KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

[Peter A V]

Roby believes himself

Roby believes himself

Roby believes his own account of his own opinions of his own mind.He actually thinks that the Holy Bible is valid,and then attacks it calling it a myth.Dementia a-la-mode!

Maybe you can pull a Tom Sawyer and convince yourself of your grandure,but I have a Bible in my hands that is pure,and without proven error.Your not educated enouph to prove it is not the case.Your own words.SO it is all just your own opinion.
Besides,you have no bible that is infalible,I do.You have no Bible that you can touch,I do.
You can't put a name to your single source that is the very words of God,through and through,now,can you.That makes ALL of your USELESS verbage a J-O-K-E.

Mr.Cranston needs to brush up on his humility skills.You have not asked me anything in honesty,I tried to make peace,and all you do is Dump,dump,dump.
So it is absolute proof that because you have no Bible that is perfect you lash out like a hit dog.It's the hit dog that howls,and you are good at that.

I don't have to answer to anyone,but God,my boss,and my family and church.
You can lie all you want about Myth and Cult if you want,the Book is well able to out last the likes of you.

Face it roby,you have no final authority but your own self.PERIOD.The only reson you USE the Book or any other source is to back up your own deluded opinions.
You have sucked into the lie of Satan.Listen to what he "SAID" not asked.
"Yea,hath God said...?
He was not interseted in the truth.Just to get EVE to pick between to opposing choices.He tempted her to become a god.You sucked into that one BIG TIME.

And then you say KJV=MYTH MYTH man-made...blah,blah,blah......

Just because you believe it,does not make it so.
Just because I let the Holy Bible do the answers and don't answer you all of your endless verbage,doesn't mean there are not good valid answers that any honest man would be quiet the first time he got the answer.But you have made it your personal career to hurt people for believing in the Holy Bible and then calling it a MYTH.
There were lots of KJV bible believers before the other perversions came along,and so there NEEDED to be the extra language to distinguish the true from the fake.
No diferent that the setting of the cannon and the early church in Acts15.Look out now,they said something new,can't believe it.Hoowie,and cawdwallop!

You don't have a clue.Without a Bible,you have no standard but your own private opinions.
I take back all of the stuff that I said that I could learn from you.One note droner is what you are.Why don't you go and be that passionate about saving souls.
Now that would be a worthy challenge,don't ya'think?

You don't seem to be coming across too clear these last few weeks,are you having a hard time.You should think of giving it a rest there roby C.

Relentless for him,
Peter A V

 

[logos_x]

Besides,you have no bible that is infalible,I do.

No, you don't.

You have no Bible that you can touch,I do.

Yes, we do

You can't put a name to your single source that is the very words of God,through and through,now,can you.That makes ALL of your USELESS verbage a J-O-K-E.

And yours is no different.
The scriptures we have are the ones we have, whether they were translated correctly is the issue. I've already shown some errors in KJV, which you acknowledged being true.
Yet you still prattle on as though there are no errors in the KJV translation.
It makes all of your useless verbage a joke.

:blabla:
Relentless for himself,
Peter A V

 

[Peter A V]

Errors in the KJB?NOT!

Errors in the KJB?NOT!

"The scriptures we have are the ones we have, whether they were translated correctly is the issue. I've already shown some errors in KJV, ..."
*******
You have not shown any errors at all.I told you guys before that any errors were only the typo errors,and similar errata.There are no errors in the text itself,and besides,all of those errors are fixed,so now no matter WHAT oyu say,I have the perfect Holy Bible in my hands.And you do not.

You say you do,but refuse to name your pure errorless,inspired,Holy Bible.
I have been upfront and what do YOU do?

All you do is a fake confession to fool those around you into thinking that you have the perfect Holy Bible,when in fact it is nothing more than your own "Preferences".

Settle the skirting around now and name your perfect Holy Bible without proven error.
The Bible that you can touch,THAT one.Just give it a name.God said he would preserve his word.A good christian would want to tell the world the truth about the Holy Bible ,now ,wouldn't they.
So,show us that you are indeed a GOOD christian and name the perfect Holy Bible,without proven error,that you believe from cover to cover,every word and letter.
That will settle lots,don't you think?
I told you my conviction,now you tell us yours.

Relentless for him,
Peter A V

Thy word is truth.

 

[Peter A V]

Errors?

Errors?

Logos_x,You claim to show errors in the KJV,
I just looked up your last 500 posts.It appears you have done nothing of the kind.
All you did is 1 Post about the word "HELL" of which I noticed you are very interested in the topic.
Probably because of the Universalist beliefs.Over 60% of your posts are on that one topic.

Now to our KJV supposed error thaty you claimed to have shown me.Of which you did not.
To start with,all,and I repeat,ALL versions do not trasnslate every Greek word identically,every time.

You have just put down every translation known to mankind,when all you where trying to do is put down the Holy Bible,now known in these last apostate days as the King James Version.
Anytime you prove TOO MUCH,you in fact have proved NOTHING AT ALL.

Plus if you take a look at each verse you will see that the KJV has it right every time.Both doctinally and verbally as well.
Nobody is going to be supporting the proven herecies of the Universalists.
Mind you ,there are many more falling into this all's well that ends well doctrine.

Relentless for him,
PeterAV
Thy word is truth.

 

[robycop3]

Peter, Peter, falsehood eater.....

Peter, Peter, falsehood eater.....

Peter A VRoby believes his own account of his own opinions of his own mind.He actually thinks that the Holy Bible is valid,and then attacks it calling it a myth.Dementia a-la-mode!

Yes, on YOUR part. WHAT EVIDENCE have you EVER posted that the KJV, any edition, is "the" Bible in English, to the exclusion of any other version?

Maybe you can pull a Tom Sawyer and convince yourself of your grandure,but I have a Bible in my hands that is pure,and without proven error.

So do I...in several versions. Please prove anything in the NKJV or NIV is wrong.


Your not educated enouph to prove it is not the case.Your own words.SO it is all just your own opinion.

It's not a matter of education...it's a matter of truth vs myth. No education needed...just basic reading skill and the diligence to do a little research, the latter being something the KJVOs don't do. You let Rucky & Co. do your thinking for you.(BTW, it's "You're", not "Your".)



Besides,you have no bible that is infalible,I do.You have no Bible that you can touch,I do.

By God's grace, I have a whole bookshelf full of bibles that I can touch whenever I choose.(BTW, it's "infallible", not "infalible".



You can't put a name to your single source that is the very words of God,through and through,now,can you.That makes ALL of your USELESS verbage a J-O-K-E.

Not long ago, I posted quite a list of Bibles, both English & other languages. As a reminder, here's the list of English versions:
21st Century King James Version
American Standard Version
Amplified Bible
Contemporary English Version
RealAudio (NT)
Darby Translation Text
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. (with Apocrypha)
English Standard Version
RealAudio (NT)
Holman Christian Standard Bible
King James Version
RealAudio (OT)
New American Standard Bible
RealAudio (NT)
New International Reader's Version
New International Version
RealAudio
New International Version - UK
New King James Version
New Life Version
New Living Translation
The Message
Worldwide English (New Testament)
Wycliffe New Testament
Young's Literal Translation

Mr.Cranston needs to brush up on his humility skills.You have not asked me anything in honesty,I tried to make peace,and all you do is Dump,dump,dump.

I beg your pardon...."I" extended a hand of peace and you lit into me with more KJVO-"final authority" garbage, mixed in with some ad-hominem. I believe all the other readers, and the moderators will bear witness to this. If necessary, I'll copy both your and my post to make that point.



So it is absolute proof that because you have no Bible that is perfect you lash out like a hit dog.It's the hit dog that howls,and you are good at that.

Do YOU have a Bible translation that's perfect? If so, please share your secret.

I don't have to answer to anyone,but God,my boss,and my family and church.
You can lie all you want about Myth and Cult if you want,the Book is well able to out last the likes of you.

I CAN lie but I don't...it's a SIN. If KJVO isn't a myth and heresy, then please prove it's right by SCRIPTURE. Otherwise, it remains a myth and heresy by all common standards.

Face it roby,you have no final authority but your own self.PERIOD.

You and Will Kinney need to change that scratched CD. Neither of you know "final authority" from "parking authority". You seek to change, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing, from the word of God" to "faith cometh by reading: reading from the KJV alone."

You seek to change"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" to"The Spirit Himself bears witness with the KJV that we are the children of God." You seek to change "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." to"For we are all the children of God by faith in the KJV."

You have chosen your own final authority from tainted stock. The REAL final authority for me is....GOD, and nothing made by man.



The only reson you USE the Book or any other source is to back up your own deluded opinions.

Name one instance in which you've proven my "deluded opinion" wrong...

JUST ONE!

You have sucked into the lie of Satan.Listen to what he "SAID" not asked.
"Yea,hath God said...?


I saw right off that you're no rocket scientist...now I see you're so stupid you can't even read modern English, yet you use an archaic Bible version.

Lemme type slowly so you have time to comprehend at least a little bit...........
He was not interseted in the truth.Just to get EVE to pick between to opposing choices.He tempted her to become a god.You sucked into that one BIG TIME.

First, here's Genesis 3:1, KJV... Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
See that little curly thing at the end of the verse? In English punctuation, that 's a QUESTION MARK. It indicates the preceeding sentence is asking a question. Now,eithewr it IS asking a question, or the AV men completely blew it. Now, while their work isn't PERFECT, I believe they knew a question from a statement. But SOME stupid people can't see that. Instead, they exalt a certain BV and then deny what it says. Do I hear "hypocrite" coming'round the bend?

And then you say KJV=MYTH MYTH man-made...blah,blah,blah......

If it's not man-made, please show us some SCRIPTURE establidhing it. Otherwise, it's a man-made myth.

Just because you believe it,does not make it so.

But I believe it because it IS so, PROVEN so. What proof is there for the KJVO myth? NONE.



Just because I let the Holy Bible do the answers and don't answer you all of your endless verbage,doesn't mean there are not good valid answers that any honest man would be quiet the first time he got the answer.

Your "answers" are quoting verses completely irrelevant to the subject matter. Mosta the time, you're just STUMPED.


But you have made it your personal career to hurt people for believing in the Holy Bible and then calling it a MYTH.

Actually, I've made it an undertaking to expose false doctrines such as KJVO, and the charlatans who preach it or write in favor of it. I doubt if 1 in 20 of its "advocates" actually BELIEVES it...they just like to argue for argument's sake. They KNOW they cannot prove one word of that myth.


There were lots of KJV bible believers before the other perversions came along,and so there NEEDED to be the extra language to distinguish the true from the fake.

I reckon you're not concerned that JESUS may ask you someday, "Why did you call My word a perversion?" (Note the question marks!) Think He will buy your excuses? Think ya can fool HIM? Think He'll ignore it? Think He'll be pleased with you? You're taking an awful chance with Him by dissing His word.



No diferent that the setting of the cannon and the early church in Acts15.Look out now,they said something new,can't believe it.Hoowie,and cawdwallop!

Please take the time to study how the canon was set. YOU don't hafta believe it; after all, humanly speaking, it was set by CATHOLICS. Don't believe it? I'm not gonna do ALL yer homework for ya...just enter " establishing bible canon" in yer fave search engine.

You don't have a clue.Without a Bible,you have no standard but your own private opinions.

But I got PLENTYA Bibles.



I take back all of the stuff that I said that I could learn from you.

Apparently you can't learn from anyone, including GOD. You think you 've already learned all there is from Ruckman, Riplinger, Vance, Watkins, Wilkinson, Ray, & Fuller, and others of that ilk.


One note droner is what you are.Why don't you go and be that passionate about saving souls.

Have been, for over 25 years. However, I'm also doing the special work I believe God has called me to do....FIGHT FALSE DOCTRINES.

Now that would be a worthy challenge,don't ya'think?

Try it yourself...ya might like it...if ya do it MINUS THAT KJVO FILTH.

You don't seem to be coming across too clear these last few weeks,are you having a hard time.You should think of giving it a rest there roby C.


Doin' just fine, thank you. Seems your COMPREHENSION is what's gone South. You seem to have difficulty discerning a statement from a question. I'll let YOUR OWN WORDS where you can't tell question from statement, copied above, make that point.

 

[logos_x]

Settle the skirting around now and name your perfect Holy Bible without proven error.

There isn't one.
The closest there is is the Concordant Version.
It certainly isn't the KJV.

The Bible that you can touch,THAT one.Just give it a name.God said he would preserve his word.A good christian would want to tell the world the truth about the Holy Bible ,now ,wouldn't they.

Yep...and that is why what you have to say about the KJV is so wrong.

So,show us that you are indeed a GOOD christian and name the perfect Holy Bible,without proven error,that you believe from cover to cover,every word and letter.
That will settle lots,don't you think?
I told you my conviction,now you tell us yours.
.

My conviction is that God's Word is preserved...but is isn't to be left up to any translator's interpretaion of that Word. There is no perfect, innerrant English Bible. That is why we have concordances and tools to look into the original compared to the way it's translated.
There is also the personal interaction of God in our lives, and the personal leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth.

2Co 3:4 Now we have such confidence through Christ, toward God;
2Co 3:5 not that we are competent by ourselves to reckon anything as from ourselves: but our competency is from God,
2Co 3:6 who has made us competent ministers of a new institution; not of letter, but of spirit: for the letter kills; but the spirit makes alive.
2Co 3:7 For if the ministration of death in letters engraved on stone was with glory, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses, because of the glory of his face, which was to be abolished;
2Co 3:8 how much rather shall not the ministration of the Spirit be with glory?

The letter kills...the Spirit gives life.

Yours is an attitude and position not unlike that of the Pharisees:

Joh 5:39 You search the scriptures because you think to obtain by them eternal life. Now these, also, are witnesses for me;

The Word of God is contained in the original writer's presentation...which was preserved and faithfully as is possible. They are trustworthy and reliable, but not innerrant. Innerrancy is a completely erroneous concept.
Beyond that...even if they were innerrant....translators aren't, and neither are the readers.
Even the Devil can cite scripture for his own ends.

Again, the Concordant Bible is the most faithful translation when compared to the Hebrew and Greek wording, grammer, phrasology and idiomatic expression. The King James translators took too many liberties in all these areas, and the only way it would come close at all is to use your concordance and various tools to try to figure what was originally written and the meaning of those words. At least even they (the translators) were honest enough to make marginal notes about those variences, even though they didn't see fit to put actual word meanings in the text.

The only other conviction I'll mention here is this:

We are not to worship the book about God, but the God of the book.

 

[logos_x]

The issue of biblical inerrancy deals with the relevancy, the reliability and the truthfulness of Scripture."Deduction starts with a handful of passages that appear to teach directly about the nature of Scripture and deduces from these passages the answer to all questions in this area and the context in which all other biblical and non-biblical evidence must be evaluated. Induction recognizes the existence of these teaching passages but in order to understand their full extent and domain insists that it is necessary to look at the pbenomena of Scripture themselves so that the teaching passages may be rightly understood. Deduction subjects the interpretation of the significance of all other phenomena, whether biblical or extra-biblical, to the supposedly clear understanding of those specific texts that deal with the inspiration and character of Scripture. Induction subjects the understanding of these specific texts to an appreciation of the actual phenomena of Scripture with which it is assumed that they must be consistent. Deduction regards phenomena of Scripture that do not appear to agree with the understanding of the teaching of specific texts as problems; induction regards understandings of specific texts that are inconsistent with the phenomena of Scripture as eisegesis rather than exegesis.

The question of the nature of the biblical revelation itself is a classical example of this methodological dichotomy between deduction and induction. Advocates of a deductive approach center on such passages as 11 Timothy 3:16 and 11 Peter 1: 16-2 1. The deductive argument is straightforward. Considering 11 Timothy 3:16, for example,

(a) The Scriptures teach that Scripture is God-breathed.
(b) Since God is omniscient, omnipotent and all-truthful, it follows that Scripture itself must partake of these same qualities.

Often in our own scientific age, these arguments are then extended as follows:

(c) A standard of truthfulness is scientific accuracy.
(d) Scripture must therefore be scientifically accurate in whatever it proclaims.

The advocates of deduction therefore assume that they know the full and complete implication of these and other specific texts dealing with the character of Scripture.

Advocates of induction follow a somewhat different approach. Not being sure of all that is included in the "inspiration of Scripture," they argue that the way to find out is to look at the phenomena of Scripture themselves. They call attention to other biblical teaching on the purpose of revelation and suggest that the effects of inspiration should be consistent with the purposes for which the revelation was given and probably not with others. They recognize the obvious fact that every word in the Bible does not express in itself a basic truth of God, and they trace the progressive revelation concerning the identity and coming of the Messiah as an example of the mode of revelation. They note that the demand for total scientific accuracy would force an interpreter to believe that the Bible was not factually accurate, and that a number of well known examples exist of apparent discrepancies. They observe that the New Testament use of Old Testament "prophecy" is not always obvious from the Old Testament text itself, that the use of numbers in the Bible has a clearly symbolic aspect as well as a literal aspect," and that demand for historical accuracy between differing accounts of the same events would again force an interpreter to conclude that the Bible is lacking.

Simple deduction leads to the conclusion that the Bible is a perfect, totally accurate, scientifically exact text and that simple explanations for all of the above " problems" are in principle possible without violation of this conclusion. Simple induction leads to the conclusion that the Bible is shot through with variations and cultural influences that prevent it from being considered the inspired Word of God. It is only by combining deduction with induction that we can arrive at the biblically faithful witness to its own character. Then inputs from induction keep us from reading our concepts of logic and scientific accuracy into the biblical revelation, and inputs from deduction keep us from failing to see the divine Word of God presented to us in a way that faithfully preserves and communicates God's purposes in Jesus Christ.

From this site

 

[logos_x]

Plus if you take a look at each verse you will see that the KJV has it right every time.Both doctinally and verbally as well.

I have and it doesn't.

Nobody is going to be supporting the proven herecies of the Universalists.

Nobody is going to be supporting the proven heresies of eternal torment.

Mind you ,there are many more falling into this all's well that ends well doctrine.

Falling into it? Or being liberated from the fables of eternal torment, that has been force-fed to us by translations like your erroneous KJV, and it's kissing cousins?

 

[robycop3]

Hell, you say.........

Hell, you say.........

There's a fact you ignore, Will, in your KJVO misplaced zeal...Sheol, tartarus, hades, & gehenna are all different places...not pleasant, to be sure, but definitely different from each other. The KJV fails to distinguish among them.

I'm not saying the KJV is entirely wrong for this because each of those places but hades is a place of punishment(Hades has a "paradise" area) but the later versions are certainly NOT wrong for using the correct Hebrew or Greek names for those places, either. It's the same as the older versions sometimes leaving pascha untranslated until Tyndale took the bold step of coining the word "passover".

Again, you've let your falsely-placed KJVO zeal override the truth.

 

[robycop3]

Universalism is universally false!

Universalism is universally false!

I have and it doesn't.



Nobody is going to be supporting the proven heresies of eternal torment.



Falling into it? Or being liberated from the fables of eternal torment, that has been force-fed to us by translations like your erroneous KJV, and it's kissing cousins?

Universalism is made from twisting Scriptures to read as men would like them to read. It's a series of excuses made to justify a hedonistic life style, or a totally-evil life style. it in essence says, "Never mind Jesus; He died so all will be well for all...Do as you wish, you may be punished a little while, but when God becomes all in all, we'll all live in utopia forever." There have always been those who've questioned every prevalent religion there ever was, but they've generally brought some EVIDENCE to the table. Universalism, like KJVOism, is based purely upon guesswork and shoehorning a set of man-made false doctrines into the meanings of the Scriptures.

Let's look at Exodus 16:18 in the KJV..."The Lord shall reign for ever and ever." The Hebrew words here are "owlam ad". Owlam means forever; ad means perpetual. Here, the eternity of God is emphasized. can any Christian deny the fact that God has always been, and always will be?

Now, lets look for a corresponding verse in the New Testament. Again and again, in Revelation, God is described as "Him who liveth for ever and ever, in Greek, "zao aionios aionios". Can anyone actually argue that doesn't mean "liveth for ever and ever"? Sample verses? Rev. 5:14, 11:15, 15:7.


That same phrase "aionios aionios" is repeatedly used by John to describe the duration of being in gehenna. Knowing this means forever when ascribed to God, how can anyone truthfully say it means something else when ascribed to those who to gehenna?

Take this littke challenge...find a Greek speaker, not necessarily a Christian & ask him/her what "aionios aionios" means.

 

[logos_x]

::blabla:

Did you think at all before you posted that crap?

Universalism says...simply...that God will be all and in all in the end. It says that the shed blood of Jesus Christ was shed for the whole world, and will...eventually...save everyone. It says that in Adam all die, but in Christ all will be made alive. It says Jesus Christ is the savior of all men. That the apocatastasis of ALL THINGS is God's will, and He will do it.

In other words...it says what the Bible says, and not what the Partialist eternal tormentors say.

God's salvation of all mankind will succeed, in spite of all the ostentatious theological "evidence" to the contrary.

 

[logos_x]

That same phrase "aionios aionios" is repeatedly used by John to describe the duration of being in gehenna. Knowing this means forever when ascribed to God, how can anyone truthfully say it means something else when ascribed to those who to gehenna?

Take this littke challenge...find a Greek speaker, not necessarily a Christian & ask him/her what "aionios aionios" means.

I have...and it means "ages of ages"...eons of eons.

Take this challenge.. if forever is forever...why add "ever"?

Forevers and evers? does that sound right to you?

Aionios aionios...both are PLURAL. Thought there was only one eternity...how can there be many?

 

[robycop3]

Universalist twistings

Universalist twistings

I have...and it means "ages of ages"...eons of eons.

Take this challenge.. if forever is forever...why add "ever"?

Forevers and evers? does that sound right to you?

Aionios aionios...both are PLURAL. Thought there was only one eternity...how can there be many?

Several Greek experts have explained to me that while "aion" means "age", that if there's no DEFINITE END assigned to an age, then it must be considered ongoing or even eternal until it has a forseeable end. There is NO such forseeable end assigned to the time in gehenna. And the second "aionios" was added for EMPHASIS. We English speakers do NOT have a monopoly upon such parts of speech, nor do we lack any, I.E."I thought and thought about the solution of the problem"; "Behold, the world(kosmos) is gone after Him."(Jesus) Did the world follow Jesus? Did I think more than once about the solution, or was it one long continuous thought?

If I say, "I have a Bible in my hand", does that mean I only have one hand? If I say, "the octopus has its food in its tentacles", can you tell exactly how many tentacles are holding its food? All you know is it's more than one and no more than eight.

Again, ask any Greek expert.

 

[Peter A V]

Logos has no Bible?

Logos has no Bible?

There isn't one.
The closest there is is the Concordant Version.
It certainly isn't the KJV.

My conviction is that God's Word is preserved...but is isn't to be left up to any translator's interpretaion of that Word. There is no perfect, innerrant English Bible. That is why we have concordances and tools to look into the original compared to the way it's translated.
There is also the personal interaction of God in our lives, and the personal leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth........

Again, the Concordant Bible is the most faithful translation when compared to the Hebrew and Greek wording, grammer, phrasology and idiomatic expression. The King James translators took too many liberties in all these areas, and the only way it would come close at all is to use your concordance and various tools to try to figure what was originally written and the meaning of those words. At least even they (the translators) were honest enough to make marginal notes about those variences, even though they didn't see fit to put actual word meanings in the text.
.

*******
Well,you ARE in a kettle of fish.No perfect Bible,so now YOU can be the ARBITER and pick and choose against the very words of God.You are your own authority.Not the Bible.

Shame,shame,mamma gonna spank now.The wooden paddle this time.
There must be "The Standard" otherwise people will fall for anything.The KJV has the enormous amount of manuscript evidence in its favour against any other version out there.

Plus your concordances and various tools were all written by liberal non-believers.Copying down the secular definitions of Biblical words and concepts .Every Lexicon and help aid contradict the next on every page.Scholar against scholar.This is born out in the translations,Version against version;they all differ.

There is only one Book!That is the KJV.

 

[Peter A V]

If you guys want to debate Hell and Universalism,try starting another thread.Very interesting stuff.
If you use it in keeping with the line of this thread,that is another story.

 

[Peter A V]

Cocordant version Best?

Cocordant version Best?

Thank God that He has not left us to trust the KJV translators (or any translator), but has given us concordances (such as Young's and Strong's), with which to check the translator's work. Looking up "hell" on pages 474 and 475 of Young's Exhaustive Concordance, you can confirm with me the separate words hades, geenna and tartaroo. Why did we have to consult Young's concordance to discover this? Because the careless translators did not consider it necessary to define these differences in the text.
******
Like I said before,Logos;The concordances that you use as your final authority are man's words not God's words.They are made by men like[Strong's]are not saved,on corrupted Bible committees.{ASV}Plus he borrowed his answers from Gesenius and Furst

Gesenius was not saved,he was an unbeliever,He compiled pagan citations then refashioned them in secondhand German or Latin.The pagan list is of the likes of;Origen,Marcion,Dionysius,etc.[see Thayer's Greek-English LexICON,for a complete list]

The KJV translators would have none of it.They would only use Bible nd Bible versions for the definitions.Infact,all through that era,most would not touch any dictionary because of the paganized definitions that CHANGES scriptures into PAGAN definitions.Just like HELL. Bible definitions are exactly that.Bible.God can use the right English words to portray correct meaning.He knows what he is doing.The Bible is not a work of Men,But of God.He will preserve it,and he has.

 

[robycop3]

Yes, it IS...

Yes, it IS...

I have...and it means "ages of ages"...eons of eons.

Take this challenge.. if forever is forever...why add "ever"?

Forevers and evers? does that sound right to you?

Aionios aionios...both are PLURAL. Thought there was only one eternity...how can there be many?

It's for EMPHASIS. I might say, "I drove for miles and miles", meaning I'd driven quite a long distance. I might say, "I waited and waited for the kettle to boil", which means I waited a long time, not that i waited more than once. Who says emphasis is limited to modern English?

 

[robycop3]

More guesswork.

More guesswork.

peret AV: The KJV translators would have none of it.They would only use Bible nd Bible versions for the definitions.Infact,all through that era,most would not touch any dictionary because of the paganized definitions that CHANGES scriptures into PAGAN definitions.Just like HELL. Bible definitions are exactly that.Bible.God can use the right English words to portray correct meaning.He knows what he is doing.The Bible is not a work of Men,But of God.He will preserve it,and he has.

But you have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that God is limited to the KJV...you're just GUESSING. You're betting and hoping Riplinger and Ruckman are right. You've not bothered to check behind them at all.

 

[Peter A V]

I believe the Book.So do they.That is more than good enough.
All else is meaningless retotic.Everyone can argue,but that is only the field of Preferences,predominantly.

 

[robycop3]

Beliefs...

Beliefs...

I believe the Book.So do they.That is more than good enough.
All else is meaningless retotic.Everyone can argue,but that is only the field of Preferences,predominantly.

I believe in Jesus. So does Satan. Does that make us both Christians?