Sword Or A Butterknife?

[Guest Guest]

Now tell me, does God AND satan tempt? Is that what you're seriously saying? That's heresy, you know that, right? It's anti-scriptural. Check it:

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

GOD DOES NOT TEMPT. That's exactly what the very same KJV says. Look at it for yourself.

[RayJr]

Right know your tempting me, and that tempting can also mean testing as well.

I am saying just read it and quit triing to prove it wrong. Your argument is flawed

[Guest Guest]

Right know your tempting me, and that tempting can also mean testing as well.

I am saying just read it and quit triing to prove it wrong. Your argument is flawed

How am I tempting you??? I'm not trying to get you to do anything evil.

Tempting - 1. to entice or allure to do something often regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral.

Testing - 1. the means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness of anything is determined; a means of trial.

I had a test over this today. I had this drilled into me 76739656489659 times last week AND this week. I may not be perfect, I may not know everything, but this I know. I'm pretty good with definitions and such.

[Guest Guest]

Now tell me, does God AND satan tempt? Is that what you're seriously saying? That's heresy, you know that, right? It's anti-scriptural. Check it:

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

GOD DOES NOT TEMPT. That's exactly what the very same KJV says. Look at it for yourself.

Both God and Satan tempt, but in different ways and to different ends. The big difference is that Gods end is our good and Satans end is our hurt.

James 1:13-14 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Here is the word for "tempteth" in this passage.

3985.
peiravzw peirazo, pi-rad'-zo; from 3984; to test (objectively), i.e. endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline:--assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt(-er), try

In context this means that God cannot desire evil, or tempt someone else to do evil. Obviously there are different meanings of the word "tempt" and we can tell which meaning is being used by the context.

For example:

"Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil."

"1 Corinthians 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents."

"Hebrews 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."

"Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

All these verses say that Christ was tempted, yet James says God cannot be tempted and Christ is God. In context(read verse 14 of James 1) God can be tempted, but that does not mean he can desire evil: God can tempt, but not in a evil way for our hurt.


BTW Here is the definition of "tempt" in english.

tempt
Pronunciation: ?tem(p)t
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French tempter, tenter, from Latin temptare, tentare to feel, try
Date: 13th century
1: to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain
2 a obsolete : to make trial of : test b: to try presumptuously : provoke c: to risk the dangers of
3 a: to induce to do something b: to cause to be strongly inclined
You are ignoring the underlined portion. It wasn't a bad translation at all, it just doesn't match up with the more modern usage of the word tempt...

[Guest Guest]

Nobody' date=' not a single person has ever proven the King James wrong or has proven a single contradiction that cannot be accounted for in the King James. There are several that can be pointed out in the modern versions, i.e. who did kill Goliath anyway?[/quote']


I they could...might I add, they would! LOL. Between the Bible scholars on planet earth and the Atheists (that "try" to prove no existence of God, and His pure word) it would have been done by now...this is 2008, NOT 1908, nor 1708. hehe. :thumb :smile


Psalm 12:6...The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. KJV 1611 AV.

[Guest Guest]

Both God and Satan tempt, but in different ways and to different ends. The big difference is that Gods end is our good and Satans end is our hurt.

James 1:13-14 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Seth.

BTW Here is the definition of "tempt" in english.

tempt
Pronunciation: ?tem(p)t
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French tempter, tenter, from Latin temptare, tentare to feel, try
Date: 13th century
1: to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain
2 a obsolete : to make trial of : test b: to try presumptuously : provoke c: to risk the dangers of
3 a: to induce to do something b: to cause to be strongly inclined
You are ignoring the underlined portion. It wasn't a bad translation at all, it just doesn't match up with the more modern usage of the word tempt...

Excellent!

[nymusicman]

How am I tempting you??? I'm not trying to get you to do anything evil.

Tempting - 1. to entice or allure to do something often regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral.

Testing - 1. the means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness of anything is determined; a means of trial.

I had a test over this today. I had this drilled into me 76739656489659 times last week AND this week. I may not be perfect, I may not know everything, but this I know. I'm pretty good with definitions and such.

For the life of me I cannot figure out why this argument is still going on, Webster himself said that Genesis 22:1 meant "5. In Scripture, to try; to prove; to put to trial for proof." This definition has nothing to do with evil. It simply means to prove, or in a more modern sense to put through a trial. Ever have trials of faith in your life?

I know Webster is not the final authority on all things, but he's the best we got to understand 1611 speech. Just deal with it. We speak a different English and you cannot apply modern definitions to something that was said over 350 years ago.

[Guest Guest]

Yeah...I think it is time to put the "sword and the butter knife" away on this one, guys. At least for now...just give it a break. Alright? :smile

[RayJr]

You'r probably right.

[John81]

Suffice it to say the KJB has proved itself to be the Word of God, blessed by God, for nearly four centuries now.

[ezra517]

Amen and Amen.

Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

And He has done just that.

[Annie]

Now tell me, does God AND satan tempt? Is that what you're seriously saying? That's heresy, you know that, right? It's anti-scriptural. Check it:

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

GOD DOES NOT TEMPT. That's exactly what the very same KJV says. Look at it for yourself.

Mr. Dude, I'm not KJVO by any stretch, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm sure you are aware that many English words have more than one meaning. Here's a really stupid example--the only one that comes to mind right now: stamp (as a verb). One meaning: to forcibly hit one's feet on the floor/ground. Another meaning: to press an ink image onto a surface.

Here's a (stupid) little story...

John the post office worker is a calm-tempered man. He is never ruffled, never frazzled. When things go wrong, he doesn't stamp or curse; he simply hums a tune and assures himself that his luck will improve soon.

....later in the (stupid) story....

After John finishes his filing and stamping each day, he takes his coat from its peg and walks home, whistling a tune.

Does my story (stupid though it may be) say conflicting things about John the postman? Can one say, as you have said about the KJV, "JOHN DOES NOT STAMP. That's exactly what the very same story says. Look at it for yourself. The only explanation is that the story is internally inconsistent." This argument sounds like something my nine- and eight-year-old kids would say--jokingly--about a story like this...Even they can recognize that certain words have multiple meanings. So...the question that remains is this: how do we know which meaning is being used? The answer, again, is simple enough for a child to understand: We know which meaning is intended by looking at the context. The first "stamp" is used in connection with tantrum-like activity, so we know it means the forcible foot action. The second occurrence of the word is used in connection with John's duties as a postal worker, so we know it means the pressing ink action. Therefore, we understand that the story is not contradicting itself by saying that John "stamps," after it has said that he doesn't "stamp." At the risk of insulting your intelligence, I'll spell it out further: John never stamps his foot in a show of temper, but John stamps piles of letters every day. [end of second grade lesson on homonyms]

God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man...The context is "tempting with evil," or "enticing to sin."
I'm not sure what other occurrences of the words "God tempted" you are talking about. I guarantee you that in those passages, God is not enticing someone to sin, but testing them. Check it out for yourself.

No offense, but I find your argument expressive of an incomplete understanding of a basic fact about the English language that can be grasped even by my young children. One of the following things is true:

1. You are unaware that the word tempt has more than one meaning. Let's allow http://www.dictionary.comto clear that up for you right now:

tempt /t?mpt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tempt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?verb (used with object)
1. to entice or allure to do something often regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral.
2. to attract, appeal strongly to, or invite: The offer tempts me.
3. to render strongly disposed to do something: The book tempted me to read more on the subject.
4. to put (someone) to the test in a venturesome way; provoke: to tempt one's fate.
5. Obsolete. to try or test.

[Origin: 1175?1225; ME < L tempt?re to probe, feel, test, tempt]

....OR.....

2. You are so bent on proving your case that you ignore the obvious evidence. ("My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts.")

You seem to be a fairly intelligent person...As you said of yourself, "I'm pretty good with definitions and such."

[ezra517]

great story! :clap:

[Guest Guest]

Mr. Dude, I'm not KJVO by any stretch, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm sure you are aware that many English words have more than one meaning. Here's a really stupid example--the only one that comes to mind right now: stamp (as a verb). One meaning: to forcibly hit one's feet on the floor/ground. Another meaning: to press an ink image onto a surface.

Here's a (stupid) little story...

John the post office worker is a calm-tempered man. He is never ruffled, never frazzled. When things go wrong, he doesn't stamp or curse; he simply hums a tune and assures himself that his luck will improve soon.

....later in the (stupid) story....

After John finishes his filing and stamping each day, he takes his coat from its peg and walks home, whistling a tune.

Does my story (stupid though it may be) say conflicting things about John the postman? Can one say, as you have said about the KJV, "JOHN DOES NOT STAMP. That's exactly what the very same story says. Look at it for yourself. The only explanation is that the story is internally inconsistent." This argument sounds like something my nine- and eight-year-old kids would say--jokingly--about a story like this...Even they can recognize that certain words have multiple meanings. So...the question that remains is this: how do we know which meaning is being used? The answer, again, is simple enough for a child to understand: We know which meaning is intended by looking at the context. The first "stamp" is used in connection with tantrum-like activity, so we know it means the forcible foot action. The second occurrence of the word is used in connection with John's duties as a postal worker, so we know it means the pressing ink action. Therefore, we understand that the story is not contradicting itself by saying that John "stamps," after it has said that he doesn't "stamp." At the risk of insulting your intelligence, I'll spell it out further: John never stamps his foot in a show of temper, but John stamps piles of letters every day. [end of second grade lesson on homonyms]

God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man...The context is "tempting with evil," or "enticing to sin."
I'm not sure what other occurrences of the words "God tempted" you are talking about. I guarantee you that in those passages, God is not enticing someone to sin, but testing them. Check it out for yourself.

No offense, but I find your argument expressive of an incomplete understanding of a basic fact about the English language that can be grasped even by my young children. One of the following things is true:

1. You are unaware that the word tempt has more than one meaning. Let's allow http://www.dictionary.comto clear that up for you right now:

tempt /t?mpt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tempt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?verb (used with object)
1. to entice or allure to do something often regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral.
2. to attract, appeal strongly to, or invite: The offer tempts me.
3. to render strongly disposed to do something: The book tempted me to read more on the subject.
4. to put (someone) to the test in a venturesome way; provoke: to tempt one's fate.
5. Obsolete. to try or test.

[Origin: 1175?1225; ME < L tempt?re to probe, feel, test, tempt]

....OR.....

2. You are so bent on proving your case that you ignore the obvious evidence. ("My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts.")

You seem to be a fairly intelligent person...As you said of yourself, "I'm pretty good with definitions and such."

Excellent way of explaining it, Annie! :amen:

[Guest Guest]

Mr. Dude, I'm not KJVO by any stretch, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm sure you are aware that many English words have more than one meaning. Here's a really stupid example--the only one that comes to mind right now: stamp (as a verb). One meaning: to forcibly hit one's feet on the floor/ground. Another meaning: to press an ink image onto a surface.

Here's a (stupid) little story...

John the post office worker is a calm-tempered man. He is never ruffled, never frazzled. When things go wrong, he doesn't stamp or curse; he simply hums a tune and assures himself that his luck will improve soon.

....later in the (stupid) story....

After John finishes his filing and stamping each day, he takes his coat from its peg and walks home, whistling a tune.

Does my story (stupid though it may be) say conflicting things about John the postman? Can one say, as you have said about the KJV, "JOHN DOES NOT STAMP. That's exactly what the very same story says. Look at it for yourself. The only explanation is that the story is internally inconsistent." This argument sounds like something my nine- and eight-year-old kids would say--jokingly--about a story like this...Even they can recognize that certain words have multiple meanings. So...the question that remains is this: how do we know which meaning is being used? The answer, again, is simple enough for a child to understand: We know which meaning is intended by looking at the context. The first "stamp" is used in connection with tantrum-like activity, so we know it means the forcible foot action. The second occurrence of the word is used in connection with John's duties as a postal worker, so we know it means the pressing ink action. Therefore, we understand that the story is not contradicting itself by saying that John "stamps," after it has said that he doesn't "stamp." At the risk of insulting your intelligence, I'll spell it out further: John never stamps his foot in a show of temper, but John stamps piles of letters every day. [end of second grade lesson on homonyms]

God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man...The context is "tempting with evil," or "enticing to sin."
I'm not sure what other occurrences of the words "God tempted" you are talking about. I guarantee you that in those passages, God is not enticing someone to sin, but testing them. Check it out for yourself.

No offense, but I find your argument expressive of an incomplete understanding of a basic fact about the English language that can be grasped even by my young children. One of the following things is true:

1. You are unaware that the word tempt has more than one meaning. Let's allow http://www.dictionary.comto clear that up for you right now:

tempt /t?mpt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tempt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?verb (used with object)
1. to entice or allure to do something often regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral.
2. to attract, appeal strongly to, or invite: The offer tempts me.
3. to render strongly disposed to do something: The book tempted me to read more on the subject.
4. to put (someone) to the test in a venturesome way; provoke: to tempt one's fate.
5. Obsolete. to try or test.

[Origin: 1175?1225; ME < L tempt?re to probe, feel, test, tempt]

....OR.....

2. You are so bent on proving your case that you ignore the obvious evidence. ("My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts.")

You seem to be a fairly intelligent person...As you said of yourself, "I'm pretty good with definitions and such."

It's still a poor translation of the word nevertheless. The word translated should have been TESTED not TEMPTED. I'm very familiar with the fact that one word has many different meanings, the english language is famous for such a thing. Now enough about this cause I see this is gonna go nowhere...

I did however find something else out... I found that KJVO's think the Septuagint is corrupt? This is sad, because Jesus HIMSELF and His own disciples quoted from it! It's an accurate translation, besides, if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

I've also got a few links to other site, since y'all like doing such things...

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-KJVo.html

http://www.KJV-only.com/doctrinalcontradiction.html

http://www.KJV-only.com/jesusnew.html

I found these links quite revealing... I mainly used this site to find these:
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/kingjames.html

Should be an eye-opener for some of y'all, it most definitely was for me...

God bless...