[geocentrism] Re: KJB v. NKJB
- From: "Cheryl" <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:40:53 -0500
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:
