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.