Differentiation

Did you ever stop to think that Bibles in English "set forth by men of their profession" were not from Egyptian texts????

Of course you didn't!!

 

I did. The called the Septuagint "the word of God", which is both Egyptian and much more different from the KJV than any modern version I'm aware of.

 

Well they were WRONG..The LXX is in part the woG..

 

No they weren't.

 

Slambo,

So you resort to attacking the men who put together the KJV. Have you ever studied the real AV1611 and compared it to KJVOism? The AV translators are 180 degrees to KJVOism claims and false hoods.

You really need to read the AV1611. You know the one with the Apocrypha, The Message to the Reader, and those pesky marginal notes. If you read it then you might understand how these men felt about other bibles and the LXX.

 

You guys dont mind using them to try and prove your unscriptural position.And then out of the other side of your mouth curse them.Sounds like a blatant disregard of what Proverbs 11:1 says too me.....

 

Curse? You mean like when the KJVO curse Wescott and Hort?

HankD

 

Who has cursed them?

 

Perhaps Slambo's use of the word "curse" is inappropriate, but his point is well founded. Some folks will use the AV translators for one thing, then oppose them for the other. You can't have it BOTH ways.

(yes, we have seen it happen on our side also!)

JMHO

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Can you give a specific example?

 

For example;

Quoting them for their support of a "variety" of translations.

Opposing their "choice of words" in translating a passage, calling their wisdom in choices "errors".

So, on the one hand, we have supoport of their wisdom in "variety" and opposing their wisdom in word choices.

That is the MV side.
The KJVo side would be the opposite.

Supporting their wisdom in translation.
Opposing their wisdom in "variety" of translations.

See?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

He may be better looking, but God only made so many perfect heads and the rest he covered with hair. I haven't seen Robycop3, but I bet he has a nice head of hair.

 

Slambo, as moderator, I warn you against personal attacks. Stick to the subject being debated. If you cannot stick to the subject I will edit your posts and I prefer not to.
Thanks in advance for corporating.

 

The one does have to do with wisdom. The other does not when it comes to KJVOnlyism.

Their statements on translations and texts are "wise" scholarly opinions as are their word choices.

But that isn't where KJVOnlyism leaves their choice of words. KJVOnlyism makes their word choices the only acceptable ones and quite frequently attribute their work to a direct act of God.

Their word choices aren't only wise according to KJVO's- they are exclusively the only acceptable choices. Those choices aren't just wise but rather "perfect".

Wise doesn't mean perfect much less exclusive. I think most people here would agree that the KJV translators made "wise" word choices. Where we disagree is when that wisdom is said to have resulted in absolute divine perfection of wording.

 

Agreeing with someone about something, and disagreeing with them about something else is not "using" (nor attacking, nor cursing) them - nor is it something that's inherently wrong to do.

 

Where have you or any other KJV-only poster proved the man-made KJV-only theory to be the scriptural position and where have you proved the view of Bible translation that was held by William Tyndale, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and the KJV translators that I hold was "unscriptural?"

Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (PATTERN OF CATECHISTICAL DOCTRINE, p. 59).