[MitzaLizalor]

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

I asked you a question, Sweeper. What "ultimate Bible" is yours?

.. .. what he said

[BelieverInGod]

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

Father Martin:

Before 1611, there were Bibles written in imperfect langauges that contained imperfections put in my man. With the KJV 1611, God directed the improvements to the text which gives us the perfection we have today. Other versions just distort that perfection and cannot be the true word of God.

Father Martin made that post 2 years ago and hasn't been on here since January. I wouldn't be expecting a response from him.

.. .. what he said

Thirded.

[sweeper]

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

Well Mr Rodimer, i'm still in the final stages of finishing it and getting it ready for print, and cannot divulge the name until my copyright is secured. All of you can rest assured that God can achieve a much better version than the King james through me. Not because i'm arrogant, but because it needed to be done. In fact it's up for debate that the Geneva version which was done approx 50 years earlier was a better translation, not to mention that the two are 80% identical.
I am so concerned that too many people today are reverting to these modern day perversions because their own common sense shows them how antiquated and archaic the King James is, not to mention awkward and ambiguous in many verses. I could ask ten of my friends ranging from 25 to 45 years old, what Emulations, variance, study, dissimulation, etc, meant in 1611 and none of them would have a clue. Does that mean they are ignorant illiterates, no, it means those words have lost there meaning, which is the fundamental reason the king james needs to be updated, quite apart from all it's errors.
There are some who say the king james is without a single word of error, these people are so deluded it's ridiculous, and they haven't got a clue what they are talking about. For those who are such, let me clear the matter up once and for all.
The word "easter" in Acts of the king james. Luke clearly wrote the word "passover" as the king james scholars were all well aware, but the reason they translated it as easter was because Peter was apprehended during the days of unleavened bread, and because the passover immediately precedes the festival of unleavened bread they thought, if king Herod intended to bring him forth after the passover, that would mean he would have to stay in jail another year, hardly likely, so they thought Luke must have been referring to the upcoming festival of Ishtar later that month, and therefore translated it as Easter. Well go and have a look at the gospel of Luke 22:1. Exactly as my jewish friend told me, the days of unleavened bread and the passover are synonymous, the jews refer to them as one and the same because the days of unleavened bread are a continuation of the passover and refer to them both with the one word passover, and thats exactly what Luke did. So there you have it, the king james is not the infallible word of God in English for all time, and especially because God has used me as the final and lone translator to put out the ultimate replacement to the king james, in other words God passed the baton on to me to get out the last reliable version for the last days until he comes back. I love the word of God more that i love myself, the bible is the most beautiful thing ever written, and I am more of a perfectionist and stickler for detail than any of you will ever be. When Christ ascended on high he gave gifts to men. Well one of my gifts was and is the ability to pay attention to detail with a persistence and tenacity and a love of the truth and a zeal for wanting to know exactly, and i mean "EXACTLY!" what Paul the apostle wrote. I have done it, and may at some time explain at a later date the depths i've been to to get it done. There are so many things required in the accurate translation of scripture you wouldn't begin to understand until you've been there.

[Levi Jones]

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

Well Mr Rodimer, i'm still in the final stages of finishing it and getting it ready for print, and cannot divulge the name until my copyright is secured. All of you can rest assured that God can achieve a much better version than the King james through me. Not because i'm arrogant, but because it needed to be done.

Oh no. You have passed way over the threshold of arrogance straight into blasphemy. Let me guess, all the publishers have turned you down already.

In fact it's up for debate that the Geneva version which was done approx 50 years earlier was a better translation, not to mention that the two are 80% identical.

The biggest difference between the KJV and the Geneva is the margin notes. They are almost identical outside of that. The reason is that they are both using the same majority Byzantine text.

I thought I told you that last time you came here with your last identity.

[MitzaLizalor]

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

…wanting to know exactly, and i mean "EXACTLY!" what Paul the apostle wrote…

psst! generally when people are so concerned for precision, they just read the Greek

One or two of us here glanced over that somewhat bombastic post, came up with the following words re-arrange in any order, we couldn't be bothered..

obsessive-compulsive
debauched
autistic
Astarte sex cult
fornicating
temple prostitute
drugs
mad
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .



ISHTAR/ASTARTE . . . for parental reference

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

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

Well Mr Rodimer, i'm still in the final stages of finishing it and getting it ready for print, and cannot divulge the name until my copyright is secured.

I'm guessing the title will be "Deluded Scribblings"

There are some who say the king james is without a single word of error, these people are so deluded it's ridiculous, and they haven't got a clue what they are talking about. For those who are such, let me clear the matter up once and for all.

Careful here boy...

The word "easter" in Acts of the king james. Luke clearly wrote the word "passover" as the king james scholars were all well aware, but the reason they translated it as easter was because Peter was apprehended during the days of unleavened bread, and because the passover immediately precedes the festival of unleavened bread they thought, if king Herod intended to bring him forth after the passover, that would mean he would have to stay in jail another year, hardly likely, so they thought Luke must have been referring to the upcoming festival of Ishtar later that month, and therefore translated it as Easter.

Son, if it says Easter, it means Easter, you think that those inspired by God got it wrong? And yet you say you are inspired by God and are getting it right.

Let me tell you, son, when God inspires you, you get it right, and that was done in 1611.

Well go and have a look at the gospel of Luke 22:1. Exactly as my jewish friend told me,

Ah, that's where I smelled a rat - I don't believe you have any friends, even jooish ones. Those around you are minions of Satan encouraging you in your heresy.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

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

Well Mr Rodimer, i'm still in the final stages of finishing it and getting it ready for print, and cannot divulge the name until my copyright is secured.

In other words, it doesn't exist.

And, I imagine, never will.

Are you going to tell us that the New Testament was written in Aramaic again?

[sweeper]

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

MitzaLizalor reckons when people are concerned about precision they just read the Greek! She has basically just admitted that reading the king james will not give you precision. It didn't take long for you to inadvertently prove my point.

EzeKiel Bathfire, no one cares a less if easter means easter. How days a pagan adopted festival instituted by Catholic heretics lasting from friday to monday, equate to the 8 day Jewish passover which included the week of the unleavened bread? As is clearly in the Greek in Acts, and as Luke 22:1 states, he used the word "PASSOVER!" referring to a jewish festival, would you mind telling mean how the jewish passover all of a sudden means easter? Your stubborness and denial about such an obvious thing is pitiful. The king james scholars screwed up due to a lack of knowledge. You holding the king james in high esteem and as infallible doesn't mean squat. Get a reality check and ask God for some common sense to help snap you out of your misinformed belief. How can the king james scholars have been inspired if they made so many mistakes? well the answer is they weren't inspired, they took William Tyndales version and the Geneva version and revised them resulting in a miniscule difference. What did inspiration have to do with that sonny jim, well the truth is inspiration had nothing to do with it, period! It is simply your opinion that clearly has no basis in fact. But i know without a shadow of a doubt that God has inspired is me, and as you said, when God inspires you, you get it right, and thats exactly what i've done, not to mention getting rid of all the outdated words.


Mr Rodimer seems to think that the New Testament was not originally written in Aramaic. Why do the Eastern orthodox churches state unequivocally that their forbears received the epistles written in Aramaic from the hands of the Apostles themselves? Well thats because the Apostles had an Aramaic version made of the Greek epistles. How would the Jews have been able to read the important Gospels if they had not been done in Aramaic (Their native tongue)
Plus anyone consulting the Aramaic, as i have done extensively will better be able to clear up the Greek where it is ambiguous and thus, resolve some of the double meanings and idioms of the Greek and also confirm interpretations of the Greek, and therefore come up with a much more accurate version.

Good night boys and girls, sweet dreams...

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

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

MitzaLizalor reckons when people are concerned about precision they just read the Greek! She has basically just admitted that reading the king james will not give you precision. It didn't take long for you to inadvertently prove my point.

EzeKiel Bathfire, no one cares a less if easter means easter. How days a pagan adopted festival instituted by Catholic heretics lasting from friday to monday, equate to the 8 day Jewish passover which included the week of the unleavened bread? As is clearly in the Greek in Acts, and as Luke 22:1 states, he used the word "PASSOVER!" referring to a jewish festival, would you mind telling mean how the jewish passover all of a sudden means easter? Your stubborness and denial about such an obvious thing is pitiful. The king james scholars screwed up due to a lack of knowledge. You holding the king james in high esteem and as infallible doesn't mean squat. Get a reality check and ask God for some common sense to help snap you out of your misinformed belief. How can the king james scholars have been inspired if they made so many mistakes? well the answer is they weren't inspired, they took William Tyndales version and the Geneva version and revised them resulting in a miniscule difference. What did inspiration have to do with that sonny jim, well the truth is inspiration had nothing to do with it, period! It is simply your opinion that clearly has no basis in fact. But i know without a shadow of a doubt that God has inspired is me, and as you said, when God inspires you, you get it right, and thats exactly what i've done, not to mention getting rid of all the outdated words.


Mr Rodimer seems to think that the New Testament was not originally written in Aramaic. Why do the Eastern orthodox churches state unequivocally that their forbears received the epistles written in Aramaic from the hands of the Apostles themselves? Well thats because the Apostles had an Aramaic version made of the Greek epistles. How would the Jews have been able to read the important Gospels if they had not been done in Aramaic (Their native tongue)
Plus anyone consulting the Aramaic, as i have done extensively will better be able to clear up the Greek where it is ambiguous and thus, resolve some of the double meanings and idioms of the Greek and also confirm interpretations of the Greek, and therefore come up with a much more accurate version.

Good night boys and girls, sweet dreams...

There aren't any other homosexuals here for you to impress with your pseudo-intellectual faggot doublespeak. You may as well give up the act.

[Levi Jones]

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

MitzaLizalor reckons when people are concerned about precision they just read the Greek! She has basically just admitted that reading the king james will not give you precision. It didn't take long for you to inadvertently prove my point.

But your testament will, snakeoil salesman?

Again, what is your Greek manuscript you are using? You continually duck this question.

Mr Rodimer seems to think that the New Testament was not originally written in Aramaic. Why do the Eastern orthodox churches state unequivocally that their forbears received the epistles written in Aramaic from the hands of the Apostles themselves?

They never did, you fork tongued lying Philistine. The written language for the area was Greek.

Learn to history, son.

Well thats because the Apostles had an Aramaic version made of the Greek epistles. How would the Jews have been able to read the important Gospels if they had not been done in Aramaic (Their native tongue)

The literacy rate for the area was around 3% at the time, which is remarkable considering John a poor fisherman and Jesus could write.

The language of trade and scholarship for the mideast was Greek.

Plus anyone consulting the Aramaic, as i have done extensively will better be able to clear up the Greek where it is ambiguous and thus, resolve some of the double meanings and idioms of the Greek and also confirm interpretations of the Greek, and therefore come up with a much more accurate version.

There is no Aramaic Bible. You still haven't been able to show that there is. That's yet another question you continue to duck.

Thank you for stopping by for another exciting chapter of, "Getting Owned by Baptists."

[MitzaLizalor]

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

(perhaps someone could check which version Jesus & the apostles quoted from?)

We speak English. That is why English translation has been ordained by God. (Naturally Satan is very active spewing out multiple translations "renditions" - most of which aren't translations - all of which disagree with one another, usually on key points). So anyone wanting precise understanding of where, and why, those "translations" are deficient - for examole because they have regular contact with Jehovah's Witnesses or 7th Day Adventists, Unitarians or Roman Catholics - take the time to learn the original language(s). Not everyone goes "der - retard: dis it" some people care whether even a heathen goes to Hell. Extreme cases, such as JW's like to spout pseudo-academic claptrap, and their error can be precisely explained using the Greek, when they start running off at the mouth about Revelation, premillennialism or Hell.

Those who care need that precision because the addled minds of heretics will not accept any translation but their own (e.g. false New World Translation available with Greek / interlineal English text) and need to be answered in a way they will understand.

Praise Him

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

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

[...] How can the king james scholars have been inspired if they made so many mistakes? well the answer is they weren't inspired, they took William Tyndales version and the Geneva version and revised them resulting in a miniscule difference. What did inspiration have to do with that sonny jim, well the truth is inspiration had nothing to do with it, period! It is simply your opinion that clearly has no basis in fact. But i know without a shadow of a doubt that God has inspired is me,

And the men who wrote out KJV 1611 did not think the same? So, everyone got it wrong and you got it right?

Son, the lunatic Asylums of this fair country are filled with such cries.

Let me tell you a story that will prevent you from inflicting your Satan inspired garbage on the people who search for Salvation and will be misled on to the path to Damnation.

I was in a bar the other day, and overhead a conversation of how Jimmy Miller had won $20,000 in a lottery. I went over and said,

“Excuse me, I heard that and I ought to put you right. It wasn’t Jimmy Miller, it was Johnny Muller. It wasn’t the lottery, it was at the racetrack, it wasn’t $20,000, it was $2,000 and he didn’t win, he lost.”

You see, the Books of the Bible were originally oral tradition, and as we see, that is not always reliable. The early and perhaps erroneous stories were then written down and, yes, errors did enter the Scriptures. Once an error is there, the chances of that error being altered is small; it is new errors that are created.

It was therefore at the very time that Mankind was dabbling with science, contrary to 1Timothy:6:20-21, that God saw it best to give a definitive version: KJV 1611.

Son, all you are doing is the theological equivalent of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

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

Mr Rodimer seems to think that the New Testament was not originally written in Aramaic. Why do the Eastern orthodox churches state unequivocally that their forbears received the epistles written in Aramaic from the hands of the Apostles themselves? Well thats because the Apostles had an Aramaic version made of the Greek epistles.

Thank you for confirming that the New Testament was not originally written in Aramaic, as I stated. (And as every Biblical scholar will confirm.)

Surely you aren't saying that "translated into Aramaic from Greek" is the same as "originally written in Aramaic", are you? After all, you are the very one asserting that "translation is interpretation" and that only the original documents are trustworthy, which is why your incomplete and unpublishable translation/interpretation is so much better than the tried-and-trusted, guided-by-God KJV or any of the quite literally hundreds of translations/interpretations presently available.

I propose that you would find your own incomplete and unpublishable translation/interpretation "superior", if it exists, because it says what YOU want it to say.

I must admit that I find this whole situation odd. Here you claim to have spent five years translating the Bible, yet you give no name, no credentials. If I were working on such a project, I would be providing press releases regularly to all the Christian press, and occasionally to the mainstream media. At the least, Religion News Service would distribute my press release, even if nobody else would touch it. I would have a website to explain why my upcoming version is "superior", complete with sample chapters compared to other versions.

You do none of these things. Instead, you choose to promote a nameless, incomplete, unpublishable version of the Bible through oblique references to it on a single church's discussion forum. Why is that?

Is it because you have never read a word of ancient Greek, Biblical Hebrew, or Aramaic, and have no credentials? Is it because your real goal is to attempt to get True Christians™ to doubt God's promise to ensure that we have his uncorrupted Word?

That'd be my guess. I believe you are a fraud. Care to prove me wrong?

[sweeper]

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

It seems i'm getting infraction notices for not agreeing with anothers stance, and for having an opinion, and for presenting my case for having done the one and only true bible until Jesus comes back. That's the sort of thing that cult leaders and Muslims do, they dictate, control, oppress, and rule with an iron fist, and yet we all know they are all full of crap. Whats the point of having a forum if their is no freedom of speech or robust debate?? I have not used any foul language and yet that is not good enough. Oh well, i suppose there's not much i can do about it.
Anyway, OK MitzaLizalor, what makes your stance any different from those others you mention, how are you any different on your non provable belief about the king james version. As you state, those who care need precision because the addled mind of heretics will not accept any version but the king james, (Opps, i mean their own). You have no case for the king james bible, your simply perpetuating a nonsense that cannot be proved. No matter how mightily i confute you, repudiate you, or refute you, you have already made up your mind. But thats not so bad, i personally believe a person is much better off basing all their spiritual learning from the king james rather than say, the NIV or NASB or New king james.Good luck to you, but i must insist that you read my version your jaw will drop and then you will understand what God has done through me.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

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

The "case" for the KJV Bible is made HERE.

I'll accept your apology after you've read my sermon.