The “AKJV Bible”

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 08 2014,17:19)

Hi T8,  so is your answer “Yes” then?   …Or is your answer “No”? Do YOU consider the “AKJV Bible” Scripture? Certainly answering “Yes” – “No” – or “I don't know” cannot be that difficult. After all it is your rule, certainly you can follow you own rule, can you not? I can always start another thread in “The Hot Seat” if you refuse to answer it here. Cheerio Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Here is my answer.

Yes. Except for any added in verses and mistranslations. This answer is also applicable for all translations of the Bible.

Now please answer your question in like manner. My answer has no contradictions and is fair.

I am only interested in a good answer. It doesn't have to stick to exact rulings. It just needs to be a fair answer that clears up misconceptions. I would appreciate you answer in the best way you can. Do not try to hide things. Be open, even if it proves you are wrong. The idea is to not win at all costs. Let the truth win Ed J.

[Ed J]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 12 2014,12:03)

I am only interested in a good answer. It doesn't have to stick to exact rulings. It just needs to be a fair answer that clears up misconceptions. I would appreciate you answer in the best way you can. Do not try to hide things. Be open, even if it proves you are wrong. The idea is to not win at all costs. Let the truth win Ed J.

Hi T8,

Good that you see the point I was trying to make.
And glad we can finish up our “Hot Seat” dialog now.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 21 2014,05:03)

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 12 2014,12:03) I am only interested in a good answer. It doesn't have to stick to exact rulings. It just needs to be a fair answer that clears up misconceptions. I would appreciate you answer in the best way you can. Do not try to hide things. Be open, even if it proves you are wrong. The idea is to not win at all costs. Let the truth win Ed J. Hi T8, Good that you see the point I was trying to make. And glad we can finish up our “Hot Seat” dialog now. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Edj

So then you agree that the kjv is not a perfect translation ,and so contains error ,and bias views

[Ed J]

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 22 2014,17:35)

Edj So then you agree that the kjv is not a perfect translation ,and so contains error ,and bias views

Hi Pierre,

The “AKJV Bible” is as a perfect of a translation as we are going to get. Let's say
for example I was to edit it in an attempt to remove any errors others may perceive.
I too then would be accused of adding bias, so you can see it is “a catch 22” situation.
When others perceive inconsistencies it's best to then re-examine the original text; agreed?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[NickHassan]

Hi ED,
There are many manuscripts.
The AKJV made a choice of the commonest ones

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 24 2014,02:25)

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 22 2014,17:35) Edj So then you agree that the kjv is not a perfect translation ,and so contains error ,and bias views Hi Pierre, The “AKJV Bible” is as a perfect of a translation as we are going to get. Let's say for example I was to edit it in an attempt to remove any errors others may perceive. I too then would be accused of adding bias, so you can see it is “a catch 22” situation. When others perceive inconsistencies it's best to then re-examine the original text; agreed? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

HI EDJ

so you would agree that what you say could be seen and said by any one on any of the existing translation right

even that about the old manuscript and so none or all are perfect

hmmmm

[Proclaimer]

He won't agree because he is not straight up. He just can't admit it because he has too much riding on the fact that it has to be perfect.

In short he is not being honest here. He is not letting his yes be yes and no be no. He has resorted to avoidance, favour, and other tactics. But I am only interested in the honest truth. Nothing more nothing left. Thus the tile remains in the Hot Seat.

The vision for this site was always to attract believers who love the truth no matter what the cost, or no matter what the mainstream says. The Hot Seat is a process that helps identify people that prefer politics to truth.

[Ed J]

Quote (t8 @ April 07 2014,17:45)

He has resorted to avoidance

I have started this thread, so for you to suggest
that I don't want to discuss the status of the “AKJV Bible”
would be an out-right lie. Is that what you are accusing me of doing?
Rather it is you that is avoiding talking about your promise to remove the tile.

So I have put this in my signature to remind you of your dogery:
————–
Awaiting the site owners promised tile removal:
Forum » BELIEVERS PLACE » The Hot Seat » T8 on the Hot-Seat     …exposing his Kangaroo court & his ex-post-facto-laws!

[Ed J]

Quote (t8 @ April 07 2014,17:45)

He won't agree because he is not straight up. He just can't admit it because he has too much riding on the fact that it has to be perfect. In short he is not being honest here. He is not letting his yes be yes and no be no. He has resorted to avoidance, favour, and other tactics. But I am only interested in the honest truth. Nothing more nothing left. Thus the tile remains in the Hot Seat. The vision for this site was always to attract believers who love the truth no matter what the cost, or no matter what the mainstream says. The Hot Seat is a process that helps identify people that prefer politics to truth.

Hi T8,

Rather it is you have not been honest with me, you said you would remove the tile
when I explained the contradiction that you were seeing; which I have already done.    here are your words promising to remove the tile…

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 07 2014,21:48)

you just need to clear that contradiction up. Look forward to you clearing that up. Once cleared, the tile will disappear.

Actually I'm looking forward to discussing my view of the AKJV Bible with you.

But you have not done what you said you would do.
Be a man of your word and remove the tile.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Here is the re-post of my answer…

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 10 2014,14:55)

I can't be bothered reading the detail of your answer Ed J, I am not sure if the devil is in the detail and can't be bothered to get a lawyer to look it over. It is simple, if you give me a truthful answer as to this apparent contradiction, then yes I will remove the tile. An acceptable answer would be admitting you were wrong, or explaining how the AKJV can be perfect and yet contain error. I can't even wish you good luck with that. Just give me a truthful answer to wrap it up. I am a reasonable man. I will remove the tile if you are honest and clear it up.

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2013,09:18)

Your (Ed J's) quote is below: Quote No it you who doesn't understand, In John 6:70 Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil' nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' (1) Edited James Version (EDJV interpretation): Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil' nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil' (2) Authorised King James Version (AKJV): Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? Obviously both your interpretation and the AKJV cannot be correct. My question: Which is correct? 1) Your interpretation of John 6:70; 2) The AKJV translation of this verse.

Hi T8,

Regarding #1.
A. Neither the Greek, nor the Hebrew has “indefinite articles”
    So Jesus could not have said ‘one of you is A devil’
B. And likewise none of the 12 Greek definite articles were used,
    So Jesus equally could not have said ‘one of you is THE devil’
C. Therefore:  “Jesus was NOT calling Judas 'the devil' nor was Jesus even calling Judas 'a devil'”
    is a true statement, even though you may yet consider it wrong.

Regarding #2.
A. Should the indefinite article “a” have been italicized, YOU bet!
B. Would I say the editors were ‘wrong’ for NOT italicizing it?
    Wrong is not the word I would use, neglectful perhaps.
    Can you really call someone wrong for overlooking something?

Now be a man of your word and removing the tile.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

And here is you affirming that choice marked “exhibit 1” is indeed correct – as I have clearly stated.

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 23 2014,21:02)

BTW, I agree with the article argument you make.

Now please be a man of your word and kindly remove the tile.

[Ed J]

Quote (t8 @ April 22 2014,11:56)

Okay, tile will be removed in the next 5 minutes.

Hi T8,

Are you ready to now be reasonable and discuss things like “Christian Brothers”,
or are you going to continue to try to beat me into submission
TO YOUR DOCTRINE using the-tile-punishment-stick?

That approach will get you no-where, it will only piss you off and force to make up fake charges
against me – which will be seen as evidence against you proffering yourself as a righteous judicatory.

                          That is why I started the thread….    
                     (it documents actions taken against me)

Forum » BELIEVERS PLACE » The Hot Seat » T8 on the Hot-Seat    …exposing his, Kangaroo court & his ex-post-facto-laws!

…as for me, I prefer the brotherly approach and will attempt to reason with you.  (ref. Isaiah 1:18)

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (t8 @ April 22 2014,11:56)

Because the AKJV incorrectly (according to your view) adds in an indefinite article, does this mean that this translation is not perfect? 1) Yes, it is not perfect. 2) It is still perfect despite this.

Hi T8,

1) I never said that the “AKJV Bible” was perfect – I instead said: that it's anointed of God
    (please try to use my words and refrain from trying to put YOUR words in my mouth)

2) Perfect is not a word I choose to use. Trying to forcing me to choose #2 against
    my will is not at all brotherly on your part, it only exposes you as a bully.
Please choose the approach of reason over bullying   …next question

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Next you'll be saying (Ed says) it is still perfect despite this.

please attempt to quote me accurately.

[Proclaimer]

If it is not perfect, then using it as a trusted foundation for your numerics means we cannot trust your gematria. And if your numerics do not work with other translations that are not perfect as well, then all the more why your gematria is Pseudomathematics.

[Proclaimer]

Ed J, you could have wrapped this up much earlier had you said that the AKJV is not perfect, rather imperfect and anointed.

[Proclaimer]

So this leads to the next question.

If the AKJV is annointed and is wrong about its usage of the definite article (as you say), and you by your own words correct the AKJV where it has erred, then how can it be an annointed version and yet needs you to come along and correct the annointing it has.

[Ed J]

Hi T8,

You gave me a lot to chew on in those three little posts. Right now
I need to sleep, but I will be addressing your points when I return.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Proclaimer]

And why is the AKJV anointed when it didn't have access to the oldest manuscripts and it includes obvious additions such as the Comma Johanneum.

Surely, the logical reason why you think this translation is anointed is to support your many hours (perhaps years) of work in Old English Gematria. Admitting that the translation is not even the best one out there would means that your numerics are a waste of time and effort and that is too hard for you to take, so you will keep the fantasy alive at any cost. Isn't it time to consider stopping this madness before you waste many more hours of your precious life in this vain exercise that doesn't bring anyone to God. The scriptures meaning is what you should be focused on, not some imaginary Gematria that only works for a seventeenth century translation.

Do yourself a favour and look for the Gematria in the NIV for a month and then you will see patterns there too. You will then realise that this can be done with anything because of the huge amount of variables, you can cherry pick the patterns out of anything. If I throw 10000 marbles on the ground, I will be able to draw many geometric shapes despite the fact that I did not specifically place each marble by hand.

Perhaps the older manuscripts have Gematria as their original languages have a built in numerical system. I am open to that possibility. But believing that a group of men for the King of England created the AKJV under a special anointing that does not exist with any other translation, well that is just fantasy. Teaching such a thing only promotes confusion and division and there is no need for it. I will be honest and just tell it to you straight. Most will think you are a nut and that will to some degree taint the true faith and give it a bad name.

You know that many Christians today are persecuted because of the stupid actions of others. Catholics burned people at the stake and denied the Earth went around the sun, you teach that the AKJV is anointed and that the gematria is proof of God to these poor souls who need real light, others teach that God sends UFOs to save us and we only need to die to hitch a ride. All this is the reason why many think belief in God is stupid. It was partly the reason why I was an Atheist for the first half of my life. Has it ever occurred to you the real damage religious nutters do to the gospel of salvation?

[terraricca]

THE IDEA OF WE MUST BELIEVE IN WHAT WE HAVE SAID AND DONE ” BECOME CRITICAL TO MAKE IT A TRUTH ,OTHERWISE IT WILL BE LOOKED AT AS BEING A LIE ,AND WILL BRING MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS TO IT ,

SO DEFENDING A LIE AT ALL COST IS A OLD PRACTICE OF MEN ,NOT GOD OR GOD'S PEOPLE

[Author]

Posts