Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

God's Word Distributed Throughout The World?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • God's Word Distributed Throughout The World?

    Do you find it a mystery that those nations that conquered the world, high seas, and established world colonies listed below were the?

    (French) Olivetan 1535 Bible

    (Spanish) Reina Valera Antigua 1569/1602 Bible

    (English) King James 1611 Bible

    (Dutch) Statenvertaling 1635 Bible

    (Italian) Diodati 1607 Bible

    It appears God was in favor of the "Byzantine" textual family to hit the high seas and brought to world colonies?

    All the Bibles mentioned above were from the "Byzantine" textual family, not the "Alexandrian" textual family that supports new bible versions?
    Last edited by Truth7t7; 01-25-19, 05:14 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
    Do you find it a mystery that those nations that conquered the world, high seas, and established world colonies listed below were the?

    (French) Olivetan 1535 Bible

    (Spanish) Reina Valera Antigua 1569/1602 Bible

    (English) King James 1611 Bible

    (Dutch) Statenvertaling 1635 Bible

    (Italian) Diodati 1607 Bible

    It appears God was in favor of the "Byzantine" textual family to hit the high seas and brought to world colonies?

    All the Bibles mentioned above were from the "Byzantine" textual family, not the "Alexandrian" textual family that supports new bible versions?
    Uhhhh ... what Scripture orders the Christians to conquer anyone????

    It is the Muslim who has a sacralized mandate to "conquer" the world!
    Joh 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. [NIV]

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Trucker View Post

      Uhhhh ... what Scripture orders the Christians to conquer anyone????

      It is the Muslim who has a sacralized mandate to "conquer" the world!
      Don't mention the Quran. It scares KJVOists.....

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
        Do you find it a mystery that those nations that conquered the world, high seas, and established world colonies listed below were the?

        (French) Olivetan 1535 Bible

        (Spanish) Reina Valera Antigua 1569/1602 Bible

        (English) King James 1611 Bible

        (Dutch) Statenvertaling 1635 Bible

        (Italian) Diodati 1607 Bible

        It appears God was in favor of the "Byzantine" textual family to hit the high seas and brought to world colonies?

        All the Bibles mentioned above were from the "Byzantine" textual family, not the "Alexandrian" textual family that supports new bible versions?
        Ridiculous. You're ignoring the influence of the Vulgate or the Greek text that have survived in the Greek Orthodox church for thousands of years.

        Rome conquered this world and the Vulgate ruled for over a thousands years and you want to talk about the "Byzantine" text form.... Geesh.

        Empty KJVOist fiction....

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
          Do you find it a mystery that those nations that conquered the world, high seas, and established world colonies listed below were the?

          (French) Olivetan 1535 Bible

          (Spanish) Reina Valera Antigua 1569/1602 Bible

          (English) King James 1611 Bible

          (Dutch) Statenvertaling 1635 Bible

          (Italian) Diodati 1607 Bible
          Is it a mystery that you do not know the facts about the above Bible translations? Why do you leave out Luther's German Bible?

          There are actually textual differences and many differences of translation meaning in the above Bible translations. These Bible translations are not 100% identical in text and in meaning.

          The Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament made from the Latin Vulgate, and the 1582 Rheims is not part of the Byzantine textual family. There is first-hand historical evidence that the KJV borrowed from the 1582 Rheims since one of the KJV translators themselves admitted it. The 1582 Rheims is part of the KJV-only view's corrupt line of Bibles, and yet renderings from it are found in the KJV. That is a serious problem for your human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

            Is it a mystery that you do not know the facts about the above Bible translations? Why do you leave out Luther's German Bible?

            There are actually textual differences and many differences of translation meaning in the above Bible translations. These Bible translations are not 100% identical in text and in meaning.

            The Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament made from the Latin Vulgate, and the 1582 Rheims is not part of the Byzantine textual family. There is first-hand historical evidence that the KJV borrowed from the 1582 Rheims since one of the KJV translators themselves admitted it. The 1582 Rheims is part of the KJV-only view's corrupt line of Bibles, and yet renderings from it are found in the KJV. That is a serious problem for your human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning.
            You gave "Total" disregard to the post, "Why"?

            The topic is people's that conquered the "High Seas" and Bibles from the "Byzantine" textual family.

            The "Germans" didnt conquer the "High Seas"!

            I'll post it again for ya!

            Do you find it a mystery that those nations that conquered the world, high seas, and established world colonies listed below were the?

            (French) Olivetan 1535 Bible

            (Spanish) Reina Valera Antigua 1569/1602 Bible

            (English) King James 1611 Bible

            (Dutch) Statenvertaling 1635 Bible

            (Italian) Diodati 1607 Bible

            It appears God was in favor of the "Byzantine" textual family to hit the high seas and brought to world colonies?

            All the Bibles mentioned above were from the "Byzantine" textual family, not the "Alexandrian" textual family that supports new bible versions?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
              Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

              There are actually textual differences and many differences of translation meaning in the above Bible translations. These Bible translations are not 100% identical in text and in meaning.

              The Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament made from the Latin Vulgate, and the 1582 Rheims is not part of the Byzantine textual family. There is first-hand historical evidence that the KJV borrowed from the 1582 Rheims since one of the KJV translators themselves admitted it. The 1582 Rheims is part of the KJV-only view's corrupt line of Bibles, and yet renderings from it are found in the KJV. That is a serious problem for your human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning.
              You gave "Total" disregard to the post, "Why"?
              I did not give total disregard to what you posted as you incorrectly allege.

              I point out actual facts that would directly relate to what you claim, but you avoid and disregard those truths. You did not practice what you preach as you disregard truth that was pointed out to you.

              Is the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament from which the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings part of the Byzantine textual family?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post

                (Dutch) Statenvertaling 1635 Bible
                Would you accept the English translation of this Dutch Bible that you endorse?

                Do you consider this Dutch Bible to be equal in authority with the KJV?

                The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling Version and Dutch Annotations has the rendering "O morning-star" at Isaiah 14:12.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                  Would you accept the English translation of this Dutch Bible that you endorse?

                  Do you consider this Dutch Bible to be equal in authority with the KJV?

                  The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Statenvertaling Version and Dutch Annotations has the rendering "O morning-star" at Isaiah 14:12.

                  No English translation is needed in either 1637 or Theodore Haak's Translation in 1657 we have the good ole 1611 King James Bible, God's Voice To The English Speaking World.

                  Those 72 men that worked on that masterpiece did a great job!

                  P.S. No need for a (NKJV) when you have the (OKJV)
                  (NKJV) Copyright 1979, 1980, 1982 Thomas Nelson
                  Last edited by Truth7t7; 01-27-19, 04:13 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                    I did not give total disregard to what you posted as you incorrectly allege.

                    I point out actual facts that would directly relate to what you claim, but you avoid and disregard those truths. You did not practice what you preach as you disregard truth that was pointed out to you.

                    Is the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament from which the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings part of the Byzantine textual family?
                    The KJV is in the "Byzantine" textual family of readings in the "English" language.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by praise_yeshua View Post
                      Empty KJVOist fiction....
                      No KJVOnly here, God has preserved his words prior to the King James Bible In Many Languages.

                      Your Claim Of KJVOnly Is 100% False!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post
                        No English translation is needed in either 1637 or Theodore Haak's Translation in 1657 we have the good ole 1611 King James Bible, God's Voice To The English Speaking World.


                        P.S. No need for a (NKJV) when you have the (OKJV)
                        Your very own claims concerning the KJV show that your opinions can be properly identified as being KJV-only. It is not at all false to identify your KJV-only claims for the KJV as KJV-only.

                        The accurate term KJV-only concerns claims for one English translation, not claims concerning translations in other languages.

                        You likely read a new post-1900 KJV edition and not the old 1611 KJV edition.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Truth7t7 View Post

                          The KJV is in the "Byzantine" textual family of readings in the "English" language.
                          You avoid and dodge the fact that the KJV is not based solely and exclusively on Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts. The textually-varying Textus Receptus editions have some readings added from the Latin Vulgate [not-Byzantine text] and have a few textual conjectures found in no known Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts.

                          Are your eyes closed to the whole truth as you make your unproven claims?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                            You avoid and dodge the fact that the KJV is not based solely and exclusively on Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts. The textually-varying Textus Receptus editions have some readings added from the Latin Vulgate [not-Byzantine text] and have a few textual conjectures found in no known Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts.

                            Are your eyes closed to the whole truth as you make your unproven claims?
                            We will disagree

                            The small number of variances you claim, doesen't remove the KJV from the "Byzantine" Textual Family of Readings.

                            "We will disagree"

                            "Byzantine" v "Alexandrian"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by logos1560 View Post

                              Your very own claims concerning the KJV show that your opinions can be properly identified as being KJV-only. It is not at all false to identify your KJV-only claims for the KJV as KJV-only.

                              The accurate term KJV-only concerns claims for one English translation, not claims concerning translations in other languages.

                              You likely read a new post-1900 KJV edition and not the old 1611 KJV edition.
                              KJVOnly has been described as Only the KJV.

                              Your claim is unfounded above, as you have been posting for years on this definition, as seen in your recent thread.

                              (Sound/Unsound)

                              Get off the false claim, KJVOnly applies to 1611 English version only and you know it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X