so there may be unicorns, but Cockatrices?

timothy 1769 said:

what's irrefutable is that fish can include whales, especially in popular usage.

So I get dinged by Truth-Neverist for comparjavascript:void(0)ing the Bible to Harry Potter, and then you turn around and compare it to "popular usage." Nothing like a little consistency.

As Scott said, though, we're talking about the very words of God here. I have been told by some KJV-onlyists that it would be an abomination to change a single word of the King James Bible, even changing a word like "a" to "an."

And yet here you are, saying that "fish" can mean "mammal," and "cockatrice" and "unicorn" can mean pretty much anything.

Consistency and reason always seem to take second place to the post-hockery that justifies every last quirk of the KJV translation.

You gotta laugh.

 

It's not important what it can mean; what matters is, in 1604-11, what did it mean?

I took a look in a dictionary of the time, Robert Cawdrey's A Table Alphabetical of Hard Usual English Words, published in 1604.

The definition of "cockatrice" reads: "a kind of beast." Not "any deadly serpent-like creature"; not simply "a serpent"; a "beast."

It is clear that at the time the KJV was being translated, the proper understanding of the word "cockatrice" was, in fact, the fantasy beast.

according to your sources it's merely "a kind of beast".

perhaps the OED can help. according to Oxford English Dictionary in 1611 the sense was:

"a serpent, identified with the basilisk, fabulously said to kill by it's mere glance, and to be hatched from a cock's egg"

which helps your case. but we need to know if the "fabulously" is part of the sense or merely the explicit opinion of the definition writer which is not really clear.

even so the basic definition is a serpent, which we all can agree on. of course the characteristics of that serpent are open to debate.

The same would be true of unicorns and satyrs - if they meant goats and rhinoceroses, those words were available to them.

i think the demonic overtones(for satyr and cockatrice) are intentional and correct. unicorn can mean any animal with one horn, so the kjv translation is correct there as well.

Revelation 18:2
And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

interesting how the kjv isaiah translation agrees with new testament revelation.

None of the four KJV passages that use the word "cockatrice" are particularly fantastic or call for amazing beasts to make an appearance.

they are all prophecy, correct? how do you explain Rev 18:2?

 

But we are not talking about "popular usage" according to you folks. We are talking about the God inspired words of the KJV. While people in 1611 and even now might be confused over what a whale is and what a fish is, God is not confused. So if "whale" were correct in the NT and "fish" is correct in the OT then we have an irreconcilable error in the actual words God inspired. </font>[/QUOTE]do you see that the meaning of words is determined by the consensus of people? if most people in 1611, or the first century, thought the term fish included whales, then it did. these terms are purely descriptive, and of human invention. and they can mean whatever the majority people decide they want them to mean. what's important to keep in mind is what the greek/hebrew terms meant when they were penned, and what the english terms meant when the kjv was translated.

in 1611, the term fish included whales.

 

timothy 1769 said:

according to your sources it's merely "a kind of beast".

Give me a break. Do you think the English of the seventeenth century didn't know what a snake was, and that if Cawdrey wanted to tell them it was a snake, he could have?

which helps your case. but we need to know if the "fabulously" is part of the sense or merely the explicit opinion of the definition writer which is not really clear.

"Fabulously" means "according to fable." In other words the magical properties of this beast were folklore, not fact.

Looks like the OED sides with me.

 

So I get dinged by Truth-Neverist for comparing the Bible to Harry Potter, and then you turn around and compare it to "popular usage." Nothing like a little consistency.

see post above. in any event, do you really think i would be inconsistent by not agreeing point by point with some random guy off the internet? (no offense, mv-neverist). in any event i don't recall disagreeing with anything he's said.

And yet here you are, saying that "fish" can mean "mammal," and "cockatrice" and "unicorn" can mean pretty much anything.

try reading my posts again, i don't think you're following me.

 

Actually there are some who have left KJVOnlyism over the time of their participation in this forum. I am not aware of anyone who has gone the other way.

 

And This Link should clear things up for you.Read it at your leisure.

 

And by pulling out the "Alexandrian Cult" card and playing it, MV-neverist again concedes defeat.

 

That's good to know. It's a worthwhile "discussion" then.

No doubt.

Joshua

 

Not so.I have already won;I have a final authority in ALL matters of faith and practice.You,sir,reject that authority;you lose! Later.


PS. The truth(creed) hurts dont it?

 

Hey Ransom, do you still have that "Alexandrian Cult" membership card that were made up for us a couple years ago? I'll have to see if I still have mine and post it for a few smiles.

 

No single human person has authority over matters of faith and practice. No single translation has authority over faith and practice, either. There is no scripture that supports your false assertion.

 

MV-neverist:

PS. The truth(creed) hurts dont it?

Tell me some, and I'll let you know. Truth and the "Creed of the Alexandrian Cult" have nothing in common.

Hasta la vista, failed purveyor of false doctrine.

 

Brian asked:

Hey Ransom, do you still have that "Alexandrian Cult" membership card that were made up for us a couple years ago?

Yep, and it should still be accessible from my own Web space where I stored it. Unfortunately it appears as though that massive power failure that took out all of eastern Canada has taken down my Web server as well. Maybe later . . .

 

But we are not talking about "popular usage" according to you folks. We are talking about the God inspired words of the KJV. While people in 1611 and even now might be confused over what a whale is and what a fish is, God is not confused. So if "whale" were correct in the NT and "fish" is correct in the OT then we have an irreconcilable error in the actual words God inspired. </font>[/QUOTE]do you see that the meaning of words is determined by the consensus of people?</font>[/QUOTE] Not God inspired words. The book of Jonah says 'fish' so the NT should say 'fish'. 'Fish' and 'whale' are not the same word. Remember your claim that "whales" included "fish". If it was limited to a great fish in the OT then it should be nothing more nor less than a great fish in the NT. Things different are not the same.

If the shoe were on the other foot and the NKJV had this disagreement, you would claim it as proof positive of its corruption.

OK. I will agree with you. Most people in the 21st century do not understand conversation to mean behavior nor prevent to mean precede nor communicate to mean share/give etc, etc, etc.

You have just made the classic argument against the archaic words in the KJV.

So in other words, the KJV was perfect when translated but now has to be translated to be understood? ... presumably you would not claim inerrancy for your translation of what the KJV meant originally, would you?

Somehow it is OK for KJVO's to change the words of the KJV to make it understandable but translators today are forbidden from going back to the original language texts to translate them? The only way this line of reasoning is legitimate is if the KJV translators were on par with the original writers of scripture... and they were not.

Today it does not.

Here's an interesting parallel. For 1000 years the RCC held that the only legitimate Bible in any language was the Latin Vulgate. Over time, few people understood it so the priest had complete power over what the masses understood the Bible to say.

Today, KJVO's hold that the KJV is the only legitimate version at least in English (although translations into other languages automatically negate the basic premise of KJVO). People today do not understand that certain words mean something different today than in 1611. So, they require a "preacher" to tell them what the Bible means. These preachers, whether right or wrong in their own understanding, have power over what their followers understand the Bible to say.

The scriptures were written for the common man... not those with special knowledge or training.

 

I found mine:

My Alexandrian Cult membership card

Anyone else want one? We could make up some more.

 

Haha - my favorite part is the "Textual Criticism Rules!"

 

Ransom: "You gotta laugh."

I'm laughing to keep from crying.
What i'd cry about:

1. KJBOs don't use the AV-1611.
They use a modern version (mv):
KJV1769 or KJV1873 being the most popular.

2. One KJBO who posts here doesn't
put a space after a semi-colen (
or a comma (,).
Hello, Earth! spaces follow : and ,
It is called "communication".

Sidenote: in the actual KJV1611 :and :
are not only followed by a space, they
are preceeded by a space!!

 

Originally posted by Scott J:
Not God inspired words. The book of Jonah says 'fish' so the NT should say 'fish'. 'Fish' and 'whale' are not the same word. Remember your claim that "whales" included "fish". If it was limited to a great fish in the OT then it should be nothing more nor less than a great fish in the NT. Things different are not the same.

i don't see that at all. if bob points at something and says "automobile" and fred points at the same thing and says "truck" both can be right. there is no error in the kjv here.

If the shoe were on the other foot and the NKJV had this disagreement, you would claim it as proof positive of its corruption.

i suppose i grant jesus a little more authority than the nkjv translation comittee.

OK. I will agree with you. Most people in the 21st century do not understand conversation to mean behavior nor prevent to mean precede nor communicate to mean share/give etc, etc, etc.

i'm not for archaic words in the kjv, but i doubt our ability to update them without putting in more problems than we remove. imo people are so wraped up in their modern day isms they have a hard time seeing what the bible really says.

in any event, it's not that big of a problem. my 11 year daughter knows most of the archaic words already.

So in other words, the KJV was perfect when translated but now has to be translated to be understood? ...

yes. but by that standard, a perfect translation (or original inspiration!) would be impossible. let's say we had the autographs. by your standard they would shortly become flawed documents as they were written in living languages.

presumably you would not claim inerrancy for your translation of what the KJV meant originally, would you?

no, but since i try to be honest and take water from a pure stream, i feel comfortable watering me and my family with it

i think that with an older dictionary and strong's one can get a very good indication of what the translators intended, but no it's not an inerrant process, afaik.

Somehow it is OK for KJVO's to change the words of the KJV to make it understandable but translators today are forbidden from going back to the original language texts to translate them?

there's less room to really mess things up, i don't think they are really comparable. we have no choice but to try and interpret what the kjv means, especially where the words are archaic. i distrust modern scholarship, especially textual criticism that does not take god into account and treats the holy bible like just any other book. i distrust modern translation comittees because we live in an age of apostasy, where everyone seems to want to be nicer than god, with "nice" defined by modern sensibilities.

The only way this line of reasoning is legitimate is if the KJV translators were on par with the original writers of scripture... and they were not.

i think providential preservation is the answer. the kjv, and the traditional texts it is based on, have been used greatly by god, and i trust them. i think the burden of proof for any changes rests squarely on the shoulders of the advocates of the critical text, and that they have never met it. the wide acceptance of the critical text has more to do with the infection of modern christian minds with a godless rationalism and worhsip of science (so-called) than with anything else imo.

Here's an interesting parallel. ... People today do not understand that certain words mean something different today than in 1611. So, they require a "preacher" to tell them what the Bible means.

my "preacher" is the 1828 websters, with my strong's and occaisionally my oed. granted there are some archaic words in the kjv, but it's nothing like trying to read a dead language

your argument may be valid in another 1000 years or so

The scriptures were written for the common man... not those with special knowledge or training.

i understand what your are saying, but i think you overstate things a bit. i doubt the common man could really follow the book of hebrews, regardless of translation, without a decent biblical education.

 

BrianT said:

I found mine:

Me too: Proud Member of the Alexandrian Cult

Not even massive blackouts can stop the work of the nefarious Cult!