But with the subject of tithing,...

[MissileMan]

Yes, but not necessarily a translation of the Bible. For example, many modern translations translate the term monogenes in John 1:18 to mean “unique” rather than the AKJ’s “only begotten”. In his book Crowned With Glory, ©2000 Dr. Thomas Holland indicates that the word is used in 8 other NT verses (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9) and each time it indicates a parent-child relationship- either an only son, an only daughter or an only child. A translation such as the ISV translates the term both ways: as only child when the people discussed are unnamed, but it uses the term unique son when Isaac is mentioned and unique God when Jesus is discussed. How can the word be correct both ways in the same translation?

Further confirmation that monogenes means only begotten comes from
http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm. The author of this article uses as his authority a neighbor who is a Greek native of Thesalonika and fluent in English. The article claims that modern Greeks can understand Koine so the Greeks read the Bible without any intermediates between them and the manuscripts. Funk & Wagnalls indicates that following the reign of Justinian the literary form of Greek was confined to church use, a few scholars and a few writers. As the Byzantine Empire disintegrated spoken Greek evolved to a great extent, but literary Koine remained unchanged- but still in use in the major cultural centers. The literary form of Greek continued mostly unchanged into Turkish times and was still used for religious writing. Vernacular Greek did not begin to supplant literary Koine until the latter half of the 19th century. So the end result is that Greek writers have a continuous tradition since Biblical times- they should know what the Koine of the Biblical manuscripts mean and they know that the Koine word for unique is not monogenes. What right does a translator, for whom Greek is not a first language, have to say native speakers are wrong?

Also, we should consider the use of monogenes in its linguistic and historical aspects since the term predates the writing of the NT. As an advocate of modern translation you probably reject the scholarship behind Strong’s Lexicon. But a more recent lexicon, the Bauer, (Arndt) Gingrich, Danker Greek lexicon, supports the historical translation by saying that the term monogenes is analogous to prototokos which means firstborn. Again the term is associated with a parent-child relationship and not with uniqueness.

On the historical level we can examine how monogenes was used by the early Church as well as the Greco-Roman community at large. On page 231 of The Johannine Use Of Monogenes Reconsidered (NTS 29, 1983) John V. Dahms concluded that the modern reading of monogenes has little to support it, while evidence from Philo, Justin and Tertullian, as well as the its use in the NT itself makes it clear that "only Begotten" is the most accurate translation for the term.

Monogenes as used in the AKJ did not originate in Christian times. The online periodical Open Face for June 2002 reports that Grace Theological Journal says, "The Greek translations of the Old Testament (Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus) also employ the word nine times, each time translating a form of the Hebrew word ‘yahid.’ Each one of these occurrences refers to an only child, seven of them to an only child in the ordinary sense. But twice the term is used of Isaac the son of Abraham (Gen 22:2, Aquila; 22:12, Symmachus)...." Apparently the term monogenes has no history of meaning anything but a parent-child relationship.

The online periodical Present Truth (November 2002) published by Smyrna Gospel Ministries also comments on the historical use of the term monogenes:

Christian commentators in the early Church, like modern day Biblical scholars, had to wrestle with the idea of an eternal God having a beginning through the process of begetting. To beget means to bring into being and it can be said that anyone who is begotten had an origin. To maintain the co-eternity of each member of the Trinity many of the early Church Fathers postulated that God the Father eternally generates God the Son. This makes the Son dependent upon, and thus in-equal to, God the Father. Such an idea is as unacceptable to me as the thought that Jesus had an origin, for both theories negate the literal sonship of Jesus.

But yet the Church Fathers still accepted monogenes as meaning only-begotten. If the 1st century Church and the NT writers did not believe in the literal sonship of Jesus and if they accepted monogenes to mean unique how did later Christians ever change the term to mean only-begotten? If Jesus is the unique God rather than the only-begotten Son of God the Church Fathers could have retained the unique reading of monogenes instead of devising eternal generation to explain His sonship.

The more widespread use of monogenes does not support the modern translations. Various websites indicate that the term monogenes was applied to the Greek goddesses Hecate and Persephone and to several other Greek deities to mean only-begotten. How could the NT writers have used this term to mean unique when the Greek society for which they wrote used the term to mean only-begotten?

Modern translations that render monogenes as “unique” rather than “only-begotten” are flat wrong from a linguistic and historical standpoint. So why would modern Bible translators intentionally mis-translate a term that is intimately connected with a point of doctrine, if they do not wish to change doctrine?

Is the translation of the term monogenes one of your major objections, or a minor one? If a couple has only one child, it is "one-of-a-kind" or "only- begotten". While the term "unique" doesn't give you the flavor of a parent-child relationship, it is accurate as it relates to "one of a kind". If the translation doesn't change the overall message to the point of creating a contradiction, and puts it into a text that those who speak today's English can more easily understand, it seems to me that you may be over-reacting.

BTW: A thought occurred to me: If Jesus is the unique God, then there must be other gods in existence. How else can we determine that Jesus is the unique God without having a pantheon to compare Him to? If there is only one God, then He is not unique, since He does not have any characteristic not displayed by the other gods since those other gods do not exist. In Greco-Roman mythology Zeus was a unique god since he was king of the gods on Mount Olympus- no other god was similarly king. If Jesus was the unique God in comparison to the Father, then were Father and Son separate Gods? This would destroy Judeo-Christian monotheism.

The Ten Commandments make a case for the existence of other gods. As for your use of the word unique, as I see it, something being one-of-a-kind is sufficient to grant it "unique" status. It does not require a bunch of similar things from which to stand out in order to be "unique". I believe you are confusing "unique" with "superior" or perhaps "different".

 

[MissileMan]

And just what entitles you to declare that the claims made by others are wrong, while yours are right?

I'd say he has the same entitlement that you have allotted for yourself.

 

[mattskramer]

If you could leave it at that it would be great but to get offended at Christmas trees and Christmas Carols in America AT CHRISTMAS IS ABSURD.
It would be like me going to Israel and filing a suit against them for celebrating passover. The ACLU limits it's "protecting" to those who aren't Christian. Sorta like Nazis except they "concentrate" on Chirstians.

You are twisting the subject. I like the melody of Christmas carols even though I might not believe in God. I was talking about the arrogant presumptuous comments that Christians make – directing those comments at specific people that they speak to – and claiming that they are going to hell – as if he is speaking for God. I consider them to be very callous and ineffective.

The ACLU fights just as hard for individual free exercise of religion as the ACLU fights against government endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion. Despite this fact, many people spread misinformation about the ACLU around the internet, innocently and maliciously, falsely claiming the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian.

Look at each of the links on the following web site.

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

 

[Gunny]

You are twisting the subject. I like the melody of Christmas carols even though I might not believe in God. I was talking about the arrogant presumptuous comments that Christians make – directing those comments at specific people that they speak to – and claiming that they are going to hell – as if he is speaking for God. I consider them to be very callous and ineffective.

The ACLU fights just as hard for individual free exercise of religion as the ACLU fights against government endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion. Despite this fact, many people spread misinformation about the ACLU around the internet, innocently and maliciously, falsely claiming the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian.

Look at each of the links on the following web site.

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

The fact that you defend the ACLU speaks volumes about you, and that organization.

 

[flaja]

Is the translation of the term monogenes one of your major objections, or a minor one?

Since it has to do with doctrine, it has to be a major objection.

If a couple has only one child, it is "one-of-a-kind" or "only- begotten".

Only begotten- because there is no characteristic to make the child unique. If a couple has 3 children, 2 boys and a girl the girl would be unique because she is unlike the other children, i.e., she is something the other children are not. If only one child exists, then it cannot be unique because there are no other children by which you can judge the child’s uniqueness.

While the term "unique" doesn't give you the flavor of a parent-child relationship, it is accurate as it relates to "one of a kind".

How can the term monogenes be translated as “unique” when the term has never had this meaning until modern Bible advocates dreamed it up?

The Ten Commandments make a case for the existence of other gods.

Not from the Lord’s point of view. Humans recognize a multitude of gods, and the Lord says this is wrong because these other gods don’t exist apart from sinful man’s imagination. Man may recognize other gods, but the Lord does not.

As for your use of the word unique, as I see it, something being one-of-a-kind is sufficient to grant it "unique" status.

This is completely opposite of what I said. Something can be unique only if it has traits that other things of its type don’t have. If these other things don’t exist, then the one thing that does exist is not unique.

 

[dilloduck]

You are twisting the subject. I like the melody of Christmas carols even though I might not believe in God. I was talking about the arrogant presumptuous comments that Christians make – directing those comments at specific people that they speak to – and claiming that they are going to hell – as if he is speaking for God. I consider them to be very callous and ineffective.

The ACLU fights just as hard for individual free exercise of religion as the ACLU fights against government endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion. Despite this fact, many people spread misinformation about the ACLU around the internet, innocently and maliciously, falsely claiming the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian.

Look at each of the links on the following web site.

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

People ARE the government---how does the ACLU deal with that "unfortunate" little catch-22 ?

 

[mattskramer]

The fact that you defend the ACLU speaks volumes about you, and that organization.

ROTFL. Yeah. Whatever you say. Instead of being so easily led by Pat Robertson and his cronies, why don’t you actually look at the list of cases in which the ACUL defended Christians? Oh No. If you do that, you might break your religious right-wing filter. LOL.

 

[mattskramer]

People ARE the government---how does the ACLU deal with that "unfortunate" little catch-22 ?

I could say that the people are the government. How does the ACLJ deal with that unfortunate catch-22 - except that you are mistaken. We formed a republic. The people are not the government. We elect people to govern. Those representatives serve for us and create laws and take actions. Sometimes those actions run contrary to the Constitution. When those actions trample the liberties of some individuals or groups, the ACLU, ACLJ, and other interested groups file suit.

 

[dilloduck]

ROTFL. Yeah. Whatever you say. Instead of being so easily led by Pat Robertson and his cronies, why don’t you actually look at the list of cases in which the ACUL defended Christians? Oh No. If you do that, you might break your religious right-wing filter. LOL.

The ACLU posse needs to head back to town and get to work. They're nothing but glorified ambulance chasers. A mob of vigilantes with briefcases full of money. We already have laws and means of enforcing them.

 

[mattskramer]

The ACLU posse needs to head back to town and get to work. They're nothing but glorified ambulance chasers. A mob of vigilantes with briefcases full of money. We already have laws and means of enforcing them.

I think the same of Pat Robertson and his cronies. Once in a great while, a schoolteacher might mistakenly think that a student is not allowed to bring a Bible to school. Then, all of a sudden, the public school system has a secret agenda to convert students into Atheists. The ACLU jumps on the teacher as it were trying to kill a mosquito with a bazooka. The ACLJ is an over-zealous self-righteous hit squad with a warped sense of reality and a delusion on self-importance – but Jay is funny to watch.

 

[Gunny]

ROTFL. Yeah. Whatever you say. Instead of being so easily led by Pat Robertson and his cronies, why don’t you actually look at the list of cases in which the ACUL defended Christians? Oh No. If you do that, you might break your religious right-wing filter. LOL.

Instead of talking out your ass, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to lump all Christians in the same barrel. I could care less about Pat Robertson, and haven't heard a word he's said since the 1980s.

In addition, I have YET to preach anything to you concerning Christianity, and my "right wing filter" is based on being raised in a Southern Baptist, DEMOCRAT family. You figure the math out on THAT one.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that the ACLU plays the same literalist, intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt out-of-context game you do.

 

[dilloduck]

I could say that the people are the government. How does the ACLJ deal with that unfortunate catch-22 - except that you are mistaken. We formed a republic. The people are not the government. We elect people to govern. Those representatives serve for us and create laws and take actions. Sometimes those actions run contrary to the Constitution. When those actions trample the liberties of some individuals or groups, the ACLU, ACLJ, and other interested groups file suit.

So once someone is elected they are no longer people ? People who have the right to represent the will of the people ? When the US started taking a dive because people "felt offended" it was all over.

 

[MissileMan]

Only begotten- because there is no characteristic to make the child unique. If a couple has 3 children, 2 boys and a girl the girl would be unique because she is unlike the other children, i.e., she is something the other children are not. If only one child exists, then it cannot be unique because there are no other children by which you can judge the child’s uniqueness.

Again, you are misusing the word unique, which means "one-of-a-kind" by the way. If only one child exists, it is a unique product of those two parents. A thing doesn't have to be exceptional or special to be unique, it only has to be "one-of-a-kind".

How can the term monogenes be translated as “unique” when the term has never had this meaning until modern Bible advocates dreamed it up?

See above.

Not from the Lord’s point of view. Humans recognize a multitude of gods, and the Lord says this is wrong because these other gods don’t exist apart from sinful man’s imagination. Man may recognize other gods, but the Lord does not.

Thou shall have no other (none of the other) gods before me...I am a jealous god.

These words were supposedly given directly to Moses from God, right? If God weren't acknowledging other gods, the commandment should read "I am the only God"...no?

This is completely opposite of what I said. Something can be unique only if it has traits that other things of its type don’t have. If these other things don’t exist, then the one thing that does exist is not unique.

You REALLY need to invest in a dictionary. But, for those with a limited vocabulary, let me help.

u·nique /yuˈnik/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo-neek] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable: Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint.
3. limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area: a species unique to Australia.
4. limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities: Certain types of problems have unique solutions.
5. not typical; unusual: She has a very unique smile.
–noun 6. the embodiment of unique characteristics; the only specimen of a given kind: The unique is also the improbable.

It is true that numbers 2 and 5 are definitions for how you are trying to use the word, however, the primary definition is "one-of-a-kind".

 

[flaja]

Originally Posted by flaja
Only begotten- because there is no characteristic to make the child unique. If a couple has 3 children, 2 boys and a girl the girl would be unique because she is unlike the other children, i.e., she is something the other children are not. If only one child exists, then it cannot be unique because there are no other children by which you can judge the child’s uniqueness.

Again, you are misusing the word unique, which means "one-of-a-kind" by the way. If only one child exists, it is a unique product of those two parents. A thing doesn't have to be exceptional or special to be unique, it only has to be "one-of-a-kind".

The description you give about an only child produced by parents matches the expression “only-begotten” so why can you not simply use the term “only-begotten”?

Originally Posted by flaja
How can the term monogenes be translated as “unique” when the term has never had this meaning until modern Bible advocates dreamed it up?
See above.

Again, what right do modern day Bible translators have to make up meanings for words? And why do modern Bible translations translate monogenes as “only-begotten” when it applies to some parent-child relationships, but not all? Why make up the “unique” translation just when talking about God the Father and God the Son?

Originally Posted by flaja
Not from the Lord’s point of view. Humans recognize a multitude of gods, and the Lord says this is wrong because these other gods don’t exist apart from sinful man’s imagination. Man may recognize other gods, but the Lord does not.
Thou shall have no other (none of the other) gods before me...I am a jealous god.

These words were supposedly given directly to Moses from God, right? If God weren't acknowledging other gods, the commandment should read "I am the only God"...no?

Again you don’t understand the differences between God and man because you have a worldly mind. The Lord is saying that man cannot recognize other gods because these other gods do not exist.

Originally Posted by flaja
This is completely opposite of what I said. Something can be unique only if it has traits that other things of its type don’t have. If these other things don’t exist, then the one thing that does exist is not unique.

You REALLY need to invest in a dictionary. But, for those with a limited vocabulary, let me help.

Don’t patronize me. Your definition of unique is not universally accepted.

http://www.onelook.com/?loc=pub&w=unique

Quick definitions (unique)

• adjective: highly unusual or rare but not the single instance (Example: "Spoke with a unique accent")
• adjective: the single one of its kind (Example: "The unique existing example of Donne's handwriting")
• adjective: radically distinctive and without equal (Example: "Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint") [meaning Bach is not the only composer who worked with counterpoint]

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861708094

Unique:

2. special: different from others in a way that makes somebody or something special and worthy of note
a unique marketing opportunity

3. limited to somebody or something: limited to a particular person or thing
concerns that are unique to resettled refugees


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=86631&dict=CALD

adjective
being the only existing one of its type or, more generally, unusual or special in some way:
Each person's genetic code is unique except in the case of identical twins.
I'd recognise your handwriting anywhere - it's unique.
Do not miss this unique opportunity to buy all six pans at half the recommended price.
As many as 100 species of fish, some unique to (= only found in) these waters, may have been affected by the pollution.

If the purpose of a modern translation of the Bible is to render the Bible in a form that is easier to understand than the AKJ is, why render a Greek word in a way that has to be explained to the modern English user? Why bother to make up a meaning for monogeneses and then have to explain what is meant by “unique” when the correct meaning of monogenes, “only-begotten” leaves no doubt?

The fact remains, the Greek term monogenes has never correctly meant anything other than "only-begotten". The modern Bible advocates' translation of "unique" has no foundation in linguistic or historical fact.

 

[MissileMan]

The description you give about an only child produced by parents matches the expression “only-begotten” so why can you not simply use the term “only-begotten”?

When was the last time you heard the word begat used in an ordinary conversation?

Don’t patronize me. Your definition of unique is not universally accepted.

http://www.onelook.com/?loc=pub&w=unique

Open up your link and you'll see entries for unique from 21 different dictionaries. I stopped after the first twelve. Care to guess what the primary definition was for those twelve? I'll give you a hint...it was "one-of-a-kind"

 

[mattskramer]

So once someone is elected they are no longer people ? People who have the right to represent the will of the people ? When the US started taking a dive because people "felt offended" it was all over.

Look. I don’t make rules. I, along with many other people, elect those who make rules. Sometimes those elected people break their promises and don’t do what the people want done. Sometimes they do things that are unconstitutional.

 

[flaja]

When was the last time you heard the word begat used in an ordinary conversation?





Open up your link and you'll see entries for unique from 21 different dictionaries. I stopped after the first twelve. Care to guess what the primary definition was for those twelve? I'll give you a hint...it was "one-of-a-kind"

The primary definition of a word does not negate the other meanings that word may have. The fact remains that by rendering monogenes as “unique” modern Bible advocates create a situation in which their meaning must be explained: Why does unique, when used for John 1:18, automatically have your primary meaning as opposed to any one of the other possible meanings? Why do modern Bible advocates not want their text to be as easily understood as possible?

 

[5stringJeff]

What an absolute idiot you must be to think that modernization of things like spelling negates the content of the AKJ. Claiming there are multiple versions of the AKJ is the last line of defense of sinners, like you, who are going straight to Hell.

If I weren't a mod, I'd put you on ignore, because you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say, only that I'm an idiot for pointing out your hypocrisy. I have no further desire to say anything to you except that 1) I'll see you in heaven, your judgmentalism notwithstanding, and 2) read these words from Paul, which describe the KJV-only movement quite well:

1 Timothy 6:4-5: "He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction."

2 Timothy 2 "Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers."

Good day.

 

[Eightball]

If I weren't a mod, I'd put you on ignore, because you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say, only that I'm an idiot for pointing out your hypocrisy. I have no further desire to say anything to you except that 1) I'll see you in heaven, your judgmentalism notwithstanding, and 2) read these words from Paul, which describe the KJV-only movement quite well:

1 Timothy 6:4-5: "He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction."

2 Timothy 2 "Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers."

Good day.

Jeff:

All I had to do was just type in, "KJV Only" into my Yahoo search engine, and you wouldn't believe all the "hits" I got.

Some Christian websites come very close to, and others actually do, refer to this as a Christian cultic sect....of sorts.

It's incredible all the inconsistencies that these folks overlook in their obsessive need to prove their KJV-Only point. They just can't except the fact that the later translations have relied on much earlier accurate texts for their translations. Yet the 1611 movement still doesn't want to listen.

It reminds me so much of other Christian cults, that latch onto certain verses, and base their whole doctrine upon it, rather than taking the Word of God in total.

I found one interesting and rather humorous KJV inconstitency, and it involved the animal that the KJV calls the "Unicorn". It is an obvious mistranslation, and has been proven so by theologians/ bible scholars.

This is only the tip of the ice berg of mis-translations in the KJV, yet you will not find one of these web sites or books that critique the KJV that say it's a bad or misleading translation. They indeed are very gracious and polite.

Can that be said of the KJV Only Movement.........an emphatic, "No!". Its their way or you're satanically deluded, or "bafooned".

Interestingly, in my quick perusal of the KJV Only movement, I found that it had early roots in the Seventh Day Adventist movement.......via a certain outspoken authority/writer, preacher of that denomination.

There are also some Baptist sects that stick to this with wild abandon, and additionally seem to inject this KJV only mantra into nearly every Sunday sermon that's preached.

Anyway, the amount of mis-translations found in the KJV is so overwhelming, and yet the inspired Word of God is still conveyed through it. Many of the old english words used in the KJV don't even convey what the same definitions of how those particular words are used nowadays in our more modern English language. This may and can add some confusion to those that use the KJV as their only bible text.

One web site pointed out numerous passages where the KJV was so fuzzy in describing Jesus's divinity, as God incarnate.......while both the NASB and NIV clearly had Jesus's being God clearly stated in the same comparison verse. How Flaja can use this argument in favor of the KJV over the other named translations is beyond me.

Now when a person refuses to see, or want to see this, and still sticks to their points, they would be classified as unteachable by the Christian body.....or church.....and according to the apostle's teachings. They are really to be avoided by the bretheren, as they bring discord to the Body, as you(5stringjeff) mentioned or quoted in those succinct bible passages.

One positive thing that does come out of all this debate, is that it will drive us Christians to study and investigate God's Word with even more scrutiny, as the Bereans did even with Paul's teachings; and Paul commended them for that. So even Paul was will willing to be questioned; and Paul the pillar of the gentile church.......was actually willing to be questioned on his doctrine!!!n Not that Paul was incorrect, but that Paul was of a spirit and mind in Christ, exhibit a loving attitude towards his brothers and sisters in Christ......when confronted with debated or disagreement.

At no time did Paul referr to his bretheren as "idiots" because they questioned his teaching. Flaja, might want to take that to heart, unless Flaja is more astute than the Apostle Paul, doctrinally, or Spiritually. I think everyone has been very patient, and polite to Flaja, and has tried their darndest to present counter-points to his/her's KJV Only, theme.

Whenever I'm confronted with Christians or alleged Christians that go into a harangue on a certain point/s, right in my face.....so-to-speak....I start to have these red flags crop-up in my mind. Maybe its the Holy Spirit....or maybe it's just plain old suspicion/intuition.......I don't know. I start to wonder about these folks mental stability, and if in some way, I'm being attacked spiritually via good old, "fuzzy nose(Satan)". I do know one thing........Preachers that harangue-away on certain sins, or wrongs in mankind in nearly all their messages have taught me an important lesson through my "mountain climbing" years as a Christian......It usually means that they are fighting that very temptation and may even have crossed the threshold into committing sin via that temptation. Jimmy Swaggert comes to mind......He also exhibited an unteachable spirit, as he left his own denomination rather than accept disciplinery action(Assemblies of God). In fact Swaggert is attempting a come-back via his own non-denominational TV church. He's lost my vote of confidence, when he refused to trully be contrite, and repentant of heart.......with his gross transgressions that hurt many believers, and I'm sure grieved God Himself.

Flaja:

Balance is the keyword to the Christian life. Your life is not revealing balance........but an over abundance of judgementalism, personal pride, and an unteachable attitude/spirit. I know that you think there's nothing to be gained or taught from any of us other semi-heathen Christians..........that's if you even think we are Christians,...but that maybe your loss. The imbalance also is reflective in your obsessive KJV only stance over all the very clear replys you've gotten from both Christians and non-Christians on this topic.

I really have more respect for Missleman, and many others that strongly identify themselves as non-Christians. The reason that I respect them is that they are using reason and reasonable debate with you, yet you are "blowing" them off as you are with those that claim to be biblical Christians.

Flaja

You actually hurt the body of Christ.....and in fact cause many that might be even considering Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord of their lives to possibly rethink that possible choice or direction for their lives. You project a rigid, judgemental, attitude that exudes not "love" towards the bretheren, but almost "contempt" for their questioning your statements. You do not welcome discussion, you want agreement.......You are not using this forum to give and take or receive ideas/or information, but to espouse your beliefs, and possibly hope to get converts to the KJV Only belief system. You might even have gotten a few, "takers" if you had addressed those that questioned your authority or references with a contrite or humble attitude as your Lord and Saviour did. Paul debated the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill with great respect........He didn't belittle them but showed respect, and was very humble, with a gracious attitude to even be allowed to be heard by them. This allowed Paul to show them that their one "unknown God" that they conjectured-about, was the actually the one they needed to investigate........not Zeus, or the other's. From that point, Paul opened up God's gospel of Jesus Christ to these folks, and many were taken-back and nearly brought to belief. Yes seeds were planted.
*
Flaja:

There isn't even a trickle of understanding or acknowledgement in any of your following replies......I think I will follow 5String's direction and cease to converse with you. I'm not ignoring you, but I'm done with the KJV Only topic. It's useless to converse with you. Your set.......in your ways.......your not teachable or even open to consider other's "takes". I only wish you would type in "KJV only" on your search engine and try to bravely read some of the web sites that may not be agreeing with this "movement". For the most part they are using very accurate comparisons of scripture between different translations, and if your willing to be taught......you might see things in a different, yet good light.

I will gladly converse with you on other topics.....but there's nothing to gain between you and me on this current one.

 

[5stringJeff]

Jeff:

All I had to do was just type in, "KJV Only" into my Yahoo search engine, and you wouldn't believe all the "hits" I got.

Some Christian websites come very close to, and others actually do, refer to this as a Christian cultic sect....of sorts.

It's incredible all the inconsistencies that these folks overlook in their obsessive need to prove their KJV-Only point. They just can't except the fact that the later translations have relied on much earlier accurate texts for their translations. Yet the 1611 movement still doesn't want to listen.

Indeed, Eightball. Check out this quote, from the translators of the 1611 KJV:

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must need do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

Two things that I get out of this:
1. Not even the translators of the 1611 KJV were "KJV-only."
2. The KJV translators were not 100% certain about the translation of each word.
Not that I have to convince you that KJV-only is wrong, but I thought you might be interested.