satanic 666.You can see that same one on works by Aleister Crowley,Plus the album of Led Zephlin,and on the New Age best seller's "The Aquarian Conspiracy"
Naughty,naughty,momma gonna spank.
And to think that God forbade that stuff by Christians 2000 years ago.Acts 17:29.
POPPYCOCK. You've been reading junk from that paragon of wisdom TERRY WATKINS. His "resaarch" is non-existent. Please read any good encyclopedia such as Britannica to see the CHRISTIAN history of the triquetra. And your history is a little behind...the triquetra is no longer on the cover of the NKJV, not because of any KJVO lunacy, but because several new occult orgs, and the TV show Charmed have adopted it for use. It is a sign not rooted in our consciousness as a Christian symbol as is the CROSS.
There's no doubt that Jesus was crucified upon a "crux immissa", the Latin Tau(Our letter "T") cross. Now, how was this very symbol used in other civilizations?
# Scandanavia: The Tau cross symbolized the hammer of the God Thor.
# Babylon: the cross with a crescent moon was the symbol of their moon deity.
# Assyria: the corners of the cross represented the four directions in which the sun shines.
# India: In Hinduism, the vertical shaft represents the higher, celestial states of being; the horizontal bar represents the lower, earthly states.
# Egypt: The ankh cross (a Tau cross topped by an inverted tear shape) is associated with Maat, their Goddess of Truth. It also represents the sexual union of Isis and Osiris.
# Europe: The use of a human effigy on a cross in the form of a scarecrow has been used from ancient times. In prehistoric times, a human would be sacrificed and hung on a cross. The sacrifice would later be chopped to pieces; his blood and pieces of flesh were widely distributed and buried to encourage the crop fertility.
In reality, it was a more common PAGAN symbol than the triquetra was. That means if your KJV has a cross upon it, according to your own expressed opinion, it's a pagan book. If your church edifice has a cross upon it or within it, then according to your own expressed opinion, it's a pagan church.
Again, try STUDYING a little before popping off & getting egg in your face again. You have failed your own test.
Well,I suppose that it is much better to be accused of believing a man made myth than to have a Bible that is corrupted through and through.
Again, you're making an entirely up-in-the-air statement which is mostly FALSE. Your "proof" for "corruption " consists of, "It aint da KJV." That stinx. You must LOVE eggs.
Looks like those false accusations of Roby's is backfiring again.
Oh, REALLY? you haven't proven ONE of 'em incorrect, and, long as you're using guesswork vs FACT, you NEVER WILL.
It appears that Roby is puposfully creating a ruckus himself!
By telling the TRUTH? If that creates a ruckus among the liars, then so be it.
So,Herb Evans WAS right,that there are "certain rude and lude"on both sides of the issue."Certain lousy arguments"etal.
So, you cite Evans as an "authority"? That figures. HIS arguments are as pathetic as yours, and he's afraid to actually DEBATE the opposition cuz he knows he'll LOSE.
Gotta love your effort though.We know where the real MYTH is.LXX[72]
So the KJV translators were wrong when they ascribed the LXX to Ptolemy Philadelph in the 200s BC? I posted EVIDENCE, written by the AV translators, from their preface To The Reader, while YOU'RE GUESSING! Evidently you are as a Mormon; they believe the KJV "only as far as it's correctly translated" which means, "only as far as it fits Mormon doctrine. Seems YOU believe the AV 1611 ONLY AS FAR AS IT, AND ITS TRANSLATORS AGREE WITH THE MAN-MADE MYTH ABOUT IT. You've proven it yourself by showing you DON'T believe what those translators wrote about the LXX.
All YOU can do is BADMOUTH me, while I've proven YOU WRONG from your own fave Bible version.
Prophecy.Roby can't hold his tongue now.There is a tiny fire there.Well,blaze away buddy,we know you are wrong,and God is right,no matter how convinced you are of your own arguments.
I'm not arguing with GOD; I'm arguing with an unlearned guesswork specialist who doesn't know fact from fiction, who is gullible to the garbage posted by certain authors whose assertions I HAVE EXAMINED against legitimate reference materials, and found badly wanting in VERACITY. Once again, other readers, who has posted FACT, and who has posted GUESSWORK?
I have the Holy Bible.
So do I, in several versions.
Proven to be without error.
On the contrary, proven to be WITH error. Here's one to digest: Acts 19:37, "robbers of CHURCHES". Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples". Feel free to CHECK IT OUT.
Yours is riddled,from the outside in.Repent. Again, you lack the first quark of PROOF for your silly statement. How ignorant of you to just toss around unfounded statements which you cannot even BEGIN to prove. YOU need to repent of treating God's word so frivoulsly.
It's plain to me that you were holding out a hand of 'peace' while holding a gun behind your back in the other. You wanna play this game? Fine...YOU'RE GONNA LOSE, AND LOSE SOME MORE, as you've already done.
Let's see your sources:
Peter Ruckman
Gail Riplinger
Terry Watkins
Jack Moorman
Lawrence Vance
Sam Gipp
David Cloud
Mister, I've read all the works by all those authors and a lot more besides them, and I've checked out all their assertions, KJVO & otherwise, while apparently all YOU'VE done is read a little of them and automatically taken their assertions as dogma without one whit of proof or verification. That's why your stuff always blows up in your face...YOU HAVEN'T DONE YOUR HOMEWORK! Therefore, all you have is a trunk full of GUESSWORK!
MY sources? Here are the ones I've used TODAY:
Encyclopaedia Britannica
Collier's Encyclopedia
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
The Menace of Modernism, 1917, William Bell Riley
And last in the list, but certainly not least: THE AV 1611 ITSELF!
Feel free to try to refute them!(LOL)
brandplucked
New member
Air conditioning Hell
Air conditioning Hell
Hi Logos, So, you think the Catholic Concordant versions is the best, huh? No surprise there.
May I respond with your own words to my past posts?
"So?" "Who the Hell cares?" - Logos
Hell or Hades?
The doctrine of Hell is getting a lot cooler in the modern versions.
In fact, a lot of theologically important words in the Holy Bible are being toned down or even lost entirely. As examples, here is a partial list of the frequency of certain words comparing the King James Bible Old Testament, with the NKJV, the NASB, and the NIV Old Testament.
TRUTH KJB - 118 times; NKJV - about same; NASB - 92; NIV - 41
GRACE KJB -38 times; NKJV - 20; NASB - 9; NIV - 8
MERCY, MERCIFUL KJB - 288 times; NKJV -same; NASB - 51; NIV - 85
SOUL KJB - 478 times; NKJV - same; NASB - 255; NIV - 110
LUCIFER KJB - 1 time; NKJV - 1 time; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
JEHOVAH KJB - 7 times; NKJV - 0; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
HELL KJB - 31 times; NKJV - 19; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
Examples of other words in the whole Bible, both testaments.
DOCTRINE KJB - 56 times; NKJV - 42; NASB - 14; NIV - 7
FORNICATION KJB - 44 times; NKJV - 21; NASB - 8; NIV - 0
DAMNATION, DAMNED KJB - 9 times; NKJV - 0; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
HELL (whole Bible) KJB - 53 times; NKJV - 32; NASB -13; NIV - 14
This particular study will focus on the word Hell and how it is being air conditioned by degrees in many modern versions. There are many who criticize the King James Bible as being wrong for translating certain Hebrew and Greek words as Hell.
In the King James Old Testament the Hebrew word Sheol is variously translated as HELL - 31 times; THE GRAVE - 31 times, and as THE PIT - 3 times.
The various modern versions disagree among themselves and have little room in which to criticize the KJB.
The NKJV translates this same word Sheol 18 times and as HELL 19 times, rather than the 31 times as in the KJB. It also has translated the word as the GRAVE and the PIT.
The NIV never translates it as hell or even as Sheol, but instead has the GRAVE 55 times, DEATH 6 times, the DEPTHS 2 times, the DEPTHS OF THE GRAVE 2 times, and as THE REALM OF DEATH once.
The NASB on the other hand, transliterates rather than translates this word every single time as SHEOL. How many Christians know what Sheol is? It strikes fear in the heart, doesn't it?
What we see here is that the very scholars who criticize the King James Bible for translating the word at times as HELL can't seem to agree even among themselves as to what the word means in various contexts.
Let's look at a few examples.
Psalm 9:17
King James Bible - "The wicked shall be turned into HELL, and all the nations that forget God."
NIV - "The wicked RETURN TO THE GRAVE, all the nations that forget God."
There are two big problems with the NIV rendering here. First, you can only RETURN TO someplace you have already been before. Does the NIV teach reincarnation? You can teach it using the NIV, but you cannot get the doctrine of reincarnation from the King James Bible.
Second, most everyone, the wicked and the righteous, go to the grave. So what else is new? The context is the fate of the wicked, and it is not the same as that of the righteous. The NIV rendering is silly at best, and diabolical at worst.
NASB - "The wicked will RETURN TO SHEOL, even all the nations who forget God."
The NASB has two similar problems. How do people return to someplace if they have not been there before? Also what in the world is Sheol? Many criticize the KJB for being hard to understand, but how many of them know what Sheol is? And again there is no distinction between the wicked and the righteous in the NASB rendering.
The NKJV - "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." = the KJB here.
In 1395 Wycliffe wrote: "Synneris be turned togidere in to helle; alle folkis, that foryeten God."
And the 2002 Message paraphrases it in this way: "The wicked bought a one-way ticket to hell."
The Hebrew word Sheol communicates nothing to us in the English language. There are many different views among the scholars themselves as to what this word signifies and it seems to vary with different contexts. Many Hebrew and Greek words have multiple meanings which change their sense according to the context and scholars argue over them all the time.
There are times when the word simply means the GRAVE, as in Genesis 42:38 where Jacob says: "My son shall not go down with you (into Egypt)...if mischief befall him...then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to THE GRAVE."
At other times the word means HELL, as the place of the dead in the heart of the earth. Scriptue tells us in both the Old and New Testaments that there are compartments or degrees of hell. Both Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 86 speak of THE LOWEST HELL. In Deuteronomy 32:22 God says: "For a fire is kindled in mine anger and shall burn unto the lowest hell", and in Psalm 86:13 David says to God: "For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell."
Shoel as HELL in the Old Testament
Among the various Bible versions that sometimes translate the Hebrew word sheol as "hell" are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, the Jewish 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation by Alexander Harkavy into English, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the Italian Diodati 1602, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the Bible in Basic English 1961 (2 Sam.22:6; Psalm 18:5), New Life Version 1969 (Pro. 5:5, 7:27, 19:18, 15:24,23:14), God's Word Translation 1995, the KJV 21st Century Version, Third Millenium Bible, and the 2002 version called The Message in 2 Samuel 22:6; Job 26:6, Psalm 9:17, 16:10, 18:5, 31:17, 49:14, 55:15, 88:3, 89:68, 116:3, 141:7, Proverbs 5:5, 7:27, 9:18, 15:24, 27:20, and Isaiah 57:9!!!,
In the New Testament the same confusion among the various bible versions is seen in the manner in which they translate or not the word Hades. There are many Bible critics who tell us the King James Bible is in error for translating the word Hades as Hell. Yet, as we shall see, the "scholars" are in total disagreement among themselves regarding this.
Luke 16:19-31 is the classic case showing the division that existed in hell before the resurrection of Christ from the dead. There we see the beggar Lazarus in Abraham's bosom being comforted and in contrast we see the rich man IN HELL being tormented. There was a great gulf fixed between the two sections dividing the righteous from the wicked.
The Greek word used here is hades. The King James Bible translated it as hell, while the NKJV and NASB have Hades. The NIV is interesting in that it has variously translated this same word as "Hades -5 times, depths - 2 times, grave - 1 time; and as Hell only once and that is here in Luke 16:23!
Hell itself is not the final state of the wicked. After the great white throne judgment we are told in Revelation 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
Those who complain about this word being translated as "hell" should check out some other bible versions to see what others, who have just as much education as they do, have done with these passages.
Hades as HELL in the New Testament
Not only does the King James Bible translate the Greek word hades as "hell" but so do the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833 translation, Spanish Reina Valera 1909(infierno), Italian Diodati, Douay 1950, New Life Version 1969, the Living Bible, the New Living Translation 1996 (Mat. 16:18), Today's English Version 1992 (Mat.11:23, Luke 10:15), Good News Bible 1992 (Mat. 11:23; Luke 10:15), Bible in Basic English 1961 (Mat. 11:23; 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27,31, and the 4 in Revelation), God's Word Translation 1995 (Mat. 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Rev.1:18, 6:8, 20:13-14), KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, and The Message of 2002 (Mat. 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Rev. 1:18, 6:6, 20:13-14).
Wordsmyth Dictionary defines Hades as:
1. in Greek mythology, the underworld inhabited by the dead, or the god who rules there; Pluto. 2. in the New Testament, the state or home of the dead. 3. the place of punishment for the wicked after death; hell.
The American Heritage Dictionary 200 defines Hades as:
1. Greek Mythology a. The god of the netherworld and dispenser of earthly riches. b. This netherworld kingdom, the abode of the shades of the dead. 2. also hades Hell.
Notice that the first definitions given refer to Hades as myth, or merely as the place of the dead, without any reference to suffering or torment. For a preacher to say: "Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ or you will go to Hades" seems to lack the visceral impact of "or you will go to Hell." What do you think? *
The American Heritage dictionary defines hell as: 1. Hell - The abode of condemned souls and devils in some religions; the place of eternal punishment for the wicked after death. b. A state of separation from God; exclusion from God's presence. 2. The abode of the dead, identified with the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades; the underworld.
The New KJV is not the same as the King James Bible. Here are some examples:
Matthew 16:18
KJV: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
NKJV: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Luke 16:23
KJV: "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
NKJV: "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
The New KJV is inconsistent in the Old Testament in that it does render the word sheol as "hell" 19 times, yet it transliterates this same word as Shoel 18 times to match the NASB rendering. The word Hell is removed in 2 Samuel 22:6, Job 11:8, 26:6, Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 86:13, 116:3, Isaiah 5:14, 14:15, 28:15,18, 57:9, Jonah 2:2, Matt. 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27, 31, Rev. 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14.
Will Kinney
Air conditioning Hell
Hi Logos, So, you think the Catholic Concordant versions is the best, huh? No surprise there.
May I respond with your own words to my past posts?
"So?" "Who the Hell cares?" - Logos
Hell or Hades?
The doctrine of Hell is getting a lot cooler in the modern versions.
In fact, a lot of theologically important words in the Holy Bible are being toned down or even lost entirely. As examples, here is a partial list of the frequency of certain words comparing the King James Bible Old Testament, with the NKJV, the NASB, and the NIV Old Testament.
TRUTH KJB - 118 times; NKJV - about same; NASB - 92; NIV - 41
GRACE KJB -38 times; NKJV - 20; NASB - 9; NIV - 8
MERCY, MERCIFUL KJB - 288 times; NKJV -same; NASB - 51; NIV - 85
SOUL KJB - 478 times; NKJV - same; NASB - 255; NIV - 110
LUCIFER KJB - 1 time; NKJV - 1 time; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
JEHOVAH KJB - 7 times; NKJV - 0; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
HELL KJB - 31 times; NKJV - 19; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
Examples of other words in the whole Bible, both testaments.
DOCTRINE KJB - 56 times; NKJV - 42; NASB - 14; NIV - 7
FORNICATION KJB - 44 times; NKJV - 21; NASB - 8; NIV - 0
DAMNATION, DAMNED KJB - 9 times; NKJV - 0; NASB - 0; NIV - 0
HELL (whole Bible) KJB - 53 times; NKJV - 32; NASB -13; NIV - 14
This particular study will focus on the word Hell and how it is being air conditioned by degrees in many modern versions. There are many who criticize the King James Bible as being wrong for translating certain Hebrew and Greek words as Hell.
In the King James Old Testament the Hebrew word Sheol is variously translated as HELL - 31 times; THE GRAVE - 31 times, and as THE PIT - 3 times.
The various modern versions disagree among themselves and have little room in which to criticize the KJB.
The NKJV translates this same word Sheol 18 times and as HELL 19 times, rather than the 31 times as in the KJB. It also has translated the word as the GRAVE and the PIT.
The NIV never translates it as hell or even as Sheol, but instead has the GRAVE 55 times, DEATH 6 times, the DEPTHS 2 times, the DEPTHS OF THE GRAVE 2 times, and as THE REALM OF DEATH once.
The NASB on the other hand, transliterates rather than translates this word every single time as SHEOL. How many Christians know what Sheol is? It strikes fear in the heart, doesn't it?
What we see here is that the very scholars who criticize the King James Bible for translating the word at times as HELL can't seem to agree even among themselves as to what the word means in various contexts.
Let's look at a few examples.
Psalm 9:17
King James Bible - "The wicked shall be turned into HELL, and all the nations that forget God."
NIV - "The wicked RETURN TO THE GRAVE, all the nations that forget God."
There are two big problems with the NIV rendering here. First, you can only RETURN TO someplace you have already been before. Does the NIV teach reincarnation? You can teach it using the NIV, but you cannot get the doctrine of reincarnation from the King James Bible.
Second, most everyone, the wicked and the righteous, go to the grave. So what else is new? The context is the fate of the wicked, and it is not the same as that of the righteous. The NIV rendering is silly at best, and diabolical at worst.
NASB - "The wicked will RETURN TO SHEOL, even all the nations who forget God."
The NASB has two similar problems. How do people return to someplace if they have not been there before? Also what in the world is Sheol? Many criticize the KJB for being hard to understand, but how many of them know what Sheol is? And again there is no distinction between the wicked and the righteous in the NASB rendering.
The NKJV - "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." = the KJB here.
In 1395 Wycliffe wrote: "Synneris be turned togidere in to helle; alle folkis, that foryeten God."
And the 2002 Message paraphrases it in this way: "The wicked bought a one-way ticket to hell."
The Hebrew word Sheol communicates nothing to us in the English language. There are many different views among the scholars themselves as to what this word signifies and it seems to vary with different contexts. Many Hebrew and Greek words have multiple meanings which change their sense according to the context and scholars argue over them all the time.
There are times when the word simply means the GRAVE, as in Genesis 42:38 where Jacob says: "My son shall not go down with you (into Egypt)...if mischief befall him...then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to THE GRAVE."
At other times the word means HELL, as the place of the dead in the heart of the earth. Scriptue tells us in both the Old and New Testaments that there are compartments or degrees of hell. Both Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 86 speak of THE LOWEST HELL. In Deuteronomy 32:22 God says: "For a fire is kindled in mine anger and shall burn unto the lowest hell", and in Psalm 86:13 David says to God: "For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell."
Shoel as HELL in the Old Testament
Among the various Bible versions that sometimes translate the Hebrew word sheol as "hell" are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, the Jewish 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation by Alexander Harkavy into English, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the Italian Diodati 1602, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the Bible in Basic English 1961 (2 Sam.22:6; Psalm 18:5), New Life Version 1969 (Pro. 5:5, 7:27, 19:18, 15:24,23:14), God's Word Translation 1995, the KJV 21st Century Version, Third Millenium Bible, and the 2002 version called The Message in 2 Samuel 22:6; Job 26:6, Psalm 9:17, 16:10, 18:5, 31:17, 49:14, 55:15, 88:3, 89:68, 116:3, 141:7, Proverbs 5:5, 7:27, 9:18, 15:24, 27:20, and Isaiah 57:9!!!,
In the New Testament the same confusion among the various bible versions is seen in the manner in which they translate or not the word Hades. There are many Bible critics who tell us the King James Bible is in error for translating the word Hades as Hell. Yet, as we shall see, the "scholars" are in total disagreement among themselves regarding this.
Luke 16:19-31 is the classic case showing the division that existed in hell before the resurrection of Christ from the dead. There we see the beggar Lazarus in Abraham's bosom being comforted and in contrast we see the rich man IN HELL being tormented. There was a great gulf fixed between the two sections dividing the righteous from the wicked.
The Greek word used here is hades. The King James Bible translated it as hell, while the NKJV and NASB have Hades. The NIV is interesting in that it has variously translated this same word as "Hades -5 times, depths - 2 times, grave - 1 time; and as Hell only once and that is here in Luke 16:23!
Hell itself is not the final state of the wicked. After the great white throne judgment we are told in Revelation 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
Those who complain about this word being translated as "hell" should check out some other bible versions to see what others, who have just as much education as they do, have done with these passages.
Hades as HELL in the New Testament
Not only does the King James Bible translate the Greek word hades as "hell" but so do the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833 translation, Spanish Reina Valera 1909(infierno), Italian Diodati, Douay 1950, New Life Version 1969, the Living Bible, the New Living Translation 1996 (Mat. 16:18), Today's English Version 1992 (Mat.11:23, Luke 10:15), Good News Bible 1992 (Mat. 11:23; Luke 10:15), Bible in Basic English 1961 (Mat. 11:23; 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27,31, and the 4 in Revelation), God's Word Translation 1995 (Mat. 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Rev.1:18, 6:8, 20:13-14), KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, and The Message of 2002 (Mat. 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Rev. 1:18, 6:6, 20:13-14).
Wordsmyth Dictionary defines Hades as:
1. in Greek mythology, the underworld inhabited by the dead, or the god who rules there; Pluto. 2. in the New Testament, the state or home of the dead. 3. the place of punishment for the wicked after death; hell.
The American Heritage Dictionary 200 defines Hades as:
1. Greek Mythology a. The god of the netherworld and dispenser of earthly riches. b. This netherworld kingdom, the abode of the shades of the dead. 2. also hades Hell.
Notice that the first definitions given refer to Hades as myth, or merely as the place of the dead, without any reference to suffering or torment. For a preacher to say: "Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ or you will go to Hades" seems to lack the visceral impact of "or you will go to Hell." What do you think? *
The American Heritage dictionary defines hell as: 1. Hell - The abode of condemned souls and devils in some religions; the place of eternal punishment for the wicked after death. b. A state of separation from God; exclusion from God's presence. 2. The abode of the dead, identified with the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades; the underworld.
The New KJV is not the same as the King James Bible. Here are some examples:
Matthew 16:18
KJV: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
NKJV: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Luke 16:23
KJV: "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
NKJV: "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
The New KJV is inconsistent in the Old Testament in that it does render the word sheol as "hell" 19 times, yet it transliterates this same word as Shoel 18 times to match the NASB rendering. The word Hell is removed in 2 Samuel 22:6, Job 11:8, 26:6, Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 86:13, 116:3, Isaiah 5:14, 14:15, 28:15,18, 57:9, Jonah 2:2, Matt. 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27, 31, Rev. 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14.
Will Kinney
logos_x
New member
brandplucked said:
Where do you get off smuggling "Catholic" ino it?
:chuckle:
I don't care, nor should anyone else, what the KJVO folks think.
The truth is the Concordant Version is the most accurate in relation to the Greek.
With good reason, I might add
Theologically important to whom?
I notice you picked the ones that are KJV spinoffs for your comparison...
:darwinsm:
Air conditioned!
You're hilarious!
You seem to have summarized the problem with the KJV quite nicely.
Thank you.
robycop3
Member
"Mark" Fuhrman's imagination...
"Mark" Fuhrman's imagination...
robycop3, quoted by Peter:
I,too, shall continue to uphold the Holy Bible in whatever valid version it appears. ...Peter AV: You have posted nothing that proves that the KJV is not the word of God.
*******
Quote =Roby Wobby]
That has never been my aim. ...your myth WRONG, while all YOU'VE shown us is GUESSWORK, and your opinions based upon no evidence to hope to prove your myth is NOT merely a myth.Quote]
*******
Poor robby.
My guesswork just happens to be the Holy Bible with all evidence pointing to it as being the very words of God 100%.Just a MYTH there,hey,ostrich Roby?
KJVO is indeed a myth, with a very plain man-made beginning in 1930. That, Sir, is FACT and not guesswork. Dr. Wilkinson's book exists. J.J.Ray's book exists. Dr. Fuller's book exists. What evidence supports any of the assertions found in those books?NONE. If it existed, some KJVO woulda written it years ago.
You have no proof to the contrary. You have no evidence. You have no intelligent nor truthful points to present. All you have is GUESSWORK. You CANNOT prove a thing you say.
He says That my Bible is a valid version and yet if I tell him that it is the very words of God.
He goes into a verbal berrage.
That is all I am saying is that the KJV is the very words of God.
Once again...(Maybe I typed too fast for you to read last week.)...it's the MYTH that the KJVO is the ONLY valid English bible version that I attack because it's false. Never said the KJV wasn't a valid version. Perfect? No. Valid? Yes.
Actually, all you're saying is that the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV, which is a BIG FAT LIE, the product of a cult official, still believed and promoted by dishonest and stupid people.
But because it expands to expose you own "OPINIONATED" "VALID " versions,you take a man-made mission."YOURS" to attack the very Holy Bible you say is "VALID."
Just because the other valid versions are not the very words of God through and through,does not verify them to "BE" the very words of God.Just because you "Prefer"them.
You cannot prove one word of your above peregraph. I provide PROOF for MY statements, while all YOU provide is unfounded opinion, fishing stories, fables hearsay, and mostly GUESSWORK.
Face it robby,you got sucked into the Alexandrian cult just like the rest of them.
ALEXANDRIAN CULT? SOUNDS KEWL! WHUT'S THEIR ADDRESS? RIGHT NEXT TO THE KJVO-EVIDENCE BUILDING?
You believed the words of Satan just like Eve did.You wanted to play a little god.You would like to be the "ARBITER" and choose between two conflicting authorities.
There is only one authority.And it's not YOU.But that is what you are doing,every post.
As usual, you're wrong. I provide EVIDENCE that KJVO is a myth, while YOU provide NOTHING proving any of it is true. You have reached into a hat & pulled something out, saying, "This is MY final authority! Who needs anything else from God?"
You are playing the game of 'I prefer" just like Satan wants you to do.And you do.
Satan never Asked.....He "SAID" Yea,hath God Said...?"
"Yea,hath God Said...?" Get serious. If that's not a question, what is?
It's making stupid statements such as that one above that makes you such a laughing-stock among the other readers here.
You are no diferent.You would question the validity of the Words of God.God is to be believed,and I do.I dare to takr God at his word and believe what he said in his word about his word.
Then please show us where He said, "Thou shalt use only the KJV."
You,on the other hand "pick and choose" just which is God's word.You like to play the game of "My opinion and the opinions of others of the same mind."
Actually, it's called "BELIEVING GOD IS ALMIGHTY AND CAN PRESENT HIS WORD HOWEVER HE CHOOSES." It's the ignorant KJVOs who seek to LIMIT GOD and tell us God cannot present His word except how THEY (the KJVOs)CHOOSE.
Like I said before,Ruckman is not my Final authority,what I said was that he agrees with my stand,and so I will agree with much of what he says.
Dr. Ruckman is the man who wrote in his own publication that the AC is a 10-foot-tall alien who will land a mile-wide spaceship on the Mount of Olives. Read it for yourself. If ya wanna believe someone who writes such sci-fi ideaand declares it the WOG, go right ahead.
So stop your false lies Roby Robber.You have no final authority but your own mind.
My final authority is the very words of God.
Then how come you reject most versions of it? Do you think so little of Jesus...The Word...that you diss most of His written word?
All proof points to KJV and "NOT" to the NKJV.
WHAT proofs? You've NEVER posted any proofs!
You have muliple authorities,while I have the final authority.Having multiple authorities causes one to play the game of "I prefer".Just as Satan Started in the Garden,and then had the NERVE to repeat in the wilderness with our Saviour.And now he does it with you.
He wins over your apostate soul.
Thanx for proving to the other readers that you're just an outright LIAR as well as stupid.
You can argue till you are green with envy as you are,but all you need to do is get away from your selfishness,and believe the Book.
I believed it likely before you ever heard of it.
But keep praying...God can heal your MENTAL deficiencies too. But first, you're gonna hafta quit LYING. That IS a sin, you know.
Satan would have you to be a little god,and twist the truth into your own level of understanding.Go for it.It is a free world,so far.I'm not stoipping you.You can have your private multi-valid-versions if you want.
They're not private; they're quite public. If YOU wanna diss most od what JESUS...THE WORD...has made available, that's between you and HIM. But I WILL keep reminding the rest of the readers that everything you post is a CROCK, with absolutely NO evidence to support it. I believe they can see for themselves that mosta your ideas are just plain STUPID.
If I can let you have your 3 fake versions plus the KJV,you too can alow me to have my one pure Holy Bible. But that won't happen,well it's,just like my last prophecy.You jumped right in,not even knowing,and still don't.You don't want me to have my Holy Bible that is the sole authority,because then you can't lord anything over me.You want to be the final authority,never God's words,no.. NEVER.
You can have the Q'ran if ya want. I'll just keep reminding people that your "points" are false, that you KNOW they're false, but you keep repeating them, hoping the readership won't see that you haven't presented one shred of EVIDENCE supporting any of your tripe.
Now watch how Roby repents of his multiple authorities,NOT.
Now watch roby trust only in the Word of God.NOT
He' likes his man-made authorities sush as encyclopedias and the like,too much.They are the real bible to him.They are HIS final authority along with his own mind.He is his own final authority,Never the BOOK.
KJV all the way!
Please note how "Mark" Fuhrman has deluded himself, in his own feeble mind, into believing a man-made lie. Where's the first peep of PROOF for his garbage? Where's the EVIDENCE that would make his false doctrine true? Where's the least bit of TRUTH or INTELLIGENCE from him? Not in THIS forum, baby!
"Mark" Fuhrman's imagination...
robycop3, quoted by Peter:
I,too, shall continue to uphold the Holy Bible in whatever valid version it appears. ...Peter AV: You have posted nothing that proves that the KJV is not the word of God.
*******
Quote =Roby Wobby]
That has never been my aim. ...your myth WRONG, while all YOU'VE shown us is GUESSWORK, and your opinions based upon no evidence to hope to prove your myth is NOT merely a myth.Quote]
*******
Poor robby.
My guesswork just happens to be the Holy Bible with all evidence pointing to it as being the very words of God 100%.Just a MYTH there,hey,ostrich Roby?
KJVO is indeed a myth, with a very plain man-made beginning in 1930. That, Sir, is FACT and not guesswork. Dr. Wilkinson's book exists. J.J.Ray's book exists. Dr. Fuller's book exists. What evidence supports any of the assertions found in those books?NONE. If it existed, some KJVO woulda written it years ago.
You have no proof to the contrary. You have no evidence. You have no intelligent nor truthful points to present. All you have is GUESSWORK. You CANNOT prove a thing you say.
He says That my Bible is a valid version and yet if I tell him that it is the very words of God.
He goes into a verbal berrage.
That is all I am saying is that the KJV is the very words of God.
Once again...(Maybe I typed too fast for you to read last week.)...it's the MYTH that the KJVO is the ONLY valid English bible version that I attack because it's false. Never said the KJV wasn't a valid version. Perfect? No. Valid? Yes.
Actually, all you're saying is that the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV, which is a BIG FAT LIE, the product of a cult official, still believed and promoted by dishonest and stupid people.
But because it expands to expose you own "OPINIONATED" "VALID " versions,you take a man-made mission."YOURS" to attack the very Holy Bible you say is "VALID."
Just because the other valid versions are not the very words of God through and through,does not verify them to "BE" the very words of God.Just because you "Prefer"them.
You cannot prove one word of your above peregraph. I provide PROOF for MY statements, while all YOU provide is unfounded opinion, fishing stories, fables hearsay, and mostly GUESSWORK.
Face it robby,you got sucked into the Alexandrian cult just like the rest of them.
ALEXANDRIAN CULT? SOUNDS KEWL! WHUT'S THEIR ADDRESS? RIGHT NEXT TO THE KJVO-EVIDENCE BUILDING?
You believed the words of Satan just like Eve did.You wanted to play a little god.You would like to be the "ARBITER" and choose between two conflicting authorities.
There is only one authority.And it's not YOU.But that is what you are doing,every post.
As usual, you're wrong. I provide EVIDENCE that KJVO is a myth, while YOU provide NOTHING proving any of it is true. You have reached into a hat & pulled something out, saying, "This is MY final authority! Who needs anything else from God?"
You are playing the game of 'I prefer" just like Satan wants you to do.And you do.
Satan never Asked.....He "SAID" Yea,hath God Said...?"
"Yea,hath God Said...?" Get serious. If that's not a question, what is?
It's making stupid statements such as that one above that makes you such a laughing-stock among the other readers here.
You are no diferent.You would question the validity of the Words of God.God is to be believed,and I do.I dare to takr God at his word and believe what he said in his word about his word.
Then please show us where He said, "Thou shalt use only the KJV."
You,on the other hand "pick and choose" just which is God's word.You like to play the game of "My opinion and the opinions of others of the same mind."
Actually, it's called "BELIEVING GOD IS ALMIGHTY AND CAN PRESENT HIS WORD HOWEVER HE CHOOSES." It's the ignorant KJVOs who seek to LIMIT GOD and tell us God cannot present His word except how THEY (the KJVOs)CHOOSE.
Like I said before,Ruckman is not my Final authority,what I said was that he agrees with my stand,and so I will agree with much of what he says.
Dr. Ruckman is the man who wrote in his own publication that the AC is a 10-foot-tall alien who will land a mile-wide spaceship on the Mount of Olives. Read it for yourself. If ya wanna believe someone who writes such sci-fi ideaand declares it the WOG, go right ahead.
So stop your false lies Roby Robber.You have no final authority but your own mind.
My final authority is the very words of God.
Then how come you reject most versions of it? Do you think so little of Jesus...The Word...that you diss most of His written word?
All proof points to KJV and "NOT" to the NKJV.
WHAT proofs? You've NEVER posted any proofs!
You have muliple authorities,while I have the final authority.Having multiple authorities causes one to play the game of "I prefer".Just as Satan Started in the Garden,and then had the NERVE to repeat in the wilderness with our Saviour.And now he does it with you.
He wins over your apostate soul.
Thanx for proving to the other readers that you're just an outright LIAR as well as stupid.
You can argue till you are green with envy as you are,but all you need to do is get away from your selfishness,and believe the Book.
I believed it likely before you ever heard of it.
But keep praying...God can heal your MENTAL deficiencies too. But first, you're gonna hafta quit LYING. That IS a sin, you know.
Satan would have you to be a little god,and twist the truth into your own level of understanding.Go for it.It is a free world,so far.I'm not stoipping you.You can have your private multi-valid-versions if you want.
They're not private; they're quite public. If YOU wanna diss most od what JESUS...THE WORD...has made available, that's between you and HIM. But I WILL keep reminding the rest of the readers that everything you post is a CROCK, with absolutely NO evidence to support it. I believe they can see for themselves that mosta your ideas are just plain STUPID.
If I can let you have your 3 fake versions plus the KJV,you too can alow me to have my one pure Holy Bible. But that won't happen,well it's,just like my last prophecy.You jumped right in,not even knowing,and still don't.You don't want me to have my Holy Bible that is the sole authority,because then you can't lord anything over me.You want to be the final authority,never God's words,no.. NEVER.
You can have the Q'ran if ya want. I'll just keep reminding people that your "points" are false, that you KNOW they're false, but you keep repeating them, hoping the readership won't see that you haven't presented one shred of EVIDENCE supporting any of your tripe.
Now watch how Roby repents of his multiple authorities,NOT.
Now watch roby trust only in the Word of God.NOT
He' likes his man-made authorities sush as encyclopedias and the like,too much.They are the real bible to him.They are HIS final authority along with his own mind.He is his own final authority,Never the BOOK.
KJV all the way!
Please note how "Mark" Fuhrman has deluded himself, in his own feeble mind, into believing a man-made lie. Where's the first peep of PROOF for his garbage? Where's the EVIDENCE that would make his false doctrine true? Where's the least bit of TRUTH or INTELLIGENCE from him? Not in THIS forum, baby!
- Status