|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jun 21, 2007 6:39:12 GMT -5
I am a better Christian than all of you who read the perverted 'bibles'. When I die I have a mansion waiting for me. You just have a 'room' or 'dwelling place'! The evidence is there you have a free will to accept it or reject it. I am not forcing you. HHHMMM, I am a lost of words. I can only shake my head in disbelief of this statement. What about the Christians in 3rd world countries that are persecuted for their True Faith, and all that was given to them by missionary Christians were another translation other than KJV. Those Brethren whom share 1 BIBLE with 100 people. Where they tear pages out to share with one another. I guess you are better than them also?
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Jun 22, 2007 22:08:47 GMT -5
How can you disprove it?
Don't take me out of context. I stated this to everyone on this MB only.
|
|
|
Post by trustandobey on Jun 23, 2007 0:03:13 GMT -5
Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Your pride will [if not repented of] be your downfall Jonathan, you lift your self up and have no love for your fellow man [which is so obvious in all your threads]. But I forget you can sin without accountability to God, and claim it in the Blood of Jesus. Dreadful thought.
Jonathan have you ever witnessed to a Drunk man before?
TrustandObey
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jun 23, 2007 9:50:13 GMT -5
Sorry Jonathon, I did not know you were roman catholic. Nothing said can reveal truth to you. Only deliverance can set you free. But deliverance cannot come untill you are humbled and you know you need deliverance. The W.H.O.R.E. of babylon has your mind bound in darkness.
|
|
1611isperfect
Full Member
Publick preaching in Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 140
|
Post by 1611isperfect on Jun 23, 2007 14:54:28 GMT -5
Sorry Jonathon, I did not know you were roman catholic. Nothing said can reveal truth to you. Only deliverance can set you free. But deliverance cannot come untill you are humbled and you know you need deliverance. The W.H.O.R.E. of babylon has your mind bound in darkness. HA HA, that's funny!
He's not, Rhema. Trust me.
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jun 23, 2007 15:08:08 GMT -5
Sorry Jonathon, I did not know you were roman catholic. Nothing said can reveal truth to you. Only deliverance can set you free. But deliverance cannot come untill you are humbled and you know you need deliverance. The W.H.O.R.E. of babylon has your mind bound in darkness. HA HA, that's funny! He's not, Rhema. Trust me.Well, in his past posts I see he came against the roman church. But in his last post here, he threw me a curve ball, so I figured maybe the W.H.O.R.E. of Babylon got to him and he was converted to her doctrines.
|
|
|
Post by trustandobey on Jun 23, 2007 15:32:07 GMT -5
Chronological History of the Roman Catholic Popes www.gospelgrace.com/romancatholicism/papacyhistory/papacyhistory.htmsource for the history of the Roman Catholic Popes: "Halley's Bible Handbook" by Dr. Henry H. Halley; pg. 767-784 Simon Magus, that peter rebuked, was the bishop [or spiritual counselor] to Nero, an occultist, which bore Peters first name. Identify theft -- Still to this day, it is reported that this Simon was Simon Peter. It is not Acts 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. 11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17T hen laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. 24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me. Remember Apostle John said the AnitiChrist system was already at work in the World in 91 AD. 1 John 4:3 .. and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. TrustandObey
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jun 23, 2007 15:36:31 GMT -5
Well Trustand obey, I would have just told Jonathan that the proof that Peter was not a pope was he held the doctrines of Jesus Christ and that he was not an IDOLITOR as all other popes have been.
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jun 23, 2007 15:38:09 GMT -5
Maybe I am just a simple man though.
|
|
|
Post by trustandobey on Jun 23, 2007 15:48:24 GMT -5
Jonathon asked, to prove that Peter was the First Pope, I am just giving him what he ask for! from a well respected Historian. Hopefully plain and simple to the facts of History was my goal, not take away from your explaination.
Any one who puts himself in the Place of Christ on Earth, should understand as you do, is an Anti-christ - which Peter was not. AMen - But the world wonders after Him, sad but true.
TrustandObey
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jun 23, 2007 15:50:34 GMT -5
I know trustandobey, I did not mean to suggest you were. I am just having a lil fun.
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Jun 24, 2007 4:50:49 GMT -5
What is wrong with me stating that I have a mansion and everyone else who reads a perversion has a room or dwelling place. This is Bible. I am boasting in the Bible.
Not at all. I will be judged according to what I have done at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
I tend to stay away from them when they are drunk.
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Jun 24, 2007 5:19:45 GMT -5
Sorry Jonathon, I did not know you were roman catholic. Nothing said can reveal truth to you. Only deliverance can set you free. But deliverance cannot come untill you are humbled and you know you need deliverance. The W.H.O.R.E. of babylon has your mind bound in darkness. I am referring to you disproving that Peter, Paul and The Lord Jesus Christ quoted from a KJB. I'm glad someone knows that I'm not that insane:
|
|
|
Post by trustandobey on Jun 24, 2007 19:11:25 GMT -5
This is true for us all in Christ - Amen
Remember the "Law of Liberty" is the standard of Judgment - all 10 commandments - not 9 of them, they are a package deal. I say these things, because I want you ready for the judgment. Because the Bible states many Christians will not make it because they practice breaking the Law of God. Matthew 7:22
The reason I ask about the preaching to a drunk, it just the why you respond to people who disagree with you, it is like a drunk would respond to the gospel of truth.
I say these things, that you will grow in grace, love and knowledge in the Lord Jesus Christ.
TrustandObey
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 24, 2007 20:10:02 GMT -5
So is the burden of proof on us to prove this negative? Or is it on you to prove it? The KJB did not exist at the time Christ or Peter or Paul were on earth. It is that simple. Also, the italics are not in the texts from which the KJB was taken. They are added for understanding, as they are in the NASB. This does not prove your position. How do you know it is not just a coincedence? To accept this argument, we would have to accept the radical KJVO position to begin with, and therefore it is a circular argument which has no value to anybody who is not already KJVO. The other two arguments concerning Peter and Paul are the same. I really cannot believe I am seeing this. This is pure nonsense, and it is so stupid that only a person who has totally bought into the most radical KJVO teachings would look at it without laughing. Especially this part: You know that if I was going to go through the Bible in this kind of way, I could make up basically any kind of nonsense I wanted, right? This is numerology. It is pseudo-science. Do you accept the "Bible Code" stuff too? That's just about on the same level as what you said here. This is like that www.av1611.org website that you posted articles from once, with its interesting little studies about 9/11 and how those numbers can be played with. It really is sad that you are reduced to making arguments from the coincedental placement of verse numbers and stringing a few words from the verse together. What's to say that I can't take the first two words from verse 11 instead of the last two? What rule dictates which words we are going to string together to try to get secret messages out of the Bible? Why would ANYBODY who was not already a KJVO believe this? I could just as easily say that there is some secret meaning in "1611 - Preserve thou wilt" if I took the first two words in verse 11, and there's no reason I can't, according to the argument you have presented here. Then I would be able to use that to make some kind of totally different point, and the logic would be just the same as what you just did. Amazing. I have never seen the SOP thing before. It is totally absurd. You may as well get into astrology and start living your life according to how the solar system is lined up if you're going to hold to that view, because that's just about as trustworthy as trying to look around and find secret acronyms and numerological messages in Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Jun 24, 2007 20:28:46 GMT -5
The fact that he believes that The Apostles and Jesus Himself quoted from the KJV Bible was so rediculous, I could not think of responding back. I thought for sure this guy must be kidding. But now I really believe he thinks this to be true.
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Jun 24, 2007 22:04:45 GMT -5
So is the burden of proof on us to prove this negative? Or is it on you to prove it? The KJB did not exist at the time Christ or Peter or Paul were on earth. It is that simple. Also, the italics are not in the texts from which the KJB was taken. They are added for understanding, as they are in the NASB. This does not prove your position. How do you know it is not just a coincedence? To accept this argument, we would have to accept the radical KJVO position to begin with, and therefore it is a circular argument which has no value to anybody who is not already KJVO. The other two arguments concerning Peter and Paul are the same. I really cannot believe I am seeing this. This is pure nonsense, and it is so stupid that only a person who has totally bought into the most radical KJVO teachings would look at it without laughing. Especially this part: You know that if I was going to go through the Bible in this kind of way, I could make up basically any kind of nonsense I wanted, right? This is numerology. It is pseudo-science. Do you accept the "Bible Code" stuff too? That's just about on the same level as what you said here. This is like that www.av1611.org website that you posted articles from once, with its interesting little studies about 9/11 and how those numbers can be played with. It really is sad that you are reduced to making arguments from the coincedental placement of verse numbers and stringing a few words from the verse together. What's to say that I can't take the first two words from verse 11 instead of the last two? What rule dictates which words we are going to string together to try to get secret messages out of the Bible? Why would ANYBODY who was not already a KJVO believe this? I could just as easily say that there is some secret meaning in "1611 - Preserve thou wilt" if I took the first two words in verse 11, and there's no reason I can't, according to the argument you have presented here. Then I would be able to use that to make some kind of totally different point, and the logic would be just the same as what you just did. Amazing. I have never seen the SOP thing before. It is totally absurd. You may as well get into astrology and start living your life according to how the solar system is lined up if you're going to hold to that view, because that's just about as trustworthy as trying to look around and find secret acronyms and numerological messages in Scripture. Nothing I say will change your mind, you are closed and that is why you are missing out on so much in the Bible. Even if God wrote in the sky "The King James Bible is the Word of God" you still wouldn't believe. How sad. God sure does have a sense of humour doesn't He?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 24, 2007 22:54:23 GMT -5
Are you guys sure we are in the right dispensation to argue this? Maybe we should wait for another.... or maybe it has already passed...
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 25, 2007 0:31:14 GMT -5
Don't worry, I feel the same way about you. The difference is that even though your arguments are all worthless, you still hold to your belief in KJVO-ism. If I was to adopt your mindset on this, it would be akin to reading the horoscope in the newspaper to find out what their day is going to be like, or counting the number of steps I take on the way to the restroom in order to decide how long I am going to take a shower, or avoiding cracks in the sidewalk so I won't break my mother's back. If your "exegesis" allows you to randomly take words from different verses in the Bible and put them together, with no regard for the original intent of the passage, and come up with the idea that this means the KJV is new revelation, then there is no stopping the potential absurdities. You may as well start looking up words in different verses of the Bible and their verse numbers and deciding what you are going to do each day based on them. For example, let's see what we can cook up when we use your method of biblical interpretation. The KJV says in Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." At 20:13 Military time on 2/20/2013 (because Exodus is the second book of the Bible), you are not supposed to kill. Any other time you can go ahead and kill people. Now how can you stop anybody from doing this sort of thing with any verse? Of course it causes contradictions, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. You can't find KJVO-ism in the Bible anyway, so you're forced to use this laughable argumentation to make your case. When you are confronted with the fact that your arguments are totally bankrupt and stupid, you just say "well you're just close-minded" and you don't even bother to defend your beliefs. This is a good hint that you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Jun 26, 2007 3:03:05 GMT -5
I can defend what I believe concerning the KJB, why would I waste my time because you are just like those that corrupt and pervert the Word of God.
That would make you a spiritual pervert!
Your NASV teaches that Jesus sinned:
'But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.' Matt 5:22
'He said to the man with the withered hand, "Get up and come forward!" And He said to them, "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?" But they kept silent. After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. Mark 3:3-5
If you can't see the blasphemy of this then God help you.
There is no hope for you!
|
|
|
Post by bounbough on Jun 26, 2007 7:10:49 GMT -5
This is just hearsay, but I heard from a good source that one of the scholars that worked on the NIV is in a mental institution, and another one lost his voice on live television while trying to debate against the authorized King James. One time we met a writer and academic here on the street who was from Melbourne. He used to lecture at a university in Melbourne. He told us a story about how he had tried to profit from God's Word by writing a book about the meaning of 666. He said that no matter what he did to try and get the book published, things went badly wrong. Someone even shot him. It goes to show that one can't mess with God's Word.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 26, 2007 9:24:42 GMT -5
I can defend what I believe concerning the KJB, why would I waste my time because you are just like those that corrupt and pervert the Word of God. That would make you a spiritual pervert! Your NASV teaches that Jesus sinned: 'But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.' Matt 5:22 'He said to the man with the withered hand, "Get up and come forward!" And He said to them, "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?" But they kept silent. After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. Mark 3:3-5 If you can't see the blasphemy of this then God help you. There is no hope for you! If you can defend it, why don't you? How do you know there is no hope for me? Is that really the way a Christian should deal with his theological opponents - just sit back, relax, and don't deal with some people because there is "no hope for them"? Anyway, concerning your post, this is just like the John 3:16 argument where KJVO-ists say the NIV teaches there is a contradiction between Jesus, the "one and only Son", and all of the other "sons" that the Father has. The first thing we need to think about is, is the NASB inerrant? No. No person who likes that version best is going to say this. So if your argument holds up, it only is sufficient to tell us something that we already agree with. Second, just like the John 3:16 "problem" that KJVO-ists sometimes bring up, this is easily solvable by simply looking at the context and the intended point of the passage. Maybe you won't bother to read this, but maybe others will. As with so much of the KJV Only material that is to be found in the Internet and in print, such arguments ignore the real issues. The reason the NIV and NASB do not have the phrase "without cause" at Matthew 5:22 is quite simple: the Greek text that underlies these modern translations does not contain the Greek term eivkh/. Mr. Schnoebelen may not like the reasons the editors of the modern Greek texts give for not including this term: but, he doesn't bother to tell us why these texts read the way they do. In fact, one must ask, does he know? The reading is, of course, found in all modern Greek texts in their textual notes. No one is "hiding" the reading. One can, in fact, make a strong case for the reading, as it is found in a wide variety of manuscripts and has early attestation. The reason it is excluded is that most felt it was easier to explain the addition of the term (so as to soften the rigorous precept enunciated here) than to explain its deletion. But in any case, it is a matter of reason and fact as to why the term is not found in the modern Greek texts. It is not a matter of a conspiracy.
Now Mr. Schnoebelen wants us to believe that to read as the modern texts read is to introduce a contradiction in the Bible. By so speaking, he illustrates well the very concern that modern textual scholars refer to in explaining why someone would add the phrase in the first place. Seeking to avoid seeming contradiction was a concern on the part of early scribes, just as it is for Mr. Schnoebelen. I say seeming contradiction, because truly, there is none, even if one reads the modern text. Mr. Schnoebelen should be aware of the fact that he has to often explain context to Mormons with whom he speaks, so why can't he allow the context of this passage to solve his problems for him? Jesus is speaking in the context of sinful anger. He speaks of calling a brother a "fool." He is obviously not speaking about righteous anger as exemplified in Jesus' anger at the hard-hearted Pharisees. To compare the two passages is to compare apples and oranges. One must be looking for "contradictions" to come up with this one. One can only wonder why KJV Only advocates are forced to search for such things. www.aomin.org/Schnoebelen.html
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Jun 27, 2007 23:50:15 GMT -5
Your response proves my point.
If my KJB showed me that Jesus sinned I would throw it out straight away.
Come on TBXI, don't be so ignorant to the truth here. Atheists say the Bible is full of errors, contradictions etc. They are all correct! All of these versions contradict each other in various places.
I did read it.
Now I wonder who is behind this?
Where did these manuscripts come from? EGYPT
What is EGYPT a type of in the Bible? THE WORLD
Who is the god of this world? SATAN
'In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.' (2 Cor 4:4)
We could go on and on debating this.
At the end of the day only one of us is right. And we both say that we are right.
Maybe we will have to wait until the Judgment Seat of Christ to find out.
|
|
|
Post by trustandobey on Jun 28, 2007 0:16:13 GMT -5
Nailed it.
TrustandObey
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 28, 2007 2:27:37 GMT -5
Your response proves my point. Explain. I don't know what you are talking about, and saying something proves your point doesn't make it so. You're ignoring the argument that was given, and changing the subject with a broad generalization - "all of these versions contradict each other in various places". It sure is easy to throw out a blanket statement like that, isn't it? But what non-KJVO person who reads any of the conservative modern versions is going to claim their inerrancy anyway? They believe in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts, not the copies. We may get very close to the originals, in fact, so close that the only variant issues are matters of a silent letter or the difference between an omicron and a theta. The discrepancies are to be decided by the overall flow of Scripture and interpretation by the context. This is what the response to your claimed contradiction in the NASB has done, and you have ignored it. Then you either did not comprehend it, or you chose not to respond to it. I would not be surprised at the former, or the latter, since it basically refutes your whole thought process in making this argument. LOL. First - no, they did not all come from Egypt. The manuscripts that are used in modern versions are widespread, and not just from one place. Second, if we are to accept this ridiculous argument, then that means that the very ground and food that come from Egypt is automatically evil, including the air they breathe, all of the books they ever read, every single person, etc. This is obviously absurd, and invalidates your argument. Your following citation of 2 Cor. 4:4 does not help your case, as your interpretation of it depends on your arguments being valid, which they are not. Yes, we could go on and on. We have done this for some time, and you haven't had one solid argument yet. You have thrown out a lot of fallacies, numerology, and cut-and-paste Bible interpretation, but no actual valid reasoning that would show the KJV to be "the only true Word of God". You say that maybe we will have to wait until the judgment seat of Christ to find out who's right? What happened to your unshakable confidence in the absolute perfection and inspiration of the KJV? Maybe it has been revealed that the whole movement is just based on sentimental tradition and fideistic faith, not actual solid biblical or textual evidence.
|
|
|
Post by jonathanhulewicz on Jun 28, 2007 19:13:13 GMT -5
You are accusing God of being a liar. He promised to preserve His words. We no longer have the originals so where are these 'preserved words?'
You want to use a translation that clearly shows that Jesus sinned go ahead and use it. Don't give me this rubbish about reading the whole passage and the flow of scripture blah, blah, blah!
The translators of all of these versions were crooks and were led by Satan. How could you use that piece of trash!
The only reason I brought up the Judgment Seat of Christ was to try and stir you in the nonsense which you believe. Obviously you can't be stirred, even by the fact that you will have to give an account on which version you read.
Shame on you.
'Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.' (John 14:23)
'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.' (Matt 24:35)
I have God's WORDS, you obviously don't.
I have better things to do like preaching on the streets then debating with someone who is perverter of the Word of God.
Good Day.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 28, 2007 19:39:57 GMT -5
You are accusing God of being a liar. He promised to preserve His words. We no longer have the originals so where are these 'preserved words?' You want to use a translation that clearly shows that Jesus sinned go ahead and use it. Don't give me this rubbish about reading the whole passage and the flow of scripture blah, blah, blah! The translators of all of these versions were crooks and were led by Satan. How could you use that piece of trash! The only reason I brought up the Judgment Seat of Christ was to try and stir you in the nonsense which you believe. Obviously you can't be stirred, even by the fact that you will have to give an account on which version you read. This doctrine is making you stupid. I have been over the manner in which God preserved His words before - check out my past discussions with DocH on this. I do not think He did so through an inerrant preserved single copy, but through many thousands of manuscripts that were so widespread that they could never all be altered and destroyed by the enemies of Christianity. The work of piecing it together is for us to do. And it is done very well by the modern translations. The NASB doesn't show Jesus sinned. You have not addressed my posts to the contrary - you just keep repeating your unjustified assertion here. Maybe you think we will believe you if you repeat yourself enough times. Concerning the "rubbish" of actually reading the whole passage according to its context, that is a fundamental rule of hermeneutics and you can't even understand your KJV if you don't do the same thing. Concerning "the translators of al these versions were led by Satan", you don't know that. This is the result of paranoid delusions and the ramblings of people who are stuck in their traditions. If anybody wants to understand why Jonathan's usage of the Scripture in the previous post, especially the latter, is moot, read the previous KJVO threads on this board. God did preserve His words. He just didn't preserve a single inerrant copy. The KJVO-ist must hide under a rock and deny the very methods which gave him his favorite translation in order to avoid this conclusion. The reply of one whose arguments are hopelessly flawed, and who cannot reply with actual substance aside from calling the other side "rubbish" and accusing them of being led by Satan.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jun 28, 2007 19:49:22 GMT -5
In order to preserve Jack's thread, I will reply to Jonathan's post here. Jack and I can agree on this, at least We don't have the originals today. You are correct. But we are extremely close. The most significant textual variant in the NT, and the only one to my knowledge which even comes remotely close to creating a theological problem (it doesn't), is the difficulty in seeing whether a letter is a theta or an omicron on a worn manuscript (this is the difference between Θ and Ο). 1 Tim 3:16 - the difference between "God" and "He'. The context shows that "He" means "God" i.e. "Jesus". The vast majority of copyist errors in the body of manuscripts are trivial. Circular argumentation. A poor argument from silence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silenceNot always. English is a very imprecise language compared to German, and it pales in comparison to the diversity and ability of the Greek language to make things clear. Scholars translated the KJV, and you must trust that they were correct, right? Argument from silence. Yes, you do. Obviously, "you" in English can be either singular or plural. In German, it is the difference between "du" or "Sie" and "euch", so even the German language is better for distinguishing between the two than English is. Greek is superior to them both, to my knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 28, 2007 21:38:18 GMT -5
That doesn't work when talking about the KJV... You know I'm not KJ only but I'm sure any avid KJO believer will tell you in the KJV "you" never means singular.
|
|
|
Post by blynn on Jun 29, 2007 19:54:31 GMT -5
|
|