Is YOUR church doctrinal statement ONE with SATAN?

[KJV1611]

The KJV is a copy of the Greek to Latin Vulgate, so it is essentially a copy of a copy. The only difference however, is that it did not copy and went off onto its own tangent. How can something following something be legit when it chooses its own path?

Satan chose his own path, should we follow him as well?

But the real point is, that's only ONE EXAMPLE where the KJV decided to choose its own path. Do you want to see the others where they do not follow what actually and factually was said but made it up as they went?

I've been through all of these arguments over and over again. The bible IS NOT bound by words. There are thousands of ways to convey God's word and no bible is bound by the EXACT verbiage of the "originals". Hades, Tartarus and all the other words that the KJV translators changed to hell, those Greek words mean nothing to us today, in fact there are "believers" that have no concept of what hell is.

Why don't you have the same issue with the original new testament? There's nothing new in the new testament, the new testament just put words to the words that were hidden in foreshadows of the old testament.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Well show the decree where James forced everybody to read only his version. Maybe throw a link in about how he oppressed the Puritans too while you're at it.

It's fairly common knowledge that the Puritans came to America from England to escape religious persecution during the reign of King James I (r. 1603–1625) and of Charles I (r. 1625–1649), James’s son and successor, both of whom were hostile to the Puritans. We learned this I'm elementary school. Maybe you didn't but the rest of us did.

 

[KJV1611]

It's fairly common knowledge that the Puritans came to America from England to escape religious persecution during the reign of King James I (r. 1603–1625) and of Charles I (r. 1625–1649), James’s son and successor, both of whom were hostile to the Puritans. We learned this I'm elementary school. Maybe you didn't but the rest of us did.

Yeah and we were also taught that the civil war was fought over slavery. I'm sure kids 20 years down the road will be taught that our coming civil war was fought over white privilege and racism.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Yeah and we were also taught that the civil war was fought over slavery. I'm sure kids 20 years down the road will be taught that our coming civil war was fought over white privilege and racism.

That's not what I was taught.
Why do ya recon the Puritans left England and come to America? So you can scoff all ya like. History bears the record.

 

[KJV1611]

That's not what I was taught.
Why do ya recon the Puritans left England and come to America? So you can scoff all ya like. History bears the record.

I read up on it a little bit and saw where one of the main reasons James authorized a new translation was because the Puritans had issues with the previous bibles. It also said that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of, and reflect the episcopal structure of, the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.

 

[Kolistus]

From a friend and fellow brother in Christ...

First of all, the King James Bible has NEVER been “revised”. By this we simply mean that the King James Bible’s underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed in over 400 years. When the bible agnostics speak of the alleged “thousands of changes” in the various editions or printings of the King James Bible, what has really changed is the type font from Gothic print to the Roman type, the spelling of many words like sinne to sin, and doore to door, Goe to go and hee to he. The spelling has been modernized, but the text itself has never changed.

Then what is the problem with NKJV and other translations modernizing the language as you admit has happened to the KJV1611 as well?

We are not to conform to the world, but at the same time we are born into this world and we are brought up in a certain society and words carry certain meaning. For example KJV uses the word gay in the context of, cheerful, joyful, happy, but that word carries a different meaning to someone born in the 80s or 90s

 

[jaybo]

That's not what I was taught.
Why do ya recon the Puritans left England and come to America? So you can scoff all ya like. History bears the record.

The Puritans fled England and risked their lives because of the threat to their religious freedom.

 

[fredoheaven]

Then what is the problem with NKJV and other translations modernizing the language as you admit has happened to the KJV1611 as well?

We are not to conform to the world, but at the same time we are born into this world and we are brought up in a certain society and words carry certain meaning. For example KJV uses the word gay in the context of, cheerful, joyful, happy, but that word carries a different meaning to someone born in the 80s or 90s

Isn't it worthy to 'study' those words as it may give the exact sense of what the bible really telling us? The new generation must be the one that needs to adjust and not the word of God. Too many are just too lazy to study the word but with the right tools in studying, I think it is just good to say there's no need to change the text. The KJV purifies those of prior Protestant English translations but the NKJV didn't only modernize words to fit the new generation but made changes, alteration and omitted some of the KJV text. It is perceived that New King James Version, as a continuation of the labors of the earlier translators yet it is done in subtlety. On occasions, the translators altered the meaning of several verses. Examples:

1. Matthew 20:20 where worshiping is changed to kneeling
New King James Version
Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.

King James Bible
Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him



2. 2 Corithians 2:17 where corrupt is change to peddle

New King James Version
For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

King James Bible
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

The NKJV used a different text as used in the KJV and has paid respect to the Critical text, it constantly cites readings of the NU-text in its NT footnotes. So that would be a big differences and it does not really do the "...unlocking for today’s readers the spiritual treasures found especially in the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures. " (The New King James Preface).

 

[jaybo]

Isn't it worthy to 'study' those words as it may give the exact sense of what the bible really telling us? The new generation must be the one that needs to adjust and not the word of God. Too many are just too lazy to study the word but with the right tools in studying, I think it is just good to say there's no need to change the text. The KJV purifies those of prior Protestant English translations but the NKJV didn't only modernize words to fit the new generation but made changes, alteration and omitted some of the KJV text. It is perceived that New King James Version, as a continuation of the labors of the earlier translators yet it is done in subtlety. On occasions, the translators altered the meaning of several verses. Examples:

1. Matthew 20:20 where worshiping is changed to kneeling
New King James Version
Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.

King James Bible
Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him



2. 2 Corithians 2:17 where corrupt is change to peddle

New King James Version
For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

King James Bible
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

The NKJV used a different text as used in the KJV and has paid respect to the Critical text, it constantly cites readings of the NU-text in its NT footnotes. So that would be a big differences and it does not really do the "...unlocking for today’s readers the spiritual treasures found especially in the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures. " (The New King James Preface).

Curious what this means in the English that we all use and understand clearly?

"Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God." NIV

 

[biker]

I've been through all of these arguments over and over again. The bible IS NOT bound by words. There are thousands of ways to convey God's word and no bible is bound by the EXACT verbiage of the "originals". Hades, Tartarus and all the other words that the KJV translators changed to hell, those Greek words mean nothing to us today, in fact there are "believers" that have no concept of what hell is.

Why don't you have the same issue with the original new testament? There's nothing new in the new testament, the new testament just put words to the words that were hidden in foreshadows of the old testament.

I did use 1 John 5:7 which is the New Testament. But from the Torah/Tanakh (Hebrew) to the KJV there are even more obvious misuse by the KJV.

And if you are telling me when it claims there are 3 witnessing...the originals name these as water, blood, Spirit; the KJV as Father-Son-Holy Spirit that it relatively means same thing you are blind! There is a HUGE difference between the Trinity vs water-blood-Spirit! So for the KJV to ad lib to such a degree proves they chose to put whatever THEY BELIEVED IN, not what it truthfully stated.

 

[jaybo]

"Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

(Sorry about the split posting)

 

[KJV1611]

I did use 1 John 5:7 which is the New Testament. But from the Torah/Tanakh (Hebrew) to the KJV there are even more obvious misuse by the KJV.

And if you are telling me when it claims there are 3 witnessing...the originals name these as water, blood, Spirit; the KJV as Father-Son-Holy Spirit that it relatively means same thing you are blind! There is a HUGE difference between the Trinity vs water-blood-Spirit! So for the KJV to ad lib to such a degree proves they chose to put whatever THEY BELIEVED IN, not what it truthfully stated.

I have no idea what your talking about.

There ARE THREE that bear witness ON THE EARTH, those three witnesses are Jesus Christ coming in a flesh and 1) BLOOD body through a literal 2) WATER birth from his mamma, who was 3) CONCEIVED by the HOLY GHOST.

There are three that bear witness in HEAVEN - the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost.

1Jn 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

What part of that did the KJV translators screw up?

 

[fredoheaven]

Curious what this means in the English that we all use and understand clearly?

"Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God." NIV

To corrupt = change; to peddle = to sell yet I am curious about what's in the bottom your post, i don't what we call of that, that says KJV is revised. etc., I see it differently what is edition to a revision and I ask, what made you think 'peddle' is the correct reading of the Greek kapēleuontes? Thanks

 

[biker]

I have no idea what your talking about.

There ARE THREE that bear witness ON THE EARTH, those three witnesses are Jesus Christ coming in a flesh and BLOOD body through a literal WATER birth from his mamma, who was CONCEIVED by the HOLY GHOST.

There are three that bear witness in HEAVEN - the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost.

1Jn 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

What part of that did the KJV translators screw up?

READ MY POST THIS TIME! WE ARE COMPARING VERSE 7 OF THE KJV TO THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC/GREEK/LATIN VULGATE.

THE KJV DOES NOT MATCH THE OTHER 3 AT ALL. THE OTHER DO NOT MENTION IN HEAVEN/FATHER/SON/HOLY SPIRIT.

and to prove you have no idea what you're saying here, JESUS did not bear record of Himself. He said the Father would and the Holy Spirit. But the KJV claims Jesus did hahahahaha MORONS!


PAY SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO VERSE 7:

From the KJV:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


Now, look at verse 7 in the Aramaic, the Greek, the Latin Vulgate which are all at least 1,100 years OLDER than and written BEFORE the KJV:

1 John 5:6-8
Aramaic:
ܗܢܘ ܕܐܬܐ ܒܝܕ ܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܐܠܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ
6 This is The One who came by means of The Water and The Blood; Eshu Meshikha {Yeshua, The Anointed One}. It wasn't of The Water alone, but rather, by The Water and The Blood.

ܘܪܘܚܐ ܡܣܗܕܐ ܕܗܝ ܪܘܚܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܫܪܪܐ
7 And The Rukha {The Spirit} testifies; because that One, The Rukha {The Spirit}, is The Truth.

ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܬܠܬܐ ܣܗܕܝܢ ܪܘܚܐ ܘܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܘܬܠܬܝܗܘܢ ܒܚܕ ܐܢܘܢ
8 And there are three testifying: The Rukha {The Spirit}, and The Water, and The Blood. And these three are in One.
^
nowhere is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit listed like the English add in.


Greek:
6 This is He Who is coming through water and blood and spirit - Jesus Christ - not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood. And the spirit it is which is testifying, for the spirit is the truth,
7 seeing that three there are that are testifying,
8 the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are for the one thing."
^
nowhere is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit listed like the English add in.


Latin Vulgate:
6 hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Iesus Christus non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine et Spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas

This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth.

7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant

And there are Three who give testimony

8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.
^
nowhere is the Father-Son-Holy Spirit listed like the English add in.


If these Manuscripts came before the KJV, why doesn't the KJV say specifically the same thing from what it was translated from?




In verse 7, the older versions do not mention Heaven/Father/Son/Holy Spirit like the KJV.

So, if the KJV was using these to translate from, how did the KJV writers come up with Heaven/Father/Son/Holy Spirit when the OLDER versions do not mention anything of the sort?

 

[biker]

Jesus bore record on Earth but KJV says He does in Heaven in 1 John 5:7 hahahahahaha

John 8:
14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.


the KJV just flat out LIES!

 

[KJV1611]

Aramaic:
ܗܢܘ ܕܐܬܐ ܒܝܕ ܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܐܠܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ
6 This is The One who came by means of The Water and The Blood; Eshu Meshikha {Yeshua, The Anointed One}. It wasn't of The Water alone, but rather, by The Water and The Blood.

This verse is speaking of Jesus coming in a flesh and blood body. The water is water of the womb, the blood is his flesh and blood body.

ܘܪܘܚܐ ܡܣܗܕܐ ܕܗܝ ܪܘܚܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܫܪܪܐ
7 And The Rukha {The Spirit} testifies; because that One, The Rukha {The Spirit}, is The Truth.

This is the Spirit that testified that the one that came in flesh and blood is the Messiah.

ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܬܠܬܐ ܣܗܕܝܢ ܪܘܚܐ ܘܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܘܬܠܬܝܗܘܢ ܒܚܕ ܐܢܘܢ
8 And there are three testifying: The Rukha {The Spirit}, and The Water, and The Blood. And these three are in One.
^

The womb of Mary and the blood of Jesus and the Holy Spirit ARE NOT ONE! You're quoting antichrist Vaticanus garbage manuscripts. And your Greek version is coming from the same antichrist Vaticanus garbage manuscripts.

Can't you see how SCREWED UP those verses you posted are. It's pure garbage!

 

[John146]

Then what is the problem with NKJV and other translations modernizing the language as you admit has happened to the KJV1611 as well?

We are not to conform to the world, but at the same time we are born into this world and we are brought up in a certain society and words carry certain meaning. For example KJV uses the word gay in the context of, cheerful, joyful, happy, but that word carries a different meaning to someone born in the 80s or 90s

The words have not changed, just spelling. Big difference.

Btw, I have no problem with the words I don’t understand, it’s the words I do understand that are problematic, at least to my flesh.😉

 

[KJV1611]

@John146

146 if you want proof that the Vaticanus is pure garbage and the KJV translated 1 John 5:7 exactly right for your future debates see the post below.

https://christianchat.com/threads/i...-statement-one-with-satan.192692/post-4282509

 

[Locoponydirtman]

I read up on it a little bit and saw where one of the main reasons James authorized a new translation was because the Puritans had issues with the previous bibles. It also said that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of, and reflect the episcopal structure of, the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.

I read an article that was quite the contrary.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

The Puritans fled England and risked their lives because of the threat to their religious freedom.

That is correct sir.