Just Something I Read

[Baptist4life]

The topic was actually derailed by KJVO proponents, attempting to cite the word "yet" as an avenue to espouse their single-translation-onlyist false doctrine.

Ummm............no it wasn't.

 

[Johnv]

Ummm............no it wasn't.

Uh, yes it was. In the very first post. You artificially compare the KJV to other versions as the litmus test regarding the presence or absence of the word "yet".

 

[Mexdeaf]

From the OP-

One little word makes all the difference. The KJB does not make a liar out of Jesus. The NIV, Nkjv, and some others, oppose themselves by including the word with a footnote suggesting it shouldn't be there. The above versions have Jesus telling a lie, meaning He's not "the way, the truth, and the life", nor is He God "which cannot lie". But those are not important doctrines according to modern versions.

If that isn't espousing KJVO, then what's the point?

 

[Baptist4life]

Well, if you assume my OP was espousing KJVOism to begin with, then it wasn't "derailed" by KJVO proponents, it was a KJVO topic to start with!:tongue3: Which it wasn't, BTW.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well, if you assume my OP was espousing KJVOism to begin with, then it wasn't "derailed" by KJVO proponents, it was a KJVO topic to start with!:tongue3: Which it wasn't, BTW.

Ok, so first you were for it, then you weren't? Feet palnted firmly on both sides of the issue? :laugh:

 

[Baptist4life]

Ok, so first you were for it, then you weren't? Feet palnted firmly on both sides of the issue? :laugh:

For what?

 

[Harold Garvey]

The offering in Leviticus was a minchah, a tribute offering which is bloodless by definition. Minchahs in old Hebrew tradition are milled grain offerings by nature. That's a matter of academic fact.

The topic was actually derailed by KJVO proponents, attempting to cite the word "yet" as an avenue to espouse their single-translation-onlyist false doctrine.

Seems you interupted the discussion with your railing upon my person with the same old song and dance. get back on topic.

Milled grains were prepared with animal fat.:sleep:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Uh, yes it was. In the very first post. You artificially compare the KJV to other versions as the litmus test regarding the presence or absence of the word "yet".

You know what I learned about critical baptists? If you go on a witch-hunt you eventually will find one!

Your suspicions are no different.:sleep:

 

[Johnv]

Seems you interupted the discussion with your railing upon my person with the same old song and dance. get back on topic.

Actually, that was your interruption, when you complained about a "tirade of sorts explaining it away with the use of the rules of grammar", yet you complety ignored your own prior tirade about "meat offering" being of animal flesh, which demonstrated your lack of understandiing regarding grammar.

Milled grains were prepared with animal fat.:sleep:

You fabricated that statement out of animal fat.

You know what I learned about critical baptists?

Interesting. Your history of posts doesn't demonstrate you having learned anything.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Actually, that was your interruption, when you complained about a "tirade of sorts explaining it away with the use of the rules of grammar", yet you complety ignored your own prior tirade about "meat offering" being of animal flesh, which demonstrated your lack of understandiing regarding grammar.

Ok, so your lack of research into the meat offering never being apart from the whole burnt offering out does my grammar lacking.:smilewinkgrin:

You fabricated that statement out of animal fat.

olive oil wasn't always available and you haven't yet done much research, I did say YET!

Interesting. Your history of posts doesn't demonstrate you having learned anything.

Your history demonstrates the same lack of research and an exceptability that your view is altered by modern thinking.

Your statements concerning the meat offering overlook too many dictates found within the outline of how the offerings were to be done. You say the meat offering was "always" bloodless, when if you would get beyond your modern authors, which undoubtedly all of them stand for the accepting of modern versions and the thinking that accompanies them, you would find within the eclectic notes that "the meat offering was not always bloodless".

Then you might begin to understand that the whole burnt offering was to be drained of the blood before it was burnt, thus the meat offering was a part of the meal offering which none of the offerings were to be separate from the other. separating them is heresy in action due to oversights of the foreshadowing of the upcoming event of Jesus and his death, burial, and resurrection. Omission of any one of these three elements in the singular event effect the Gospel, (the Gospel according to the scriptures) and makes for all sorts of idol worship. Just one evidence of these is the wearing of a crucifix as if it wards off evil.:smilewinkgrin:

Keep attacking my person, I'll reprove your error in thinking, but remember "pride cometh before a fall and a haughty spirit before destruction.":flower: