Grade Level

[EdSutton]

It is not misplaced trust and I will continue to dislike that statement. I believe that God is able to preserve His Word. The fact that the KJV has endured for 4 centuries is proof that He can. So no I have not misplaced any trust, nor am I in any way stating that you have. So cease and desist already.

Who gets to determine whether or not someone's 'trust' is or is not misplaced??

Uh- did I miss the memo, that the Holy Spirit sent out, on this one??

FTR, I do not recall any here who have suggested that God did not preserve His word, so isn't that sly insinuation a non-starter, to begin with??

And the D-R likewise has endured for 4 centuries, as well, as has also the GEN. Do you stand for them, as you do the KJV? If not, why not?? (You are the one who set up this criteria, not some of the rest of us.)

And the Vulgate (VUL) had already endured for more than 3 times as long as the KJV has been around, much longer than 2 1/2 times as long as the TYN and/or MCB, and in fact, more than twice as long as any complete English version, that of the WYC and WYC-P, before there ever was any KJV, of any flavor.

Do you 'defend' the VUL 3 times as much as you do the KJV or 2 times as much as the WYC which has been around for 6 1/4 Centuries? The VUL is 'big-time' preservation, I'd say.

Rippon has a point. And you are also correct that the KJV is a translation. But why does any one translation get any 'special' pass while another does not? Why should the KJV be accorded any higher place on the 'food chain' that the GEN, for example??

I suggest the major difference is between those who see the KJV as ONLY a very good and reputable version, and those who see the KJV as THE ONLY GOOD translation and the ONLY reputable version, and that, for all my Baptist Board friends, is a HUGE difference.

Ed

 

[gb93433]

I believe that God is able to preserve His Word. The fact that the KJV has endured for 4 centuries is proof that He can.

400 years? How about comparing that to God's word of many times more than that. I wonder how God ever declared His written word before the KJV of a time of more than 1600 years.

 

[Palatka51]

Who gets to determine whether or not someone's 'trust' is or is not misplaced??

Not you. Nor me.

 

[Palatka51]

No Rippon questioned my placement of trust.

 

[gb93433]

No Rippon questioned my placement of trust.

When you share your faith do you not also question one's trust until they prove they trust in Jesus?

 

[Rippon]

Who gets to determine whether or not someone's 'trust' is or is not misplaced??

That would be me.

Uh- did I miss the memo, that the Holy Spirit sent out, on this one??

Are you actually reading my posts carefully enough Ed? Please review numbers 114,117 and 120 again.

Then go back and see what Pal said in #112 : "With every new translation of God's Word more compromises are made of the original. Which is why I never put my trust in the MV's like the trust I have in the KJV."

The basis of Pal's trust of the KJV is misplaced -- it's skewed.

First of all, he thinks that with every new translation of the Bible more compromises are made of the original. How he derives that fiction is beyond me. So on that false premise he claims that the KJV is much more trustworthy.(Ostensibly because it doesn't compromise the original -- or to such a marginal extent that it's negligible.)

He says that he recognizes that modern versions are not revisions of the KJV -- but his poor logic seems to waver on that point.

Rippon has a point.

I actually have several points -- and they are all sharp. ( Who did I borrow that line from?)

 

[EdSutton]

That would be me.



Are you actually reading my posts carefully enough Ed? Please review numbers 114,117 and 120 again.

Then go back and see what Pal said in #112 : "With every new translation of God's Word more compromises are made of the original. Which is why I never put my trust in the MV's like the trust I have in the KJV."

The basis of Pal's trust of the KJV is misplaced -- it's skewed.

First of all, he thinks that with every new translation of the Bible more compromises are made of the original. How he derives that fiction is beyond me. So on that false premise he claims that the KJV is much more trustworthy.(Ostensibly because it doesn't compromise the original -- or to such a marginal extent that it's negligible.)

He says that he recognizes that modern versions are not revisions of the KJV -- but his poor logic seems to waver on that point.



I actually have several points -- and they are all sharp. ( Who did I borrow that line from?)

I'm not disagreeing with you here at all, Rippon.

Did you carefully read my own post # 121?

Ed

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I have a HS diploma & a college diploma (some education in Christian institutions, some in public schools) and I somehow managed to avoid Shakespeare completely (to the best of my recollection). I don't recall my children (3 finished HS) mentioning that they studied Shakespeare, either.

That is absolutely astounding! No Romeo & Juliet? No Hamlet or Macbeth? Rush out now man. Get the book!

Did you study Chaucer or Beowulf?

 

[sag38]

In high school I had to learn an excerpt from Romeo and Juliet and Mark Antony's speech in Julius Cesar. And, in college Hamlet's soliloquy.

Let's see, all I can remember is. "Friends, Romans, country men, lend me your ear." "To be or not to be, that is the question."

 

[Mexdeaf]

In high school I had to learn an excerpt from Romeo and Juliet and Mark Antony's speech in Julius Cesar. And, in college Hamlet's soliloquy.

Let's see, all I can remember is. "Friends, Romans, country men, lend me your ear." "To be or not to be, that is the question."

You forgot, "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou, Romeo?" :laugh:

 

[EdSutton]

You forgot, "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou, Romeo?" :laugh:

Answer to above question -

"[MOAN!] In the bushes, you fool! The rose-trellis broke!"

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Did you study Chaucer or Beowulf?

Nope. ("Nope" by itself was too short a response for the software)

 

[Palatka51]

I actually have several points -- and they are all sharp. ( Who did I borrow that line from?)

Nice to know that we have such a comradely relationship that I can have you speak for me. You two need to get over your selves.

 

[EdSutton]

Nice to know that we have such a comradely relationship that I can have you speak for me. You two need to get over your selves.

I'll take the last half of that as "a shot" but wonder what I did to deserve such? I believe I have asked legitimate questions, to which I have not seen any answer attempted, about various and sundry versions.

You were the one who set up the criterion of age of a version. I responded. gb93433 also made a good response to that (much better than I did, in fact) in post # 122. Did you read my own post # 121, where BTW, I am not supporting any assertion of misplaced trust as given by Rippon, but asking what is the standard for such, and where is this to be found?

You are the one who said that "with every new translation of God's Word, more compromises are made of the original" in post # 112. On what basis do you make this charge?? (I am agreeing with Rippon in post #127, as to what he questions in post #126 about the reasoning behind your assertion that somehow, with each and every translation/version, "more compromises are made of the original" (your words Post #112). Who says this? And if this were to be true, then why does not the 'crowd' who proclaim this 'champion' the WYC or at least, the TYN & MCB, instead of a translation and/or revision made a century or two later, and revised over century and a half beyond that? I simply have not seen many true WYC or MCB advocates out there, although I do occasionally find some small support for the GEN, and actually a fair amount of support for the VUL and/or D-R, from Roman Catholics.

Finally, you were the one who made the insinuation about 'preservation' (Post# 119) as well, to which I disagree, completely. Of course God was and is fully able to preserve His written word, in any manner in which He may choose, but I believe that He certainly didn't end this process in 1769, either, hence my response to that, as well.

How do any of my responses to these things you injected into the thread demonstrate any 'need to get over myself' as you have put it?

FTR, I do not know (or particularly care) about any relationship Palatka51 and Rippon may have, nor do I consider such to even have any relevance, on any debate forum.

And I, as always, speak only for myself!

And I have my bride's express permission to say so.

Ed

 

[Debby in Philly]

Well, it's the language of Shakespere, so I said High School.

 

[Palatka51]

I'll take the last half of that as "a shot" but wonder what I did to deserve such? I believe I have asked legitimate questions, to which I have not seen any answer attempted, about various and sundry versions.

You were the one who set up the criterion of age of a version. I responded. gb93433 also made a good response to that (much better than I did, in fact) in post # 122. Did you read my own post # 121, where BTW, I am not supporting any assertion of misplaced trust as given by Rippon, but asking what is the standard for such, and where is this to be found?

You are the one who said that "with every new translation of God's Word, more compromises are made of the original" in post # 112. On what basis do you make this charge?? (I am agreeing with Rippon in post #127, as to what he questions in post #126 about the reasoning behind your assertion that somehow, with each and every translation/version, "more compromises are made of the original" (your words Post #112). Who says this? And if this were to be true, then why does not the 'crowd' who proclaim this 'champion' the WYC or at least, the TYN & MCB, instead of a translation and/or revision made a century or two later, and revised over century and a half beyond that? I simply have not seen many true WYC or MCB advocates out there, although I do occasionally find some small support for the GEN, and actually a fair amount of support for the VUL and/or D-R, from Roman Catholics.

Finally, you were the one who made the insinuation about 'preservation' (Post# 119) as well, to which I disagree, completely. Of course God was and is fully able to preserve His written word, in any manner in which He may choose, but I believe that He certainly didn't end this process in 1769, either, hence my response to that, as well.

How do any of my responses to these things you injected into the thread demonstrate any 'need to get over myself' as you have put it?

FTR, I do not know (or particularly care) about any relationship Palatka51 and Rippon may have, nor do I consider such to even have any relevance, on any debate forum.

And I, as always, speak only for myself!

And I have my bride's express permission to say so.

Ed

Your apology is graciously accepted. :godisgood:

 

[Rippon]

Did you read my own post # 121, where BTW, I am not supporting any assertion of misplaced trust as given by Rippon, ...

In your post #127 you said :"I'm not disagreeing with you here at all, Rippon. But then you state :"I am not supporting any assertion of misplaced trust as given by Rippon.

You can't have it both ways Ed. Either you agree with me or you disagree with me -- which is it?

 

[Jim1999]

I haven't a clue what "grade" means. Either it is English or it isn't English, There is no inbetween. So far as school grades are concerned, some in Level 6 are completing first year university, whilst others are trying to maintain the basics of English.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[EdSutton]

[personal attack snipped]

Have you ever seen any such test? Have you even tried looking up an actual test from that era, as opposed to a couple of the fake ones that appear on the internet from time to time?

Incidentally, I could fully recommend the CKJV or KJVER for a 3rd grader, both of which update the KJV text into a more understandable reading form for those of that general level, while I would most likely never recommend the GNB or MSG, even though both of these would probably be far easier to read for that same 3rd grader, in exactly the same manner I would also likely not recommend the GEN or the actual KJ-1611 edition.

Why would you (or anyone else) see the need to make the Bible less readable for that 3rd grader of today? I thought the general idea was to get someone to read (and understand) the Bible. Did I miss something here??

I cannot transport someone back to the 17th Century for schooling, any more than you (or anyone) can.
Why attempt to smack someone with this false red herring,

when we are talking about the 21st Century, here?

Ed

FTR, there was no personal attack in this post, although I just now noticed the "snipped" bit.

Ed

 

[Baptist4life]

FTR, there was no personal attack in this post, although I just now noticed the "snipped" bit.

Ed

If there hadn't been a personal attack, it wouldn't have been "snipped".