mioque, to answer your question, the King James Bible is all that I use and believe in. BTW, what is Kama Sutra?
God's word
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by RaptureReady, Jun 10, 2004.
Page 2 of 8
-
-
So in honesty and character, they included these alternate words, phrases, sentences in the AV1611 so people could see there were choices.
In my 1769 revision, THESE ARE GONE! Not one of the translators "choices" are available, and I am given just a partial text.
I use the AV1611 rather than a sullied modern 1769 revision. -
HankD -
Homebound
"mioque, to answer your question, the King James Bible is all that I use and believe in. "
''
I didn't ask any question. :confused:
"BTW, what is Kama Sutra?"
"'
It's an old sex education manual from India.
And no it wasn't a serious response. -
-
oops, mioque are you of the feminine gender?
Sorry if you aren't I referred to you as "her".
HankD -
Homebound:I have seen no proof.
Actually, you've chosen to not BELIEVE the proof, or choose not to recognize the proof as valid. The mere fact that there are several other English BVs besides the KJV which accurately follow their sources is proof enuff. You've seen this, and many other proofs. How you choose to interpret them is YOUR burden. -
-
DeclareHim, we do have the perfect
Word of God in all faithful english translations.
(BTW, that is on topic and answers the
lead-in post by Brother Homebound:
"Do we have God's perfect word today? If yes, what is it? If no, why not?" )
What is "plenary" i didn't use that term
last week at work (i am a software
requirements engineer, and never specified
any plenary requirements for any
computer programs.
If "in plenary verbal inspiration"
means all the words of the Holy Bible
were verbally inspired by God, i believe
it.
-
Yes, I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the scriptures. Here's a link to a brief article on that and excerpt:
An excellent resource on this is apologist and scholar Norman Geisler's _A General Introduction to the Bible_, a very comprehensive book on the inspiration of the Bible, the canonization of scripture, documentary evidence, translation issues, etc. It is very comprehensive. Part One, which is chapters 1-11, deal just with the inspiration of the Bible. On page 47, Geisler says:
"Revelation is the fact of divine communication, inspiration is the means by which that communication is brought to the written record, and interpretation is the understanding of that communication. The total process of inspiration includes both the writer and the writing, although the product of that inspiration is the authoritative writing and not the man. It is only the autographs (original writings) that are actually inspired, although accurate copies or tanslations are doctrinally authoritative, inasmuch as they correctly reporduce the original . . . the result of this process is a verbal (the words), plenary (extending to all parts equally), inerrant errorless), and authoritative record."
[Italics retained from original] -
Dr. Bob:I use the AV1611 rather than a sullied modern 1769 revision.
Slambo:That word is a deragatory comment towards the Bible,and is an direct violation of rule #8 in this forum!
Not actually. When one tells the PROVEN TRUTH, it's NOT in violation of the rules. The PROVEN TRUTH is that the 1769 KJV OMITS the Apocrypha, the List of Holy Days, most of the translators' marginal notes, and, most importantly, the PREFACE, "To The Reader".
(From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
Sully:: to make soiled or tarnished : DEFILE
You say the MVs OMIT some of God's word. Doesn't the 1769 KJV OMIT quite a bit of material found in the AV 1611? Isn't that SULLYING? Or, according to the great KJVO double standard, it's OK for a KJV edition to omit material that's found in the original, but NOT OK for any other version to do likewise? -
But if you think that's an excuse to omit things like Blood,Christ's deity,the commandment to study the Bible,and so forth-not to mention the JW's reading in John 1:18-then someone has lied to you and YOU FELL FOR IT..
D'oh!!! -
The one who has been lied here to is obviously you, since you think these things are true. They are not. They are needless and useless attacks on God's word. -
Before you post again on this message board, it would be nice if you would take the time to read the preface to the Bible that you esteem so highly, and then read that Bible—at least once—cover to cover—in the 1611 edition which is the only true and genuine KJV. -
http://www.bibledata.com/KJV_Standard_Referene_Edition_with_Apocrypha.htm
HankD -
BTW, you missed when Chick had part of a
comic on it's web site that showed how
some group of Catholic zealots subverted
the King James 1611 translation group and
made them put the Apocrypha, write that
strange satanic prelude, and put in all
those pesky side notes. What is interesting
is all those KJV1769 (or is that KJV1762?)
users who don't even know that the the
translator notes in the KJV1611 are NOT
footnotes but sidenotes.
-
Slambo:First of all,none of that stuff you mentioned is in the final text;the Apocrypha was-and still is- in the underlying texts of you beloved modern BV's.
Careful what you say; I have a replica AV 1611 before me even as I type, and so do many others here.
But if you think that's an excuse to omit things like Blood,Christ's deity,the commandment to study the Bible,and so forth-not to mention the JW's reading in John 1:18-then someone has lied to you and YOU FELL FOR IT..
First, your first two premises have been proven false time and again. There are several threads in the archives on "the blood", and I just finished debunking that most stupid of KJVO fantasies about Luke 2:43 in the NIV. As for John 1:18, the JWs adopted this from existing versions; their NWT, C. 1950, is actually the RV revised again by the JWs to fit their doctrines.
D'oh!!!
Hey, I never thought I'd meet HOMER SIMPSON here! But then this explains your erudition... -
It is in the underlying texts behind the NWT and other modern BV's via the Gnostics that compiled them..Looks like another boner for your position. -
HankD
"oops, mioque are you of the feminine gender?"
''
Checks inside of underwear...
Yessir, I'm a girl! :D -
Slambo
"First of all,none of that stuff you mentioned is in the final text;"
''
What do you mean when you type "final text"?
"the Apocrypha was-and still is- in the underlying texts of you beloved modern BV's."
''
You have no idea what the Apocrypha are do you Slambo?
Page 2 of 8