King James Bible Only 1 – Introduction
labarum312 asked:
The first video in a series examining the claims that the King James Bible should be the only version used by English speaking Christians. This video is an introduction and description for how the series will develop.
DividingWord.com For Dividing Word Enthusiasts
August 25 2009 12:56 pm | 1953
CIRELUX on 28 Aug 2009 at 7:48 pm #
DividingWord Fan.com
Yes thats true there is a look of book that Apocrypha. the RCC has its own set as do you and the greek Ort does to.
CIRELUX on 29 Aug 2009 at 3:53 am #
Dividing Word….
I do think the Apocrypha is usefull for study. as it for history thats in OT and NT. it helps us see some of what the greeks did befor the romans got there
labarum312 on 31 Aug 2009 at 1:16 am #
KING JAMES Bible
In terms of the KJVO question, it really does not matter. Neither the new Bibles nor the KJV used the LXX for its OT. Also, both the Alexandrian and Byzantine family of manuscripts include the Apocrypha in the Bible. The Orthodox Church (from which the Byzantine family derives) recognized the “extra books” as well. So as a factor in the KJVO debate, the question is irrelevant.
labarum312 on 03 Sep 2009 at 11:02 am #
http://www.DividingWord.com
What likely happened is that when the switch to codices happened, some groups that had accepted other books.
There are lots of theories, of course, but no one knows for sure.
labarum312 on 05 Sep 2009 at 11:36 pm #
DividingWord Fan.com
You may want to check the series I am doing on the Canon of the OT. I agree with yout that it is not legitimate for anyone to hold the LXX had the Apocrypha in Jesus’ day because it had it later. The LXX was not in codex form – it was just a translation and in separate scrolls. Various extra books may have been used by various groups but there is no convincing evidence they were canonical.
CIRELUX on 08 Sep 2009 at 8:50 pm #
DividingWord Fan.com
In Jesus day they had the LXX and mostly read from it and it was the Greek OT. one reson why the Apocrypha or the Deuterocanical as some call it. in greet but that the LXX read whould and may have read from did not have the Apocrypha and its not even sponking in the NT.Well Heb in a way kindum does.
CIRELUX on 10 Sep 2009 at 5:30 am #
KING JAMES Bible
If you know greek well take a look at the Acts 17:16 alot of bibles dont get it right. YLT is one.
labarum312 on 11 Sep 2009 at 7:41 pm #
DividingWord.com
For the record, I do not have a problem with people using the KJV. I have stated so in this video. I have engaged KJVO advocates in healthy debates as I mention in my response video. I do not judge all KJVO advocates by the behavior of Tallswede68. My offer of a debate with him still stands but he has not accepted. So who’s the coward?
labarum312 on 13 Sep 2009 at 5:47 am #
Dividing Word….
Note to any who might have come here from the video from Taliswede68: Please check out my “Response to Taliswede68″. He has a bit of a selective memory and this will set the record straight. I have repeatedly challeged him to a debate on the KJVO issue and he refuses. He just likes to make random accusations on other peoples’ pages without supplying any evidence. He prefers this because he can not take the heat of a real exchange where he would need to present his views coherently.
labarum312 on 14 Sep 2009 at 6:23 pm #
Dividing Word….
Again, the dictionary is 217 years after the fact. English changed a great deal in that time. Furthermore, the only place where an exchange of views as I mentioned above occurred (Acts 15), the KJV renders it as “disputation”. (Acts 15:2)
labarum312 on 16 Sep 2009 at 7:32 pm #
KING JAMES Bible
This is where you prove yourself a fool. The New Testament was written in Greek. If you are not interested in the Greek, then you are not interested in what the Bible actually says. The KJV was a translation into English – nothing more. It is the manuscript evidence that is our judge as to the most accurate version.
tallswede68 on 17 Sep 2009 at 2:19 am #
DividingWord.com
Websters 1828, here’s some more, Debate:
To contend for in words or arguments; to strive to maintain a cause by reasoning; to dispute; to discuss; to argue; to contest, as opposing parties;as, the question was debated till a late hour”
tallswede68 on 17 Sep 2009 at 9:51 am #
KING JAMES Bible
No, it gives many more definitions. It means “disputation” among many other things. My point is that you’re a bible rejector. I’m not interested in the Greek.
labarum312 on 19 Sep 2009 at 7:12 pm #
DividingWord.com
During the 17th century, the disputations were a common part of academic training in the universities. Debates were equated with arguments. The fact that you have chosen to cite a 19th century dictionary to make a 17th century point only underscores the fact that you have no understanding that languages change over time. Look up the meaning of the words “let” and “aweful” then and now.
labarum312 on 22 Sep 2009 at 3:05 pm #
DividingWord.com
You obviously haven’t read your own quote. It gives three definitions: the first is “contention in words or argument”; the second is the discussion for elucidating truth” -which is to what I am referring; the third is strife in argument or reasoning to which Paul is referring. Do you seriously contend what I was suggesting has anything to do with what Paul was referring?
tallswede68 on 23 Sep 2009 at 12:45 pm #
KING JAMES Bible
Another one deleted.
“we now understand it was then called a disputation.”
Webster’s 1828 dictionary, Debate:
“Contention in words or arguments ; discussion for elucidating truth; strife in argument or reasoning…”
It goes on and on, and then at the bottom, it QUOTES the KING JAMES BIBLE, Proverbs 25.
I believe Webster over you.
labarum312 on 25 Sep 2009 at 6:07 am #
Dividing Word….
Of course you are forgetting the actual Greek word is best translated as “quarreling” or “arguing” which is what the word “debate” would have been understood to mean in the 17th century. The meaning of debate as we now understand it was then called a disputation. So who is the quarreler and cause of division? I am fine with people using any Bible – including the KJV. You, on the other hand, seek division in the Church.
labarum312 on 25 Sep 2009 at 6:21 am #
DividingWord.com
So from that I may infer that every KJVO advocate who ever engaged in a debate on the issue is filled with unrighteousness? No, this one I’ll leave up because no one would believe you said it unless it was here. You have hit a new level of absurdity. I guess you really don’t want to discuss the issues but just parrot the Ruckman party line. Have fun.
tallswede68 on 25 Sep 2009 at 10:16 pm #
KING JAMES Bible
Here’s another one:
“For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be DEBATES, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:” (my caps)
2 Corinthians 12:20
tallswede68 on 26 Sep 2009 at 6:21 am #
DividingWord.com For Dividing Word Enthusiasts
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, DEBATE, deceit, malignity; whisperers,” (my caps)
Romans 1:28-30. The sword of the lord cuts off another limb. Delete this, I dare you.
labarum312 on 27 Sep 2009 at 6:16 pm #
DividingWord Fan.com
If you are brave, then I challenge you to a debate on the question “The King James Version alone preserves the Word of God”. You take the negative and I the positive. You get three 11 min videos to make your claims and I get three to respond. Then we each get two videos to respond to each others’ presentations. Then closing remarks. Let’s see who the coward is now.
labarum312 on 28 Sep 2009 at 2:07 pm #
DividingWord Fan.com
I’ve deleted them because they did nothing but repeat accusations after I warned you to supply some content to your claims. If you look above, they were deleted after the warning. Nothing before them has been deleted. I stil have all of the posts and can prove there was nothing in them. You are calling me a coward but you refuse to debate – just call names. Why not prove your point?
tallswede68 on 02 Oct 2009 at 2:02 am #
Dividing Word….
You deleted one of my posts, you *******! That makes me angry. You deserve to be called names.
labarum312 on 02 Oct 2009 at 5:06 am #
DividingWord Fan.com
Again, there is no point in debatibng this unless you are willing to hold up yourt end. All you have done is contradict and begin insults. If you have some evidence, we can debate it.
labarum312 on 03 Oct 2009 at 11:28 am #
KING JAMES Bible
“Prove that I said that.”
Obviously you are logically challenged. If I state something and say that what I am saying is incorrect, then you are in effect saying I am wrong. I say the history of the text matters and you say it does not. One of us is wrong. I say the KJV cannot be the perfect Bible and you state “Oh yeah! Prove it!”, then you are saying I am wrong. Of course, when I did, you conveniently dropped the subject.