Focusing on Pokemon is trivial when compared to problem our society faces when confronted with the Teletubbys.
Posted on 05/21/2006 2:04:31 PM PDT by Full Court
You draw the line at having one Bible, the King James as your final authority.
Now, anyone can be saved with any bible, since there is enough truth left in it to get saved.
But you cannot grow on the modern bibles.
I can find the Gospel in the New World Translation, but that doesn't make it a Bible, it just means it still has some bible left in it.
It's back there in the very first post you responded to me on this thread. Look it up.
You say: "But you cannot grow on the modern bibles."
Thus you then dispute the growth of Christians who are not using the KJV.
A bit testy this morning are we?
I did not get the point then, so why don't you clarify it for me?
Yes I do.
But not only 'using' it, believing it to be God's words.
We have alot of ministers who 'use' it but don't really believe it to be God's words.
ok
Could you go back and look at my post #480 and reply? If you already have and I missed it, I apologize.
Please ftd, let's not make it personal. Besides, you've known me far too long to think ~this~ is "testy."
Here's a link to the clarification. It's all there, and you already responded to that post.
The Boers in South Africa believed that the Dutch Bible was the only true translation, so is the Dutch Bible of the time or the KJV the one true translation?
You know how those Dutchmen are. You can tell a Dutchman, but you can't twll him much.
Um... The Apocrypha was included in the 1611 KJV.
ooops
Focusing on Pokemon is trivial when compared to problem our society faces when confronted with the Teletubbys.
LOL!
Not as part of the Canon it wasn't, it was put between the Testaments.
But, when you are desperate anything will do, right?
Not as part of the sacred Canon, it was placed between the Testaments as being non-canonical (like study notes in a Bible).
A Roman Catholic Bible has those books interspersed throughout its Old Testament as being part of the Canon.
If the Boer's translation (Dutch) came from the TR I am sure it is good one.
If it departed from the King James in a particular reading (over TR issues) the King James would be correct.
The King James is the standard, the one that has the correct readings in it when the TR differs or a particular reading is not a majority text reading.
Then I suspect that in your Bible there is an Apocrypha section? If it was good enough to include, like study notes, in the KJV1611, then I suspect that it's good enough for you, huh?
Or has some evil new age publisher come along and ripped that section out of your... oops, excuse me... THE Bible?
By the way, does your KJV correct all the archaic spelling of the 1611? If so, on what authority did the Publishers of your Bible have to change the spelling from the Original English?
That wasn't meant as a personal attack, we all get 'testy' from time to time.
Here's a link to the clarification. It's all there, and you already responded to that post.
Thank you for the link.
Well, it seems that since I missed the point, I need to respond again.
What Fullcourt was saying, that Chinese people can learn the King James is true.
Most of the world do want to learn English and will learn to read the King James just as well as anything else.
That doesn't mean there cannot be Chinese Bibles in their own languages, but English is the largest second language learned in the world, hence the popularity of it worldwide.
Most of the world do want to learn English and will learn to read the King James just as well as anything else.
That doesn't mean there cannot be Chinese Bibles in their own languages, but English is the largest second language learned in the world, hence the popularity of it worldwide.
Wait... You're saying the ONLY way to salvation and grow as a Christian is to accept the Lord Jesus Christ in King James English?
Why should I care if the Apocrypha is in my Bible or study notes either.
The translators included them since they were still highly regarded as literature back then, but not sacred literature.
Yet another straw man.
Or has some evil new age publisher come along and ripped that section out of your... oops, excuse me... THE Bible?
The Bible is the Old and New Testament.
Anything else in the Bible is not 'the Bible', including graphs, and lists and study aids, marriage records etc.
But then again you never saw a Bible, since you don't believe one really exists, its just kinda out there somewhere.
By the way, does your KJV correct all the archaic spelling of the 1611? If so, on what authority did the Publishers of your Bible have to change the spelling from the Original English?
Updating the spelling of a word isn't changing the word now is it?
So no one has to get 'permission' for updating spelling.
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.