KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

[Peter A V]

B.E.has no Bible

B.E.has no Bible

There is a significant difference between kill and murder.

................
Good question Shimei!
The thing that many are unaware of,is,that the Holy Bible has its own built in dictionary.
Please go to the FIRST time kill is mentioned,and you will see clearly that the BIBLE definition describes Kill here as in an evil selfish motive [aka murder.].The first mention of a word in the Holy Bible will give you the basic understanding of the word.Later aplications will further the understanding.Plus,of course,context determines the actual flavour of the Biblical term.Hope this helps you.
Peter Fuhrman

 

[Peter A V]

B.E.has no Bible

B.E.has no Bible

The New Testament authors also quoted the Greek Septuagint when they could have re-translated the Hebrew into Greek. Were they wrong to do so?

No,you are mistaken here.I don't know who lied to you,but the N.T.authors did not quote the LXX[72]for it wasn't around until ORIGEN[200-250AD]not B.C.What happened was the LXX author changed the old testament to suit the New Testament quotes.And or visa-versa.
Nice trick,don;t you think?Just check out all of the blunders that happened,because of it.
Besides,who is going to trust an heretic like Origen,or Jerome and Eusebius?Not to mention the two necromancers Westcott and Hort.
Plus IF this hoax of the LXX was true,66 of the men were in direct disobedience to God.The Text was the work of the LEVITES,and no one else.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

No,you are mistaken here.I don't know who lied to you,but the N.T.authors did not quote the LXX[72]for it wasn't around until ORIGEN[200-250AD]not B.C.What happened was the LXX author changed the old testament to suit the New Testament quotes.And or visa-versa.
Nice trick,don;t you think?Just check out all of the blunders that happened,because of it.
Besides,who is going to trust an heretic like Origen,or Jerome and Eusebius?Not to mention the two necromancers Westcott and Hort.
Plus IF this hoax of the LXX was true,66 of the men were in direct disobedience to God.The Text was the work of the LEVITES,and no one else.

Septuagint. The earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, presumably made for the use of the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the lingua franca throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century BC and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century BC.

In the 3rd century AD Origen attempted to clear up copyists' errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy. Other scholars also consulted the Hebrew text in order to make the Septuagint text more accurate. But it was the Septuagint, not the original Hebrew, that was the main basis for the Old Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and part of the Arabic translations of the Old Testament. It has never ceased to be the standard version of the Old Testament in the Greek church, and from it Jerome began his translation of the Vulgate Old Testament.

"Septuagint." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9066805>

 

[godrulz]

No,you are mistaken here.I don't know who lied to you,but the N.T.authors did not quote the LXX[72]for it wasn't around until ORIGEN[200-250AD]not B.C.What happened was the LXX author changed the old testament to suit the New Testament quotes.And or visa-versa.
Nice trick,don;t you think?Just check out all of the blunders that happened,because of it.
Besides,who is going to trust an heretic like Origen,or Jerome and Eusebius?Not to mention the two necromancers Westcott and Hort.
Plus IF this hoax of the LXX was true,66 of the men were in direct disobedience to God.The Text was the work of the LEVITES,and no one else.

The LXX dates to 200 B.C. and was used by Christ.

http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/...F3C-A738-47B6-9944DCB96FAAA270&method=display

One must not confuse W.W. Westcott and B.F. Westcott (His Commentary on John is very conservative):

http://www.mastermason.com/luxocculta/appendix5.htm

 

[MartianManhuntr]

Greek

John 1:18 "QEON OUDEIS EWRAKEN PWPOTE O MONOGENHS UIOS O WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS EKEINOS ECHGHSATO"

KJV

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].

NIV (one of them)

John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

NAS

John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

What's going on here? The answer is simple: The KJV translated the Greek text. The others just made something up off the top of their heads. The difference here is that the KJV translates the Greek word "MONOGENHS" (MONO=only) (GENHS=begotten), but the NIV just comes up with a goofy nonsensical reading that has no basis in the Greek, and the NAS changes the word UIOS (Son) to QEOS (God) because they don't like what the Bible actually says.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Thread renamed

Thread renamed

As master of the univ... er, a... as a newly ordained forum moderator, I renamed this thread. Why? I am trying hard to get more people to consider our Open Letter to Dobson exposing that most all Republican Judges are pro-choice. And with this thread title as it was, Bob Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant, the average born-again Christian *WHO AGREES WITH ME* against KJOnly, will see that thread title, and just that may prompt him to leave the forum, *EVEN THOUGH HE ACTUALLY AGREES WITH ME AGAINST KJONLY*, and he would then never even learn what your actual allegation against me is. And in the process, someone your misleading title would chase away might never see our desperate argument about the failed Christian political strategy. So, if you're in the BEL forum, and if I retain this new-found power, I suggest you do not mislead anyone with your thread titles. (Will, I realize of course that you can't possibly even imagine what I'm talking about. But hey, I said it anyway.) -Bob

 

[Peter A V]

B.E.has no Bible

B.E.has no Bible

The LXX dates to 200 B.C. and was used by Christ.
One must not confuse W.W. Westcott and B.F. Westcott [very conservative]

Have you read any of his material?I am not confusing the two.That is just a ruse.Nice try.

Vol II pp 232,242,263,147,148,239,Westcott...Living One in his Gospel of the Ress.pg63
"To me it appears that the Spirit is teaching us above all things the unity of life,of all things,of all beings,of the seen & of the unseen...We view...men as disconnected,but this is simply a consequence of our limited powers.
To God all life that is truly life is one...There can be no doubt that the uniform tendency of recent research is to establish in many unexpected ways the closedness of the connections by which we are bound one to another.In proportion as we know more fully,this connection is found to be more powerful & far reaching.It is the element-one element-in the idea of life which has been revealed to us in this age...the little life which is now my own is part of a vaster life."

The life of Westcott pg251
"As far as I could judge,the idea of La Salette was that of God revealing himself now & not in one form but in many."

Historic Faith pg11
"There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious & worldly things.That time has happily gone by."

Life of Westcott Vol IIpg 127
"David is not a chronological person."

Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics pg314
Religious Thought in the West pg 115-118
Historic Faith pg 202,197,133
Life of Westcott Vol I pg 160
"The remission of sins has always been connected with Baptism,the sacrament or incorperation...We are placed in relationship to God by Baptism."

Yes,very,very,conservative.All he is is a disguiser.

 

[Peter A V]

B.E.has no Bible

B.E.has no Bible

Greek
What's going on here? The answer is simple: The KJV translated the Greek text. The others just made something up off the top of their heads. The difference here is that the KJV translates the Greek word "MONOGENHS" (MONO=only) (GENHS=begotten), but the NIV just comes up with a goofy nonsensical reading that has no basis in the Greek, and the NAS changes the word UIOS (Son) to QEOS (God) because they don't like what the Bible actually says.

.....................
You hit the nail on the head,with that one.Instead of fasting and praying for three years,like the 1611 crew did,the modern translators must have been watching too much T.V.,as in the commercials.The Mono commercials.One and Only.Mono,mono.
Yes what an inspiration T.V.can be.Now we can relate to the masses,in their own lingo. :banana:

 

[Peter A V]

B.E.has no Bible

B.E.has no Bible

I am trying hard to get more people to consider our Open Letter to Dobson exposing that most all Republican Judges are pro-choice. And in the process, someone your misleading title would chase away might never see our desperate argument about the failed Christian political strategy.I suggest you do not mislead anyone with your thread titles. -Bob

.....................
There you go folks,the proof is in the puddin'.Instead of finally GIVING us his inerant Holy Bible.He plays games.Whats up with that?You have not proved your point.All you did is made up some lame excuse,which may be legit,but is not waranted here.You have been found wanton,unless you repent and tell the people the name of your pure preserved infalible Bible,that you can read,touch,and preach from.That has no errors.That you will never critique.Think about it.

 

[Delmar]

As master of the univ... er, a... as a newly ordained forum moderator, I renamed this thread. Why? I am trying hard to get more people to consider our Open Letter to Dobson exposing that most all Republican Judges are pro-choice. And with this thread title as it was, Bob Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant, the average born-again Christian *WHO AGREES WITH ME* against KJOnly, will see that thread title, and just that may prompt him to leave the forum, *EVEN THOUGH HE ACTUALLY AGREES WITH ME AGAINST KJONLY*, and he would then never even learn what your actual allegation against me is. And in the process, someone your misleading title would chase away might never see our desperate argument about the failed Christian political strategy. So, if you're in the BEL forum, and if I retain this new-found power, I suggest you do not mislead anyone with your thread titles. (Will, I realize of course that you can't possibly even imagine what I'm talking about. But hey, I said it anyway.) -Bob

so glad you found time to join us

 

[Frank Ernest]

Will, thanks for your kind opening remarks. But sadly, you are willing to misrepresent me with this title since I stand with the vast majority of fundamentalist Christian scholars and theologians and pastors who reject KJ Only, and believe that God's Word is inerrant only in its original autographs. I use the 1611 KJV quite often, and its inclusion of the Apocrypha, and also its frequent margin notes, both indicate that its own translators did not believe that they were producing an inerrant translation. I believe that your KJ Only obsession keeps you as an immature Christian, majoring in the minors, and distracting you from a substantive Christian life and influence on the world. A KJ Only pastor requested permission to present his position to us, so we invited him to Denver Bible Church for two weeks, and after the first week of his being unable to answer our simple questions, he never returned for his second opportunity. -Pastor Bob Enyart, Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

BINGO!

 

[Turbo]

Something telle me that Turbo's edit of Peter's post was for the mistake in quote code.

:up:

Peter A V, please read this explanation of how to use the quote tags.

 

[Rimi]

I'm not a scholar and I'd like not to get trounced for really wanting to understand this better. I really want to know some things about KJV only-ism. I have questions if someone could help out. . . .

1. I found that the original KJV included the Apocrypha, and now does not. Well, if it is perfect and inspired, why there and then gone?

2. I found that there were several changes/corrections to the original KJV over the years, so what we read today is NOT the same as what was originally published.

3. I found that there are mythical creatures in KJV: unicorns an satyrs. It also mentions dragons, but I'm not sure that they're not leftover dinosaurs.

4. One word: "Easter". In Acts 12:4, KJV uses the word "Easter" and not Passover. I looked up Easter in the Strong's Exhausting (to me) Concordance and found that the translation came from the word "Pascha" (from the Hebrew "Pecach") and means "the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it): -- Easter, Passover". Yet per Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, the etymology of Easter is that it comes from the name of a goddess Ostern and her festival. Why would God inspire the translators to use a pagan goddess' name and not the name of the festival He was familiar with?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

As master of the univ... er, a... as a newly ordained forum moderator....

That's funny ... his avatar doesn't look a thing like Dolf Lungren.... :noid:

Justin

 

[Turbo]

If he re-grew his mustache he might pass for Man-At-Arms. :think:

 

[Servo]

Hi Shimei, may I suggest you first take a look at my website, Another King James Bible Believer, before you post your list of alleged "errors" in the KJB?

This is an old and unfounded example.

Here is my answer to it.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/notkill.html

Will K

From your site:

The English word "kill" means to deprive of life. The word "murder" means to unlawfully kill a person." Therefore, by English definitions, the word murder involves an unlawful act. However, if it is lawful it would not be murder to deprive someone of life. With this in mind, I certainly think the phrase "thou shalt not kill" is much better. For this simple reason, abortion is the law of the land. It is not illegal for a doctor to deprive a living child of its life if the mother consents to this act. I can almost hear the liberal theologian justifying abortion on the grounds that it is not murder because it is not unlawful. The same may be said of euthanasia. While it is not the law of our land yet, it is the law of the land in many countries and it not an unlawful act in those nations. Nevertheless, both acts deprive a living being of their life. Both acts KILL. With this in mind, which do you think is really the better translation?

So your argument is:
Because abortion is legal, Exodus 20:13 should be translated as "Thou shalt not kill”?
That is your logic?

Yes, God better just cover all of the bases just in case some day we would start slaughtering unborn babies.

Again,

However, if it is lawful it would not be murder to deprive someone of life.

Abortion is murder, it doesn't matter if the law of the land says it is legal, it is still murder.
You are letting man's laws define God's Word. You have it backwards; God's Word should define man's laws.

 

[Turbo]

If brandplucked were to look up unlawful in any dictionary, he would find that it can mean either illegal or immoral.

There's a reason why all dictionaries define murder as "unlawful killing" rather than "illegal killing."

 

[godrulz]

Greek

John 1:18 "QEON OUDEIS EWRAKEN PWPOTE O MONOGENHS UIOS O WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS EKEINOS ECHGHSATO"

KJV

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].

NIV (one of them)

John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

NAS

John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

What's going on here? The answer is simple: The KJV translated the Greek text. The others just made something up off the top of their heads. The difference here is that the KJV translates the Greek word "MONOGENHS" (MONO=only) (GENHS=begotten), but the NIV just comes up with a goofy nonsensical reading that has no basis in the Greek, and the NAS changes the word UIOS (Son) to QEOS (God) because they don't like what the Bible actually says.

Bahahaha...

You have just made a rookie exegetical error that a first year Greek student would know. Try doing a word study and you will see that the NIV is actually more accurate than the KJV here. One cannot transliterate word for word from one language due to different idioms and grammatical structures. This is why Chinese restaurants sometimes have goofy names in English.

'monogenes' means unique, one and only...

You cannot break up a word artificially and say it means 'one' and 'born'. Look up all the uses of this word. Two words would be used to describe a different concept.

D.A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" gives other common examples of this root fallacy. There are many cases where dividing a single Greek word into apparent roots would lead to meanings never intended in the word. This is easily demonstrable if you have any Greek background. It illustrates the weak foundation of cults and the KJV only heresy. KJV only people use circular reasoning and often have little interest in Greek grammar. It would expose their position as weak and erroneous.

Even in English, you cannot always split a word in two. It would change the entire meaning.

Cults have done what you just did with other words, leading to heresy.

e.g. 'prototokos'

http://www.afcministry.com/Jehovahs_Witnesses_Who_Is_Jesus.htm

This word does not mean 'first' 'born'. That concept would be described with two other Greek words. Jesus was not a creature, the heresy of JWs (Arian). It means preeminent. Jesus is supreme over creation, because He is the Creator. The word can be used in Hebrew culture for the one who was born first since he had the birthright. The word was applied a few times to the second born. They became the preeminent (firstborn) by God's choice even though they were not born first.

arche= beginning...another word used by JWs to attempt to show Christ is creature rather than God (Rev. 3:14). The word often means ruler. Christ is the ruler, architect of God's creation. He is the Creator. He is not created. A little Greek knowledge is a dangerous thing. There are many complexities of language that will totally be missed if we go with misinformed, superficial judgments.

Textual variants explain Son vs God. Most translations have the integrity to at least show alternate MSS in the footnotes. Either way does not change the understanding of John 1 which affirms the unique Deity of Jesus Christ.

Go do some homework before you create confusion on this thread. You are simply displaying your lack of research with your understanding of 'monogenes'.

The NIV translators understood the meaning of the passage as well or better than the KJV translators. We do not speak archaic English anymore. You are adding another interpretation step (Greek to archaic English to modern English). e.g. cute meant bow-legged back then. 'only begotten' could lead to the Arian idea that Christ is creature or the Catholic philosophical idea about the generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit.

Dynamic equivalence (NIV) can be more accurate and readable, at times, than a wooden literalism (NASB).

 

[godrulz]

.....................
You hit the nail on the head,with that one.Instead of fasting and praying for three years,like the 1611 crew did,the modern translators must have been watching too much T.V.,as in the commercials.The Mono commercials.One and Only.Mono,mono.
Yes what an inspiration T.V.can be.Now we can relate to the masses,in their own lingo. :banana:

Take a first year Greek course. Come back when you are informed and humble, lest your dogmatism expose you as a fool.

Thayer was a Unitarian. His lexicon is very good, even though it contradicts his own beliefs at times. He had academic integrity. I do not know the credibility of your sources about B.F. Westcott. W.W. was problematic. B.F.s Commentary on John is very good (see John 1:1 as he affirms the triune God and the Deity of Christ, the crux of Christianity). I think he is Anglican. He could still be a good Greek scholar (even an honest secular Greek scholar could translate the Bible accurately) and have a few questionable views. Some of the KJV translators believed things you probably would not agree with. If there are problems with some of his personal statements, that does not mean his translation abilities are automatically suspect. I think it is a red herring to discredit him.

KJV-only is bibliolatry= deifying a translation that was the best attempt of men with the tools they had back then...the scholarship and MSS evidence is greater now, lending to a greater probability of an accurate translation. I consider the Bible the Word of God, but recognize the limitations of the translation process. The Holy Spirit inspired the original autographs (accurately recorded revelation). The MSS evidence is very strong, but even a simple copying error can explain some variations.

 

[godrulz]

.....................
There you go folks,the proof is in the puddin'.Instead of finally GIVING us his inerant Holy Bible.He plays games.Whats up with that?You have not proved your point.All you did is made up some lame excuse,which may be legit,but is not waranted here.You have been found wanton,unless you repent and tell the people the name of your pure preserved infalible Bible,that you can read,touch,and preach from.That has no errors.That you will never critique.Think about it.

I believe he prefers NKJV. I am sure this is an improvement on a dated, but beautiful KJV. The MSS and scholarship evidence has improved over the centuries (not to mention that the English language has evolved).

BTW, if KJV is so infallible, what do we do for the milliona of non-English people in the world in various cultures? It is better to work from the Hebrew and Greek in coming up with their translations, than the KJV. Translators do not speak archaic English. Should we teach everyone Elizabethan English or does it make more sense to translate in modern English based on the best and oldest MSS?