SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
you mean CORRECT? it is as in ZED, as in almost ALL countries that speak English, with probably the USA being the exception, where it is ZEE!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Church English"...
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
you mean CORRECT? it is as in ZED, as in almost ALL countries that speak English, with probably the USA being the exception, where it is ZEE!
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
I don't use the bad ones. Go ahead and quote me on one.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Ecclesiastes 7:6 For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
KJVO is a false myth. But you would not know that as you are blinded by it!May the Lord open your eyes.
Interesting. Quote me on something I said about it.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
You are KJVO which is FALSE
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
You ignored my request.
Can't really answer, eh?
You hold that only the kjv is trustworthy, correct?
The 1769 Oxford edition [not the 1789] of the KJV as edited and revised by Benjamin Blayney can accurately and soundly be referred to as a revision. It would be an incorrect opinion or bad argument to try to claim that the 1769 is not a revision. Present post-1900 editions of the KJV are not the 1769 Oxford since they could have as many as 400 differences when compared to it. The 1769 Oxford introduced some new errors including one that remained in most Oxford and Cambridge editions for 100 years.
More than just updating of spelling and correction of typesetting errors were involved in the many changes to the 1611 edition. You indicate that you are somewhat uninformed about the 2,000+ differences between the 1611 edition and a post-1900 edition if you assume that "God" vs "the LORD" is the greatest difference.
Since you do not know that "God" at Isaiah 49:13 was kept in the 1611 from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible even though the Hebrew has the Hebrew name translated Jehovah in a few places, it may indicate a lack of some knowledge on your part concerning the actual facts concerning the 1611.
Do you use a bad argument when you asserted your stated human opinion to be a fact without proving it to be a fact?
You merely assume and do not prove what you claimed to be true. You have not proven from the Scripture that you hold and advocate the biblical understanding of inspiration. Perhaps you hold a non-biblical understanding of inspiration.
Textual criticism can be an effort to follow scriptural truth and instruction to remove any words added by men, restore any words omitted by copiers, and correct any changed words that diminish the meaning of the preserved original language words of Scripture. How would a just application of scriptural truth be humanistic?
Would you claim that the textual criticism of a humanist Erasmus corrupted the Biblical understanding of inspiration?
Perhaps you may over-generalize and try to conclude too much from a few examples. If your assertion may be true in some cases, it does not follow that it is true for all the words in older 1500's English.
Can you demonstrate that "turtle" is a better word to present the meaning of the original-language word of Scripture than turtledove or dove would be?
I find the language in the KJV easier to comprehend then logos strange phraseology.
Why would someone who claims to understand KJV language be unable to comprehend clear points that would state or affirm scriptural truth as translated in the KJV?
Do they not comprehend that the word of God is not bound?
Do they not comprehend that the wisdom from God above is without partiality and without hypocrisy?
Do they not comprehend that use of divers measures [double standards] is an abomination to the LORD?
Do they not comprehend that the opinions and traditions of men are not a doctrine of God?
Can they not comprehend that textual criticism could be described as an effort to follow scriptural truth and instruction to remove any words added by men, restore any words omitted by copiers, and correct any changed words that diminish the meaning of the preserved original language words of Scripture?
Do they not comprehend that the word of God is not bound?
Do they not comprehend that the wisdom from God above is without partiality and without hypocrisy?
Do they not comprehend that use of divers measures [double standards] is an abomination to the LORD?
Do they not comprehend that the opinions and traditions of men are not a doctrine of God?
Can they not comprehend that textual criticism could be described as an effort to follow scriptural truth and instruction to remove any words added by men, restore any words omitted by copiers, and correct any changed words that diminish the meaning of the preserved original language words of Scripture?
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
I had already responded to your superficial reasons. Now give some sound examples.
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Are you from Canada?you mean CORRECT? it is as in ZED, as in almost ALL countries that speak English, with probably the USA being the exception, where it is ZEE!
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm talking about now and the past 107 years. That's what counts.
And the correct spelling is British.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
RipponRedeaux
Well-Known Member
What in the world is a false myth? Is there such a thing as a true myth? Myths are myths. Profound, huh?