[Rev. M. Rodimer]

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

blah blah blah

i must insist that you read my version your jaw will drop and then you will understand what God has done through me.

OK, where is it?

Oh, right. Doesn't exist.

[sweeper]

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

Pastor Ezekiel, i've red much better persuasions in favour of the king james (and by the way, did God make you a pastor, or a piece of paper which says you went to bible school, after which you wormed your way in and appointed yourself), and yet at the end of they day they are still simply misconstruing scripture to suit their own delusion (which those who are ignorant and unlearned misconstrue, to their own downfall, opps i better say "wrest" for the your old fashioned mindset). Do you know what verbose means. Most of your case for the king james is simply re-iterating and quoting long winded verses that have nothing to do with what we are debating, your just vainly striving to promote a falsehood by misusing scripture. Remember, religious zealots killed Jesus based on self righteous delusion and stubborness, thinking that they had it right all along.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

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

Do you know what verbose means.

I believe your posts would be an ideal example.

Where is your version?

Doesn't exist?

[Pastor Ezekiel]

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

My credentials are above reproach.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

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

My credentials are above reproach.

Pssst . . . Sleeper apparently has none. Five bucks says there's no "version".

[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Really, all i sense in here is people desperately clinging to an archaic translation of the bible which itself is so outdated it's laughable.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...

[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?

[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?

[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:

[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!!!!

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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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"?