1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Definition of Terms Please

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by AVBunyan, Nov 15, 2006.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to a Webster's dictionary it is not:

    THROUGHLY, adv. thru'ly. Completely; fully; wholly.
    1. Without reserve; sincerely.

    THOROUGHLY, adv. thur'roly. Fully; entirely; completely; as a room thoroughly swept; a business thoroughly performed. Let the matter be thoroughly sifted. Let every part of the work be thoroughly finished.

    They look differently to me.

    God bless
     
    #21 AVBunyan, Nov 30, 2006
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Just because the two are considered two different words in a Webster's Dictionary today does not prove that was true in 1611 and does not prove that they were not once two spellings of the same word.

    There were several words spelled more than one way in the 1611 edition of the KJV that are now considered different words.
     
    #22 Logos1560, Nov 30, 2006
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    My source was the online American Heritage Dictionary:

    through·ly (thrū'lē)
    adv. Archaic.
    Thoroughly.
     
    #23 franklinmonroe, Nov 30, 2006
  4. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Archaic

    Fellas - my source was a Webster's 1828 Dictionary - Noah Webster based his dictionary on the English of his day. The most commonly read book of his day was a King James Bible and his definitions reflect that. That is why I encourage people who want to have an understanding of the English of a King James Bible to have a Webster’s 1828 Dictionary handy. Yes, I know Webster's is not scripture but his definitions are far superior to that of today's dictionary for Webster sought to base his definitions with the word of God in mind and as a basis. Yes, I know he tried to come up with his own version and I don't have it. Webster was not infallible nor were his definitions.

    Bottom line - his definitions are closing to the source and more in line with a King James Bible than today's modern dictionaries. Throughly carries with it sincerely - that tells me something about II Tim. 3:16 and other places that thoroughly does not. IT adds an interesting twist to II Tim. 3:16 for now the heart becomes involved.

    I don't care if a modern version calls it archaic or not - again quit blaming the "old" English and put the blame where it lies - on a dumbed-down modern reader, and I include myself here.

    Conclusion – I believe it was not a spelling issue then or now. The correct word is throughly and it means differently than thoroughly. It is a more precise word, subtle but better.

    The above is just one of my reasons why I believe the King James Bible is more accurate, precise, and clear than any modern version. It is a sad thing that we do not speak this way anymore. We have gone down hill – we have regressed not progressed in our reading, speaking, and study habits and it shows today in a very doctrinally ignorant Christianity.


    BTW - because a word has been deemed "archaic" doesn't mean it is wrong and should be changed. Where do we get this from?


    God bless :wavey:
     
    #24 AVBunyan, Dec 1, 2006
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I done done a duplicate.
     
    #25 Ed Edwards, Dec 1, 2006
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    AVBunyan: //We have gone down hill – we have regressed not progressed in our reading, speaking, and study habits and it shows today in a very doctrinally ignorant Christianity.//

    Amen, Brother AVBunyan -- Preach it! :thumbs:

    The world will wax worse and worse until God
    injects His hand into the world and takes over the
    governments/kingdoms/nations (AKA: Millinnial Messanic Kingdom)

    I've written a series of ten writings denoting in each
    writing one of the misunderstandings of
    the King James Versions (KJVs) which
    cause a "doctrinally ignorant Christianity" that are
    easier to understand in some Modern Version (MV)

    Here is one of these writings:
    -----------------------------------
    Gal 6:2, 5 (KJV1611 Edition)
    Gal 6:2 Beare ye one anothers burthens, and so fulfill the Law of Christ.
    ...
    Gal 6:5 For euery man shall beare his owne burthen.

    In the KJV this appears to be a contradiction:
    bear one another's burdens AND don't bear one another's burdens.
    But it is not the same Greek word for the two different
    kinds of 'burden's

    Galations 6:2,5 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
    2 Carry one another's burdens; in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
    ...
    5 For each person will have to carry his own load.

    Here in a modern language version it is quite clear:

    We are to help one another bear the burdens
    that are impossible for them to bear alone
    but we are each to take care of our own load (responsibilites).
     
    #26 Ed Edwards, Dec 1, 2006
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In his 1833 edition of the Bible, Noah Webster, your expert authority, has the following at 2 Timothy 3:17.

    That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works.

    The standard 2005 Cambridge edition edited by David Norton has the following at 2 Timothy 3:17

    that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
     
    #27 Logos1560, Dec 1, 2006
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Does the evidence of the 1611 edition of the KJV support your conclusion?

    Gen. 11:3 thorowly (1611) throughly (present Oxford KJV edition in Scofield Reference Bible)
    Exod. 21:19 throughly (1611) thoroughly (present Oxford KJV)
    2 Kings 11:8 throughly (1611) thoroughly (present Oxford KJV)
    Matt. 4:24 thorowout (1611) throughout (present Oxford KJV)
    Matt. 6:19, 20 thorow (1611) through (present Oxford KJV)
    Matt. 12:1 thorow (1611) through (present Oxford KJV)
    Mark 14:9 thorowout (1611) throughout (present Oxford KJV)
    Luke 3:17 thorowly (1611) throughly (present Oxford KJV)
     
    #28 Logos1560, Dec 1, 2006
  9. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Logos - Please don't add words and meanings to my posts - To me Webster is a resource - I clearly indicated his dictionary is not scripture and also I did not care for his translation.

    As I indicated before - this becomes an issue of faith. Many publishers take their liberties. I primarily use Cambride and they have always used the word throughly on the references I checked. But since they are promoting the NIV in their catalogues then I'm not sure what their thougths are.

    2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.:praying:

    God bless
     
    #29 AVBunyan, Dec 1, 2006
  10. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right there is one of the major problems with the KJVO viewpoint. People in these times should not have to have a dictionary handy to understand the archaic meanings of words found in the KJV. The original-language manuscripts were not written in language that was hard for the reader to understand. Today's Bible should have that same simplicity of language. The KJV at one time may have provided that simplicity of language, but it no longer fulfills that need due to changes in the language. There are newer Bible versions which fulfill the need for the same simplicity of language that was written into the original Scriptures.

    Are you relying on a source or sources to show this is true, AVB, or is this merely your own opinion?



    He didn't just try, AVB. And you're right when you say Webster was not infallible. But that same truth holds true to the translators of all Bible versions.

    So now the blame lies with the reader? We have nothing to do with where the language has evolved to when we learn to use it. That isn't the fault of the reader at all, AVB. Quit blaming the reader for the changes in the English language since the KJV was published.

    You state this as if it is fact, AVB. This isn't fact at all, but merely your own opinion, and opinions are often wrong.

    If a word has become archaic and is no longer used in the current language, or if that word's meaning has changed, the word is wrong for the modern reader. There are more recent translations than the KJV which more accurately convey the original meaning of what was written in some passages. When the KJV was translated in the 17th century, it was a very accurate translation. But since the language has changed the KJV is no longer the most accurate translation for the modern reader. Where do we get the idea that the archaic language found in the KJV is the only proper language for the Bible? That certainly wasn't the intent of the original writers and it shouldn't be our intent today. The language needs to be fresh for modern readers just as it was fresh for the original readers due to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

    Many of us were raised on the KJV and we don't have major problems understanding the language of the KJV. But the modern reader who may not have been raised on any Bible version needs a Bible they can easily understand - not something that is going to cause more than a little bit of confusion for them. Hearers of Christ's truths and the earliest readers of the Scriptures didn't have to look for help to understand the language because it was right there for them in their commonly-used language. Readers today should also be able to easily understand the language of Scripture without having to look for help. Demanding that the archaic language of the KJV be retained is demanding more of the reader than what was intended by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not inspire Scripture in Elizabethan English and we should not believe that that archaic form of English is the only valid language for the Bible.
     
    #30 Keith M, Dec 2, 2006
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keith M: //So now the blame lies with the reader?
    We have nothing to do with where the language
    has evolved to when we learn to use it. That isn't
    the fault of the reader at all, AVB. Quit blaming
    the reader for the changes in the English language
    since the KJV was published.//

    A similiar condition exists with the Torah writing.
    The sequence of letters is right to left, top to bottom;
    the letters are the same. Very little change has taken place
    in the letters for the last 2400 years. But in those 2400
    changless years, many of the names have been lost.
    For example nobody knows how to pronounce YHWH
    the very name of God Himself. Many coins of old
    are not known. Much of the flora & faunta understood
    2400 years ago is not known today even among Jewish
    Bible Scholars.
     
    #31 Ed Edwards, Dec 2, 2006
  12. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    They look the same to me.

    It didn't take long to find several sources which disagree with your opinion, AVB. How long did you have to look to find that 1828 Webster definition which supports your opinion?

    Just as an aside, the online Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary doesn't even recognize throughly except as a mispelling.
     
    #32 Keith M, Dec 2, 2006
  13. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, that is a very good example of why no one should be lost in the past. What is not understandable can often be understood by the use of more modern terms. But what is unknown to scholars can be noted as such, and that can put an end to the questioning. But there is absolutely no need to keep words which have fallen out of use or else have changed meanings - this can cause much confusion. As an example, let's look at the word prevent as found in the KJV. The only use of this word in the KJV is in 1 Thess 4:15, so there is no way to see how it was used in other verses. In the early 17th century prevent meant to go before. However, with changes in the language the ordinary person reading this passage and unaware of the archaic meaning of the word could get the idea that one person could keep another from rising. So which is better in this verse - to retain the old confusing prevent or to use the easily understood precede? The obvious answer, and the only one that makes any sense at all for the reader who is unaware of the archaic use of prevent is to use the better precede. The modern versions use precede while the KJV reading continues to cause confusion.
     
    #33 Keith M, Dec 2, 2006
  14. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Oh really – I’d figure any college graduate would need a dictionary judging by what our modern educational system is producing. I use a dictionary to look at current English words! Are you telling me that you and your crowd don’t need to occasionaly look up a word in a dictionary or do you just bypass a dictionary and head straight to the “original” languages? I bet that is an exact science!?!?!?! :laugh: Would it help you if I listed all the modern words in these modern versions and see if you know what some are without a dictionary? There are sites out there that list these “easier” to understand words like mallows, purslain, abutted, etc. and there are many more. Keith – don’t try to tell me the new versions don’t have words the average dumbed-down reader today does not have trouble with – there has been too much documentation about the so called “easier read” of the newer versions.

    2. This opinion copout stuff wearies me. You have your opinion and I have mine – Why is your “info” always considered the gospel while my info and views are always just “my opinions”? I could say the same to you I just don’t waste the time.

    3. Yep – that is exactly what I’m saying. The “uneducated” Welsh coal miner had no problems with it in the 1700’s. The “uneducated” frontiersmen of the 1700-1850’s had no problems with a King James Bible. I thought we were “smarter” today than those “uneducated” folks back then. You can’t tell me the average high school/college educated student today raised on MTV, Mad Magazine, TV, Super Bowl, newspapers, People magazine, The Simpsons, Star Wars, contemporary “chirstian music”, Rap, Rock, “christian rock”, Chuck Swindoll, Benny the Hinn, PTL, etc. is more enlightened and has better reasoning abilities of those from the 1600-1850 who had the equivalent education???? I forgot – just my opinion – there, I beat you to the punch.

    Do you believe the KJV is the word of God or not? If you do are you going to blame the word of God or the reader?

    4. Yep – I, by faith, believe the correct word is throughly - you have yet to shown me it isn’t. You have your multiple authorities and I have my King James Bible. I showed you from a Wesbter’s 1828 dictionary from which your present day Webster’s are built upon and there are differences. Your Bible study needs refining – you need to work more on your Bible study and leave all your versions and lexicons alone for a season.

    5. Here is where the rubber meets the road. The difference between you and me Keith is right here. I believe those “archaic” word are God’s words and you don’t – it is that simple. If you truly believed those “archaic” words were God’s words then you’d leave them alone. Since you don’t believe they are God’s words anymore (or if you ever did) then you are for casting them aside for a modern equivalent which has never been as accurate, as clear, as precise, etc. as what is found in a KJV – you just make it “easier” for the dumbed-down and lazy saint.

    6. Then raise the standards of the modern, dumbed-down reader. Teach him how to pray, lean on the Spirit, use a Concordance and labour. Folks today want to be spoon fed with Power Point presentations.

    God bless
     
    #34 AVBunyan, Dec 2, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2006
  15. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AV Bunyan:3. Yep – that is exactly what I’m saying. The “uneducated” Welsh coal miner had no problems with it in the 1700’s. The “uneducated” frontiersmen of the 1700-1850’s had no problems with a King James Bible.

    And the ploughboy of the late 1500s had no prob with the Geneva Bible. When he grew to be a man, he had onlt one prob with the AV 1611...it was priced outta his range.


    I thought we were “smarter” today than those “uneducated” folks back then. You can’t tell me the average high school/college educated student today raised on MTV, Mad Magazine, TV, Super Bowl, newspapers, People magazine, The Simpsons, Star Wars, contemporary “chirstian music”, Rap, Rock, “christian rock”, Chuck Swindoll, Benny the Hinn, PTL, etc. is more enlightened and has better reasoning abilities of those from the 1600-1850 who had the equivalent education???? I forgot – just my opinion – there, I beat you to the punch.

    Reckon it beats an education where basic reading/writing skill was nown by perhaps 1 in 1000 common people.

    4. Yep – I, by faith, believe the correct word is throughly - you have yet to shown me it isn’t.

    Actually, you believe it by GUESSWORK. Faith is substance & evidence. {Hebrews 11:1) You have failed to take into consideration the changes in English God has caused/allowed over the last 400 years. Jeremiah 6:9, KJV..."Thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall throughly glean the remnant of Israel as a vine: turn back thine hand as a grapegatherer into the baskets."

    Same verse, NKJV: Thus says the LORD of hosts:“ They shall thoroughly glean as a vine the remnant of Israel; As a grape-gatherer, put your hand back into the branches.”

    Now, please tell the sports fanzz if either version is wrong, and why.

    You have your multiple authorities and I have my King James Bible. I showed you from a Wesbter’s 1828 dictionary from which your present day Webster’s are built upon and there are differences. Your Bible study needs refining – you need to work more on your Bible study and leave all your versions and lexicons alone for a season.

    Actually, YOU need to accept the fact that God didn't retire in 1611 & that He still sees to it that His word is in the language(s) of the day.

    5. Here is where the rubber meets the road. The difference between you and me Keith is right here. I believe those “archaic” word are God’s words and you don’t – it is that simple.

    Then you believe wrongly. Those archaic words are the words of some translators of 400 years ago. God's words are in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. All others are TRANSLATIONS.


    If you truly believed those “archaic” words were God’s words then you’d leave them alone. Since you don’t believe they are God’s words anymore (or if you ever did) then you are for casting them aside for a modern equivalent which has never been as accurate, as clear, as precise, etc. as what is found in a KJV – you just make it “easier” for the dumbed-down and lazy saint.

    No, he simply uses the English he's been taught from his youth...same as YOU have used in your posts.The AV men used the English THEY grew up with.

    6. Then raise the standards of the modern, dumbed-down reader. Teach him how to pray, lean on the Spirit, use a Concordance and labour. Folks today want to be spoon fed with Power Point presentations.

    Here's John 3:16 as it was written in the first Scriptural writings in what later became English...except that they used a different alphabet. “God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

    Has God updated His word since that was written, shortly before Wm. The Conqueror invaded England? Or, were the Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and AV 1611 all "dumbed-down" versions? Or, is your argument all C02?

    From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

    Main Entry: through·ly
    Pronunciation: 'thrü-lE
    Function: adverb
    archaic : in a thorough manner

    Main Entry: thorough
    Function: adjective
    1 : carried through to completion : EXHAUSTIVE <a thorough search>
    2 a : marked by full detail <a thorough description> b : careful about detail : PAINSTAKING <a thorough scholar> c : complete in all respects <thorough pleasure> d : having full mastery (as of an art) <a thorough musician>
    - thor·ough·ly adverb
     
    #35 robycop3, Dec 2, 2006
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJV translators accepted the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') as the word of God. The words of the 1560 Geneva Bible were accepted as God's words in English before the KJV ever existed. Are you implying direct inspiration for the "archaic" words in the KJV? Does a consistent application of your reasoning mean that the KJV translators should have left the "archaic" words in the pre-1611 English Bibles alone?

    Why didn't the KJV translators leave the following words in the pre-1611 English Bibles alone? Was the KJV a "dumbed-down" version for removing some difficult or "archaic" words?

    abject (Dan. 4:17) Geneva
    abrech (Gen. 41:43) Tyndale's
    achat (Exod. 39:12) Tyndale's
    advoutry (Mark 7:21) Tyndale's
    affianced (Luke 1:27) Geneva
    albs (Lev. 8:13) Tyndale's
    arb (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
    arede (Mark 14:65) Tyndale's
    assoyl (Matt. 21:24) Tyndale's
    breastlap (Exod. 25:7) Coverdale's
    bruterer (Deut. 18:10) Tyndale's
    buballs (1 Kings 4:23) Matthew's
    buggerers (1 Tim. 1:10) Geneva
    byss (Gen. 41:42) Tyndale's
    calamite (Exod. 30:23) Tyndale's
    cavillation (Luke 19:8) Bishops'
    chevisance (Deut. 21:14) Tyndale's
    cratch (Luke 2:7) Geneva
    debite (Luke 20:20) Tyndale's
    deedslayers (2 Kings 14:6) Coverdale's
    despicions (Acts 28:29) Tyndale's
    diseasest (Mark 5:35) Tyndale's
    door cheeks (Exod. 12:23) Geneva
    egalness (2 Cor. 8:14) Tyndale's
    endote (Exod. 22:16) Tyndale's
    erewhile (John 9:27) Tyndale's
    execrable (1 Cor. 12:3) Geneva
    fardels (Acts 21:15) Geneva
    flacket (1 Sam. 16:20) Matthew's
    flaggy (1 Sam. 15:9) Matthew's
    flawnes (1 Chron. 23:29) Matthew's
    felicity (Gal. 4:15) Bishops'
    forcer (1 Sam. 8:8) Matthew's
    frayles (1 Sam. 25:18) Coverdale's
    frumenty (Lev. 23:14) Tyndale's
    gaoler (Acts 16:23) Geneva
    grece (Acts 21:35) Tyndale's
    hagab (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
    handfasted (Deut. 22:23) Tyndale's
    harborous (1 Tim. 3:2) Geneva
    harbourless (Matt. 25:35) Tyndale's
    hargol (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
    haunted (John 3:22) Tyndale's
    heavengazers (Isa. 47:13) Bishops'
    hoared (Josh. 9:5) Matthew's
    hucklebone (Gen. 32:25) Bishops'
    Iim (Isa. 13:22) Geneva
    jakes (2 Kings 10:27) Geneva
    lamies (Lam. 4:3) Coverdale's
    loured (Gen. 4:5) Tyndale's
    manchet (1 Kings 4:22) Matthew's
    mandragoras (Gen. 30:14) Tyndale's
    maund (Exod. 29:3) Tyndale's
    meinie (Gen. 22:3) Tyndale's
    mizzling (Deut. 32:2) Tyndale's
    moon prophets (Isa. 47:13) Bishops'
    mossell (1 Cor. 9:9) Tyndale's
    overscaped (Lev. 19:10) Tyndale's
    overthwart (Deut. 32:5) Coverdale's
    parbreak (Num. 11:20) Tyndale's
    perquellies (2 Sam. 5:8) Coverdale's
    pismire (Prov. 6:6) Geneva
    plage (Deut. 17:8) Tyndale's
    pleck (Lev. 13:4) Tyndale's
    porphyry (Esther 1:6) Geneva
    querne (Isa. 47:2) Bishops'
    quier (1 Kings 6:5) Bishops'
    raught (Ruth 2:14) Matthew's
    rebecks (1 Sam. 18:6) Geneva
    redebush (Isa. 9:18) Coverdale's
    rugagates (Jud. 12:4) Bishops'
    sallets (Jer. 46:4) Bishops'
    scrale (Exod. 8:3) Tyndale's
    sethim (Deut. 10:3) Tyndale's
    shawms (Ps. 98:6) Coverdale's
    shope (Gen. 2:7) Tyndale's
    simnel (Exod. 29:23) Tyndale's
    slade (1 Sam. 25:20) Matthew's
    slops (Isa. 3:20) Geneva
    soleam (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
    taxus (Exod. 25:4) Tyndale's
    toot-hill (Gen. 31:49) Tyndale's
    treacle (Jer. 8:22) Coverdale's
    tunicle (Exod. 29:5) Coverdale's
    unghostly (1 Tim. 4:7) Tyndale's
    unhallow (Lev. 19:12) Coverdale's
    unhele (Lev. 18:16) Tyndale's
    wenest (Acts 8:20) Tyndale's
    whalefish (Job 7:12) Bishops'
    Whitsuntide (1 Cor. 16:8) Tyndale's

    Over and over, your KJV-only reasoning is shown to be invalid because it cannot be applied consistently. The truth is consistent.
     
    #36 Logos1560, Dec 2, 2006
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    God bless you, AVBunyan. I can tell you are a serious student of the scriptures, and I can really appreciate that.



    We have also been admonished on this forum that if one truly has the Holy Spirit within, there is no need for external references to understand the Bible. It seems that you do not subscribe to that position.

    Who is at fault for the general public not knowing they must own and use a very specific, obscure dictionary in order to understand the Word of God? I didn't know. Is that what God really intended? When did having Webster's 1828 become a necessity: 1828, 1881, 1901, or 1970?
     
    #37 franklinmonroe, Dec 2, 2006
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW,
    how do I get to check my Webster's 1828 Dictionary?
    Can't I do that on-line?

    Should I use the spelling in the KJV1611 Edition or the KJV1769 Edition?
     
    #38 Ed Edwards, Dec 2, 2006
  19. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, Webster's 1828 Dictionary is online at http://www.cbtministries.org/resources/webster1828.htm

    Maybe we should leave AVBunyan alone and let him believe the KJVO myth if he wants to, guys. It is obvious from his posts he is becoming more confused as he is faced with truth. You know, he would be a great candidate for our ignore lists. He's a hard-liner who will not accept truth no matter how many times it is shown to him, and we have tried over and over again to convert him to the truth.

    Certainly AVBunyan has been admonished more than two times - he has been admonished and shown the truth over and over and over again. Yet despite all that he refuses to accept truth, preferring to follow the man-made KJVO myth rather than the truth.

    The path AVBunyan has chosen to follow is the path of confusion, which certainly is not caused by God's leading. That confusion is the entire basis for the KJVO myth, yet some refuse to accept the truth of God's word and prefer to remain lost in their confusion.

    AVBunyan, I am praying that one day the Holy Spirit will deliver you from the confusion that is the KJVO myth. We have done all we can here, yet you refuse to accept the truth. May the Holy Spirit work to whittle away at your pride and eventually show you the truth you so adamantly reject now. For now I abandon you to the confusion you choose to follow, knowing that one day you will see the truth, even if it isn't until after this life is over.
     
    #39 Keith M, Dec 2, 2006
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Brother Keith M. This time I've put
    the pointer in the 'Bookmarks Tool Folder' of Mozilla
    Firefox. That puts Webster's 1828 on my
    Bookmarks Tool line at the top of my browser.
     
    #40 Ed Edwards, Dec 2, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...