Posted on 06/27/2017 4:25:56 PM PDT by Pilgrim's Progress
>>>Moreover, the portray (Ezek. 4:1) bloody flux (Acts 28:8) botch (Deut. 28:27) his ossifrage (Lev. 11:13) while the pommels (2 Chron. 4:12) pygarg (Deut. 14:5) his victual (Ex. 12:39). Waxed rich (Rev. 18:3) caused a tender eyed (Gen. 29:17) unicorn (Numbers 23:22) to spikenard (Mark 14:3) the sabaoth (Rom. 9:29) the same time a cankerworm (Joel 1:4) cheek teeth (Joel 1:6) the exactors (Isa. 60:17). But that’s not all! The crisping pins (Isa. 3:22) fell out of the chamois (Dt. 14:5) fray (Jer. 7:33) engines (Ezek. 26:9) and succour (Heb. 2:18) the malefactor (John 18:30) into the lily work (1 Kings 7:19)! For those who think this is but succothbenoth (2 Kings 17:30), vain janglings (1 Tim. 1:6) and superfluity of naughtiness (James 1:21), winefat (Isa. 63:2) and wist (Joshua 8:14) will unstopped (Isa. 35:5). Trow (Luke 17:9) the wreathen (Ex. 28:14) and gay clothing (James 2:3) over the clift (Ex. 33:32) and churl (Isa. 32:5) the checker work (1 Kings 7:17) down the firepans (2 Kings 25:15) and on hungerbitten (Job 18:12) hoar frost (Ex. 16:14). The latchet (Mark 1:7) to the lowering (Mt. 16:3) has occurrent (1 Kings 5:4) and even munition (Isa. 29:7). The mortar (Num. 11:8) pavement (Esther 1:6) is below the almug (1 Kings 10:12) and pressfat (Hag. 2:16) the sheaf (Gen. 37:7).<<<
I don’t suppose anyone has thought of using a dictionary?
I guess you don’t have any problem with Shakespeare then? Where is the hue and cry to revise them so that simpletons in America can understand them?
Of course, Shakespeare’s work is not accompanied by the promise that the Holy Spirit will be the interpreter of the Bible for us - and maybe the unsaved man is not supposed to understand the Bible (even the Good News for Modern Man) until he/she first comes to Christ.
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14).
Maybe there is a logical, or shall I say, ‘spiritual’ explanation for why you and others can not ‘understand’ the King James Bible.
>>>working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts<<<
Yep, Vaticanus and Siniaticus which were both discovered in a trash can in a monastery . . . of course they are superior to imperfect sinful man.
Your comment is a non sequitur.
Luke 1, which comes before Luke 2 (funny that), clearly makes the case for the virgin birth. If your believe the virgin birth can be denied by replacing “Joseph and His mother Mary” with “parents” after the declarations in Luke 1, well, I really don’t what to say to you.
You are supposing facts not in evidence.
So, how many professors that deny the virgin birth are holding a King James Bible in their hand?
I’m certainly not saying that a person can’t believe a doctrine if he uses another version - but the chances are great that the person that is not acquainted with the doctrine is not likely going to find it in a Bible that changes ‘virgin’ with ‘young woman.’
I completely agree the RSV is a terrible translation, and I never use it. But it is the only modern English version that I have found that butchers Isaiah 7:14, and it even gets it correct in Matthew 1:23.
>>Hey, why not start your own thread and simply call it the Anti-King James study.
Please refer to post #72 for enlightenment regarding this issue.
>>That’s the problem with KJV onlyism, particularly the more pernicious varieties, like Ruckmanism (of which Grady is a proponent). “Believing the King James Bible” becomes an essential element of the Gospel itself, and ironically the so-called “Bible-believers” place themselves under the anathema of Galatians 1:8-9.
Thank you for sharing this information because I really know very little about the machinations of the KJV crowd, and never heard of either Ruckmanism or Grady. Now I feel motivated to do a little digging to become better informed.
Douay-Rheims Onlyism is pretty darned pernicious, too. Might want to look into that while you’re at it.
You mean the version that mistranslated Gen 3:15?
>>You mean the version that mistranslated Gen 3:15?
Okay, I’ll bite, what version was that, and what was the mistranslation?
Excellent. Debunking KJV-only fables is actually fun, and I'm sure you'll be providing several examples.
LOL, really? So Mary forgot that Jesus' conception was miraculous, she was still a virgin at the time, and Joseph wasn't really his biological father?
Pull the other one.
No, she was not a virgin at the time . . . Jesus had brothers and sisters.
And yes, her error was in referring to Joseph as His father - and He reminded her that His Father was in heaven.
I’m not going to expect you to accept anything other than what the fathers and sisters have taught you.
Pay no attention to the page you read just a minute earlier!
Yes, they really think you are that stupid.
Committed Christians generally do not call other Christians stupid.
I’m seriously doubting your relationship with Christ.
Are you saying Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was conceived? Because I asked whether you thought she had forgotten that she was, and I would refer not to think that you were trying to dishonestly spin my remarks in the worst possible light.
You stated she was a virgin at the time . . . Jesus is herein 12-years old.
I didn't call anyone stupid.
I’m seriously doubting your relationship with Christ.
And your opinion should concern me, why, exactly?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.