SDAs refuse to discuss the KJVO myth...

John t

Active member
Why you continue to defend someone who believes very un-Biblical things, and I think YOU also know what they are, is beyond me.
I believe you mis read her intentions.

She is NOT defending a poster having unorthodox views. Instead, she is asking YOU not to go off topic, which you have already done by making the discussion about you, and your perceptions of another poster.

Please get back to the topic before someone notifies a mod that it is you, who are off topic.
 

Buzzard

Active member
Huh??

This was my response to another poster who frequently likes to post things that are not part of any orthodoxy. I don't subscribe to new age nonsense. The poster also opposes the Bible as the Word of God.

The book of Hebrews is written to three distinct groups of Jews.

1 Believers

2 Unbelievers who accepted the gospel only in their minds, not their hearts

3 Unbelievers who had not fully made up their minds regarding the person of Jesus Christ.

The verse in question is not the product of corrupted minds.

In every legitimate Bible the teaching is clear.

Hebrews 13:7

King James Version

7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.


I am not a KJVOnlyists. In the past, I used the KJV for daily study. Over the years I have come to favor the NASB, ESV and NET.
My Bad;
I was replying to this from praise _ yeshua
praise_yeshua said:
You're the one rebelling against the Scripture by promote a inept English translation to be the same with what God gave to humanity.

Why don't you invite your "pastor" on here and have him extol the value of the KJV? Maybe you'll listen to him when HE... tells you Hebrews 13 was corrupted by the KJV.

Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, (Intentional Corruption)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and made this statement about praise_yesua post

Maybe it is you (praise _ yeshua) that does not undersstand
"WHO" was the book of Hebrews was written to ??????

and "Who" has authority over them
ie:
Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you,

answer;
Hebrews 1:13
speaking of the Angels of the Most High
Are they not all ministering spirits,
sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation
?

A "Hebrew" does not have / nor allow Man nor councils of Men to rule over them
they know only one Shepherd, and one Master
 

John t

Active member
This forum is a KJVO forum. I haver no idea what you think CFR has to do with it.
WOW!!
That is a big stretch of inaccurate imagination..

Here is the ORIGINAL post to which BD replied:

e v e said:
the kjv - like most translations - is a mess. in the case of kjv intentionally corrupted.

So you are actually objecting to my asking another poster to verify the truth behind her claim via a CFR. I nicely explained that CFR means "Call For Reference" so I ask you to explain what is behind your objection to seeking proof from e v e.

e v e is a college-level teacher, and knows what "CFR" means, so what is your particular objection to what I asked her to do? As they say in the 'hood, "You ain't got no dogs in this fight."
 

Beloved Daughter

Well-known member
My Bad;
I was replying to this from praise _ yeshua
praise_yeshua said:
You're the one rebelling against the Scripture by promote a inept English translation to be the same with what God gave to humanity.

Why don't you invite your "pastor" on here and have him extol the value of the KJV? Maybe you'll listen to him when HE... tells you Hebrews 13 was corrupted by the KJV.

Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, (Intentional Corruption)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and made this statement about praise_yesua post

Maybe it is you (praise _ yeshua) that does not undersstand
"WHO" was the book of Hebrews was written to ??????

and "Who" has authority over them
ie:
Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you,

answer;
Hebrews 1:13
speaking of the Angels of the Most High
Are they not all ministering spirits,
sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation
?

A "Hebrew" does not have / nor allow Man nor councils of Men to rule over them
they know only one Shepherd, and one Master

No problem. I've read many of your posts and mostly agree with everything you say.

If some posters want to get their knickers in a knot over the word 'rule', I leave that to them. The context clears it all up.

I provided the Greek and its usage in the Bible.

G2233 - hēgeomai - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV) (blueletterbible.org)
 
Last edited:

Buzzard

Active member
A "Hebrew" does not have / nor allow Man nor councils of Men to rule over them
they know only one Shepherd, and one Master
Proverbs 6:1
My son, if thou be surety for thy friend,
if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger,

2 Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth,
thou art taken with the words of thy mouth.

3 Do this now, my son, and deliver thyself,
when thou art come into the hand of thy friend;
go, humble thyself, and make sure thy friend.

4 Give not sleep to thine eyes,
nor slumber to thine eyelids.

5 Deliver thyself as a roe from the hand of the hunter,
and as a bird from the hand of the fowler.

6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard;
consider her ways, and be wise:
7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler,
8 Provideth her meat in the summer,
and gathereth her food in the harvest.
 

robycop3

Active member
Meaning of apology do you not know @robycop3? Hold to your claim you still do and no evidence produced of such poor behavior you claimed happened. Additionally boast you now do of attacking SDA’s for using KJV. Insincere you are in your apology as well as boastful you are.
Those with ears to hear and eyes to see let them hear and see. Moving on from here I shall. Thank instructing this has been.
I don't apologize for attacking cult members for using the KJV, which is an old, outdated Bible translation with its share of goofs & booboos. I don't care who likes those attacks or not.
 
L

Lottan

Guest
Do not attack another poster, nor call him names
I don't apologize for attacking cult members for using the KJV, which is an old, outdated Bible translation with its share of goofs & booboos. I don't care who likes those attacks or not.
Asked not for an apology have I, or others here, for your attacks on the KJV or “challenge”: offered an excuse masquerading as an apology thou hast.
Ecclesiastes 5:6
Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?

The contention betwixt me and thee is not thy “challenge” towards the KJV Only crowd but the unsubstantiated claim made by you regarding another’s poor behavior. Accosted, assaulted, and demeaned another’s character and honor without evidence you have. A whole group hast thou publicly accused of poor behavior, which thou hast admitted to committing of thine own accord. EDITED: Do not attack another poster, nor call him names

POST TO THE ISSUE, AND DO NOT DISCUSS OTHER POSTERS

EDITED: Do not attack another poster, nor call him names or a liar


Until evidence is provided of thy claim what are we to think of any of thy wisdom and insight of the translations and/or scriptures thou attempt to sell us on this board?

You may not insinuate that another poster will be subject to consequences. That is the work of the MODs.

Provide a link
to where an SDA “hollered” at you for quoting a modern translation or drop the matter and EDITED: Do not attack another poster, nor call him names or a liar
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John t

Active member
I don't apologize for attacking cult members for using the KJV, which is an old, outdated Bible translation with its share of goofs & booboos. I don't care who likes those attacks or not.

That the KJV is an old translation cannot be doubted. But that does not mean it is "outdated, having goofs and boo boos" as you mistakenly allege and iis not substantiated.

Since it is YOU who make the allegations, it is required of you to substantiate those allegations; otherwise, you are spouting uninformed and prejudiced opinion

Paste the "evidence" AND provide scholarship (using the original Hebrew and Greek) that contribute to your thesis.

BTW should you attack me personally, I shall not respond to such banal nonsense.
I just looked at the subsection. This is the SDA section. If you wish to continue, please go to post on the KJVO section, not here. The mods may make your off-topic posts disappear if you continue going off topic for the forum.
 

John t

Active member
I challenged some seventh day adventists whom I'm in discussions with, elsewhere on this site, to come to this sub-forum to discuss their KJVO myth, & it appears none of them have the wherewithal nor the knowledge to do so. That's just more ecidence of the seven-day-adfibbers being a quasi/pseudo-Christian cult.
 

robycop3

Active member
That the KJV is an old translation cannot be doubted. But that does not mean it is "outdated, having goofs and boo boos" as you mistakenly allege and iis not substantiated.

Since it is YOU who make the allegations, it is required of you to substantiate those allegations; otherwise, you are spouting uninformed and prejudiced opinion

Paste the "evidence" AND provide scholarship (using the original Hebrew and Greek) that contribute to your thesis.

BTW should you attack me personally, I shall not respond to such banal nonsense.
I just looked at the subsection. This is the SDA section. If you wish to continue, please go to post on the KJVO section, not here. The mods may make your off-topic posts disappear if you continue going off topic for the forum.
The KJV's outdated language speax for itself. And I have posted a few of its goofs & booboos in the KJVo sub-forum, which you may check out for yourself.

However, it's certainly far-better than the crazy "Clear Word" version by "Dr." Jack Blanco, which doesn't follow any ancient Scriptural manuscripts. It's purely his imagination, but more than one SDA subscribes to it. Ellen would be proud !
 

John t

Active member
The KJV's outdated language speax (sic) for itself. And I have posted a few of its goofs & booboos in the KJVo sub-forum, which you may check out for yourself.

From what you posted here I am fairly certain that you are unfamiliar with the transmission of both the OT and NT to the present. Your words do not

From what you posted here, i am fairly certain that you are unfamiliar with the languages of Hebrew or Greek, both of which are required in order to make any accurate criticism of the translation unto the KJV.

From what you posted here, I am fairly certain that your education in the humanities does not come close to the level of understanding which the translators of the KJV possessed.

From what you posted here, I am fairly certain that all you are............

Never mind

I gave you a challenge before, and you have not answered except to say "find it and fetch it from another CARM forum". That is not being nice.
Since it is YOU who make the allegations, it is required of you to substantiate those allegations; otherwise, you are spouting uninformed and prejudiced opinion

Paste the "evidence" AND provide scholarship (using the original Hebrew and Greek) that contribute to your thesis.
Now i am not about to get into silly argumentation, ad hominems nor ridiculing another Christian, but it is plain to see that you may be copying from the works of others, and giving your summary statements without attribution of sources. As such, it seems that you are merely reverting to a "because I say so" position, and that is a very weak position because it comes from you, who really has no academic authority with which to speak.

The bottom line that all languages excepting the dead languages like Latin are alive, thus changing and adapting. THAT is the main reason for having new translations.

And if you actually possessed an original 1611 version, I doubt that you would read it much. That is because it would be written in in Shakespearean-type English. We could understand it, in the same manner that we understand Chaucer's Canterbury Tales:

Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote,​
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,​
And bathed every veyne in swich licóur​
Of which vertú engendred is the flour;​
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth​
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth​
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,​
And smale foweles maken melodye,..................​

So just as the adage "It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" applies to speech, so also does it apply to wriiting authoritatively about something in which you have no academic standing.
 

robycop3

Active member
From what you posted here I am fairly certain that you are unfamiliar with the transmission of both the OT and NT to the present. Your words do not

From what you posted here, i am fairly certain that you are unfamiliar with the languages of Hebrew or Greek, both of which are required in order to make any accurate criticism of the translation unto the KJV.

From what you posted here, I am fairly certain that your education in the humanities does not come close to the level of understanding which the translators of the KJV possessed.

From what you posted here, I am fairly certain that all you are............

Never mind

I gave you a challenge before, and you have not answered except to say "find it and fetch it from another CARM forum". That is not being nice.

Now i am not about to get into silly argumentation, ad hominems nor ridiculing another Christian, but it is plain to see that you may be copying from the works of others, and giving your summary statements without attribution of sources. As such, it seems that you are merely reverting to a "because I say so" position, and that is a very weak position because it comes from you, who really has no academic authority with which to speak.

The bottom line that all languages excepting the dead languages like Latin are alive, thus changing and adapting. THAT is the main reason for having new translations.

And if you actually possessed an original 1611 version, I doubt that you would read it much. That is because it would be written in in Shakespearean-type English. We could understand it, in the same manner that we understand Chaucer's Canterbury Tales:

Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote,​
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,​
And bathed every veyne in swich licóur​
Of which vertú engendred is the flour;​
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth​
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth​
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,​
And smale foweles maken melodye,..................​

So just as the adage "It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" applies to speech, so also does it apply to wriiting authoritatively about something in which you have no academic standing.
FYI. I read several of Chaucer's works when I was in the 8th grade, & I easily understand Elixabethan English. And I have a Hendrickson Edition repro of the AV 1611, which is same as the original, except for its physical size, & is in modern font rather than Gothic.

Now, how can you say I don't know what I'm talking about if you didn't bother to go to the KJVO sub-forum to see for yourself ?

But at any rate, I don't see any SDAs coming here & asking me to meet them in that sub-forum.
 

John t

Active member
Now, how can you say I don't know what I'm talking about if you didn't bother to go to the KJVO sub-forum to see for yourself ?
I did, but I had problems in formatting. I sorta made reference to that when I was posting about "Because I say so" after I read that post.

What about the rest of what I posted?
 

robycop3

Active member
I did, but I had problems in formatting. I sorta made reference to that when I was posting about "Because I say so" after I read that post.

What about the rest of what I posted?
With all due respect, I'm not really over-concerned with it. I firmly believe SDA is a cult, more-enamored with the writings of Ellen G. White & her homies than with Jesus or the Bible. And anyone who sticks to just one Bible version in his/her best language is limited in Scripture overview, basing more beliefs upon one translator's, or set of translators' opinions.
 

John t

Active member
@robycop3

What about this, then?

John t said:

From what you posted here, i am fairly certain that you are unfamiliar with the languages of Hebrew or Greek, both of which are required in order to make any accurate criticism of the translation unto the KJV.

From what you posted here, I am fairly certain that your education in the humanities does not come close to the level of understanding which the translators of the KJV possessed.

You made allegations of

You made serious allegations about the KJV. I asked you to back them up.

robycop3 said:
I don't apologize for attacking cult members for using the KJV, which is an old, outdated Bible translation with its share of goofs & booboos. I don't care who likes those attacks or not.

You also said:
how can you say I don't know what I'm talking about if you didn't bother to go to the KJVO sub-forum to see for yourself ?

I asked for a straight answer, not playing "hide-and-seek". I don't play rude games like that.

Are you now backing away from your own words? Show us those " with its share of goofs & booboos. "
 
Last edited:

robycop3

Active member
@robycop3

What about this, then?



You made serious allegations about the KJV. I asked you to back them up.



You also said:


I asked for a straight answer, not playing "hide-and-seek". I don't play rude games like that.

Are you now backing away from your own words? Show us those " with its share of goofs & booboos. "
Didn't want to have to repeat myself in this thread, but, as for the KJV's goofs & booboos, here's a couple that have stumped all KJVOs:

1.) "Easter" in Acts 12:4. The Greek word 'pascha' used here meant "passover" in Luke's day. Easter didn't then exist, & if it had, neither Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please would've left off dealing with Peter to have observed it. V3 shows passover was then ongoing.

2.) The words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. Those words are NOT found in any known ancient manuscript of Revelation. Thus, the KJV ADDED to God's word.
 

John t

Active member
1.) "Easter" in Acts 12:4. The Greek word 'pascha' used here meant "passover" in Luke's day. Easter didn't then exist, & if it had, neither Herod nor the Jews he was trying to please would've left off dealing with Peter to have observed it. V3 shows passover was then ongoing.
Thank you for your explanation, but that is utter silliness!

Do you believe "Herod and the Jews" (speaking Aramaic at that time) would somehow influence a then non-existent language translation (English) 1600 years into the future? Or that Luke the Physician should have written in English rather than Koine Greek?

Whomever wrote that deliberately misled you and others. You are not alone in drinking that kool aid.

My point is that given the pagan origins of Easter, one acceptable reason the KJV translators wanted to emphasize the Resurrection by using "Easter" rather than "Passover". Since we do not have the notes of the 1611 translators, we cannot "look over the shoulders of the translators" to determine their thinking.

Since my Hebrew professor was on the final review committee for the New International Version, he constantly taught us with stories about other translators, and their thoughts. It is part of my education which few others have, and I am obliged by my learning that to pass it on to you. You see, there is no such thing as a "pure Bible" in any language.

One day in class we seniors were going over a particularly difficult passage in 2 Samuel, which the professor had the final say so before printing. We looked at various translations, but not the NIV. One student then asked the professor what the NIV said. We looked it up, and the professor read that portion, and then in a once-in-a lifetime experience the professor wrinkled his nose and said, "I don't know why I wrote that!"

Therefore it is a manufactured crisis, meaning that someone did a lot of digging in order to find fault with this fine for 1611 translation into English. Since there according to various sources there are less than <8000 verses in the NT, that is 1/8000 or 0.000125% of the NT with which you (and others) find fault.



Your other objection:
2.) The words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5. Those words are NOT found in any known ancient manuscript of Revelation. Thus, the KJV ADDED to God's word

John heard ‘the angel of the waters’ (NEB), a designation that appears to be found nowhere else. Among the Jews angels were often thought to be responsible for specific areas of the universe (see the list in the Index to vol. 2 of Charles’s Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament). Thus there is nothing surprising about John’s expression. Indeed, there is at least one passage which speaks of angels (plural) ‘who were in charge of the waters’ (1 Enoch 66:2). But there is certainly nothing like it anywhere else in the Bible.​

Morris, L. (1987). Revelation: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 20, p. 186). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Perhaps your resource forgot this, from John.

John 5
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.​
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.​
5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.​
6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?​
7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.​
8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.​
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.​
10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.​

I post that not as fact, but to demonstrate the common folk lore (Old wives tales) of that time.

No, I am not running you down; instead, I am attempting to build you up with unassailable facts. Please learn from this. The person(s) who wrote those "crapocitious" attack on the KJV have an agenda, and it is not a godly one. I would not follow them, nor repeat their words until I was certain that their words were 100% accurate.

You now have a plausible explanation for each of those objections. I urge you to learn then, and repeat them the next time someone with an ungodly agenda wants to attack the KJV of the Bible. You should also notice that that I am neither pro, nor against the KJV. I want you to think these things through critically, asking "What is the long-term consequences of believing such biased sources?"

Make sense?
 

Buzzard

Active member
1 Sam.17:22
And David left his carriage in the hand of the keeper of the carriage
and ran into the army, and came and saluted his brethren.

23 And as he talked with them,
behold, there came up the champion,
the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines,
and spake according to the same words:
and David heard them.
......
41 And the Philistine came on and drew near unto David;
and the man that bare the shield went before him.

42 And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David,
he disdained him: for he was but a youth,
and ruddy, and of a fair countenance.

43 And the Philistine said unto David,
Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves?
And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.

44 And the Philistine said to David,
Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air,
and to the beasts of the field.

45 Then said David to the Philistine,
Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield:
but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts,
the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.

46 This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand;
and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee;
and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day
unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth;
that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.

47 And all this assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with sword and spear:
for the battle is the Lord's, and he will give you into our hands.

48 And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came, and drew nigh to meet David,
that David hastened, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine.

49 And David put his hand in his bag,
and took thence a stone, and slang it,
and smote the Philistine in his forehead,
that the stone sunk into his forehead;
and he fell upon his face to the earth.

50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone,
and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine,
and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof,
and slew him, and cut off his head therewith.
And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.
 

robycop3

Active member
Thank you for your explanation, but that is utter silliness!

Do you believe "Herod and the Jews" (speaking Aramaic at that time) would somehow influence a then non-existent language translation (English) 1600 years into the future? Or that Luke the Physician should have written in English rather than Koine Greek?

Whomever wrote that deliberately misled you and others. You are not alone in drinking that kool aid.

My point is that given the pagan origins of Easter, one acceptable reason the KJV translators wanted to emphasize the Resurrection by using "Easter" rather than "Passover". Since we do not have the notes of the 1611 translators, we cannot "look over the shoulders of the translators" to determine their thinking.

Since my Hebrew professor was on the final review committee for the New International Version, he constantly taught us with stories about other translators, and their thoughts. It is part of my education which few others have, and I am obliged by my learning that to pass it on to you. You see, there is no such thing as a "pure Bible" in any language.

One day in class we seniors were going over a particularly difficult passage in 2 Samuel, which the professor had the final say so before printing. We looked at various translations, but not the NIV. One student then asked the professor what the NIV said. We looked it up, and the professor read that portion, and then in a once-in-a lifetime experience the professor wrinkled his nose and said, "I don't know why I wrote that!"

Therefore it is a manufactured crisis, meaning that someone did a lot of digging in order to find fault with this fine for 1611 translation into English. Since there according to various sources there are less than <8000 verses in the NT, that is 1/8000 or 0.000125% of the NT with which you (and others) find fault.
As for Easter, that was my point exactly; Luke didn't write in English, nor did Easter then exist ! We see that PASSOVER was ongoing when Herod busted Peter. Had it not been ongoing, Herod would've handed Peter over to those Jews at once to deal with as they pleased, but Herod knew no Orthodox Jew would so much as touch someone they considered a heretic during passover lest that Jew become ceremonially defiled & barred from eating the special unleavened meals made all week. Thus, Herod intended to hold Peter in jail til passover was done.

PASSOVER IS NOT EASTER ! The Greek word "pascha" was a transliteration of the Hebrew word "p'sach", which, as a Hebrew scholar, you know was GOD'S word for passover. Thus, the AV makers goofed; Herod was waiting for PASSOVER to end-nothing to do with Easter. (Remember, the older Geneva version read "passeoueur") And remember, pascha was the word JESUS used for passover.(Unless one believes Jesus observed Easter! LOL!)

And I fully realize that in olden days, English began to use the word Easter for passover, or simply called them both 'pask, pascal', etc. but Tyndale, wishing to maintain the separation of the two observances, coined "passover", C. 1534, & by 1611, passover had come into general use. And I fully realize that in MODERN Greek, pascha can mean either Easter or passover, but NOT in the KOINE Greek that Luke wrote in.

Given the context & storyline, "Easter" in the KJV's Acts 12:4 is a goof.

The "Revelation" goof will be covered in my next post.
 

robycop3

Active member
Your other objection:


John heard ‘the angel of the waters’ (NEB), a designation that appears to be found nowhere else. Among the Jews angels were often thought to be responsible for specific areas of the universe (see the list in the Index to vol. 2 of Charles’s Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament). Thus there is nothing surprising about John’s expression. Indeed, there is at least one passage which speaks of angels (plural) ‘who were in charge of the waters’ (1 Enoch 66:2). But there is certainly nothing like it anywhere else in the Bible.​

Morris, L. (1987). Revelation: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 20, p. 186). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Perhaps your resource forgot this, from John.

John 5
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.​
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.​
5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.​
6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?​
7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.​
8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.​
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.​
10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.​

I post that not as fact, but to demonstrate the common folk lore (Old wives tales) of that time.

No, I am not running you down; instead, I am attempting to build you up with unassailable facts. Please learn from this. The person(s) who wrote those "crapocitious" attack on the KJV have an agenda, and it is not a godly one. I would not follow them, nor repeat their words until I was certain that their words were 100% accurate.

You now have a plausible explanation for each of those objections. I urge you to learn then, and repeat them the next time someone with an ungodly agenda wants to attack the KJV of the Bible. You should also notice that that I am neither pro, nor against the KJV. I want you to think these things through critically, asking "What is the long-term consequences of believing such biased sources?"

Make sense?/quote]

To answer your question, NO, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.(Not said in disrespect)

The story of Jesus' healing the crippled man has nothing to do with the ADDITION OF WORDS in Rev. 16:5. There's simply NO EXCUSE for ADDING them. Now, while we all know that every English Bible translation must add or re-word literal original-language words to make sense in English, that's not the case here. While the STATEMENT "and shalt be" is true, it is NOT an actual part of that verse, & SHOULDN'T'VE been in it !(About same as if I added "and is baptized" to John 3:16!) THERE'S SIMPLY NO GETTING AROUND THAT !

I can present goofs & booboos all day long in the KJV for which there are no truthful denials, but the two above should suffice to prove the KJV is far-from-perfect. But we can start with more at Gen. 1:2, "And the earth was without form & void;..." As a Hebrew scholar, you know the Hebrew word here, "hayah", means a condition different from a previous one. So, the verse SHOULD read, "And the earth BECAME without form & void;..."

But to each his own. If the Seven-Day-Adlibbers wish to use the outdated, goof-filled KJV which many of them don't understand, that's THEIR prob; they're a cult anyway. (And again, at least the KJV is better than the "Clear Word" train wreck.)
 
Top