My KJV Debate with Jeffrey Dollar
- Thread starter Bible_Highlighter
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Sorry, you have not dismantled any of the verses I provided that proves the obvious.
Also, if you are for Modern Bibles, you are indirectly in support of Westcott and Hort's methods in translation whether like that idea or not because the artifical Greek text was formed by them in their attempt to smash together Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Deception was employed when they released the ERV. It was supposed to be a simply KJV update, but it wasn't. A fellow Critical Text advocate who was in this thread actually agrees that there was deception by Westcott and Hort with the ERV. They snuck in a never-before-seen Greek text. That is what you are following with your Modern Bibles whether you like it or not, my friend.
....
....
Also, if you are for Modern Bibles, you are indirectly in support of Westcott and Hort's methods in translation whether like that idea or not because the artifical Greek text was formed by them in their attempt to smash together Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Deception was employed when they released the ERV. It was supposed to be a simply KJV update, but it wasn't. A fellow Critical Text advocate who was in this thread actually agrees that there was deception by Westcott and Hort with the ERV. They snuck in a never-before-seen Greek text. That is what you are following with your Modern Bibles whether you like it or not, my friend.
....
....
Keep telling yourself that. The only thing that is obvious here is that you are proud, stubborn, and deluded. Oh, and your theology is majorly screwed up. Those are all your problems, and not mine. It is time for me to put you on ignore. Enjoy your imaginary mansion in the sky. Say "hello" to Thor for me. Bye.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with which translation of English being better than another. If anything, it means ALL English translations are equally adequate.
But for someone like myself I still get a truer translation reading the Hebrew because I know it. But the New Testament is where I utilize the English translation.
I also have the Aramaic translation which actually defines {Talitha} in Mark and Eli Eli Llama Sabachthani in Matthew, Mark, and Luke which the Greek had no words in its language to explain the spoken Aramaic by Jesus.
But for someone like myself I still get a truer translation reading the Hebrew because I know it. But the New Testament is where I utilize the English translation.
I also have the Aramaic translation which actually defines {Talitha} in Mark and Eli Eli Llama Sabachthani in Matthew, Mark, and Luke which the Greek had no words in its language to explain the spoken Aramaic by Jesus.
Yet I disagree with your interpretation of the above verses that may have caused you a problem, pointing out that the word “prevent” hinders anyone's full understanding of the texts. The context concerns the coming return of Christ in the air or clouds in meeting with the saints (the dead in Christ as well as those who are alive and remain), which is known theologically as the rapture event.
At the outset, “precede” seems to be appropriate to mean “to go before” or “go ahead” of which almost all the modern versions have translated it that way.
Well, I did note that you are expressing your thoughts on comparing scripture to scripture by bolding and underlining the words that you seem to have thought that “the dead in Christ shall rise first” as forming the context, thus the word “precede” is the correct one. This is also to note that “prevent” has the other meaning of “precede” so most scholars may have used this instead to allow clarity you are trying to point to “in that the dead in Christ will get their glorified bodies slightly before those who will yet be alive at that point in time” or perhaps what a modern-day reader would think to mean “to stop, hinder, or keep from doing”. Anyway, your main argument is that the phrase “the dead in Christ shall rise first” attains the glorified bodies and a better rendering is “precede”.
However, if we read the text 1 Thessalonians 4:15 speaks of the coming of Christ bringing relatively to the understanding of the coming of the Lord and meeting him in the air or the clouds as in 1 Thes. 4:17. This event is not what is happening in the graveyard as provided in 1 Thes. 4:16 but it is an event in the air. For information, the word “prevent” means “to meet” which is exactly what v.17 is all about the meeting with the Lord. So while it carries the word precede, it is indeed a meeting together and obviously not that those alive and remain meet with the Lord ahead. This is what Paul says that the reunion (the event in the clouds/air) is together with the dead in Christ in their glorified state. For clarity, this section of the passage is not the visible return of Christ to the earth as he promised to fulfill his literal reign here on earth with his saints.
So I submit, that the KJB rendering is proper or more appropriate than most modern versions out there if it gets studied.
At the outset, “precede” seems to be appropriate to mean “to go before” or “go ahead” of which almost all the modern versions have translated it that way.
Well, I did note that you are expressing your thoughts on comparing scripture to scripture by bolding and underlining the words that you seem to have thought that “the dead in Christ shall rise first” as forming the context, thus the word “precede” is the correct one. This is also to note that “prevent” has the other meaning of “precede” so most scholars may have used this instead to allow clarity you are trying to point to “in that the dead in Christ will get their glorified bodies slightly before those who will yet be alive at that point in time” or perhaps what a modern-day reader would think to mean “to stop, hinder, or keep from doing”. Anyway, your main argument is that the phrase “the dead in Christ shall rise first” attains the glorified bodies and a better rendering is “precede”.
However, if we read the text 1 Thessalonians 4:15 speaks of the coming of Christ bringing relatively to the understanding of the coming of the Lord and meeting him in the air or the clouds as in 1 Thes. 4:17. This event is not what is happening in the graveyard as provided in 1 Thes. 4:16 but it is an event in the air. For information, the word “prevent” means “to meet” which is exactly what v.17 is all about the meeting with the Lord. So while it carries the word precede, it is indeed a meeting together and obviously not that those alive and remain meet with the Lord ahead. This is what Paul says that the reunion (the event in the clouds/air) is together with the dead in Christ in their glorified state. For clarity, this section of the passage is not the visible return of Christ to the earth as he promised to fulfill his literal reign here on earth with his saints.
So I submit, that the KJB rendering is proper or more appropriate than most modern versions out there if it gets studied.
Can a translation of God’s Word (Scripture) be divinely inspired and or perfect? Well, we learn in the Old Testament: Joseph had spoken Egyptian, and yet these words that record this very fact are written in Hebrew (Genesis 42:23). In the New Testament, we learn: that Paul had spoken to the Jews in Hebrew and yet these words were recorded in the Greek within the Scriptures (See: Acts 21:40, and Acts 22:1-2). Again, this is a perfect translation unless you doubt God’s Word. In addition, at the cross: The words on a sign said, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.” These words were written in different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) that were translated for us (John 19:19-20). In addition, Jesus said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). In other words, if God indeed divinely granted us the translation of the King James Bible (as I believe He has), it would align perfectly with the consistency of other translations of God we read about in Scripture.
Generally, most KJV-onlyists do not regard the marginal notes in the KJV 1611 as inspired. One thing that should give you pause is that there is evidence that when the KJV became standardized with the 1769 KJV Blayney, and the Pure Cambridge KJV edition (circa 1900), there are numerical patterns that set into place that cannot be attributed to just mere random chance. So, if you are looking for the miraculous nature of the text in that it is divine, Biblical numerics with Brandon Peterson (Truth is Christ - YouTube channel) is a good place to start. Granted, I understand most are not into biblical numerics. They see this as numerology or something silly. I see it as evidence that the text is divine. Granted, most are ignorant that as a part of wisdom the one who has understanding is to count a particular number in Revelation 13:18. They do not fully realize what this is telling the reader. They do not see this as a life application verse or anything and yet it is giving the reader an instruction.
....
Generally, most KJV-onlyists do not regard the marginal notes in the KJV 1611 as inspired. One thing that should give you pause is that there is evidence that when the KJV became standardized with the 1769 KJV Blayney, and the Pure Cambridge KJV edition (circa 1900), there are numerical patterns that set into place that cannot be attributed to just mere random chance. So, if you are looking for the miraculous nature of the text in that it is divine, Biblical numerics with Brandon Peterson (Truth is Christ - YouTube channel) is a good place to start. Granted, I understand most are not into biblical numerics. They see this as numerology or something silly. I see it as evidence that the text is divine. Granted, most are ignorant that as a part of wisdom the one who has understanding is to count a particular number in Revelation 13:18. They do not fully realize what this is telling the reader. They do not see this as a life application verse or anything and yet it is giving the reader an instruction.
....
It is silly to assume that Jesus quoted from any so-called Pre-Christian Greek LXX.
Jesus referred to jots and tittles, which is Hebrew and not Greek.
If you read the Scriptures, you would know that Jesus barely even talked a Canaanite woman (who is a Gentile).
Jesus even told His disciples not to go into the way of the Gentiles.
Salvation did not go out to the Gentiles in Christ's ministry until after His resurrection.
For Jesus to quote a Gentile translation of the Scriptures would be very non-Jewish of Him and it would contradict many of the accounts of Jesus' being of the Jews or of God's chosen nation. Jesus is after all, King of the Jews.
Jesus said, salvation is of the Jews.
....
Jesus referred to jots and tittles, which is Hebrew and not Greek.
If you read the Scriptures, you would know that Jesus barely even talked a Canaanite woman (who is a Gentile).
Jesus even told His disciples not to go into the way of the Gentiles.
Salvation did not go out to the Gentiles in Christ's ministry until after His resurrection.
For Jesus to quote a Gentile translation of the Scriptures would be very non-Jewish of Him and it would contradict many of the accounts of Jesus' being of the Jews or of God's chosen nation. Jesus is after all, King of the Jews.
Jesus said, salvation is of the Jews.
....
The NKJV is not even a true KJV update.
The NKJV does not always follow the TR readings found in Beza's 1598 Greek.
The NKJV also sometimes places Critical Text readings in the NKJV, as well.
The NKJV also places doubt producing footnotes pointing you to the so-called Majority Text, and Critical Text.
None of the men who worked on the NKJV were even TR or for the KJV.
They were all for the Critical Text.
This explains their subtle push for you to accept the Critical Text.
That is how these men operate.
....
The NKJV does not always follow the TR readings found in Beza's 1598 Greek.
The NKJV also sometimes places Critical Text readings in the NKJV, as well.
The NKJV also places doubt producing footnotes pointing you to the so-called Majority Text, and Critical Text.
None of the men who worked on the NKJV were even TR or for the KJV.
They were all for the Critical Text.
This explains their subtle push for you to accept the Critical Text.
That is how these men operate.
....
The NKJV is sort of like telling your coworkers to come over your house because you have a Ford car that you would like to sell him. But when your coworker comes over, they see that you have a Chevy Corvette with Ford symbols on it. They object that this is a Ford car, but then you tell them it is a Ford because it has all the Ford symbols on it. That's sort of like what the NKJV is like. The cover is basically lying to you. It is like a fake dollar bill and not the genuine article.
.....
.....