Differentiation

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by robycop3, Mar 23, 2005.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Plain ol' Ralph: Amazing, simply amazing, and some one of your knowledge can't discern the difference in what is quoted and what is commented upon, that is why you promote the use of mv's, they are commentaries that you cannot differentiate from the Word of God.

    That's because the valid versions which follow their sources ARE the word of God.

    Thus saith the AV translators concerning other MVs of THEIR time:

    Now to the latter we answer, that 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.(AV translators, To The Reader)

    BTW, I assure you that Phillip and I are NOT the same person. This can be affirmed by any administrator such as Dianetavegia. I'm MUCH better-looking!
     
  2. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you ever stop to think that Bibles in English "set forth by men of their profession" were not from Egyptian texts????

    Of course you didn't!!
     
  3. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did. The called the Septuagint "the word of God", which is both Egyptian and much more different from the KJV than any modern version I'm aware of.
     
  4. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well they were WRONG..The LXX is in part the woG..
     
  5. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    No they weren't.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Slambo: Did you ever stop to think that Bibles in English "set forth by men of their profession" were not from Egyptian texts????

    Of course you didn't!!


    As if it matters one hoot.

    I suggest you read the preface to the KJV a little closer to see what the AV men considered good sources.
     
  7. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Slambo,

    So you resort to attacking the men who put together the KJV. Have you ever studied the real AV1611 and compared it to KJVOism? The AV translators are 180 degrees to KJVOism claims and false hoods.

    You really need to read the AV1611. You know the one with the Apocrypha, The Message to the Reader, and those pesky marginal notes. If you read it then you might understand how these men felt about other bibles and the LXX.
     
  8. Slambo

    Slambo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    You guys dont mind using them to try and prove your unscriptural position.And then out of the other side of your mouth curse them.Sounds like a blatant disregard of what Proverbs 11:1 says too me.....
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    320
    Curse? You mean like when the KJVO curse Wescott and Hort?

    HankD
     
  10. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who has cursed them?
     
  11. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps Slambo's use of the word "curse" is inappropriate, but his point is well founded. Some folks will use the AV translators for one thing, then oppose them for the other. You can't have it BOTH ways.

    (yes, we have seen it happen on our side also!)

    JMHO

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  12. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you give a specific example?
     
  13. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    For example;

    Quoting them for their support of a "variety" of translations.

    Opposing their "choice of words" in translating a passage, calling their wisdom in choices "errors".

    So, on the one hand, we have supoport of their wisdom in "variety" and opposing their wisdom in word choices.

    That is the MV side.
    The KJVo side would be the opposite.

    Supporting their wisdom in translation.
    Opposing their wisdom in "variety" of translations.

    See?

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    He may be better looking, but God only made so many perfect heads and the rest he covered with hair. I haven't seen Robycop3, but I bet he has a nice head of hair. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  15. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Slambo, as moderator, I warn you against personal attacks. Stick to the subject being debated. If you cannot stick to the subject I will edit your posts and I prefer not to.
    Thanks in advance for corporating. [​IMG]
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    The one does have to do with wisdom. The other does not when it comes to KJVOnlyism.

    Their statements on translations and texts are "wise" scholarly opinions as are their word choices.

    But that isn't where KJVOnlyism leaves their choice of words. KJVOnlyism makes their word choices the only acceptable ones and quite frequently attribute their work to a direct act of God.

    Their word choices aren't only wise according to KJVO's- they are exclusively the only acceptable choices. Those choices aren't just wise but rather "perfect".

    Wise doesn't mean perfect much less exclusive. I think most people here would agree that the KJV translators made "wise" word choices. Where we disagree is when that wisdom is said to have resulted in absolute divine perfection of wording.
     
  17. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreeing with someone about something, and disagreeing with them about something else is not "using" (nor attacking, nor cursing) them - nor is it something that's inherently wrong to do.
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Slambo: You guys dont mind using them to try and prove your unscriptural position.

    WHAT unscriptural position? Knowing that God is not limited to what man conceives He should or should not do is hardly unscriptural. Is GOD limited by man or not?


    And then out of the other side of your mouth curse them.Sounds like a blatant disregard of what Proverbs 11:1 says too me.....

    Please prove anyone here has cursed them, or publicly retract such a silly statement.
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    AV 1611 Jim:

    Perhaps Slambo's use of the word "curse" is inappropriate, but his point is well founded. Some folks will use the AV translators for one thing, then oppose them for the other. You can't have it BOTH ways.

    (yes, we have seen it happen on our side also!)


    yes, we can, when they're right in some respects and wrong in others, as is every last person who's ever lived, except JESUS.

    For example;

    Quoting them for their support of a "variety" of translations.


    But it's TRUE.

    Opposing their "choice of words" in translating a passage, calling their wisdom in choices "errors".

    "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is clearly wrong, for example.

    So, on the one hand, we have supoport of their wisdom in "variety" and opposing their wisdom in word choices.

    But each case is true.

    That is the MV side.
    The KJVo side would be the opposite.

    Supporting their wisdom in translation.
    Opposing their wisdom in "variety" of translations.

    See?


    Yerp! Just as you or I, they were right at times & wrong at other times.

    See?

    And the KNVO myth is still untrue.
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Where have you or any other KJV-only poster proved the man-made KJV-only theory to be the scriptural position and where have you proved the view of Bible translation that was held by William Tyndale, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and the KJV translators that I hold was "unscriptural?"

    Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (PATTERN OF CATECHISTICAL DOCTRINE, p. 59).
     

Share This Page

Loading...