Is YOUR church doctrinal statement ONE with SATAN?

[tourist]

I just gave the most compelling reason for why the KJV is the inerrant word of God and I will bet my last paycheck that almost none of you will get it. And that's just one of thousands of examples that yall can't see.

Is the NKJV the inerrant Word of God too? That is the bible version that I find most spiritually edifying.

 

[jaybo]

Mat_19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

That is taken out of context -- another flaw of the KJV to separate the Bible into individual verses (for which there is no source language equivalent).

Here it is in context, (Matthew 19:23-26):"Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven! Again I say,] it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God.” The disciples were greatly astonished when they heard this and said, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and replied, “This is impossible for mere humans but for God all things are possible.”

Taking the last phrase out of context and appling it to something entirely unrelated shows that you are not communicating God's word faithfully. Jesus words have absolutely nothing to do with translating the Bible. None.

 

[KJV1611]

That is taken out of context -- another flaw of the KJV to separate the Bible into individual verses (for which there is no source language equivalent).

Here it is in context, (Matthew 19:23-26):"Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven! Again I say,] it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God.” The disciples were greatly astonished when they heard this and said, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and replied, “This is impossible for mere humans but for God all things are possible.”

Taking the last phrase out of context and appling it to something entirely unrelated shows that you are not communicating God's word faithfully. Jesus words have absolutely nothing to do with translating the Bible. None.

No it's not out of context, the verse says that ALL THINGS are possible with God. The context is ALL THINGS, including translating his word. Is that not what it says and means?

 

[tourist]

You threw a Bible in the trash?? Is that what God or your KJV told you to do? May God forgive you for your sinful behavior.

He didn't throw the Word of God in the trash but rather a book that he found to be of questionable spiritual value due to trust issues. The Holy Bible is holy in the Word of God, the actual physical bible is still just a book. No sin was commited.

 

[John146]

Numbers 24:8 (KJV): "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."

Deuteronomy 33:17, (KJV) "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns:

Job 33:9-10, (KJV) "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?"

Psalm 29:6, (KJV) "He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn."

Isaiah 34:7, (KJV) "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."

So if the KJV is a literal translation of the ancient texts, how come there are repeated mentions of unicorns, a fictional animal that never existed?

Merriam-Webster "Definition of unicorn: a mythical, usually white animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse with long flowing mane and tail and a single often spiraled horn in the middle of the forehead.

Seems like a Rhinoceros fits the description quite well. Never allow a dictionary to define God’s words.

 

[jaybo]

In essence, you do not believe the Bible and you are of your own Final Authority. Man, you've got to be kidding. You come up trying to make us believe your the 'right' and not the scripture. That's a quite impossible.

Of course I believe the Bible, which is the final authority. You apparently believe otherwise; you come up trying to make us believe your [sic] the 'right' [?] and not the scripture. That's a quite impossible. [?]

 

[jaybo]

He didn't throw the Word of God in the trash but rather a book that he found to be of questionable spiritual value due to trust issues. The Holy Bible is holy in the Word of God, the actual physical bible is still just a book. No sin was commited.

He threw the Word of God into the trash. Period.

 

[John146]

Of course I believe the Bible, which is the final authority. You apparently believe otherwise; you come up trying to make us believe your [sic] the 'right' [?] and not the scripture. That's a quite impossible. [?]

Which bible do you believe is the final authority? Can only be one final authority.

 

[John146]

He threw the Word of God into the trash. Period.

I guess you believe the NIV is the word of God. The word of God is pure, holy, and without error. Or, do you believe he threw a bible translation that contains errors into the trash? Big difference...

 

[jaybo]

Seems like a Rhinoceros fits the description quite well. Never allow a dictionary to define God’s words.

But the KJV says, "unicorn", it doesn't say rhinoceros. Unicorns are fictional animals. Is the KJV a truthful, accurate translation or not?

 

[jaybo]

Which bible do you believe is the final authority? Can only be one final authority.

The only "Bible" which is "the final authority" are the original Biblical texts, which nobody has discovered. The "books" are later fragments of the Biblical texts, but they are not the autographs.

All Bibles that we have today are translations and none of them are perfect. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the early text fragments and any English translation.

None of them are "the final authority"; they are all translations.

 

[tourist]

He threw the Word of God into the trash. Period.

No, the Word of God can be found in the bible, what was thrown in the trash was a book. Unless the Pope blessed the book or something like that it is not holy. Just kidding about the Pope reference though he has probably blessed bibles with holy water.

 

[John146]

But the KJV says, "unicorn", it doesn't say rhinoceros. Unicorns are fictional animals. Is the KJV a truthful, accurate translation or not?

A dictionary tells you about your made up mystical unicorn. In the Bible, a unicorn is a real creature that is horned and very, very strong.

 

[tourist]

But the KJV says, "unicorn", it doesn't say rhinoceros. Unicorns are fictional animals. Is the KJV a truthful, accurate translation or not?

Perhaps unicorns are not fictional animals at all since they are mentioned in the bible. Could be a figurative reference but I'm trending towards literal.

 

[fredoheaven]

Of course I believe the Bible, which is the final authority. You apparently believe otherwise; you come up trying to make us believe your [sic] the 'right' [?] and not the scripture. That's a quite impossible. [?]

Umm. sound logically right but messes up something. You came up claiming and even quoting of something you don't believe. Just don't get it . Of course, the Bible which I hold in my hands, the scripture of truth which is in the form of an English text or KJV is my Final Authority.
John 17:17 - Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

 

[John146]

The only "Bible" which is "the final authority" are the original Biblical texts, which nobody has discovered. The "books" are later fragments of the Biblical texts, but they are not the autographs.

All Bibles that we have today are translations and none of them are perfect. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the early text fragments and any English translation.

None of them are "the final authority"; they are all translations.

But you claimed that the Bible is the final authority, yet you now claim we don’t have it. Why do you have a problem with someone throwing a translation riddled with errors in the trash? It doesn’t make sense.

 

[SoulWeaver]

My rule of thumb on whether a bible is inspired or not has to do with WHICH Jesus that bible presents.

Daniel 3:25 English Standard Version (ESV)
25 He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

The Jesus presented in the ESV is a son of the gods, so no, it's not inspired. God has already told us in the KJV that the man in the furnace was Jesus.... God doesn't reveal things and then take the revelation back. God never works in reverse lol.

This is though spoken by a pagan king, from his reference point, it's not a doctrinal passage, it's not even the New Testament.
Error in translation, yep, I will assume it said elohim there, but this is not anything worse than what I saw in KJV disputables list.

 

[KJV1611]

Perhaps unicorns are not fictional animals at all since they are mentioned in the bible. Could be a figurative reference but I'm trending towards literal.

It's both literal and figurative. There were literal unicorns but the real meaning is what the unicorn represents.

 

[tourist]

But you claimed that the Bible is the final authority, yet you now claim we don’t have it. Why do you have a problem with someone throwing a translation riddled with errors in the trash? It doesn’t make sense.

Perhaps a prudent biblically correct method of disposal would be to throw it in recycle container. Of course, China ain't taking any more of our trash so it would still probably end up in a landfill.

 

[KJV1611]

This is though spoken by a pagan king, from his reference point, it's not a doctrinal passage, it's not even the New Testament.
Error in translation, yep, I will assume it said elohim there, but this is not anything worse than what I saw in KJV disputables list.

What's on your KJV disputables list?