Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

Well, this is a great reply and thank you. How ever, I do not see nor regard the Word of God as an issue to be deciphered, per se. I hear and receive the Word of God as Gods very own Word, to be prayed over, to read and to simply accept as is. Gods Word and truth.. There is only one true " church " and all others are, as they say, Cults. Cults are churches who are/have been set up by mortals with mere mortal understandings.. Lucifer is the unseen and deceptive leader of such organizations and, they all have one trait in common, common to all cults.. The persecution of all of it's ordinary members is the attitude of all cults.

So, if you know how to pray, first pray to the Lord for guidance in reading and understanding His Word. The read scripture and accept His Word as the pure truth of salvation. God has not made the salvation of all mankind an ordeal and or vey hard to achieve. His salvation is free to who simply believe in His one and only flesh and blood Son, Yehsua.

Authority, Development and False Doctrine,,, are cults alive and dead to God..
Have you had to pay for your " Degrees " in Biblical Studies ? If so, you could have saved all the coin by simply asking the Lord God to explain His Word to you... The KJV came out of RCC decree that non Priests were not allowed to read Gods Word. King James the VI authorized it's translation and printing..
Failing to answer a direct question concerning your position vis-à-vis KJV Onlyism, parroting misinformation about why the KJV was commissioned and spewing anti-intellectualism together speak volumes. Yes, I contributed toward my degrees monetarily, though the fees were subsidized by a number of scholarships I was awarded. Who exactly do you think was involved in bringing forth the KJV, some peasants recruited from the English countryside who prayed about what words to print? Hypocritical anti-intellectualism is rife among proponents of KJV Onlyism because its claims are easily exposed as bogus by anyone who has taken the time to immerse themselves in the pertinent ancient languages and disciplines of textual criticism and translation theory, whether in an academic or lay setting. Objections to the English laity reading the Bible in the common vernacular were long over by 1604 when King James I of England and Ireland (James VI of Scotland) convened the Hampton Court Conference, out of which the idea for an authorized version emerged... the Great Bible (1539) and Geneva Bible (1560) both preceded it, the latter was even dedicated to James when he was ruling over only Scotland. Its anti-episcopal notes led to the so-called Bishops' Bible (1568), which became the official basis for the KJV "translation". Annotations were forbidden in the KJV because those of the Geneva Bible had been subversive of royal authority... the KJV was commissioned to provide an alternative to this version and its dedication revealed the political impetus of having a national church headed by James under divine right. I would recommend you exchange your current source of information about the KJV for a reputable one such as Gordon Campbell's Bible: The Story of the King James Version, 1611-2011 published by Oxford University Press. In the chapter on the KJV in the modern world there is even a section devoted to KJV Onlyism (pp 264-68).

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Failing to answer a direct question concerning your position vis-à-vis KJV Onlyism, parroting misinformation about why the KJV was commissioned and spewing anti-intellectualism together speak volumes. Yes, I contributed toward my degrees monetarily, though the fees were subsidized by a number of scholarships I was awarded. Who exactly do you think was involved in bringing forth the KJV, some peasants recruited from the English countryside who prayed about what words to print? Hypocritical anti-intellectualism is rife among proponents of KJV Onlyism because its claims are easily exposed as bogus by anyone who has taken the time to immerse themselves in the pertinent ancient languages and disciplines of textual criticism and translation theory, whether in an academic or lay setting. Objections to the English laity reading the Bible in the common vernacular were long over by 1604 when King James I of England and Ireland (James VI of Scotland) convened the Hampton Court Conference, out of which the idea for an authorized version emerged... the Great Bible (1539) and Geneva Bible (1560) both preceded it, the latter was even dedicated to James when he was ruling over only Scotland. Its anti-episcopal notes led to the so-called Bishops' Bible (1568), which became the official basis for the KJV "translation". Annotations were forbidden in the KJV because those of the Geneva Bible had been subversive of royal authority... the KJV was commissioned to provide an alternative to this version and its dedication revealed the political impetus of having a national church headed by James under divine right. I would recommend you exchange your current source of information about the KJV for a reputable one such as Gordon Campbell's Bible: The Story of the King James Version, 1611-2011 published by Oxford University Press. In the chapter on the KJV in the modern world there is even a section devoted to KJV Onlyism (pp 264-68).

Kind regards,
Jonathan
That is a stretch, are we now into, " accusations of errors, etc; etc; " ? The " holier than thou " begins. have I not always quoted Scripture ?
BTW, just so that you know I no longer use the KJ Bible I use the " Complete Jewish Bible ".. I never said anything about KJB only..
 
That is a stretch, are we now into, " accusations of errors, etc; etc; " ? The " holier than thou " begins. have I not always quoted Scripture ?
BTW, just so that you know I no longer use the KJ Bible I use the " Complete Jewish Bible ".. I never said anything about KJB only..
Read my post carefully and you'll see I nowhere said you were a KJV Onlyist, though I did align your posting tactics of evasion, parroting misinformation and spewing anti-intellectualism with its proponents... and that observation stands.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Read my post carefully and you'll see I nowhere said you were a KJV Onlyist, though I did align your posting tactics of evasion, parroting misinformation and spewing anti-intellectualism with its proponents... and that observation stands.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
You do not have to, seeing that I never mentioned any Bible at all ? except that is only once and this is the CJB....
Let me quote one of your posts; " Failing to answer a direct question concerning your position vis-à-vis KJV Onlyism ", sic!,, " vis-avis " meaning of course " in regards to "
 
I never mentioned any Bible at all
That is incorrect... you mentioned the KJV in your post here, parroting misinformation about why it was commissioned, which I set straight in my response to it.

Let me quote one of your posts; " Failing to answer a direct question concerning your position vis-à-vis KJV Onlyism ", sic!,, " vis-avis " meaning of course " in regards to "
Correct, you failed to answer my direct question about whether you were a KJV Onlyist or a critic of this movement... since you did not identify your position "in regards to" KJV Onlyism I did not assume it, but pointed out that your tactics are similar to theirs. This forum is for discussion of KJV Onlyism so if you have nothing further to say about it, we have no further reason to be in dialogue...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
That is incorrect... you mentioned the KJV in your post here, parroting misinformation about why it was commissioned, which I set straight in my response to it.


Correct, you failed to answer my direct question about whether you were a KJV Onlyist or a critic of this movement... since you did not identify your position "in regards to" KJV Onlyism I did not assume it, but pointed out that your tactics are similar to theirs. This forum is for discussion of KJV Onlyism so if you have nothing further to say about it, we have no further reason to be in dialogue...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
You mentioned this;; ? I did say this,, ": The KJV came out of RCC decree that non Priests were not allowed to read Gods Word. King James the VI authorized it's translation and printing " the meaning is that it defeated the RCC version only. You are printing falsities about my comments.
I no longer use the KJV Bible, also I have several and different versions but no longer use any of those either, get it ? I use the CJB ( Complete Jewish Bible )...
 
So what happens when another person tells you God explains His word to that person, in a definition that is differem from your interpretation.
I have no idea at all, why don't you tell me, your are the one telling the " story " here ?
God explains His Word to me in His Word, the Bible... Do you not believe that God can do this ?
 
I have no idea at all, why don't you tell me, your are the one telling the " story " here ?
God explains His Word to me in His Word, the Bible... Do you not believe that God can do this ?
You are avoiding my question.

Let me ask it in a different way. If someone told you that God told them that one piece of scripture told them one thing. And you believe that God told you the same scripture ment something different. What would you say or do?
 
You are avoiding my question.

Let me ask it in a different way. If someone told you that God told them that one piece of scripture told them one thing. And you believe that God told you the same scripture ment something different. What would you say or do?
This is your supposition right ? Well, if I have to answer you, I would tell them what Gods Word is saying by showing them the passage in question from the Bible of course, and that we are to believe the Word of God alone. I then have told them, so it is up to them not me..
You are not actually saying anything tangible ? I hear you say, " one piece of scripture told them one thing " then so, what is it that is being told to them in the first place ???
 
This is your supposition right ? Well, if I have to answer you, I would tell them what Gods Word is saying by showing them the passage in question from the Bible of course, and that we are to believe the Word of God alone. I then have told them, so it is up to them not me..
You are not actually saying anything tangible ? I hear you say, " one piece of scripture told them one thing " then so, what is it that is being told to them in the first place ???
Would you ever consider that they are correct and you could be wrong?
 
Jn. 10:
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold,
but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber
.

2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

3 To him the porter openeth;
and the sheep hear his voice:
and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.


4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep,
he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him:
for they know his voice
.

5 And a stranger will they not follow,
but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers
.
 
You are avoiding my question.

Let me ask it in a different way. If someone told you that God told them that one piece of scripture told them one thing. And you believe that God told you the same scripture ment something different. What would you say or do?
What Scripture is this exactly ? Can you please be specific ? I already believe that God is telling me how to be saved and, that it is the only way to be saved.
 
Back
Top