Search results

I found myself changing the word order of a lot of "King's English" this morning while teaching 4th-6th graders at church. I've been teaching Jesus' parables and one I covered today weas the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-31). Here are few sample phrases -- But what think ye? I reworded for the...

DURST Esther 7:5 | "durst presume" | NRTDF | "presume" (Note: 'durst' is the past tense of 'dare') Sorry, I neglected to include Riplinger's note in my initial post of this example. DURST is an archaic past tense form; today it would be "dared". The NRTDF is the New Roget's Thesaurus in...

Do you think the KJV does not engage in this practice?

CURRENT Ge. 23:16 | current "money" (Modern usage 'currency') | OED | "of money" "Circulation of money" (A current of water moves.) The KJV construction might think CURRENT was the translation of an adjective describing "money" (a noun), but it is not a translation of an adjective. In fact...

CHAMBERING Rom. 13:13 | "chambering and wantoness" | WEB | "wanton" "Wanton" can be a definition of CHAMBERING, but it is not the precise definition in this context. How do I know? Because the Scripture shows me a trustworthy pattern of sets of different sins each in this verse -- Let us walk...

Is her example really the first occurrence? DIVERS Deut. 22:9-11 | "divers sorts" | WCT | "all sorts of" Here's another example of a little cheating: she gives a referrence that includes 3 verses. Why? Because the actual first occurrence is in verse 9, but her example given of the BID is...

Here are Riplinger's "additional examples" for Step One from Page 7 -- CHAMBERING Rom. 13:13 | "chambering and wantoness" | WEB | "wanton" CHAPMEN 2 Chron. 9:14 | "chapmen and merchants" | OED | "a merchant" CURRENT Ge. 23:16 | "current money" (Modern usage 'currency') | OED | "of...

Thank you (and I kinda like the first part). But all Hodge has said here in the second part is that the manuscript copies are not individually perfect in every detail (which is demonstrably true); he did NOT say here that the words were not inspired.

Did he say that accurate copies of those autographs in the original languages did NOT have inspired words?

But you wrote "So this position is only as new as the mid 1800's." Are we expected to believe that you also meant that it was not an American position before mid-1800? But for example, the Philadelphia Association in 1742 used virtually identical wording as the WCoF in their own confession...

Yes, you must be confused because the quotes certainly do NOT support your assertions: you questioned that the "writers" were inspired (the quotes do NOT support that); you assert that the writings became inspired "after" completion, essentially at canonization (and again, the quotes do NOT...

Welcome to the BB. I hope you won't mind that I won't allow many dubious statements to go unchallenged. You may be able to say that Hodge popularized the idea in America but he was NOT "first" by far. Have you ever read the 1646 WCoF? In Chapter 1, Section VIII it states in part (my...

Yes, but only very slightly overall; I think it may depend upon the passage being looked at. The NASB is perhaps not as literal (word order) as the ASV which had the reputation as being the most literal English translation and probably still is.

Well, I was wondering if that was a joke. The thing is, there are so many strange 'bibles' attempted that it might be taken seriously.

Obviously, the two places that it should be left out: Acts 7:45 & Hebrews 4:8. This is where the NKJV translates iesous (Strong's #2424) as "Joshua", which is entirely proper given the context. Actually, there was no reason to think that the chart presented is in any way accurate (no source...

Did you read the article? Its a book with the word "bible" in the title. There are all kinds of books with "bible" in the titles, but it doesn't make them a Bible.

The posts above mostly only covered the 5 examples Riplinger offers on Page 6 of Chapter One. Its obvious that there is too much in the book to review in one thread. I'm planning on finishing Step One here (just 1 more page!), and then greatly abbreviating my comments on the other Steps in...

You have a lot of great questions, but could you slow down a bit? You can ask 'em faster than we can answer 'em. Thanks, bro.

We both know that the ISV is very similar to God's Word version, so how can they be so far apart in points?

The original manuscripts were written by men (sorry, gals) as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Most of the writers were prophets (even David is called a prophet) and apostles. We don't know for certain the identity of the human 'authors' of some books (like the Chronicles, and Hebrews)...