Is this a contradiction?

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
michelle said "Here is your second to last post on page 5 of this thread. Now please show me where you have explained yourself"

You asked me to tell you what you don't understand. OK, check it out, from that post on page 5: "Yes, you said that, but you were wrong because you don't understand either the scriptures nor my position. You are so wrapped up in you presuppositions that you can't see beyond the end of your nose, you cannot even comprehend the points others are making."

--------------------------------------------------


You call this an explanation?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[manchester]

The KJV is an imperfect translation, as are all the translations, not to mention outdated. But it is still scripture.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
As an aside, why oh why does this debate rage so? Should we not be about winning folks to Jesus?
Michelle? Give it a rest, eh sis?
-------------------------------------------------


With all due respect, give what a rest? If I am doing something wrong, please, be more specific, as I have already nicely asked of you personally.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[AVL1984]

You're right manchester. Many here will not face that fact, as it would destroy their only foundation of One Version Onlyism. It's too bad that their one foundation isn't Jesus Christ instead.

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
As an aside, why oh why does this debate rage so? Should we not be about winning folks to Jesus?
Michelle? Give it a rest, eh sis?
-------------------------------------------------


With all due respect, give what a rest? If I am doing something wrong, please, be more specific, as I have already nicely asked of you personally.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Uhmmm, Michelle;
As gently as I know how I tell you that you have not asked me for anything. You have me confused with someone else.
In your blind zeal for the KJB you are lashing out at everybody who even addresses you. This is unkind and unfair of you. Please, take a deep breath, count to ten, and try to calmly re-read the post you replied to which I am quoting you from.
I am in no way attacking you personally. Nor am I in any way or implication attacking your position. I, too, am a KJB believer. Sadly, my dear, you are bringing a reproach on this issue and giving fuel to your opponents. They are having a hey-day at your expense. And it APPEARS as though they enjoy it.
You need to just walk away. You know you will not convince them of your position. You never have yet, and it APPEARS as though you have nothing new with which to do so now.
Maybe you need to excercise a little christian grace and just walk away and maybe comment on another forum for awhile until you get a little perspective about what is REALLY important. Like soul-winning or edification of the saints.
This issue is neither of these.
In His service;
Jim

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Originally posted by Pastor_Bob
So, if we can “ retain 100 percent of the inerrant Word of God,” and I believe we can, then it has to be a product of the Received Text or a product of the Critical text. It cannot be both because the two texts are not the same, and “things that are different are not the same.”

First you make a distinction between the two, then you say 'EVERY TEXT IS A CRITICAL TEXT'.

I think you are getting Dr. Bob and Pastor Bob confused. I made a distinction between the two, and Dr. Bob said "every text is a critical text."

 

[av1611jim]

Bob(s) My apologies to you both.
In His service;
Jim
( as Jim sits down and tries to remove size 9 shoe from mouth.)

 

[natters]

michelle said "You call this an explanation?"

No, I call it an answer to your original question. Your original question didn't ask for an explanation, your original question simply asked "What is it I do not understand?" That's the question I answered when I referred you to the post on page 5. If you want an explanation on top of that, perhaps you should first think about why I haven't given one yet.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
I disagree with Manchester and TC.
It appears to me to be a contradiction. He is trying to have it both ways. "A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways."
You have hit the 'nail on the head' for me Dr. Bob.
This is why I have made a choice based on the information I have encountered.
Ultimately, IMO, all must make the same choice, one way or the other.
To paraphrase your final comment; you cannot have it BOTH ways.
For me and my house, we choose KJB.
(Please let's not get into the "which one" idiocy. Ok?)
Correct me if I am wrong; but, I don't think the "Critical Text" existed (as such) before the KJB, nor within 100 years or more after it.
In His service;
Jim

AMEN!!!!!
AMEN!!!!!
AMEN!!!!!

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by manchester:
Picking the TR, the Vulgate, the Septuagint, or anything else does not fix the problem. The reality remains that we have multiple manuscripts, all of which contain "copyist errors" and worse. Picking one of them at random as "the REAL Word of God" doesn't fix the problem, it just puts your head into the sand.

The ideal would be one clear version of the Scriptures, no dispute over Apocrypha and other books, no copyist errors or other errors, perfectly preserved in the original languages. Sadly, we don't have that.

Yes we do have it, it is called the KJV! Just because many psuedo-fundamentalist reject it does not mean it does not exist. The KJV is the God-approved Bible for the English-speaking people, period!

 

[Trotter]

The KJV is the God-approved Bible for the English-speaking people, period!

Back it up, Terry. Where is it approved by God? By its fruit? By its history? By the length of time it has been used by the church?

Prostitution was practiced in the bible (Tamar, Rahab). Prostitution has brought forth much fruit, both in offspring and money. Prostitution has been around a lot longer than the KJV, or the Vulgate for that matter. Prostitution has been used in various religions since man began to seek for a way around God.

So...can you back it up from the Scriptures? At least better than I backed up the case above?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[natters]

James said "Yes we do have it, it is called the KJV!"

No, the KJV is not in the original languages, like Manchester was referring to.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
You focus your attention on bickering about words, rather than looking at the overall picture of what has been done. There are many different accurate English words that can be used, and are not bound to one, and then there are inaccurate ones that should NEVER be used.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

She does not bicker about words unless they are the same accurate words found the the NASB that are "different" from her KJV. You cannot debate with someone who keeps changing the rules.

She says the KJV is Word-for-word 100% accurate without error whatsoever, but then it is okay to have a few changes between the 1611 and the 1769 version. It is also okay to have Mathew and Luke have a different Lord's prayer; but it is not okay for the NASB to change a word from "God" to "He". Or "Lord God" to "God" (just as exampes).

It is okay for major wording differences between the 1611 (that we have SHOWN--but maybe she just won't look at.) and have some minor differences in the meaning of a new translation.

Just one week ago she was complianing about an individual word change in the NASB, today she is saying that individual words don't make a difference, that it is the "whole picture"..

To be honest, I think Michelle is starting to learn some reality, whether she will admit it or not and that reality is causing her to slowly shift her position as facts get thrown up--such as the documented changes of the 1611 and 1769 versions of the KJV.

 

[TC]

I disagree with Manchester and TC.
It appears to me to be a contradiction. He is trying to have it both ways. "A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways."

I am not wrong. I simply point out that what you see as a contradiction is simply a double standard on your part. You fault Ankerberg for supporting textual criticism. Yet, you accept the textual criticism of Erasmus and the KJV translators without question. Then, you accuse us of being double minded and unstable. In reality, all your are doing is playing my scholars can wup your scholars - you just will not admit it.

Correct me if I am wrong; but, I don't think the "Critical Text" existed (as such) before the KJB, nor within 100 years or more after it.

So. The TR did not exist until about 1500 years after the last of the NT books was penned by the author. So, what is your point?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:

Originally posted by manchester:
The KJV is the God-approved Bible for the English-speaking people, period!

Provide the proof, please! Scripture from the KJV is fine. But, you need proof or it is simply an opinion!

 

[Trotter]

Phillip,

Michelle is beginning to see that her "God told me" ain't cutting it, and she adjusting her story as she goes. Nothing new. She's just shifting the order, swapping out terms. Same crap.

 

[michelle]

av1611jim,


I was commenting upon a personal email I sent to you much earlier, but apparently you did not recieve it. I just recently tried to email you again, in response to your reply to my question to you, and I realized that they aren't being recieved. Is your email information correct? I have tried to approach you on this personally, as to not interrupt the thread, and I apologize for this post, but only would like to respond personally.

Thank you and God bless you.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Ziggy]

michelle: "Again, you use human reasoning and false logic, and try to bind me to that. Just because Waite might agree those specific words are okay (to which I have not read that he did), does not mean I have to agree or that I do agree with that. It has clearly been shown to you in those cases why I believe those word choices are wrong and misleading, and changing truth. Because of this, doesn't diminish the overall truth in this issue to which he presents.

Translation for those who don't otherwise get it: "I will agree with Waite when I choose to agree, but disagree with Waite when I choose to disagree."

Waite was not talking about any *specific* words, but acknowledging that in nearly all cases there are alternate words that could translate the same things in an equally accurate manner.

Michelle: "You focus your attention on bickering about words, rather than looking at the overall picture of what has been done. There are many different accurate English words that can be used, and are not bound to one, and then there are inaccurate ones that should NEVER be used."

Precisely. We agree in principle on that point. Unfortunately, as soon as it gets down to specifics, the "bickering about words" resumes, and that from one particular side of this debate.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Waite was not talking about any *specific* words, but acknowledging that in nearly all cases there are alternate words that could translate the same things in an equally accurate manner.

--------------------------------------------------


To which is what I have said I agree with him on.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Trotter]

You were right the first time, Ziggy:

Translation for those who don't otherwise get it: "I will agree with Waite when I choose to agree, but disagree with Waite when I choose to disagree."

Same old Michelle. She can outspin a roulette wheel any day.