[geocentrism] Re: KJB v. NKJB
- From: "Cheryl" <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:30:07 -0500
Bob, To the contrary, the preface shows that the KJB is the true Word of
God. As I said before, the Bibles that came before KJB were good Bibles. I
said that.
I also said that after KJB was written there were many typos and errors that
had to be fixed. This does not constitute revision to the finished work.
I said that Tyndale's work was incorporated almost intact. The translators,
even though they were genius linguists assembed by God for "such a time as
this" (as Queen Esther was), were God-fearing, humble men, who were in great
awe and respect for the work that had come before them. They saw their
place as agents in the prservation of God's Word and were honored to be used
in that process. More than anything they credited God with helping them in
thier work, as you quote in the first paragraph you quote of their preface.
And indeed God was with them and they were annointed, as well as being given
physical gifts of language ability and the training to go with it.
God gave his Word in the OT to one people, the Jews, and it was given in one
language-- Hebrew. Then he gave the New Testament in Greek, one language.
God chose the English language, the isles referred to in Scripture, to
provide the translation for the world that would put the two together, Old
and New Testaments.
Cheryl
You remind me of Nick when he's on the ropes, just play dumb. How about
admitting you're wrong?
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:29 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: KJB v. NKJB
> [C] Do you agree with me that there ARE NO ORIGINALS?
>
> [B] Already answered, but I'll answer again by quoting myself: "The only
> Inspired documents are the original manuscripts, and none of them survive.
>
> [C] "So you've resigned yourself to a belief that we have no real
> scripture."
>
> [B] Huh? If there were no real Scripture, no one could be saved since:
> "faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17
>
> [C] "The verses in NKJV in John that says the world was made THROUGH Jesus
> rather than BY him is not 'Scripture.'"
>
> [B] Prove it from the manuscripts used by the authors of the KJV.
>
> You make claims about the KJV that the authors would consider outrageous.
> It is a great shame that publishers no longer include their preface to the
> readers by which they explained their own fallibility and uncertainty. By
> your own definition, the KJV is not a real Bible since the people who
> wrote
> it did not consider their translation Divinely inspired or inerrant:
>
> "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators,
> Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French,
> Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had
> done,
> and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered; but having and
> using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for
> slowness,
> nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good
> hand
> of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."
>
> "Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the
> margin,
> lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding controversies by that
> show
> of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not
> to
> be so sound in this point. ... Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled,
> that partly to exercise and whet our wits, ... and lastly, that we might
> be
> forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those
> that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek
> in
> many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here
> and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and
> doubtfulness, ... that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence,
> and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, .... There be many
> words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, ... so that
> we
> cannot be helped by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names
> of
> certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. ... Now in such a case,
> doth
> not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to
> conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? ... Therefore as S.
> Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the
> finding
> out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and
> sense
> in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must need do good, yea, is
> necessary, as we are persuaded."
>
> These men were very aware of their limitations and it is difficult to see
> how anyone can hold your view of their translation even after reading just
> this much of their lengthy preface. And, until you read their preface,
> there is not much point in continuing with your arguments that they would
> clearly disagree with. It is highly doubtful that you know more about
> their
> translation than they did.
>
> I was just about to close this minor epistle, but have now decided to
> hammer
> home a littler harder the very words of the KJV authors.
>
> The following points were made in the preface to the 1611 KJV, titled "The
> Translators To The Reader". Some of the archaic spelling is updated for
> easier reading.
>
> 1) They wrote that understandable translations are needed.
> "Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that
> breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the
> curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the
> cover
> of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the
> stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were
> watered. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue [language of
> the
> common people], the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which
> was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with...."
> 2) They said that the Septuagint prepared the way for Jesus, even though
> it
> was not perfect.
> "When the fullness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the
> Son
> of God should come into the world...it pleased the Lord to stir up the
> spirit of...Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, to procure the
> translating
> of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek....This is the translation of
> the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for
> our
> Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching...."
> "It is certain that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but
> that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient
> for
> this work as the Apostles or Apostle-like men? Yet it seemed good to the
> Holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found (the same being for
> the greatest part true and sufficient), rather than by making a new, in
> that
> new world and green age of the Church...."
> 3) They had no condemnation for other translations.
> "...We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that prevailed
> before us [previous translators of previous versions] in this kind, either
> in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's
> (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his
> time)
> or Queen Elizabeth's of ever-renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to
> have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church,
> and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting
> remembrance."
> 4) They said that even poor translations are the Word of God.
> "...We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [most
> common, lowest quality] translation of the Bible in English...containeth
> the
> Word of God, nay, is the Word of God."
> 5) They said that an imperfect translation is still the Word.
> "No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the
> Word,
> or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and
> blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."
> 6) They pointed out that the Apostles used the faulty Septuagint.
> "The translation of the Seventy [Septuagint] dissenteth from the Original
> in
> many places, neither does it come near it, for perspicuity, gratuity,
> majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they
> used it (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do
> confess), which they would not have done, nor by their example of using
> it,
> so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the
> appellation and name of the Word of God."
> 7) They defended making many changes and corrections in the 1611 KJV.
> "...We must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs [the KJV's
> translators' contemporary critics] against us, for altering and amending
> our
> translations so oft....For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by
> such
> as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he
> saw cause?"
> 8) They said that their purpose in creating the King James Version was to
> make one good one out of many good ones.
> "Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning that we
> should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good
> one...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one
> principal
> good one...."
> 9) They defended adding marginal notes. [The 1611 original had numerous
> marginal notes that offer different possible translations of words or
> phrases.]
> "Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the
> margin,
> less the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that
> shew of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment
> not to be so sound in this point....It hath pleased God in his divine
> providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that
> difficulty
> and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in
> such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain), but in matters
> of
> less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than
> confidence....Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of
> the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in
> the
> margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is
> necessary, as we are persuaded."
> 10) They said that they were not in bondage to the use of particular
> words.
> "Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle reader) that we
> have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of
> words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they
> observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could
> that way....For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why
> should
> we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may
> use another no less fit, as commodiously?....We have...avoided the
> scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old ecclesiastical words, and
> betake them to other, as when they put washing for baptism, and
> congregation
> instead of church...."
>
> The authors of the 1611 KJV demolish all of your arguments that it is the
> one true Word of God. If I have to choose between what they say about the
> KJV and what you say about it, I'll side with them.
>
> Not Divinely Inspired, Just Trying to Do His Will,
>
> Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cheryl
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 11:42 AM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: KJB v. NKJB
>
> Bob-- Why are you having such a hard time understanding what I'm saying
> here? I am usually able to get my point across.
>
> You quote 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All Scripture is given by inspiration of
> God...")
> and claim that Scripture means "the originals" AND ONLY THOSE ORIGINALS.
> Do you agree with me that there ARE NO ORIGINALS? All we have are copies?
> And some of the oldest copies have the most omissions of crucial scripture
> and addition of the most blatant heresies. So you've resigned yourself to
> a
> belief that we have no real scripture. The Bible says the Bereans had
> scripture to read to compare with Paul's sermons, but we have no
> Scripture?
> Jesus had Scripture to read and quote from, but we do not? Do you think
> the Bereans were reading from the so-called "originals?" Do you think
> Jesus
> was? Think about this.
>
> God did give us a Bible we can believe and trust. Since that time Satan
> has
> come along and introduced his own versions, starting with Westcott and
> Hort.
> Before those occultists came along with their counterfeit Bible, nobody
> questioned that KJB was THE Bible, trusted it, loved it, believed it.
>
> The verses in NKJV in John that says the world was made THROUGH Jesus
> rather than BY him is not "Scripture." The JW's New World Translation is
> not Scripture, especially where it says that the Word was "a god." There
> is Scripture, and then there are the words of Satan, where he twists and
> corrupts God's Word to produce counterfeits.
>
> Scripture means "God's Word written down." God's Word doesn't have to
> be
> written on the original piece of parchment. God's Word is God's Word.
>
> You obviously do not believe in the doctrine of the preservation of God's
> Word (Scripture). I do. When I say "preservation" I don't mean that
> it's
> secretly preserved or preserved in God's own mind, or written down but
> only
> in Heaven. I'm talking about the preservation of God's Word here on
> earth,
> preserved between the covers of the KJB for people to read [and to be
> saved
> thereby, that "From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures which are
> able to make thee wise unto salvation. "] And since Scripture is God's
> Word
> written down, obviously Scripture does exist on earth; else these verses
> are themselves corruptions and lies and heresies introduced by man.
>
> Cheryl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 11:01 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: KJB v. NKJB
>
>
>> Cheryl,
>>
>> This is really getting bizarre. It's as if I am speaking in English and
>> you
>> are listening in Chinese.
>>
>> 2 Timothy 3:16 states, "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God,
>> and
>> [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
>> instruction
>> in righteousness:" The question is, what is the "scripture" spoken of
>> here?
>> It obviously cannot refer to any manuscripts that have errors. The only
>> manuscripts that fit the description in this verse had to have been the
>> very
>> first writings (original manuscripts, autographs, pick your own word)
>> that
>> came from those men who were directly inspired by God to write His Words.
>> How many different ways do I have to say the same thing?
>>
>> And, as I said umpteen posts ago, "God has preserved His Word perfectly
>> to
>> the degree that it is necessary to ensure that His Gospel will be
>> preached
>> to everyone who needs to hear it before Jesus returns."
>>
>> Perfect understanding, perfecting writing, perfect inflection, perfect
>> presentation, perfect listening, perfect size of text, perfect writing
>> medium, perfect amount of ink, perfect translation, etc., etc., etc., ad
>> nauseum, are not a prerequisite for God to be able to get His message
>> through to fallen humanity which is incapable of doing anything with
>> absolute God-like perfection. God has made certain that what we get is
>> good
>> enough for Him to get through to us. Perfection of anything is not
>> required
>> of us, including translations. Otherwise, no one can be saved.
>>
>> In The Service of His Majesty, The Lord Jesus Christ, King of Kings and
>> Lord
>> of Lords,
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cheryl
>> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 10:44 AM
>> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: KJB v. NKJB
>>
>> Bob -- Your "originals" are as from 2 Peter 1:21? The "originals" spoken
>> of
>> there refer to the spoken word only, not the written word. It says "but
>> holy men of God SPAKE as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
>>
>> And even the written words of those prophecies are lost. We have only
>> copies of the copy. Do you trust God to preserve His words or not? Yes
>> or
>> no?
>>
>> Cheryl
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 10:27 AM
>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: KJB v. NKJB
>>
>>
>>> Cheryl,
>>>
>>> Again, you seem very unfamiliar with this domain. I was assuming you
>>> were
>>> aware that the term "original manuscripts" in my context was a reference
>>> to
>>> the autographs penned by the "holy men of God" spoken of in 2 Peter
>>> 1:21.
>>> You spent the majority of your email below telling me what I already
>>> know.
>>>
>>> Again, you continue to completely ignore what the "gifted and genius
>>> linguist[s]" had to say about the KJV that they created.
>>>
>>> Again, you continue to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said, nor did I
>>> EVER
>>> imply, that Jesus is not God. There can be no other conclusion from
>>> Scripture than that He is God. If you cannot read and comprehend what I
>>> am
>>> writing, please stop responding. Otherwise, you are answering arguments
>>> that I never made. To continue to do so will force me to conclude that
>>> you
>>> are being deliberately deceptive.
>>>
>>> Where on earth did you get the idea that Jesus has no humanity, only
>>> Divinity? I will try to put my previous argument regarding this into
>>> easier
>>> language for you to understand. If the body of Jesus is God, just as
>>> His
>>> Spirit is God, then His body has always existed and cannot die. Yet,
>>> Jesus
>>> died on the cross. God did not die. The only way to reconcile this is
>>> to
>>> separate Jesus as God (Son of God) from Jesus as Man (Son of Man). So,
>>> again, Jesus is God in the flesh. But, His flesh had nothing to do with
>>> Creation since God created His body. You have to believe that His flesh
>>> was
>>> created, assuming you believe that He was born of Mary. It's as simple
>>> as
>>> this: "through" refers to His Divinity only; "by" implies His Divinity
>>> and
>>> humanity.
>>>
>>> This really seems pointless to continue since you ignore so much of the
>>> obvious.
>>>
>>> How shall I close this time without offending you?
>>>
>>> Love in Christ,
>>>
>>> Brother Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cheryl
>>> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 9:41 AM
>>> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: KJB v. NKJB
>>>
>>> Bob -- On the "original manuscripts being perfect and God-breathed" --
>>> but
>>> not the translation.
>>>
>>> Which manuscripts? NONE of the manuscripts are originals. They are ALL
>>> copies. And even the copies are copies of the spoken word. How can
>>> you
>>> be
>>> sure they were copied down correctly from the spoken word? Answer: You
>>> don't have the answer. Then you have many manuscripts which are
>>> corrupted
>>> with gnostic errors deliberately introduced or copied leaving out
>>> certain
>>> verses deliberately. So here you've got more choices introduced into
>>> the
>>> mix.
>>>
>>> Then you have the question of canon -- is this copy, accurate or not
>>> accurate, a copy of God's Word?
>>>
>>> There's lots and lots of old copies of spiritual writings. You claim to
>>> know which of those are canonical? Do you dispute the current canon,
>>> say
>>> of the KJB? Or are you willing to throw that out as being of man (as
>>> the
>>> Mormons have done)? According to your logic, God doesn't preserve His
>>> Word; rather, God just goes around speaking through people or to people
>>> commanding them to write the words down (as God did to Isaiah). Are you
>>> sure Isaiah wrote down what God really said? And assuming Isaiah did
>>> write
>>> them down correctly, how do you know the copies we have of what he wrote
>>> weren't changed or things added or omitted by people with an agenda?
>>>
>>> We have no originals. We have copies. And the copies don't match.
>>>
>>> If I had to trust you to choose from among the available manuscripts to
>>> 1,
>>> determine canon and/or 2. determine what is and what isn't what God
>>> really
>>> said among the manuscripts-- put it this way, based on your beliefs
>>> about
>>> the divinity of Christ, I wouldn't trust your opinion AT ALL. Rather,
>>> based on the fact that you are not a gifted and genius linquist as all
>>> the
>>> KJV translaters were, are not chosen and annointed of God to make the
>>> right
>>> choices as those translators were, I have no doubt you'd pick all the
>>> wrong
>>> manuscripts. When it comes time to translate those manuscripts, the
>>> errors
>>> would be compounded exponentially.
>>>
>>> So there is something here called PRSERVATION of God's Word involved.
>>> Think
>>> about it.
>>>
>>> As to Jesus not being God because his body didn't exist until 2000 years
>>> ago, that is utterly ridiculous. Jesus never had a beginning. He was
>>> in
>>> the beginning with the Father. He manifested Himself on earth other
>>> times
>>> before He came to earth in the form of a human being, born of a woman.
>>> Either he created the universe (as KJB says) or he didn't. Your wicked
>>> bible says he didn't and that seems to suit you. In my book, that
>>> means
>>> you worship another Jesus than the one I do. Only God can save.
>>>
>>> Cheryl
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:34 AM
>>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: KJB v. NKJB
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cheryl,
>>>>
>>>> 1) I really hate it when people put words in my mouth to suit their
>>>> agenda.
>>>> I NEVER said the KJV is "the most accurate". I used the terms
>>>> "arguably"
>>>> and "possibly", trying to be generous to you.
>>>> 2) You completely ignore what the translators themselves had to say.
>>>> They
>>>> tell us they were not inspired and that their work would eventually
>>>> have
>>>> to
>>>> be updated, but you ignore that.
>>>> 3) The translators of the KJV translated and incorporated the Apocrypha
>>>> as
>>>> the Holy Word of God. Either it is inspired or the translators made an
>>>> enormous error.
>>>> 4) The NKJV does not "just get rid of the 'thees and thous' and
>>>> change[s]
>>>> a
>>>> word here or there". I conclude that you never bothered to read what
>>>> its
>>>> translators had to say, either.
>>>> 5) I suppose if God were to speak to you in the original Greek and
>>>> Hebrew,
>>>> unless you are fluent in those languages, you would likewise conclude
>>>> that
>>>> He was speaking in a "forgettable, vague, and just kind of ugly
>>>> sounding
>>>> and
>>>> tacky manner" since you would have no clue what He was saying unless He
>>>> spoke in old English.
>>>> 7) Now I see that someone resents the way that I occasionally sign off
>>>> as
>>>> I
>>>> indicate my love for God. That is petty and ungodly.
>>>> 8) You are now an authority on the NKJV, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and
>>>> apparently all other manuscripts and translations? What are your
>>>> credentials?
>>>> 9) So I have to conclude that you, like the Jehovah's Witnesses,
>>>> believe
>>>> that the Holy Spirit is an "it" instead of a "He". The Greek word
>>>> translated "itself" in the KJV is 'ow-tos', which is an article or
>>>> pronoun
>>>> translated depending on the context of its use. If we are talking
>>>> about
>>>> the
>>>> Person of God, it is properly translated as "Him". [Someone who knows
>>>> Greek, please chime in].
>>>> 10) God is the Creator. The Divinity of Jesus is God but the humanity
>>>> (flesh) of Jesus is not. If the whole person of Jesus were God, He
>>>> could
>>>> not have died on the cross. To say that the World was made "through"
>>>> Jesus
>>>> and not "by" Jesus is the most accurate way to express those facts. It
>>>> is
>>>> not a "HUGE difference". It more accurately reflects where the
>>>> Creative
>>>> power is derived from - God from eternity past. The body of Jesus did
>>>> not
>>>> exist until 2000 years ago. His body had nothing to do with Creation.
>>>> In
>>>> fact, it is part of the Creation. To say that the World was made "by"
>>>> Jesus
>>>> is to imply wrongly that His entire being, including his humanity made
>>>> from
>>>> DNA, had the power to create ex nihilo and that His body also existed
>>>> as
>>>> God
>>>> from eternity past.
>>>> 11) It is rather convenient that you can pardon the Bibles leading up
>>>> to
>>>> the
>>>> KJV as good and useful, despite the fact that they were full of
>>>> errors -
>>>> some very gross - but any translations after KJV are of the devil.
>>>> 12) God's Word is pure and will outlast the Heaven's and the earth. As
>>>> I
>>>> said before, the original manuscripts in the original languages were
>>>> God-breathed, perfect and inerrant. If you think that those languages
>>>> can
>>>> be translated to the uttermost perfection into another language, you
>>>> are
>>>> badly mistaken. Words, phrases, idioms, parts of speech, etc., CANNOT
>>>> be
>>>> translated perfectly between such languages. If you had even a
>>>> rudimentary
>>>> understanding of those languages you would already know that.
>>>>
>>>> What I find depressing here are your baseless - and uninformed -
>>>> arguments.
>>>>
>>>> In His Service,
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cheryl
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 4:20 AM
>>>> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [geocentrism] KJB v. NKJB
>>>>
>>>> Bob -- You say (below) that the KJB is the most accurate, yet you quote
>>>> from
>>>> the New (and improved) KJV (per)version. The NKJV is the version that
>>>> supposedly just gets rid of the "thees and thous" and changes a word
>>>> here
>>>> and there. There was absolutely no resemblance to what you quoted as
>>>> "Scripture" to the verse it replaces in KJB. As I said, your version
>>>> sounds like it was written by a Health and Human Services government
>>>> beurocrat and it is offensive and laughable to think God would ever
>>>> speak
>>>> in
>>>> that manner -- specifically in such a forgettable, vague, and just
>>>> kind
>>>> of
>>>> ugly-sounding and tacky manner.
>>>>
>>>> And you yourself claim no inspiration to your NKJV. You say KJB is
>>>> full
>>>> of
>>>> errors but that your own so-called bible is full of even more; yet you
>>>> claim
>>>> to represent God "in his Service" as you sign off, but you come on
>>>> with
>>>> your defective, untrustworthy, plastic sword of the spirit to do
>>>> battle.
>>>> If I had as little faith in my Bible as you have in yours, I would
>>>> throw
>>>> in
>>>> the towel and quit. And even admitting KJB is more accurate, you still
>>>> quote from that awful NKJV.
>>>>
>>>> As to the verses you quote in Romans 8:16 and 26 referring to the Holy
>>>> Spirit as itself instead of Himself, in verse 27 the Spirit is referred
>>>> to
>>>> as "he." I've never one time ever seen one single verse in KJB that I
>>>> thought should be changed. I believe the word "itself" is there
>>>> because
>>>> it is the best word and needs to be there and because God WANTS it
>>>> there.
>>>> When I see a word in my KJB I take it seriously as God's Word. I don't
>>>> second-guess it and presume to reword or rewrite it, go looking around
>>>> from
>>>> version to version until I find the one I like best that suits me.
>>>>
>>>> You talk about the JWs. The NKJV is doctrinally in line with them.
>>>> Why?
>>>> Because it strips Jesus of His divinity as Creator. In all verses
>>>> which
>>>> refer to Jesus as Creator, the KJV says the World was made BY Jesus.
>>>> But
>>>> your (per)version (and ALL the others as well) says the world was made
>>>> THROUGH Jesus. Big difference. HUGE difference in a major,
>>>> foundational,
>>>> crucial doctrine on the divinity of Jesus. Is Jesus the Creator of the
>>>> Universe or isn't He? Not ONE SINGLE OTHER (per)VERSION SAYS JESUS
>>>> IS
>>>> THE
>>>> CREATOR. NOT ONE. And that includes YOUR (per)version, regardless of
>>>> its
>>>> claims to having been translated from the correct manuscripts (it
>>>> wasn't)
>>>> and that it just makes a few changes in the thees and thous.
>>>>
>>>> The NKJV doesn't use the Textus Receptus but rather the Majority Text
>>>> manuscripts. It is essentially a Catholic bible.
>>>>
>>>> As to all your questions of why did God do this and that, not produce a
>>>> Bible for everyone immediately (meaning I suppose within 100 years) --
>>>> I
>>>> don't know the answer to that question, but God does, as to why He
>>>> chose
>>>> the
>>>> timing to make His appearance on earth 1500 years before the invention
>>>> of
>>>> the printing press. As to the Geneva Bible, the Bishops Bible, William
>>>> Tyndale's Bible (for which Tyndale was martyred) -- these were good
>>>> Bibles,
>>>> not perfect or complete, but nonetheless good and proper Bibles that
>>>> the
>>>> KJV
>>>> translators held in great respect and incorporated into their own
>>>> translation-- in Tyndale's case almost all his translation was put in
>>>> intact. God's Word culminated with KJB, perfect and complete. All
>>>> versions after KJB are perversions written by occultists and people
>>>> with
>>>> agendas, were written without annointing and to the detriment of and in
>>>> opposition to God's own Word. As Gail Riplinger states, these are New
>>>> Age
>>>> Bible Versions that are heading to the final (per)version that will be
>>>> so
>>>> generic that every religion on earth will be able to find their own
>>>> "truths" in it. And it's not true that there were many revisions and
>>>> thousands of changes made to KJB. All changes involved formatting and
>>>> fixing typos, not changing the translation at all, and my own KJV has
>>>> typos
>>>> in it here and there.
>>>>
>>>> The Apocrypha? I already discussed KJV and the Apocrypha and I'll
>>>> repost
>>>> it. But the Apocrypha is not inspired Scripture. Whether the King
>>>> James
>>>> translators had a hand in translating it or not is irrelevant. I see
>>>> nothing wrong with the Apocrypha being translated. That it was
>>>> included
>>>> and
>>>> later dropped from inclusion in the KJV does not change the translation
>>>> in
>>>> any way, the preservation of God's Word. It is just part of the
>>>> culmination into the perfection and completion of God's Word by God's
>>>> providence and preservation of His Word..
>>>>
>>>> God is able to preserve His Word and Scripture itself says that he HAS
>>>> preserved it. I challenge you to show me one place in KJV where there
>>>> is
>>>> error.
>>>>
>>>> There are places on this earth now where people do not have a Bible.
>>>> There
>>>> are also places on this earth where there are more Bibles than there
>>>> are
>>>> people, but people don't read it, don't memorize it, don't appreciate
>>>> it,
>>>> don't believe in it, say it needs a lot of fixing, and where people
>>>> feel
>>>> free to rewrite it or paraphrase it themselves with the use of their
>>>> Greek
>>>> dictionaries. It's likely that the first 1500 years when all people
>>>> such
>>>> as the Waldenses and Albigenses and other Christians had were
>>>> hand-copied
>>>> manuscripts it's likely these people appreciated and believed in
>>>> Scripture
>>>> more than people do today. The point is, the Bible says in Psalm 119
>>>> that
>>>> God's Word is very pure, and Jesus said Heaven and Earth would pass
>>>> away
>>>> but
>>>> His Word would never pass away.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not finished but I'll quit for now. It breaks my heart to see
>>>> people
>>>> cutting their spiritual legs out from under themselves, attacking God's
>>>> Word, trying to fight Satan with a plastic sword, self-confessed phony
>>>> bibles full of errors. I thought when I came to a geocentric forum I'd
>>>> find
>>>> some KJB people here because the vast majority of geocentrists are KJB
>>>> people. Instead, all I find are doubters, lost wanderers with no
>>>> authority
>>>> to stand on, throwing stones against the Bible. It's quite depressing
>>>> actually, that and the starving of Terri Shindler just before Easter.
>>>>
>>>> Cheryl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:06 AM
>>>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flesh and blood
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Cheryl,
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you know something that the KJV translators did not. Have you
>>>>> never
>>>>> read their original preface to the 1611 edition entitled, "The
>>>>> Translators
>>>>> to the Reader"? I have, in the original old English. They make it
>>>>> quite
>>>>> clear that God did not inspire them. The translators stated in the
>>>>> preface
>>>>> that there was a need for constant revision to update the language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, which KJV do you use? The one most people use today is the
>>>>> 10th
>>>>> edition, which was published about 150 years later. The 1611 edition
>>>>> contained the Apocrypha. Are the books of the Apocrypha inspired as
>>>>> well?
>>>>> What Bible did the non-English people of this world use before 1611
>>>>> and
>>>>> why
>>>>> did God leave English-speaking people without an inspired translation
>>>>> for
>>>>> sixteen centuries? How about other languages? Did God expect
>>>>> everyone
>>>>> on
>>>>> earth to immediately learn English or do without the Gospel? Did the
>>>>> pilgrims not have a real Bible because they instead used the Geneva
>>>>> Bible?
>>>>> Why did Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Septuagint, which
>>>>> differed
>>>>> from the original Hebrew in some places? How about Wycliff's Bible,
>>>>> published around 1382? It was translated from the Latin Vulgate and
>>>>> was
>>>>> the
>>>>> only complete English Bible for about 150 years. Was it worthless to
>>>>> the
>>>>> cause of Christ? Why were there marginal notes in the 1611 edition
>>>>> that
>>>>> offered alternate meanings if, as you indicate, the primary
>>>>> translation
>>>>> was
>>>>> inerrant and perfect? Blayney's 1769 edition of the KJV, which is
>>>>> probably
>>>>> the one you use, differs from the 1611 version in tens of thousands of
>>>>> minor
>>>>> details. Which one is the inerrant version? Since the 10th edition,
>>>>> hundreds of words and phrases have either changed meaning or
>>>>> completely
>>>>> disappeared from our language. Does God expect everyone to speak old
>>>>> English until the Last Day? Why does the KJV refer to the Holy Spirit
>>>>> as
>>>>> "itself" instead of Himself (see Romans 8:16 and 8:26)? The Jehovah's
>>>>> Witnesses capitalize on this mistranslation to support the heresy that
>>>>> the
>>>>> Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. I could go on and on with more
>>>>> time,
>>>>> but my point should be clear by now. If it is not, I can give you a
>>>>> truckload more reasons why the KJV is not perfect and is not inerrant.
>>>>> Again, it may arguably be the best translation but it is easy to prove
>>>>> that
>>>>> is not God-breathed, just as the original authors made clear in their
>>>>> preface.
>>>>>
>>>>> My faith is Rock solid, as I am sure yours is as well. Please do not
>>>>> challenge mine. God has preserved His Word perfectly to the degree
>>>>> that
>>>>> it
>>>>> is necessary to ensure that His Gospel will be preached to everyone
>>>>> who
>>>>> needs to hear it before Jesus returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> In His Service,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cheryl
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:51 PM
>>>>> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flesh and blood
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob -- The New King James is a horrible mistranslation. I don't have
>>>>> time
>>>>> to go into it now but I will I guess have to start defending the
>>>>> Bible.
>>>>> I
>>>>> get so tired of doing this. I know I have a perfect, inerrant Bible.
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> sorry you don't have one, don't even believe one even exists. And
>>>>> when
>>>>> it
>>>>> comes time to use the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God --
>>>>> what
>>>>> do you do? You don't believe the Word of God exists for you at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Bible says God spoke through holy men of old. Do you trust him to
>>>>> speak? Then the words had to be written down in order to make
>>>>> Scripture
>>>>> (i.e. the written word as opposed to the spoken word). Do you trust
>>>>> God
>>>>> to
>>>>> see that those words were correctly written? After many years there
>>>>> were
>>>>> many, many manuscripts -- some of them corrupted deliberately by
>>>>> gnostics
>>>>> and other heretics. Do you trust God to see that the correct
>>>>> manuscripts
>>>>> were sorted out to be translated? Then once the correct manuscripts
>>>>> were
>>>>> sorted out (from the incorrect or corrupted ones) to be translated do
>>>>> you
>>>>> trust God to see they were properly translated?
>>>>>
>>>>> Where in this process does your faith break down that keeps you from
>>>>> believing God is able to preserve His Word?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheryl
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 5:50 PM
>>>>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flesh and blood
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheryl,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I use the New King James Version, so your guarantee is not
>>>>>> applicable.
>>>>>> There is nothing Inspired about the KJV. It is an excellent - and
>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>> the best - translation, but it is still only a translation. The only
>>>>>> Inspired documents are the original manuscripts, and none of them
>>>>>> survive.
>>>>>> The KJV was not published until 1611 A.D. For centuries prior to
>>>>>> 1611,
>>>>>> Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate
>>>>>> translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the
>>>>>> "official" text of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestant translators
>>>>>> sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official
>>>>>> Text,
>>>>>> and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the
>>>>>> original
>>>>>> Greek. The King James translators did a marvelous job with the
>>>>>> materials
>>>>>> they had. While the KJV has numerous errors through no fault of its
>>>>>> writers, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions
>>>>>> made
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse. I
>>>>>> grew
>>>>>> up
>>>>>> with and used the KJV almost exclusively until a few years ago, so I
>>>>>> am
>>>>>> very
>>>>>> familiar with it. If I question a word or passage in the NKJV, I may
>>>>>> check
>>>>>> back to the KJV or use Strong's Concordance to examine the original
>>>>>> Greek
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> Hebrew. Dr. Henry Morris wrote an excellent defense of the KJV at
>>>>>> http://www.icr.org/bible/kjv.htm. He also believes that the NKJV is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> best of the modern translations but uses the KJV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for "cast out into the draught", it is clearer only if you know
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> "draught" refers to a toilet (Strong's Concordance #856). Who would
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> that off the top of their head? It is more specific, but not
>>>>>> clearer.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> think that the context makes clear what Jesus is referring to without
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> need for checking a reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Cheryl
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:32 PM
>>>>>> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flesh and blood
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob -- The real Bible says "goeth into the belly, and is cast out
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> draught." Much better and more specific wording. The other version
>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>> like it was written by a government bureaucrat in HHS. "Eliminated"
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> mean anything. I don't know what version you're using but I'll
>>>>>> guarantee
>>>>>> you it's a spin-off from the Catholic Bible and their Alexandrian
>>>>>> manuscripts.
>>>>>> Cheryl
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:21 PM
>>>>>> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flesh and blood
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One more thought on Communion. Jesus had something to say about
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> happens to things that we ingest: "So Jesus said, 'Are you also
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever
>>>>>>> enters
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated?'" (Matthew 15:16-17)
>>>>>>> Jesus
>>>>>>> made no exception here for the bread and wine of Communion and we
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> what "eliminated" means. That is not a very happy ending for
>>>>>>> objects
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> are supposedly the actual body and blood of Jesus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
