Did God Die In 1611?

[skanwmatos]

What part of "attacking the KJV bible is not the solution to KJVOism" don't you understand?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Again, you are playing right into their hand, falsely accusing me of attacking the "KJV bible." I would never attack the KJV, but I am not going to falsely play stupid and write that it is easy to read. Here in my library, I have articles written by KJOists that claim that the KJV is translated at the 5th or 6th grade level. These same articles include lists of words from contemporary translations like the NASB, NRSV and the NIV to prove that these versions are more difficult to read than the KJV. Most of the words that they quote are technical terms in the original writings and must be translated using technical terms that are not commonly known by English speaking people. These articles then quote verses from the KJV that translate these technical terms using words that are either less precise or completely wrong but more commonly known by English speaking readers. In other words, they skew the data using misleading lists of words.

I did not play any games here; I simply posted data showing that the KJV uses many words that are not commonly understood by English speaking readers.

In the post that I am now addressing, you spelled the word Bible in reference to the KJV using a lower case "b." And YOU accuse ME of attacking the KJV???

 

[DeclareHim]

There is no proof about texts. But I can say you are the one attacking Alexandrian texts so its up to you to find fault with them not me to prove your texts are wrong.

 

[DeclareHim]

the above post was meant for homebound.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I did not play any games here; I simply posted data showing that the KJV uses many words that are not commonly understood by English speaking readers.

Which, of course, is NOT THE POINT! KJVOism isn't about archaic words! It is about a denial of historic and manuscript evidence!

In the post that I am now addressing, you spelled the word Bible in reference to the KJV using a lower case "b." And YOU accuse ME of attacking the KJV???

Only a [snip]would insist that the word "bible" is a proper noun and require capitalization.

[ June 27, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Christ4Kildare ]

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
There is no proof about texts. But I can say you are the one attacking Alexandrian texts so its up to you to find fault with them not me to prove your texts are wrong.

I agree. When Homebound condemns the Alexandrian text she also condemn 95% of the text type from which the KJV was translated. Everyone who has ever looked at both text types knows they agree 95% of the time, and of the 5% of the time they disagree, 90% of those disagreements are simply minor differences in the spelling of Greek words. I wonder why they attack the Alexandrian manuscripts for spelling differences and in the same breath excuse the 70,000 spelling differences between the AV1611 and the KJV1762/1769?

Now, I will be the first to admit I prefer the Byzantine text type over the Alexandrian text type, and believe the historic evidence more strongly suggests it to be the best representative of the original manuscripts, but, nevertheless, the Alexandrian text is still more like the Byzantine text then the AV1611 is like the KJV1762/1769!

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

I agree. When Homebound condemns the Alexandrian text she also condemn 95% of the text type from which the KJV was translated. Everyone who has ever looked at both text types knows they agree 95% of the time,

Well of course it's gotta look like the real thing.And yes,it will match "95%" of the time;BUT,the 5% is leaven--Begining with the Arian rendering of John 1:18:A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,Galatians 5:9.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Well of course it's gotta look like the real thing.And yes,it will match "95%" of the time;BUT,the 5% is leaven....

This is an excellent point. Changing even less than 5% of the text of the Bible could radically change the teachings of the Bible. Simply by changing John 3:16 to read,

For God so hated the world, that he refused to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

we would have a very different Bible.

But, and this is a very big BUT, we do not find anything even remotely like this in the Alexandrian text-type. As Scanwmatos pointed out, the vast majority of the 5% are technical differences that do not affect any significant Bible doctrine. And those that do, rather than denying or teaching against a significant Bible doctrine, simply do not specifically support it, such as the reading in Col. 1:14:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (KJV)

in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (NASB, 1995)

However, when we read Eph. 1:7 we find,

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (KJV)

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace (NASB, 1995)

I have seen several articles written by KJOists that say that the Alexandrian text-type and the “modern versions” based largely or wholly upon it deny the blood atonement of Christ. These articles teach a lie rather than the truth.

The very large majority of Biblical scholars believe that the Alexandrian text-type more accurately reflects the original New Testament documents, and these beliefs are based upon MANY factors, the age of the manuscripts being only one of the factors. But whether these scholars are correct, or Scanwmatos is correct, there are no significant doctrinal differences between the Alexandrian and the Byzantine text-types, or between the KJV and the NASB. One could argue differently about the NIV, and I suppose that is why KJOists like to focus their attacks on it. But the doctrinal problems with the NIV are not a consequence of it being based on the Alexandrian text-type, but are a consequence of the doctrinal position of its editors and their use of “dynamic” rather than “formal” equivalence in their translation.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I posted four list; the first two, long were lists of words in the King James translation of the Bible that do not mean the same thing today as they did in 1611, and because of that fact, they are very commonly misunderstood today.

That is why we, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Homebound’s favorite tactic in defending claims against KJOism is diversion, and you fell for it! He posted ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute my claim that the King James translation of the Bible if difficult to read. Instead he/diverted the conversation to the NIV. And YOU are laughing?

No diversion, just showing that the other versions has words that cannot be understood. As I have said before, the only reason the Bible is difficult to read is laziness on the reader, myself included. Sure there are some words that are not used today, and/or have changed meaning, but a new translation every time a word changes is not necessary. I have learned that reading in context is a big helper. Also praying that God will give one understanding of his word helps also.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
There is no proof about texts. But I can say you are the one attacking Alexandrian texts so its up to you to find fault with them not me to prove your texts are wrong.

I do not have the knowledge to do this. However, in the Bible, God saved his people(Israel) from Pharaoh, who was in Egypt. Alexandria is in Egypt, so the way I see it is, no good thing came from Egypt.

 

[robycop3]

Homebound:I do not have the knowledge to do this. However, in the Bible, God saved his people(Israel) from Pharaoh, who was in Egypt. Alexandria is in Egypt, so the way I see it is, no good thing came from Egypt.

God sent J&M with Jesus to live in Egypt till herod died.

Apollos came from Alexandria.

And from the KJV:

Isaiah 19:24
In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be **Egypt my people**, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

But HOW can you maintain your position when the Bible(KJB)is SILENT concerning Alexandria and the word of God!!??? The Bible makes it plain in Acts that the word of God has it's roots in Syria(Byzantium).FACT!


To Ape what you say:I want Biblical proof for your position!

 

[robycop3]

Anti-Alexandrian:But HOW can you maintain your position when the Bible(KJB)is SILENT concerning Alexandria and the word of God!!???

The KJV is silent about the Chinese, Japanese, and all the people of the two American continents, as well as many others. Did not Jesus die for their sins also?


The Bible makes it plain in Acts that the word of God has it's roots in Syria(Byzantium).FACT!

BUUZZZ!

NOT fact! The OT was written largely in Israel or Judah, while the NT was written in various places from Jerusalem to Rome to several Greek cities, and other cities in Asia Minor under Roman control. The ROOTS of the NT are from the Judea area where JESUS walked. No matter where the Gospels were written, they're narrations of Jesus' earthly life in the land promised to Israel.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
The KJV is silent about the Chinese, Japanese, and all the people of the two American continents, as well as many others. Did not Jesus die for their sins also?

Uh, I think you may have missed AA's point. No part of the NT was directed to churches in China, Japan, or the Americas.

NOT fact!

Uh, well, for the most part, AA is correct.

the NT was written in various places from Jerusalem to Rome to several Greek cities, and other cities in Asia Minor under Roman control.

Uh, check out where those writings were addressed to.

The ROOTS of the NT are from the Judea area where JESUS walked.

The Gospel accounts were written starting about 65-70 AD for Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and John sometime after 90AD. Ask yourself where those men were at that time. None of them were in Jerusalem.

No matter where the Gospels were written, they're narrations of Jesus' earthly life in the land promised to Israel.

But where were the writers and where were the writings distributed?

Acts was written from the same place at about the same time as Luke.

Romans was written TO Rome during Paul's 3rd missionary journey, probably from Corinth, or possible Philippi.

In fact, all of the NT was written from places which we call Byzantium. The Greek city of Byzantium was founded in 667 BC, and Constantine made it the capital of his Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) in 313AD.

Even more important, the vast majority of the NT writings were addressed to cities within the Byzantine Empire. Although I disagree with most of AA's thesis, he is correct in noting that all of the NT was directed to or near Byzantium, and none of the NT was directed to or near Alexandria.

It stands to reason that the areas to which the NT writings were initially directed would more likely be the source of the most correct copies of those writings, and, with the presence of the original writings, destroying old and damaged copies would be more likely as the original was still available for copying. It was only in Alexandria that the old, damaged, and poorly copied apographs were kept in storage.

 

[Craigbythesea]

That is why we, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

The English word "study" is one of those words in the KJV that now has a very different meaning. The word "study" as used in the KJV in 2 Timothy 2:15 then meant to "be diligent." Paul is not telling Timothy to study the Bible; he is telling him to be diligent in his Christian walk, displaying conduct showing that he is approved by God, rightly dividing the word of truth. (Even a quick glance at the Greek text will show this to be so.)

 

[Craigbythesea]

It stands to reason that the areas to which the NT writings were initially directed would more likely be the source of the most correct copies of those writings, and, with the presence of the original writings, destroying old and damaged copies would be more likely as the original was still available for copying. It was only in Alexandria that the old, damaged, and poorly copied apographs were kept in storage.

Very amusing, but his really should be posted in the "Clean Humor" forum rather than in a Bible forum.

 

[skanwmatos]

Yes, people who lack critical reasoning skills often find logical conclusions funny.

 

[Craigbythesea]

 

[Craigbythesea]

Logic by Skanwmatos

Cats have for legs. Tables have four legs. Therefore, tables are cats that look like dogs.

 

[skanwmatos]

Once again you display your lack of critical reasoning skills. And tell a lie while doing it. That is a terrible shame.