God's word

Homebound:Then why do you keep going back to the originals?

Because they SHOULD be the basis for every translation we use.

It seems like you're still searching for God's word.

Not really. Unlike some people I know, I'm NOT LIMITED to only one version. The AUTHOR isn't thus limited; why should I be?

Though I would agree that the modern versions do carry some truth, after all, a person can get the Gospel from some of them, however, they are not absolute.

And the KJV alone is?? Yeah, riight...

 

There are two translators' side notes generally ignored by KJVOs, and while the KJVO praises the AV translators, he ignores them where they shoot down the KJVO myth. The side notes commonly ignored by KJVO are: "or, O day starre" for Isaiah 14:12 and for Psalm 12:7, it's "Heb. him, i. euery one of them".

Not to mention they ignore the words of the translators themselves concerning their work, that they wrote in their preface.

 

I said, summarized or included everything you said I left out for brevity's sake but here is the whole thing from the site:

I will repeat and will add "IMO".

IMO their statement is double-think/double-talk.

In the Daily Scripture reading calendar of the First Edition the CofE 1611AV includes Apocryphal readings and cross-referenced Apocryphal passages in the body of the text.
In the body of the text the Apocryphal writtings are presented in the same manner and format as the "non-canonical".

Their actions speak louder than their words.

If it looks like a dragon, flies, breathes smoke and fire, guess what in spite of whatever they equivocate, It’s an apocryphal dragon (see Bel and the Dragon which you can read for example of life and instruction of manners;).

I repeat, to me it would be similar to pasting a Watchtower article in my Bible?

After all the Watchtower is certainly non-canonical.

I also repeat that the radical KJVO error of second inspiration is what is being opposed, to which the romish 1611 CofE contributed by their actions and persists in one form or another to this very day.

HankD

 

But not as inspired Scripture.It is in BOTH TESTAMENTS in the texts,as inspire scripture, behind todays Bibles.Fact!</font>[/QUOTE] Here's another fact for you. The NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV were not published with the Apocrypha at all.

Here's yet another. We have no real way of knowing what the copyists/users of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus thought of the Apocrypha. The Canon of scripture itself was only universally recognized after the 4th century.

The original KJV contained the Apocrypha while the MV's that you condemn didn't. At one time, it was against the law to print the KJV without the Apocrypha so obviously the contemporaries of the KJV translators thought it to be an important part.

And... no amount of spin or skulldrudgery will change that.

Do you know what the acronym "snafu" stands for? BTW, it violates the obscene language guidelines for the board:

"situation normal, all f***ed up"


PS on a more friendly note- I grew up in western NC, right on the southern border of the Great Smokie Mountains NP. Are you close?

 

I think that's a bit extreme, but I suppose that's up to the mods to decide.

 

Moderator note:

SNAFU can also mean - Situation Normal All Fouled Up

Thats how this moderator will interpet it .

 

Why? The Apocrypha was in the nestled in the text as Scripture.Maybe the newbie BV translators thought the same as the KJV translators;it not scripture.

It does in fact serve well historicaly,and therefore is of some value;just not scripturaly.

No I did not realize that was an acronym;nor was I aware that it is what it ment.However,I do not condone language like that and it is the opitomy of bad taste and ignorance.

Nope,sorry.Keep heading southward.

 

Why? The Apocrypha was in the nestled in the text as Scripture.Maybe the newbie BV translators thought the same as the KJV translators;it not scripture.</font>[/QUOTE] You're partly right. The MV translators didn't think it was correct to put the Apocrypha in a book then put the name "Holy Bible" on the outside cover. And don't try to make the comparison to study guides, concordances, cross-references, margin notes, etc. The Apocrypha was in the original KJV in book form as if it were scriptural text.

If it had remained common practice to place the Apocrypha between the Testaments after the original preface stopped being included... you wouldn't have any indication that it was not to be considered scripture.

It does in fact serve well historicaly,and therefore is of some value;just not scripturaly.</font>[/QUOTE] Some must have thought more of it than that... you don't write something into law that is only of "some value".

BTW, the Apocrypha is historically flawed. I haven't read the reasoning for quite some time but you can probably find the arguments with a simple web search.

No I did not realize that was an acronym;nor was I aware that it is what it ment.</font>[/QUOTE] Sorry. I didn't realize that this read as condescending as it must have.

I only know since it is an unofficial military creation. It appeared in a book I read during college about one man's Vietnam experience. It wasn't anti-war... it was part of the ROTC curriculum to read related books and report.

 

Because the original language text is the standard against which *all* English translations are to be measured.

 

Who here is using a Bible like this? I haven't seen anyone doing this and I have been here a long time. No one has appealed to a Bible that doesn't have the blood in it, or that doesn't teach the Deity of Christ. No one here has appelaed to a Bible that omits a command to study it.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Then why does the NIV, NASV leave it out? Check this scripture:
Colossians 1:14. The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." This just doesn't sound right, let us look at the KJB:
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." If the shedding of blood was not done, forgiveness of sin was not there. Thanks God for that blood sacrafice. </font>[/QUOTE]The NIV doesn't leave it out: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." (Eph. 1:7, NIV)

 

If the Apocrypha didn't have at least *some* authoritative status in the eyes of the KJV translators, why did the 1611 KJV include passages from the Apocrypha in its list of lectionary readings to be used in public worship?

 

An interesting comment, considering that the KJV itself is sometimes translated from the Hebrew "sidenotes" rather than the main text. Apparently the KJV translators considered some of those "sidenotes" to be Scripture.

 

"Since the originals are lost there can be no perfect word of God unless you believe it one, which I do"

Which one HomeBound? There are several different versions called the 1611KJV and in reality they are not the same. There are hundreds of differences between the several revisions (1611 through 1853) and editions (Oxford, Cambridge, Nelson).

We have been told for years by the KJVO and KJVO wannabees that "things which are different are not the same", so using that criteria which one of the several revision/editions of the AV is the "perfect" Word of God?

BTW HomeBound, the original archetype master manuscript which the KJV translators produced was lost somewhere around 1647. So in your own words "Since the originals are lost there can be no perfect word of God".

HankD

 

So then you agree that God will not help you understand outdated and archaic language when you can pick up a modern translation?? At least that is a start in the right direction.

No actually, I can't see it. To refer to a person as an "it" it inappropriate. That's all.

It is clear that you do not. The Bible gives clear and undeniable evidence that versions other than teh KJV are the word of God, but you don't believe that. The Bible clearly testifies that God's word in a language in not limited to one version, but you don't believe that. YOu have absolutely not biblical basis for your belief that the KJV is perfect. You do not believe that Bible 100%. I actually do and can support what I believe from Scripture. You know this. You have been around long enough to see it and know the truth. You have simply chosen to reject it in favor of satisfying your own mind. You have itching ears and listened to teachers who will satisfy that itch.