Bound to words used in 1611?

[Ed Edwards]

It appears Mr. Correa may be deciding on whether he wants to stand for the truth being told (that the KJVO stance is a myth) or whethere he really meant in when he said he wouldn't stand for the myth being called a myth. If Mr. Correa meant what he said, then it forces him to leave BB because here we call a myth a myth. Mr. Correa's staunch refusal to accept the truth over and over again just shows that he has nothing of value to contribute to these discussions. All he has to contribute is more and more myth - poor, deluded soul!

I think I'll sue you for definiltion of character :tear: :sleeping_2:

 

[HankD]

I just gave examples off the toppa my head, Hank. I'm sure there are plentya others I don't know.

Me too Roby.

This one ("bishop") is particularly troublesome for the radical KJVO who are Baptist. If they are "purists", they cannot go to the Greek because the English is superior. However the KJV English flies in the face of the Baptist distinctive of two offices only - pastor and deacon.

HankD

 

[Keith M]

I think I'll sue you for definiltion of character :tear: :sleeping_2:

I'm a turnip, Ed!

 

[Ed Edwards]

But you are certainly a GRADE A, Type #1 turnip :thumbs:

Oops, my bad - the word 'turnip' appears neither in
the KJV1611 Edition nor the more used KJV1769 Edition.
Therefore it is untopical to speak of 'turnip'.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Me too Roby.

This one ("bishop") is particularly troublesome for the radical KJVO who are Baptist. If they are "purists", they cannot go to the Greek because the English is superior. However the KJV English flies in the face of the Baptist distinctive of two offices only - pastor and deacon.

HankD

Therefore we can only assume that
in the KJV(s) Bishop = Pastor.

If we choose to define Bishop = Pastor OR Deacon, then
You will begin referring to me as 'Brother Bishop Ed'
or 'Bishop Brother Ed' or 'Bishop Ed for short' :applause:

 

[william s. correa]

OK

Once again, Mr. Correa...Will you answer Ed Edwards' question?

All of them:thumbs:

 

[william s. correa]

I know

My poor deluded soul needed a Savior and He came looking for me! Nothing in my hand I bring but Simply to the Cross I cling! I am what I am By the Grace of God! If it were not for God writting the AV 1611 we all would be Speaking French(Waterloo),thank God for prayer. :flower:

 

[robycop3]

All of them:thumbs:

But they're all different. Gotta pick ONE.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

If it were not for God writting the AV 1611 we all would be Speaking French(Waterloo),thank God for prayer. :flower:

I'm sure glad we don't speak French, if we did I wouldn't be able to read my NIV.

Thank God for the NIV! :thumbs:

 

[Trotter]

If it were not for God writting the AV 1611

Well, there's a big part of the problem.

God used men way back when to pen the Scriptures. Other men (scribes) copied these Scriptures for centuries. Many other men translated the words into other languages. Then in the beginning of the 17th century, a translation was sponsered by the English crown and was compiled/translated by another group of men.

God is the author of Scripture, but He didn't take up a pen and personally transcribe the 1611. If He had, there wouldn't have been any need for all the revisions/editions it has gone through.

But the sad part is that the KJVO myth spins this yarn exactly as William put it...

 

[DesiderioDomini]

lol

Personal attack deleted

 

[Keith M]

If it were not for God writting the AV 1611 we all would be Speaking French(Waterloo),thank God for prayer. :flower:

More myth, Will! You just don't get it, do you? Your statement only adds more error to the KJVO myth.

BTW, did you decide to stick around even though we call a myth a myth here at BB? I thought you weren't going to stand for the truth being told. With all the KJVO myth and error you spread, you're about as far from truth as east is from west.

:laugh: :sleeping_2: :thumbs:

 

[robycop3]

My poor deluded soul needed a Savior and He came looking for me! Nothing in my hand I bring but Simply to the Cross I cling! I am what I am By the Grace of God! If it were not for God writting the AV 1611 we all would be Speaking French(Waterloo),thank God for prayer. :flower:

The first parta yer post applies to all Christians here, but the second part is pure conjecture. The AV, which was over 200 years old when the battle of Waterloo occurred, has nothing to do with the outcome of the battle. And England was in no great peril then. The sea battle of Trafalgar was much more important for the future of England. Though Napoleon continued to have a formidable land army, he had no way to get them to England after the battle of Trafalgar. And the AV had nothing to do with that battle, either.

 

[william s. correa]

Well I sure Hope so!

More myth, Will! You just don't get it, do you? Your statement only adds more error to the KJVO myth.

BTW, did you decide to stick around even though we call a myth a myth here at BB? I thought you weren't going to stand for the truth being told. With all the KJVO myth and error you spread, you're about as far from truth as east is from west.

:laugh: :sleeping_2: :thumbs:

I am glad that my sins are as far as the East is from the West! I never said I wasnt going to stand for the truth beeing told, I said I wasn't going to stand for Lies beeig told. It is that Idiotic Phrase that really gets the truth to be told! Because there really isn't such a thing(KJVO Myth) but only in your mind! The fact is that the KJB is the Word and No one will deny that but on the other hand? Lets face it the only error here is trying to have your cake and eat too! Like Roby said "Pick ONE" and I have! No one Here will dispute wether or not the KJB is the Word but Many will dispute the opposite.Now then, whats your Question?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[william s. correa]

what part is that?

The first parta yer post applies to all Christians here, but the second part is pure conjecture. The AV, which was over 200 years old when the battle of Waterloo occurred, has nothing to do with the outcome of the battle. And England was in no great peril then. The sea battle of Trafalgar was much more important for the future of England. Though Napoleon continued to have a formidable land army, he had no way to get them to England after the battle of Trafalgar. And the AV had nothing to do with that battle, either.

Now as far as the Battle of Waterloo and the "Bound to words used in the 1611" the Irony is that the battle took place in a thick Fog and the message was relayed but only half was understood due to the fog! the Message was that Wellington defeated.... and a thick fog set in for 6 hours and the flag man finally got thru "Wellington defeated Napoleon" Alot of us are still waiting for that last transmission from the Lord But as I see It he gave us His Word and We Know that Jesus defeated Satan thanks to the AV 1611! And I am sure they Had a Copy of it then Thanks and God Bless. Next! :tongue3:

 

[Scott J]

God didn't write the AV 1611. It was a translation made by scholarly men. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Rippon]

It was more of a revision than a translation I think .

William : Have you taken a look at my thread on archaic words in the KJV ? I seriously doubt that you could hazard a guess as to the meaning of many of those phrases without looking at a modern rendering .

 

[Trotter]

The fact is that the KJB is the Word and No one will deny that

No one here has denied that, Will. No one at all.

thanks to the AV 1611!

So, not only was it good enough for Paul, but Jesus was in on it, too?

Edit: Just noticed the moniker under Will's name. I guess he won't read that then, huh?

 

[Rippon]

Well he could still read it , but not as a member . Maybe he will just take a well-deserved break from his articulate meanderings . Perhaps he can return in the future with good behavior . Can anyone take his unique place on the BB now ?

 

[Keith M]

I am glad that my sins are as far as the East is from the West! I never said I wasnt going to stand for the truth beeing told, I said I wasn't going to stand for Lies beeig told. It is that Idiotic Phrase that really gets the truth to be told! Because there really isn't such a thing(KJVO Myth) but only in your mind! The fact is that the KJB is the Word and No one will deny that but on the other hand? Lets face it the only error here is trying to have your cake and eat too! Like Roby said "Pick ONE" and I have! No one Here will dispute wether or not the KJB is the Word but Many will dispute the opposite.Now then, whats your Question?:smilewinkgrin:

Mr. Correa, you didn't say that you weren't going to stand for lies being told any more than I said East and West are one and the same. Get your story straight, will you?

The prhase "KJVO myth" is an ATTACK on the Word of God And I will NOT Stand for it! YOU are the Ones using the term and I am sick of it! Find another Slogan cause it really makes the KJB just like any other and it aint so. If one thinks he can change ones mind by playing mind games;that is Not Christ like! The Holy Bible is not a myth and who ever uses that word in conjunction with the Word is Not playing by the BB rules and Frankly has no bearings on wether or not I want to read any other Version, and the more I hear the phrase the more I want to read the KJB and Nothing else!

Are you going to deny you said you would not stand for the use of the term "KJVO myth?" Will, your entire KJVO stance is based on nothing but error and conjecture. The KJVO stance you support is nothing but myth. It is a myth and we here at BB will continue to call it a myth. Remember, "a rose by any other name is still a rose." Calling the KJVO stance you support a myth is definitely not an attack on the word of God - it is an attack on the errors and the ignorance that make up the KJVO myth. So no matter how you want to white-wash it, your KJVO stance is pure myth. There is no sciptural support for it, and it is based on the "knowledge" of men rather than on the knowledge of the word.

Now what is it you were saying?...