Terry_Herrington
New Member
My opinion is still that the KJV is superior to any other English translation, especially the HCSB in every way except casting doubt in people's minds as to what God really says.
-
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!
HCSB > KJVs (examples)
- Thread starter Ed Edwards
- Start date
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
My opinion is that the KJVs are superior in
that department also.
- the average KJV does not have the
translator notes. The KJV was translated
by vassals of the Church of England
which would have been Roman Catholic save
if the Pope would have let the English
King get away with adultry.
- the average KJV reader
does not know that there are variations
in the sources of the Bible.
The sum of the
variations is greater than any individual
translation.
- the HCSB is superior from 2003 on.
The KJVs were superior 100s of years ago,
when there was no KJVs.
that department also.
- the average KJV does not have the
translator notes. The KJV was translated
by vassals of the Church of England
which would have been Roman Catholic save
if the Pope would have let the English
King get away with adultry.
- the average KJV reader
does not know that there are variations
in the sources of the Bible.
The sum of the
variations is greater than any individual
translation.
- the HCSB is superior from 2003 on.
The KJVs were superior 100s of years ago,
when there was no KJVs.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Here is another variation in the KJVs:
Luke 11:13 KJV1611 - holy Spirit
Luke 11:13 KJV1769 - Holy Spirit
In the KJV1611 "holy" is a modifier, "Spirit" is the name.
By KJV1769 "Holy Spirit" is the name
This is a change of doctrine regarding the nature
of a the third member of the Triune God.
Luke 2:25 KJV1611 holy Ghost
Luke 2:25 KJV1769 Holy Ghost
Well, seems the KJV first translators couldn't
stick with "Ghost" or "Spirt" for the name.
But i don't guess translating Greek is like
technical documentations where the same item has
to be called the same name each time the name appears.
Other comments are as before: the name of the third
member of the Trinity is altered.
Luke 11:13 KJV1611 - holy Spirit
Luke 11:13 KJV1769 - Holy Spirit
In the KJV1611 "holy" is a modifier, "Spirit" is the name.
By KJV1769 "Holy Spirit" is the name
This is a change of doctrine regarding the nature
of a the third member of the Triune God.
Luke 2:25 KJV1611 holy Ghost
Luke 2:25 KJV1769 Holy Ghost
Well, seems the KJV first translators couldn't
stick with "Ghost" or "Spirt" for the name.
But i don't guess translating Greek is like
technical documentations where the same item has
to be called the same name each time the name appears.
Other comments are as before: the name of the third
member of the Trinity is altered.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Michelle: "This is not just speaking of Jesus Christ, but the Godhead."
Your statement shows you do not understand the
term "Godhead".
I looked it up in my dictionary (I don't have your
dictionary to look into):
Godhead - n. the essential being, nature, or
condition of God. [ME]
here n. = noun, and [ME] means derived from middle English
Romans 1:20 (KJV1769):
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead;
so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:20 (HCSB):
From the creation of the world His invisible attributes,
that is, His eternal power and divine nature,
have been clearly seen, being understood through
what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.
the HCSB is clearer here. Where the KJVs use the
Middle English term "Godhead", the HCSB uses the stronger
modern English phrase "divine nature". Note that
the term "Godhead" has a definition of "divine nature" -
the two mean the same. But the HCSB is cleare.
I admit for years i invisioned the "Godhead" as being
a head with three faces: God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Spirit. (And this is how the term
is used in the first quote on this page).
Here the HCSB is clearer to the unsaved.
Here the HCSB is clearer to the new Christian.
Here the HBSB is clearer to all but leftover saints
from the 18th Century (1701-1800).
The HCSB is certainly clearer to long time saints
who don't bother to use their dictionary.
Ed notes that dictionaries are NOT inerrant but
that dictionaries do help decrease errors in understanding.
The divinity of Iesus is seen much easier
(the Holy Spirit can do His job faster) when using
the HCSB than the archaic KJVs.
Your statement shows you do not understand the
term "Godhead".
I looked it up in my dictionary (I don't have your
dictionary to look into):
Godhead - n. the essential being, nature, or
condition of God. [ME]
here n. = noun, and [ME] means derived from middle English
Romans 1:20 (KJV1769):
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead;
so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:20 (HCSB):
From the creation of the world His invisible attributes,
that is, His eternal power and divine nature,
have been clearly seen, being understood through
what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.
the HCSB is clearer here. Where the KJVs use the
Middle English term "Godhead", the HCSB uses the stronger
modern English phrase "divine nature". Note that
the term "Godhead" has a definition of "divine nature" -
the two mean the same. But the HCSB is cleare.
I admit for years i invisioned the "Godhead" as being
a head with three faces: God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Spirit. (And this is how the term
is used in the first quote on this page).
Here the HCSB is clearer to the unsaved.
Here the HCSB is clearer to the new Christian.
Here the HBSB is clearer to all but leftover saints
from the 18th Century (1701-1800).
The HCSB is certainly clearer to long time saints
who don't bother to use their dictionary.
Ed notes that dictionaries are NOT inerrant but
that dictionaries do help decrease errors in understanding.
The divinity of Iesus is seen much easier
(the Holy Spirit can do His job faster) when using
the HCSB than the archaic KJVs.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
"Elias" is mentioned in the New Testament 30
times in the KJV1769 but not in the Old Testament.
"Elijah" is a transliteration of the prophet's
name from the Hebrew.
"Elias" is a transliteration of the prophet's
name from the Greek.
Why did the KJVs choose to use two different
names for the same person, one for the OT and one
for the NT?
By constrast, the HCSB mentions "Elijah" 95
times in the OT and NT (but does not use "Elias").
What is wierd is that the false prophet Joseph
Smith who started the Later Day Saints (LDS) denominations
didn't understand about the Elijah/Elias problem
with the KJV. He saw a vision where they show up
as two different persons (DOCTRIN AND COVENANTS
110:12-16). Tee hee, lack of understanding
of the language of the KJVs makes another
sect founder look the fool.
times in the KJV1769 but not in the Old Testament.
"Elijah" is a transliteration of the prophet's
name from the Hebrew.
"Elias" is a transliteration of the prophet's
name from the Greek.
Why did the KJVs choose to use two different
names for the same person, one for the OT and one
for the NT?
By constrast, the HCSB mentions "Elijah" 95
times in the OT and NT (but does not use "Elias").
What is wierd is that the false prophet Joseph
Smith who started the Later Day Saints (LDS) denominations
didn't understand about the Elijah/Elias problem
with the KJV. He saw a vision where they show up
as two different persons (DOCTRIN AND COVENANTS
110:12-16). Tee hee, lack of understanding
of the language of the KJVs makes another
sect founder look the fool.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Tee hee
The subject of this topic is: HCSB > KJVs,
showing the HCSB is greater than the KJV.
In one of my posts about i gave an
example where the KJV was better than
the HCSB. Nobody took the bait
One of the failures of KJVOism is that
many adherents have lost their humor.
Humor is from God as are all gifts good
and fine. What does that say about
KJVOism?
Most KJVOist at the deep end are ardent
"black & white"ist. A "black & white"ist
sees all things as black or white, totally
good or totally bad. Life is not like that.
There are many shades of grey and a whole
world of non-black/non-white COLOR out there.
So the knee-jurk KJVOist lives a dull humorless
life.
And radical KJVOism can never allow that
anything other than their KJB is the best.
If you can find ONE THING wrong with a KJB
or one place where another version is better,
then the KJVOism image is shattered.
What a dull humorless belief
The subject of this topic is: HCSB > KJVs,
showing the HCSB is greater than the KJV.
In one of my posts about i gave an
example where the KJV was better than
the HCSB. Nobody took the bait
One of the failures of KJVOism is that
many adherents have lost their humor.
Humor is from God as are all gifts good
and fine. What does that say about
KJVOism?
Most KJVOist at the deep end are ardent
"black & white"ist. A "black & white"ist
sees all things as black or white, totally
good or totally bad. Life is not like that.
There are many shades of grey and a whole
world of non-black/non-white COLOR out there.
So the knee-jurk KJVOist lives a dull humorless
life.
And radical KJVOism can never allow that
anything other than their KJB is the best.
If you can find ONE THING wrong with a KJB
or one place where another version is better,
then the KJVOism image is shattered.
What a dull humorless belief
JohnBaskette
New Member
JD;
1] You wrote, "If anyone comes up W/something different or finds 'finds an error' in single quotes meaning SUPPOSED ERROR.
Also you write, "And radical KJVOism can never allow that
2] "...anything other than their KJB is the best.
If you can find ONE THING wrong with a KJB
or one place where another version is better,
then the KJVOism image is shattered.
What a dull humorless belief"
Addressing the first point; Who are you finding error W/The WORD OF GOD? Are you or anyone-else inspired by God. The Holy Gost, to ADD or TAKE AWAY FROM NTHE WORD OF GOD? <-Im effect, Correcting God?
My second point is like the first, Who determines if another version is better? bARE THEY INSPIRED?
NOT 1 TIME IS GOD'S WORD SUPPOSED TO BE HUMOROUS! Read a comic book for laughs...
It a ppears you have the wrong spirit...
In Christ; John
1] You wrote, "If anyone comes up W/something different or finds 'finds an error' in single quotes meaning SUPPOSED ERROR.
Also you write, "And radical KJVOism can never allow that
2] "...anything other than their KJB is the best.
If you can find ONE THING wrong with a KJB
or one place where another version is better,
then the KJVOism image is shattered.
What a dull humorless belief"
Addressing the first point; Who are you finding error W/The WORD OF GOD? Are you or anyone-else inspired by God. The Holy Gost, to ADD or TAKE AWAY FROM NTHE WORD OF GOD? <-Im effect, Correcting God?
My second point is like the first, Who determines if another version is better? bARE THEY INSPIRED?
NOT 1 TIME IS GOD'S WORD SUPPOSED TO BE HUMOROUS! Read a comic book for laughs...
It a ppears you have the wrong spirit...
In Christ; John
Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Tee hee
The subject of this topic is: HCSB > KJVs,
showing the HCSB is greater than the KJV.
In one of my posts about i gave an
example where the KJV was better than
the HCSB. Nobody took the bait
One of the failures of KJVOism is that
many adherents have lost their humor.
Humor is from God as are all gifts good
and fine. What does that say about
KJVOism?
Most KJVOist at the deep end are ardent
"black & white"ist. A "black & white"ist
sees all things as black or white, totally
good or totally bad. Life is not like that.
There are many shades of grey and a whole
world of non-black/non-white COLOR out there.
So the knee-jurk KJVOist lives a dull humorless
life.
And radical KJVOism can never allow that
anything other than their KJB is the best.
If you can find ONE THING wrong with a KJB
or one place where another version is better,
then the KJVOism image is shattered.
What a dull humorless belief :tear:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
This thread is past page 5.
It really is no longer discussing KJV vs. HCSB so has run its course.
It really is no longer discussing KJV vs. HCSB so has run its course.