the King James Version - Page 5

mfblume · #41 06-26-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

Yes I do... instructions in the Old Testament for raping female prisoners of war and taking them as slaves... that's nonsense to me.

(Man, brother! You make some strong statements here. Are you presently serving God? I am not trying to be rude or joking, just sincerely wondering about your stand on Christianity in general. Call me naive, but I need to know how you are standing as far as Christianity is concerned. I do not know you, so just wondering. I never heard of sincere practicing believers who say part of the old and new testaments is nonsense.)

Show me what verses you are speaking about.

Quote:

And if the Acrophya was accepted as part of the Bible before the New Testament at one point and now it is not, doesn't that still mean that something changed in the Bible?

No. You are not reading my words. The whole issue on preference of KJV versus other versions is the veracity of the differences in the New Testament ALONE.

mfblume · #42 06-26-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

Bro. Blume,

The Textus Receptus? Is it perfect? No interpolations? No guesses? No discrepancies?

None! I have resources that show where alleged contradictions and so forth are no contradictions at all. Brethren, you need to research the philosophies behind the two streams of texts. Y'all are running all around it.

mfblume · #43 06-26-2007, 02:12 PM

Did God, or Did God not inspire the original words of the old and new testaments?

If He did, then why on earth would anyone say He did not take efforts to supernaturally preserve it? Is God that dumb in your minds?

berkeley · #44 06-26-2007, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Did God, or Did God not inspire the original words of the old and new testaments?

If He did, then why on earth would anyone say He did not take efforts to supernaturally preserve it? Is God that dumb in your minds?

I simply asked a question or two... Brad, he's askin you a question..

Timmy · #45 06-26-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkeley

How can you not agree or disagree??

Agreed!

#46 06-26-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

(Man, brother! You make some strong statements here. Are you presently serving God? I am not trying to be rude or joking, just sincerely wondering about your stand on Christianity in general. Call me naive, but I need to know how you are standing as far as Christianity is concerned. I do not know you, so just wondering. I never heard of sincere practicing believers who say part of the old and new testaments is nonsense.)
Show me what verses you are speaking about.

Deut. 21 10-14, and I think Rico put it best when he said I was having a crisis of faith. I was raised in the UPC but have a lot of questions that no one seem to take seriously... people seem to think I am joking when I ask them.

Quote:

No. You are not reading my words. The whole issue on preference of KJV versus other versions is the veracity of the differences in the New Testament ALONE.

So the Old Testament was not translated into Elizabethian English in 1611? And The Acrophya was not removed?

Timmy · #47 06-26-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

. . . have a lot of questions that no one seem to take seriously...

Tell me about it!

#48 06-26-2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Did God, or Did God not inspire the original words of the old and new testaments?

If He did, then why on earth would anyone say He did not take efforts to supernaturally preserve it? Is God that dumb in your minds?

I guess I just think too black and white.... to me if it was preserved, there would only be one version and no question as to what should and should not be in it, and each scripture would not be able to be interpreted 15 different ways.

I just find a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament appalling (and yes I understand that their culture would seem barbaric to us).

mfblume · #49 06-26-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

Yes I do... instructions in the Old Testament for raping female prisoners of war and taking them as slaves... that's nonsense to me.

The bible passage you refer to is this:

Quote:

Lev 19:20-22 KJV And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. (21) And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. (22) And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

Brother, this is NOT CONDONING RAPE OF A SLAVE!!!! It is saying that if she is raped she is punished as is the rapist. But since she was not fully free, she is not put to death. She had no full choice in the matter. And this is called SIN by the perpetrator as well.

What is so nonsensical about that? The man is not excused from this sin.

Slavery is not promoted in the bible, folks. It mentions how to deal with situations involving slavery the right way, but it does not endrose slavery. The bible just deals with proper treatment of slaves.

The New Testament forbade slave traders calling them MENSTEALERS. 1 Tim 1:10.

Slavery was condemned here:

Exo 21:16 KJV And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

Deu 24:7 KJV If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.

We cannot simply look at the reference to slaves and say the bible is nonsensical about the issue since slavery is wrong. Study the bible and learn that there was also those who, more or less, opted for slavery. If their debts got out of hand they could go to a rich man who would pay off their debts and they would be "enslaved" for a period of 7 years at which time they were to be released. If they didn't want to be released they could opt for a continuation of that slavery.

There is also a passage about not being a cruel master.

mfblume · #50 06-26-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

Deut. 21 10-14, and I think Rico put it best when he said I was having a crisis of faith. I was raised in the UPC but have a lot of questions that no one seem to take seriously... people seem to think I am joking when I ask them.

I do not think you're joking. I am just wondering about your confidence in God. If it has been hurt, then this explains your statements.

I trust God. So when it comes to questions I have in the bible, I trust there is a good answer although I may not know what it may be at the time. So I have faith in the Word of God, as well. It worked for me when I obeyed it, and so when questions arise I have confidence there is a good answer and patiently study to see what the answer is.

Quote:

So the Old Testament was not translated into Elizabethian English in 1611? And The Acrophya was not removed?

Again, the issue is NEW TESTAMENT DIFFERENCES and their veracity. That is why people discuss KJV versus other versions.