[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

I don’t go to church; I am part of the body of Christ[…] However, with the technology that we have access to, I stay in touch with likeminded brethren on a regular basis through Skype and Teamviewer. Not perfect, but, under present circumstances, it’s the best I can do.

This is a theological difficulty, isn’t it? Whereas God speaks of us praying in private, when like-minded people get together, there is a fellowshipping, a joy in God and, before you know it, some small cult has established itself.

Moving on, Landover Baptist Church takes the Lord’s Word seriously.

Landover Baptist Faith and Message statement
"The Holy Bible, KJV1611, was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture therein is totally true and trustworthy.”

Which brings me to your next point.

I take issue with this:

We also believe that the King James Bible is the only accurate English translation of God's Word.

The KJV is filled with errors, omissions and outright deceptions. Some scholars have counted at least 2,700 of such EODs. As time goes on, I'll provide the facts to support that contention, unless I get banned before given the opportunity that is, as I read I have no rights here. Which is fine. I don’t have to post here. There are dozens of forums that I can spend time on, so if you wish to ban me, go right ahead. I’ll wipe the dust off my sandals and move on.

Son, KJV1611 is God’s last revelation of His Word. Any differences between what you think is the correct version and what is the correct version are dismissed and KJV1611 is inerrant.

Even if you still disagree with God, I'm sure you will find it easier and more convenient to accept KJV1611 rather than start your own cult with your own bible.

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

______________________________

If you don't believe God's Word to be the KJV1611 Holy Bible, then what, pray tell, do YOU believe God's Word to be? Dobbs

Before I respond, I think it's time to move this discussion to another forum / thread.

Any suggestions as to which one, anyone?

Bible Study / Teaching His Word?

False Religions and Cults?

___

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

_________________________

I'm sure you will find it easier and more convenient to accept KJV1611 rather than start your own cult with your own bible. E.Bathfire

You mean it would be easier for me to just accept an existing cult centered around the AKJV-1611 ?

___

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

__________________________

Missed this:

Son, KJV1611 is God’s last revelation of His Word. Any differences between what you think is the correct version and what is the correct version are dismissed and KJV1611 is inerrant.

So, no matter what, any errors that can be shown will be dismissed out of hand by - you? or others here ?

So, this is a KJV1611 cult of some sort that goes by the name of Landover Baptist Church?

btw: if you knew my age, you might not refer to me as "Son."

___

[barton]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

Before I respond, I think it's time to ...

So far, you've said nothing against the 1611KJV that hasn't been said before... by better, more learned men than yourself. Our Bible is still here and none of those men are vindicated.

Since you overlooked my earlier post... I can only presume it's because you actually have nothing substantive to share with us ...I'm not sure what to make of you. I think many of us are eager for you to get on with your supposed details and facts. When will you begin posting any of this?

Colossians 3:23 "And whatsoever ye do, do [it] heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;"

Proverbs 12:24 "The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute."

Proverbs 13:4 "The soul of the sluggard desireth, and [hath] nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat."

God doesn't want you to procrastinate! Your slothful ways do not glorify Him, do they?

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

Kerux, I've read this entire thread before responding, and noticed patterns in your replies.

I have seen you repeatedly claim that the KJV is "rife with error", yet not produce a shred of evidence. When asked to present evidence, you claim that you "haven't had time" to present evidence.

It seems you've had 120 minutes to "rattle cages" and prove that Landover's members "are not open-minded". As evidence of this, you note that you have "fended off" three or four "watchmen". Yet in that 120 minutes, while "it was fun" for you to "rattle cages", you found no time to present even one of the several thousand errors you claim to know about in the KJV, or support your claims about languages of the Bible's original authorship.

You, sir, have a very large chip (of what, I refuse to speculate) on your shoulder. I see no evidence in your commentary of any desire to fellowship with us; instead, you wish to introduce into this congregation doubt in the veracity of God's Word.

You present yourself as a scholar of the Bible. However, you insist (without sources) that the entire New Testament was written in Aramaic, and the entire Old Testament in Hebrew. All evidence I've ever seen indicates that the entire New Testament was written in Koine Greek (a now-dead dialect), and while most of the Old was written in Hebrew, some portions, like large portions the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezra, were written in Aramaic.

Incidentally, it would be most difficult to confuse Aramaic with Greek. Aramaic is a Semitic language, related to Hebrew.

It is clear from your inability to produce evidence of any sort, or to demonstrate even basic historical knowledge about the Bible, that you have never attended a seminary, have not studied Biblical history, and don't even know how to use Google.

I posit that you have no real Biblical knowledge, and are instead attempting to introduce doubt to our faith. You will not succeed.

Are you going to insist that you're a Bible-believing Christian? OK. I have an open mind, despite your accusations. I could be wrong about you.

Prove me wrong. Show us your evidence. No need to start a new thread somewhere else; this one where you've made your claims will do nicely. An admin can split a section off into a new thread if needed.

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

_________________________________________

Kerux, I've read this entire thread before responding, and noticed patterns in your replies.

I have seen you repeatedly claim that the KJV is "rife with error", yet not produce a shred of evidence. When asked to present evidence, you claim that you "haven't had time" to present evidence.

It seems you've had 120 minutes to "rattle cages" and prove that Landover's members "are not open-minded". As evidence of this, you note that you have "fended off" three or four "watchmen". Yet in that 120 minutes, while "it was fun" for you to "rattle cages", you found no time to present even one of the several thousand errors you claim to know about in the KJV, or support your claims about languages of the Bible's original authorship.

You, sir, have a very large chip (of what, I refuse to speculate) on your shoulder. I see no evidence in your commentary of any desire to fellowship with us; instead, you wish to introduce into this congregation doubt in the veracity of God's Word.

You present yourself as a scholar of the Bible. However, you insist (without sources) that the entire New Testament was written in Aramaic, and the entire Old Testament in Hebrew. All evidence I've ever seen indicates that the entire New Testament was written in Koine Greek (a now-dead dialect), and while most of the Old was written in Hebrew, some portions, like large portions the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezra, were written in Aramaic.

Incidentally, it would be most difficult to confuse Aramaic with Greek. Aramaic is a Semitic language, related to Hebrew.

It is clear from your inability to produce evidence of any sort, or to demonstrate even basic historical knowledge about the Bible, that you have never attended a seminary, have not studied Biblical history, and don't even know how to use Google.

I posit that you have no real Biblical knowledge, and are instead attempting to introduce doubt to our faith. You will not succeed.

Are you going to insist that you're a Bible-believing Christian? OK. I have an open mind, despite your accusations. I could be wrong about you.

Prove me wrong. Show us your evidence. No need to start a new thread somewhere else; this one where you've made your claims will do nicely. An admin can split a section off into a new thread if needed.

_________________________

You people are in an awful big hurry aren't you?

you found no time to present even one of the several thousand errors you claim to know about in the KJV, or support your claims about languages of the Bible's original authorship.

Never said there are "several thousand errors" I said some claim there are about 2700. Please, if we are to have a discussion, try to quote me accurately and not put words in my mouth.

you wish to introduce into this congregation doubt in the veracity of God's Word.

You said you "I've read this entire thread before responding." Did you miss where I said I believe in the word of God as inspired 100%? How many times do I have to say it?

Some of you appear unable to separate the Word of God from the KJV-1611.

Our disagreement is with some of the posters' take on the KJV that the translators of the KJV-1611 were infallible and that the KJV is the inspired word of God. Excuse me, but what you're saying is that God inspired the translators of the KJV of the Bible and not just the originals authors, like Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Solomon, Paul, Luke et al. That is some serious assertions - and to be frank - I've never heard of such a thing before posting my intro and getting these replies. Oh, I've run across people who joked about Paul using the KJV etc, but the KJV is inspired? I never thought anyone could believe such a thing.

It was not me who started this duel of the Scriptures. I made my introduction - posted my thoughts - and was immediately attacked for my views - for the views that disagreed with the established dogma.

You present yourself as a scholar of the Bible

I've done no such thing. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm a student - and have never said nor do I think otherwise.

On the other hand, I see posters here with titles like pastor so and so and reverend this and reverend that who are telling me I should accept what is the accepted dogma - as told by them - and let it be.

However, you insist (without sources) that the entire New Testament was written in Aramaic,

Again, wrong. I don't insist, I suggest. I said I wasn't convinced the NT originals were written in Koine Greek is all. I could be wrong. So far, the evidence I've seen has not convinced me one way or the other.

Show me the evidence that makes you insist the NT was written in Koine Greek. No one has done that, and I've asked at least once before and am asking again: show me the evidence that the NT was written originally in Koine Greek. I know that is the accepted wisdom, but again:

"21 but scrutinize all
things. Hold fast that which is right.

It is clear from your inability to produce evidence of any sort, or to demonstrate even basic historical knowledge about the Bible, that you have never attended a seminary, have not studied Biblical history, and don't even know how to use Google.

Inability to present the evidence? Oh, but I haven't yet had the time to present the evidence - and there is plenty, because every time I come back to the thread, there is another attack like yours. And you have attacked me - calling into question in the rudest way my lack of " historical knowledge about the Bible" that I have"never attended a seminary" (btw neither did Jesus Christ - do you hold that against him too?) And since when does attending seminary guarantee knowledge about the Bible? I know many people who attend school that are as ignorant of the Bible as the man on the street because of what they think they know.

You know very very little about me kind sir, and I suggest you hold your tongue until you do, so as to not embarrass yourself any further.

I could be wrong about you

Well, you got one thing right.

___

Since you overlooked my earlier post... (Barton)

Sorry, didn't see it.
____

All of you people are very very defensive. In attack mode. One poster here refers himself as a rottweiler. IMO, I've been found guilt before I've even presented any evidence.

___

I'm going to start here: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showp...91&postcount=1

with this:

Seven easy ways to tell the True Bible from the false ones

"You don't need to be a scholar to tell which Bible is the true one. God never intended His words of truth to be known or understood only by the so called scholars. They don't agree among themselves as to which text to follow or how to render it in English once they agree as to the text - as it witnessed by the conflicting NAS,NIV and NKJV. Jesus tells us "Beware of the scribes..." and in 1 Cor. 1:19,20 "It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" There is an easy, accessible way for every True Christian™ to test the multitude of conflicting Bible versions flooding the market today. Are they a true or a false witness? Mark 14:56 tells us: "For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." In a court of law a false witness will sometimes or even usually tell the truth, but he betrays himself as a false witness by saying something either false, contradictory or absurd. So it is with the NKJ, NAS, NIV and all the other modern Bible versions competing for your money and your mind. So, Christian friend, I ask you to sit for a little while in the jury box, listen to the testimonies, and determine which one is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. "

________________________________

The author of this piece uses many words to say very little: but he does tell us "don't need to be a scholar to tell which Bible is the true one."

He is right about the first statement, you don't need to be a scholar to rightly divide the word of truth, but then right off the bat, he has made an error. He assumes one of the English translations we have today is the "true one." Where did he get such an idea? From Scripture? Where in Scripture does it say the KJV is the "true" Bible?

No where, that is where.

Secondly, the author tells us that Jesus tells us to ""Beware of the scribes..." All the scribes except the Masotertic and Texus Receptus scribes? And the translators who translated the KJV? Why are these scribes and translators excluded?

I say Jesus Christ would have us to be careful of all scribes and all translators - including the translators of the KJV.
____________________________

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
CHAPTER 1 – OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE

This confession of faith was written a mere 30 years or so after the KJV was instituted. And these scholars did not even consider the KJV of the Bible to be by itself the inspired word of God, but admit instead the authority of the original languages.

to wit:

Section 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;17 so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. 18 But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them.19 Therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,20 that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;21 and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.22

so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

"Them" being what they considered the original languages. Hebrew and Greek.

What we are dealing with here, the issue here is - is the KJV the inspired word of God? The authors of this Westminster confession, so soon after it's inception, make no such assertion and instead state the Original Languages - Hebrew and Greek - are to be in all controversies of religion, ...... finally to appeal (is to be made) unto them.

I make the same assertion: all controversies are to be appealed to the original languages and not to the KJV.

And here is the heart of the matter as I see it now that I've run through your gauntlet and observed a bit. It has just come to me. I've been out of touch with established religion for quite some time and it took a bit to comprehend the entire situation.

You established pastors and reverends must have the congregation use the KJV - because it was written specifically to support your titles, offices and authority.

My guess is I will be banned before I get the opportunity to go much further down the road you don't dare have your congregation go down.


_____

Note:

(This Westminster Confession being 1500 years after the original NT was written, I still am not convinced the originals were not written in Aramaic, but that is a separate topic.)

_________________

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

And here is the heart of the matter as I see it now that I've run through your gauntlet and observed a bit. It has just come to me. I've been out of touch with established religion for quite some time and it took a bit to comprehend the entire situation.

You established pastors and reverends must have the congregation use the KJV - because it was written specifically to support your titles, offices and authority.

You condemn the KJV without offering any "superior" alternative.

You then claim it is written to support our positions. Bizarre, since there is no hierarchy in the New Testament, and Baptist churches' Pastors are approved by their congregations. We're not Catholic.

As I expected, your only purpose here is to introduce doubt and drive people from God.

Another tiresome atheist.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

You condemn the KJV without offering any "superior" alternative.

You then claim it is written to support our positions. Bizarre, since there is no hierarchy in the New Testament, and Baptist churches' Pastors are approved by their congregations. We're not Catholic.

As I expected, your only purpose here is to introduce doubt and drive people from God.

Another tiresome atheist.

That's how it looks to me too. Only this atheist is full of 3 dollar words.

It's obvious that satan sent him here. Further evidence that we are God's favorite church.

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

__________________________

Going back over the posts above, I noticed the logical fallacy - appeal to authority was used by more than one poster, usually someone in a position of authority.

Appeal to Authority

Explanation

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.


Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.


_______________


Here is some examples from the posts above:

many prominent Baptist thinkers.


So far, you've said nothingagainst the 1611KJV that hasn't been said before... by better, more learned men than yourself.

that you have never attended a seminary (implying that those who have attended a seminary are more qualified than those who haven't)

_____________________

You condemn the KJV without offering any "superior" alternative. (Rodimer)

You must be kidding right Mr. M. Rodimer? I said several times the original languages Hebrew and Greek are the "superior" alternative - backed up by the Westminister Confession of Faith, for starters.

If I can show you even one or two errors in the KJV - then people are going to lose faith in the "inspired word of God" - which you claim is the KJV and these people will be lost to whatever it is that you are trying to do there at Landover. I suggest sir, that it is your stand, not mine, that is detrimental.

Now, I'm an atheist too?

______________

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

Your position is that the Word of God is inaccessible, only written in effectively dead languages, and therefore no Bible can be trusted.

Therefore, your position requires either that God is incapable of ensuring that He is presented as He wishes in the Bible, or doesn't care that people are being misled into Hellfire. (Alternately, you could well believe He thinks it's wonderful that people are misled into Hell.)

The big chip on your shoulder ("run your gauntlet"?) suggests to me that your intent is to call the Bible into question in a sick attempt to undermine our faith -- the work of an atheist.

[KeruxR]

Two errors in the KJV

_______________________________

Romans 1:18: “who hold the truth in unrighteousness”: This may sound trivial, but κατέχω has a much stronger meaning than simply to hold, where ἔχω alone would be appropriate. The word is to hold back, withhold (L&S), and thus the phrase is better read “who withhold the truth with injustice (or unrighteousness)”.
___________________________

Romans 2:9 and 2:10: “and also of the Gentile … and also to the Gentile” in these verses, and also at Romans 3:9, I Corinthians 10:32 and 12:13, and twice in John 7:35, the A.V. translated Ἕλλην (1672), which is the Greek word for Greek, as gentile instead. This is quite dishonest, since Paul consistently used the Greek word ἔθνος to refer to the nations, and the A.V. consistently renders ἔθνος as gentile – or sometimes heathen or nation – everywhere else it appears. Ἕλλην is a specific word meaning Greek, and nothing else.
____________

Paul never once used the word Gentile in the original language of the NT - Greek.

The Scriptures were originally written in either Hebrew or Greek, (or perhaps Aramaic) not English. What translators do, is just that, translate the original languages into - in our case - English. To do this, the translators should use English words, not Latin words.

The word Gentile is a Latin word, gentilis and it meant, at the time of the Roman occupation of Palestine, "non-Roman citizen" not nation, which the Greek word ethnos it is translated for.

There was/is no need to use a Latin word when translating into English the Greek or Hebrew words, ethnos or goy respectively, as there is an English word that can and should be used to translate these two words - that word is, nation. Nation is the English word that means goy or ethnos, not Gentile. English translations are just that, English translations, not Latin translations. The word Gentile does not mean nation in the first place, which is what the two words in the original languages mean.

If we were to use the Latin word translated Gentile in Genesis 12:2 we'd get this:

2 And I will make of thee a great Gentile, (goy) and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

instead of:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, (goy) and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

and in Genesis 25:23 we'd get this:

23 And the LORD said unto her, Two Gentiles (goyim) are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

instead of this:

23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations (goyim) are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Did Yahweh promise to make Abram a great Gentile and was Jacob and Esau two Gentiles in Rebecca's womb? Ridiculous, just as ridiculous the other renderings are, except when one has a universalist theology and an agenda.

In the New Testament we have the Greek word ethnos used in Luke 7:

"He (the Roman Centurion) loveth our ethnos, and hath built us a synagogue." The jews would never praise anyone for loving the Gentiles: and the Centurion would not have built a synagogue for the Gentiles. So, to avoid absurdity, the translators were forced to translate ethnos correctly, as nation."

Further, the KJV translators used the Latin word Gentile about 600 years after the original Greek word ethnos and hundreds if not thousands of years after the Hebrew word - goy were used in the original texts.
_______________

So, right above, we have at least four or five examples of mistranslations found in the KJV.

And, I've only just begun.

Best ban me now.

____

[Levi Jones]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

Most here obviously believe God's Word to be the KJV.

And you clearly don't. Are you going to tell us what you believe is God's word?

[barton]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

I say Jesus Christ would have us to be careful of all scribes and all translators - including the translators of the KJV.

This is precisely why King James established the protocols he did. His was no fly-by-night operation with adverse ulterior motives. No fewer than 47 Godly men, inspired with His Spirit, worked in 6 separate groups at 3 distinct locations. They each worked on different portions of the Bible and, using holy peer-review principles, made sure that agreement was reached as to the continued inerrancy of the finished product.

I know what your ulterior motive here is, of course. You want to drive a wedge between the concept of God's Holy Word and all the texts that are actually available to us. Your thesis then becomes that of fence-sitting agnostic scum, stating that while you're sure that God might exist, no one can possibly know what He wants us to do because His Word, the Bible, has been hopelessly corrupted by millennia's worth of translation, retranslation and filtration.

You are not agnostic, however. As pointed out by my elders in this thread, you are truly atheist. You merely play at being agnostic so as to beguile the unwary with your pretty words.

You fail to understand the very depth of our faith in the inerrancy of the true King James Bible, that of 1611. We know it is perfect and, in the unlikely event that you come up with new evidence to the contrary, our faith is not going to shake.

I'll quote Melton again:

I have learned to always give God the benefit of a doubt, and to count the critics guilty until proven innocent. So far I've been right. Anytime I see an "error" in the KJV I just assume that I'm not learned enough in the Scriptures to explain it, but that it is NOT an error. I just pray about it and trust God. I NEVER correct the Book that God has honored for so long. Thank God, I'm not that stupid.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Two errors in the KJV

Romans 2:9

Hellēn

1) a Greek either by nationality, whether a native of the main land or of the Greek islands or colonies
2) in a wider sense the name embraces all nations not Jews that made the language, customs, and learning of the Greeks their own; the primary reference is to a difference of religion and worship


So, you are saying that only Greeks and Jews can be saved? Why did Paul write to the Romans?

The word Gentile is a Latin word, gentilis and it meant, at the time of the Roman occupation of Palestine, "non-Roman citizen" not nation, which the Greek word ethnos it is translated for.

Gentilis.

1. of or belonging to the same family or gēns
2. of slaves who bore the same name as their master
3. (poetic) foreign, exotic
4. of or belonging to the same people or nation

No problem there. The translators of the KJV used a word that refers to non-jews.

If we were to use the Latin word translated Gentile in Genesis 12:2 we'd get this:

2 And I will make of thee a great Gentile, (goy) and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

instead of:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, (goy) and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

The Hebrew text says. gowy

1) nation, people
a) nation, people
1) usually of non-Hebrew people
2) of descendants of Abraham
3) of Israel
b) of swarm of locusts, other animals (fig.)

They would be interchangeable, but it would sound strange.

Gotta go for now. Be back in a couple of hours.