-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Satyrs, Dragons, and Unicorns
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Can you prove that fromOriginally posted by BrianT:
This thread is hilarious.Especially when KJV-onlyists demand proof.
scriptue
Can you prove that fromOriginally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
This thread is hilarious.Especially when KJV-onlyists demand proof.
scriptue
</font>[/QUOTE]Can you prove I have the number of posts listed below? I mean, how do you know? have you actually counted them? How do you know the BB counted (translated) it right? Okay, I know I'm being silly
Mr. Kinney builds some great, impressive-looking bridges-IN THE MOJAVE DESERT. He cannot get by the BASICS. He makes those careful comparisons between versions, but he lacks any FOUNDATION for all his work. While he's usually more painstaking than most KJVOs, he's just as bankrupt in the basic facts needed to give his KJVO myth any validity. All he does is in effect compare versions & say, "This is wrong because it disagrees with the KJV rendering." The gent seems to be a sincere Christian, but he's sure consumed with false doctrine! oh well, the devil sometimes deceives Christians also, and while he can't take their salvation, he CAN limit their effectiveness in steering the lost to Christ. And telling someone, "That aint the KJV; you don't got no Bible" sure won't steer him/her to Christ.
I still wonder by whose authority any KJVO adopts a doctrine about Scripture that's neither found nor implied in Scripture.
I still wonder by whose authority any KJVO adopts a doctrine about Scripture that's neither found nor implied in Scripture.
timothy 1769
New Member
Can you prove that fromOriginally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
This thread is hilarious.Especially when KJV-onlyists demand proof.
scriptue
</font>[/QUOTE]This thread is hilarious - especially when MV supporters give mock demands for proof from MV supporters mocking KJVO supporters demanding proof from MV supporters who demand proof from KJVO supporters.Just prove me wrong!
Since you derive such pleasure from pointing out the alleged fallacies of the KJVOs,
Would you be so kind as to produce the verse or verses which state that "inspiration is limited to the original autographs?"
If there are no verses which state that, how did you arrive at your belief - that "inspiration is limited to the original autographs" ?
If there are no verses which state that, then on what do you base your belief that "inspiration is limited to the original autographs?
Would you be so kind as to produce the verse or verses which state that "inspiration is limited to the original autographs?"
If there are no verses which state that, how did you arrive at your belief - that "inspiration is limited to the original autographs" ?
If there are no verses which state that, then on what do you base your belief that "inspiration is limited to the original autographs?
(2Pe 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
(2Pe 1:21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
When God spoke they wrote. That is called Inspiration. Copies of works are not written by the same author 200 yrs later. God moved on the original author. No where does it say he moved on translators, or copists.
BTW, If God has promised that every copy of his words are preserved as inerrant, then that takes the pressure off the scribe to get the work done right. If God promised, and we know God doesn't lie, then any scribe could change anything and God (by his promise) would have to miraculously fix the mistake.
But if he left the copying up to humans, then we need to be careful to get it right.
Sort of like people that believe that God has promised to call everyman in the world to salvation at least one time. If God made that promise, then we have no responsibilities doing mission work.
(2Pe 1:21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
When God spoke they wrote. That is called Inspiration. Copies of works are not written by the same author 200 yrs later. God moved on the original author. No where does it say he moved on translators, or copists.
BTW, If God has promised that every copy of his words are preserved as inerrant, then that takes the pressure off the scribe to get the work done right. If God promised, and we know God doesn't lie, then any scribe could change anything and God (by his promise) would have to miraculously fix the mistake.
But if he left the copying up to humans, then we need to be careful to get it right.
Sort of like people that believe that God has promised to call everyman in the world to salvation at least one time. If God made that promise, then we have no responsibilities doing mission work.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Can you prove that fromOriginally posted by timothy 1769:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
This thread is hilarious.Especially when KJV-onlyists demand proof.
scriptue
</font>[/QUOTE]This thread is hilarious - especially when MV supporters give mock demands for proof from MV supporters mocking KJVO supporters demanding proof from MV supporters who demand proof from KJVO supporters.Just prove me wrong!
For a servant, mere words are not enough – discipline is needed. For the words may be understood, but they are not heeded.
timothy 1769
New Member
Please quote the original verses, I can't rely on your uninspired translation of uninspired copies.
As I said before, the people of 1611 and earlier had no reason to doubt the existence of the unicorn, etc. Just because they hadn't seen one didn't give them cause to doubt their existence, They knew there was a lot of the planet that hadn't been explored in their day. However, WE don't have that excuse.
These same people thought infectious diseases were caused by "bad vapours" and that headaches could be relieved by boring holes in the skull. As time passed, their descendants learned better.
Now, while we can't really say the AV makers were wrong for using such terms, WE don't have to repeat them, because for US, using such terms IS incorrect. The MVs which do it are incorrect also.
However, what doctrine is affected by using more correct or modern terms? What is affected by illustrating either a satyr or Yogi Bear dancing in Babylon's ruins? Mr. Kinney may defend the naming of these imaginary animals in the KJV all he wishes, but the fact remains that the KJV and its English are 400 years old, and have been updated by more modern versions. While my politics are highly conservative, I'd hate to think that I was resistant to any changes whatsoever in my life. The very translators of the AV did NOT expect it to be the be-all & end-all English Bible translation, so why should anyone believe that NOW?
These same people thought infectious diseases were caused by "bad vapours" and that headaches could be relieved by boring holes in the skull. As time passed, their descendants learned better.
Now, while we can't really say the AV makers were wrong for using such terms, WE don't have to repeat them, because for US, using such terms IS incorrect. The MVs which do it are incorrect also.
However, what doctrine is affected by using more correct or modern terms? What is affected by illustrating either a satyr or Yogi Bear dancing in Babylon's ruins? Mr. Kinney may defend the naming of these imaginary animals in the KJV all he wishes, but the fact remains that the KJV and its English are 400 years old, and have been updated by more modern versions. While my politics are highly conservative, I'd hate to think that I was resistant to any changes whatsoever in my life. The very translators of the AV did NOT expect it to be the be-all & end-all English Bible translation, so why should anyone believe that NOW?
timothy 1769
New Member
Simple-SHOW ME THE MONEY!(or the unicorn!) </font>[/QUOTE]That would prove there is at least one unicorn, but that's not what I asked for. I asked for you to prove there is not now, nor was there ever at any time in the past, a unicorn.
You can't do it, it's impossible.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
One cannot prove the negative, so the burden of proof is squarely on timothy1769 here, according to the rules of debate.
Cranston:"These same people thought infectious diseases were caused by "bad vapours" and that headaches could be relieved by boring holes in the skull. As time passed, their descendants learned better."
Well, they were right, infectious diseases are transmitted by bacteria in the vapor spewed forth from some one sneezing, and operations on those with tumors and strokes along with anurisms involve cutting open the scull by first drilling a hole. So your premise sort of fell down the "rabbit hole" on that one.
Well, they were right, infectious diseases are transmitted by bacteria in the vapor spewed forth from some one sneezing, and operations on those with tumors and strokes along with anurisms involve cutting open the scull by first drilling a hole. So your premise sort of fell down the "rabbit hole" on that one.
timothy 1769
New Member
OK, God says there is such a creature, so there is.
I have often wondered about the naming of such mythical animals as the satyr, the dragon, unicorn, and cockatrice. I have no problem with any translation using these names since they matter not at all concerning the doctrine of Christ. But to try and answer this let me quote from the kjv translators preface to the kjv translation.
"Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuigent."
It seems that the translators were unsure of what english word to use in translating some of these hebrew words. I am by no means a Hebrew scholar, but my understanding is that there are some Hebrew words that have no English counterparts, so the translators had to put their heads together, and decide on the most acceptable english counterpart.
Anyone more educated on this matter, feel free to correct me.
"Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuigent."
It seems that the translators were unsure of what english word to use in translating some of these hebrew words. I am by no means a Hebrew scholar, but my understanding is that there are some Hebrew words that have no English counterparts, so the translators had to put their heads together, and decide on the most acceptable english counterpart.
Anyone more educated on this matter, feel free to correct me.
skanwmatos
New Member
They did not doubt the existence of the unicorn in 1611 simply because many of them had seen one. In fact, many people had seen many unicorns dating clear back to the 2nd century BC.
The English word "unicorn" is attested to in several pre- 17th century writings including pre- 17th century versions of the Old Testament.
The word came into English via the Latin Vulgate reading of unicornis or rhinoceros or the Greek monokerws from the LXX, a translation of the Hebrew re(e)m or reym. It was therefore retained in the later versions until the time of the ERV where it was changed to "wild ox."
However, the Middle English understanding of the meaning of the word was not a wild ox, but the rhinoceros unicornus, or Indian Rhino which, zoologists tell us, inhabited most of India and Western Asia, including the Holy Land, until comparatively recent times.
So, we see, as early as 1200 AD English speakers used the term "unicorn" to refer to the rhinoceros. There is no reason to suppose the KJV translators were ignorant of that, and thus erred by thinking the unicorn was a fabled horse-like animal with one horn growing out of its forehead. Whether you believe the unicorn was a rhino or a wild ox is irrelevant to the discussion. The word "unicorn" is well attested to as referring to the rhino, and is even translated using words commonly referring to the rhino in both the Vulgate and the LXX.
