The KJV’s respect for God’s Words

So if a person is biblically orthodox -- that presents a problem for you?!

 

BB Warfield would most certainly not have been considered a heretic by folks back then. You have no clue. Do you know Church History at all? You spout-off things which you have no idea about.

 

How godly of you.

On a far higher plane than you.

You are immature.

 

No. It means the right, or correct belief.

You invent meanings of words. Since you don't like orthodoxy -- are you in favor of heterodoxy?

 

What????

Never mind - I said I would leave you alone so I will

 

Just as I said earlier, ... no need to repeat myself, I guess.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Rippon, you crack me up! You get upset at what someone is posting, then you proceed to do the very thing you got upset with them for! :laugh::laugh:

 

I is interesting then a people fight over which bible to use. Actually it is foolish. The Original manuscriptes are in hebrew aramic and script are found in the dead sea roles. So no bible is going to be 100 percent right. Because all men error even translators. We go by the spirit of the word and not the writen word. Translations works by the spirit of the word also, thus a translator makes a call as to what word best reflects the spirit of the original document to get the point across.
The KJV of the bible is not better or worst then any other bible version. As long as the spirit of the original is maintained in the translation. The American bible is a very good bible. The NKJV is a very good bible. But there are some forms are that are not as good. The Mormon version of the bible is a joke.
A greater understanding is when people are pushing the KJV only they are unbalanced and with out understanding. The JKV is not a very good translation and does not fit today very well because people do not speak like that anymore. Now 3oo years ago it was a good bible people could understand it. But lets say a young person was trying to read the JKV well he would be lost for the most part. Thy, thow Them and Thus. So Let me get this right lets give them the word of God that they can't read. Sounds stupid right and it is.
The catholic church keep the word of God out of the hands of the people for 1300 years. Shall be come the new catholic church, I think not.
Is there a difference in thou shall not and you shall not. No not really both mean the same thing, Don't do that. Is there a differentence in the spirit of those two ways of saying it. No.
Legalisem is to try and make something more then it is. The bible is surely the word of God. But God is not a legalist, he is spirit and his word is spirit. So the writens word is endowed with the spirit of God. God is not a english God and he is not a American God and he is not Hebrew, his spirit transends all that and he effects his word not us. So read the bible God puts on yur spirit to read and he will speak through it.

 

Wow! Someone have a modern English translation for this post?

 

SLOBBOVIAN might work better!

 

Well, I trust someone will put you together again. Seriously, read my post numbered 105 again and then tell me you spoke in haste.

 

Have you ever known of any reader of the KJV aloud to alert the listening audience that a particular word just spoken was italicized?

 

I have heard it many times and do it myself.

 

You do know that your definition is acceptable, but not preferred?

SOURCE

You may be speaking of what we might call 'popular orthodoxy' which would mean conforming to a popular opinion?

When the rest of us use the word in this context we mean Biblical orthodoxy, which means conforming to opinions based on the word of God.

Yes, I do look up to Bible orthodoxy.

 

Perhaps I was not precise. Agreed, I have heard exegetes single out an italicized word in the course of a sermon to make a point.

But personally, I have never heard a speaker of the Bible (KJV or other versions) while publically reading a lengthy passage disrupt the flow of that text with statements such as "Oh, that last word was italicized" or "Please note, this next word is italicized". It would be inconvenient, destroy the rhythm of the language, add to the length of time, and potentially cause the storyline or main idea to become obscured. That is what I meant. Now, is that really the practice you are familiar with?

When people recite a passage from memory I do not witness them interupt their speech; or even add a disclaimer at their completion of speaking aloud to identify all of the translator's inserted (italicized) words.

In addition, most people fail to indicate the italicized words when they write a letter, email, or post online.