analogy

[Scott J]

Hopefully Michelle will pick this thread up and respond. I would like to apply her form of KJVO reasoning in a direct analogy-

Me- "I am human"
You- "Me too"
Me- "Oh no, you are not pure human- you are corrupt"
You- "Am not"
Me- "Are too"
You- "Prove it"
Me- "Well, you aren't exactly like me- you have different hair, eyes, height, weight, and that's just to name a few."
You- "That doesn't prove I am not human. I have every characteristic that is required for me to accurately be called a human"
Me- "No way! Human can only be one thing and I am that one thing. There can only be one true, pure, inerrantly human being on earth and that is me. Furthermore, you come from a corrupt source. My parents are the only pure source."
You- "That contradicts your beliefs! Your parents were different from you too, not to mention being different from each other. Plus human does mean one thing but different versions of that one thing can still be human."
Me- "But my parents come from the pure line of humans and they were the perfect humans for another generation."
You- "That's a double standard. You say people different from you are human but only when it suits your purpose."
Me- "No. You just lack faith. God said that He would perfectly preserve His man and that's me."
You- "No. You are subject to the fall. You are perfectly (completely) human but you are not the uniquely perfect human. You are a representative of the first human was perfect. God created him perfect and in His own image but the fallibility of man caused all of us to be flawed. However we are still in the image of the original man and the God who created him."
Me- "NO, NO, NO, NO" "I am human therefore you are not!!! You contradict me, you're different. YOU CAN'T BE HUMAN"
You- "Yes I can and you can't prove otherwise. But I can prove my humanity- every existing human bears testimony to me being human even though they differ from me. I possess every required characteristic for being human even though I am not a copy of you or the original. In fact, every bit of historical evidence we have for what humans were like testifies that both you and I are perfectly human all the way back to Adam himself. I am of his line and kind just like you... in fact, the oldest evidence we have for humanity suggests that I am more like Adam than you."
Me- "Oh give me a break, 90% of all past humans are more like me than you. Besides, you don't have the original man- not a picture, not a description, not even a rib."
You-"No. But we have the evidence from a great number of his descendents and can say with a great degree of certainty what he was like."

Michelle, To argue that only the KJV can be the Word of God in English is just as ridiculous as to argue that only one person can be human. We are all human because we share a derived nature/essence/substance from the original man. Faithful Bible versions are the Word of God when they derive their nature/essence/substance from the originals.

Some humans are probably more "perfect" than others. Some probably represent Adam better... but that doesn't mean the rest of us aren't human. Some Bible versions are more like the original and better than others but the others are still the Word of God... that's what the KJV translators meant when they said that even the "meanest" translation was the Word of God.

 

[robycop3]

The AV/KJV went along for over 300 years without anyone's starting any KJVOnly doctrine about it. Seems as if God had made it His "one and only", He would've:

a.) Destroyed all other versions.

b.) Not allowed any more English versions(or editions) to have been made.

By the KJVO logic, if I have ever slept in a garage, I'd now be a car.

 

[skanwmatos]

The TRUE number is less than 250 years. But then we all know that, don't we?

 

[Trotter]

ScottJ,

Great job! You have really captured the essence of the entire arguement. Unfortunately, it did not come from the TR, nor was it translated in 1611 (and revised numerous times), so therefore it cannot be the truth. Besides, where are the 'thees' and 'thous'? I mean, didn't you know that is how God talks? Sheesh!

Great job, dude!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Trotter:
Besides, where are the 'thees' and 'thous'? I mean, didn't you know that is how God talks?

Well, actually, that IS how God talks! The "thees" and "thous" as opposed to the "you" and "ye" pronouns simply show us the difference between singular (thee, thou) and plural (ye, you) and subjective (thou, ye) and objective (thee, you) exactly the way the Greek does, the language God inspired the NT in.

 

[gb93433]

That was well put.

 

[skanwmatos]

I thought so too.

 

[robycop3]

Skanwmatos:Well, actually, that IS how God talks! The "thees" and "thous" as opposed to the "you" and "ye" pronouns simply show us the difference between singular (thee, thou) and plural (ye, you) and subjective (thou, ye) and objective (thee, you) exactly the way the Greek does, the language God inspired the NT in.

Did God not make English & the other "Romance languages"(as well as all others)? Did He not cause His words spoken aloud by the Apostles at the "first pentecost" to be understood by each listener in his/her own language, Greek, Hebrew, Parthian, or Slobbovian?

 

[skanwmatos]

Once again, you are not making any sense. Are you denying the Greek differentiates between the singular and plural, and subjective and objective of pronouns?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Once again, you are not making any sense. Are you denying the Greek differentiates between the singular and plural, and subjective and objective of pronouns?

Kind of shows how poorly the English translates the OT and NT.

But there are other tenses the English does not have either.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Kind of shows how poorly the English translates the OT and NT.

The translations which use the generic "you," yes. But the translations which use "ye," "you," "thee," and "thou" are much closer to the original languages.

But there are other tenses the English does not have either.

Not really. Most Colleges and Seminaries teach 5 case Greek today including nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, and vocative. Some also teach the locative, for a total of 6. A.T. Robertson adds the ablative and the instrumental for a total of 8, but most Greek scholars attribute the last 2 (some say the last 3) to the influence of Latin.

English also has at least the first 4 cases, nominative (subject), accusative (direct object) genitive (possession), dative (indirect object). The difference being that in English, as word order often has much more importance than in Greek, it is possible to understand the sentence without knowing the case of the words involved. Most English speakers are terribly ignorant of their own language!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Kind of shows how poorly the English translates the OT and NT.

The translations which use the generic "you," yes. But the translations which use "ye," "you," "thee," and "thou" are much closer to the original languages.

But there are other tenses the English does not have either.

Not really. Most Colleges and Seminaries teach 5 case Greek today including nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, and vocative. Some also teach the locative, for a total of 6. A.T. Robertson adds the ablative and the instrumental for a total of 8, but most Greek scholars attribute the last 2 (some say the last 3) to the influence of Latin.

English also has at least the first 4 cases, nominative (subject), accusative (direct object) genitive (possession), dative (indirect object). The difference being that in English, as word order often has much more importance than in Greek, it is possible to understand the sentence without knowing the case of the words involved. Most English speakers are terribly ignorant of their own language!

</font>[/QUOTE]You are right. I didn't think about that. I should have said things like the middle voice along with some of the stems in Hebrew such as piel, pual, hiphil, hophal and hithpael. I was also thinking of how pronouns are often used to show emphasis in Greek.

I am one of those that learned Greek better than English. When I was in school the philosophy was that the more you read the better you will be in English. That just isn't so. I read about 2000 words per minute and still have trouble with English.

Not too long ago I was reading about when the singular "they" was dropped. I find that interesting that even some changes have been made in our lifetime. If I remember right that was about 1950. But I am not sure.

Thank you for correcting me.