[BelieverInGod]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

Ladies, I fail to see why you are arguing with this person.

He claims to have spent five years translating the Bible. This means he must be very well-educated, and know Koine Greek, Biblical Hebrew, and Aramaic.

He will not give his name. He will not list his credentials. He will not provide any sample of his "amazing" Bible version "for copyright reasons" . . . even though anyone with the most basic, one-minute-Google-based knowledge of copyright law knows that substantiated Internet publication is copyrighted on a footing equal with hard copy printing.

He will not provide any of these things, or even acknowledge my repeated requests for them, for one simple reason: He is a fraud.

The boy can't even write in proper English, yet claims to be fluent in three dead languages! I realize you are females, but come on . . . even a female should be able to figure out that someone fluent in three dead languages must be highly educated, and thus able to write properly in the pre-eminent language in the world today. He can't even manage proper capitalization, ladies!

How could he translate any other language into English, if he can't write fluently in English?

He is only here to try to convince you that there is some flaw, no matter how small, in the KJV, God's Perfect Word. This, he hopes, will lead you to question the rest of it, then God's existence.

Please don't let him fool you with his forked tongue; this God-mocking antichrist only seeks to mislead you so you join him in Hell.

Awww....... but I was having fun playing with the idiot toy.

Okay, last one Reverend, I promise.

BelieverInGod, you do not and are not showing any fruits of the Spirit. Your using slurs insults unclean language and derogatory remarks to exhibit your frustration, which appears to be based in pride and not articulate facts and sensible reasoning.Your wasting my time, go away!

Uh, this is my home, not yours. You don't like it here, you leave. I'm a True Christian(TM)woman and a proud member of this board. As for "fruits of the spirits" are you talking about wine, because you're right, I'm not drunk. Not sure the same could be said for you.

By the way, how is it prideful to say that I consider the capability to read commonplace? I'm not exactly bragging about my reading abilities if I don't consider it anything special. I just think that this up and coming generation is a bunch of retards because public schools are more interested in teaching liebral lies than reading, writing and mathematics.

Now I ask all detractors this, why did the king James translators translate two different Greek words as exactly the same English word. 'If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him." Paul used two different Greek words and yet the king James scholars apparently have license to miraculously "DECIDE" that Paul accidentally spelled the two words differently.

Oh, yeah, your a master wordsmith, I can tell
Excuse the Wikidpedia sin, but



As for two words meaning the same thing, I take it you've never heard of a Synonym?

common

- 10 of 152 thesaurus results
.slL { cursor: pointer; } Main Entry: common Part of Speech: adjective Definition: average, ordinary Synonyms: accepted, banal, bourgeois, casual, characteristic, colloquial, comformable,commonplace, conventional, current, customary, daily, everyday, familiar, frequent, general, habitual, hackneyed, homely, humdrum, informal, mediocre, monotonous, natural, obscure, passable,plain, prevailing, prevalent, probable, prosaic, regular, routine, run-of-the-mill,simple, stale, standard, stereotyped,stock, trite, trivial, typical, undistinguished, universal, unvaried,usual, wearisome, workaday, worn-out

There are so many occasions of this in the king James it equates to a "Total debacle" of the highest order.

Again,

I mean, you're the first person in 400 years to notice that God screwed it up? Do you really believe that God is so weak that he is incapable of keeping his own words right?

If you want an accurate bible that displays and conveys the deepest affections of Paul and God toward believers, disciples, and saints, then simply wait for my version and you will see that for some reason God waited till now to get it out through me.

Oh, but how will we ever know that it's yours? I mean how could I ever tell the One True Bible from all the other (per)versions out there? Oh, my little female brain can not handle it. Hey, I've got an idea, perhaps I'll stick with the one that has stood the test of time! The one that has been held up for 400 years and nobody found fault until the 1970's. How about that!


Anyway, I promised the Reverend above that this would be my last post on the subject. As a True Christian(TM) I keep my promises.

[Levi Jones]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

ducking diving blah blah. Blasphemy skipped over.

You are receiving infractions because you continue to avoid my questions.

A. What Greek manuscript are you using for your supposed translation?
B. The source of your alleged Aramaic Bible.

We can start from there any time you want to. Failure to answer these will result in limited access.

[sweeper]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

Since when does not sharing your deluded belief about the king james bible constitute God-mocking Mr Rodimer. You are no different than the Pharisee's who accused jesus of casting out demons by the king of demons. Nasty finger pointing based in blind self-righteous pride is very much an infraction of Christian meekness and God is frowning on you. I do not see any evidence of "faith working through love" coming from you. Every cheap quick-fire rebuttal in here constitutes, well, "Nothing really", so cut the crap false accuser (Isn't that one of Satan's titles?) and get off your high horse. I'm the one who God has used to being the truth of His word to the modern world, not you, so it's about time you took a more decent approach in conversing with me because God is watching Mr. Cynical (untrusting of other peoples nature's), skepticism (tending to look on the negative side of things), and nonchalance (cold, hard, and unfeeling) are not God sanctioned attitudes, and yelling from the sidelines will get you nowhere, so get a life and come back and talk to me when you know what you're talking about...

[sweeper]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

BelieverInGod, you do not and are not showing any fruits of the Spirit. Your using slurs insults unclean language and derogatory remarks to exhibit your frustration, which appears to be based in pride and not articulate facts and sensible reasoning.Your wasting my time, go away!
Now i ask all detractors this, why did the king james translators translate two different greek words as exactly the same English word. 'If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him." Paul used two different greek words and yet the king james scholars apparently have license to miraculously "DECIDE" that Paul acciodently spelt the two words differently. There are so many occasions of this in the king james it equates to a "Total debacle" of the highest order. If you want an accurate bible that displays and conveys the deepest affections of Paul and God toward believers, disciples, and saints, then simply wait for my version and you will see that for some reason God waited till now to get it out through me.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

Ladies, I fail to see why you are arguing with this person.

He claims to have spent five years translating the Bible. This means he must be very well-educated, and know Koine Greek, Biblical Hebrew, and Aramaic.

He will not give his name. He will not list his credentials. He will not provide any sample of his "amazing" Bible version "for copyright reasons" . . . even though anyone with the most basic, one-minute-Google-based knowledge of copyright law knows that substantiated Internet publication is copyrighted on a footing equal with hard copy printing.

He will not provide any of these things, or even acknowledge my repeated requests for them, for one simple reason: He is a fraud.

The boy can't even write in proper English, yet claims to be fluent in three dead languages! I realize you are females, but come on . . . even a female should be able to figure out that someone fluent in three dead languages must be highly educated, and thus able to write properly in the pre-eminent language in the world today. He can't even manage proper capitalization, ladies!

How could he translate any other language into English, if he can't write fluently in English?

He is only here to try to convince you that there is some flaw, no matter how small, in the KJV, God's Perfect Word. This, he hopes, will lead you to question the rest of it, then God's existence.

Please don't let him fool you with his forked tongue; this God-mocking antichrist only seeks to mislead you so you join him in Hell.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

If i was to write the word "horse" 3 times in one chapter of writing, then one would presume that's exactly what i mean each time, right! No one correctly translating English into another language should take liberties to dynamically translate and turn the word horse into camel, cow, and then horse, should they? So how come the king james scholars take the same exact word from the Greek in Corinthians in the very same chapter and apparently make it mean 3 different things, Geeez talk about taking liberties. How can the Greek word for judgement, all of sudden become condemnation, damnation, and judgement all in the same chapter. Oh that's right, i forgot, God was using the holy spirit to inspire the king jame's translators to correct Paul because he slipped up and was meant to use a different word 3 times but he bungled his inspiration and got it wrong, is that it? You people need to wake up to your selves. There are so many superior words in modern English to more accurately depict the context of each of Pauls verses, compared to the relatively minor palate of words the king james had to work with, as evidenced by their continual use of the same words to translate a multiplicity of Greek words used by Paul. God has corrected the situation through me and the publisher is now waiting on me to finish...simple!

Of course you have proof of all of this? Or do you believe that God is so weak that he'll let his word be messed up for 400 years before deciding that some pot smoking idiot who has never left his mommies basement is the special one.

Sheesh, even Jesus had a regular job.

Oh, and exactly what word in the English language describes a horse better than "horse"?

[Lisa H]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

If i was to write the word "horse" 3 times in one chapter of writing, then one would presume that's exactly what i mean each time, right! No one correctly translating English into another language should take liberties to dynamically translate and turn the word horse into camel, cow, and then horse, should they? So how come the king james scholars take the same exact word from the Greek in Corinthians in the very same chapter and apparently make it mean 3 different things, Geeez talk about taking liberties. How can the Greek word for judgement, all of sudden become condemnation, damnation, and judgement all in the same chapter. Oh that's right, i forgot, God was using the holy spirit to inspire the king jame's translators to correct Paul because he slipped up and was meant to use a different word 3 times but he bungled his inspiration and got it wrong, is that it? You people need to wake up to your selves. There are so many superior words in modern English to more accurately depict the context of each of Pauls verses, compared to the relatively minor palate of words the king james had to work with, as evidenced by their continual use of the same words to translate a multiplicity of Greek words used by Paul. God has corrected the situation through me and the publisher is now waiting on me to finish...simple!

So now your a literary scholar. First of all, if you want to make a claim, then post the verses from the Bible which you are referring to.

Do you even know how the English language was formed?
If you did then you would understand ancient Greek and Latin are used extensively in the English words. These so called "modern" words are not some new words, but have been around for a long time. Do you really think the word computer come about in 1980 with the advent of the PC.

[sweeper]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

If i was to write the word "horse" 3 times in one chapter of writing, then one would presume that's exactly what i mean each time, right! No one correctly translating English into another language should take liberties to dynamically translate and turn the word horse into camel, cow, and then horse, should they? So how come the king james scholars take the same exact word from the Greek in Corinthians in the very same chapter and apparently make it mean 3 different things, Geeez talk about taking liberties. How can the Greek word for judgement, all of sudden become condemnation, damnation, and judgement all in the same chapter. Oh that's right, i forgot, God was using the holy spirit to inspire the king jame's translators to correct Paul because he slipped up and was meant to use a different word 3 times but he bungled his inspiration and got it wrong, is that it? You people need to wake up to your selves. There are so many superior words in modern English to more accurately depict the context of each of Pauls verses, compared to the relatively minor palate of words the king james had to work with, as evidenced by their continual use of the same words to translate a multiplicity of Greek words used by Paul. God has corrected the situation through me and the publisher is now waiting on me to finish...simple!

[BelieverInGod]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

Oh, how silly Lisa H, wheres the other unreadable 99% that you failed to quote. Did i not say "just because it is partially readable"
BeliverInGod! Have you not read in your king james that got hates a lie. There is never been and never will be a person who can read the king james at 6 years old, why do you insist on talking such trash. The principle of lying to prove a point is dishonest For we have denounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor using the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every persons conscience in the sight of God. You are not manifesting the truth liar! You can do one of two things, repent or continue walking in your tripe until God takes disciplinary action, or should that be chastises for the ancients among us.

Really? Well what book was I reading in Sunday School since you know me so well? What book did my Mother (the Sunday School teacher) make me read for an hour every day? Sure there were certain words that I couldn't understand, but I asked my mother. As I said, I do not consider this a great feat, so I'm not sure why I would lie about it. Most people I knew could read the Bible at that age. I also read Nancy Drew mysteries, the Black Stallion books, and the Big Red books.

Again, (I'm feeling like a broken record here) just because you're too stupid to understand it, does not mean that the rest of us are. Most people that I know started reading around the age of 3 and by 6 could understand "big words". My youngest son (2) is already starting the simple reading books.

I wonder why you have to call everyone else around here a liar, guilty conscious? Or are you really the idiot behind the LOLCat Bible?

Edit:
My mistake yours is probably not even that readable, since the LOLCat Bible is already in print.

[Lisa H]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

Oh, how silly Lisa H, wheres the other unreadable 99% that you failed to quote. Did i not say "just because it is partially readable"
BeliverInGod! Have you not read in your king james that got hates a lie. There is never been and never will be a person who can read the king james at 6 years old, why do you insist on talking such trash. The principle of lying to prove a point is dishonest For we have denounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor using the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every persons conscience in the sight of God. You are not manifesting the truth liar! You can do one of two things, repent or continue walking in your tripe until God takes disciplinary action, or should that be chastises for the ancients among us.

The King James Bible is 100% readable. Why don't you post a part you cannot understand. All I did was select a random part. Didn't you say the Bible was not readable.

[sweeper]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

Oh, how silly Lisa H, wheres the other unreadable 99% that you failed to quote. Did i not say "just because it is partially readable"
BeliverInGod! Have you not read in your king james that got hates a lie. There is never been and never will be a person who can read the king james at 6 years old, why do you insist on talking such trash. The principle of lying to prove a point is dishonest For we have denounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor using the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every persons conscience in the sight of God. You are not manifesting the truth liar! You can do one of two things, repent or continue walking in your tripe until God takes disciplinary action, or should that be chastises for the ancients among us.

[Lisa H]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

... Do you know how many 40 + year old's have told me how unreadable the king james is, and yet they understand English as good as anyone. ...

Shows how little education these 40+ people you know have. There is nothing hard about reading the bible.

If you cannot understand writings like these, then you have not learnt anything.

Deuteronomy 4:10 Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children

Leviticus 5:2-5
2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.
4 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.
5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:

[BelieverInGod]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

I see you have me in your automatic notification feature. I can only take that as a compliment.
Really, all i sense in here is people desperately clinging to an archaic translation of the bible which itself is so outdated it's laughable. Even if it is partially readable, get with the program guys. With the king james simply being an attempt at improving on William Tyndales version and the Geneva version, and the Bishops bible, and the Great bible, and the Coverdale bible, all done before it, were they not simply re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic. It is so easy to trip you people up because your argument is self defeating and non-defendable. Do you know how many 40 + year old's have told me how unreadable the king james is, and yet they understand English as good as anyone. Just because most of you have spent most of your days familiarizing and acquainting yourselves with king james wording, that does not make it a fluent, clear, concise, and accurate version. That's like someone learning shakespear and then insisting the world doesn't know anything until it lives by the wording of his writings. Really your whole position is untenable. In fact there is a lot of sour grapes and beligerence going on in here, and none of it holds weight or credibility...

Well I hate to repeat myself, but just because you're too stupid to understand it, does not make the KJV Bible archaic or out dated. I don't care what 40 year olds have told you, I could read it at 6 and I don't consider that an amazing feat as so could my husband, my 2 oldest children and most True Christians(TM).

So which version are you involved with? The Conservapedia Version or the LOLCat Bible?

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

none of it holds weight or credibility...

An apt description of all your posts thus far.

Name?

Credentials?

Sample text?

[sweeper]

Re: King-James-Only? WRONG!!!!

I see you have me in your automatic notification feature. I can only take that as a compliment.
Really, all i sense in here is people desperately clinging to an archaic translation of the bible which itself is so outdated it's laughable. Even if it is partially readable, get with the program guys. With the king james simply being an attempt at improving on William Tyndales version and the Geneva version, and the Bishops bible, and the Great bible, and the Coverdale bible, all done before it, were they not simply re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic. It is so easy to trip you people up because your argument is self defeating and non-defendable. Do you know how many 40 + year old's have told me how unreadable the king james is, and yet they understand English as good as anyone. Just because most of you have spent most of your days familiarizing and acquainting yourselves with king james wording, that does not make it a fluent, clear, concise, and accurate version. That's like someone learning shakespear and then insisting the world doesn't know anything until it lives by the wording of his writings. Really your whole position is untenable. In fact there is a lot of sour grapes and beligerence going on in here, and none of it holds weight or credibility...