Doctrine verses "Versions"??

[TC]

Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
So, POR, question for you:

Name one single "doctrine" that is not shown in the (pick one), I'll use the NASB......?

Show verse and passage. It has to be a doctrine that will not be found anywhere in the NASB. and I DO mean a doctrine, not a few changed words in a verse.

Thanks

I'll stick with Ps 78:36 in the Nasv that tells the reader that they sucessfully "deceived" the LORD, instead of how the KJB shows emphatically that they only flattered Him, seems the KJB translators were onto something the mv advo's just can't seem to grasp: flattery means to deceive, but deceived shows the deception successful in it's action, that is false doctrine being taught in the Nasv, PERIOD! </font>[/QUOTE]Do you still truly believe that God was really flattered by those lying to Him? You just cannot grasp that God knew they were lying and that He was not impressed - as I have shown by posting the verse in full context with the verses surrounding it. You still have not shown anything.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
AVL, no one you disagree with can show you anything, not w/o your trying to say they twist scripture, but then you're duped by the teachings of mere men who wish to alter the doctrines of the Bible to fit their lifestyle

IOW - I am just making blanket statements I have no proof for. If you have evidence, post it.

 

[AVL1984]

I have noticed he disappears any time people ask for concrete proof of his blanket statements and the twisting of God's words. He has not evidence, TC.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
POR, you can attack me all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you are not able to discern or get a truthful answer from you. You've still not shown how hermeneutics alters doctrines. You attack those who don't agree to your warped logic. In other words, you use typical evasion tactics because you have no answers. Now, please, get back to the question. How does hermeneutics alter doctrines?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You might want to take a good, long, hard look at yourself in the mirror.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Back to the subject: Name one doctrine not found in the NASB, NIV or ESV that is in the KJV. Do NOT quote a verse that says: He (with a capital letter, duh.) instead of Jesus or Jesus Christ. (unless you can tell me exactly what the Greek says.

In ten pages, nobody has yet to prove one. Don't give me your "feelings" about what is changed. Give me the specific "doctrine". That is what this ten page thread is for and not one has been proven yet. Here's your chance.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
POR, you can attack me all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you are not able to discern or get a truthful answer from you. You've still not shown how hermeneutics alters doctrines. You attack those who don't agree to your warped logic. In other words, you use typical evasion tactics because you have no answers. Now, please, get back to the question. How does hermeneutics alter doctrines?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You might want to take a good, long, hard look at yourself in the mirror.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Why should he, its a reasonable question?

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
POR, you can attack me all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you are not able to discern or get a truthful answer from you. You've still not shown how hermeneutics alters doctrines. You attack those who don't agree to your warped logic. In other words, you use typical evasion tactics because you have no answers. Now, please, get back to the question. How does hermeneutics alter doctrines?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You might want to take a good, long, hard look at yourself in the mirror.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Showing fallacy from POR is not wrong, Michelle...and I wouldn't talk if I were you. You've attacked all MV users here as well as the moderators. Being as "loving" as you are according to your signature line...you might want to consider closing your oral cavity.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
POR, you can attack me all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you are not able to discern or get a truthful answer from you. You've still not shown how hermeneutics alters doctrines. You attack those who don't agree to your warped logic. In other words, you use typical evasion tactics because you have no answers. Now, please, get back to the question. How does hermeneutics alter doctrines?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You might want to take a good, long, hard look at yourself in the mirror.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Why should he, its a reasonable question? </font>[/QUOTE]Phillip, Michelle is just upset because her doctrine of KJV Onlyism and circular reasoning has been totally and consistantly exposed by others. She's just lashing out. I would expect that from her.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
Phillip, Michelle is just upset because her doctrine of KJV Onlyism and circular reasoning has been totally and consistantly exposed by others. She's just lashing out. I would expect that from her.

Yep, I know Michelle well, by now. I feel she honestly means good in her heart, but like many other well meaning people, has been trapped into an almost "cultic" belief that there is no reasoning in the world that would convince her otherwise.

When she cannot debate with specific responses to questions, she resorts to pointing out scriptures referring to "wise men" and how they are fooled into not seeing the truth. This is her personal way of lashing out at those who shove facts at her. It is reactionary and not a legitimate debate practice.

Once the smoke clears it boils down to; "circular reasoning" and "burning of the bossom" become their only reality. Not obvious facts. Sad, but true.

 

[Trotter]

You have hit the proverbial nail sqaurely on the head, Phillip old boy.

All of this KJVO spin puts Taz to shame.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

No, I don't "disappear", it's just I have a life BEYOND the computer and well away from the BB even at that opportunity.

Hermanuetics has adopted the teachings that only give a portion of the understanding of any said Scripture. It has been clearly evidenced in the sentence structure concerning Psalm 12 that verse 6,7 are speaking of the Word of God and not people, or do yall somehow leave out plain sentence structure when dealing with topical references concerning Scripture? Obviously.

I admit many "scholars" adopt that these are "people" and not the "words", but that goes directly inline with apostacy, sad but true.

So, go 'head, read what you like into the Scripture, men are doing that which is right in their own eyes.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I admit many "scholars" adopt that these are "people" and not the "words", but that goes directly inline with apostacy, sad but true.

Did this apostacy affect the translators of the AV1611, POR? They listed the "people" translation in their sidenotes so they gave it some credence.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Seems more they gave it the objective point of view, not all KJB's have that side note, but then "people" are "words" too, if one will look a little closer at the Hebrew, that is.

 

[robycop3]

POR, the AV 1611 has that note! ! ! ! it was placed there by the translators, but removed by the revisers ! ! Most of the older versions say "him"!

Why make such a big deal over that verse when there are plenty of others which VERY CLEARLYsay God has preserved His word? Why try to prove a meaning which is dubious at best when so many other CLEAR proofs exist????

I can answer...BENJAMIN WILKINSON WROTE IT IN HIS BOOK, AND THE DISHONEST KJVO AUTHORS WHO FOLLOWED HIM COPIED HIS ERROR...AND TODAY'S KJVOS NOT ONLY FOLLOW THIS OLD ERROR, BUT TRY TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!

This is further proof that the whole KJVO myth is so much codwallop...following a proven error, which is bad enough, but then trying to JUSTIFY it reminds me of Nixon trying to justify a B&E in the Watergate.

 

[robycop3]

Plain Ol' Ralph:I admit many "scholars" adopt that these are "people" and not the "words", but that goes directly inline with apostacy, sad but true.

Among those 'apostate' scholars were the men who wrote your fave BV!

So, go 'head, read what you like into the Scripture, men are doing that which is right in their own eyes.

That would be the KJVOs who think they know more about the KJV than the men who wrote it.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Uh, they translated the KJB Ps 12:6,7 just as it reads, but gave the objective rendering in the side note Roby, learn something!

 

[TC]

Which meant that they thought it was a valid alternative. I.E., it could also be translated that way in the main text.

 

[natters]

Plain ol' Ralph said "Uh, they translated the KJB Ps 12:6,7 just as it reads, but gave the objective rendering in the side note"

No, not "objective" reading but "alternative" reading.

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point."

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

OK, so yall rather have the alternate reading rather than the Word of God.

 

[natters]

Plain ol' Ralph said "OK, so yall rather have the alternate reading rather than the Word of God."

Maybe you are confused about how translation works.