Bibles

[Shammu]

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.  And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it."   Amos 8:11-12


Will K

Amos 8:11-12 NIV "The days are coming," declares the Sovereign LORD, "when I will send a famine through the land— not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD. Men will stagger from sea to sea and wander from north to east, searching for the word of the LORD, but they will not find it.

As my reading of this, it means the same thing. The only difference is the wording is more modern. That is the only difference. Now, I do agreee with you to a point.

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

Daniel 11:11 "Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated.

[brandplucked]

As my reading of this, it means the same thing. The only difference is the wording is more modern. That is the only difference. Now, I do agreee with you to a point.

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

Hi Bob, You are correct (to a point ;-) that in many places the NIV basically reads like the King James Bible.  However there are literally hundreds of places where it does not, and the NIV clearly rejects the inspired Hebrew texts.

Here are just a very few of the many examples I can provide you with.

Please consider the following.  Is the NIV the true Holy Bible or just a very poor perversion of God's true words?


Remember, God said that no man should add to or take away from His words.

Genesis 4:8 KJB "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: AND IT CAME TO PASS, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."

NIV - "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD. And while they were in the field, Cain atacked his brother Abel and killed him."

The NIV omits the verb "and it came to pass". In fact, the NIV complete concordance will tell you that they have "not translated" this verb a whopping 887 times. Not only does the NIV not translate this verb here but they also added "Let's go out to the field." The Holman Christian Standard also adds "Let's go out to the field". Their own footnotes say this reading comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint (LXX - Greek), the Vulgate (Latin) and the Syriac but that the phrase is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

This additional phrase is not found in the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV or any Hebrew translation.

1 Sam 8:16 KJB - "And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest YOUNG MEN, and your asses, and put them to his work."

YOUNG MEN is the reading of the Hebrew, the NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, Holman CSB, and the new revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version of 2001.

1 Sam 8:16 NIV - "Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your CATTLE and donkeys he will take for his own use." Then in a footnote they tell us "cattle" comes from the LXX, but that the Hebrew says "young men".

Here are two examples from the Psalms that illustrate what the NIV is doing.

In Psalm 72:5 we read: "THEY SHALL FEAR THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations."

. This is the reading of the KJB, Revised Version, ASV, NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish, Young's, Darby's, Geneva, and the 2001 revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version.

The NIV, however reads: "HE WILL ENDURE as long as the sun..." This is also the reading of the liberal RSV and NRSV, though the new ESV has again gone back to the KJB and Hebrew reading.. But the footnotes found in the NIV, RSV, and NRSV all tell us that the reading of HE WILL ENDURE comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads "they shall fear thee".

So why did the NIV change the clear Hebrew reading? Doesn't the Hebrew make sense? Didn't God inspire the words of the Old Testament in Hebrew and not in Greek, Syriac or Latin?

The second example is found in Psalm 73:7. There the Psalmist is speaking of the foolish and wicked who prosper in this world. He says of them: "THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS: they have more than heart could wish."

This is the reading of not only the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, but also of the RSV, NRSV and the ESV versions. However the NIV says: "FROM THEIR CALLOUS HEARTS COMES INIQUITY". Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this reading comes from the SYRIAC, but that the Hebrew says "their eyes bulge with fat."

Again, why would the "good, godly, evangelical scholars" who worked on the NIV change the text, if the Hebrew clearly makes sense and there is no doubt about what it says?

Also of note is the totally changed meaning of verse 9 where we read: "THEY SET THEIR MOUTH AGAINST THE HEAVENS, and their tongue walketh through the earth."

These wicked people speak against God, blaspheme heavenly truths and talk only of earthly interests. "They set their mouth against the heavens" is the reading or meaning of even the NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, RV, ESV, and NKJV. Yet the NIV actually says: "Their mouths LAY CLAIM TO HEAVEN, and their tongues take possession of the earth."

There is a distinct pattern easily seen if one studies the different bible versions. The King James Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text and the New Testament on the traditional Greek text. When the RV and ASV came out, they significantly changed the Greek text of the New Testament but kept the Masoretic text intact. Then the liberal RSV appeared with the same corrupted Greek text of the apostates Westcott and Hort, but also with many of the same changes in the Hebrew text that now appear in the NASB and the ever worsening NIV.

Proverbs 30:5,6 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Proverbs 7:22-23 KJB - Speaking of a young man void of understanding who is deceived by a strange woman: "He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as A FOOL TO THE CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS; till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life."

This is the meaning found in such versions as Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Webster's, the NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, Young's, Spanish Reina Valera, Darby, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, and the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936 and 1998.

However, the NIV says: - "like an ox going to the slaughter, LIKE A DEER STEPPING INTO A NOOSE." Then the NIV footnotes: Syriac; Hebrew - a fool.(It comes right out and tells us that the Hebrew says "a FOOL", NOT "a deer"). Then the NIV says to see the LXX. However the LXX is little help because it says: "as a DOG to bonds or a hart shot in the liver with an arrow." Likewise the Syriac is of no help either. Lamsa's translation of the Syriac says here: "as an ox to the slaugher, or A DOG TO BE MUZZLED."

Isaiah 5:17 KJB (NASB, NKJV) - "Then shall the lambs feed after their manner, and the waste places of the fat ones SHALL STRANGERS EAT."

NIV - "LAMBS WILL FEED" instead of "shall strangers eat", Footnote says "lambs" comes from LXX but the Hebrew says "strangers will eat".

Isaiah 53:11 KJB (RV, ASV, RSV, NKJV) "He shall see THE TRAVAIL OF HIS SOUL, and shall be satisfied."

NIV - "After the suffering of his soul, he will see THE LIGHT OF LIFE and be satisfied." Footnote tells us this comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls but the Masoretic text does not have "light of life". The NIV does not always follow the DSS either for sometimes they mention the DSS reading in the footnotes but do not use it in their text. There is no pattern to when they choose to follow the DSS, LXX, Syriac, Vulgate or whatever. It is all a willy - nilly process, totally at random.

Jer. 31:3 "The LORD hath appeared of old UNTO ME, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."

The Lord hath appeared of old UNTO ME, is found in the NKJV, RV, ASV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Geneva, Darby, Spanish, Youngs, Green interlinear. The NASB says: "The LORD appeared TO HIM from afar, saying..."

The RSV, NRSV and the ESV read the same as the NASB, but they have a footnote that says Greek -to him; Hebrew -to me. The NASB has followed the LXX and rejected the clear Hebrew text.

The NIV has something even different with its "The LORD appeared to US in the past, saying..." the NIV has "TO US" instead of the Hebrew "to me" or the Greek "to him", and just makes up their own text as they go along.

Ezekiel 8:2 "Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance OF FIRE." So read the Revised Version, ASV, Geneva Bible, the NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Wycliffe, Coverdale, Douay-Rheims, Darby, Young's and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Pegotcha2ta.

However beginning with the liberal RSV, and now in the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, these modern versions reject the Hebrew reading and follow the Greek Septuagint saying: "Then I looked and behold, the likeness as the appearance OF A MAN."

The NASB and NIV don't give any footnotes, but the RSV, ESV and Holman do list a footnote telling us the reading of "a man" comes from the LXX, but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads "of fire".

These are just a FEW of the MANY examples.



Will Kinney

[ollie]

Psalms 12:6-7

[nChrist]

KJV 100% Pure = Nonsense

KJV Only = Nonsense

If you really want to believe all of the nonsense taught by the KJV Only-ists, here's the results:

1-  The Holy Bible could not have existed before 1611 because that's when the KJV was first published. Do you really think that God allowed the world to go without a Holy Bible for so many years? In fact, the Holy Bible would not exist without the KJV according to the KJV Only-ists. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

2- If the KJV was perfect, it would have been right the first time, YET there were countless revisions. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

3- If the translators of the KJV were inspired, where is the original copy of the KJV so we can compare our version to it?  It doesn't exist, but this is not material since it was so full of errors. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

4- KJV Only-ists claim all others translations are corrupt and many even claim that all other translations are works of the devil. This is ridiculous considering that the KJV was compiled primarily from translations they now call corrupt. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

5- KJV Only-ists claim that the KJV is perfect and pure, even though it had to be revised many times. Any beginner in the language study of Hebrew and Greek knows that it is impossible to have a perfect translation from Hebrew and Greek. This absolute fact is well known to ALL who study the deeper things of God's Word, so they obviously use Hebrew and Greek word studies. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

6- The devil loves it when a group of people make claims that God's Word is corrupt and works of the devil. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

7- The devil loves it when Christians spend so much time arguing about a Bible translation that they don't have the time, energy, or desire to do the real work of GOD. The real work of GOD is obviously not tearing down the books and materials that GOD uses for HIS work. AND, regardless of intentions, making claims that are obviously false harms the work of GOD. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

8- The Apostle Paul and hosts of other preachers didn't have the KJV for about 1600 years, nor did they need it, and they studied and taught the Word of GOD. The same would be true for modern pastors, with or without the KJV. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

In conclusion:  The KJV is ONLY a translation and that's all it's ever been. It's rated good to excellent by the majority of Bible scholars, but NO Bible scholar will ever claim that the KJV is 100% perfect and pure. In fact, no Bible scholar would ever make any of the ridiculous claims of the KJV Only-ists. Bible scholars will always use Hebrew and Greek for obvious reasons.  This bears repeating one more time, so I will:

THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

(First Revision for errors. If there are other errors, I want the same number of attempts and years that the KJV translators had.)

[Sammi]

I would like to ask the KJVonlyists, what do you say about women wearing or even owning pants in their closet? It may sound like a silly question, but I would really like to hear your answer. Thanks.

[Shammu]

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!

I would like to ask the KJVonlyists, what do you say about women wearing or even owning pants in their closet? It may sound like a silly question, but I would really like to hear your answer. Thanks.

The argggg isn't directed at you Person in Christ, Sammi, since I don't know your gender.

Christ is love, and love is Christ.
Bob

Genesis 38:20 And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand; but he was unable to find her.

[Sammi]

I'm sorry, but I really do have a reason why I'm asking this question, and it may not SEEM to not have anything to do with this particular topic, but it does to me. I really want to hear the answer to my question, if it's possible.

[ollie]

I would like to ask the KJVonlyists, what do you say about women wearing or even owning pants in their closet? It may sound like a silly question, but I would really like to hear your answer. Thanks.

I am not necessarily a KJV only person, but I would have this to ask concerning your question. Are the pants designed for a woman or for a man? This would have to be known before an answer, using any Bible translation, could be forthcoming.

ollie

[Sammi]

I would like to ask the KJVonlyists, what do you say about women wearing or even owning pants in their closet? It may sound like a silly question, but I would really like to hear your answer. Thanks.

I am not necessarily a KJV only person, but I would have this to ask concerning your question. Are the pants designed for a woman or for a man? This would have to be known before an answer, using any Bible translation, could be forthcoming.

ollie

Pants.

[brandplucked]

Hi Blackeyedpeas.  I find it of great interest that after I posted a rather comprehensive list of concrete examples of how the NIV is rejecting the inspired Hebrew texts for no apparent reason at all, that instead of addressing these issues, you come back with your unfounded and irrational rants against the King James Bible.

Let's examime briefly your response, OK?

[quote ]

KJV Only = Nonsense

If you really want to believe all of the nonsense taught by the KJV Only-ists, here's the results:

1-  The Holy Bible could not have existed before 1611 because that's when the KJV was first published. Do you really think that God allowed the world to go without a Holy Bible for so many years? In fact, the Holy Bible would not exist without the KJV according to the KJV Only-ists. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

Bep, The KJB believer DOES believe the Holy Bible existed before 1611.  It most likely was found among the Waldensian believers which arose around 120 A.D. and lasted well into the Reformation era.  We affirm that God has always kept His promises to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth.  It is YOUR side which denies the existence of a complete, inerrant, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible.

If you believe in such a thing, then why haven't you told any of us where we can find it today?

2- If the KJV was perfect, it would have been right the first time, YET there were countless revisions. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

Bep, the KJB has never been "revised".  Don't you read the articles I post?  The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed.  Only the spelling was updated and minor printing errors (which occur in all printed bibles even today) were corrected.  If we apply your man made standard to the Holy Bible, then you cut your own throat.  Your "standard" of "no printing errors" then disqualifies any version you care to mention.

3- If the translators of the KJV were inspired, where is the original copy of the KJV so we can compare our version to it?  It doesn't exist, but this is not material since it was so full of errors. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

Bep, this is silly.  First, no KJB defender believes the KJB translators were inspired.  It is God's words that are inspired, even if they are translated into another language. Get it?

If we need "the original copy" of the KJB to know for sure what God's words are, then please produce for us "the originals" in Hebrew and Greek so we can compare them.  Again, you cut your own throat.

4- KJV Only-ists claim all others translations are corrupt and many even claim that all other translations are works of the devil. This is ridiculous considering that the KJV was compiled primarily from translations they now call corrupt. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

Wrong info, bep.  The KJB translators did compare other versions, but their source for the underlying text of the KJB was the Hebrew and Greek texts.  Get your facts straight.  

By the way, which position is more destructive to God's work? - #1. Taking the stated position of your side that "No Bible IS the inerrant, inspired and perfect words of God"; "All translations have errors", and "There is no perfect Bible".  Or #2.  God has kept His promises to preserve His perfect words and there is an inerrant, complete and inspired Holy Bible that is the standard for all others to be measured by.  It is called the King James Holy Bible and it is 100% true.

5- KJV Only-ists claim that the KJV is perfect and pure, even though it had to be revised many times. Any beginner in the language study of Hebrew and Greek knows that it is impossible to have a perfect translation from Hebrew and Greek. This absolute fact is well known to ALL who study the deeper things of God's Word, so they obviously use Hebrew and Greek word studies. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

Bep, See previous remarks about the alleged "revisions".  It never happened.  Again, you tell us that "it is  impossible to have a perfect translation from Hebrew and Greek".  Where did you get this idea?  Certainly not from the Bible.  The Bible itself shows us many times where the translation was inspired.  Also, if we need to know the Hebrew, then why do the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV and Holman ALL FREQUENTLY reject the Hebrew readings?

You see, Bep, you never identify for us what this "Bible" is you speak about or where we can get a copy of it.  Your whole position is smoke and mirrors, with no content to it.

6- The devil loves it when a group of people make claims that God's Word is corrupt and works of the devil. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

Uh, Bep, need I remind you that it is YOUR side which is denying the inerrancy of any Bible or any text out there - NOT the King James Bible believer. The devil asks the very first question found in the Bible - "Yea, hath God said....?"

7- The devil loves it when Christians spend so much time arguing about a Bible translation that they don't have the time, energy, or desire to do the real work of GOD. The real work of GOD is obviously not tearing down the books and materials that GOD uses for HIS work. AND, regardless of intentions, making claims that are obviously false harms the work of GOD. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

Bep, the only truth and revelation we have on this earth about Who Jesus Christ is and what He did for His people, and many other revealed truths, is found only in The Holy Bible.  Apart from this book, we know nothing about the Son of God - nothing.

It is your side which is telling us that there is no inerrant Bible and that all of them have errors.   He promised to preserve His pure words in a Book here on this earth, yet you deny He did this.  So if all the bibles you recommend have errors, contradictions, and completely different readings in them, then how do we know those parts that tell us about Jesus Christ are true?  At what point does God start telling the truth?

8- The Apostle Paul and hosts of other preachers didn't have the KJV for about 1600 years, nor did they need it, and they studied and taught the Word of GOD. The same would be true for modern pastors, with or without the KJV. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

The first part is true.  God had preserved His inerrant words before the KJB came on the scene.  But where among all the often wildly different versions are the true words of God today?

You never tell us, do you Bep. It is your side that says all versions have errors;  "no translation is inspired", and "There is no perfect Bible on this earth".

Bep, your conclusion is quite revealing of where you are coming from.  You close with these words:

In conclusion:  The KJV is ONLY a translation and that's all it's ever been. It's rated good to excellent by the majority of Bible scholars, but NO Bible scholar will ever claim that the KJV is 100% perfect and pure. In fact, no Bible scholar would ever make any of the ridiculous claims of the KJV Only-ists. Bible scholars will always use Hebrew and Greek for obvious reasons.  

Bep, think about what you just said.  If NO Bible scholar would claim the KJB is 100% perfect and pure, and then NO Bible scholar would make the "ridiculous claims" of the KJV Onlyists (That is, 100% perfect and pure words of God), then your Freudian slip is showing.  NOT ONE of your "Bible scholars" believes that ANY BIBLE OR ANY HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT is now the 100% perfect and pure words of God.

You don't.  James White doesn't. Doug Kutilek doesn't, nor John May, nor Rick Norris nor any of your modern version "multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory ballpark approximations" advocates.

All you have to do, Bep, is clearly and unequivocally identify for us exactly where God's pure words are found today and where we can get a copy of them. But you never do this, nor will you.  

Have a good day,

Will K

[nChrist]

gotcha104,

Your answers are like those of a politician. You still haven't answered a single question, and you need dancing lessons because all you can do is dance around the questions and avoid them.

There are many good to excellent translations of the Holy Bible, and the KJV is only one of them. All the KJV has ever been is a translation - YOU KNOW IT AND I KNOW IT! You should also know there is no perfect translation between Hebrew and Greek to English. If you don't, you would need to go back to the basics. This is why all people who do serious studies of the Holy Bible do Hebrew and Greek word studies.

The bottom line is real simple:  KJV Onlyists present obviously false information that does damage to God's Work. I used to say KJV better or best translation, but I no longer say that for fear that someone will think that I'm associated with KJV Onlyists. I no longer use the KJV for the same reason. My focus is and will be JESUS CHRIST, not King James.

KJV Onlyists have made a doctrine out of King James, and that doctrine is false. So, there is nothing evil about those who disagree with you. God's Work is being done with many translations of the Holy Bible other than the King James, and God's Work will continue with or without the KJV. You know that and I know that. We also both know that the KJV is only a translation, and that's all it's ever been. To say otherwise is presenting false information in the name of God. Most Christians wouldn't dream of doing that. Most Christians would also never dream of trying to demonize other translations of the Holy Bible that God is obviously using for His Work. You are hurting God's Work with what you are doing. It's really just as simple as that.

If KJV Onlyists stopped trying to demonize other translations of the Holy Bible and LOVINGLY present TRUTHFUL information about why they think that the KJV is a better or best translation, I could support what you are doing. Otherwise, I will stand against those using false information and hurting God's Work. I will focus on JESUS CHRIST, not King James.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Peter 1:3-5 ASV  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

[Bronzesnake]

BEP Quote...

KJV Onlyists have made a doctrine out of King James, and that doctrine is false. So, there is nothing evil about those who disagree with you. God's Work is being done with many translations of the Holy Bible other than the King James, and God's Work will continue with or without the KJV. You know that and I know that. We also both know that the KJV is only a translation, and that's all it's ever been. To say otherwise is presenting false information in the name of God. Most Christians wouldn't dream of doing that. Most Christians would also never dream of trying to demonize other translations of the Holy Bible that God is obviously using for His Work. You are hurting God's Work with what you are doing. It's really just as simple as that.

If KJV Onlyists stopped trying to demonize other translations of the Holy Bible and LOVINGLY present TRUTHFUL information about why they think that the KJV is a better or best translation, I could support what you are doing. Otherwise, I will stand against those using false information and hurting God's Work. I will focus on JESUS CHRIST, not King James.

 Amen! Well stated Tom. I also believe KJV is a better version, but I would never go as far as some folks who throw around the old familliar attack words such as "evil, satanic, corrupt, ect. Some folks lose sight of Jesus and the book becomes their god.

 I'm really disapointed by Christians who have this KJV elitist attitude. They come across as holier than thou and I have a picture in my mind of a puffy chested, chin in the air, bushy eye browed, stuffy stumblebum. Wearing a gigantic pair of shiny red clown shoes!


(I thought I'd lighten it up a wee bit!)

[cris]

I would like to ask the KJVonlyists, what do you say about women wearing or even owning pants in their closet? It may sound like a silly question, but I would really like to hear your answer. Thanks.

I am not necessarily a KJV only person, but I would have this to ask concerning your question. Are the pants designed for a woman or for a man? This would have to be known before an answer, using any Bible translation, could be forthcoming.

ollie

Pants.

I watched a program on TV awhile back.  It was a group of Christian women who decided to wear skirts only.  They thought skirts (below mid calf) were much more feminine and modest than pants.  Some of the questions they asked men were the following:

When you see a woman in pants walking in front of you, where do your eyes fall first?

When you see a woman in pants walking toward you, where do your eyes fall first?    Answer is obvious!
 
Is it sinful for women to wear pants?  I really don't know.  I guess it's sinful if it causes a man to have impure thoughts.  It would be sinful if wearing those pants caused another to sin.  Everyone has to use discretion in dressing.  I think the OT says that a woman shouldn't wear parted garments..............God must have had a reason.  Was this just true in OT times?  God knew that there would be many different cultures.  Did He mean this for all cultures for all times?  We really don't think much about it today.  

 

[Sammi]

I know that God said that women are not to dress as men and vice versa, but I believe that that means to pass ones self off as the opposite sex. Unless when it referred to mens robes it meant pants? I know that women are not supposed to dress sexy to attract attention to ones self, but that was not my question, my question was whether women are not allowed to own or wear pants. The KJV onlyist Church that I was attending that was saying anything other than KJV Bible, was also saying that women are not to wear or even own pants. I guess women should go back to riding side saddle or just not ride a horse? or scrub the floor on her hands and knees in her sunday best? I know this sounds silly, but I just don't see anywhere in the Bible that it says women are not allowed to wear pants, unless they are trying to look like a man.

[cris]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I thought the definition of a parted garment meant ............pants.