Hi PB1789,
Quote:
Steve Avery:--- Yep! I recall him posting that about John 1:18...
CRINGE!! For 20 some years when I would read that verse, I would say: "Why oh why did the NAS folks do that to that verse"... Of course the Kitchen table never answered ... (All they had to do [If not sure] was to turn over to Is. 9:6 and get a clue: ..." unto us a Son is given..." )
|
Saying Jesus is God does not deny or contradict that he is also Son. I fail to see how this is so hard to understand. Jesus is both God and Son, and Jesus is begotten. Which part of that makes you cringe?
Quote:
|
What Brian T doesn't seem to understand--- at least from what I've read of his posts--- is that a major reason for King James to Authorize a Standardized Bible in the English language was so that the confusion of various translations would be avoided. In other words: Get the folks "on the same page".
|
I understand it, I just don't see that the goal worked. Yes, you can be "on the same page" in terms of paper on your bookshelf, but "not on the same page" doctrinally. For example, I know that at least one KJV-only supporter in this discussion denies the doctrine of the Trinity, while I (who strongly agrees with the doctrine of the Trinity) am strongly opposed from all sides because I see no authoritative reason to believe KJV-onlyism (
even though I use the KJV)! This is completely backwards, in my opinion.
Quote:
|
{ BTW--- Brian T, if you read this Post--- I said "Bugle" because for years the Army, Marines, and the swabbies used Bugles... Not trumpets. Trumpets have valves and would get stuck and be worthless in some of the places where our Troops have gone over the centuries. Have you never seen "The Horse Soldiers" ? }
|
I read all your posts (in this thread, at least). No, I have not seen "The Horse Soldiers". My point was simply the words the KJV uses is "sound" and "trumpet", not "tune" and "bugle" - yet I was able to completely and perfectly understand you despite your textual errors.
God bless,
Brian