King James Version Only...?

[BarneyFife]

I was just Responding to what you said

By talking about someone else's claim?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

By talking about someone else's claim?

Never mind I give up trying to explain it

 

[Truther]

I hold the verbal plenary inspiration of the originals, just not the kjv!

The originals disintegrated over 1000 years ago.

 

[Truther]

Yep and he used two words in the same context

you keep ignoring my question can agape and phileo ever mean the same?

If the KJV translators say so, yes.

They are the last translators to understand ancient Greek precisely.

 

[Truther]

My wife and I met by eros(love), it became philia (love), now it is agape(love) after 37 years of bliss, with a little eros and philia mixed in.

 

[DNB]

Those in the Kjvo make it seem as if all against them hate the Kjv, we do not, but cannot agree that it is the best or only to use!
Why not use the Greek or Hebrew texts if able to read them?

Exactly, how can a 17th century English translation, be better than the earliest extant manuscripts in the original language. Like I said, their argumentation is absolutely and unequivocally absurd!

 

[BarneyFife]

Exactly, how can a 17th century English translation, be better that the earliest manuscripts in the original language. Like I said, their argumentation is absolutely and unequivocally absurd!

We don't have the earliest, only earlier than previously thought earliest.

 

[Truther]

Exactly, how can a 17th century English translation, be better that the earliest manuscripts in the original language. Like I said, their argumentation is absolutely and unequivocally absurd!

The election process.

 

[Davy]

That does not prove the Originals had those in them though!

When the majority of Greek texts used historically by the early Church involves MOST of those used, when rarer texts like the Alexandrian weren't, that's a huge hint that the early Church deemed the Majority Texts the actual true Word of God. That's also why the Greek Textus Receptus (or Received Texts) are also called the Majority Texts, because they make up the majority of them. Those texts from the Alexandria, Egypt school may be older, but they don't reveal the greater usage like the Majority Texts do.

So older text is NOT absolute proof of greater accuracy, which is one of the main theories those pushing the Alexandrian texts use.

 

[BarneyFife]

Like I said, their argumentation is absolutely and unequivocally absurd!

Doesn't this seem like awfully desperate language? What's the urgency?

 

[Bobby Jo]

... I called one idea silly and a group of claims legitimate. ...

Perhaps you could clarify, because the Masoretic Text is LEGITIMATE:

“... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”[1]

“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”[2]

[1] IJohn Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217, p. 217
[2] IBID, p. 218​

... and there is NO PRECEDENT in Scripture or any Society where numbers are summed as "seven and sixty-two":

Sir Isaac Newton’s DANIEL AND THE APOCALYPSE
by Sir William Whitla, London, 1922, Chapt. X, p. 281 Daniel and the Apocalypse

We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel’s meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbering used by no nation.​

... but a dozen and a half; a mile and a quarter; fourscore and ten; -- are ALL LEGITIMATE.


So are you the one who's "silly" or do you have some other circumstance to point to?
Bobby Jo

 

[BarneyFife]

Perhaps you could clarify, because the Masoretic Text is LEGITIMATE:

“... as Young points out, the word ‘sevens’ is in the masculine plural instead of the usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young feels ‘it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the fact that the word “sevens” is employed in an unusual sense.’”[1]

“...Young finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are correct when they hold that the word ‘sevens’ does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”[2]

[1] IJohn Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217, p. 217
[2] IBID, p. 218​

... and there is NO PRECEDENT in Scripture or any Society where numbers are summed as "seven and sixty-two":

Sir Isaac Newton’s DANIEL AND THE APOCALYPSE
by Sir William Whitla, London, 1922, Chapt. X, p. 281 Daniel and the Apocalypse

We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel’s meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks, a way of numbering used by no nation.​

... but a dozen and a half; a mile and a quarter; fourscore and ten; -- are ALL LEGITIMATE.


So are you the one who's "silly" or do you have some other circumstance to point to?
Bobby Jo

I don't know how to say it any plainer. The fact that some people made some clerical errors 100 or 1500 years ago in no way makes me doubt that God has failed to preserve His word to sufficiently do His will. All the technical mumbo jumbo in the world notwithstanding. I'm grateful for the sincere labor which has been expended in translating It into a language I speak and understand. Weeding out the bugs and discrepancies is best left to those who love to criticize. I, myself (and, I'm sure, many others), would rather seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness, that all good things might follow in its train.

 

[BarneyFife]

Masoretic Text is LEGITIMATE:

What does this mean and why does spelling "legitimate" in uppercase help the communication of the idea?

 

[DNB]

Doesn't this seem like awfully desperate language? What's the urgency?

Where's the confusion?

 

[Bobby Jo]

... The fact that some people made some ...

... misrepresentations regarding Scripture to deny it's TRUTH and Power -- is evidence against that person:

2 Timothy 3:2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. 6 For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, 7 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.​

Men LIE, but Scripture DOESN'T.
Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

What does this mean and why does spelling "legitimate" in uppercase help the communication of the idea?

It means "barnyfife" is in lower case.

Bobby Jo

 

[BarneyFife]

It means "barnyfife" is in lower case.

Bobby Jo

Nonsensical

 

[Bobby Jo]

Nonsensical

Yes you are, -- both "legitimate" and "silly" at the same time!

Bobby Jo

 

[Enoch111]

So older text is NOT absolute proof of greater accuracy, which is one of the main theories those pushing the Alexandrian texts use.

Actually the oldest manuscripts are the MOST CORRUPT. Burgon, Scrivener, and many other conservative textual scholars established that by actually collating them against the majority of manuscripts.

The only reason the most corrupt manuscripts were promoted as "the best" is because of irrational hatred for the Received Text (TR) and the King James Bible (based upon the TR).

BURGON'S PREFACE TO THE REVISION REVISED
"My one object has been to defeat the mischievous attempt
which was made in 1881 to thrust upon this Church and Realm a
Revision of the Sacred Text, which—recommended though it be
by eminent names—I am thoroughly convinced, and am able to
prove, is untrustworthy from beginning to end."

 

[JohnDB]

The only reason the most corrupt manuscripts were promoted as "the best" is because of irrational hatred for the Received Text (TR) and the King James Bible (based upon the TR).

Actually...there is no irrational hatred.
It's basically because there are no two "Received Texts" the same.
There's no Latin Vulgate standard...they all differ widely. This was determined from the start of trying to create an English translation starting with the Coverdale Bible, Wycliffe's translation, and even Erasmus.