Purple Chris

Greetings melo, At first I didn't think you actually posted anything, but then I noticed it mixed in with other stuff. Kind of hard to distinguish your answers in there. Thanks for explaining what you meant by that post, I appreciate that. It had sounded bad when I first read it and did not want to misunderstand you. The Scriptural context still lends itself to a 24 hour day. Genesis 49:27 does not bear on Genesis 1 as "yom" is not used there. The "day" in Genesis is clearly marked out contextually by morning and evening. The fall most likely occurred after 7, not on 7, and was a one time event, which the effects of are still ongoing today. The time between day 6 and Seth being born (when Adam was 130 years old) is determinable to a degree if the Scriptures are taken literally. My question to old earthers who hold that Genesis 1 IS figurative (which I don't think you do), is at what point and how it is that they determine that Genesis stops being figurative and becomes literal. One answer as to "when" is "around the time of the Patriarchs" but no reason as to why then. Blessings, PC

Hello Melo, You wrote... ...the way it reads to me is that you are saying that being "hung up" on the "notion" that day means a literal 24-hour period, is an embarassment and is discredits us. It sounds to me as if you are saying that it obviously can't be 24 hours and for us to hold to that causes embarassment to our faith and discredits Christianity. Is that what you meant? It was this... The sun is not required to have a period of time be a day. There was already light and darkness in existence from day 1 and the days are divided by morning (light) and evening (darkness) and clearly not dependent on the sun existing. Now my question...as old earthers say (at least all that I've heard) say that the 6 days, as well as other aspects of creation, are not literal, but figurative...at what point in Genesis do/can we start reading Genesis literally? Thanks, PC We do know...it was 6 days according to God's word. What is being argued as not known is how long those days are. Are you speaking of evidence outside of Scripture? Because the only evidence I see in Scripture suggests that the 6 days were 6 days and not 6 indefinite periods of time. God defines "yom" for us within the context of Genesis 1 by the "morning and evening" clauses. When "yom" is used to speak about a period, age or era...a length of days, I don't see anywhere in Scripture where it is defined in this way as "days" that are outlined by "morning and evening." Blessings, Purp

To say this is to say that people's faith in God and that He is certainly powerful enough to have completed creation (by the power of His word, not time, by the way) in 6 days...is an embarrassment and discredits them and Christianity in some way. That is wrong. We might take a lesson from Job who, when God challenged him about His creation, Job just shut up, realizing that He didn't know much at all...just like we don't. Exodus 20:11"for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it." Exodus 31:17 "It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." The whole Sabbath was built upon the 6 day creation follwed by one day of rest. It is a very prominent them in the OT. To say of someones faith is an embarassment or is discredited because they believe that God not only could (because He is able), but did (because He said He did) create all things in 6 days is errant. **and still no old earth creationist has answered my question** Blessings, PC

Here's a good link! Also includes New Covenant Theology. Each side makes sense in places, each has some difficulties. You can find tons of info on the web via specific searches. Have fun..but don't get lost in it all! Purp

Sure horizoneast (read "heretic-east")! No problem (read "except that you're corrupt")! Happy to (read "set you straight in every way cuz I'm right")! HA! When I was reading your first line, I was thinking..."Man, what did I say?"...but then had to laugh. I don't know what happend last time, as I was on vacation, but I gather it must have been ugly! Just wanted to let you know that I didn't just let your question go, as it is a very valid one and did want to give you a response. We'll see how the KJ threads go! Blessings, PC

Not sure what happened to the last thread on this, but I come home from vacation to find it, not locked, but wiped out altogether, so I guess it was pretty bad! Anyway...horizoneast...you had asked a very good question about 2 Peter 2:1 and I was wondering if you were still interested in chatting? Purp

sola...you state... I agree that the KJ has had a wonderful influence and as stated before, I believe it is a fine translation, but one that has it's weaknesses and errors in it's translation. I'm curious about how you support your statement about other versions destroying fruit from genereations ago. The fact is that people, millions of people, have come to faith with non-KJ versions, just as millions have with the KJ. It's not the version that saves, but the work of the Spirit in people as they hear the word. Your last post said "fruit" was the test. If so, fruit has been born with other versions as well as the KJ, therefore the argument of "fruit" does not help support the KJ as only word of God. So your answer to the question about who first began claiming that the KJ is the ONLY true English version and that all others are corrupt is that you don't know? If that is correct then isn't it fair to say that you are following a teaching that you don't know who started? What if the guys who first began to teach that was "corrupt" himself? Would you still follow? Your donkey notion is just silly. Blessings, Purp

1- This question is completely irrelevant. 2- What does it matter? Its the translation they produced that is the issue. 3- Show me where Peter stated that what he wrote was inspired. 4- Show me where John said his writings were inspired. The point is not what the translators thought--and they did believe God's Hand was in their work, but rather, DID GOD USE THEM AND THEIR TRANSLATION? The answer to this is a infinite YES. Thge fruit of their work has been MONUMENTAL. We judge by fruit Chris. That answers your questions. FRUIT. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> sola...who then first claimed that the KJ is inerrantly inspired and the only true translation of God's word in English? To you the question I posed may be irrelevant, but not to me or many others. The KJ translatore knew they were not writing something new but translating something into a new language. They had no reason to claim that it is as you say it is, nor am I aware of any of them that did. If "fruit" is your bottom line, people have come to faith in Christ using many different versions...fruit. Do you claim (as some KJ onlyers do) that those who have come to faith via a non-KJ Bible are not truly saved? If you say yes, I'd say that is heresy. If you say no, "fruit" has ruined your own argument against other translations. soulwinner...you asked... Which questions are you referring to? Your last post I could find about them I answered. I'm happy to answer. Blessings, PC

Does anyone on the "KJ only" side have any serious answers to the legitimate questons raised in this thread? Curious, PC

Same old rhetoric, still now answers... PC

Thank you for the link BSWM but in looking at a few of the articles that may have addressed my questions, they did not. If you know of any specific answers to the questions I've asked, I'd be very interested to read them. Blessings, PC

Still no one has answers to the questions I've posted? It's not an argument to say something is right because it's right. Right LawyerForGod? The church being weak or Christians not knowing their Bible well isn't to be blamed on translations, but on people. And I know a both people and churches that don't claim the KJ is the only true Bible where both church and people are walking strongly with the Lord. Can one person who ascribes to the KJ only side please tell me the name of any of the KJ translators who made the same claim about the KJ that you do? Does anyone know who first made that claim? Anyone? Respectfully asking legitimate questions. PC

Home is a nice place to be! Back from a little vacation and visiting a lot of family!...but it's always good to get back home. Hi salt and light...miss me? I think it's safe to say that we won't find agreement in this area based on you quoting what you believe to be "corrupt" verses in non-KJ translations and me explaining why they are not corrupt. Your "proving" them to me as corrupt and my "proving" to you that they aren't is not getting us anywhere. I assume your Pastor would explain the word "apokopto" to your congregation and help them understand why Paul would use such a harsh term and what his readers would understand it to mean, wouldn't he? So would I. After reading that Judas was sad for betraying Jesus to the point of hanging himself, he wouldn't teach that sad people that are not saved should hang themselves, would he? Nor would I. And the explanation given for "strain at a gnat" was not correct. The KJ is translated in error. If you do not believe me, ask to see your Pastors copy of his Greek NT and check it out for yourself. Look at the word, look up it's meaning. Let me simply ask this...you reject the work of Wescott and Hort based on what you've read and heard about them being immoral. What do you know of the men that translated the KJ? Can you say that they were all moral men? And if you do not know all of them, how do you know they can be trusted as you obviously do? And related, I'll ask again...did any of the KJ translators make the same claim about it that you do? I will address this point... Actually I think you mean 11:37, not 36. I checked 36 and all the versions you listed translate it the same and have some different wording. For verse 37 the KJ and NKJ both have "God of his fathers" while the other versions have "gods of his fathers" and your point being that this verse is referring to God and the corruption is in the word being translated as "gods" instead, right? Let me ask, who is this verse speaking about? What is his name? Who are his fathers? Did they serve God or serve gods? It seems that the answer to those questions would indicate which translation is correct wouldn't they? Do you know the answers to those questions? If not, you can not determine that the KJ translation is correct just because it's the KJ. If the context of the passage indicates that this keing being spoken of is NOT a Jew and his fathers did NOT worship God, then it would be correct to say translate it as little "g" gods and incorrect to translate it as big "G" God. And regarding Psalm 8:5...what is the Hebrew word in the manuscripts the KJ is translated from? What does it mean? Fair questions I believe. Blessings, Chris

ESV - English Standard Version Very good translation. Free CD to boot! Purp

Hello salt and light, But there is much more to it than that and I thought that I was asking legitimate, rational questions that you felt were worthy of answering...why stop because we are not in agreement regarding differences in translation equallying corruption? The reason I wrote those quotes of Paul was simply to show that one can take various quotes from someone and paint them however good or bad they want to. As you rightly pointed out, Paul was struggling with the flesh, so do you and I, as I'm confident Wescott and Hort did as well. The questions about how you have come to the conclusion that they were corrupt and immoral men based on a few quotes is not a convincing argument. Regarding Gal. 5:12, the word Paul uses there is "apokopto" which means "to cut off, to cut away, amputate, mutilate" and is used in Mark 9:43, 45; John 18:10, 26 of cutting off a hand and an ear. In Galatians Paul is speaking aganist the one who is speaking against Paul and is preaching a "gospel" that puts people in bondage to legalism. And he uses harsh language hear that the Bible does use to speak of cutting off a body part, but of course here it is figurative, as he has just spoken about circumcision. Paul is not advocating the actual mutilation of a person and nor any version. Do you have any thoughts on the other questions I've asked? Even going back to the question about "strain at" a gnat being an error? Still willing, PC