- This topic is empty.
- Posts
David,
If we don't “have” the truth, at least we know what it is then, based on what you said. We have all the definitions of every word. “Truth” is in the Bible. So we know what truth is. (I know this isn't really on topic, but it made me smile, so I had to say something.)
You know what the truth is but you don't have it. “So we know what truth is” You have every definition of every word but the JWs misss the “spiritual” part of God's Word which is the most important part. If you have the Spirit (who bears witness with the Word) even if there were no New Testament the Spirit would GUIDE YOU TO ALL TRUTH ( John 16:13). Without the Spirit their would be no New Testament. Men were inspired by the Holy Spirit. So if you don't have the Holy Spirit (and the JWs don't) then you are trying to understand a book wtitten by the Spirit by using “MANS” method. Which concerning Spiritual matters is always WRONG. If you had the Spirit you woud know this.
It is really sad what Satan has accomplished with the JWs. So I'm NOT smiling
The JWs certainly have one of the obvious traits of her Mother The Catholic church they too are the only true church and IF you don't join them then you're doomed. Isn't that right David?It IS funny that though NO denominations are allowed David and the Witnessess ARE
Dear Oneway2besaved,
I would get rid of your NKJ. Here is a link. http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
Brother, think about this for a minute. What will the endtimes look like according to the scriptures. The bible says it will be as in the days of Noah. Out of the entire population of the earth, eight souls were saved. Evil manifested itself. The same is happening today. Do not be ignorant to the truth. Use common sense. If the world is believing in it or if the majority stands on it, chances are that is not the right direction. So if most of the world say the KJ is not the word of God, wouldn't you think there is a good chance they are wrong. Who does the devil attack more, those on his side or the saints. The same is with God's word. Think about it brother.???
Hi H,
You do not help your cause by overplaying your hand here. None here say the KJV is not the Word of God. We all use it, rely on it and search it for wisdom and understanding. But we do not stand on it alone as the only Rock, and reject out of hand the other sources our God has given us as that puts too much reliance on weak, sinful men.My intentions were not just towards that of the NKJB, but that of all the other corrupt translations. I am not sure what you mean by over playing my hand unless most here already believe or are using the KJ already. Or maybe you are referring to the question marks at the end. Forgive me for that. I didn't even know I did that until I read your post. I have a bad habit of not proof reading, and I am not be best typist as I am sure you are already aware of by now. Forgive me brother.
Quote he JWs certainly have one of the obvious traits of her Mother The Catholic church they too are the only true church and IF you don't join them then you're doomed. Isn't that right David? It IS funny that though NO denominations are allowed David and the Witnessess ARE
Hi KENRCH,
Didn't the early Christians believe they had the only right religion? If you were living back then, could you do your own thing, find your own way, belong to just any religion? No. No, you couldn't. In this respect, we believe no differently than the early Christians. 'Belong to whomever you want, their are many different roads,' or 'Find your own road' are not biblical teachings. They're just not.
HITCT,
I don't think he was referring to the question marks.Quote (Oneway2besaved @ June 11 2006,12:45) Should I throw out my NKJ version. If that is true of 1J5:8 what is the point of me continuing with this version only to be corrected later on in my life. I want to move forward in my walk with God.
Hi O,
Seek the Spirit as only then can you see the kingdom. Only then can you discern the flim flam and false signs and powers, from the true work of God.
Compare bible versions especially if a verse jars in the Spirit in one version. Beware those who would confine your study to one version as that is evidence in itself that they do not know the Spirit and live in fear of deception of one kind, but in avoiding that are falling into another.Quote (david @ June 11 2006,22:50) Quote he JWs certainly have one of the obvious traits of her Mother The Catholic church they too are the only true church and IF you don't join them then you're doomed. Isn't that right David? It IS funny that though NO denominations are allowed David and the Witnessess ARE
Hi KENRCH,
Didn't the early Christians believe they had the only right religion? If you were living back then, could you do your own thing, find your own way, belong to just any religion? No. No, you couldn't. In this respect, we believe no differently than the early Christians. 'Belong to whomever you want, their are many different roads,' or 'Find your own road' are not biblical teachings. They're just not.
HITCT,
I don't think he was referring to the question marks.
Hi,
the JWs are bound together by fear. Their teachings say that only 144,000 will be saved and these are only from among the Witnesses. Now if more that 144,000 witnesses are walking the earth right now how safe would it be from their perspective to even question one of their “sacred” teachings?Quote (david @ June 11 2006,22:50) Quote he JWs certainly have one of the obvious traits of her Mother The Catholic church they too are the only true church and IF you don't join them then you're doomed. Isn't that right David? It IS funny that though NO denominations are allowed David and the Witnessess ARE
Hi KENRCH,
Didn't the early Christians believe they had the only right religion? If you were living back then, could you do your own thing, find your own way, belong to just any religion? No. No, you couldn't. In this respect, we believe no differently than the early Christians. 'Belong to whomever you want, their are many different roads,' or 'Find your own road' are not biblical teachings. They're just not.
HITCT,
I don't think he was referring to the question marks.
David,So if you believe you have ALL the right answers then that makes YOU the only true church? Strange that is the same way Catholic's believe. So according to you we have a choice of either the JWs OR the Catholics. That is exactly what I mean when I say the JWs don't have the Holy Spirit. The Spirit doesn't care how many definitions you know only that you believe that Jesus died for your sins. Through the Spirit we have a personnal relationship with the Lord Jesus. The JWs and Catholics do not, it's just that simple. The church is not an ORGANIZATION OR DENOMINATION the church are those who have the Holy Spirit. When Jesus was walking on earth the Kingdom was AMONG you but now that He has been resurrected the Kingdom is WITHIN
Quote (kenrch @ June 12 2006,00:57) Quote (david @ June 11 2006,22:50) Quote he JWs certainly have one of the obvious traits of her Mother The Catholic church they too are the only true church and IF you don't join them then you're doomed. Isn't that right David? It IS funny that though NO denominations are allowed David and the Witnessess ARE
Hi KENRCH,
Didn't the early Christians believe they had the only right religion? If you were living back then, could you do your own thing, find your own way, belong to just any religion? No. No, you couldn't. In this respect, we believe no differently than the early Christians. 'Belong to whomever you want, their are many different roads,' or 'Find your own road' are not biblical teachings. They're just not.
HITCT,
I don't think he was referring to the question marks.
David,So if you believe you have ALL the right answers then that makes YOU the only true church? Strange that is the same way Catholic's believe. So according to you we have a choice of either the JWs OR the Catholics. That is exactly what I mean when I say the JWs don't have the Holy Spirit. The Spirit doesn't care how many definitions you know only that you believe that Jesus died for your sins. Through the Spirit we have a personnal relationship with the Lord Jesus. The JWs and Catholics do not, it's just that simple. The church is not an ORGANIZATION OR DENOMINATION the church are those who have the Holy Spirit. When Jesus was walking on earth the Kingdom was AMONG you but now that He has been resurrected the Kingdom is WITHIN
YOU not in a hall or any building. Unless you give your heart to Christ you will never know Jesus. A brand new babe in Christ knows more about Jesus than you will ever know by man's method.Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ June 09 2006,01:25) What I can do is post the partial study done by our church by link to the page. The study is only in part and it is only what refers to in part, the King James study. We believe that all saints need to do the study for themselves, so they can see with their own eyes. The path of the church throughout history is very difficult to follow and if not for the hand written Holy Writs, it would be difficult to discern between the church and the pagan religions. For the church was always under persecution and under attack, either physically or spiritually or both. When Rome decided it would be the keeper of the faith, it was not with good intentions and the saints again began being persecuted. Anyway, here is a link to our page. http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=244&ItemId=732
Testing 1234Hi Cubes,
Quote (Cubes @ June 10 2006,06:03) 
Well what do you know! A light moment in the serious business of doctrinal discussions!It was apparently not what I thought, fearing that the computer did not want me to use the word “Pakistani” but even after I omitted it, I was having trouble. Eventually suspected that maybe my attempt to use a shorter version for “HiCitC's” name was the problem. I inserted “iit” in the appropriate places and voila! Only then did I give further thought to the acronym and realized it sounds vaguely familiar… I shall have to look into it and leave it alone.
lol!
Not sure why that problem occured.
I didn't really understand your explanation as to why this might have happened.But at least you can post here, which is the main thing.
Quote (heaven @ June 12 2006,08:02) Hi Cubes, Quote (Cubes @ June 10 2006,06:03) Well what do you know! A light moment in the serious business of doctrinal discussions!It was apparently not what I thought, fearing that the computer did not want me to use the word “Pakistani” but even after I omitted it, I was having trouble. Eventually suspected that maybe my attempt to use a shorter version for “HiCitC's” name was the problem. I inserted “iit” in the appropriate places and voila! Only then did I give further thought to the acronym and realized it sounds vaguely familiar… I shall have to look into it and leave it alone.
lol!
Not sure why that problem occured.
I didn't really understand your explanation as to why this might have happened.But at least you can post here, which is the main thing.
well, I was addressing my post to “hcc” capitalized as HCC. It wouldn't take and probably this wouldn't either so I shall have to still edit it.After all that trial and error, I remembered that I had heard the term “Hick” before in not complimentary terms, so I asked Spheres who confirmed that it is usually intended as an insult in the U.S. anyway.
I don't know why I had trouble posting but I know that after omitting those three capitalized letters, I could. Thanks for looking into it though.
Hi,
No bible translation is infallible because translators are fallible. We tolerate and use all versions on this site,aware of their shortcomings, so hopefully we can soon get beyond a versus b.http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kinginde.htm
http://watch-unto-prayer.org/Here are two sources on the new that have allot of information about the King James bible. As I stated, this is online information. The library in the best place to go.
Quote (heiscomingintheclouds @ June 12 2006,23:34) http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kinginde.htm
http://watch-unto-prayer.org/Here are two sources on the new that have allot of information about the King James bible. As I stated, this is online information. The library in the best place to go.
Hi,
So the KJV was done under the auspices of the Anglican church, a schismatic daughter of catholicism, and as Rev Terence Brown is quoted on the site they were neither infallible nor was their work perfect.
So why do men wish to elevate this work to the status of perfection?Quote Hi,
the JWs are bound together by fear. Their teachings say that only 144,000 will be saved and these are only from among the Witnesses. Now if more that 144,000 witnesses are walking the earth right now how safe would it be from their perspective to even question one of their “sacred” teachings?Nick, where did I or any JW ever say that only 144,000 will be saved? We've discussed this at length. Yet, this? Why do you misrepresent us when you know what we actually believe?
Nick, anytime you would want to sit down and do some debating over scripture, I would be more then glad to do so. Brother, you could not stand. I love you, but you are only believing part of God's word and not all. Brother, you still refuse to answer my question. Why do you refuse to go to the house of God? Yes the church is the believers, but brother, you tell me why then the apostles worked so hard to form the church if we have no need of it today? Your thinking is not of God. You are being slothful. Repent.
H, I am wondering what your responce is to my previous post:
Quote These are five things I’ve come across with regards to the KJV. Don’t get me wrong. It’s one of my favorites. It’s old and popular and has a certain feel to it. But there are certain things I have to mention only because it's been repeatedly stated that the KJV is infallible: 1. Many thousands of ancient written secular documents have been found in recent years. And these documents give a better understanding of the original languages— Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek—in which the Bible was written. Not so long ago it was thought that many words in the Greek Scriptures were special Bible words, so to speak. But now these same words have been found in ordinary correspondence of Bible times—in deeds, official documents, and even in receipts. Seeing how these words were used in secular documents of the time has been helpful understanding their meaning.
For example: Ancient papyrus writings have been found that showed the everyday use of certain words not well understood. Thus “Raca” was simply thought to mean “a vain fellow,” but that did not fit in with the severe condemnation of its use by Jesus. (Matt. 5:22, AV margin) Now, however, because of the discovery of a papyrus letter, scholar E. Goodspeed has said that “Raca” was a foul name “which one sometimes heard on the lips of foul-mouthed people but never saw in print.”2. More and more ancient Bible manuscripts have been discovered. The significance of these finds is not that they are radically different from manuscripts already possessed, indicating need for basic changes in the Bible text. To the contrary, their differences are minor. Yet, if you are a Shakespeare enthusiast, even one word altered in Hamlet would be important to you, although it would really make no difference to the characters, the plot, or the result. Similarly, to a Bible student the change of one word can be important for the meaning of a Bible verse, yet not alter any doctrine or basic interpretation.
At the time of the translation of the King James Version only a few Greek manuscripts were available and these were of rather late origin. But since then many fine vellum manuscripts of the collected Scriptures have come to light, some going back as far as the fourth century of our Common Era. Also papyrus manuscripts and fragments have been uncovered that date back to the third and even the second centuries C.E. Usually, the older the copy, the less likely it is to have suffered changes from copying.3. The English language itself has changed over time. If it continues to change at the same rate, a person who speaks English may have great difficulty understanding anything in the KJV. Will it be infallibe when no one understands it?
For example, to “let” used to mean to “hinder.” Today the meaning usually attached to the expression is just the opposite, to “permit.” (2 Thess. 2:7)
To “prevent” used to mean to “go before” or to “precede.” Today it means to “keep from happening.” (1 Thess. 4:15) “Conversation” used to mean “conduct.” Today it most often refers to talking with another. (Phil. 1:27) And for most persons today “shambles” does not refer to a “meat market,” as it used to, but to a “scene of destruction.”—1 Cor. 10:25.
The English word “coast” in former times did not refer just to a seacoast. It used to mean the side or border of a country. Thus the King James and Catholic Douay, both first published over 360 years ago, speak of the apostle Paul as traveling through the “upper coasts” to Ephesus. (Acts 19:1) However, the Bible record shows that Paul traveled to Ephesus from the “country of Galatia and Phrygia,” a journey that would take him nowhere near a seacoast! (Acts 18:23)
Another example is that of the verb apékho, translated “have” in older translations, but which means “to have in full,” being used “as a technical expression in drawing up a receipt,” as stated in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. So Jesus, in condemning those who hypocritically make a showing of their charity, said that they “are having their reward in full.” That is absolutely all they will ever get, the praise of men, which was just what they wanted.—Matt. 6:2.
There are many many such examples. The Bible is meant to be understood, not to be sung in latin because it sounds pretty. It’s meant to be understood.
4. The removal of God’s name and substitution of titles (GOD and LORD) in most places all except 3 or 4 doesn’t make sense. If it’s ok to use God’s name, why remove it? If it’s not ok, why have it in those few places?
5. And then there are the spurious verses. They have their own threads.
****
Sorry, forgot to mention this which has also bothered me and confused others from time to time:
The King James Version rendered she’ohl´ as “hell,” “the grave,” and “the pit”; hai´des is therein rendered both “hell” and “grave”; ge´en·na is also translated “hell.”So, sometimes sheohl is “hell” and sometimes “the grave,” and sometimes the “pit.”
I believe that sheol (hell) is the grave or pit. They are the same. But when you use the word “grave,” it is a different image then when you use the word “hell.”Similar with haides: sometimes “hell,” sometimes “grave.” Perhaps hell and grave are the same.
gehenna is different. We KNOW THIS because haides is thrown into gehenna. And gehenna is sometimes translated “hell.” So, is hell being thrown into hell?
This picking and choosing how to translate the same word differently has lead to confusion.
I believe transliterating them as sheol, haides and gehenna would be less confusing.“Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.”
—The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.Suprisingly, you seem to have answers. Just wondering how you would respond?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
