[Meek and Humble]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

I thought that dinosaurs were just something made up by the scientists to 'disprove' the existence of God(?).

What are you retarded? Of course dinosaurs exist. They are called dragons in the Bible. How stupid are you that you don't even know that?

[True Disciple]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

About Biblical creatures, I think it is important to consider the year the Bible was written: 1611.

Obviously, if these creatures are mentioned in the Bible without additional descriptions, apparently God didn't do this because people already knew about them. Therefore, we can safely assume that descriptions of unicorns, cockatrices and satyrs as they were known in 1611 are correct.

This means that the unicorn is indeed a horse with a horn on its head, a satyr is a humanoid creature with the backside of a goat, and a cockatrice is a weird chicken-lizard chimaera (for which, on another note, evilutionists still have to find an explanation).

[Robert Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

About Biblical creatures, I think it is important to consider the year the Bible was written: 1611.

Obviously, if these creatures are mentioned in the Bible without additional descriptions, apparently God didn't do this because people already knew about them. Therefore, we can safely assume that descriptions of unicorns, cockatrices and satyrs as they were known in 1611 are correct.

This means that the unicorn is indeed a horse with a horn on its head, a satyr is a humanoid creature with the backside of a goat, and a cockatrice is a weird chicken-lizard chimaera (for which, on another note, evilutionists still have to find an explanation).

1611 is the date when the translation of the true version of the Bible was complete, but it's obviously not the date that the Bible was actually written. One has to remember that the KJV1611 wasn't completed over night, it took several years.

I suppose I haven't searched for LBC's views on the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Do you accept that previous version of the Bible are holy, or is it only the KJV1611?

[Meek and Humble]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

1611 is the date when the translation of the true version of the Bible was complete, but it's obviously not the date that the Bible was actually written. One has to remember that the KJV1611 wasn't completed over night, it took several years.

I suppose I haven't searched for LBC's views on the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Do you accept that previous version of the Bible are holy, or is it only the KJV1611?

The KJV1611 is a perfect translation of the the original languages. If they say unicorn, satyr, or cockatrice, they MEAN unicorn, satyr or cockatrice.

[Robert Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

The KJV1611 is a perfect translation of the the original languages. If they say unicorn, satyr, or cockatrice, they MEAN unicorn, satyr or cockatrice.

It's not a 100% perfect translation of the original languages. There are a number of translation errors and other places where italics are added to make things more clear that didn't exist in the original greek/hebrew. Not that I'm saying the KJV1611 isn't the only true version of the Bible, just a clarification point.

[Jedediah]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

1611 is the date when the translation of the true version of the Bible was complete, but it's obviously not the date that the Bible was actually written. One has to remember that the KJV1611 wasn't completed over night, it took several years.

I suppose I haven't searched for LBC's views on the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Do you accept that previous version of the Bible are holy, or is it only the KJV1611?

Jesus, the Prophets, and the Apostles spoke in other languages, yes. But they thought in English as they received the Holy Word. It is all part of God's Divine Plan. Thus, the KJV 1611 is the perfect Bible.

[Robert Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

Jesus, the Prophets, and the Apostles spoke in other languages, yes. But they thought in English as they received the Holy Word. It is all part of God's Divine Plan. Thus, the KJV 1611 is the perfect Bible.

Do you have a biblical passage to support that statement? I wasn't aware of English being a language during the days of the Old and New Testament.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

It's not a 100% perfect translation of the original languages. There are a number of translation errors and other places where italics are added to make things more clear that didn't exist in the original greek/hebrew. Not that I'm saying the KJV1611 isn't the only true version of the Bible, just a clarification point.

No, it is perfect, and it is blasphemy for you to say otherwise!

But if you don't believe me, look here: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible...king_james.htm

I'll gladly listen to your objections after you've read everything on that page (including all the pages it links to) and have a detailed response to every point brought up in all of them.

[Robert Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

No, it is perfect, and it is blasphemy for you to say otherwise!

But if you don't believe me, look here: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible...king_james.htm

I'll gladly listen to your objections after you've read everything on that page (including all the pages it links to) and have a detailed response to every point brought up in all of them.

Does it have to be in one post, or can it be a series of posts? I certainly don't mind visiting all of those links. I don't think it will be too much of an effort considering all of the broken/unclickable links. I don't see why you think I'm objecting to the authenticity of the KJV1611. Do translation errors and a few additions from the Latin Vulgate negate the perfection of the KJV1611? The translators themselves saw fit to add annotations to the KJV1611.

[Levi Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

Does it have to be in one post, or can it be a series of posts? I certainly don't mind visiting all of those links. I don't think it will be too much of an effort considering all of the broken/unclickable links. I don't see why you think I'm objecting to the authenticity of the KJV1611. Do translation errors and a few additions from the Latin Vulgate negate the perfection of the KJV1611? The translators themselves saw fit to add annotations to the KJV1611.

What is the perfect translation to you, friend? What version would you prefer we study if not the KJV?

[Jedediah]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

A language spoken by man at the time, no. The Textus Receptus and Masoretic Hebrew were simply placeholders until such a time that the KJV 1611 be written. The divinely Inspired authors of the original manuscripts received the Word such that future Inspired translators would preserve the Bible as they chose their English words.

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



II Peter 1:20-21
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Upon completion of the translation, the task was completed and all the subsequent English translations were not made by Inspired translators.

The KJV 1611 constitutes an advanced revelation of the Word. I take it that you reject the notion that a translation can be divinely Inspired. Consider this: There are more than 100 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, which were originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. If you say “no translation could be inspired,” you’ve thrown more than 100 verses out of the New Testament in all the manuscripts, including the “original manuscripts.” The “original manuscripts” of the New Testament were written in Greek, and their Old Testament quotations were translations of the Hebrew.


"Translate" appears five times in the Bible:

II Samuel 3:10
To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.


Colossians 1:13
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:


Hebrews 11:5
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Every translation in our Final Authority on all matters is an improvement over the original. If you are a simple Bible believer you will have no trouble accepting this. If you worship education or just hate to be wrong you will reject this Bible Fact as easily as you have rejected every Bible Fact that you couldn't agree with.


It is undeniable that America has a special role in the Divine Plan. God's Chosen Nation, if you will.

II Samuel 7:10
Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,

Upon translation to English, the Bible was refined to the point where it needs to be up until the conclusion of the End Times. Like I said before, the KJV 1611 is the perfect Bible. The Bible was always intended to be written in English.

[Robert Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

What is the perfect translation to you, friend? What version would you prefer we study if not the KJV?

A perfect translation would be complete without error in translation or syntax from the original Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible. Let me quote William Combs when defining an error in regards to translation, he writes,

"We might begin by looking at the dictionary’s definition of error:
“(1a) an act or condition of ignorant or imprudent deviation from a
code of behavior; (1b) an act involving an unintentional deviation from
truth or accuracy; (1c) an act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done.”10 As far as Bible translation is concerned, we might simplify by saying that “an error
is any failure to convey accurately the meaning of the autographs.” If
a translation does not accurately convey the meaning of the autographs,
it must be in error. For example, any translation that fails at any point to
convey accurately what Paul said in his epistle to the Romans is in error
at that point. The kinds of errors a translation might contain can be roughly grouped into three areas: (1) errors originating from the Hebrew/
Aramaic and Greek texts used by the translators; (2) errors produced
by a faulty translation; and (3) errors generated in the
transmission of a translation."

The paper is very interesting. I just find it troubling that a version of the Bible a person reads seems to determine whether you think a person is true Christian or not.

Here's a link to the Combs paper that may or may not be removed depending on how you interpret the paper.

http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1999/Combs.pdf

[Jedediah]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

Sounds like you need to spend less time reading Combs and spend a little more time reading the words of early church fathers:

"For philosophy is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy… What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides."

-Tertullian of Carthage

[Meek and Humble]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

I don't see why you think I'm objecting to the authenticity of the KJV1611. Do translation errors and a few additions from the Latin Vulgate negate the perfection of the KJV1611?

Those things would indeed negate the perfection of a Bible translation, but they most definitely do not appear in the KJV. Take your lies elsewhere.

[Robert Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

Sounds like you need to spend less time reading Combs and spend a little more time reading the words of early church fathers:

"For philosophy is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy… What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides."

-Tertullian of Carthage

I don't see what you're trying to say. The paper is from a Baptist seminary and uses biblical evidence. The church fathers certainly weren't reading the KJV1611. Tertullian of Carthage could very likely still have been reading from the original Greek and Hebrew texts, although he lived after the New Testament was complete. My only argument is that the original texts are the only completely perfect texts. I gather that you didn't even look at the link.