Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsroomALL
Events | Notices | Blogs
Newest Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Language
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -32 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only

 
USER COMMENTS BY “ ROBERT ”
Page 1 | Page 9 ·  Found: 500 user comments posted recently.
News Item10/21/09 12:39 PM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings John, but you have been debating the meaning of Hebrew words, Hebrew grammar and concordances over the last few days, when you clearly know nothing about the language.

Can you not see you are just like the Romanist who does not need to read for himself because his priest will do that for him, is TBS your priest?


News Item10/21/09 12:01 PM
Robert | ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
John

No I am not saying Strong was wrong (although he was a fallible man, as were the KJ translators) But as I have tried to explain, Strong gives you the lexical form of the word, that is the root word (usually if not always the singular form) in Hebrew this usually consists of a tri consonantal root.

Perhaps you would know this if you were not content to blindly follow the KJVO cult, maybe you should learn some GK and Hebrew instead of reading little pamphlets and lies from Gail and then pretending you actually know what you are talking about.

With regards TBS a very good friend of my is one of the main men of that organization, they do some sterling work!


News Item10/21/09 3:32 AM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
Good morning folks, with regards psalm 47, I think the main problem here is that the Hebrew text does not have the word peoples in verse one or three, that's how it stands in our English bibles. In the Hebrew it is actually in verses 2 and 4 and both times it is plural verse 2 הָעַמִּים notice the definite article and the plural ending 'The Peoples' and verse 4 עַמִּים without the DA 'peoples'. I think an important point has been raised, many people think they do not need to learn GK or Hebrew because they have Strong’s concordance, but the problem with concordances is they only give you the lexical form of the word, not the actual word in the text, this is why it is important to learn for yourself.

John I do not use an on line lexicon I use bible works software. Mainly I use my Hebrew/Greek bible graciously supplied by TBS.

Have a nice day!


News Item10/20/09 5:42 PM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
I do not know why you guys are arguing over this word, but as a Hebrew student I can tell you כל־העמים has a masculine plural ending, I hope this helps!

Soli Deo Gloria!


News Item10/20/09 1:36 PM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
Amen Mike!

News Item10/20/09 1:23 PM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
"Question, Why does the Holy Spirit NOT achieve(?) in these modern times, what He achieved with ONE version in previous times?"

He does exactly what He wants, regardless of bible versions, to suggest otherwise is to verge of Blasphemy!

There are tens of millions of converts in China alone, who were converted in ministries where the bible used was translated from GK texts other than the so called TR!

If only the church in China knew they were serving Satan’s plan!

Wise up you guys and waken up, your arguments are futile, and totally illogical.


News Item10/20/09 12:55 PM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
Furthermore, why should the Greek text behind the most widely used Englis h Bible be the correct text? Why not the Greek text behind Martin Luther's German
translation (the second edition of Erasmus' text from 1519)? One of the main arguments offered to support the Greek text underlying the KJV is its widespread and long use, which allegedly shows that God has preserved it. If this is compelling proof, then why not the Greek text behind Jerome's Vulgate (Latin)? Jerome's Latin
translation has been used for 1,500 years and has been more widely spread.
Those who support the Textus Receptus do so because of their commitment to the
KJV. Instead of working from the Greek text to construct a translation, they work backwards from the translation to construct a Greek text from it. Then, in spite of the fact that the resultant Textus Receptus is not identical to any published Greek text or hand written manuscript available at the time of the publication of the KJV in 1611, it is considered to be God's providentially preserved text.

News Item10/20/09 12:00 PM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
No one is denying that the AV has been used by God, but so has the NIV, ESV,ASV.

There are tens of millions of converts in China, who were converted in ministries where the bible used was translated from GK texts other than the so called TR!

If only the church in China knew they were serving Satan’s plan!

Wise up you guys and waken up, your arguments are futile, and totally illogical.


News Item10/20/09 11:17 AM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
The translators also considered other translations to be the Word of God, not just the KJV,
"we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

Please pay heed to these venerable men, and ditch your cult like behaviour.


News Item10/20/09 10:45 AM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
After the first edition in 1611, subsequent editions were produced in 1612 and 1613. Over the years many editions were printed, each with
slight changes in the wording of the text. The American Bible Society examined six editions of the KJV in the nineteenth century and discovered around 24,000 differences in the text and punctuation. Most KJVs used today follow a revision from 1769 by Benjamin Blayney. Since not every KJV is identical with every other KJV, when they deviate from each other which is the one that is not corrupted?
The KJV translators themselves clearly did not believe they were working on the
only inspired English version. In contrast to those who condemn the use of other translations, the KJV translators actually advocated the use of other translations in the preface of their work by writing,
"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be not less than presumption. Therefore, as St.Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the
sense of the Scriptures."

News Item10/20/09 5:47 AM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
The original 1611 edition contained
4,223 marginal notes giving a more literal translation and another 2,738 alternative readings that in the opinion of the translators were "not very less probable than those in the text." These marginal readings indicate that the translators did not consider their work to be impossible to be improved upon. Indeed, they considered the marginal readings to be potentially valid renderings of the original text by writing in the preface of the KJV,
"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of reading, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other." (KJV translators)

why don't you take their advice!


News Item10/17/09 2:07 PM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
1. I am not a KJV hater it is a great translation my 2nd favourite.

2. A change is a change!

3. Why would a perfect translation need 100,000 changes?

4. The original 1611 edition contained
4,223 marginal notes giving a more literal translation and another 2,738 alternative readings that in the opinion of the translators were "not very less probable than those in the text." These marginal readings indicate that the translators did not consider their work to be impossible to be improved upon. Indeed, they considered the marginal readings to be potentially valid renderings of the original text by writing in the preface of the KJV,
"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of reading, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other." (KJV translators)

Why don't you take their advice, and ditch your un biblical tradions!


News Item10/17/09 8:27 AM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
I am a reformed Protestant!

Too hard! don't flatter yourself brother!

Your other questions do not need answered as the foundation for them has been taken from them.

The original 1611 edition contained
4,223 marginal notes giving a more literal translation and another 2,738 alternative readings that in the opinion of the translators were "not very less probable than those in the text." These marginal readings indicate that the translators did not consider their work to be impossible to be improved upon. Indeed, they considered the marginal readings to be potentially valid renderings of the original text by writing in the preface of the KJV,
"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of reading, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other." (KJV translators)

Here endeth the lesson!


News Item10/17/09 7:59 AM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
Again this false logic falls under its own weight.
1* "and you'll not find much difference."
DifferenceS in the perfect translation of the word of God, surely not!

*2
"Luk 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." KJV

Is the AV here denying the deity of Christ?

You err not knowing the scriptures John

As I said these points especially *2 destroy every other argument you may have!

And by the way no I am not a member of the FPC!

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of
reading, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other." (King James Translators)


News Item10/17/09 7:24 AM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
The KJV translators themselves clearly did not believe they were working on the
only inspired English version. In contrast to those who condemn the use of other translations, the KJV translators actually advocated the use of other translations in the preface of their work by writing,
"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be not less than presumption. Therefore, as St.Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the
sense of the Scriptures."
The translators also considered other translations to be the Word of God, not just the KJV,
"we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

News Item10/17/09 6:36 AM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
So true brother! So true!

News Item10/17/09 6:15 AM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
As I said blinded by tradition!

" I especially appreciate the translators of the AV 1611"

So do I they were great men, These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years.

But one blinded by tradition would not understand this reasoning!

The King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?


News Item10/17/09 4:19 AM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
“I am not going to waste time learning Hebrew and Greek. Why not? Because the Bible I hold in my hand is a superbly accurate translation of the Bible into English, which will never lead me away from true doctrine.”

Well there we go! It would be a waste of time for John to learn Hebrew and Greek! It would be a waste of time for him to search the scriptures!
He would far rather put his faith in fallible, sinful, men!
If the translators of the AV, if Tyndale or Erasmus had that mindset, you wouldn’t have your beloved AV, but thankfully they were not bound to unbiblical tradition like you, they sought to be workmen rightly dividing the word of truth.

If you will not learn Hebrew or GK how on earth can you be sure the AV is an superbly accurate translation of the TR? You can’t even check it, you must be relying on your Cult leader to do that checking for you!

With regards to not being led astray by using the AV it didn’t help the guys below

Mormons use the AV!
Wesborough Baptist, AV
Jim Jones, AV
David Koresh, AV
Oneness Pentecostalism usually AV only
William Branham cult AV only

Waken up friends! Can’t you see this Slavish Romish tradition, is contrary to the scriptures.
Ερευνατε τας γρα&#


News Item10/16/09 3:22 PM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
"Those "any version goes, except the KJV" I believe the KJV is a great translation one of the very best and I would take it over many others, and in fact I do not know anyone who advocates using every translation except the KJV.

"The Reformers believed they possessed and translated the very Words of God. They did not produce multiple & diverse translations." is that so ? Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, AV!
Again the AV only advocates ignorance of history is astounding!

Check out WCF Chp 1 verse 8 to see what the reformers thought about the original texts and of translations!

Again I will say anyone who advocates burning bibles, needs to check themselves I would seriously doubt that people who burn the word of God, have the Spirit in them.

“"In other words the Scriptures, in every way, are subject to man. Our modern day critics have adopted that same Roman Catholic tradition." This is the worst argument I have ever heard, was the KJV not the product of men? Of course it was, fallible sinful men!

Like arguing with JW and Mormons this is futile, cult members cannot use their God given reason.

The KJV is a translation, like others and should be measured like other translations by the Hebrew and Greek text, that is after all why we learn Hebrew and Greek.


News Item10/16/09 2:45 PM
Robert | Ulster  Find all comments by Robert
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
269
comments
They will not listen Jim, this is what happens when we exchange God's commands for the traditions of men.

KJVO is traditionalism at it's worst, and traditionalism will not listen to either reason or the word of God!

I too believe God has preserved His word in the Vulgate, Geneva, AV, RSV, ASV, NIV, ESV etc.
We take them all to the MSS to determine which one is most accurate.

Jump to Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 more


Jim Byrd
Why Christ Came

Hebrews 10:1-10
Sunday Service
13th Street Baptist Church
Play! | MP4 | RSS


Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06

Sponsor:
5 Benefits of Theological Study

God gave the depths of his Word for all bel­iev­ers! Let's go deep!
https://veritasschool.life

Sponsor:
More Stimulus Relief for Churches

Join a free web­inar with Thom Rainer and Chaney & Ass­oc­iates to learn more.
https://churchanswers.com/w..

Sponsor:
Leading a Post-COVID Church

Free eBook by Thom Rainer - A Past­or's Guide to Min­istry Chall­enges & Opp­ort­un­it­ies
https://churchanswers.com/l..

Sponsor:
How Deep Can You Go?
https://veritasschool.life

SPONSOR




SA UPDATES NEWSLETTER Sign up for a weekly dose of personal thoughts along with interesting content updates. Sign Up
FOLLOW US


Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
ChurchOne App
Watch
Android
ChurchOne App
Fire Tablet
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
2-MINUTE TIPS

NEWS
Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe
Staff Picks | RSS
SA Newsroom
SERVICES
Dashboard | Info
Cross Publish
Audio | Video | Stats
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Webcast | Multicast
Solo Sites New!
Internationalization
Listen Line
Events | Notices
Transcription
Billboards | Biz Cards
Favorites | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
JSON API

BATCH
Upload via RSS
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox

SUPPORT
Advertising | Local Ads
Support Us
Stories
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Earn SA COINS!
Privacy Policy

TECH TALK
Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06
Copyright © 2021 SermonAudio.