Your Announcements

3d artist available – Embs Computer Art

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Embs Computer Art - Jeremiah Embs
http://www.baptistlink.com/bbib1
bbib1@aol.com
Experienced 3d artist available for any paying job. Modeling, textures, animation. If the project is a "Christian" game it must use only the King James Bible and exhibit sound doctrine. I'd love to work on a Christian or morally decent project.
I have extensive experience with 3dsmax 4.2, photoshop, and the Quake III engine. I also do comic book coloring and flatting, logo design, web page design, etc. etc. Please contact me directly by email to inform me of any projects you may need help with.
CobraA1

Member

Posts: 926
From: MN
Registered: 02-19-2001
Question: Why do you place the requirement of King James only?
Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Because the King James Bible is the pure word of God preserved for us in the english language as promised in Psalms 12:6-7.
If you look at Isaiah chapter 14 all the new Bibles call Jesus (the morning star or day star) the devil and remove the word Lucifer and all the new Bibles promote new age teachings. For example a female NIV translator named Mollenkott is a lesbian and she said "to refer to God herself seems, to me a humanly just way of referring to the One who is neither male nor female." If this interests you I'd suggest reading "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger. It's really great and shows in a scientific way how the new Bible are the tools of the devil promoting the new age in churches. So obviously if the game is going to use a Bible it should be one that was translated under the authority of a King that the Catholics tried to assasinate. That's a Bible you can trust.
Imsold4christ

Member

Posts: 305
From: Gresham, OR, US
Registered: 01-20-2001
(I sense another long thread coming on...)

The KJV isn't all that great. Please see this site... http://www.unhindered.org/apolo/kjv/kjv5.shtml

†Caleb†

------------------
"True friendship is not characterized by the absence of conflict, but by the ability to resolve conflict."

Mack

Administrator

Posts: 2779
From:
Registered: 01-20-2001
I hope this doesn't erupt in a flame war.


Interesting question:

Would you work for a company that promotes Christian standards/morals/views/subjects/teachings and not have any "verse by verse" Bible refrences?

Klumsy

Administrator

Posts: 1061
From: Port Angeles, WA, USA
Registered: 10-25-2001
i hope my humour below does offend..

but in our games , we only use the original greek and hebrew, actually our programmers went to sinai, found and pieced together the shattered remains of the first set of commandments to get them in the original letters, in God's own handwriting..(and when you look under a microscope at the hebrew letters you notice that the english KJV text is actually embed in it!)

obviously the above statement isn't real..

i believe in the infalibiblity of God's word, but not of any english translation.. though i believe the KJV (which was made by many scholarsd but based the majority of it is based on one man's work) 's authors were inspired and led by the holy spirit in their work ,as we the church are in ours, there are errors, some significant ones.. but it still fufilled its purpose and it has acheived many fruits throughout history... i personally use it as a cross reference when i study.. and also when studying the original greek and teh KJV tries to follow similar word order to the greek (a quite impractical translation method.. it worked for middle english, but say try that when translating the bible into japanese.) but it works and it is a good resource and i thank God for that.. other recent bibles have flaws also, some more than others and need to really be avoided, but others flaws are on par with the KJV... but they server there purpose and i believe many of the translators are lead by the holy spirit and do a job that is honouring to God and not new agy..

even if the king james version was flawless, english has changed significantly, the new testament was not written in the elegant formal greek prose, but in the street langauge of the day.. it was written to be understood by the common people.. middle english isn't understood easily by the common person today.. also many words and phrases in the KJV have different and misleading meanings, whether the meaning is exactly opposite to what it used to be, or whether it is a subtle by important difference..

and what of bibles in other languages than english?
or should everybody learn middle english so they can experience a pure bible? why not just have everybody learn greek and hebrew?

actually , as christians we shouldn't evangelise, unless we communicate the gospel perfectly, and make sure we quote scriptures perfectly everytime from memory? and if we can't do that , let evangelising be somebody elses job?

God has used imperfect vessels to do his will throughout history, he can use you and me.. His grace is sufficent, and he equipts and helps us with His Spirit. His word is perfect yet he uses imperfect translators (BOTH of KJV and of some Modern translations also, and translations into many different langauges of the worlds people's - i can't remem ber how many langauges have bible translations) and His grace does suffice, and the Holy Spirit enables these people to do this beyond their human ability..

and about that lesbian, from what i understand she didn't have much imput inthe the NIV at all, other than by association.. though NIV isn't my favourite bible at all..

God Bless..
this here is not a judging statement, its also a wake up call to myself
everyday in our communities and world thousands die without christ, and we stay here argueing about bible translations, tounges, details here, details there...

Karl

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Well we know that the originals are no longer around obviously. So if God promised to preserve his word without error it must be around somewhere. If it's not the King James Bible, then what is it? It certainly isn't the greek manuscripts which we have because they don't all agree. And it can't be any of the new versions because they are translated from westcott and horts greek text, who were necromancers. So where is it? Did God lie? If the King James Bible has errors in it why can't the new Bible translators produce anything better? Why do they always compare their Bible to the King James Bible? You can't fix something that is not broken. The King James Bible is the preserved Bible available to us. Perfect without error. Just as God promised.
Like I said Gail Riplingers book is good, but other books that are good on the subject are "An Understandlable history of the Bible" by Sam Gipp, "Final Authority" by Bill Grady, and "Manuscript Evidence" by Peter Ruckman. Each of those books go about the issue a different way but come to the same conclusion. The English Bible of 1611 is perfect and the new Bibles are not, so why use the flawed in the place of the perfect?

Ya, I think I probably would work for a company that has strong morals if there aren't any Bible verses at all (I've worked with some groups that aren't even that), as long as it still had good doctrine/teachings that line up with the Bible.
See the problem is that if you're making a "Christian game" it must be absolutely correct, just like a Sunday School lesson or a message preached from a pulpit and it must not disrespect the message you're trying to teach. On the other hand if it's just a "morally decent" game which may have some Christian values in it, then it's not so critical to be absolutely correct and it can even be a little silly.
Even though we'd all like to use games to preach the gospel there's no replacement for actual preaching and personal evangelism. Millions of souls have repented from the simple formula of (A Man + A Bible = converts). But (Games + Players = Fun), and I've personally never heard of a video game converting anyone, even though I'm sure it could happen. In other words... we can't consider game making a "ministry". Instead we should use it to augment what we have been taught and are teaching others in our churches and our daily lives. I think some game like Bible tetris is a perfect example of how a "Christian game" would have to be. Simple, respectful, and educational, and even fun. Whereas something like "Jesus skater" (I just made that name up) would be disrespectful. And then I've noticed a lot of good Christian games for kids, but they constantly make Jesus or other characters from the Bible white people. So there's an example of a good game that isn't correct doctrinally. We just have to balance these elements and see what we can come up with. If our games are fun enough even non-christians will want to play them, but to target non-christians specifically would only produce the same trash that the other companies are putting out. How do you appeal to the lost? The only way is to be worldly. The world loves his own the Bible says. Instead as Christians we are the offscouring of the world. The world hates us. That's just the facts. But ya, I would definetly rather work for a Christian company producing games than a non-christian one, for a billion reasons.

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Oh by the way, in response to the link. The textus receptus is also called the majority text for a reason. They make up more than 98 percent of all the greek manuscripts in existance (and there are over 5000), so that page just lied to you. Those 98 percent agree with the King James Bible and even those that don't always agree, agree with the King James Bible much of the time.
Also the English language hasn't changed that much. We still make high-schoolers read Shakespear and the new Bibles are coming out an average of one a year now, so we are to believe that the english language is changing so much that we need a new bible every year.
Yes the King James originally contained the apocrypha but it was placed in between the testaments and not in the Bible as the catholic manuscripts vaticanus and sinaticus (which were ignored by the King James translators) suggests they should be (which are the primary sources of the new bibles). The revisions of the KJV are actually editions and only spelling and printing errors were changed and they were made within the first twenty years of the first printing.
The footnotes in the Bible are not inspired so who cares?
The crown copyright is no longer in effect and was never enforced unlike the new bibles which can not be produced without permission from the copyright holder (Zondervan or whoever).
The new Bibles do remove the diety of Christ in the most declarative passages (1 tim 3:16 especially) and call Jesus the devil in Isaiah chapter 14.
The main question is why someone would tell you that the Bible isn't reliable anyway. Wasn't that the lie that the devil told Eve? Don't trust God, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Trust me. That's the same thing the modern "scholars" do. Don't trust God, trust me because I know Greek. Woopdie-do. What he just said is that he knows Greek better than all the King James translaters put together (I think there were 42 of them).
This can't be an issue that's poo-poo-ed. Yes, God can use even a Catholic Bible to lead someone to him, but he can use an ass to speak too. That doesn't mean much. If we are to grow as Christians we better nail down this issue and take a stand. Either every Bible is okay and we can use the Klingon Bible just as well as any other, or the devil has written counterfeits so that he can be just like the most high and we need to find the right Bible. Which do you think is more likely?
I've covered some of these issues on my website at http://www.baptistlink.com/bbib1
Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
Hi Jeremiah,

There are so many things wrong in your comments, I don't know where to start. But I will address on important issue, that really is the core of the KJV-only debate:

quote:

So if God promised to preserve his word without error it must be around somewhere. If it's not the King James Bible, then what is it? It certainly isn't the greek manuscripts which we have because they don't all agree. And it can't be any of the new versions because they are translated from westcott and horts greek text, who were necromancers. So where is it? Did God lie?

The KJV came out in 1611. Was there a word of God in 1605? If so, why did the KJV deviate from it, and why was the KJV produced in the first place if the word of God already existed? If not, was God lying until 1611? Was Psalm 12:6-7 a lie until 1611? You see, at the heart of KJV-onlyism is a paradox - for KJV-onlyism to exist today, it must actually *deny* God's word existed prior, which is exactly *opposite* of what "preservation" is all about.

The KJV is a great translation, but no translation can be perfect and exclusively God's word - or else God's word did not exist prior.

Oh yeah, here's my own page on some KJVO issues, including many of the ones you've brought up on this thread: http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly

You may also want to have some fun on the Bible Versions Discussion Board: http://pub1.ezboard.com/bbibleversiondiscussionboard where all your assertions and concerns will be answered.

God bless,
Brian

------------------

Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
quote:

Because the King James Bible is the pure word of God preserved for us in the english language as promised in Psalms 12:6-7.

I don't find the words "English" or "King James" anywhere in Psalm 12:6-7. Are you sure you're reading a KJV? Was this passage a lie before 1611?

quote:

If you look at Isaiah chapter 14 all the new Bibles call Jesus (the morning star or day star) the devil and remove the word Lucifer

The Hebrew is "helel ben sharah" (Helel son of Shahar). Helel was a Babylonian (see verse 4) god, who the Babylonians worshipped in the form of Venus, the morning star. Helel's father was Shahar, god of the dawn. "morning star, son of the dawn" is the 100% accurate translation. Even the KJV translators, in the marginal note of the 1611 KJV, put "or: daystar".

quote:

all the new Bibles promote new age teachings

For example?

quote:

a female NIV translator named Mollenkott is a lesbian

Mollenkott was not a translator, she was consulted on matters of English style, and only for a brief period. At that time, she had not "come out of the closet", and no one knew of her lesbianism. By her own admission, she had zero impact on any translation, and the passages she was consulted about had nothing to do with sexuality. To blame the NIV for something someone did *after* it was published is ludicrous. Should we judge the KJV by the same standard?

quote:

I'd suggest reading "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger. It's really great and shows in a scientific way

I've read it. It is nothing but misrepresentation and tabloid journalism, produced for the sole purpose of promoting hype and conspiracy. Describing all the problems in the book would require a book larger than the one she wrote in the first place.

quote:

Why do they always compare their Bible to the King James Bible?

Because everyone is familiar with it. It would be pretty pointless to be compared to Moffat's translation (which is a good translation, BTW), simply because everyone would say "what's that?"

quote:

The revisions of the KJV are actually editions and only spelling and printing errors were changed and they were made within the first twenty years of the first printing.

I thought you said the 1611 was "perfect". Couldn't God get it printed correctly? And there were more changes than just spelling mistakes. Many words changed, upwards of 400, during the next 150 years, not just 20. By whose authority were these made? http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

quote:

The crown copyright is no longer in effect and was never enforced unlike the new bibles which can not be produced without permission from the copyright holder

What does copyright have to do with the text? And yes, the KJV is still under crown control, they just haven't enforced it in a long time.

quote:

The new Bibles do remove the diety of Christ in the most declarative passages

You mean like the KJV does in Rom 9:5, John 1:18, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1? (compare with NIV, which is *explicit*)

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" - the KJV translators.

God bless,
Brian

------------------

CobraA1

Member

Posts: 926
From: MN
Registered: 02-19-2001
quote:

Well we know that the originals are no longer around obviously. So if God promised to preserve his word without error it must be around somewhere. If it's not the King James Bible, then what is it?

Try the original Hebrew & Greek.

quote:

It certainly isn't the greek manuscripts which we have because they don't all agree.

Not always, but there's so many of them that it's easy to spot where somebody inserted their own changes.

quote:

And it can't be any of the new versions because they are translated from westcott and horts greek text, who were necromancers. So where is it? Did God lie? If the King James Bible has errors in it why can't the new Bible translators produce anything better?

Because languages differ enough that a perfect translation is impossible.

quote:

Why do they always compare their Bible to the King James Bible? You can't fix something that is not broken. The King James Bible is the preserved Bible available to us. Perfect without error. Just as God promised.

Where in the Bible does it say that the King James translation is perfect? Where is it said that ANY translation is perfect?

quote:

Like I said Gail Riplingers book is good, but other books that are good on the subject are "An Understandlable history of the Bible" by Sam Gipp, "Final Authority" by Bill Grady, and "Manuscript Evidence" by Peter Ruckman. Each of those books go about the issue a different way but come to the same conclusion. The English Bible of 1611 is perfect and the new Bibles are not, so why use the flawed in the place of the perfect?

In any case, all this is kinda moot - as far as I know, the teaching that leads to salvation isn't changed, and can be found in any of the major accepted translations.

If you seriously doubt the reliability of the Greek and Hebrew documents we have, you should take a look at http://www.tektonics.org/ , in particular http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_01.html

While researching this topic,I stumbled across these links: http://www.aomin.org/kjvo.html and http://www.northville-baptist.org/navbdocb.html . I didn't know that this was a hot topic . . .

In any case, I don't see anything in the Bible that claims that any particular "line" or "translation" is the "correct" one.

"necromancers?" huh? Who are these people, and how do you know they made an "improper" line of Greek or Hebrew, and how do you know that the newest translations are based soley off of these? The translators that made the NIV claim that many texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, were used, not one as you have implied.

Looked at Isaiah ch. 14 - I have found exactly zero claims that the Lord is the Devil, or anything that so much as implies so. Check your Bible after checking your sources. BTW, I can't afford to get the books you recommend, by any pointers to web links would help my research.

In the case of 1 timothy 3:16, there is a footnote with the words "Some manuscripts God" - so the reader IS informed that the manuscripts vary. This is done in any case where the exact wording is uncertain.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited June 12, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited June 12, 2002).]

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Actually is it is (in every manuscript) "Helel, ben shachar," which is accurately translated "Lucifer, son of the morning". The NIV and NASB give an English translation as if the Hebrew said, "Shachar kokab, ben shachar" morning star, son the morning (which is adding to the word of God). Yet the word for star (kokab) appears nowhere in the text. Also "morning" appears only once, as the KJV shows, not twice as the new version indicate. The word kokab is tranlsated as "star" dozens of other times by NIV translators; morning or dawn is likewise used hundreds of times. New version editors know "boger kokab" is 'morning star' since it is used in Job 38:7. The word he chose, helel, appears nowhere else in the Old Testament, just as "Lucifer" appears nowhere else.
You see Lucifer is trying to impersonate Jesus Christ and does so in accordance with the teachings of the Masons and occultists in the New Versions. Read New Age Bible versions chapter two to see this proven without a doubt.
So you might as well give up now. The evidence is on the side of the King James Bible. But go ahead and research it. But question why anybody would put the doubt in God's word in your mind. He becomes God himself when he does that.
Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
quote:
Originally posted by Embs Computer Art:
Actually is it is (in every manuscript) "Helel, ben shachar," which is accurately translated "Lucifer, son of the morning". The NIV and NASB give an English translation as if the Hebrew said, "Shachar kokab, ben shachar" morning star, son the morning (which is adding to the word of God). Yet the word for star (kokab) appears nowhere in the text.


You're missing the point. The words "helel ben shahar" are the name of a Babylonian god: Helel, son of Shahar. Helel was "Venus", the morning star, Shahar was his father, the "dawn" or "morning". "Lucifer" wasn't even an English word until it showed up in English Bibles, borrowed from the Latin Bibles. "Lucifer" is the Latin word for "Venus". "Lucifer" is in the Latin vulgate here. The other two places "Lucifer" appears in the Latin Bibles are in Job 11:17 (KJV has "morning") and 2 Pet 1:19 (KJV has "day star"). Again the KJV translators put "or: daystar" in the margin of Isa 14:12, helping to indicate the meaning. "Helel" is not a word-for-word equivalent of "morning star", it is a proper name, the name of Venus, the morning star. This is not interpretation, this is historical and textual fact.

quote:

New version editors know "boger kokab" is 'morning star' since it is used in Job 38:7.

Interesting you brought up Job 38:7, I was going to earlier but forgot. If only Christ is the "morning star", does the KJV teach there are lots of Christs? Or instead, is "morning star" simply a title that can be applied to more than one entity?

quote:

Read New Age Bible versions chapter two to see this proven without a doubt.

As I mentioned earlier, I read the whole book. I must have missed this "proof". Can you show where my proof (above) is wrong?

quote:

So you might as well give up now.

Ooh, a challenge. Why should I give up when I'm the only one using evidence instead of opinion?

quote:

The evidence is on the side of the King James Bible. But go ahead and research it.

As you see, I have researched it. I have provided evidence, you have ignored it and provided opinion in return.

quote:

But question why anybody would put the doubt in God's word in your mind. He becomes God himself when he does that.

Were the KJV translators causing people to doubt God's word when the KJV was a "modern version"? Didn't "the word of God" already exist, if so where and why did the KJV deviate from it? Was God lying until 1611? Don't avoid the question - the whole KJV-only issue can be determined by the answer to this single question.

God bless,
Brian

------------------

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Dead sea scrolls? The entire content of the dead sea scrolls has not even been released yet people. And even if they were why would you trust something written by apostate Jews instead of the Apostles and those at Antioch?
The line of manuscripts which the new bibles are translated from are called the Alexandrian type. Sometimes also the Roman kind (primarily changed by Catholics such as Eusebius). The city of Alexandria was full of sin and philosophy (which the Bible warns us about), while the Antiochian line of manuscripts, which represent the majority text, come from Antioch of Syria where they were first called Christians. Which sounds better to you? Dean John William Burgeon's work done in the late 1800's on the superiority of the majority text over the alexandrian and roman text has NEVER been refuted. Not even by the most scholarly of our scholars.
Where was the Bible before 1611? In manuscript form obviously (and also in other translations, which were decent like Luther's translation and Wycliff's translation, which agree with the King James Bible the majority of the time), but not all manuscripts agree, just like not all Bibles do. Some should be used, and some should not. New Bibles should not be used. EVERY single one of them rely on the Wescott and Horts greek text which represents the minority text, except for the New King James, which has it's own problems, such as that satanic symbol printed on the front.

God never promised to inspire or preserve spelling or printing, just the text. Out of the 400 changes in the text between 1611 and 1761 over 90 percent were made within those first 20 years. The rest were changes in spelling and printing only, not in the text. Why is that so hard for people to understand? When you write a book you can format it differently and correct the errors without changing the words. If any changes need to be made to the words and you consult the author, the change is authorized. This is different from the Revised version (which originally was supposed to be merely an updated King James Bible) which made over 30,000 textual changes in the New Testament alone. Do you think that's honest? Did the Bible really need 30,000 changes in the New Testament? Do you think 42 men, some of whom spoke and wrote hebrew and greek by the age of 4, needed their scholarship corrected by a bunch of lame, opium filled, new agers, like wescott and hort (read new age bible version, by Riplinger for the evidence)? Please. Your going to tell me all about what's in the Hebrew? Do you even speak Hebrew? I've tried to learn it myself and it's not easy. I know some Greek and that's hard enough. Even if you know Hebrew, your telling me you know better than the King James translators? You must be arrogant. I do say that with the love of Christ of course.
And about that Lesbian... would God really honour a Bible produced by people like that, even if they only had very little influence in the work? Let's remember how God has honoured the King James Bible... the American Revolution, three great revivals across two continents. It produced soldiers for Christ like Moody, Finny, Judson, Johnathan Edwards, Whitefield, J Frank Norris, and Dr. Bob Jones Sr. What have the new Bibles produced? A mess. Confusion. Female preachers in the pulpit and an effeminate Christianity that refuses to take a stand on anything, because they don't want to offend people. Well guess what? The Bible is offensive to people. If you don't offend somebody occasionaly, your not doing anything for Christ. The Bible issue offends people too. They don't want to admit that God only authorized one translation into English and honoured it throughout 400 years of history. The proof is in the pudding. The KJV says "study to shew thyself approved unto God", but many of the new Bibles say "do your best". If that's not effeminate Christianity I don't know what is.

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Unfortunetly you'll never be convinced because you've already made up your mind. According to you God lied. He never preserved anything. Any Bible is fine. God's not your final authority. A man's opinion about what God said is. You've made yourself your own God. I'm sad for you.
You were the one who advoided the question. The original question was "if God promised to preserve his word, where is it"? You never answered that. The originals aren't around buddy. Where is it?
Krylar

Administrator

Posts: 502
From: MD, USA
Registered: 03-05-2001
Heya,

I'm stepping in here for a moment. I don't mind this discussion and heated debates, but let's make sure we're keeping this from becomming a flame war, okay?

As it's said in 1st Peter 3:15


(15)But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give
an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that
you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (16)keeping a clear
conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior
in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

Thanks for your cooperation.

-Krylar

------------------

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Ya, I didn't even really want to get into this. My original post was a simple request and someone asked about it and that's fine. I just worry when I see another Christian trying to cause doubt in other Christians minds about the word of God. That's definetly not Christ-like, that's the modus operandi of the devil.
Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
Jeremiah,

quote:

Where was the Bible before 1611? In manuscript form obviously

Interesting. Earlier in the thread you said "It certainly isn't the greek manuscripts".

quote:

God never promised to inspire or preserve spelling or printing, just the text.

LOL! What do you think "text" is? And how do you know they've all been fixed, and fixed properly?

quote:

Do you think 42 men, some of whom spoke and wrote hebrew and greek by the age of 4, needed their scholarship corrected by a bunch of lame, opium filled, new agers, like wescott and hort

Do you believe "slander" is one of the fruits of the Spirit? Yes, let's talk about Riplinger's "proof". Did you happen to read the footnote on page 677, where she admits that her connection of W&H with occultism is "speculation on my part"??? Probably not.

Did you know that members of the KJV translation team, in the same year the KJV was produced, had two men put to death for not agreeing that the Church of England (which is Anglican) was the only church that should be adhered to? I can provide references, and this is not "speculation on my part".

quote:

And about that Lesbian... would God really honour a Bible produced by people like that, even if they only had very little influence in the work?

I see God using sinners all the time. If God could only use sinless people, nothing would get done, for no one would qualify.

quote:

According to you God lied. He never preserved anything.

That's the exact opposite of what I believe. But nice how you put words in my mouth and slander me at the same time. And nice how you avoid answering the paradox of how "preservation" took place in 1611 if the KJV is different from everything prior to it.

quote:

The original question was "if God promised to preserve his word, where is it"? You never answered that. The originals aren't around buddy.

Well, buddy, my answer is the same as the KJV translators' answer, the opening statement of the preface to the original 1611 KJV: "Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

God's word is preserved troughout history - not just after 1611.

I can address all your points about Burgon, W&H, etc, if you like - but they all avoid the real issue: the text. The quality of a Bible is determined by its text, period - not what a bunch of people you never even met said or did. Besides, if you want to play the "guilty by association" game, trust me, the KJV would lose.

God bless,
Brian

------------------

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
To COBRA:
You wanted some links for research. I would recommend starting at biblebelievers.com
They have lots of stuff on the Bible issue there and lots of links. I have a few links from my website too, but a lot of the offsite links are broken right now, but I'm fixing them.
Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
quote:
Originally posted by Embs Computer Art:
I just worry when I see another Christian trying to cause doubt in other Christians minds about the word of God.

That's exactly why I got involved in this thread.

Sorry for the heat, Krylar. Maybe part of this thread should be moved to a more appropriate forum.

God bless,
Brian

------------------

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Well that "speculation" is backed up by the quotes from their own writtings, so that makes it pretty clear what they were all about. And if you think the new Bibles are also the word of God, why hasn't God honoured them by using them as greatly as the King James Bible? When two things are different, they aren't the same. So we have to ask ourselves which Bible is right. Two Bibles say two different things. They can't both be true unless we're missing something. I'd rather pick a Bible that God has used to bring about real revival in this nation instead of the ones that have only brought confusion.
Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
quote:
Originally posted by Embs Computer Art:
Well that "speculation" is backed up by the quotes from their own writtings, so that makes it pretty clear what they were all about.

Please provide these quotes from their own writtings. I have most of their books and can check your accusations. And make sure you get *real* "quotes", not Riplinger's famous "misquotes".

quote:

And if you think the new Bibles are also the word of God, why hasn't God honoured them by using them as greatly as the King James Bible?

Who says he hasn't? Who says all the good things are the result of the KJV and all the bad things can be blamed on other versions? (There has been more missionary work in the last 100 years (since W&H) than the previous 1900 years put together!) You are making assumptions and leaps in logic. You are talking about things that can't be measured. As a computer person, I thought this type of mistake wouldn't be so easily made. That's like saying since the KJV was published first in England, and the NIV was published first in America, England gives us good things and America gives us bad. And we all know that England gave us the Spice Girls.

quote:

When two things are different, they aren't the same. So we have to ask ourselves which Bible is right. Two Bibles say two different things. They can't both be true unless we're missing something.

So are you saying that if the KJV *is* the "word of God", the "word of God" did not exist before 1611? The KJV is different from all before it, and "When two things are different, they aren't the same." Again, we are back to KJVO's paradox of preservation - what exactly is the KJV preserving, if it differs?

quote:

I'd rather pick a Bible that God has used to bring about real revival in this nation instead of the ones that have only brought confusion.

Again, leaps in logic. The Holy Ghost brings revival, not which version you read. False doctrine (the result of *interpretation*, not *translation*) brings confusion, not which version you read. Just ask all those KJV readers who deny the Trinity...

God bless,
Brian

------------------

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
If you think that you can have revival apart from God's word you are certainly mistaken. The Bible says that we can know people by their fruits, and the nations that have turned away from God's word (specifically the King James Version) and turned to the new versions, such and England and now America are spiritually destitute. Like I said, you've made up your mind. All of my arguments are valid, but you just ignore them like they don't exist. How else can we know if a Bible is any good, but by the fruit it produces? I'm sure not even you would think that every Bible produced is good, like the Klingon bible. So how do we know which ones are good? Just by your opinion or by the fruits? Just look at the state of the church today. If new Bibles equalled spiritually our churches would be full of revival, but they aren't. We are Laodecia, the church that says it is rich and has need of nothing, but is poor, wretched, blind, and naked. Instead I'd rather be like the church of Philadelphia, which kept God's word (Revelation chapters 1-3). God granted them an open door, which disproves your idea that revival comes from the Holy Spirit and not God's word. The Bible itself says that mission work and revival can not be fruitful without keeping God's word first. So your opinion just disobeyed a fundamental principle that God laid out. Is it any wonder that in the Philadelphian period of church history the King James Bible was produced, and that the revised version was produced at the beginning of the Laodecian?
Also when I said that it can't be the manuscripts I meant it can't be all the manuscripts as a whole. Individual manuscripts, which agree in harmony (which are called the majority text) obviously have God's stamp of approval. These are obviously the ones we can trust. But just saying that the manuscripts are the preserved word of God would be misleading and dishonest (even though a lot of scholars will tell you that they believe the manuscripts and never tell you which ones they are speaking of) since not all of the manuscripts agree.
Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
quote:
Originally posted by Embs Computer Art:
If you think that you can have revival apart from God's word you are certainly mistaken.

If I thought that, yes, I would be mistaken. I never said "apart" from God's word. I was simply meaning that the Holy Spirit is involved, not just ink on paper.

quote:

All of my arguments are valid, but you just ignore them like they don't exist.

All of your arguments have nothing to do with the *text* itself, and are thus avoiding the real issues.

quote:

How else can we know if a Bible is any good, but by the fruit it produces?

People produce fruit, not Bibles.

quote:

If new Bibles equalled spiritually our churches would be full of revival, but they aren't.

Again you are jumping to conclusions. It does not follow logically that revival or lack thereof is determined by which is the dominant Bible in the pews.

quote:

Also when I said that it can't be the manuscripts I meant it can't be all the manuscripts as a whole. Individual manuscripts, which agree in harmony (which are called the majority text) obviously have God's stamp of approval.

Get this: NO TWO MANUSCRIPTS, EVEN IN THE "MAJORITY TEXT", AGREE 100% WITH THE KJV OR WITH EACH OTHER. "Things that are different are not the same." So your answer is not really an answer, because it still leaves us with "Where was God's word before 1611, if everything (even the 'manuscripts') differ from the KJV"?

Here's a scripture to consider:

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If one can read a Bible other than the KJV, and come to faith, then even the KJV says that was the result of "the word of God".

Still waiting for a response on the paradox you've created. But I won't be holding my breath.

God bless,
Brian

------------------

Klumsy

Administrator

Posts: 1061
From: Port Angeles, WA, USA
Registered: 10-25-2001
what bible is right for the chinese? the japanese? for the spanish speaking world? what bible is right for the messianic jews?

the king james is a valuable resource which i believe God intended and has brought much fruits, but do you know worldwide as far as international mission organisations and demographers estimate, that since 1995 more people in the world (the whole world - not just our anglo english speaking world - which shows opposite fruits) ANYWAy more people since 1995 have come to know Christ and follow HIm , than in the all of history combined... Praise God... and the fruit of that is also in translations of the bible into other languages.. as a linguist and formerly a teacher, and a fan of the KJV for my personal study (as well as i like the NLT and some others also) but KJV english isn't easily understood by people... even by many people who read it alot.. subtle nuances aren't picked up.. and sometimes the meaning of words or phrases has completely changed..
the doctrinal truths and threads of the bible are intertwined throughout the bible, yet described in different places in the bible in different ways according to the culture of the age , the message wasn't compromised yet when paul talked to the corintians he talked to them in their cultural context, and when he talked in greece, he adapted differently again, Jesus also did the same depending on who he was talking to.. Only a small percent of people can comprehend Kjv well, and then what of the non english speaking people in this world. God has preserved his word well, its amazing the few details between manuscripts old and new, considering how much of the ancient writings of the world were completely eradicated..

Why are you so fixated with the KJV?

would you say thats the biggest part of your identity as a Christian?

if somebody was to ask you "What are the biggest areas of christianity in your own specific life?" - i ask you...


I've been privy once to an exorcism of a religious spirit, afterwards he wasn't fanatical about the KJV... of cource the KJV is a good thing.. i am not saying that... But the devil uses many ways to get different personalities of believers of track.. to make us Major on Minors, and Minor of Majors, and to get something else to be the Main thing, rather than making sure that the Main Thing is always the main Thing..

what's the main thing?

it is true about our western church being a laodacean church, and we do need to be careful. just as the bible calls for prophets to listen and dicern what the other prophets say.. we should check out the truthfulness of bible translations... but don't make a translation the enemy.. its not US versus You, or these people vs those people.. remember the battle is not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers..

and despite all our bickerings, some denominations falling apart with ordaining homosexuals, living in a secular sex and voilent filled culture, God is soverign and He is advancing His kingdom with or without our help.. Though he gives us a privledge to contribute.. for His grace is sufficent for you and for me, and even for NIV translators who take up their cross's daily..

and the Kingdom Advances,

every month more than 1 million people in China become Christians... OH YES...


ƒˆƒnƒl‚Í‹™Žt‚Å‚µ‚½B@ƒLƒŠƒXƒg‚ðM‚¶‚Ä‚©‚ç–ñŽO”N‚̊ԁAƒCƒGƒX‚ɐg‹ß‚ɐڂµA”Þ‚ª•’ʂ̐l‚Æ‘S‚­ˆá‚¤‚±‚Æ‚ðŒ©‚¢‚¾‚µ‚½‚Ì‚Å‚·B@‚»‚ê‚́A¡‚܂ŏo‰ï‚Á‚½l‚É‚ÍŒ©‚ç‚ê‚È‚©‚Á‚½Œ ˆÐ‚ ‚邱‚Ƃ΂⠁AlX‚©‚ç‹°‚ê‚ç‚êAŒh‚í‚ê‚Ä‚¢‚éŠwŽÒ‚âŽw“±ŽÒ‚ɁA‚Í‚Á‚«‚è‚Æ‚»‚̊ԈႢ‚𐳂·‘Ô“xA‚»‚µ‚āA_—l‚É‹F‚苁‚ß‚Ä‚È‚³‚ê‚鐔X‚ÌŠïÖ“™‚É‚æ‚Á‚Ä‚Å‚µ‚½B@ƒˆƒnƒl‚Í’m‚Á‚½‚Ì‚Å‚·B@ƒCƒGƒX‚±‚»A‚² Ž©•ª‚ÅŒ¾‚í‚ê‚é‚Æ‚¨‚èA_‚̂ЂƂèŽq‚Å‚ ‚èA‚±‚̐¢‚Ì‹~‚¢Žå‚Å‚ ‚邱‚Æ‚ðB

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

[This message has been edited by klumsy (edited June 13, 2002).]

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
I don't have a lot of time to always post here, but as a concluding arguement I'll make these points. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, so let's see what the Bible says about itself.
When God inspired the Old Testament he did it in one language only, Hebrew. When he inspired the New Testament he did it in Greek. When he preserved it for us today he did it only in English. No other complete Bible (as opposed to individual manuscripts) on the face of the earth today can be considered perfect. Only the King James Bible. This is consistent with God's modus operandi. It may seem harsh or difficult to understand, but God doesn't ask our opinion when he does such things. In 2 Tim 3:15-17 it says
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Obviously Timothy didn't have the originals, but he did have copies and God himself said that they were inspired. So copies are just as good as originals according to God. You can not argue that, because you'd be disagreeing with God.
We know that translations can also be inspired because the word translation/translated etc is used four times in the Bible and every time the translation was BETTER than the originals. So if you think that a translation can't be better than the originals and also be different than you disagree with God again. What is the final authority? Your opinion or God's word?
So if the King James Bible contradicts any of the manuscripts, even the originals (even though it agrees with the majority), I'd trust the King James Bible. You might think that's crazy, but that's how God wrote the Bible. He didn't ask our opinion about it. Translations are always better than the originals according to God himself.
Furthermore we see in Psalms 12:6-7 that the word of God must be purified. The originals aren't necessarily perfect to begin with. If you think they are than you have just disagreed with God who said himself that they must be be purified, just as the King James Bible was purified through the various editions. It is now perfect. Pure words as the Bible says. The new Bibles are not a further perfecting of that because they come from a different line of manuscripts entirely. They come from manuscripts which don't even agree with each other. The King James Bible comes from the vast majority (like I said 98 percent) of the 5000+ manuscripts we have available. It isn't hard to figure this stuff out guys. The KJV is the pure and preserved word of God. Thanks for the discussion though. I have other work too, but I enjoyed the posts.
Klumsy

Administrator

Posts: 1061
From: Port Angeles, WA, USA
Registered: 10-25-2001
show me in God's word - yes even in the KJV itself, where God endorses its exclusive divinity?

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
Jeremiah,

Your comments are simply more opinion - you need to provide some evidence. How do you *know* the KJV is perfect? And which statements of mine are in error (provide evidence)?

quote:
Originally posted by Embs Computer Art:
Furthermore we see in Psalms 12:6-7 that the word of God must be purified. The originals aren't necessarily perfect to begin with. If you think they are than you have just disagreed with God who said himself that they must be be purified, just as the King James Bible was purified through the various editions.

I have run into this view before, it is even more extreme than "regular" KJVOism. At least it recognizes and tries to provide an answer for the paradox I explained earlier, but it looks for the solution in the wrong direction - it makes God a liar.

Psalm 119:140, Psalm 12:6 and Prov 30:5 says God's word is pure. Your view requires these verses, and verses like them, to be lies until the correct purified edition of the KJV (which one?) came along. Psalm 12:6 does NOT say God's word needs to be purified, it says the words are "as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." "As" is a simile. It is simply comparing God's words to purified silver, not making a doctrinal statement about some magical purification process of the English Bible! The KJV is "better than the originals"? God couldn't get it right the first time? What a slap in God's face! How sad that you put your faith in a few dozen 17th century Anglicans rather than God.

Jeremiah, get out from under the false indoctrination that is leading you astray.

God bless,
Brian

------------------

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
I already said that individual manuscripts may have been pure, but they weren't a complete Bible until much later. There were early translations such as the Old Latin (as opposed to the Vulgate), Wycliff's translation, Luther's translation, etc. that were reliable, but not perfect. The King James Bible is the purified form of all these and the last complete work for the English speaking people. It is an inspired translation just like the Bible said that the translation is ALWAYS better than the originals.

Remember how the book of Jeremiah was destroyed and the new one was made and it was different from the original? Both were still inspired, because both came from God. But I guess God couldn't get it right the first time. You see how your logic doesn't stand up to the Bible itself? God himself had two different versions of the same book, which were not the same and both were inspired. As a matter of fact there is no verse which says that the originals of any manuscript is inspired. The only thing were ever read of being inspired are copies. So we assume (correctly so obviously) that the originals were also inspired. But the Bible makes it clear that the originals and the later copies can be different and still inspired without error. If you disagree with that you are again disagreeing with God's opinion on the matter, not just mine.

There is no doubt the NIV and all other new Bibles come from the devil because they confuse the fact that Jesus Christ is the morning star/day star with Isaiah chapter 14. If the KJV is not perfect than show me something that is. If you can't produce it you are truely a hypocrite (I say that with love, not rebuke), because you said that the word of God is pure. If so, show me a pure version of the word of God in ANY language. Do you think any Bible is pure? If so name it. That's my challenge. Name a perfect Bible, not individual manuscripts. If you can't you are the one who made God a liar, not me. I can show it to you.
I can name only one. The KJV. Find me a perfect Bible and I'll switch over. See you never believed that any Bible was perfect did you? You never believed God would preserve his word without error as he promised to do. Well I do. I can point to it and show it to people and not reinterpret it however I want by running to whatever commentary or greek lexicon I like at the time. I believe in absolute authority of the Bible. Do you? If so, which one?

Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
We're starting to go in circles (which is what happens with circular arguments). You just don't get it.

I'm not discussing these points again, when I've already addressed them all above - and you avoided them the first time, so why should I think you'll address them the second time?

quote:
Originally posted by Embs Computer Art:
If you disagree with that you are again disagreeing with God's opinion on the matter, not just mine.

No, I am NOT "disagreeing with God's opinion". I am disagreeing with YOUR INTERPRETATION of God's opinion.

My only comfort is that your view is so extreme, very few will be persuaded by you. Really though, try out that Bible Version Discussion Forum I posted earlier. They'll get a kick out of you.

God bless,
Brian

------------------

rowanseymour

Member

Posts: 284
From: Belfast, Northern Ireland
Registered: 02-10-2001
For a lack of anything constructive to say (other than excellent website brian), I would just like to say if anyone ever disagrees with me again on this forum then they are disagreeing with God

Oh yeah and just to ask again of our brother Jeremiah an answer to a simple short question - what about the non-english speaking world ?

------------------
Rowan / GODCENTRIC Christian Demoscene

Klumsy

Administrator

Posts: 1061
From: Port Angeles, WA, USA
Registered: 10-25-2001
translations are ALWAYS better, then my KLUMSY translation of the KJV bible is always better the KJV itself?

if i got the whole text of the KJV, and with a word replace in word or something replacved all the 'THEE's with 'YOU' and replaced all the -eth,th nouns with their correct 21 centurary form.. what would you think of that?

b.t.w read some of briant's stuff on this on his own website, when you argue with him, you are obviously arguing with somebody who has done their homework, more so that yourself it seems...

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/2sam21_19.html
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/isa14_12.html
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/kjvinclusive.html


also do you understand what perfect doctrine is? i know the bible does show God's perfect truth, but not one of us knows it all, God's ways are higher than ours , the human heart is deceitful above all things, and who can be so arogant to thinking they can fully comprehend the infinite mind of Christ in our finite human minds.. However we can get a balanced and powerful doctrine that leads us in a healthy Christian lifestyle where we indeed place Jesus as our Lord and Saviour, live under his grace, and produce fruit for the Kingdom.. yet not one of us will knowo it all, and have perfect doctrine, but God's grace is sufficent..

so could you be wrong about the KJV?
could you be making it an Idol above Jesus himself? we can make all the good things God gives us an idol, and the KJV is a good thing.

could you honestly pray the following prayer?

"Lord i am yours, i believe that the KJV is the only true bible Lord, but i am willing to give up my opinions Lord, and lay them at the foot of the cross, Please Lord give me understanding and wisdom in this matter, and conviction from your Holy Spirit and guide me in this matter.. if you will reveal to me that other bibles are good also then i am willing to submit my pride and ego aside and embrace you in this, and also if you show me that my current conviction is right i will maintain it.. but Lord I am willing to put aside by traditions and comfort zones for You."

please also this time don't ignore my questions, and just give a big long speel, if i ask you a question its only human dignity to give at least an answer so in this post i'm asking two questions .. what would you think of my modified king james bible, and would you be able to pray my example prayer?

and a few more question..
how does this KJV intertwine with your indentity as a Christian, and why?
if one day you found out evidence that totally blew away your arguments and proved that some modern translations were actually better than the KJV, how would this affect your faith and your life as a christian?

is it possible that you are more of an expert in how to protect the KJV and all about the KJV than the actually living words of God that are contained with it?

the KJV is not the "author and finisher of our faith" (romans 12:2 kjv)
no Jesus is and we are to look unto Him, He is the author of our faith, not a bible translation, he is the finisher(kjv)/perfecter(niv) of our faith.. Look unto Him..

what is the word of God?
read john chapter 1 (kjv)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Jesus is the Word, and the bible contains His truths and words, He existed before the world was created, before the KJV was written. the words written in the greek and hebrew were pefect, actually studies have show just like in IT data transfer we put CRC checksums etc to make sure no errors get through. there are such checksums in the greek and hebrew - yet not in the kjv... so how can a translation be BETTER than what is already perfect... the KJV was better in once sense, it was written well , will not many major mistakes in the common language of the day..

also new translations aren't' seeking to deceive, if they were, they wouldn't put the variations that the kjv uses in the footnotes, and such, they'd just omit it, also the words of the KJV translators themselves smash many of your arguments to bits..

one more thought.. there were some missionaries having to translate the
bible into one language of an african tribe..they camne to translate this literally..

revelations 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

however in that culture the only person who stands at a door and knocks is a theif, they have no locking doors, so a theif will knock at the door firzt to see if anyone is home and if so run away... so a literal translation would be misleading to the truth..

so it was translated differently something along the lines as "come in and ask to visit, and 'those who hear my voice and invite me in".. it wasn't mislead and in the footnotes they put the real translation and an explaination of mideast culture of the time (which happens to coincide with our modern door situation also so its not an issue to us).. they weren't misleading, lying or distorting the word of God.. they made it very clear.. Either translations into Chinese or whatever language are right and part of God's plan, or everybody really has to learn perfevct english , then middle english to be able to have any real spiritual growth, however the fruit of the church in the world shows otherwise.. you yourself mentioned to measure stuff by their fruit.


please remember to answer my questions and here is a finishing up scripture.

romans 12:2 KJV
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.


------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Done his homework? He's repeating the same lies that all opponents of God's word have always used. The lie is, "God is a liar, trust me and my scholarship, I'm smarter than all the translators of the King James Bible."
The new Bibles do deceive, most have omitted all or some of these following verses...
Matthew 17:21,Matthew 18:11,Matthew 23:14,Mark 7:16,Mark 9:44,Mark 9:46,Mark 11:26,Mark 15:28,Luke 17:36,Luke 23:17,John 5:4,Acts 8:37,Acts 15:34,Acts 24:7,Acts 28:29,Romans 16:24,1 John 5:7. What's up with that? I can't trust any Bible that omits those verses, I don't have to pray about that. If you do, you are deceived.
Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Oh ya, and by the way, God must have made an idol out of the word of God himself because of Psalms 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
(KJV)
The Bible is more important than the name of Jesus Christ himself. If that's making an idol out of the Bible God is guilty of it himself.

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
If you want links here are some... you can get these links from
http://www.biblebelievers.com/BibleVersions.html
After you read all these ask God which Bible is right yourself.

The Revisions of the KJV http://www.biblebelievers.com/Reagan_myth-early.html
The New James Bible http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
Omitted words from the New Bibles http://www.biblebelievers.com/Floyd_Jones/Jones_Ripped_index.html
The NIV challenge http://www.biblebelievers.com/NIV_Challenge.html
Bible Believers without a Bible http://www.biblebelievers.com/Norriscor1.htm
Logic must prove the KJV http://www.biblebelievers.com/Hyles1.html

Klumsy

Administrator

Posts: 1061
From: Port Angeles, WA, USA
Registered: 10-25-2001
hey man, what about the questions i asked you?
please give me the decency of an answer if you have the time to write all your other information...

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

Klumsy

Administrator

Posts: 1061
From: Port Angeles, WA, USA
Registered: 10-25-2001
quote:

The new Bibles do deceive, most have omitted all or some of these following verses...
Matthew 17:21,Matthew 18:11,Matthew 23:14,Mark 7:16,Mark 9:44,Mark 9:46,Mark 11:26,Mark 15:28,Luke 17:36,Luke 23:17,John 5:4,Acts 8:37,Acts 15:34,Acts 24:7,Acts 28:29,Romans 16:24,1 John 5:7. What's up with that? I can't trust any Bible that omits those verses, I don't have to pray about that. If you do, you are deceived.

every bible i have seen that have 'omitted' these text haven't done so with deception.. they clearly explain these scriptures and add the note they that all manuascripts don't fully agree, they don't just deceitfully take them out.. they lay all the details upon the table..

quote:

The Bible is more important than the name of Jesus Christ himself. If that's making an idol out of the Bible God is guilty of it himself.

read the first few verses of john 1 will you.. who is the word?

and please please take the time to answer my questions from my previous long post..

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Okay I'll try to answer them as easily as possible. First of all if we don't have a Bible that we can trust 100% such as the King James Bible, then we are dead in our sins and there's no reason to be a Christian, because we have NO evidence that our opinion is better than anyone elses.

A translation is ALWAYS better if it's authorized by God (is it any wonder that the King James Bible is also called the Authorized Version?), which it's obvious by the fruits of the new Bibles that they were not. By their fruits ye shall know them. For example when the new testament writers quoted old testament verses they were written in greek, but originally were written in Hebrew, therefore they were inspired translations.

Perfect doctrine is accepting the Bible as the final authority, and not a greek scholar.

No, I can't be wrong about the KJV. If I was they would have produced something better already, which they haven't. 1 Bible a year isn't exactly progress.

No I'm not making an idol from the Bible or else God did.

No, I know that the Paul called the text that Timothy had scripture and said that it was inspired, so I know more about the content of the Bible than most people. Also I know that Lucifer is properly translated because you can compare it with Ezekiel 28 and that the person spoken of in Isaiah 14 can't be a normal person because it was someone who fell from heaven, which can be identified as the devil by comparing that to Revelation chapter 13. How's that for knowing the content of the Bible, which blows away everybody's opinion about Isaiah 14?

Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith, but as you noted he is called the Word of God for a reason. The Bible says in 1 Pet 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
(KJV) So you can't separate Jesus from his word. As I noted God lifts up his word above his very name.

The new Bibles do deceive because if they weren't they wouldn't have removed the verses which I mentioned. It makes no difference to God whether they put references in the footnotes, because God said that we aren't supposed to subtract from the word of God. That means the text. You think God is impressed because they keep the references in the notes? He spews them out of his mouth.

Those missionaries have committed a serious sin. They must translate the Bible as literally as possible and teach them the culture from which the Bible authors came from. To "correct" the Bible with culture is heresy. If we did that we'd have to throw out the entire old testament and most of the new because it doesn't fit our culture. Do you see the problem with that? You are going to rewrite the Bible because their culture doesn't do it that way? ABOMINATION! No wonder God is upset with this nation. Even the Christians act like devils.

As for other people having to learn English I already noted that God did it that way before. The Old Testament was in Hebrew and God told the nations to come to the Jews for truth and to be circumcised. He gave it again to the Jews in the New Testament but only in Greek. Is it any suprise that God would make the final authority an English bible when all the world speaks english as a first or second language? Latitude and Longitude are english, the internet is primarily english, the standard form of currency is the english pound, and the standard bible by which the world will be judged is in English. I'm not saying that other translations aren't good. As a matter of fact the King James Bible was recently translated into Korean by someone I know and he's a King James Onlyist. He admits that his translation may be flawed and that the KJV is the only perfect Bible, but God has blessed that translation greatly. You see the flaw in the Bible correctors logic? God has always done things a certain way and never asked our permission. The evidence bears out that God has used the KJV above all other Bibles. Over 809 Million copies have been sold. God can use any Bible, but he can also make an ass speak, but we wouldn't consult one on important matters would we? Just because you find a diamond in a trash can doesn't mean it's a jewelry store and that's what the new Bibles are. Trash cans with just a few jewels left in them which they got from a Bible translated 400 years before the Revised Version committee proceeded to make 30,000 changes (in the NT alone) to it.

I'd ask you to read the entirety of the articles at http://www.biblebelievers.com/BibleVersions.html and tell me what you think after that. If I missed any questions please point them out.

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Correction of a typo, I meant to write Revelation chapter 12-13. The verses I'm pointing out there are primarily 12:7-9. There the Bible says that the Devil/Satan was cast out of heaven down to the earth. Which is exactly what Isaiah 14 says about Lucifer. So it can't be an earthly king. The Bible exposed the lie. The KJV is perfect.
Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
And while I'm on this subject, how can that guy think that Isaiah is talking about an earthly king when it says "How art thou fallen from heaven"? That guy can't even read English, I doubt his Hebrew is any good. He's done his research? I doubt he could pass a third grade English test. Most third graders know what heaven is and what earth is.
You might think I'm being harsh, but that guy is telling you that you can't trust the Bible. You can't be easy on those kinds of people, but God said we had to love our brothers, so I've tried to be kind and I think he has also. But like I said, I just was posting that I'm willing to work under the conditions that I mentioned in that first post.
Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
I wanted to end this conversation a while back (see previous posts), but there were still a few questions/comments etc, so I didn't. If anybody wants to discuss anything further (especially about games, which was why I originally came here) they can email me directly. I'm just getting tired of coming back here when I'm working. My email is bbib1@aol.com and my page is www.baptistlink.com/bbib1
Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
quote:
Originally posted by Embs Computer Art:
Okay I'll try to answer them as easily as possible. First of all if we don't have a Bible that we can trust 100% such as the King James Bible, then we are dead in our sins and there's no reason to be a Christian, because we have NO evidence that our opinion is better than anyone elses.

You have just made belief in KJVOism a requirement for salvation. You have just presented another gospel, a gospel with additional requirements. And you have just implied no one was saved prior to 1611, for in a post above you said there was no complete Bible for people to trust 100%.

quote:

Which is exactly what Isaiah 14 says about Lucifer. So it can't be an earthly king.

Have you even read any of my posts, or the links provided? Why do I get the feeling this has been a one-way conversation?

quote:

I'm just getting tired of coming back here when I'm working.

Then don't come here when you are working. Come back when you are not working.

Brian

------------------

Imsold4christ

Member

Posts: 305
From: Gresham, OR, US
Registered: 01-20-2001
Jeremiah,

Just out of curiousity, about how much time per day do you spend talking to people about this subject?

†Caleb†

------------------
"True friendship is not characterized by the absence of conflict, but by the ability to resolve conflict."

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
I have no idea. It's actually been a while. Most of the time it never comes up because I don't deal with Christians on the internet much. Most of the time I'm dealing with unsaved people (the people I usually work with), so I'm just trying to get them to open the Bible. It's amazing how many atheists and agnostics there are on the net. Of course I recommend the KJV to them, but most people that aren't saved don't even know that there is more than one Bible and that different Bibles are different inside. If they do, they still don't know (until they actually compared the Bibles too each other) that the texts of the hundreds of english Bibles available are often dynametrically opposed in their readings. Since it's been a while I guess the average time is zero, but for the past two days, it's been about an half-hour or so, which isn't too bad since I work from home, but it's starting to take away from my work, so I don't want to come back for a while. That's why I like setting up webpages dealing with these subjects. I can just write an article and refer people to that. It works really well for dealing with cults too because you don't have to type the same points over and over every time a mormon or catholic shows up in a chat room or message board. I avoid chat rooms though. Too time consuming.
rowanseymour

Member

Posts: 284
From: Belfast, Northern Ireland
Registered: 02-10-2001
So Jermiah I go to your webpage to try and find out where you are coming from, and I find a page entitled WHY CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS, to quote...
"Almost every history book in America refers to Catholics as Christians, including church history books by Phillip Schaff. This is an absolute lie. Catholics are not Christians. They are no less than Satan worshippers."

I don't want to confuse the issue here (tho your original post was a call for a 3d artist so I think its already a bit confused). Firstly I presume you are talking about the Roman Catholic Church here, and not Catholics in the true meaning of the word - which we all are.

So it seems you like playing God. You tell us your theology is God's, and you condemn like you are a god. But you're judgement is very different to our God's - His is perfect and fair as he knows our hearts, yours is based only on what you can see - like where people go to worship God.

I also see you're working on a new article entitled "Saudi Arabia - Enemy #1" - that's quite a compliment for satan - he'll be glad to know that you've overlooked him and made your battle against flesh and blood. Just don't forget that God loves Saudis as much as he loves Americans, and Roman Catholics as much as he loves Protestants, or Evangelists or any other church. I pray God would root you and ground you in that love so that you might preach the message of hope and salvation for as John said - Jesus himself did not come into the world to condemn - but to save.

------------------
Rowan / GODCENTRIC Christian Demoscene

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
I'm only on the net when I'm working. Since I spend so much time on the computer I don't use it much for relaxation. The net is not my favorite place to hang out.

I didn't say you had to believe the KJV to get saved, I said that if we don't have a Bible we can trust 100% of the time we have no EVIDENCE of that salvation, only opinion and emotion. Jesus Christ said it himself in John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
(KJV)

I've read your posts and page. Every point here I've used the Bible itself to back up my opinion. What have you used? Mythology? If you can explain why your theory of an earthly king DISOBEYS the cross references I gave you, then do it with cross references, not by retranslating the scripture to say something it didn't. The Bible says that scripture interprets scripture, so use the scripture. I did.
And also explain why the new Bibles insert the word star (kokab) into Isaiah when it doesn't appear in ANY hebrew text. (DON'T skip that one)

And why the Hebrew word helel would only appear once in the entire bible if it means day star or morning star since in Job 38:7 the term morning star is used. (DON'T skip that one)

And how would you know that helel means Venus? Did you get that from the Bible? I think not. You are believing men who are telling you what the Bible means, not what the Bible actually says. You are such a hypocrite. You say you believe the Bible, but your don't use the Bible to back up your points, instead you use mythology. I'm using the Bible.
The Bible tells us that the devil fell from heaven in Ezekiel 28 and Revelation chapter 12, so I have a dual witness that Isaiah is talking about the devil. All you have is mythology. Are you crazy? Are you even a Christian? Use the Bible. The internal evidence PROVES that Isaiah is talking about the devil. Your mythology only makes it unclear who it's talking about.

CobraA1

Member

Posts: 926
From: MN
Registered: 02-19-2001
I still don't see what makes the King James the "perfect" translation. I see the original works as being inspired, but I'm not so sure about the translations. If I ever have questions about a translation, I prefer to go back to the original works.

According to my father, a pastor and former Bible translator (transted the Bible into the African language Limba):
The KJV is not a literal translation, it is a word-for-word translation. If it was a literal translation, it would follow the word order of the origional Greek and Hebrew. It does not. If it did, you could never read it in a church because it would be almost impossible to understand. It is a word-for-word translation because it uses exactly one word in the English for each word in the Greek. This is not the best translation because sometimes it takes more than one word in the English, to render the meaning from the Greek clear. An example of this is that the Greek has three words for the English word "love." To make the meaning clear in English, we should ideally use more than one English word to translate the greek words "agape," "eros," and "philos," which mean "all-suffering love," "erotic love," and "brotherly love." The best translation is a meaning-based translation, which uses as many words as neccessary in English, and uses current English, to translate the greek. In conclusion, when my father translated the Bible into Limba, he didn't use 500-year old Limba language to do it, as is the case in the King James version.

Back to me:
For one thing, this means stuff HAS been taken out - the exact meaning of love as the passage intended. Just go ahead, translate word-for-word, without regard for what's missing in the new word meanings. You're blaming US for adding/subtracting from scriptures?

In any case, the styles of the different biblical authors is different and apparent; this indicates that they were allowed some freedom on matters such as word choice, grammer, etc. The Bible is meant to provide salvation, and it does that well. I have found that none of my beliefs have changed simply because I'm using a different Bible. The Word is perfect, not the wording. The Word saves, good grammer does not. I worship the Word, not language on paper. I do not worship a translation of the Bible; I worship the Triune God, who sent his Son to save us from our sins.

John 3:16 said it all:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever bleieves in him shall not perish but have eternal life"

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

Anybody who claims that only certain Bibles have saving power miss the point - it is faith in God's son that saves, not believing in a "perfect" translation of the Bible.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:6

In any case, back to the subject (it's probably too late for that, but I'll try) - are you any good with 3D? I'm attempting to make a game that both non-christians and christians can enjoy. It's from the same genre as "Transport Tycoon," although I'm trying to make it different enough to avoid any legal clashes with MicroProse.

CobraA1

Member

Posts: 926
From: MN
Registered: 02-19-2001
Whoops, forgot to read the post completely - so you do work with 3D.

What file format(s) do you like to save your work in? If I know ahead of time, I can tailor the engine to fit the format you are most comfortable working with.

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
TO rowanseymour:
Of course I'm talking about Roman Catholics. I not a Catholic, Roman or otherwise. I'm a Christian. That's what they were called at Antioch according to the Bible, not Catholics. If you call yourself a Catholic you are not using a Biblical word. That's not a sin of course, but if I'm going to identify myself with a word I'd rather use one that's in the Bible.

Saudi Arabia is the number one enemy of America, after the Catholic church of course, and that's what the article will be about. The saudis say that they are our friends but every one of the terrorists were from saudi arabia except the one they are putting on trial, which was from France. So do the math. I don't care if that offends you or anyone else. My job is not to make you happy. And I agree that Jesus came to save. Obviously. But he spoke more harshly to blind leaders of the blind than I have. He spoke on hell much more than heaven and was hard on religious leaders who reinterpreted the scripture however they wanted to, which today would include the Catholics and the Bible correctors. I'm not interpreting anything. I'm just pointing out what the Bible actually says, not what it "means", which is relative to opinion. If that steps on peoples toes then "Oh well". Like I've said before, if you don't offend somebody occasionally you aren't doing anything for Christ, because Jesus said that the world would hate you (the unsaved world) and that there would come a time that even those that kill you will think that they are doing God service (the saved, or self-righteous unsaved). You are right though, my simple post has turned into an entire webpage. I didn't exactly want all this.
Also as a note I'd say that worship has to be done on God's terms according to the Bible and not on ours, so if somebody is going to a Catholic church to worship God and using vain repetitions in his prayers (Matthew 6:7), but knows that it's wrong, then God won't accept that worship. He is gracious to the ignorant though I believe, but the Bible says in Proverbs 15:8 and 28:9 that God considers the prayers of the wicked and those they turn away from hearing the law an abomination. That's why we have to teach people about the Catholic church and how they are the babylonian whore that sits upon the seven hills like the Bible says in Revelation. They are the counterfeit church and we have to rescue people from that and bring them into true fellowship with God. Of course the Catholics would want us to believe that Revelation is talking about the roman empire, but it couldn't have been because we haven't seen a new heaven and a new earth yet and if you put the book of revelation in the past you have to put the whole thing into the past, which can't be. A third of the trees haven't burned up, hail and fire mingled with blood hasn't happened yet, and the moon hasn't turned to blood (literally like the book of Joel says), etc. etc. Of course the article itself proves the point that Catholics are not Christians. Christians don't worship idols or Mary.

Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
quote:
Originally posted by Embs Computer Art:
(DON'T skip that one)...(DON'T skip that one)

They weren't skipped. Thanks for proving you don't even read our responses. If others want to respond to your posts, that's great, but I'm through with you unless you want to actually read and respond to what I've already provided.

quote:

You are such a hypocrite....Are you crazy?...Are you even a Christian?

Oh, I feel the love... Thanks for the great example of the sour, rotten fruit of KJVOism.

Brian

------------------

Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
quote:
Originally posted by rowanseymour:
"Catholics are not Christians. They are no less than Satan worshippers."

LOL! Is that what he said? Erasmus, who produced the TR (the Greek NT on which the KJV is based) was a Roman Catholic priest and monk, who had many harsh words for the "Protestants" of the Reformation for leaving the RCC. Without such "Satan worshippers", we wouldn't even have the KJV.

Brian

------------------

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
COBRA

THANK YOU!!!!, for a post that deals with what I originally came here for. For 3d I prefer to work in 3dsmax format, but I usually have to export them to whatever format the engine uses. Lately it's been the Quake III format called *.md3 A common one is *.3ds and that works good. If it's a 2d game *.tga or *.jpg is usual. Tga files are usually bigger, but they can use transparencies (alpha channels). Sometimes for tile based games *.bmp is used, but the file sizes are pretty large. It's totally up to the programmer. The artist should be able to put it into whatever format you use. The only thing you must remember as a programmer is that if you are using a custom format you have to make a converter from a common format into your custom one for the artist to use.


You have a point, you can't do a word-for-word translation and it still make sense. That's why the KJV translaters added the italic words. Those are the words that had to be inserted for translation purposes. The new Bibles do that also, but they don't show you which words they added, so the KJV is more honest in that regard. So your father is wrong. The KJV is not a word-for-word translation. It's as close as you can get. A literal translation means translating the words as literally as possible and avoiding "dynamic equivalences" whenever possible. For the most part the KJV avoid them, but there are some. The new Bibles though love dynamic equivalences because they can rewrite the Bible to say something that it didn't.
Also you say that you go back to original works. Are you talking about the original manuscripts (sometimes called autographs)? Because those don't exist anymore. They've been gone for thousands of years. Remember Timothy had copies, but Paul said they were inspired, so copies are just as good as long as nobody tampers with them, like Origen did in Alexandria.
Also when you look at something like Nestle's Greek text or Wescott and Hort's text you are trusting that they compiled the best text with the best manuscripts for study.
If you have a nestle's greek text looke at Mark 1:2. In the KJV is says "prophets", but you'll notice that it says in Nestle's Greek text it says "Isaiah the prophet" (unlike some people, I can actually read some greek, but not very well, I can't pronounce it much at all). So which is it? Multiple prophets or just Isaiah, well look at who is quoted in that passage. Verse 2 is from Malachi 3:1 and vs 3 is from Isaiah 40:3 so the KJV is correct and Nestle's Greek is wrong. I think Wescott and Horts text repeats this error, but I haven't read any of it in a while, so I can't remember, but I do know that most new Bibles repeat that error.

Check it out in all of your versions. I know the NKJV sticks with the majority text here and therefore agrees with the truth, but I don't know about every new Bible since I don't have them all. Might be a little project for you to check out.

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
Oh about Erasmus, he was a monk, but his writings were banned by the Catholic church after his death and he believed in justification by faith, and have you ever read "Praise of Folly" by Erasmus? It's a rebuke to the Catholic church. You should read before you speak.
CobraA1

Member

Posts: 926
From: MN
Registered: 02-19-2001
quote:

COBRA
THANK YOU!!!!, for a post that deals with what I originally came here for.

You're welcome. The discussion about the KJV is starting to go over my head; I simply don't know much about the history of the various manuscripts. I don't have copies of any of them, and I'm not sure what kind of resources my father has. We used to have an "interliner" computer Bible program, but I'm not sure what texts it used. I guess I'm withdrawing from the discussion.

The game doesn't load or write to files yet, so the file format isn't set in stone. I'm a lone developer, so I can't really make any commitments to hire anybody; I'm just keeping my options open. If anybody wants to help me on a volunteer basis, I'd appreciate the help.

Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Embs Computer Art:
It's a rebuke to the Catholic church. You should read before you speak.
/QUOTE]

I have read. He rebuked certain things, but he still remained Catholic - he wanted some changes, but he loved the RCC.

And speaking of reading before speaking, how many of Westcott's books have your read? (or are you just demonstrating another KJVOism fruit: hypocrisy?) You say he is a necromancer, new ager, etc., but it appears you have only read Her Holiness, Miss Riplinger, who assumes (and even admits it!) that if two different people have the same last name, they must be the same sort of person.

Thanks for another fine example of the KJVOism double standard.

Brian

------------------

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
What kind of hypocrisy are you promoting when you can't even use the Bible to back up your claim that Isaiah isn't talking about the devil and I can show you that he is? Just a simple question. Show me your cross references. The conversation can't go forward without those.
Crptc_Prgrmr

Member

Posts: 169
From:
Registered: 02-05-2002
To KJV or not to KJV?

I must say that it is my opinion that the newer translations are accurate, especially considering the footnotes given. There may be minor differences that could cause misunderstandings (also found in the KJV), but these certainly are not intentional, they are the result of living (constantly changing) languages. God protected His word through thousands of years, and he will continue to do so until His will is accomplished. I put my faith in Him, and in so doing I also put my trust in His word spoken to us by mere men (prophets and apostles) and translated by mere men.

On the topic of languages, there is an excellent article on their origins at: http://answersingenesis.org/docs/4190cen_d1999.asp

I would also say that if God's word was manipulated by Satan, he did a very poor job. In my NIV, it still says that murder, theft, adultry, slander, coveting, misusing God's name, and idols are wrong, and that I should have no other gods but God, keep the Sabbath, and honor my parents. It still has Paul talking about people who exchange righteousness for wickedness and debauchery, including lesbianism explicitly. As Jesus said to the Pharisees when they thought to themselves His power came from Beelzebub, "A kingdom divided against itself will not stand."

If someone hands me a "bible" refering to God as She or condoning wickedness, I will toss it into the trash with the book of moron. As Paul taught, even pagans know in their hearts "that which is required by the Law". God's truth is not so hidden that it would disappear to the elect.

Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
quote:
Originally posted by Embs Computer Art:
What kind of hypocrisy are you promoting when you can't even use the Bible to back up your claim that Isaiah isn't talking about the devil and I can show you that he is? Just a simple question. Show me your cross references. The conversation can't go forward without those.

If you actually read my webpage, you'd already have your answer. But for the sake of others reading this thread: http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/lucifer.html

Brian

------------------

Embs Computer Art
Member

Posts: 27
From: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Registered: 06-08-2002
No, I said CROSS references. That means OTHER texts which prove that you are interpreting the context properly. Am I talking to myself here?

I don't think I want to come back and talk to you anymore because the Bible says in Prov 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
(KJV)

But I will say this. The word star, (hebrew kokab) was INSERTED into the Bible, without any manuscript evidence for it. You still haven't explained that, not here or on your page. It was INSERTED, not translated. You can't translate something that wasn't there to begin with. That is adding to the word of God. It doesn't matter who you think the Bible is talking about, you can not add to the word of God like that. The NIV translators have committed the sin forbidden in Revelation chapter 22:18-19. If you can't see that, you are blind.
helel doesn't mean morning star or else it would appear again in the verses you yourself pointed out that have the term morning star in them. It has to be a totally different word that doesn't appear anywhere in the old testament.
If it means light bearer as you indicated it may, then Lucifer is proper because it's ENGLISH!!! Yes it come from the latin lux phero, which means light bearer, but it's an English word!!! That's not transliteration, that's translation.
Every English speaking satanist knows who Lucifer is, but I guess you don't.
Please again people, email me. I don't like message boards.

I'll say this only once more. If anyone wants to contact me concerning games or the Bible issue please do it directly so that I can get it when I simply check my mail and so I don't have to come back to the message board.

Briant

Member

Posts: 742
From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 01-20-2001
quote:
Originally posted by Embs Computer Art:
No, I said CROSS references. That means OTHER texts which prove that you are interpreting the context properly.

When the context itself proves you are wrong, it simply shows you're making wrong cross references. Why should I provide *subjective* cross references when the *immediate context* itself proves you wrong? Why are you ignoring the immediate context?

quote:

I don't think I want to come back and talk to you anymore because the Bible says in Prov 26:4

Ya, we'll see.

quote:

But I will say this. The word star, (hebrew kokab) was INSERTED into the Bible...You still haven't explained that

Answered above. Twice. Sheesh. Do you know *anything* about how translation works?

quote:

That is adding to the word of God. It doesn't matter who you think the Bible is talking about, you can not add to the word of God like that. The NIV translators have committed the sin forbidden in Revelation chapter 22:18-19.

How many dozens of examples of the same thing in the KJV do you want me to provide?

quote:

It has to be a totally different word that doesn't appear anywhere in the old testament.

How many dozens of examples of the same thing in the KJV do you want me to provide? No, I guess you *don't* know how translation works.

quote:

Every English speaking satanist knows who Lucifer is

Oh yeah, I guess you're right: satanists have a really good handle on the truth.

quote:

I'll say this only once more. If anyone wants to contact me concerning games or the Bible issue please do it directly so that I can get it when I simply check my mail and so I don't have to come back to the message board.

Hey, if you don't want to discuss this with me, why do you keep asking me questions?

God bless,
Brian

------------------

Klumsy

Administrator

Posts: 1061
From: Port Angeles, WA, USA
Registered: 10-25-2001
quote:

I don't think I want to come back and talk to you anymore because the Bible says in Prov 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
(KJV)


matthew 5:22 (KJV)

Matthew 5
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

and read everything we say my friend, we never said that that scripture isn't refering to the devil but to an earthly king, KJV translated it into the english word/phrase that was appropriate for the day.Lucifer.. since that day that word has come to not mean light bearer but soly the devil.. the other translations believe that is the correct interpretation but would rather put the phrase that is most appriate to the original.. and let the reader who is under the infulence of the holy spirit doing the interpration of it..
even if the KJV version of the bible is the only right one...ones understanding of language is different from others, people will interpret the english even if very plainly stated different from each other.. whose to say the way you interpret it is right?

one last question.. why do you claim things about the KJV compared to the new versions when the KJV translators themselves plainly state otherwise?

Karl.

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

Stone

Junior Member

Posts: 1
From: Chandler, AZ, USA
Registered: 03-15-2002
The King James Controversy - try going to
http://www.crosswire.org/sword/index.jsp
There, you can download a free Bible program and
the American King James Bible, a translation that I wrote.
It is designed specifically to address this issue:
It's word for word identical to King James, but the words have
been updated to modern English (the thee's and thou's, etc.).
I took care to change absoultely none of the meaning, but it is much more readable. I have placed it in the public domain. I hope this helps...

------------------
Your friend in Christ,
Stone Engelbrite
www.InspiredIdea.com

InsanePoet

Member

Posts: 638
From: Vermont, USA
Registered: 03-12-2003
This is sad, you spend all this time arguing over this issue. I beleive there are much more worthy things to do with your time. Stop wasting your time arguing over a few measly words. An alteration of a few words is not adding to the Bible, unless it changes the meaning. And when it says that his word will be preserved means that He will keep it in existance. The text will never be lost. So you can debate over words, I'm going to live the word.

------------------
Victory Infinitum

graceworks
Member

Posts: 455
From: Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Registered: 03-03-2001
Back to the original post, can someone give advice to an engineer?

What is a reasonable rate for hiring an artist? 3D?

Also, if someone were willing to work cheaply up front in exchange for a royalty later, what is a reasonable percentage to demand?

I really appreciate your help in this area.

Tim

------------------
Called by God. The passioned plea of a father. The journey awaits at Jarod Journey's.

Klumsy

Administrator

Posts: 1061
From: Port Angeles, WA, USA
Registered: 10-25-2001
graceworks,

when i was going to run a software company as part of the curriculm for CS at a university in China.. i was going to have the profits split between the university being able to buy new hardware/software.. pay for international lecturers etc, and reinvesting the company and being split amougst the students according to the hours they put in at a various skill level..

it is very difficult to work out such a formula..

i believe the best way is to assatain the skill level of the artist, and what their output is in an hour or so..

so you work out that mr X is worth $15 an hour... and that you'll probably require about 150 hours or his efforts... and so this can be paid out of the expenses once some income is comming in... or you could have the above base figure as a starting point.. and use a percentage as well

like the aboove would be $2250
so you can agree that eventually he'll get at least $2250, you might be willing according to your budget to pay him up to this mark at 8% of revenue or $3 percent of profit.. till that is paid
and you might make in the agreement that once that amount is paid he'll get 2% of revenue capped at $15,000 or whatever...

just some thoughts

Karl

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz