Advanced Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

403 Excellent


About TheMatrixHasU71

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. The thing is though one thing we have to remember is that there are likely no real Hebrew/Greek experts here on this board (And I certainly never claimed to be one) We have to take it on faith that GOD would inspire the KJ translators to use the best manuscripts. Just because some men will say Erasmus's work is full of errors doesn't make it so. Many such commenters really aren't experts either.
  2. I didnt know that. What is the copyright date on yours? I have one at home (inheritance from father in law's estate and it is a 1952) I found a video on Youtube once, Billy Graham False prophet, that talks about the RSV bible which he often pushed and an eminent Hebrew scholar says that virgin vs young woman isn't by any means that only problem with that version. He didn't bring up any specifics but said that there are many places that were in clear violation of the Hebrew
  3. I see your interests. I think my husband would love you
  4. Yup
  5. Are we Sweden? Not quite but its coming. Pray for Canada as our PM Trudeau is an open and avowed Muslim who says that Islam is more peaceful than Christianity "After meeting thousands of new Syrian refugees, listening to their stories and learning more about the Muslim faith, I have learned to love Islam and the people of Islam. Islam promotes peace, not violence and is in fact more peaceful than Christianity. I feel like this is the religion I belong with and I should identify as." In 2017, Trudeau appointed Ahmed Hussen, a Muslim, as his Minister of Immigration. Over the next 18 years, Canada's Muslim population is projected to more than triple. PS...that your doggie? SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET
  6. Oh my brother forgive me I should have got the clue by your name you probably weren't a native English speaker. NO I wasn't speaking about foreign translations. I was speaking only of English translations. I can tell you there are plenty of good foreign translations out there as many bible translators do their utmost to translate them in the style of the KJV. Amongst ENGLISH translations there are many that deny the divinity of Jesus Christ or change certain passages regarding His first or second coming. Another example of a heresy found in some English bibles is Isaiah 7:14 where the "virgin" to bring forth the coming Christ is translated as "young woman" in the Revised Standard bible. Their claim is that the Hebrew word used, ALMA, more accurately translated as young woman Really...young woman...some miracle...happens every day. NO. Alma does translate as "young woman" but it does apply to "virgin" as well.
  7. Here's something I just found; interesting balanced view on the KJV Greek texts
  8. I already answered those things. Again maybe not as completely as I would have liked due to time constraints but I did answer them. I can try to add some more at a later time.
  9. Well since Jesus was fully divine and fully HUMAN I gotta say HIM
  10. What gets me is how the Church can dare make statues of Mary as Queen of Heaven while making Jesus as just a baby in her arms rather than treating Him as He is, her King, not her baby boy. Utter blasphemy. Another thing that goes back to the pagan mother-child mystery religions.
  11. I know how that feels
  12. KJV vs other bibles. Everyone knows that the KJV is the best known translation in history. It is also the most hotly disputed between those that accept the KJV only, like myself, and others who prefer modern translations because older translations didn’t have access to the most ancient texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls. Because of that, there are many who believe that the KJV is riddled with errors, and I would like to prove that is just not so. One thing I have noticed is that many people who are against the KJV are so because they really don’t understand the nature of the original texts nor the history of the KJV. Not having a computer, I cant do as thorough a study as I would like here but I will do my best. One thing that one does have to remember, as anyone knows anyway, is that no one translation is 100% free of error. Likewise no one original text is 100% free of error, not even the tiniest most insignificant ones. In any text there will always be things like, misspelled words, an unimportant word added or dropped, or the Greek equivalent of not dotting some Is or crossing a few Ts. God always has a reason for allowing this. To show ONLY GOD IS PERFECT NOT MAN. What matters is that none of these errors do anything to affect OT teaching or the Gospel message in any way. Ironically enough the so called most ancient texts available today are sometimes the WORST. The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are two that come ti mind because they drop several passages of Scripture. Even Origen, ironically himself a heretic, recognised that texts were already becoming corrupted. The NIV bible today is well known for using these two Egyptian texts as well as the heavily corrupted Greek translations written by the known occultists Westcott and Hort. Although amongst modern ENGLISH translations today, some are a fair bit better than others, they all uniformly water down scripture either to a greater or lesser degree, usually by denying the veracity of Scripture regarding the divinity or first and second comings of Christ. I would also like to forestall another argument that many, especially non Christians, have with the KJV, and that is the numerous revisions it has undergone. That is easily explained away by the fact that the early revisions were nothing more than the translators putting BACK into the bible words and phrases that got DROPPED, not by THEM but the PRINTERS. This was a notorious problem in the earlier days of printing, and bibles were not spared. There is, for example, an infamous KJV, nicknamed the Wicked Bible, because in it, Thou shalt NOT commit adultery drops the NOT (Some say the printer did that intentionally….hmm I wonder why lol). Later revisions were really not revisions at all the way we might understand them but just attempts at standardizing spelling and grammar. Some people who are against the KJV will use some horridly weak arguments like this site… On it they show a page of an original 1611 with its fancy calligraphy and archaic spellings and asks Can anyone read this? Well excuse me but people in the 1600s could read that so there goes that argument….we are simply not used to reading that style of writing so the answer is simple. DUUUH DON’T READ THE ORIGINAL!!! They also bring up another example The first example (Judges 19:2) below shows a place where the meaning of the Hebrew is obscure. Was it "4 months" or "a year and four months"??? Quite a difference! But the structure of the Hebrew makes it difficult to for any translators to know for sure which it is. So they show the alternate reading, NOT KNOWING THEMSELVES FOR SURE WHICH IS CORRECT! The simple answer to this is entirely due to the differences amongst some manuscripts. They choose according to majority rule. Though as the passage says the structure of the Hebrew can make thing a bit difficult as well. Also this is completely irrelevant anyway as this is yet another example of one of those unimportant errors that God allows in the bible. Surely these guys can do better than this. BTW the passage referred to here is this 19:2 And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah *, and was there four whole months I will just let things go with this as I don’t want this to get too long winded. So I will just leave off with a few other links on the history of the KJV including info on the Tyndale bible that was used in the translation process
  13. I would still like to ask (as I did the other day and again didn't get an answer from any Catholic) how can you accept such books as the apocryphals that have such totally in your face bad history and heretical teaching? Jesus would never lead us to reading such nonsense. Starting a thread on the KJV in General Discussion
  14. I admit I don't know too much about Carthage but it is unequivocally clear that the Church, even amongst some Catholics in earlier times, never fully accepted the Deuterocanonicals
  15. I'll try but have no time at the moment. That will have to come later. (I don't have a computer at home, I go to the library). This would make an interesting thread