Can you solve this one? Acts 13:20

It does not say "at the same time." You have read it;just a simple answer,yes or no.

 

No.

 

It's strange how a position is held so strongly that those who hold it do not know the difference between "he" and "she." Words mean things, you know.

If the Hebrew is singular, then one OR the other is correct, with an incorrect answer. AND, if only one itty-bitty thing about the KJV is wrong, then the whole deck of cards falls. That, my friends, is why you have Anti_Alexandrian playing coy. He (or she ) knows that to admit that there is one thing wrong with the translation means that his (or her) entire position is fallacious.

 

N-nonsense.Just answer yes or no.Did they or did they not both end up in the city.Yes or NO????? What say ye??? </font>[/QUOTE]Can you not read?? The verse is not addressing whether they both went into the city. You have a strange doctrine of inspiration that allows you to change things and pretend like they don't say what they say.

You still dodge the question. One "perfect word" of God says "he." One "perfect word" of God says "she." No "perfect word" says "both."

Now we keep asking you, Did God inspire "he" or "she"? Just answer the question: He or she??

 

OK, A-A asked me not to do a “silly” exegesis on this passage, so I’ll try not to make it “silly”.

The Hebrew here does have a difficulty. If you have access to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) and can read Hebrew you will see that the words “on her” are singular feminine but that “went into” is signified as “apocopated”. This means that one or more letters were truncated off the end of the word. It is therefore inconclusive as to the gender and often is referred to the word(s) before and/or following it. TWOT says it is masculine while other sources say it is feminine (such as the LXX , Vulgate and Jay Green)”. But the TWOT is inconsistent and signifies the very same Hebrew word and ending as feminine even within in the Book of Ruth.

My choice is based upon the "on her" as feminine singular and passed on to the apocopated verb.

This is why I said I wasn’t sure from the Hebrew. However taking A-A’s suggestion, I re-read the “thing” carefully and found that in Ruth 4:1 that Boaz went “UP to the GATE”, he did not go INTO the city.

This later analysis based on the English prepositions mind you and as Pastor Larry has reminded us:
This is all about the English translation of the 1611KJV of the Bible.

Therefore (IMO)the KJV1611 is wrongly translated as “he went into the city” which was corrected in later editions. They cannot both be right unless things which are different can be the same.
I believe someone (KJVO) tried earlier to say that things which are different can be the same.

Funny how that works only for them.

HankD

 

It is notable whose side you most frequently fall in on... KJVO's are the worst Bible bashers on the internet or anywhere else.

None of them contain God's words. Many are God's Word. A 'word' is what is said. 'Words' are how something is said. You don't need identical texts to say the same thing on whole.

I challenge once again. If your idea of preservation is biblical and correct, it should be easy to show that one perfect succession of mss the spans time from the originals til today. Of course, it cannot involve the TR and therefore not the KJV since the TR is a collation of several different mss... and the Latin Vulgate.

This is the easier of your two problems. You must then prove by some means that the KJV translators were qualified as inspired writers and were in fact inspired in their work. A notion that they themselves denied.

We don't. We say it is the inspired "Word of God". The words are uncertain due to copyists errors but they all testify to the same word.

Two "I believe"s and an "if" do not constitute proof. But they do demonstrate that your mind, not the text of the KJV, is your final authority on this issue.

Nothing that you follow this with proves your point. All of your objections have answers far more reasonable than A-A's evasion on whether "he" or "she" went into the city or the mental gymnastics employed by KJVO's on issues like the age of Ahaziah when he began to reign.

I have never met anyone who holds this belief. Are you referring to someone specifically or is this just more unfounded ranting?

There is nothing unsound, dishonest, or even unfaithful in admitting that variants exist in the textual evidence. In fact even the KJV translators said those things that God left in doubt should not be claimed as certain. They, like us, acknowledged that the few textual questions do not effect doctrine.

Or is this just you employing a double standard. What do you say when folks ask you if money is really the root of all evil? How about which is the true version of Paul's conversion? There are reasonable explanations but you are only willing to hear those that support your predetermined outcome.

Verse 9 in the NASB says "Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee." So He did speak the truth in the NASB. He did not "go up" with them but rather went up "Himself".

"Their" could refer to Mary and Joseph since "they brought" Jesus to Jerusalem for the sacrifice for her uncleanness and His circumcision.

Either way, all you have to do is "compare scripture with scripture" in the NASB:
"Le 12:2 "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: 'When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean....Le 12:6 'When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering."

As any reasonable person can see, the NASB makes it clear that this sin sacrifice was for the mother not the child.

You answered your own question but are too blinded by bias to see it.

I agree- probably not the best word choice. But let's skip down to verse 41. Man can no more LIMIT God than they can deceive Him. But alas, will you face your double standard...?

Here's another "contradiction" for you to research. According to the KJV, does God repent? Yes or no.


I have no interest in defending the NIV except to point out obvious lies or distortions. I will let someone who thinks it is a good, reliable version handle those issues.

I will get to the rest later unless someone else beats me to it. But the final analysis is that you operate under a double standard. Any explanation that supports your belief is valid no matter how strained yet you ignore perfectly legitimate explanations for difficulties in MV's.

 

I haven't heard Will bash the King James Bible;but rather,I have seen him show the supreriority of the Bible(KJB) and the inferiority of other "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting versions).

Thats funny,I guess that God lied when He said His words would not pass away(little w).Just how many Words(capitol W) are they?? I know of only one,as per John 1.GMO rhetoric at it's worse.

Why not?? Nestle,Aland,and W&H(whom many worship)used many manuscripts(including one that fell out of a dumpster) to compile their Greek manuscripts for modern "bibles""(whichever of the 200+ conflicting versions);not to mention these same manuscripts(Vaticanus,for instance;Revelation 17) are the ones that the church of rome uses in compiling their "bible." Why the double standard???

All of these are elementary and quckly solved;Gnat straining at it's worse.

Do you believe that the majority of "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting versions)are the word(little w) of God?? If so them you fall into that catagory;fear from peers usualy prevent an straight answer.

Get a real Bible(KJB) and read the passage,it says the LOVE of money;it did not say that MONEY was evil,just the love thereof.And in 4-5th grade English at that..

 

I haven't heard Will bash the King James Bible;but rather,I have seen him show the supreriority of the Bible(KJB) and the inferiority of other "bibles"</font>[/QUOTE] Then you are simply blind.

Would that include the 6-10 conflicting English versions that the KJV translators used as resources? How about the 6-10 conflicting Greek mss and Latin Vulgate used by Erasmus to collate his text? How about the 5000+ conflicting Greek mss that were accepted as the Word of God prior to the invention of the printing press?

Thats funny,I guess that God lied when He said His words would not pass away(little w).</font>[/QUOTE]No. You just misinterpretted and misapplied what He said for your own convenience. God doesn't lie but that has nothing to do with you being an infallible interpreter of scripture.

Two. Both revelations of God. One living, one written. Mutually exclusive but completely complementary. You cannot know one without knowing the other.

I am sorry. Which one is it that you think you don't know?

No rhetoric. Just simple, elementary fact. A person's word can be expressed accurately with different words.

Why not??</font>[/QUOTE] Because the TR is a collation, not a copy of an already existing mss. It is not a preservation of anything. It was a whole new creation when Erasmus put it together.

Which is no problem for someone that accepts the facts for what they are. We do not have a single ms that is a proven facsimile of the originals. The best way to derive the best text is to compare and contrast many different mss according to their age and value. I do not ascribe to a word for word textual transmission theory nor the false notion that the words of any translation are specially inspired by God Himself. If you are going to limit God's act of providential preservation to a single document then you have a responsibility to trace it back to the origin through an absolutely pure line.

You cannot do it so your premise fails. Anything you build on a false premise is unsound no matter how logical or convincing it may sound

No double standard. The RCC gets something right once in awhile. Their belief in the virgin birth doesn't make it false. Their use of modern texts do not make them faulty or unreliable.

All of these are elementary and quckly solved;Gnat straining at it's worse.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes, I have seen your quick solutions. You give them quickly then hope the issue will go away.

Do you believe that the majority of "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ conflicting versions)are the word(little w) of God??</font>[/QUOTE] I can't hold such a view since I am not familiar with 200 versions of the Bible. However, if they are faithful to the original language texts, they qualify.

FTR, I only favor the more formal translations. I will not presume to speak for God on the other translations when He remains silent on all translations.

The only "peer" pressure I have ever received on this issue is from KJVO's. KJVOnlyism would be more convenient for me but I will not compromise truth for convenience.

Get a real Bible(KJB) and read the passage,it says the LOVE of money;</font>[/QUOTE] I have several KJV Bibles and have used it all my life. Pardon my mistake. I know the text and it was not intentional.

This still doesn't solve your problem. The "love of money" is not the root of all evil either. Rapists aren't driven by greed or the profit motive. Homosexuals, alcoholics, adulterers, etc. have often been consumed by their perverse passions in spite of monetary loss.

I have seen all the mental gymnastics trying to explain this away by completely changing and denying the definitions of the words used... very weird methodology to prove something is "perfect". Love of money does not mean lust, desire for power, idolatry, etc.... it means what it says or it means nothing at all.