Where have all the KJV defenders gone?

[BereanTodd]

Snake handling? Huh????? Now you are attributing KJV defenders to snake handlers? There is no snake handling in the KJV.

The ending of Mark 16, which it is debateable if it is in the originals, speaks of:

Mark 16:they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well

Now the newer versions all include this section, but whether verses 9-20 were a part of the original Markan letter is highly debatable. there are some denominations that do snake handling, and people have died in the services, and they use this passage as their scriptural support for it.

 

[tracifish]

The ending of Mark 16, which it is debateable if it is in the originals, speaks of:

Mark 16:they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well

Now the newer versions all include this section, but whether verses 9-20 were a part of the original Markan letter is highly debatable. there are some denominations that do snake handling, and people have died in the services, and they use this passage as their scriptural support for it.

Okay. I didn't know that....but it would still depend who "they" is...and it could be talking about the 144,000 jewish people during the tribulation. Either way, I'm sure it is not a command to handle snakes...

 

[talitha]

Check out this website - http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm - there is good info there, even though the site could use a makeover.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, all ---

I'm a King James Only man, myself; and I would like to ask anyone who subscribes to another translation a simple question:

According to your translation, what was Satan's angelic name?

The King James Version exposes him, does your translation do the same?

 

[IronWill]

Hi, all ---

I'm a King James Only man, myself; and I would like to ask anyone who subscribes to another translation a simple question:

According to your translation, what was Satan's angelic name?

The King James Version exposes him, does your translation do the same?

איך נפלת משׁמים הילל בן־שׁחר נגדעת לארץ חולשׁ על־גוים׃

The word translated "Lucifer" in this passage actually means "morning star." "Lucifer" is something brought about by the English translators. It does not exist in the Hebrew text.

 

[talitha]

interesting article on that subject - if you dare -

Notes on Lucifer

 

[oliveplants]

I'm a KJV mostly.

I enjoy other versions, esp CJB, but I think the KJV is much preferred over the other popular modern translations. (I like the old ones; I have a 1611KJV, a Geneva Bible, and a Tyndale. I'd like to get Wycliffe, but I don't guess they make his anymore.)

 

[AV1611VET]

איך נפלת משׁמים הילל בן־שׁחר נגדעת לארץ חולשׁ על־גוים׃

The word translated "Lucifer" in this passage actually means "morning star." "Lucifer" is something brought about by the English translators. It does not exist in the Hebrew text.

Hi, IronWill ---

Thanks for the reply, bro; but I'm not interested in what his name isn't - I'm interested in what his name is.

What was Satan's angelic name, before he became 'Satan'?

 

[AV1611VET]

interesting article on that subject - if you dare -

Notes on Lucifer

I skimmed over that article rather quickly from top to bottom; this caught my eye:

Our purpose is not to determine the identity of the person addressed in v. 12 ...

I'm interested though in what his angelic name was.

 

[arunma]

Hi, IronWill ---

Thanks for the reply, bro; but I'm not interested in what is name isn't - I'm interested in what his name is.

What was Satan's angelic name, before he became 'Satan'?

What evidence is there that Satan even has an "angelic name?"

 

[AV1611VET]

What evidence is there that Satan even has an "angelic name?"

He is identified, by name, in the following:

• AV1611 King James Version
• AV1587 Geneva Bible
• AV1568 Bishop's Bible
• AV1389 Wycliffe Bible

Reducing his name to a description is poor Bible interpretation.

My first name is Phillip.

What would you think if I robbed a bank, and left behind my first name; and they put up wanted posters on me saying:

• WANTED: LOVER OF HORSES

That wouldn't be too bright, would it?

 

[talitha]

What evidence is there that Satan even has an "angelic name?"

Hmmm....... I know that "Satan" is not actually a name but a title - means "accuser" - something like "prosecuting attorney"...... and the article I referenced has cast some doubt on that name being "Lucifer" - although I suppose Erasmus could've been inspired as he wrote the translation - the name could've been a prophetic revelation - but then that brings up a whole 'nother issue, which some rule probably forbids me from discussing here...... so I'll leave it at that ......

blessings
tal

 

[BereanTodd]

He is identified, by name, in the following:

• AV1611 King James Version
• AV1587 Geneva Bible
• AV1568 Bishop's Bible
• AV1389 Wycliffe Bible

Reducing his name to a description is poor Bible interpretation.

My first name is Phillip.

What would you think if I robbed a bank, and left behind my first name; and they put up wanted posters on me saying:

• WANTED: LOVER OF HORSES

That wouldn't be too bright, would it?

You do understand that the word Lucifer does not come from the original languages, and is nowhere taught specifically by Scripture. Here is the etymology of the word, if you care to consider:

Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "light-bearer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), a Roman astrological term for the "Morning Star", the planet Venus. The word Lucifer was the direct translation of the Greekeosphoros ("dawn-bearer"; cf. Greek phosphoros, "light-bearer") used by Jerome in the Vulgate, having mythologically the same meaning as Prometheus who brought fire to humanity.

 

[BereanTodd]

I am still waiting for and would love any KJO advocates to address my points from post #39 of this thread as well.

 

[talitha]

Reducing his name to a description is poor Bible interpretation.

That is an interesting argument, considering that the Bible does not actually contain the name of the Lord, spelled out, and that He is not usually referred to by Israelis past or present by His name, but by descriptive titles - ElShaddai, ElElyon, Adonai, etc.

 

[diamondjoust]

by listing verses and words you say are "missing", "mistranslated", or "erroneous" in the KJV, because you are arrogantly working without absolute parameters as to what really are the original words of God in the New Testament, because you don't have the originals, and are only assuming, largely by a deductive process, that the extant copies of the original texts are the full complement of the bona fide text of the New Testament as it was originally given by God.
I personally use the KJV to correct extant copies of the Greek text in many cases, because it stands out so plainly as a superior text in so many places; and I've always found that when I do that the doctrine that it teaches in those places harmonizes with biblical doctrine through and through, and often exposes the so-called extant copies of the originals in those places as teaching doctrine that is fraudulent or erroneous.
Just one example, as I'm short on time...
You say "the bright and morning star" (Rev. 22.16) is not in any of the extant Greek manuscripts, but I ask how do you know it was not in the original text, or in copies of the original the KJV translators had that are no longer extant? I like that appellation of Christ as it reads in the KJV, and don't intend to change it, because I believe that would be corrupting God's words with something false.
I notice that Christ's appellation of the "the bright and morning star" is appropriately distinct from and superior to "the morning star", which is given to the overcomer in Rev. 2.28; because it includes the adjective "bright". It's also distinct from and obviously superior to Lucifer's, which is given in the Old Testament as "son of the morning", which also lacks the adjective "bright", and is distinct as "son" not "star", even if you think "son" and "star" are synonymous there.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do understand that the word Lucifer does not come from the original languages, and is nowhere taught specifically by Scripture.

I am not interested in etymology, as I am KJVO.

The "O" in KJVO means that I couldn't care less if the word "Lucifer" means "ant hill".

What I'm challenging people to do, is simply tell me his name.

You can spend all day telling me what it isn't --- give me one post telling me what it is.

If you don't know, just say so --- but don't try and make us KJVO's look like we don't know, either.

Fair enough?

 

[AV1611VET]

That is an interesting argument, considering that the Bible does not actually contain the name of the Lord, spelled out...

You mean like this?

[bible]Exodus 6:3[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 83:18[/bible]
[bible]Isaiah 12:2[/bible]
[bible]Isaiah 26:4[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

I am still waiting for and would love any KJO advocates to address my points from post #39 of this thread as well.

If I address 39, will you address 44?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's also distinct from and obviously superior to Lucifer's, which is given in the Old Testament as "son of the morning", which also lacks the adjective "bright", and is distinct as "son" not "star", even if you think "son" and "star" are synonymous there.

Good point, diamond!

The Bible nowhere refers to Lucifer as an astronomical object, except in poetry.

Attempts to link him, by name, to Venus, etc. is nothing more than occultism, which is forbidden.

He is an angel - not something out in space that can be seen through a telescope (or with the unaided eye).