Guest Guest Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 TRC123, Reina-Valera 1960 or earlier for Spanish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brodave Posted December 31, 2008 Members Share Posted December 31, 2008 I like the illustrations about the house and car I will use those. Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted December 31, 2008 Members Share Posted December 31, 2008 I like the illustrations about the house and car I will use those. Thank you Those analogies breakdown fairly quickly though. Any valuable antique car, the minute you go beyond the paint job and make any modifications and enhancements is no longer considered an original and certainly would not be considered OEM. Same thing with a house, in fact with a home, certain additions and modifications would make it more valuable......that part of the analogy will drive KJV 1611'ers crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Pastor Matt Posted December 31, 2008 Administrators Share Posted December 31, 2008 Those analogies breakdown fairly quickly though. Any valuable antique car, the minute you go beyond the paint job and make any modifications and enhancements is no longer considered an original and certainly would not be considered OEM. Same thing with a house, in fact with a home, certain additions and modifications would make it more valuable......that part of the analogy will drive KJV 1611'ers crazy. The point was not the value, it was only about a date. Nobody was talking about value, but rather the original date. So to compare value to dates is apples to oranges. The car was still a 1951 Crosley and nobody complained about the date. The only thing that drove me crazy is the fact that you talked about value when we were talking about dates. :lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted December 31, 2008 Members Share Posted December 31, 2008 The point was not the value, it was only about a date. Nobody was talking about value, but rather the original date. So to compare value to dates is apples to oranges. The car was still a 1951 Crosley and nobody complained about the date. The only thing that drove me crazy is the fact that you talked about value when we were talking about dates. :lol The point being that any KJV modified after 1611 has been modified and is not truly a KJV 1611 and for a true KJV only person should be suspect as to having "changes" to it and how those changes have affected the original meaning and intent of the translation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Pastor Matt Posted December 31, 2008 Administrators Share Posted December 31, 2008 The point being that any KJV modified after 1611 has been modified and is not truly a KJV 1611 and for a true KJV only person should be suspect as to having "changes" to it and how those changes have affected the original meaning and intent of the translation. With that logic the 1951 Crosley should now be a considered a 2008 Crosley. Also with that logic, you can't have the a true Bible in your hands, because you do not have the original manuscripts in your hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brodave Posted December 31, 2008 Members Share Posted December 31, 2008 You can't diminish or enhance the value of the Word of God. I find that those that argue about the validity of the new versions always use the same argument. Much like those who believe in works salvation use the same verses (out of context) over and over again. I am glad I settled the KJV 1611 issue a long time ago :clap: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted December 31, 2008 Members Share Posted December 31, 2008 With that logic the 1951 Crosley should now be a considered a 2008 Crosley. Also with that logic, you can't have the a true Bible in your hands, because you do not have the original manuscripts in your hands. You said it, by that logic. That's why the analogy breaks down quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brodave Posted December 31, 2008 Members Share Posted December 31, 2008 I must not be following this right :loco I thought the issue was the date not the value Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Pastor Matt Posted December 31, 2008 Administrators Share Posted December 31, 2008 Me too Brodave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PastorHarrison Posted January 3, 2009 Members Share Posted January 3, 2009 I am 44 yrs old....undergone many changes since birth....more wrinkles...worn edges...weak knee....scars.... but I am no less me with my reading glasses than I was at birth. I am still quite me....not ought less or more. My finger prints are the same....my name in heaven is the same....the soul within me is the same and God knew me since I was concieved. It is rather foolish then, in my opinion, to suppose that because a wrinkle has been added by time, that I am no longer who I was at birth. The supposition that because spelling errors on the printer's part or mechanics of the printing process part altered the word of God or that correcting those errors changes the word of God....is too ignorant for consideration. Again (IMO). When God gave his word to Moses, it was in Hebrew...not English, or Spanish....but Hebrew. Does that mean God is guilty of not being fair to those who speak those languages? Does translating it to those languages change it? How absurd.... The Word of God far exceeds the limitations of puny language....it sustains the planets...supports the universes both seen and unseen....it brings salvation, light and hope....it is the very thing from which life came forth...when all else passes it remains unchanged! It cannot merely be confined to Hebrew but spills over and through all language walls....all our little gramatical blabbering means nothing to the word of God..... the word of God lines the orbits of the planets....fuels the sun.... and we think that it is impacted by language or spelling constraints? Thats like me taking a shovel to the yard, digging a hole and then proclaiming the earth to be a different planet. How small we think...how shallow are our thoughts..... I suggest rather than the word of God is perfect and the Lord has blessed us with guiding in its translating into English....as always, just once.... Hebrew (once), Greek (once), English (once) and on and on and on.... the word of God in chineese is what? The word of God! The word of God in Spanish is what? The word of God! The word of God did NOT come perverted from it's speaker.... but wicked men pervert it today just as they did in Paul's day.... The King James is "THE BIBLE" not merely a version of it. The word of God in Chineese is "THE BIBLE" not merely a version of it. The word of God cannot be confined to foolish little "original manuscripts"....but goes beyond such silly limitations.... It is unchanging....unfaltering...incorruptable....ageless...timeless.... I do not say the KJV for that suggest that the AV1611 is merely another "version" of what God said rather the reality of it being "Exactly what God said". As such I say KJB = King James "Bible". All others are mere "versions" of what God said. I am not interested in a version of what God said...I want to know the very words God said!!!! Some say "well its good....but its not perfect" I say you and the devil are in agreement there... you may be at odds on other subjects, but when it comes to the word of God you and the Devil are hand in hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Charbo Posted January 3, 2009 Members Share Posted January 3, 2009 :amen: :goodpost: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted January 3, 2009 Members Share Posted January 3, 2009 The word of God did NOT come perverted from it's speaker.... but wicked men pervert it today just as they did in Paul's day.... The King James is "THE BIBLE" not merely a version of it. The word of God in Chineese is "THE BIBLE" not merely a version of it. The word of God cannot be confined to foolish little "original manuscripts"....but goes beyond such silly limitations.... It is unchanging....unfaltering...incorruptable....ageless...timeless.... I do not say the KJV for that suggest that the AV1611 is merely another "version" of what God said rather the reality of it being "Exactly what God said". As such I say KJB = King James "Bible". All others are mere "versions" of what God said. I am not interested in a version of what God said...I want to know the very words God said!!!! :amen: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JerryNumbers Posted January 14, 2009 Members Share Posted January 14, 2009 There is thousands upon thousands out there that dislike the KJ Bible, so its not surprising that we get those that try to covert us, lead us astray, after all the old devil is hard at work and he has some very patriot hands working for him. Thy word is very pure: therefore thy seruant loueth it. Psalm 119:140 KJ 1611 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kubel Posted January 24, 2009 Members Share Posted January 24, 2009 There is thousands upon thousands out there that dislike the KJ Bible' date=' so its not surprising that we get those that try to covert us, lead us astray, after all the old devil is hard at work and he has some very patriot hands working for him.[/quote'] And I'm one of them! ::insert evil villain laugh here:: Seriously now, people aren't workers of Satan simply because they aren't KJVO. That's just silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.