Questions for KJVOs

[charlie parker]

skanwmatos wrote>>
CEV: She went to see her father and while she was getting down from her donkey, Caleb asked, "what's bothering you?"

I fail to see what is so funny."<<
_____________________________________________

You didnt post the vs. Why not?
Charlie

 

[dianetavegia]

What is CEV? I tried to find it on Crosswalk but they don't have it.

Is that the Contemporary English Version? Sounds like that Readers Digest Bible they tried to get going 15 years ago or so.

Diane

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
Ed Edwards wrote>>"What value do you ascribe to "AV" to make your tsatement correct?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im sorry brother, I dont understand your question, If you could elaborate---I will be happy to respond.

Charlie

I have half a dozen
KJVs in my library. They are NOT all the
same. Which one is the AV of which you
speak?

1. Nelson facimilie of a 1611 edition.
2. Henderson facimilie of the same 1611 edtion
3. TODAY's Parallel Bible, 1873 edition KJV
4. Tim LaHaye, PROPHECY STUDY BIBLE (no edition data)
5. Grandma's old Bible: 1851 edition KJV
by the New Your American Bible Society


None of these say "Authorized Version" (AV).
All these say "Holy Bible" except Grandma's
which has the cover missing as well as
Revelation 7:3 to the end.

So i want to know which one of these
is the "AV"? If you say "all" please
check with me about the differences
between them.
A man named Lewis says
in the late 1800s the American Bible Society
noted 20,000 varian spellings, puntuations,
and other chagnes between the copies
of the KJV then in print.


You say: " ... The AV has NEVER been revised, NEVER, ... "

What AV are you talking about that has
never been revised?

As an extra task: who authorized the AV?
Most unprincipled KJVOites seem content
to imply that God authorized the AV.
I will not buy that.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
What is CEV? I tried to find it on Crosswalk but they don't have it.

Is that the Contemporary English Version? Sounds like that Readers Digest Bible they tried to get going 15 years ago or so.

Diane

THE LEARNING BIBLE, Contemporary English
Version (American Bible Society, 1995).

THE READER'S DIGEST BIBLE, Condensed from
the Revised Standard Version (Reader's
Digest Assocation, 1985).

 

[charlie parker]

Do they say "Authorized King James Version?
1. Nelson is a roman catholic publishing house, their alais is tan books and publishers, this is used to dupe dupes into thinking there not rc--I buy nothing from nelson.
2. Not familier with it.

 

[charlie parker]

Didnt mean to send
Charlie

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
Do they say "Authorized King James Version?

No.
That is why I said:
//"None of these say "Authorized Version" (AV).//

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
Orvie wrote>>"I thought it was her ass? why did you update the word to the modern, "mule"?"
________________________________________________

Just wanted to be sure that you understand that it was talking about her mule, you do know that -- dont you? I dont know a bible believer, I mean one that believes the one he holds in his hands, who would have any objection to reading "mule" instead of ass or "sneezing" instead of neesings, but they wont stop there, They jump from that to making "Thy holy child Jesus" read "Thy holy servant Jesus" in Acts 4:27,30. Now which reading magnifies His diety,holy child or holy servant? before you decide, look in the context for another servant, one guilty of adultry, and murder, vs 25-"
Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?" You see, It is my profound belief that this was done intentionally, with malice aforethought, I believe that satan does not bother with crack houses and chop shops, I believe his spehere of influence is centered in translating boards and printing houses. If I didnt believe that sincerely I wouldnt waste two seconds on the subject.
Charlie

sorry Charlie, I'm just funning you. and you've seen or heard of Dr Ruckman treating MV advocates w/ kindness? I'd like to see that for myself. I hope he stops telling "n*****" jokes.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Judges 1:14 (CEV)

Right after the wedding, Aschsah started
telling Othniel that he* ought to ask her
father for a field. She went to see
her father, and while she was getting down from@
her donkey, Caleb asked, "What's bothering you?"

Footnotes:
*1:14 Achsah ... Othniel ... he,
Hebrew, two ancient translations:
"Othniel ... Achssah ... she".

@1:14 "getting down from", One
possible meaning for the difficult
Hebrew text.

What is funny here?

 

[charlie parker]

Ed Edwards wrote>>So i want to know which one of these
is the "AV"? If you say "all" please
check with me about the differences
between them.
A man named Lewis says
in the late 1800s the American Bible Society
noted 20,000 varian spellings, puntuations,
and other chagnes between the copies
of the KJV then in print."

Ok Ed Ill grant you that, 20,000- 25,000, variants in word spelling and punctuations like , for . and . for , Lets now talk about the 20,000 + WORD changes that change the context of the subject in the niv etc.
__cp________________________________________________

As an extra task: who authorized the AV?
Most unprincipled KJVOites seem content
to imply that God authorized the AV.
I will not buy that."
___________________________________________

We will see about "unprincipled" if principipled is kicking and screaming about variant spelling and punctuation while adding and subtracting words and even full vss, then i'll take "unprincipled" every time, I will save us a lot of time discussing Charismatics venture into making bibles $$$$$$ and the more devious offerings such as E. Shylock Englishes double fraud the nsrb, its not a Scofield reference bible, they added notes that bro. C.I. would have lynched them if he had not been dead, Its not a King James bible, they changed the text, If you take the words to the song "the wreck of the edmond fitzgerald" and put it to the tune of "silent night" you are not singing silent night. Lastly, The AV was and is authorized by the replacement of the levitical priesthood, who were charged by God in matters of holy writ, The NT preisthood of believers who went out to the ends of the earth with the Two Edged Sword, The first missionaries to Africa, China, and the Isls didnt take niv's and nasb's, they took the bible that said "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." in 1 John 5:7 and the bible that I am refering to is the one that retains that reading.

Charlie

 

[charlie parker]

Ed Edwards wrote "Judges 1:14 (CEV)

Right after the wedding, Aschsah started
telling Othniel that he* ought to ask her
father for a field. She went to see
her father, and while she was getting down from@
her donkey, Caleb asked, "What's bothering you?"
_____________________________________________

Well, Crow ought to be tasteing good by now, but, it dont, About 5 yrs ago I picked up an paperback cev at a yardsale for .50, The reason I bought it was to check the reading of the vs mentioned above, because someone had told me of the reading, I have since disposed of it, if I had it I would have posted the vs. It read like this "Right after the wedding, Aschsah started
telling Othniel that he* ought to ask her
father for a field. She went to see
her father, and while she was getting down from@
her donkey, she broke wind and Caleb asked, "What's bothering you?"
I suppose this vs went the way of Kenneth Taylors famous "sob" vs, they took so much flack they dropped it, O well Good for them.
Charlie

 

[Ed Edwards]

I hereby shun Charlie.
Sorry, i can distinguish between
a rant where one vilifies all MVs
(like they are all the same),
vilifies MV readers, damns MY HOLY
SCRIPTURE, GOD'S INERRANT WRITTEN
WORD while successfully avoiding
the answer to my questions
AND a letigimate post.

2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 (KJV1769):

14 And if any man obey not our word by
this epistle, note that man, and have no
company with him, that he may be ashamed.
15 Yet count him not as an enemy,
but admonish him as a brother.

You say you have the final authority,
yet you refuse to share with me what it is.
You say you have the authorized version,
yet you cannot answer "Who authorized
the authorized version?".

 

[charlie parker]

Orvie wrote"sorry Charlie, I'm just funning you. and you've seen or heard of Dr Ruckman treating MV advocates w/ kindness? I'd like to see that for myself. I hope he stops telling "n*****" jokes. "
_________________________________________________

Hey brother thats ok, I was kinda diggin you too, I really appreciate a sence of humor I know the Lord has one, He saved me-----. Aww no, the hamite jokes are priceless, was at a meeting a few yrs back, 500 or so there was an missionary offering for some 12 missionaries one being a young black brother from SC he was a "missionary to the ghetto" or something like that--think he got 300.00, but---he laughed at all the ribbing, great fellow.
Charlie

 

[charlie parker]

Ed Edwards wrote"You say you have the final authority,
yet you refuse to share with me what it is.
You say you have the authorized version,
yet you cannot answer "Who authorized
the authorized version?".<<<
_______________________________________
Hey brother, which part of my answer dont you understand? here it is again," The AV was and is authorized by the replacement for the levitical priesthood, who were charged by God in matters of holy writ, The NT preisthood of believers .Bible believers who received with joy and propagated it.
Which AV? the one that has the "Johnine comma" intact, variant spellings and punctuations are irrelevent and mean nothing'

As for you shuning me, I will probably never recover from it-------There I've recovered.
Charlie

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
skanwmatos wrote>>
CEV: She went to see her father and while she was getting down from her donkey, Caleb asked, "what's bothering you?"

I fail to see what is so funny."<<
_____________________________________________

You didnt post the vs. Why not?
Charlie

I did post it. I reads

She went to see her father and while she was getting down from her donkey, Caleb asked, "what's bothering you?"

You still haven't told me what is so funny about that verse?

You were probably thinking of the New English Bible first edition, but they changed it to "made a noise" in the second edition. The NEB overly relied on cognates, in this case from Akkadian, and an insufficiently attested cognate at that, which resulted in the idiotic reading.

[ March 20, 2004, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: skanwmatos ]

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
Ed Edwards wrote"You say you have the final authority,
yet you refuse to share with me what it is.
You say you have the authorized version,
yet you cannot answer "Who authorized
the authorized version?".<<<
_______________________________________
Hey brother, which part of my answer dont you understand? here it is again," The AV was and is authorized by the replacement for the levitical priesthood, who were charged by God in matters of holy writ, The NT preisthood of believers .Bible believers who received with joy and propagated it.
Which AV? the one that has the "Johnine comma" intact, variant spellings and punctuations are irrelevent and mean nothing'

As for you shuning me, I will probably never recover from it-------There I've recovered.
Charlie

I hereby unshun Charlie.
/Ed sings "Charlie, charlie, charlie
charlie" to the tune of "Boomer Sooner"./

Sorry, i had a problem of credibility.
I found two incredulous statements
so i had dificulty concieving
that they were the answers to my
questions.

You have the final authority and it
is within yourself, priesthood of the
believer, and all that.

While I looked for the spurious
Johnnian Comma, I found the Nelson KJV1611
duplicate does have that Comma and
additionally calls itself the "Authorized
Version". So i do have a copy of the AV
in my possession.

Out of defference to the idea that each
brother has the right to be wrong,
i'll use the KJV1611 edition when i
quote scripture in your presence.
IF i can remember who i agreed to do
what for. [sarcasm] After awile both faces
of you KJVOs tend to start looking alike. [/sarcasm]

(that non-carismatic one-handed
God worshipin' Graemlin)

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Well then Scott, you have a real serious problem on your hands then. According to mv doctrine ALL versions ahve errors in them and therefore ALL versions are not faithful and accurate and cannot faithfully relay all of God's written message to man.

Actually that rests on what you mean by "error". Errors of doctrine/teaching or deviations from the wording of the originals?

The KJV translators acknowledged that God in His providence had allowed copyists' errors to creep into the text such that some passages could not be determined with absolute certainty. They, like all believers in the true, orthodox doctrine of scriptural preservation, asserted that none of these "variants" in the texts effected any doctrine. Further, they said that when God allowed a passage to become questionable in its reading fear rather than boldness was to be preferred. They acknowledged that their work probably contained errors but still asserted that it was God's Word.

What does this mean? it means that for the mv defender, they, in their minds and attitudes, get to play God and determine what is and what isn't God's word at any time, according to what pleases them.

Actually that is what KJVO's do arbitrarily. We can give a good, consistent, honest reason for what we believe... you cannot.

Those of us who believe the fundamental, orthodox doctrine on the Bible depend on the evidence God providentially gave us concerning the originals to determine what we believe. Like so many other doctrines and Christians beliefs, there are differing opinions that can be supported scripturally and with historical evidence... KJVO simply isn't one of them.

There is plenty of documented evidence to show how inaccurate and unfaithful the mv's are. One of the most telling is how often new mv's comes out, each one supposedly more accurate and faithful then all the others, according to the "scholars" who worked on them.

Opinion never counts as evidence for anything.

The evidence is that these scholars lay their case out for scholarly comparison to the God preserved evidence for the originals. The KJV translators had a mandate from the king and used a text originally dedicated to a Pope. Eventually, they used force of law- not the quality of their translation- to foist the KJV on those who loved the Geneva.

would stop selling all the inaccurate ones,

Unless you are in possession of the originals or have the scholarly training to refute the reasoning employed by these various translators... you have no justification for calling them inaccurate... except for your true final authority- your opinion.

but then, I guess there is money to be made in peddling, isn't there?

I know of plenty of KJVO literature that isn't being distributed for free. The KJV itself is still making publishers money. And as someone else pointed out, the KJV was a money making venture for King James.

I started a thread about how the KJV became dominant and gave several links to proof. The KJV became dominant after the CoE using their state-based authority to outlaw the Geneva Bible. Indications are that this was partly done because the king and CoE didn't make any money off of the Geneva.

Oh what quicksand you mv "defenders" live in.

Hardly. You cannot deal with simple facts nor simple questions. You cannot cite scripture that commands what you believe about the KJV nor even scriptural example. We can, and have, given both to support our views. You cannot cite any other factual reasons for your beliefs without employing double standards or other dishonest tactics.

It is most definitely the KJVO who has built his house on sand.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Who said, " ... The AV has NEVER been revised, NEVER, ... "

I am not sure what the word "revised" meant in 1611, but I sure know what is means today:

Webster's New World Dictionary = revise: 1. to read over carefully, as a manuscript, published book etc, to correct and improve or bring up-to-date. 2. to change or amend

Now, care to 'splain? No one here is a fool who cannot read and not know that the AV1611 has been "revised" a NUMBER of times. People who proclaiming untruths out here in Wyoming are usually called by a certain name . . .

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Who said, " ... The AV has NEVER been revised, NEVER, ... "

By careful examination i've determined that
God almighty authorized the KJV1611 AV.
It is still the same. In another thread nearby
i've determined that about 2/3 of the posters
here have a copy of the KJV1611 edition.
So at least 2/3es of us have access to
the Authorized By God Version.
It has not been changed ever
(the KJV1769 has been changed,
the KJV1762 has been chagned,
the KJV1873 has been changed)

Say, does anybody here know what
the 99.99% of people 1800-1990 used
for the auhorized by God Bible
cause they didn't have a hot copy of the
KJV1611? Pity the poor 19th century
person who had no Bible cause they couldn't
affort the unaltered KJV1611 edition.

Pray for me. I'm beginning to enjoy sarcasm

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by charlie parker:
Judges 1:14  And it came to pass, when she came to him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wilt thou?"
________________________________________________

Will someone with a cev please post the above reading, You will die laughing.
Charlie

Frankly the KJV has me doing enough laughing with its rendition of this verse.