Is the KDV (Ken, Donnie Version) better than the KJV??

Bill
Bill

October 30th, 2016, 1:29 am #21

Looks like a loose screw in his led Donnie to believe that he has an "open mind." Needs to be tightened up a bit. LOL
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

October 30th, 2016, 2:50 am #22

Donnie, this is not about Bill. I think you have a loose screw. Seek some help...soon!
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Rancor,

Bill said earlier: [Donnie] is "taking a few days "off" to collect his thoughts and regroup.

Rancor [you] just said: Donnie, I see why it took you so long to answer my post.

Sound similar to me.

OK, never mind. You are correct: this is not about Bill.

Oh, now I need to "seek some help...soon"?

Would you like to volunteer to help? Why don't we work together to do more study and research? Actually, I'm waiting for some "intelligent" argument from serious Bible students. Know why? Because what I've heard so far has been complaints about font size, bold text, etc. Rather than: "Thanks for the research and new evidence I have not heard before but would like to consider...."

You may be right in thinking I have "a loose screw" -- probably a strong indication of being open-minded, rather than "closed-minded." [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

October 30th, 2016, 2:50 am #23

Donnie, this is not about Bill. I think you have a loose screw. Seek some help...soon!
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Rancor,

Bill said earlier: [Donnie] is "taking a few days "off" to collect his thoughts and regroup.

Rancor [you] just said: Donnie, I see why it took you so long to answer my post.

Sound similar to me.

OK, never mind. You are correct: this is not about Bill.

Oh, now I need to "seek some help...soon"?

Would you like to volunteer to help? Why don't we work together to do more study and research? Actually, I'm waiting for some "intelligent" argument from serious Bible students. Know why? Because what I've heard so far has been complaints about font size, bold text, etc. Rather than: "Thanks for the research and new evidence I have not heard before but would like to consider...."

You may be right in thinking I have "a loose screw" -- probably a strong indication of being open-minded, rather than "closed-minded." [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

October 30th, 2016, 3:02 am #24

Looks like a loose screw in his led Donnie to believe that he has an "open mind." Needs to be tightened up a bit. LOL
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Bill,

That explains why after all the years of brainwashing, I came to reject the pagan-influenced, Catholic-invented, Protestant-acquired/inherited "Trinity Creed."

I guess there are those who prefer to continue being brainwashed. [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Rancor
Rancor

October 30th, 2016, 4:05 am #25

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Rancor,

Bill said earlier: [Donnie] is "taking a few days "off" to collect his thoughts and regroup.

Rancor [you] just said: Donnie, I see why it took you so long to answer my post.

Sound similar to me.

OK, never mind. You are correct: this is not about Bill.

Oh, now I need to "seek some help...soon"?

Would you like to volunteer to help? Why don't we work together to do more study and research? Actually, I'm waiting for some "intelligent" argument from serious Bible students. Know why? Because what I've heard so far has been complaints about font size, bold text, etc. Rather than: "Thanks for the research and new evidence I have not heard before but would like to consider...."

You may be right in thinking I have "a loose screw" -- probably a strong indication of being open-minded, rather than "closed-minded." [/color]
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

October 31st, 2016, 3:29 am #26

"Actually, I'm waiting for some "intelligent" argument from serious Bible students."

Donnie said this. I believe him, for a change. He wants research, intelligent argument, or anything, but.......he don't want INSPIRED SCRIPTURE from the 66 Holy Words. It doesn't help his argument.
Quote
Share

Bill
Bill

October 31st, 2016, 4:52 am #27

All puns and jokes aside, we've given plenty of serious arguments from the Bible. The problem is that Donnie only accepts arguments that agree with his peculiar brand of theology, that agree with his peculiar interpretation of the Scriptures. In other words, Donnie believes that if your argument doesn't match his, it's not "intelligent." You really cannot have a valid discussion with someone like Donnie, whose attitude says that when it comes to understanding the Scriptures, he is omniscient.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

October 31st, 2016, 5:15 am #28

"Actually, I'm waiting for some "intelligent" argument from serious Bible students."

Donnie said this. I believe him, for a change. He wants research, intelligent argument, or anything, but.......he don't want INSPIRED SCRIPTURE from the 66 Holy Words. It doesn't help his argument.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Dave,

The answer is simple.

Of course, the Holy Scripture is inspired. But proper translation must correspond to the accuracy of the manuscript. Was the manuscript in its original form or was it copied by the scribes and/or others even with minor errors? The inspiration of God's Word is never in question. But there's that human element that must be considered. The originality of the manuscript. That translators are human beings and may have biases, since doctrines had already been formed even before translations began.

Just a brief example: Have you done some research on why there is only one mention of "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" -- the main passage that Trinitarians use to defend that man-made doctrine? On the other hand, there are numerous verses in the new Testament that state: "in the name of Jesus Christ." Especially and including Acts 2:38 -- the famous church of Christ defense of baptism for the remission of sins. Check it out, Dave.

I believe research is important in cases like this. It is interesting that the manuscript that Eusebius (260-340AD) -- centuries before modern Bible translations began -- quoted from said: make disciples "in my name." (By the way, I will be able to prove with Scripture that Eusebius was correct in quoting "in my name.") [/color]

Quote
Like
Share

Dave
Dave

October 31st, 2016, 2:43 pm #29

Donnie said "But proper translation must correspond to the accuracy of the manuscript. Was the manuscript in its original form or was it copied by the scribes and/or others even with minor errors? The inspiration of God's Word is never in question. But there's that human element that must be considered. The originality of the manuscript. That translators are human beings and may have biases, since doctrines had already been formed even before translations began."

Donnie, All of these many men who translated were scholars and men who loved God. They MAY HAVE had biases, but THIS is where God comes in. THIS is what you can't fathom. They weren't inspired authors, but they were LED by God. They were humans who were LED by God to translate His Word. YOU KNOW that God was/in control, but still YOU THINK you can do better than all these men combined. There is your cause for "oops" again.

"The King James translators said this of the cumulative nature of their work--"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

October 31st, 2016, 3:37 pm #30

One author said "Examining the Options of John 1:1
First, the argument strikes me as giving only two choices - either Jesus is the one true God (YHWH) or He is "a god". There are no other options open when dealing with John 1:1. Since both Christianity and Judaism affirm monotheism (the belief that there is only one true God), then translating John 1:1 "a god" leaves the reader with a problem. What kind of god is Jesus?
If Jesus is God Almighty, then He cannot be created because God is eternal. Psalm 90:2 tells us "From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." If Jesus is some other kind of god (or if something else is meant by using the term "god" for Jesus), then he would be a created being.
From this point, I think the best way to clarify John 1:1 is by looking at it in context. The most compelling verse I have found for Jesus being God Almighty is actually John 1:3. There we read "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."(NAS)
John 1:3 becomes crucial to our debate because it makes a very specific claim. If anything had any type of beginning at all, it was begun by Jesus. You cannot even infer the word "other" in the text because the last part of the verse says "apart from Him nothing has come into being that has come into being." In other words, John states there are two groups of things: all those things that have a beginning and all those things that are eternal, and Jesus is not one of those that have a beginning."

Donnie, John 1:14 says that "And the Word was made flesh,..." meaning that the Word was not created, but MADE flesh. The Word was not created but was always with God, thus being God. The Word became Jesus. You are trying to understand God. You may claim to know Him, as I do, but we will NEVER understand Him and all His wonderful Ways. At least I admit to that.
Quote
Share