Is YOUR church doctrinal statement ONE with SATAN?

[KJV1611]

you're saying some words in the scripture don't matter?



Those people most assuredly did have a name for the fulfillment of passover.

They call it what God calls it: Passover.

Eostare found its way into Tyndale's Bible through a German antisemitic tradition. Geneva got it right; it's Pascha. KJV got it wrong.

I'm saying the word of God isn't bound by language or specific words. There are thousands of ways to convey the meaning of God's word. The words are just the shell that holds the spirit.

 

[fredoheaven]

Not at all. People don't include words that they "reject" without further explanation, which those notes don't have.

That might be sound good to the newer English versions and many of today's study bibles with explanatory notes, footnotes but not with KJV. The Rule no. 6 prevails and the Explanatory Notes were recorded separately by John Bois in his notes.

No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

 

[KJV1611]

That might be sound good to the newer English versions and many of today's study bibles with explanatory notes, footnotes but not with KJV. The Rule no. 6 prevails and the Explanatory Notes were recorded separately by John Bois in his notes.

No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

Fred the KJV translators didn't know which way to go with many of the things they translated but the words that ended up in scripture are ones God intended on being there. The translators were just earthly vessels used by God to pen the translations, they weren't the authors. They were the penman, just like the original writers were only penman and not authors.

God's will gets done no matter who does the writing.

 

[fredoheaven]

I do believe the other versions are inspired too but they're inspired by a different spirit. The spirit that led the NIV translators to translate "a son of the gods" wasn't the same Spirit that inspired the KJV writers to translate it as "the Son of God. Surely you can see this.

Yap, and sometime they demote Christ as God's Son into a servant Acts 3:13, 26

 

[KJV1611]

Yap, and sometime they demote Christ as God's Son into a servant Acts 3:13, 26

There are only two forces at work in the world, the spirit of Christ and the spirit of antichrist. The spirit of antichrist is always trying to raise men up and lower Jesus down. Of course the spirit of Christ is the exact opposite.

 

[jaybo]

I do believe the other versions are inspired too but they're inspired by a different spirit. The spirit that led the NIV translators to translate "a son of the gods" wasn't the same Spirit that inspired the KJV writers to translate it as "the Son of God. Surely you can see this.

It would probably be a good idea for you to do some research before you take a few words to prove -- actually nothing.

FYI, here is the translator's description of the phrase: The phrase like that of a god is in Aramaic “like that of a son of the gods.” Many patristic writers understood this phrase in a christological sense (i.e., “the Son of God”). But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase “like a son of the gods” is equivalent to “like a divine being.”

Oh I forgot, you don't pay attention to what professional 21st Century translators say; you would rather go with the opinions of long-dead translators of the 17th Century.

 

[jaybo]

I do believe the other versions are inspired too but they're inspired by a different spirit. The spirit that led the NIV translators to translate "a son of the gods" wasn't the same Spirit that inspired the KJV writers to translate it as "the Son of God. Surely you can see this.

No, they're not inspired by "a different spirit", they're highly-regarded professional translators who use the best sources and techniques available to render the ancient languages in the most accurate, most meaningful modern English.

The KJV translators weren't inspired by some special spirit, they were ordered to produce a translation that reinforced what King James wanted the Bible to say.

 

[KJV1611]

It would probably be a good idea for you to do some research before you take a few words to prove -- actually nothing.

FYI, here is the translator's description of the phrase: The phrase like that of a god is in Aramaic “like that of a son of the gods.” Many patristic writers understood this phrase in a christological sense (i.e., “the Son of God”). But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase “like a son of the gods” is equivalent to “like a divine being.”

Oh I forgot, you don't pay attention to what professional 21st Century translators say; you would rather go with the opinions of long-dead translators of the 17th Century.

Which manuscript line did "son of the gods" come from, the pure vine or the vine of Sodom?

 

[posthuman]

I'm saying the word of God isn't bound by language or specific words. There are thousands of ways to convey the meaning of God's word. The words are just the shell that holds the spirit.

This sure sounds like an argument not to be dogmatic about the KJV being uniquely superior to all other translations...

I do believe that each word of scripture is significant and important. And that they are not English words.

To me all these discussions about translations are pointing to the tower of Babel and the judgement God carried out there. I think from that, we should expect some imperfections in our language; I don't think we'll be speaking English in glory - probably not Hebrew either ((tho I know many people consider it to be the 'real' speech alone untouched by what happened at the tower, not sure I agree))

 

[posthuman]

I sincerely hope I haven't offended any of you guys by my opposition in the discussion, btw. I have certain strongly held opinions on this topic, just like y'all do, is all

 

[jaybo]

Fred the KJV translators didn't know which way to go with many of the things they translated but the words that ended up in scripture are ones God intended on being there. The translators were just earthly vessels used by God to pen the translations, they weren't the authors. They were the penman, just like the original writers were only penman and not authors.

God's will gets done no matter who does the writing.

Modern translators are just earthly vessels used by God to pen the translations, they weren't the authors. [really?] They are the penman, just like the original writers were only penman and not authors.

 

[KJV1611]

No, they're not inspired by "a different spirit", they're highly-regarded professional translators who use the best sources and techniques available to render the ancient languages in the most accurate, most meaningful modern English.

The KJV translators weren't inspired by some special spirit, they were ordered to produce a translation that reinforced what King James wanted the Bible to say.

Yeah like the highly regarded professionals that say taxes have to increase exponentially to stop MAN-MADE global warming. Or the experts that shut down the United States and put businesses out of business over a pandemic that counted motor cycle accidents deaths as a CV19 deaths to INFLATE THE NUMBERS so people like you would think we're in a pandemic. You are beyond gullible!

 

[jaybo]

Which manuscript line did "son of the gods" come from, the pure vine or the vine of Sodom?

This is a meaningless question. Translators are not and were not workers of voodoo, they strive to translate the ancient languages into English.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "the pure vine or the vine of Sodom?" Translations aren't grapes, they're the result of a lot of study and work.

 

[KJV1611]

This sure sounds like an argument not to be dogmatic about the KJV being uniquely superior to all other translations...

I do believe that each word of scripture is significant and important. And that they are not English words.

To me all these discussions about translations are pointing to the tower of Babel and the judgement God carried out there. I think from that, we should expect some imperfections in our language; I don't think we'll be speaking English in glory - probably not Hebrew either ((tho I know many people consider it to be the 'real' speech alone untouched by what happened at the tower, not sure I agree))

All the different translations ARE the tower of Babel and the judgement of God. They create confusion. We used to all speak the same KJV language for 400 years and now we're to the point where most people don't even need a bible because "the Holy Spirit" leads them.

 

[jaybo]

Yeah like the highly regarded professionals that say taxes have to increase exponentially to stop MAN-MADE global warming. Or the experts that shut down the United States and put businesses out of business over a pandemic that counted motor cycle accidents deaths as a CV19 deaths to INFLATE THE NUMBERS so people like you would think we're in a pandemic. You are beyond gullible!

Have you "lost it"???

And you think that I am gullible? Your rambling is a perfect example of "the pot calling the kettle black".

Is it too difficult for you to stay on topic? Maybe you should take a break from the forum for a while.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

I seriously doubt that Herod and most of the Jews celebrating Passover recognized the resurrection of Christ as fulfillment of Passover so they were waiting for Passover week to be over and that's why the "originals" used the word Pascha. Those originals were written to people alive back then who, we would have to assume, had no official name for the fulfillment of Passover.

The KJV is written to people of today's time where people don't celebrate the foreshadow of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ we celebrate the fulfillment of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and we call that celebration Easter because God named it Easter in the KJV.

You mean the James Bible was written to appease the papists in England because while James made himself head of the Presbyterian Church he had papists sympathies

 

[KJV1611]

This is a meaningless question. Translators are not and were not workers of voodoo, they strive to translate the ancient languages into English.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "the pure vine or the vine of Sodom?" Translations aren't grapes, they're the result of a lot of study and work.

There are two manuscript lines that DIFFER greatly in what they say. One of them came from the Vatican's anus and the other is uncorrupted version.

I can't believe you said translations aren't grapes. SMH The two vines in the bible are the vine of Christ and the vine of Sodom. Remember Jesus said I am the VINE and ye are the branches? Well the vine of Sodom IS NOT the vine of Christ. The vine NOURISHES the branches.... do you see what I mean? The bible nourishes OUR SPIRIT. I can't make it any clearer.

 

[KJV1611]

Have you "lost it"???

And you think that I am gullible? Your rambling is a perfect example of "the pot calling the kettle black".

Is it too difficult for you to stay on topic? Maybe you should take a break from the forum for a while.

My point is that highly qualified people have an agenda. They work for the god of this world.

 

[jaybo]

All the different translations ARE the tower of Babel and the judgement of God. They create confusion. We used to all speak the same KJV language for 400 years and now we're to the point where most people don't even need a bible because "the Holy Spirit" leads them.

"We used to all speak the same KJV language for 400 years" is absurd. The KJV language was obsolete even in it's own time. They intentionally used archaic English to make the text seem holy, rather than translating into the common language of the time.

 

[KJV1611]

You mean the James Bible was written to appease the papists in England because while James made himself head of the Presbyterian Church he had papists sympathies

Give me an example of James ruling over the Presbyterian church. What did he do to them?