was Word now Translation

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Steven Hall wrote:
> 
> Chris Foster asks?
> "Which part of the KJV is not a translation of the word of God?"
> 
> Steven hall ask?
> What do you believe is the "Word of God?"

4487  rhema (hray'-mah);

from 4483; an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically); by
implication, a matter or topic (especially of narration, command or
dispute); with a negative naught whatever: 

KJV-- + evil, + nothing, saying, word.

Paraphrasing that of the King James translation of the Word of God noted
as Romans 10:17 (by the way are the numbers 10:17 also the Word of God?)
"faith comes from hearing the utterance of God".  One cannot escape the
conclusion that preaching is in view!  Not a translation, not the Greek
version of scripture nor the English version of scripture, but the
utterance that is of God. 

3056  logos (log'-os);

from 3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a
topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or
motive; by extension, a computation; specifically (with the article in
John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ): 

KJV-- account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X
have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, +
reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none
of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

Logos/logic is the mental faculty, intention, expression, reasoning,
plan, thought of God.  The KJV is a translation of the scriptures that
give to us those thoughts, intentions, reasoning, plan, etc.

If you want to continue to ignor these facts and hold that the KJV is
the ONLY WORD OF GOD that's ok.    

You must then contend that the words that are in italics in the KJV are
also the only Word of God you will recognize.  You *should* know, that
they are the graceful attempt of the translators giving thier honest and
forthright interjection, in order to bring what they believed was the
true meaning to those passages they were commissioned to translate.  If
you choose not to take this into consideration then we are dealing with
a question of integrity, and not a question of debate!  

> Luke 4:4  And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall
> not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

This King James Translation of the Word of God is very apropos to our
discussion.  I believe that I can hear the Word of God *without* someone
quoteing the KJV of it!  Don't you!?  

If that is not true, then God cannot speak to your heart in prayer
unless it is in the Old English, (You wrote that God spoke to you about
the KJV did he speak to you in the Kings English????) Also
interpretation of tongues must be in the Old English,  Preaching must be
in the Old English.  To make such a conclusion is ridiculous!  I have
read those posts on interpretation of tongues being in the Old
English....WHAT NONSENSE!!!!!!

Finally I preach and teach out of the KJV.  It is the best TRANSLATION,
but certainly not the ONLY translation.  I am interested in the Word of
God not some translators version of it!  Therefore I will continue to
study rightly dividing the WORD (not translation).

Chris (still contenting for the WORD and not the TRANSLATION) Foster