Did God Die In 1611?

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Orvie:
I wasn't aware that the "t's" and the "i's" were in the Hebrew and Greek!

They aren't. But you were talking about jots and tittles in English, remember?

I wonder what the jots and tittles are in French, German, Patios, Swahili, Mongolian, Russian, Italian, etc, etc, etc....

But, of course, you were not talking about French, German, Patios, Swahili, Mongolian, Russian, Italian. You were talking about English.

sorry friend, I believe that the jots and tittles only apply to the language our Bible was originally inspired in...

Then you have a very shallow understanding of English grammar. Look up the word "tittle" in any good dictionary.

 

[Orvie]

Wow. "jots and tiitles" in English existed way back even in the first century.whew! that's news to me.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Orvie:
Wow. "jots and tiitles" in English existed way back even in the first century.whew! that's news to me.

Orvie, why do you have to start lying when the error of your argument is pointed out to you? Nobody said anything about the English existing in the first century.

Here is what YOU said, "where are the "jots and tittles" of the 1611 when ya open your 1769?"

See that? The "jots and tittles" you mention were the ones in the 1611, and your contention was that they were missing from the 1769. I pointed out that the jots and tittles of the 1611 were still present in the 1769.

Why is it that your arguments sound so much like the KJVO arguments? You try to twist the subject away from your error and imply something entirely different.

 

[Askjo]

Those men, who produced their MVs, use "peddle" instead of "corrupt" because they huckstered corrupted words with pure words in their MVs and PEDDLE their MVs for $$$$. I heard someone, whom I know, made $$$ from MV business.

"The word kaphleuontev, from kaphlov, a tavernkeeper, signifies acting like an unprincipled vintner; for this class of men have ever been notorious for adulterating their wines, mixing them with liquors of no worth, that thereby they might increase their quantity; and thus the mixture was sold for the same price as the pure wine.

That is how modern versions are produced and to sell for $$$$$ -- profit.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Those men, who produced their MVs, use "peddle" instead of "corrupt" because they huckstered corrupted words with pure words in their MVs and PEDDLE their MVs for $$$$. I heard someone, whom I know, made $$$ from MV business.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> "The word kaphleuontev, from kaphlov, a tavernkeeper, signifies acting like an unprincipled vintner; for this class of men have ever been notorious for adulterating their wines, mixing them with liquors of no worth, that thereby they might increase their quantity; and thus the mixture was sold for the same price as the pure wine.

That is how modern versions are produced and to sell for $$$$$ -- profit. </font>[/QUOTE]Abject fatuity, nothing more.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Orvie:
I wasn't aware that the "t's" and the "i's" were in the Hebrew and Greek! I wonder what the jots and tittles are in French, German, Patios, Swahili, Mongolian, Russian, Italian, etc, etc, etc....sorry friend, I believe that the jots and tittles only apply to the language our Bible was originally inspired in...

Oops, you just shot down the King James Version. The translators responsible for the MT had the audacity to add VOWELS to the ancient Hebrew texts. Vowels would certainly be considered "jots and tittles."

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"The word kaphleuontev, from kaphlov, a tavernkeeper, signifies acting like an unprincipled vintner; for this class of men have ever been notorious for adulterating their wines, mixing them with liquors of no worth, that thereby they might increase their quantity; and thus the mixture was sold for the same price as the pure wine.

That is how modern versions are produced and to sell for $$$$$ -- profit. </font>[/QUOTE]So you agree that "peddle" is correct?

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
Wow. "jots and tiitles" in English existed way back even in the first century.whew! that's news to me.

Orvie, why do you have to start lying when the error of your argument is pointed out to you? Nobody said anything about the English existing in the first century.

Here is what YOU said, "where are the "jots and tittles" of the 1611 when ya open your 1769?"

See that? The "jots and tittles" you mention were the ones in the 1611, and your contention was that they were missing from the 1769. I pointed out that the jots and tittles of the 1611 were still present in the 1769.

Why is it that your arguments sound so much like the KJVO arguments? You try to twist the subject away from your error and imply something entirely different. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
Wow. "jots and tiitles" in English existed way back even in the first century.whew! that's news to me.

Orvie, why do you have to start lying when the error of your argument is pointed out to you? Nobody said anything about the English existing in the first century.

Here is what YOU said, "where are the "jots and tittles" of the 1611 when ya open your 1769?"

See that? The "jots and tittles" you mention were the ones in the 1611, and your contention was that they were missing from the 1769. I pointed out that the jots and tittles of the 1611 were still present in the 1769.

Why is it that your arguments sound so much like the KJVO arguments? You try to twist the subject away from your error and imply something entirely different. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, just like about 75% of the folks who disagree w/ you, I am a liar and dishonest. Do ya appreciate my sarcasm?
I know w/o a doubt you are intelligent, and trusting you have the humility to match, so allow me to explain my reasoning: The KJVO exalts the KJV by claiming the "jots and tittles" argument. If that were the case, the "EXACT" "jots and tittles" of the 1611, are not in the 1769, hence: GONE; passed away. I was attempting to bring out the logical conclusion, that the alleged "jots and tittles" of the 1611, did not all, 100% carry over to the 1769.
To be clear, I do not belive the English has the yodh , the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.(Greek iota ) Nor do I believe when Jesus spoke of the "tittle", refering to the small extension on a Hebrew letter, differentiating (sp?)from another letter, He meant English.
The bottom line is that I was attempting to show the inconsistency in the KJVO's using this argument, by demonstration.
signed,
The Honest Liar, who is dishonest.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Orvie:
Yes, just like about 75% of the folks who disagree w/ you, I am a liar and dishonest. Do ya appreciate my sarcasm?

I don't consider lying to be sarcasm!

To be clear, I do not belive the English has the yodh , the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.(Greek iota ) Nor do I believe when Jesus spoke of the "tittle", refering to the small extension on a Hebrew letter, differentiating (sp?)from another letter, He meant English.

Nice try at changing the subject, but that is NOT what you said. You said "where are the "jots and tittles" of the 1611 when ya open your 1769?"

The bottom line is that I was attempting to show the inconsistency in the KJVO's using this argument, by demonstration.

Just as I demonstrated the fallacy of your statement. Time to get over it and get on with your life.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
Yes, just like about 75% of the folks who disagree w/ you, I am a liar and dishonest. Do ya appreciate my sarcasm?

I don't consider lying to be sarcasm!

To be clear, I do not belive the English has the yodh , the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.(Greek iota ) Nor do I believe when Jesus spoke of the "tittle", refering to the small extension on a Hebrew letter, differentiating (sp?)from another letter, He meant English.

Nice try at changing the subject, but that is NOT what you said. You said "where are the "jots and tittles" of the 1611 when ya open your 1769?"

The bottom line is that I was attempting to show the inconsistency in the KJVO's using this argument, by demonstration.

Just as I demonstrated the fallacy of your statement. Time to get over it and get on with your life. </font>[/QUOTE]You sure are a contradiction. Obviously intelligent and learned, but missing the "spirit" of my post (and others) for the letter. If you'll notice, the words "jots and tittles" are in quotations....you can slice and dice and practice anyway you so choose, but the "jots and tittles" (in quotations)from the 1611, did not carry over to the 1769, therefore the inconsistency of using that argument still fails. I'm doing my best to communicate what I mean by "jots and tittles", which when Jesus spoke, had nothing to do with the English, am I still failing to make my point?..and don't call me a liar please if I've failed to articulate my position properly. I sure wish the other posters would chime in so I can better guage whether it's me who fails to communicate, or Skan who fails to clearly understand the meaning of my point.
Skan, remember the movie, "The Beautiful Mind"?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Orvie:
the "jots and tittles" (in quotations)from the 1611, did not carry over to the 1769,

Please give an instance where the jots and tittles present in the 1611 are not present in the 1762/1769.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orvie:
the "jots and tittles" (in quotations)from the 1611, did not carry over to the 1769,

Please give an instance where the jots and tittles present in the 1611 are not present in the 1762/1769. </font>[/QUOTE]I hope you don't mind if I refer you to the article that "inspired" (not Holy Spirit inspired )my "jots and tittles" reasoning. www.KJVonly.org/doug/not_one_iote.htm If it doesn't go through this was go to the site and find articles by Doug Kutilek.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
So you agree that "peddle" is correct?

Did the KJV say that?

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Orvie:
Wow. "jots and tiitles" in English existed way back even in the first century.whew! that's news to me.

Just like alphas and omegas? Is it really so hard?

Lacy

 

[Trotter]

Don't worry, Orvie. I understood your intent loud and clear.

Skan, just look at the spelling if nothing else. If the 1611 is the perfection of God's word, why does our KJV say "believe" instead of "belieue"? Why is the apocrypha missing?

Things that are different are not the same. Sound familiar?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Trotter:
Skan, just look at the spelling if nothing else. If the 1611 is the perfection of God's word, why does our KJV say "believe" instead of "belieue"? Why is the apocrypha missing?

The old "u" in the place of "v" does not indicate a lack of a jot (cross mark on the letter "t") or a tittle (the dot over the letter "i").

Things that are different are not the same. Sound familiar?

Not the point. The point I am making is the "jot and tittle" argument is old, stale, and way off point. Not to mention incorrect.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Did the KJV say that?

No, you used the verse containing the word "peddle" to "prove" your point. If you use it as proof it must be correct! Or else you are making a false point.

 

[Trotter]

Skan,

Are you always this literal?

The point was that the editions of the KJV that people have today are not exactly like the original 1611. There are minor differences ("jot and tittles"...see the quotation marks?).

I know that "the 'jot and tittle' argument is old, stale, and way off point. Not to mention incorrect." I never said it wasn't. But no one was implying that the T's weren't crossed or the I's weren't dotted. This whole rabbit trail has been a play on words that you either missed, or are being rather 'stich-in-the-mud' literal about.

Lighten up. Relax. Take deep breathes...deep breathes...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
No, you used the verse containing the word "peddle" to "prove" your point. If you use it as proof it must be correct! Or else you are making a false point.

MVs said it, not the KJV.