nice verse

[RichardT]

Proverbs 26:4

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.


yup, ok, now i'm asking for it, that's ok, i'll defend myself this time..

[JacobHall86]

KJO
Landmarkism
Anti-Catholic Church
Go.

[RichardT]

KJO
Landmarkism
Anti-Catholic Church
Go.

It just takes a little bit of understanding for me to realize that most if not all of the arguments against the (King James) Bible are fundamentally flawed.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/jehovah.asp
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/ans001.asp
Since the original publication of the KJV, many new source documents, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been discovered, and a lot of other archeological research has been done in the last 400 years which improves our understanding of the original text, each of which aid enormously in making a better translation. To dismiss such additional source documents and research does a large disservice to the aims of a translation which is as good as it can possibly be.These are heretical manuscripts, they were not preserved by God, with some exceptions though.
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_36.asp
Any argument about translation should be based on discussion of the original text. It is not good translation to work backwards from an assumed theology to a translation. The translation should be based on the text and not the theology. For example, when statements such as "The NKJV removes the word 'hell' 23 times!" are made to somehow prove that the KJV is a more accurate translation, this is an argument based on theology, not on translation. In all scholarly modern translations, translators choose to use words which seem to best translate the original, even if that does not fit with anybody's theology nor support anybody's particular viewpoint. To attack any translation as somehow bad because it changes the message taught by the KJV is to elevate the KJV above the source documents in terms of reliability."gehenna" is correctly translated as "hell"

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/gehenna.asp
Literal translations and translations with archaic language actually make the translation harder for people to understand, not easier. It is desirable that translations are as easy to understand as necessary. The Bible is not some sort of magic charm in which the actual individual words have effect, but it is rather the message within it which is important, and so less literal translations can be very useful. Additionally it could be noted that the language of the 1611 edition was already becoming outdated even at the time it was printed. The weakness of changing speech usage leading to obscurity of meaning is a continuous problem, creating a strong argument against one fixed translation for all time for the "common people" to read."For just as no one revises Shakespeare or Milton, but instead learns the vocabulary necessary to understand those particular works; and just as a certain vocabulary is necessary to understand science, medicine, engineering, or computers; so to read and understand the Bible one must be familiar with the vocabulary of the AV instead of dragging it down to one's own level by revising it."
The KJV Only position also assumes that there is one definitive KJV, when in fact there were many editions and revisions. What most Christians call the "KJV" today is not the KJV of 1611. The "KJV" today is from the 1769 version, the last year it was revised. The removal of the Apocrypha from these editions is just one of many changes that have occurred over the years. So if there is only one true translation, one would have to know which of these KJV editions is the correct one. The original KJV not only included the Apocrypha (and calendars suggesting readings of the Apocrypha for the year along with the other books of the Bible) but also footnotes that indicated textual variants. The KJV Only position does not take these textual variants into account either.The KJV never held the apocrypha to be bible cannon, they had it in for historical reasons in 1611.
revisions? : http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp
apocrypha? : http://www.chick.com/bc/1999/apocrypha.asp

also, from wikipedia:

One misconception about the King-James-Only surrounds the Apocrypha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha). While most books of the Apocrypha are considered canonical by the Roman Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church), Eastern Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church) and Oriental Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy) churches, neither Jews nor Protestants consider them canonical. Reservations about the Apocrypha were expressed early on in the Protestant Reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation). Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther) himself translated the Apocrypha too; not because he believed it was the Word of God (and therefore Scripture), but because it was of "cultural relevance", and "of interest" — in the words of King James Version Defended, page 98: "books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.". Additionally, the Anglican Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Church) expressed some reservations about its status in Article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles).
Despite the reservations present early in the Reformation, many early editions of the King James Version included the translation of the Apocrypha between the testaments as reference material. However, over the years, the Apocrypha has come to be excluded from most printings of the KJV, although it is still included in the copy given to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom during the coronation ceremony.
If the KJV translators were literally inspired by God in the 17th century, why is God powerless to inspire later translators? There need not be a contradiction here if we believe God can inspire writers to make the speech easier to understand for modern audiences and account for printer errors made after the inspired translation. However the issue of inspired translation is problematic since logically an all-powerful God concerned with creating a perfect text could inspire everyone along the way, including and down to the individual reading the text and prevent them from error in understanding it (which gets into issues of revelation and free will). Finally this line of thought also asks why God would only preserve God's inspired text from the 17th century on (a small fraction of Christian history). Would it not be more reasonable to assume that the general sense of the text is unaffected and that translations are periodically a practical necessity to keep the text understandable to each new generation across the centuries and millennia of history?Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

http://momentin.com/images/kjv/kjvchartbig.gif (http://momentin.com/images/kjv/kjvchartbig.gif)
On the side of those believing in modern translations, both as translators and publishers, there are men and women as equally believing in God and all the doctrines which Christianity strongly teaches as on the side of KJV. To suggest that somehow those on the side of modern translations are somehow less committed to the doctrines of the Bible is simply false.We never claimed that. Someone who uses modern versions of the bible can still be saved as long as he/she believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and is born again.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_35.asp

Though I found this to be really blasphemous from the NIV: http://www.chick.com/information/bib...cles/saved.asp (http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/saved.asp)
If theology "uniquely" taught by the KJV determines how we ought to translate the Bible, this suggests that there is a higher authority than Scripture for teaching revelation, which contradicts the widely held Protestant doctrine of "Scripture Alone." Most KJV-Only Christians claim to uphold this doctrine yet do not see the contradiction.We believe God preserves his Word, and so did Luther.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns88.html
The suggestion that modern translators are somehow adding to scripture or changing scripture as the Bible expressly forbids is false. A modern translator believes whole heartedly that the original scriptures (the source documents) must not be added to or changed, but that the translator has the freedom to try and translate those documents in the best way possible. The modern-day translator is simply seeking to bring the Bible message to people in words they can understand. The presence of textual variants in the original KJV could also be accused of "adding to scripture" along this same line of thinking, thus the accusation would prove too much.No, it is true, the NIV, for example removes many verses and good sayings, even by our Lord Jesus Christ.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
The KJV-Only position of viewing a particular English translation as the only correct one is illogical in the context of the many languages in the world. For example, are the French supposed to read the KJV? Only the original Greek and Hebrew documents are the valid basis, and all translations into all languages can be judged as better or worse according to different generally-applicable criteria.The French can read a translation that is based on the maseretic text for the OT and the greek textus receptus for the NT.
http://www.wayoflife.org/language/languages.htm
The KJV-Only position is actually harmful to God's purposes of making known the Bible to all the world, since it actually makes it harder for people to understand, it therefore makes it harder for people to enter the Kingdom of God. It is fine if an individual is able to understand the KJV, but is it really God's desire that those who do not find it easy to read should be hindered from finding God? The apostle Paul was passionate about making the gospel known to people in whatever way possible, for example 1 Corinthians 9:22 (KJV) Paul says, "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some". Shouldn't translators today be still wanting to make the message of God clear to people?The KJV is not hard to read.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/superiority.htm
The pleasantness of the KJV is a matter of opinion and not a fact.irrelevant.
"Only the KJV is translated from the true original text" This argument shows a lack of knowledge of biblical research. There are no originals. We have a variety of manuscripts, but we do not know for certain which of these are the original documents. Find a copy of the Greek text and look at all of the footnotes on the variations in the manuscripts. If anything, our understanding of what would have been the original text is better now than it was in 1611.Where are your scources(from wikipedia)? We never claimed that the KJV was translated from the originals, but that the KJV was preserved by God through various preserved manuscripts.

[RichardT]

The principal arguments for KJV only are:
Uses the Textus Receptus and Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text for translation, which we believe to be the preserved original text
Modern translations have theological differences, for example:
The Deity of Jesus Christ is attacked in various places in all of the modern versions (see Gen 22:8, Mic 5:2, 1Tim 3:16, Heb 1:8), despite the identification with antichrist in 1Jn 4:3 for making such denial, and likewise references to worshipping Jesus Christ (Luke 24:52);
The Trinity is attacked. Most modern versions delete 1Jn 5:7 and then split either v6 or v8 to make a counterfeit v7.;
The virgin birth is attacked, by altering Isa 7:14 in some versions, despite its quotation in Matt 1:23;
The doctrine of a literal fiery burning hell is attacked, by changing the word 'hell' to words such as 'depths', 'grave', 'hades', etc. The NIV for example also deletes one of two instances of the phrase Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. in Mark 9:44-48;
The divine promise for the preservation of scripture is attacked by replacing Psa 12:7, mostly in the form of changing them (KJV) to us (modern);
The salvation of the repentant thief is attacked by removing Lord from Luke 23:42;
The first Gentile salvation recorded in scripture, the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39), is attacked by most modern versions deleting all of Acts 8:37, his saving testimony, which also sets the Biblical requirement for Believer's Baptism, ...If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest...;
The salvation of St. Paul is attacked, by altering Acts 9:6;
The blood atonement of Jesus Christ is attacked in several places, one example being the removal of through his blood from Col 1:14;
Salvation as a one time, permenently settled event in the life of any believer is attacked by inserting the word being into 1Cor 1:18;
The ascension of Jesus Christ is attacked by removing and carried up into heaven from Luke 24:51, despite Luke's own reference to the ending of his Gospel in Acts 1:2;
Salvation as a prerequisite for being in heaven is attacked by removing of them which are saved from Rev 21:24, a book which in itself contains an explicit warning against adding unto or taking away from its text (Rev 22:18-19).
A dynamic translation distorts the message of the original. Only a very literal translation such as the KJV could be considered faithful to the original documents.
From a literary point of view, some consider the KJV to be the best of all English bibles in its use of poetic devices (alliteration, rhyme, syllabic rhythm, etc.) to enhance meaning, making memorization and understanding easier. Similarly, some say the KJV is the most pleasant to hear read aloud.
The “archaic” pronouns of the Elizabethan English used in the KJV, often seen as confusing to modern readers, actually clarify the meaning, primarily due to retaining distinct number (singular vs. plural) and case (nominative vs. objective) variations for the Second Person personal pronoun. The argument is that the resulting confusion that can result from rendering all such pronouns as the modern “you” can actually change important doctrine, including the most basic requirement for salvation itself. Modern translations have Jesus telling Nicodemus in John 3:7 (for instance: NASB), “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’” Did this mean that only Nicodemus had to be born again, or everyone? The KJV says, “Marvel not that I said unto thee [singular objective], ye [plural nominative] must be born again.” The use of the older distinct pronouns therein clarifies that Jesus was saying this unto Nicodemus individually, but about multiple people, namely, everyone. (It should be noted that even less educated English speakers noticed at least the importance of the loss of the distinct singular and plural versions of the pronoun, and invented their own replacements in their dialects. The U.S. Southerners have “you all” which became contracted to “y’all,” and even “all y’all” [“all of you all”], while New Yorkers have “you’se,” “you’ses,” “you guys,” and even “you’se guys.” There are other examples as well. It should also be noted that these pronouns were already well on their way out at the time of the KJV translation, and many contemporaries were already not using them and preferring the unified Second Person personal pronouns, implying that the KJV translators used the older distinct ones intentionally.)
The translators and publishers of modern translators are seen to be ignoring the warnings against changing the Bible, for example:Revelation 22:18-1918 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


I know you don't find Chick to be a reliable scource, but

what Samuel C. Gipp wrote on the site in the links I provided are good.

[RichardT]

Anti-Catholic Churchi'm not going to answer this for fear of getting banned...

[christian73]

Richard,

The KJV is not the only true translation. I think this horse has been beaten before. The KJV has errors in it. It was translated by men just like other translations. To say that the KJV is the only true translation is just wrong.

[RichardT]

Richard,

The KJV is not the only true translation. I think this horse has been beaten before. The KJV has errors in it. It was translated by men just like other translations. To say that the KJV is the only true translation is just wrong.

No, it is biblical to think that God has preserved his FULL WORD to us today!

from http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html :

Psalm 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that ". . . . his truth endureth to all generations," and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God's WORD is truth.
These words state very clearly that God's preserved word MUST be available to us today, because God PROMISED to preserve it for us. There MUST be an infallible Book somewhere.

You say, "But ALL translations are God's word, not just one." That's impossible, because the various translations contain different readings, and God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33). Besides, if all of the versions are the word of God, then where are the "corrupt" and "perverted" versions that we are warned about in II Corinthians 2:17 and Jeremiah 23:36? If everyone is innocent, then where are those who are said to be GUILTY of subtracting from and adding to the word of God (Rev. 22:18-19)? God wouldn't have warned us about Bible perversion if it wasn't going to be a reality. According to the scriptures, there must be a single Book that is the word of God, and there must be MANY which are involved in CORRUPTING the word of God.

Now, if the Authorized Version isn't the infallible word of God, then WHAT IS? There has to be a Book somewhere in "all generations" which is God's word; so what book is it? Those who "use" the new versions believe that these are good and reliable translations, but they do NOT believe these to be INFALLIBLE translations. However, I know MANY people who believe the King James Bible to be an infallible Book. Why? Because they know that the One True God has ONE TRUE BOOK. He promised to preserve His words, and we believe that He has done just that. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). If His words didn't pass away, then where are they? I want to read them. There has to be a perfect volume somewhere. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because God promised to preserve His words.

Because God Always Translates Perfectly
The words "translate" and "translated" occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. The scholars insist that the KJV cannot be infallible, because it is "only a translation." Do you suppose that such scholars have checked II Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, and Hebrews 11:5 to see what GOD has to say about translating?

In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul's kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What's the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.

When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament (Mt. 1:23; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; I Cor. 2:9; Gal. 3:13, etc.), they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE "ORIGINAL GREEK" ISN'T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text!

Obviously God assisted them in their translating by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and He assisted the King James translators as well. The scholars will never understand this, for most of them have QUENCHED the Holy Spirit in their own lives by looking to higher education for truth, rather than seeking the Lord's leadership (Jn. 16:13).

The Holy Spirit Who inspired the word of God through "holy men of God" (II Pet. 1:21) is quite capable of guiding His servants to KEEP the words which Jesus told us to keep (Jn. 14:23). In essence, the KJV translators were merely INSTRUMENTS which God used in translating and preserving His word. In fact, they said this themselves in the Dedicatory to the Authorized Version: ". . . . because we are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people. . . "

I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because God is very capable of using anyone He pleases as His very own instruments of righteousness in order to preserve His word.

[christian73]

No, it is biblical to think that God has preserved his FULL WORD to us today!

from http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html :

Psalm 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that ". . . . his truth endureth to all generations," and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God's WORD is truth.
These words state very clearly that God's preserved word MUST be available to us today, because God PROMISED to preserve it for us. There MUST be an infallible Book somewhere.

You say, "But ALL translations are God's word, not just one." That's impossible, because the various translations contain different readings, and God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33). Besides, if all of the versions are the word of God, then where are the "corrupt" and "perverted" versions that we are warned about in II Corinthians 2:17 and Jeremiah 23:36? If everyone is innocent, then where are those who are said to be GUILTY of subtracting from and adding to the word of God (Rev. 22:18-19)? God wouldn't have warned us about Bible perversion if it wasn't going to be a reality. According to the scriptures, there must be a single Book that is the word of God, and there must be MANY which are involved in CORRUPTING the word of God.

Now, if the Authorized Version isn't the infallible word of God, then WHAT IS? There has to be a Book somewhere in "all generations" which is God's word; so what book is it? Those who "use" the new versions believe that these are good and reliable translations, but they do NOT believe these to be INFALLIBLE translations. However, I know MANY people who believe the King James Bible to be an infallible Book. Why? Because they know that the One True God has ONE TRUE BOOK. He promised to preserve His words, and we believe that He has done just that. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). If His words didn't pass away, then where are they? I want to read them. There has to be a perfect volume somewhere. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because God promised to preserve His words.

Because God Always Translates Perfectly
The words "translate" and "translated" occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. The scholars insist that the KJV cannot be infallible, because it is "only a translation." Do you suppose that such scholars have checked II Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, and Hebrews 11:5 to see what GOD has to say about translating?

In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul's kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What's the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.

When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament (Mt. 1:23; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; I Cor. 2:9; Gal. 3:13, etc.), they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE "ORIGINAL GREEK" ISN'T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text!

Obviously God assisted them in their translating by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and He assisted the King James translators as well. The scholars will never understand this, for most of them have QUENCHED the Holy Spirit in their own lives by looking to higher education for truth, rather than seeking the Lord's leadership (Jn. 16:13).

The Holy Spirit Who inspired the word of God through "holy men of God" (II Pet. 1:21) is quite capable of guiding His servants to KEEP the words which Jesus told us to keep (Jn. 14:23). In essence, the KJV translators were merely INSTRUMENTS which God used in translating and preserving His word. In fact, they said this themselves in the Dedicatory to the Authorized Version: ". . . . because we are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people. . . "

I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because God is very capable of using anyone He pleases as His very own instruments of righteousness in order to preserve His word.
Acts 5:30 is one example of an error. Plus, those 2 verses in Psalms do not mention the KJV or the AV, so that doesn't prove your point.

[RichardT]

Acts 5:30 is one example of an error. Plus, those 2 verses in Psalms do not mention the KJV or the AV, so that doesn't prove your point.

I believe that if God should preserve his word, that he should preserve it without error. I really like the verse of my avatar.

Matt. 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

If Jesus' words shall not pass away, where would God preserve them? In manuscripts used by protestant reformers and bible believers throughtout the centuries, or from vaticanus and sinaticanus?

[RichardT]

Acts 5:30 is one example of an error. Plus, those 2 verses in Psalms do not mention the KJV or the AV, so that doesn't prove your point.

I showed you earlier why Acts 5:30 was not an error in the other thread. Why bring this up again? Fine, i'll go find what I replied..

[christian73]

I believe that if God should preserve his word, that he should preserve it without error. I really like the verse of my avatar.

Matt. 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

If Jesus' words shall not pass away, where would God preserve them? In manuscripts used by protestant reformers and bible believers throughtout the centuries, or from vaticanus and sinaticanus?
There's a saying I learned when I studied the Book of Revelation that says that you can get so focused on the details that you can miss the message. ("you" meant in the plural sense). I think that applies here.

[RichardT]

There's a saying I learned when I studied the Book of Revelation that says that you can get so focused on the details that you can miss the message. ("you" meant in the plural sense). I think that applies here.

I can't seem to find the refutation I wrote up about Acts 5:30... I g2g now, i'll try to find it later, it's in one of the big KJB issue threads..

[christian73]

I can't seem to find the refutation I wrote up about Acts 5:30... I g2g now, i'll try to find it later, it's in one of the big KJB issue threads..
ok. No problem. :)

[RichardT]

ok. No problem. :)

Have you read it, though?

[GordonSlocum]

Proverbs 26:4

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.


yup, ok, now i'm asking for it, that's ok, i'll defend myself this time..
The flesh compels us to answer, but when we have Scripture as you have drawn our attention to we are reminded that there are times we just need to be silent.

Thanks for the reminder.

[Pepperoni]

I have a feeling I'm going to regret asking this, but . . .

Where is the error in Acts 5:30?

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Am I reading the right verse?

[RichardT]

I have a feeling I'm going to regret asking this, but . . .

Where is the error in Acts 5:30?

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Am I reading the right verse?

That's because there is no error, and ya, you're reading the right verse.

[christian73]

Have you read it, though?
If you're referring to your post in the other thread concerning Acts 5:30, yes I have read it.

[christian73]

I have a feeling I'm going to regret asking this, but . . .

Where is the error in Acts 5:30?

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Am I reading the right verse?
The error is in the last phrase "whom ye slew and hanged on a tree". The way it's worded makes it sound like they killed Him and then hung Him on the cross." I'm not saying in any way that the translators intended it to come out that way, that's just how it comes out. In my opinion, I like the modern translations like the NIV and the NLT where it says "they killed Him by hanging Him on a cross".

[RichardT]

The error is in the last phrase "whom ye slew and hanged on a tree". The way it's worded makes it sound like they killed Him and then hung Him on the cross." I'm not saying in any way that the translators intended it to come out that way, that's just how it comes out. In my opinion, I like the modern translations like the NIV and the NLT where it says "they killed Him by hanging Him on a cross".

aw gee, I already gave out a perfectly good response to this, but now it's lost, I don't want to have to write it up again :(

[christian73]

aw gee, I already gave out a perfectly good response to this, but now it's lost, I don't want to have to write it up again :(
Are ou referring to your post in the other thread? If you want, I'll be happy to help you find it.

[RichardT]

Are ou referring to your post in the other thread? If you want, I'll be happy to help you find it.

thanks man.

[christian73]

thanks man.
No problem! :)

[christian73]

aw gee, I already gave out a perfectly good response to this, but now it's lost, I don't want to have to write it up again :(


I think I found it, Richard. Is this it?


It was to fullfill some OT prophecy of the messiah being crusified on a tree, I forget where it's from, though.

I'm sorry, i'll get you a better answer later.. No time now.. I g2g. Can't find my scources just yet..

edit : Oh, i'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the "tree" part, but you were really talking about how the wording is

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."


Well, that's easy. They did slay and hang Jesus on the cross. Just not one after the other.

Remeber, the verse does not say "whom ye slew and THEN hanged on a tree."

If it did, we would have something to talk about.

From : http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_ac5_30.html

Quote:
In English, the word and does not usually mean a period of time, as is suggested with the addition of the word then. The text is not saying that the Jews murdered Christ and then placed him on the cross. The word and is a conjunction which simply links two thoughts together. As such, it is used as the word further. We understand the text to mean that the Jews were responsible for killing their Messiah. Further, they were responsible for having him placed on the cross. This is a proper use of English. When one assumes that the text is stating that the Jews murdered the Lord and then crucified him, they are reading their own thoughts into the text. The translation "whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" is just as correct as the translation "whom you killed by hanging on the tree."

[RichardT]

I think I found it, Richard. Is this it?

yup, thanks.

[christian73]

yup, thanks.
That specific quote proves my point. That verse may not contain an error (it does make sense), but it also says that the modern translations say the same thing as the KJV. Therefor, it could be concluded that the KJV is not the only real translation.

btw, you're welcome. I'm glad I could help. :)

[RichardT]

That specific quote proves my point. That verse may not contain an error (it does make sense), but it also says that the modern translations say the same thing as the KJV. Therefor, it could be concluded that the KJV is not the only real translation.

btw, you're welcome. I'm glad I could help. :)

All I wanted to show was that Acts 5:30 was not an error in the KJV.

[JacobHall86]

Noone has said the KJV wasnt a good translation, nor that we didnt use it, or that it was chocked full of errors, simply that it wasnt the ONLY translation to use. The rest are not heretical.

[RichardT]

Noone has said the KJV wasnt a good translation, nor that we didnt use it, or that it was chocked full of errors, simply that it wasnt the ONLY translation to use. The rest are not heretical.

Many persons were saying that the KJV had errors. I'm arguing for the innerency of the KJB.

[JacobHall86]

We never said it was chocked full of errors, sure it has errors, its a translation, but not chocked full of them.

[christian73]

All I wanted to show was that Acts 5:30 was not an error in the KJV.
I think you did that well too. I can buy that explanation. But can you say based on that quote that the KJV is the only real translation?