Avid following

HAHAHAHAHAHA<chokegagsputterhack>

Hey, I tried to laugh with you, OK?

To critique the KJV is not to be antiKJV. So you're not anti. You're not against it. You're not saying it's wrong.

If you're not anti KJV, you're pro KJV. Can't be both.

You're not against the KJV, you're for it. Can't be both.

You're not saying it's wrong, so it's right. Can't be both.

So you're obviously not one of the persons I addressed, for I was addressing "antiKJV" folk, and you're not anti, so you're obviously "for."

(Anyone who is against what the KJV says is..... em...... anti KJV.)

 

Which of the ten or more varying editions of the KJV in print today do you claim has every word that proceeds from the mouth of God? What greater authority do you use to determine which of the varying editions has the correct words? Where was every one of those words of God found in one book before 1611?

Are you claiming that the words of the KJV proceed directly from the mouth of God?

The truth is consistent. The claims of the man-made KJV-only view are inconsistent and contradictory.

 

I once gave a poll.
Nobody is anti-KJV.

I personally use 2 KJVs each day and a third KJV
on a weekly basis:

Daily: KJV1611 Edition
Daily: KJV1769 Edition (With Strong's Numbers)
Weekly: KJV1873 Edition

over here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2394

I find I'm a KJVO Type 2

But I still like to visit with KJVO Type 3s

 

OK. Show me those texts. I want to read them. Have you read them?

If so, in what language did you read them?

Tell me this: Did you read the words of God in Hebrew and in Greek.

No really. Did you?

 

Some of the KJV translators themselves were against certain renderings found in the KJV. A KJV translator, who was one of the last ones to go over its text, claimed that a certain prelate made at least 14 changes in the text of the 1611 KJV.

Would you claim that editors of the KJV that stated that there were errors in the earlier editions of the KJV that needed corrected were "anti-KJV?"

Would you claim that those KJV translators who preached from other English Bibles after the 1611 KJV had been printed were "anti-KJV?"

 

Let's just admit for the sake of this argument that you don't even claim to have the exact, perfect, complete, inerrant words that proceed from the mouth of God.

Even a bump on a log could figure that out from your posts. Just go ahead and admit that, and then we'll proceed with this discussion. OK?

Or is that too much to ask?

 

Folks don't feed the troll...

 

A unicorn was nothing more than a wild bull. Some bozo changed it to mean a horse with a golden horn on its head.

It was not the KJV that introduced the mythological unicorn... they introduced the real one... a wild bull.

 

And does you KJV look like this? And if not, why not?

If it is inspired and infallible that means that there should be no change at all; not even one letter should vary--not if it is inspired and infallible. After all what does infallible mean--without error. God never changes. Why should the KJV if it truly is inspired and infallible?

 

I have been reading all the recent posts tonight and still do not see an answer to my question. Which is/was: What was/is wrong with the Geneva Bible? It was an English translation before the KJV. Why isn't it the Bible for English speaking people instead of it's successor, the KJV?

 

My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by the early English translators such as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and even the translators of the KJV. I accept the existing and preserved words that God gave the prophets and apostles in the original languages as the greater authority and standard for the making and evaluating of all translations just as the early English translators did.

According to its title page and its preface, the KJV professes to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ 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). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "These tongues [Hebrew and Greek] therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface before the sentence just quoted, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“ KJV-only author D. A. Waite acknowledged that the preface of the 1611 "had the approval" of all the KJV translators (Defending the KJB, p. 64). KJV-only author Laurence Vance indicated that Smith wrote the preface “in the name of all the translators” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Vance cited the report of the British delegates (including KJV translator Samuel Ward) to the 1618 Synod of Dort that included a reference to “the truth of the original text” (p. 47).

 

But they called it (mistranslated) with Greek mythology--a unicorn. You are right. It was a wild bull, in all probability. But to call it a unicorn is to do injustice in the translation of the Bible.

 

Now that's one big pile of dung, ain't it? I've spend a great deal of time discussing these matters sincerely, and this chap calls me a troll.

Filmproducer, you're probably ashamed of yourself right now, and I'm not surprised. That's awfully low.

 

Did you know that the 1611 edition of the KJV included a picture of an unicorn?

The Oxford English Dictionary noted that the unicorn is “usually depicted heraldically as having the head, neck, and body of a horse, the legs of a deer and tail of a lion, with a straight and spirally twisted horn growing out of the forehead” (XIX, p. 56). This source also mentioned that there was a Scottish coin used in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries “with the figure of the unicorn stamped on its obverse” (Ibid.). The title page of the 1616 edition of The Works of the most High and Mighty Prince, James included the typical head of a unicorn as pictured in English heraldry and in the Royal Coat of Arms. Dore pointed out that the 1616 folio edition of the KJV published by Barker has a picture of an unicorn (Old Bibles, p. 336). Herbert also confirmed that the 1616 KJV edition had a picture of an unicorn (Historical Catalogue, p. 196). Herbert also noted that the 1648 KJV edition has the "royal arms with lion and unicorn," and that before the book of Genesis it has a woodcut of Adam and Eve, with lion on one side and unicorn on the other (p. 196). The 1611 edition also has the royal coat of arms that includes an unicorn. It was King James I of England who introduced the unicorn into the British royal coat of arms. Arnold Whittick maintained that James IV of Scotland first used the unicorn in his Royal Coat of Arms and that “when James VI of Scotland became I of England, he substituted the white unicorn of Scotland for the red dragon of Wales as the sinister supporter, and it has remained there ever since” (Symbols, p. 343). Whittick observed: “With the union of England and Scotland under James I, the lion remained on the dexter side, guardant with a gold crown, and on the sinister side the white unicorn of Scotland was introduced” (p. 25). Is there convincing evidence that proves that the KJV translators clearly used the word "unicorn" to mean something completely different than the animal pictured in the 1611 and 1616 edition of their translation, in English heraldry, or on a Scottish coin?

 

Troll - An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response.


Movieproducer, in a mere 19 or 20 posts, you've cost yourself a great deal of goodwill and credibility with your attacks and arrogance. Like it or not, you have made yourself look like a troll.

Filmproducer knows how to treat people with dignity and respect and she's calling you for what you appear to be. If you don't like that label, perhaps you should change what and how you post. You would do very well to follow her model of posting.

 

So hey, DHK and Logos, it's all on the table -- nowhere (according to you) are we to find the perfect, complete, inerrant, exact word of God.

I'll just point out that you didn't point me to it.

Feel free to point out if I was wrong.

 

DHK,

If ya do some research, ya might find something interesting. The earliest instance of what is called the mythicalogical unicorn is in 2700BC. And that did not originate in Greek Mythology, but in Chinese Mythology. It was known then as Ki-Lin.

Now, the question would have to be...

Did the Chinese use the name 'unicorn' first? or did it originally mean wild bull and someone turned it into the creature with the golden horn and magical powers?

 

You know, if that's all it takes to get slapped with the moniker "troll," I guess I'll have to bear it.

I've responded to slapstick, off-the-cuff, from-the-hip, talking-point yak with honest, logical, heartfelt statements on the issue of why there is a sincere following for the King James Bible, and I have to listen to you and "filmproducer" insult me for doing it.

You should offer me an apology.

[But as I sat here watching the monitor, I realized I didn't really expect one].

 

I have done quite a bit of research on that word but have never heard that explanation before. Unicorn has almost always been associated with Greek mythology.