niv

[KiwiChristian]

12 hours ago, warrior12 said:

 

Viewing the original 1611 KJV with archaic English spelling.
Click to switch to the Standard KJV.

 

1In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.

2And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.

5And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

 

Are you really serious here?

 

My KJV says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.", etc.

Anyhow, i CAN read and understand what you quoted.

 

12 hours ago, warrior12 said:

Hope you get my point.  The KJV you read online is not the original grammar and the standard ones that we read today off course was updated to modern english .  see above example.   

Yes, i get your point. You hate the KJV and your heart is hardened.

Would it be better if i change all my quotes from "kjv" to "modern KJV" ?

 

You also again are willfully ignorant.

 

We are NOT talking about bringing words "up to date" here anyhow!

 

 

12 hours ago, warrior12 said:

type the following in the youtube search box and you will find a 3 hour debate on the transalators of the modern versions of bibles. "kjv only debate".

LOL.

 

also type in "kjv only debate refuted".

 

See? we can go back and forth telling eachother to google this, or youtube search that. It gets us nowhere.

 

if you are referring to the john ankerberg fiasco, then you need a better and more honest video. one that john did not have edited.

But no, you don't WANT the truth.

 

 

[warrior12]

38 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

Are you really serious here?

 

My KJV says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.", etc.

Anyhow, i CAN read and understand what you quoted.

 

Quote

Hope you get my point.  The KJV you read online is not the original grammar and the standard ones that we read today off course was updated to modern english .  see above example.   

Yes, i get your point. You hate the KJV and your heart is hardened.

Would it be better if i change all my quotes from "kjv" to "modern KJV" ?

 

You also again are willfully ignorant.

 

We are NOT talking about bringing words "up to date" here anyhow!

 

 

Quote

type the following in the youtube search box and you will find a 3 hour debate on the transalators of the modern versions of bibles. "kjv only debate".

LOL.

 

also type in "kjv only debate refuted".

 

See? we can go back and forth telling eachother to google this, or youtube search that. It gets us nowhere.

 

if you are referring to the john ankerberg fiasco, then you need a better and more honest video. one that john did not have edited.

But no, you don't WANT the truth.

 

Hold it there mister.  Don't get on your high horses yet, not so fast.  So you said i hated the KJV.   Not so at all.  Go back and check every post i made on this forum and see what version i post and i do post the version of scripture i use.  I think your lack of reasoning and following my post are confusing you.  Don't go about in your rash manner calling people "ignorant" when it is not warranted, this is how things go hay wire.  So next time before you pull out those shooters, think first or ask reasonable questions.   

Not because you are an advocate for KJV, you can go about bashing everyone on the head who is not, this is still a democracy the last time i looked.  

Sorry for the rant, but i don't think you should be calling me ignorant, when you have not done your homework.  

FYI.  My preference is the NASB as it is a more literal translation and i do like and use the KJV too.  

Actually, you don't have to go far, look at my signature and see what version is there !!

Edited March 28, 2018 by warrior12

[KiwiChristian]

On 3/28/2018 at 12:55 PM, warrior12 said:

Hold it there mister.  Don't get on your high horses yet, not so fast.

 

 

"mister" ? ok.

 

Now, YOU too hold it there, my friend.

 

If i have ever given you the impression that i am on a "high horse" or that i think i am better in anyway to you, then i apologise.

 

I am a dirty, rotten, filthy, disgusting sinner and i deserve hell. Just like you and everyone else in the world.

So lets cut that out right now.

 

On 3/28/2018 at 12:55 PM, warrior12 said:

 

 So you said i hated the KJV.   Not so at all.  Go back and check every post i made on this forum and see what version i post and i do post the version of scripture i use.  I think your lack of reasoning and following my post are confusing you.

 

No doubt i can be confused. Especially when people cannot stick to a topic.

 

Lack of reasoning? I dont think i lack reason.

 

I am happy to reason with someone if they stick to one topic at a time and dont answer a question with a question. two pet hates of mine.

On 3/28/2018 at 12:55 PM, warrior12 said:

 Don't go about in your rash manner calling people "ignorant" when it is not warranted, this is how things go hay wire.  So next time before you pull out those shooters, think first or ask reasonable questions.   

Hmm "rash".

 

"acting or done without careful consideration of the possible consequences;"

 

I deny the premise that i do not consider the consequences of my words.

 

I am direct and to the point.

 

I have no time for political correctness like we are seeing in the US these days where people are too scared to say anything in case of they offend anyone. Are we babies here?

 

Jesus told it like it is. He called people vipers, snakes, hypocrites and told people they were going to hell.

When i used the word "ignorant", it was not to be insulting.

 

I find many people who hate or dislike the KJV or say it is not good do not know the history of it and the modern versions.

 

On 3/28/2018 at 12:55 PM, warrior12 said:

Not because you are an advocate for KJV, you can go about bashing everyone on the head who is not, this is still a democracy the last time i looked.  

Sorry for the rant, but i don't think you should be calling me ignorant, when you have not done your homework.  

FYI.  My preference is the NASB as it is a more literal translation and i do like and use the KJV too.  

Actually, you don't have to go far, look at my signature and see what version is there !!

Ah, the NASB. man, do i have some shocking information on that!

 

 

[KiwiChristian]

On 3/27/2018 at 7:28 PM, Joulre2abba said:

Do you really think that engaging in sex orgies in a pagan temple would mean that they would limit themselves to hetero sex?

Do you think homosexuals are prostitutes?

[KiwiChristian]

On 3/28/2018 at 2:48 AM, LadyKay said:

I don't have time for all of this. But if I can find the time I will take a look at how my Holman Study Bible was translated. I am not sure what you mean as side-notes. As for understanding the KJV, I personally do not have too much of an issue understanding it. But I do not speak for others.  There is indeed a reason to bash false translations this is true. But the NIV is not a false translation. 

You are right.

 

The NIV is a good translation.

 

OF THE WRONG TEXT.

[KiwiChristian]

On 3/28/2018 at 7:51 AM, BeyondET said:

I mentioned it, he translated the Syriac peshito to English, no it doesn't that why he walked away from all that, a one verse example below

matt 5

28 But I say to you, That whoever gazeth on a woman with concupiscence, at once committeth adultery with her in his heart.

Just did a quick research and it appears the syriac peshito did come through the antioch text line, so at least the source for it was good.

[warrior12]

25 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

Jesus told it like it is. He called people vipers, snakes, hypocrites and told people they were going to hell.

When i used the word "ignorant", it was not to be insulting.

 

I find many people who hate or dislike the KJV or say it is not good do not know the history of it and the modern versions.

If you can't have civil conversation, then move on to your next customer, cause i ain't entertaining your crap.   You ain't Jesus and yes, you have not done your research on the very topic you are blundering your character for. 

[Guest Butero]

32 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

You are right.

 

The NIV is a good translation.

 

OF THE WRONG TEXT.

It is not even a good translation of a counterfeit text.  The NIV translators willfully created a gender neutral Bible, even though they knew that contradicted the original text, even in their incomplete manuscripts.  I won't use any translation but the KJV Bible, but the best modern English translation is hands down the NKJV Bible.  To this day, I have not understood why we ever needed so many modern English translations.  The NKJV took care of the complaint about old English, so why all of this love for dozens of translations that remove part of the original text?  

The way I see it, if you want the most accurate translation, stick with the Authorized KJV Bible.  If you are someone that absolutely demands a modern English translation, use the NKJV Bible.  I don't particularly like it, but at least it is complete.  At least it doesn't remove part of the text from the canon, and discredit things like Mark 16:9-20, turning it into the equivalent of apocrypha.  

[Guest Butero]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 7:10 AM, warrior12 said:

 

Viewing the original 1611 KJV with archaic English spelling.
Click to switch to the Standard KJV.

 

1In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.

2And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.

5And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

Hope you get my point.  The KJV you read online is not the original grammar and the standard ones that we read today off course was updated to modern english .  see above example.   

type the following in the youtube search box and you will find a 3 hour debate on the transalators of the modern versions of bibles. "kjv only debate".

I have a 1611 KJV Bible reprint that I have read cover to cover 3 times.  The only changes in the Authorized KJV Bible is the spelling.  The problem with the modern translations is not modern English or spelling.  The problem with them is almost all of them leave out portions of the text that was once considered part of a closed canon, and the fact they make serious changes to the meaning of certain verses.  If all that was done in the modern translations was that they made it readable for today's reader, I would have no problem with them.  My issue is they all have different degrees of changes.  The one with the least amount of changes is the NKJV Bible.  

As for the supposed issue of all of these changes in the KJV Bible, that is propaganda put out by defenders of modern translations.  You had one major change in the spelling that took place, and that was it when it comes to the books of the canon.  The 1611 Edition includes the Apocrypha in the middle, but that isn't part of the canon and never was.  I personally like having it, but I don't consider it the equal of scripture.  The other so called changes were not changes to the translation, but you had some publishing mistakes in certain editions that were naturally fixed in the following edition.  The propagandists call those translation changes.  I have an Authorized KJV Bible with one such error in it, but that has zero to do with the translation, and is the fault of the publisher.  I am very much up on this topic, as I have been defending the KJV only position for decades.  

I am also aware of what the translators wrote in 1611 about other translations, but at the time, the only real competition they had was the Geneva Bible, and it came from the same original manuscripts and included the entire text.  They weren't dealing with dozens of translations that left out portions of the text from a supposedly closed canon.  Next to the KJV Bible, if I had to go with something else, I would use the Geneva Bible.  

[KiwiChristian]

1 hour ago, warrior12 said:

If you can't have civil conversation, then move on to your next customer, cause i ain't entertaining your crap.   You ain't Jesus and yes, you have not done your research on the very topic you are blundering your character for. 

God bless you.