Who is the Silliest Person on Earth

JDS

Well-known member
I will take a stab at answering my own question.

I think it is the person who says they are the smartest person in the room while admitting they cannot understand the KJV Bible because of the language barrier. Words like these below.


1 Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

But, that is not what makes them silly. What makes them silly is to confess on the one hand that they cannot understand the KJV while on the other hand sending people who they have convinced that they can't understand the KJV Bible to Hebrew and Greek to parse a few verbs and to check out all the different tenses and make application that may or may not be in agreement with the next Greek and Hebrew scholar that has a different opinion. Now, anyone being honest would admit that is silly. The more parsing one does, the more opinions one gets and any unity of the faith is out the door.

It is silly for a person to present us with multiple copies of different translations in the same language and expect us to understand they are doing it because they believe any bible, no matter which translation or manuscript. The reason we have the doctrine of more translations is because the people pushing this doctrine are unbelievers. If they believed they had an accurate Bible they would not need another. The Greek and Hebrews scholars disagree on how to present the words of those languages to us in English. New translations are all about the unbelief of the scholars.

It is silly to believe that newer translations brings Christendom nearer to God and one another. They don't. A Calvinist, a unitarian, a Campbellite, a Mormon, a Protestant, etc, etc, will still be one of those if they have a thousand new translations. So, the silly person is the one who tries to convince a Bible believer that new translations are easier to read, therefore they are easier to understand and we will all agree because of this wonderful new doctrine of new translations.

New translations are about unbelief and are Satanically inspired. At least the practice of creating many new translations is a Satanic inspiration. I have read about the end of this age in Matthew when the angels gather the tares into bundles to be burned after the wheat is gathered into the barn. These are denominations that have a doctrine but does not have the truth.

It is silly, IMO, to have a good Bible like the KJV that you do not believe and use language barrier for an excuse to make a hundred other bibles that you do not believe.
 
R

Rotgold

Guest
New translations are about unbelief and are Satanically inspired. At least the practice of creating many new translations is a Satanic inspiration.
Are you sure?
When the KJV was printed, it was also a "new translation" then.
 

Shoonra

Active member
My limited experience has been that every translation of the Bible, including those based on the Westcott & Hort text, reiterates the essential articles of belief and faith. The one exception might be the omission of snake handling.
 

JDS

Well-known member
My limited experience has been that every translation of the Bible, including those based on the Westcott & Hort text, reiterates the essential articles of belief and faith. The one exception might be the omission of snake handling.
Whose belief and faith?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Would it be silly to claim to be defending the truth while actually opposing truths that conflict with a modern, man-made, non-scriptural KJV-only theory that is not taught in the KJV?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
New translations are about unbelief and are Satanically inspired.

How does your human KJV-only reasoning deal with the fact that even some KJV-only advocates admit that they were saved through use of a post-1611 English Bible translation?
 

JDS

Well-known member
How does your human KJV-only reasoning deal with the fact that even some KJV-only advocates admit that they were saved through use of a post-1611 English Bible translation?
Human KJV Only reasoning? Huh? If I believed in the first 25 English translations and called myself a First 25 English translations only believer, there would be a time in my life that I would realize that 100 English translations, with more to come, was not of God. If it is not of God, who is it from? Have these first 100 provoked unity in doctrine? Do they support godliness in church members? (that is a laugh in the spandex show you butt culture)?

Whatever you want your life to represent makes no matter to me. Knock yourself out. I do not share the same view of Christianity as you. I frankly do not care. I must prepare for my own judgement, not yours. Do what you will.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Human KJV Only reasoning?

It is stating the truth to point out that your modern KJV-only view is human KJV-only reasoning. Your modern KJV-only view is not sound Bible doctrine stated in the Scriptures. You have not demonstrated that your claims concerning the KJV are stated in the Scriptures so your opinions are human in origin.

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the inconsistent textual criticism decisions, Bible-revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I will take a stab at answering my own question.

I think it is the person who says they are the smartest person in the room while admitting they cannot understand the KJV Bible because of the language barrier. Words like these below.


1 Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

But, that is not what makes them silly. What makes them silly is to confess on the one hand that they cannot understand the KJV while on the other hand sending people who they have convinced that they can't understand the KJV Bible to Hebrew and Greek to parse a few verbs and to check out all the different tenses and make application that may or may not be in agreement with the next Greek and Hebrew scholar that has a different opinion. Now, anyone being honest would admit that is silly. The more parsing one does, the more opinions one gets and any unity of the faith is out the door.

It is silly for a person to present us with multiple copies of different translations in the same language and expect us to understand they are doing it because they believe any bible, no matter which translation or manuscript. The reason we have the doctrine of more translations is because the people pushing this doctrine are unbelievers. If they believed they had an accurate Bible they would not need another. The Greek and Hebrews scholars disagree on how to present the words of those languages to us in English. New translations are all about the unbelief of the scholars.

It is silly to believe that newer translations brings Christendom nearer to God and one another. They don't. A Calvinist, a unitarian, a Campbellite, a Mormon, a Protestant, etc, etc, will still be one of those if they have a thousand new translations. So, the silly person is the one who tries to convince a Bible believer that new translations are easier to read, therefore they are easier to understand and we will all agree because of this wonderful new doctrine of new translations.

New translations are about unbelief and are Satanically inspired. At least the practice of creating many new translations is a Satanic inspiration. I have read about the end of this age in Matthew when the angels gather the tares into bundles to be burned after the wheat is gathered into the barn. These are denominations that have a doctrine but does not have the truth.

It is silly, IMO, to have a good Bible like the KJV that you do not believe and use language barrier for an excuse to make a hundred other bibles that you do not believe.
I found that experience a rather curious when I first became a believer.
I didn't have a problem with the ideas presented in the bible--- I already believed God.
My problem was


therefore
wherefore
hitherto
heretofore
hence
thence
xxx-eth
hath
ye
thee
And numerous other, old-english words which were no longer in daily use for people who'd not grown up in old England, or had a classical education.

For me, it was about words I'd never seen before, and had not been exposed to growing up.
thankfully, God was really good at helping me work through it, and didn't berate me for having this problem.

Now having a hundred different bibles, including Greek, and Hebrew, as well as a strong's concordance... I find them beneficial. Not to cover up the truth, but to expose it, to make known what was previously not known.
 

JDS

Well-known member
I found that experience a rather curious when I first became a believer.
I didn't have a problem with the ideas presented in the bible--- I already believed God.
My problem was


therefore
wherefore
hitherto
heretofore
hence
thence
xxx-eth
hath
ye
thee
And numerous other, old-english words which were no longer in daily use for people who'd not grown up in old England, or had a classical education.

For me, it was about words I'd never seen before, and had not been exposed to growing up.
thankfully, God was really good at helping me work through it, and didn't berate me for having this problem.

Now having a hundred different bibles, including Greek, and Hebrew, as well as a strong's concordance... I find them beneficial. Not to cover up the truth, but to expose it, to make known what was previously not known.
I am happy for you. Now do you want to hang around and argue some more?
 

JDS

Well-known member
It is stating the truth to point out that your modern KJV-only view is human KJV-only reasoning. Your modern KJV-only view is not sound Bible doctrine stated in the Scriptures. You have not demonstrated that your claims concerning the KJV are stated in the Scriptures so your opinions are human in origin.

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the inconsistent textual criticism decisions, Bible-revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.
Give it a rest man. We got your point 20 years ago.
...and 19 years ago ....and 18 years ago ... and .....

If you don’t like the KJV don’t read it. Quit obsessing about. Your obsession cannot be healthy.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I am happy for you. Now do you want to hang around and argue some more?

I learned a long, long, long time ago that there are many arguments which just don't achieve the purpose that people want them to.


1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.​
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.​
9 But as it is written:​
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
I'd encourage you to learn that lesson before you get corrupted by them.

Several years ago a guy showed up on the atheist forum, claiming to have once been a staunch Calvinist, who argued assiduously with Arminians, about the truthfulness of Calvinism, and fallacies of Arminianism. I don't recall how long he was at it, but by the time he showed up there, he'd become a staunch atheist, because no matter how hard he tried, he could never win an argument to his satisfaction.
He lost his faith, he turned against his parents, family, and the girl of his dreams left him, because he abandoned Jesus. All over what he thought was an argument, which just could never be won.

I spend my time over with the atheists, because I also learned a long time ago that Jesus didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

So.... if you ever come to the realization that Jesus saving lost lives matters more than which translation of the bible is read, by all means....
Join us.... We need people who care more about saving human life than arguing translations.

Remember--- Jesus said--- pray that the Lord of the Harvest would send workers into the harvest, for the fields are ready for harvesting.
 

JDS

Well-known member
I learned a long, long, long time ago that there are many arguments which just don't achieve the purpose that people want them to.


1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.​
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.​
9 But as it is written:​
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
I'd encourage you to learn that lesson before you get corrupted by them.

Several years ago a guy showed up on the atheist forum, claiming to have once been a staunch Calvinist, who argued assiduously with Arminians, about the truthfulness of Calvinism, and fallacies of Arminianism. I don't recall how long he was at it, but by the time he showed up there, he'd become a staunch atheist, because no matter how hard he tried, he could never win an argument to his satisfaction.
He lost his faith, he turned against his parents, family, and the girl of his dreams left him, because he abandoned Jesus. All over what he thought was an argument, which just could never be won.

I spend my time over with the atheists, because I also learned a long time ago that Jesus didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

So.... if you ever come to the realization that Jesus saving lost lives matters more than which translation of the bible is read, by all means....
Join us.... We need people who care more about saving human life than arguing translations.

Remember--- Jesus said--- pray that the Lord of the Harvest would send workers into the harvest, for the fields are ready for harvesting.
This silly sermonizing raises my next question: why then are you here seeking an argument about translations? I surely don’t care which translation you choose, or how many and I am not sure why you are so interested in my choice.

Now, if you would like to deal with my points in my op I will be fine with that and maybe we can talk.
 
Last edited:

JDS

Well-known member
I made several points in my op. One of the points is that in spite of all the new bibles there is less doctrinal unity among denominations now than ever. Shouldn’t we see less division since we have so many possibilities of comparison? These new bibles are super easy to read and I think that is the point of all of them. I would love to hear a testimony of someone whose eyes were so enlightened by them that it caused a denomination church realignment. I doubt that has ever happened.

Secondly, it makes no sense to me for someone to admit having trouble with words like wherefore, therefore, and whereunto, etc and then in the same breath speak about the advantages of studying Hebrew and Greek. There is something wrong with this kind of thinking. Greek and Hebrew scholars are no more unified on denominational issues than the average joe. How many Greek and Hebrew scholars have been enlightened by their new language tools that it provoked a change of churches?

I think people are being lied to about about translations and what they do for us.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Charles Spurgeon asserted: “I became a Baptist through reading the New Testament,--especially in the Greek” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. I, p. 150).

Charles Spurgeon stated: “Our fullest revelation of God’s will is in that tongue [Greek], and so are our noblest names for Jesus. The standard of our faith is Greek. . . . Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist’s tongue; we may be beaten in our own version, sometimes; but in the Greek, never” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. II, p. 327) In his publication The Sword and the Trowel, Spurgeon commented: “The more reading of the Scriptures the better, and it is best of all when that reading occupies itself with the original. Every member of our churches, who has a fair English education, should aim to acquire sufficient Greek to read the New Testament” (August, 1885, p. 431).
 

JDS

Well-known member
Charles Spurgeon asserted: “I became a Baptist through reading the New Testament,--especially in the Greek” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. I, p. 150).

Charles Spurgeon stated: “Our fullest revelation of God’s will is in that tongue [Greek], and so are our noblest names for Jesus. The standard of our faith is Greek. . . . Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist’s tongue; we may be beaten in our own version, sometimes; but in the Greek, never” (Autobiography of Charles Spurgeon, Vol. II, p. 327) In his publication The Sword and the Trowel, Spurgeon commented: “The more reading of the Scriptures the better, and it is best of all when that reading occupies itself with the original. Every member of our churches, who has a fair English education, should aim to acquire sufficient Greek to read the New Testament” (August, 1885, p. 431).
Spurgeon was a staunch Calvinist. He believed in the TULIP and taught limited atonement, saying at one time that Calvinism is the definition of the gospel. Many, many Greek scholars and Bible readers have since come on the Christian scene who did not reach the same theological conclusions as did Spurgeon. My question is why not?

What if in the judgement we learned that a Christian, who never read or studied Greek, but only the KJV, was judged to be more true to the doctrinal integrity of the scriptures than Spurgeon?

What if the TULIP that Spurgeon learned from his Greek Bible and taught in the English language was not true? Do you agree with what Spurgeon taught?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Is it interesting that KJV-only advocates show unscriptural partiality to one exclusive group of biased Church of England critics in 1611 even though the great majority of them were Calvinists?

For the most part, it is after 1611 or even 1620 that a few of the KJV translators are known to depart from the Calvinism of the Church of England in the late 1500's and before 1610.

KJV-only advocates are blindly trusting the translation decisions of those Calvinists who made the KJV. Do KJV-only advocates agree with the Church of England doctrinal views and the Calvinism of the KJV translators? Why do KJV-only advocates not reach the same theological conclusions as their trusted Church of England makers of the KJV?

In a choice between the unbroken certainty and sufficiency of scriptural truth and the flawed, broken uncertainty and insufficiency of non-scriptural, human KJV-only teaching, which should Bible believers accept?
 
Top