They carried on the tradition. That is all.
You must compare the Geneva and the KJV. You're deflecting.
KJV The Pure Word of God?
- Thread starter reformed1689
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
They carried on the tradition. That is all.
You must compare the Geneva and the KJV. You're deflecting.
Even the context makes it clear, whether you say "rule" or "lead", it's not about the monarch.
I find this a specious argument myself.
Much love!
No. I am a former KJVOist myself. I abandoned it decades ago and have spent many years trying to get those I love to see it for what it is......
I know the subject as well as most anyone.
It actually has had the spelling updated. They've been pretty much doing that all along. That's a big part of the 1689 edition.
Much love!
KJVO and Never-KJV both seem to have the same lack of balance as it seems to me.
Much love!
I've spent a very large portion of my life and study of Christ getting to know the Scriptures. Anyone that does this should know the manuscripts and choices made for them in the past. I know exactly what I believe and WHY I believe it.
I'm here if you want to discuss but you obviously haven't research this much at all. You went and found those that agreed with you and that is all. They lied to you. You bought their lie. My challenge stands. You can't establish the English word "rule" anywhere in Hebrews 13. In fact, there is only one single Koine word that definitively means "rule".......
Only one.
I use the KJV all the time. It is what I learned as a child. It what I remember the most. I am well aware that it is full of mistakes.
To be clear, you don't know my full position. I haven't given it.
The Alexandrian copy is superior in the epistles. The Synoptic Gospels are best in the TR tradition. This is witnessed in Codex Alexandrinus. Which is my choice in antiquity.
You obviously don't know how much I've researched, and make false assumptions. Great foundation for a discussion, eh?
Guess what? Me to.
This is all about one thing, knowing God. The Bible is not a book of facts to learn, it's a Way to know a Person, our Maker.
Much love!
You just moved the goalpost.
No-no.
Now you have to defend why another translation - NOT the KJV, used the same word. Maybe you don't want to, so you declare they are just imitators. Another specious argument, unless you have something to substantiate it.
Much love!
False charge. You're the one that "moved the goalpost". I compared the Geneva Bible to The KJV. The KJV was written to replace the popular Geneva Bible by a sinful despot king.
You're trying to "fast forward" a very long time and use a later translation to establish the reason why the KJV used "rule"..... You can't. That is extremely silly.
I can tell from the arguments you're making. They are predicated upon your lack of knowledge.
You can't know God without have FACTS about God.
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
To be clear, I didn't name you in that comment. Simply how I find those two positions.
If you are being disengenuous in your presentation, I'll count on you to clear that up promptly.
Much love!
Yes. He will. Not that murder king james.......
Col 3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.
Hebrews 13 did exactly what they wanted it to do. They wanted Hebrews 13 to force others to believe them.... instead of God.
So, they perverted the "Word of God" to THEIR advantage. They told YOU that you have a ruler on earth to follow that isn't Jesus.
I don't think you actually know what you presume of me. I could likely make the arguments against the King James better than most do, certainly what I read here!
I've read through this thread to see misrepresentation and specious arguments one after another, and you fault me?
Is it only the KJV Bible you have a problem with, I'm curious, or are there others also?
Towards knowing God . . . I think facts about God are not the same as knowing Him, and knowing Him comes as you have a relationship with Him, and having a relationship with Him isn't dependant on whether or not someone translated "lead" as "rule".
Much love!
No you can't. "Copy cating" doesn't establish an argument to be true. What you've seen from me, you can't get from "Google".....
I'm dealing with what you said. Nothing more or less.
Over and over you prove that you don't know the subject. I told you exactly what my position is. What manuscripts I believe are superior. Knowing this, you KNOW what other translations I have issue with or..... at least you should.
Yes it does. You have another ruler that isn't Christ. I have only one ruler and it wasn't some stupid choice of a murderous English monarch.
I gave up following men a very long time ago. You're still there.....
No . . . you faulted the KJV for that translation. When it was pointed out that another version used the same translation, you selected one of two options, dismissing the fact that was inconvenient to you. You want to limit discussion to comparing the KJV to the Geneva only . . . why?
I suggest it makes your job easier. And you suggest I'm being silly. The simple truth is, you are railing against the KJV for translating "Lead" as "Rule", yet you don't take into account in a serious way that other versions do also. You simply insist that they had no reason to, other than to copy the KJV. That's dismissing their work as the product of Intellectual Dishonest, without any evidence.
You say, "Support that translation!" Someone replies, "Hey, they translated it that way too!". You reply, "Nope! Not good enough! We're not counting that version . . . just a copy! So you have to find another way!"
That's moving the goalpost.
Much love!
Well, if you consider that I don't make a habit of using all these poor arguments, and actually know some better ones, but hey, who cares about that?
IF you don't like it, don't read it, fine. I know God in the pages of my King James Bible, better than other translations. You think I'm deceived. I hear that a lot. In all honesty, someone who speaks as you do, and makes the arguments you make, I just do find a lot of credibility there.
And you cannot seem to extend the same graciousness to the KJV translation which the translators extended to other translators. That says something too. It all says something. We are revealed in our words, which we choose, how we frame them.
Much love!
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
“but the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God:” (James 3:8-9)
What you been reading that has you full of hate?
I limited it because it what happened when the KJV was produced. It is extremely poor method on your part to jump to the ASV when all the ASV did was follow the lead of the KJV. The ASV does not establish the validity of the KJV.
The Geneva Bible is superior. It is why King James hated it. It was the Word of God for Europe and the Evil English monarch couldn't lose their control.
Moving the goalpost is even mentioning the ASV. You're the one trying to move the goalpost. You're being extremely irresponsible in this.
Similar threads
