Accuracy and Precision

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

(non-carismatic Baptist symbol)

Ed, I thought that was an mv advocate pouring water out of his head.

</font>[/QUOTE]tee-hee!

Now i can't tell if that is a hand
or a glass here:

 

[Ed Edwards]

QuickeningSpirit: "The evidence is how yall try to tear
apart the KJB, and we just keep standing."

Speaking of the KJB, which of the three books i have
on my computer desk do you construe as the KJB?

1. KJV1611
2. KJV1769
3. KJV1873
4. All of the above.

Thank you for your input.
I've found two general schools of thought:

The KJV1769 only, especially when it doesn't have those
unhandy translator notes that show source variants as well.

Doesn't matter which of the three, for there
is no "difference".

BTW, I note that on the subject of "which KJV is the KJB"
issue (no matter which variant shown above) the
same arguments used by the MV-ites are thrown back at them. tee hee

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
O.K. BrianT, since you think Divine authority is "funny, if not blasphemous"

Thanks for butchering and misrepresenting my quote.

I don't think divine authority is funny or blasphemous. I think that you claiming it for yourself, as a defense for KJV-onlyism, is.

So much for reasonable discussion.

</font>[/QUOTE]I take it you can't handle what you dish out?

Reverse psycology worked again!

I wasn't claiming Divine authority for myself. I am claiming Divine authority gives me the right to have the right Bible, and that is the King James Bible.

Psalms 12:6,7 really burns you guys up, huh?

 

[Precepts]

1. KJV1611
2. KJV1769
3. KJV1873
4. All of the above.

I haven't really observed an 1873 edition, but I will trust your judgement. I'll do a search for a copy just to compare. Got any links?

 

[Charles Meadows]

QS,

No not Psalm itself - just your twisting of it to suit your viewpoint! I think you actually like the MVs because they give you something to rail about!!

Shame on me - that's REALLY not funny.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
I take it you can't handle what you dish out?

Reverse psycology worked again!

Whatever. I can understand why you'd think this though, given your past attempts at logic.

I wasn't claiming Divine authority for myself.

Someone asked you "What qualifies you to be the final authority..." and you answered "Divine authority, I have only authority given from above." You claimed divine authority, given from above, qualifies you.

I am claiming Divine authority gives me the right to have the right Bible, and that is the King James Bible.

Well, now that you're changing your story, I must ask: how do you know this Divine authority from above did this? Scripture doesn't say it, so obviously scripture can't be your final authority, since you also have this ability to identify divine authority from above. Did you hear a voice from heaven? Did a birdie whisper in your ear? Did you boil tea leaves or toss chicken bones or use a crystal ball? What was the method of receiving and recognizing this authority, and how do you know it is authoritative?

Psalms 12:6,7 really burns you guys up, huh?

Not at all.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 1. KJV1611
2. KJV1769
3. KJV1873
4. All of the above.

I haven't really observed an 1873 edition, but I will trust your judgement. I'll do a search for a copy just to compare. Got any links?

</font>[/QUOTE]I have a paper
copy of KJV1873. All the electronic copies i've
seen on the internet are KJV1769.

BTW, my paper KJV1873 is found in a four
barrell cannon:
NIV, NASB, KJV1873, and NLT.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Psalm 12:6 (nKJV):

The words of the Lord are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.

Ah, so my New King James Version is the Holy Bible

 

[Precepts]

BrianT, You twisted my post to say I claimed Divine authority, it has to do with that cork screw in your head, it's fixin' to pop!

Do "context", "accuracy", "harmony" mean anything to you? Obviously not, that is evident by your advocating mv's.

Whatever happened to HankD? Choke on a cigar?

You got anything to spout about, or you just up to your usual SPIN?

You know, I have come to the realization, the reason you guys can't see the KJB as the final authority is all the gobbily-goop yall accept as MSS. "Nestle makes the very best, choc'late" ,but not exactly the Received Text, huh?

Now I suppose the "exorcists" will return with their "mother's" tongue.

Ed, your "4-barrel" needs rebuilt. Better check that Job 24:22. Follow the context.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
BrianT, You twisted my post to say I claimed Divine authority,

Someone asked you "What qualifies you to be the final authority..." and you answered "Divine authority, I have only authority given from above."

I'm not twisting anything.

However, since you want to change your story, I will let you. But then I have to ask: how do you know this Divine authority from above did this? Scripture doesn't say it, so obviously scripture can't be your final authority, since you also have this ability to identify divine authority from elsewhere, outside of the KJV. Did you hear a voice from heaven? Did a birdie whisper in your ear? Did you boil tea leaves or toss chicken bones or use a crystal ball? What was the method of receiving and recognizing this authority, and how do you know it is authoritative?

Just answer the questions. Oh, that's right, you can't - to do so would expose your error, and would require honesty to deal with it.

You know, I have come to the realization, the reason you guys can't see the KJB as the final authority

Well, according to you, neither can you. You are somehow able to recognize final authority from "above", apart from the KJV. Care to explain?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Ed, your "4-barrel" needs rebuilt. Better check that Job 24:22. Follow the context.

Sorry, i don't have time to
translate your Crypto-Quote. Speak
plainly. Thank you.

Be aware that there is a variation
within the TRs here. Recommend looking
BEFORE you leap. Recommend you
drop the discussion on Job 24:22
and tell me whether or not you are
KJV1769 ONLY or not. Thank you.
BTW, the only place i've really found that
the KJV1769 is the only KJB
and that the KJV1611 is the devil's spawn
-- the only place i found this doctrine is
in a comic book.

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

(non-carismatic Baptist symbol)

Ed, I thought that was an mv advocate pouring water out of his head.

</font>[/QUOTE]I thought it was an ex KJVO beating himself in the head for believing all the KJVO lies.

Or it could be a KJVO trying move some stones around to make room for some logic.

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Ed, your "4-barrel" needs rebuilt. Better check that Job 24:22. Follow the context.

Sorry, i don't have time to
translate your Crypto-Quote. Speak
plainly. Thank you.

Be aware that there is a variation
within the TRs here. Recommend looking
BEFORE you leap. Recommend you
drop the discussion on Job 24:22
and tell me whether or not you are
KJV1769 ONLY or not. Thank you.
BTW, the only place i've really found that
the KJV1769 is the only KJB
and that the KJV1611 is the devil's spawn
-- the only place i found this doctrine is
in a comic book.

</font>[/QUOTE]I personally like the 1873 edition. I love to see the footnotes the translators thought were important to include.

 

[HankD]

Nor does making asinine statements that Jacobean English is a unknown language. Time to get real.

skan, where did anyone say that Jacobean English is an "unknown language"?

As for me, I said KJV 1611-1769 English is not the "koine" or "common" English of the 21st century.

In the 1st century Spirit of God saw fit to codify the Scripture in "koine" (the language of life). Why not now? why not adhere to that first standard?

HankD

 

[Precepts]

I thought it was an ex KJVO beating himself in the head for believing all the KJVO lies.

Or it could be a KJVO trying move some stones around to make room for some logic.

A definite example of indecisiveness and instability to rationalize the truth, careless observation and tainted with untruth.

Even if those are rocks in his head, they're more stable than water.

 

[Precepts]

In the 1st century Spirit of God saw fit to codify the Scripture in "koine" (the language of life). Why not now? why not adhere to that first standard?

HankD

I understand your assumption, but was the whole of the New Testament written in 1st century, AD?

If your assumption is true, then why don't we still speak in that "Koine Greek"? Wouldn't it remain the language of life and not meeting the demands of men in their attempt to change words that conclude into a state of confusion about what the Word of God actually says?

Thank God for the KJB, that which is tried and true, no matter what devices are applied, we can still deduce what God has said, instead of continual pondersings of, "I wonder if by this mss, if that was really what God meant?"

MV/instability.

KJB/Stability.

BTW, what happened to your "next"?

 

[gb93433]

"I believe our youth need to see the real aspect of living for God and get rid of the entertainment mentality."

I agree, but The apple doesn't fall from the tree. Who is leading them?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In the 1st century Spirit of God saw fit to codify the Scripture in "koine" (the language of life). Why not now? why not adhere to that first standard?

HankD

I understand your assumption, but was the whole of the New Testament written in 1st century, AD?

If your assumption is true, then why don't we still speak in that "Koine Greek"? Wouldn't it remain the language of life and not meeting the demands of men in their attempt to change words that conclude into a state of confusion about what the Word of God actually says?

Thank God for the KJB, that which is tried and true, no matter what devices are applied, we can still deduce what God has said, instead of continual pondersings of, "I wonder if by this mss, if that was really what God meant?"

MV/instability.

KJB/Stability.

BTW, what happened to your "next"? </font>[/QUOTE]The same reason we don't all speak German like many did some years ago. Most everyone knows English today. English is the global language today by which trade is done.

Even a Greek friend of mine who was born in Greece and speaks Greek has a difficult time reading the NT in Greek. He can do it but not with ease. It too is archaic.

 

[HankD]

I understand your assumption, but was the whole of the New Testament written in 1st century, AD?

If your assumption is true, then why don't we still speak in that "Koine Greek"?

I don’t know.

Wouldn't it remain the language of life and not meeting the demands of men in their attempt to change words that conclude into a state of confusion about what the Word of God actually says?

Obviously not, so I deal with the present reality and attempt to translate the “koine” Greek into “koine” English.

Thank God for the KJB, that which is tried and true, no matter what devices are applied, we can still deduce what God has said, instead of continual pondersings of, "I wonder if by this mss, if that was really what God meant?"

I prefer the methods and sources of the KJ Bible translators, take the “tried and true” original language texts along with previous translations and come up with a new standard text. That new standard text however has modernly become outdated.

By insisting on this outdated text, all you have done is left up to and accepted these “ponderings” of Anglo-Roman Catholic priests from 4 centuries ago whose methods and sources were good (although (IMO)the translation itself was somewhat lacking) but has now seriously fallen behind in its archaisms.

Indeed they acknowledged the alleged "ponderings" by publishing many of them in the margin of the 1611 First Edition.

BTW, what happened to your "next"?

In my estimation, you never did justice to my “first”. From your answer(s), I still don’t know what the 1 Chronicles 26:12-19 passage in the KJ Bible is saying, particularly the last 4 verses.

1 Chronicles 26
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.
19 These are the divisions of the porters among the sons of Kore, and among the sons of Merari.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HankD:
skan, where did anyone say that Jacobean English is an "unknown language"?

robycop3 posted January 27, 2004 10:41AM

One little prob-Elizabethan English is more the "unknown tongue" than is modern English.