Webster's Holy Bible

"Lies will be found full of inconsistencies under cross-examination, but TRUTH will stand."

 

And did you remember to snap your helmet on, Gumbo, before you hit the ground?

 

'cept in the case of KJBOism, no x-examination is needed--its self-contradiction is evident.

truth will stand all right, needing no help fr the onlyists, be they the LXX-onlyists, Vulgate-onlyists, Masoretic Text-Onlyists, TR-onlyists, Majority-text onlyists, or, bless their hearts, KJBOnlyists.

 

I do not agree with what Mr. Webster said because the KJV is not like any other English version. Use Mr. Websters dictionary if you are having trouble with words like fetters... He is an expert in his field of words. We are not dealing with just any book where you can change to words to suit the culture. The KJV is the only English Bible written where you use scripture to interpret scripture. Line upon line... precept upon precept... here a little there a little. The truth is not staring you in the face... In the KJV you have to dig it out as you were mining for gold... Gods Gold... Treasures that when you find them will strike you blind! Been to Gods storehouse lately?... Brother Glen

 

What??? Explain.

 

Search the KJV and you end up blind?? That clinches it-- I want a translation where you end up seeing.

 

Christian Cynic said:

You are definately a hoot!... I'm talking about spiritual eyes not natural ones!... Brother Glen

 

Tyndale I still don't get your previous post, what in the world are you saying, go be a miner?

 

You are asking me and you are the Pastor... Dig... Dig... Dig out those spiritual jewels and treasures!... Brother Glen

 

Brian use scripture to interpret scripture! If scripture ever contradicts scripture then the contradiction is in reader not the scripture!... Scripture NEVER contradicts scripture but balances and harmonizes! Like the previous scriptures in Isaiah and Luke... Perfect balance and harmony! God expects nothing less!... Brother Glen

[ July 13, 2002, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Yes, I know this. I am not wanting more explanation on what "scripture to interpret scripture" means, but what "The KJV is the only English Bible written where you use scripture to interpret scripture."

Sound very Riplinger-esque to me, yet you don't want to be associated with her? Explain what you mean by your claim.

Brian

 

... I'm talking about spiritual eyes not natural ones!... Brother Glen </font>[/QUOTE]So the KJV leaves you spiritually blind? Isn't that an improvement?

 

... I'm talking about spiritual eyes not natural ones!... Brother Glen </font>[/QUOTE]So the KJV leaves you spiritually blind? Isn't that an improvement?</font>[/QUOTE]The mere reading or study of the Bible (no matter how intense), without GOD's action upon the study, will result in exactly what ChristianCynic suggests - spiritual blindness! Seeing spiritual truth within the Bible occurs only when GOD himself opens that understanding (Luke 24: 45, Matt. 13:13, John 6:44 ). Translations alone cannot do what ChristianCynic asks (where one ends up seeing as a result of a translation). That can only occur when GOD himself gives one the eyes to see - regardless of the translation.

latterrain77

 

I like Webster's comments, the English language is in constant flux change, and these types of revisions are needed. I really agree with the "common usage" comments.

One issue in particular from his comments that stands out the most to me though, is about the style. When the KJV was first published, it was criticized for being too simple, too common. Today, its style is considered reverent, beautiful. I think a true "update" of the KJV should not only fix the archaic terms/phrases, but also tries to actually break the "beautiful" style a bit, bringing it back down to earth. The scriptures were originally written with a very common, plain style. Allowing the KJV to stand for nearly 400 years has painted a sort of false image of the scriptures, and "accuracy" should not just be about original words, but maybe original style as well.

I'm sure we've all heard people who, when praying out loud, use "thee" and "thou", etc. This is because they think it sounds more reverent and beautiful. Maybe it does, but that's an extra layer not present or needed in scripture.

Brian

 

Webster quote;
"Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of God'."


Perhaps I'm wrong, (again ), but isnt this the crux of the debate in a nutshell? And could this have been the beginning of the present day KJVO debate? What I'm wondering is, did this update cause the controversy a new version brings today?

(I know, more questions than comments again. sorry )