The Well and the Water: An Allegory

[Salamander]

Yes, but Gary Busey is a simpl... Oh! Now I see the resemblance.

(just a joke) :laugh:

His reasoning applies.

 

[Salamander]

I forgot nothing about "the fountains of the ocean" or the "sources of the watery depths". But they are not particularly relevant to the allegory, as I read them, in the first place.

Oh, yeah? Just where do you think the salinity is removed from the ocean?

Water from the fountains of the deep are not saline. The misconception that these fountains originate from the ocean are fallacious. They came from the cavernous depths of the firmament.

Explain how the glaciers and icebergs are free from salinity without concurring with evolution?

Water must first be in contact with salt to make the content of ocean water. This isn't the case with all water in contact with soil in every case and is definitely limited to a few locations seprate from the interconnected waters of our oceans.

I wonder how an allegory might be constructed to view how salt would have crystalized on the Ark and possibilty vaused it to sink by the rainwater coming from the salt water found in all oceans?

Your logic has holes and its allegory won't hold salt water.

In the second place, I'd strongly suggest they had to do with water in the ocean, not on a high plain or desert, for I've never heard anyone who suggested "the deep", or "the great deep" as possibly referring to anything else, except laugh: )for Lk. 8:31 and Rom. 10:17 where considering the context of bringing Christ up friom the dead, makes this KJV rendering seem to be a poor one, and here "the deep" from "την αβυσσον" is better rendered as "the abyss", as most of the other standard versions do, and where even the KJV usually renders "αβυσσος" as "bottomless pit", in most other instances.

So you think hell is in the water in the abyss?

This is getting better to make the allegory more and more a concoction of the convoluted mind.

In the third place, these "fountains of the deep" as well as the "windows of heaven" were both stopped or closed at the end of the flood, as I read it, according to Gen. 8:2. I don't see anywhere that says either have ever opened up again, in that manner, and in fact, God said he would not destroy the earth again, in that manner. (Gen. 9:11-17) The "windows of heaven" are only again spoken of as "to be opened" to give the blessings to us for faithfulness in Mal. 3:10. Here, Gen. 8:2: Ed

May I make a connection for you? If God were to pour out all the blessings from the windows of Heaven again, not only would He be going against the Noahic Covenant to never destroy the earth again with water, you fail to see that the rain from above is a blessing to all men as in priovision for growing crops to feed men. (unless you're charismatic, you will agree).

You might be if you imply that the blessings from above are only spiritual in essence.

The fountains of the deep are stopped, but that doesn't mean man cannot dig wells to access its resource/water! Water free from salinity!
:godisgood: :godisgood: :godisgood:

The Trinity of the Goodness of God!

 

[HankD]

Where in the allegory is this specifically named?

Where is "salinity" specifically named in the allegory?

I was reponding to your quote

What we refer as the word of God, the word of Truth, what thus saith the Lord, etc. is the 66 Books that make up the Canon of Scripture found in the KJB, and nothing else in the English language

An allegory requires symbols, you yourself have used new symbols for the allegory.

I can go get a few more from your notes if you wish.

The Apocrypha has no place being sandwiched in between the Old and New Testaments as in the original First Edition of the 1611 KJV as if it were itself the Word of God with references in the Scripture daily reading guide of the 1611 First Edition.

To the credit of the KJV translators they removed this pollutant from the "authorized well" when they realized this fact above.

In fact they carried on a two century effort to remove any and all pollutants when they were brought to their attention.

HankD

 

[Salamander]

Where is "salinity" specifically named in the allegory?

Since this allegory is supposed to substanciate a "valid" arguement against KJVO, I would think that reality has its way of opposing the allegory. unless of course you think life in and of itsself is an allegory, then...........

Salinity is mentioned in the underlying reason that pure well water does not contain salt.

I know that is a far strecth for some minds to comprehentd, but some here do adhere to an
"any version will do" mentality.

An allegory requires symbols, you yourself have used new symbols for the allegory.

Yep, I jumped out of the allegorical box, just call me Jack.

I can go get a few more from your notes if you wish.

The Apocrypha has no place being sandwiched in between the Old and New Testaments as in the original First Edition of the 1611 KJV as if it were itself the Word of God with references in the Scripture daily reading guide of the 1611 First Edition.

The Apocrypha has no business being a simple historical reference point in an allegory, you're right!

To the credit of the KJV translators they removed this pollutant from the "authorized well" when they realized this fact above.

In fact they carried on a two century effort to remove any and all pollutants when they were brought to their attention.

HankD

The Apocrypha was only removed due to it not being part of the Canon.

These "pollutants" you suggest are nothing more than word speling and punctuation adjustments other than the Apocrypha, which, btw, is a good reference point for historical purposes.

Why can't yall be honest about this?

 

[HankD]

Since this allegory is supposed to substanciate a "valid" arguement against KJVO, I would think that reality has its way of opposing the allegory. unless of course you think life in and of itsself is an allegory, then...........

Salinity is mentioned in the underlying reason that pure well water does not contain salt.

I know that is a far strecth for some minds to comprehentd, but some here do adhere to an
"any version will do" mentality.

Yep, I jumped out of the allegorical box, just call me Jack.

I can go get a few more from your notes if you wish.

The Apocrypha has no business being a simple historical reference point in an allegory, you're right!

The Apocrypha was only removed due to it not being part of the Canon.

These "pollutants" you suggest are nothing more than word speling and punctuation adjustments other than the Apocrypha, which, btw, is a good reference point for historical purposes.

Why can't yall be honest about this?

I am.

I don't think anyone really wants to go down this road again Salamander.
The fact has been proven many times by many people that some of these "pollutants" of the "authorized well" were significantly more than spelling and punctuation flaws.

And what does that matter any Salamander even if it were true brother?

Are you saying God can make little mistakes but not big ones?

A spelling or punctuation error is an impurity.
God can not make even the smallest mistake.
Human beings (scibes and translators) make the mistakes.

The CoE did a meticulous and commendable job in the purification of the water of the "authorized well" and all subsequent translations have benefited from their efforts.


HankD

 

[Salamander]

I am.

And you ought to be.

I don't think anyone really wants to go down this road again Salamander.
The fact has been proven many times by many people that some of these "pollutants" of the "authorized well" were significantly more than spelling and punctuation flaws.

You have no facts, only conjecture based upon misunderstandings of the Scriptures.

And what does that matter any Salamander even if it were true brother?

Are you saying God can make little mistakes but not big ones?

What does matter is that God has perfectly preserved His word and all the attacks upon his word is also an attack against His person.

A spelling or punctuation error is an impurity.
God can not make even the smallest mistake.
Human beings (scibes and translators) make the mistakes.

Glad we almost agree. God's word has no impurities, as the allegory suggests, that pure water is available everywhere anyone digs a well. That also makes the allegory useless.

Punctuation and msipellings are not attributed to God.

The CoE did a meticulous and commendable job in the purification of the water of the "authorized well" and all subsequent translations have benefited from their efforts.


HankD

Not really, but maybe to your satisfaction.

The KJB relates the chronology of the word of God perfectly. men have attempted to change it to fit their reasonings, but only to pollute the words they themselves have to offer.
Just look at the REB topic!:laugh:

 

[HankD]

Brother Salamander,

It seems to me that you are debating just for the sake of debate.
I may be wrong.

However, here is a book for you:

A Textual History of the King James Bible, David Norton, Cambridge University Press; 2005.

HankD

 

[Salamander]

Brother Salamander,

It seems to me that you are debating just for the sake of debate.
I may be wrong.

However, here is a book for you:

A Textual History of the King James Bible, David Norton, Cambridge University Press; 2005.

HankD

Um, I thought we were to be debating the allegory, "my bad":laugh:

But since you insist, are you using his book to advocate the KJB or as most others in here, using it as a platform to attempt to validate other versions?

May I offer you this:
"David Norton has recently re-edited the King James Bible for Cambridge University and this book arises from his intensive work on that project. He reveals here how the text of the most important Bible in the English language was made, and how it was changed by printers and editors until it became the text we know today in 1769. Using material as diverse as the manuscripts of the original translators, and the results of extensive computer collation of electronically held texts, Norton has produced a scholarly edition of the King James Bible that will restore the authority of the 1611 translation. This book includes the bible's fascinating background, Norton's editorial principles and substantial lists and tables of variant readings. It will be indispensable to scholars of the English Bible, literature, and publishing history. A website with additional resources (www.cambridge.org/kjv) will be available one month prior to publication."http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521771009

And there are some reviews:"
Reviews

"David Norton's A Textual History of the King James Bible is now the definitive study of the processes which gave us today's most influential book. His scholarship cannot be bettered. Norton shows the gaps in the story of the making of the text, the faults in the first printings, and all the many changes up to the establishment of the current text in 1769. Over half his weighty volume is given to eight appendices of comprehensive listings of errors and changes, and their causes. In the face of centuries of highly coloured myths, his dogged and committed analytic detail is greatly to be welcomed. He, and CUP, are to be congratulated." David Daniell, University College, London

"Unlike other recently published works on the King James Version, which have colorfully narrated the achievements of major translators and transmitters of English Bibles, Nortonas books concentrates on the text itself, which has been subjected to huge numbers of changes, both intentional and accidental, over the past almost 400 years. Norton has a fine eye for telling detail. Nortonas volume admirably succeeds in achieving its stated goals. Highly recommended." CHOICE

"...his lucid and careful discussion of teh issues involved is worth the price of the book, which should be required reading for any first-time editor of an early modern text." - Debora Shuger, University of California

"This work is well organized and user-friendly given its complex subject matter." - David Norton

"...the book should be in the library of every educational institution, and in public libraries. It will be of interest to scholars and students who are interested in the true history of the King James Bible and the current state of its text." - James D. Price, Temple Baptist Seminary, Chattanooga, TN"

 

[HankD]

Norton's book is about the reality behind the allegory of the well.

Your quotes prove the point.

No well on earth has perfect purity except the one whose fountain is the original documents (wherever they are).

Had we taken more care perhaps we would still have them.

The so-called "authorized well" has had and still has a few of the same human flaws (perhaps less) than the "other wells".

HankD

 

[Salamander]

Norton's book is about the reality behind the allegory of the well.

Your quotes prove the point.

No well on earth has perfect purity except the one whose fountain is the original documents (wherever they are).

Had we taken more care perhaps we would still have them.

The so-called "authorized well" has had and still has a few of the same human flaws (perhaps less) than the "other wells".

HankD

I find the pure water of the KJB to the contrary to what you believe.

Only humanistic reasoning concludes the KJB has any flaws.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I find the pure water of the KJB to the contrary to what you believe.

Only humanistic reasoning concludes the KJB has any flaws.

Only humanistic reasoning concludes the KJB has no flaws.

 

[EdSutton]

Only humanistic reasoning concludes the KJB has any flaws.

Only humanistic reasoning concludes the KJB has no flaws.

What is the difference in these two above sentences?

Try this one for size.

Only humanistic reasoning equals only humanistic reasoning.

Hence, one conclusion from a viewpoint of humanistic reasoning is no better, no worse and/or no different than another conclusion from a different viewpoint of humanistic reasoning.

The simple fact of the matter is that no one has ever shown a definitive empirical test as to the actual purity of the water from any location, in the allegory. They have only assumed from the observation that no one or no creature was apparently harmed, that the results 'prove' that the water was pure, in each and every instance.

Ergo, all have 'used' their own preferred 'humanistic reasoning' in the attempt to 'prove' the quality of the water.

Ed

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Some of the people prefer the water of the authorised well. Some prefer the water from the other wells. Which is "better" is an opinion. Which is closer to the original source of water? No one really knows since that well is no longer available.

 

[EdSutton]

Some of the people prefer the water of the authorised well. Some prefer the water from the other wells. Which is "better" is an opinion. Which is closer to the original source of water? No one really knows since that well is no longer available.

That source of water may or may not be still in observable existence.

(And there are many claims made that some water is coming from the authorized well, as well, although no one is apparently able to show, today, the exact well that is the original authorized well, since apparently multiple wells were also dug by those claiming to be the 'keepers' of the authorized well.)

Second, the fact that no one can definitely show that they have found the definite source of the water, does not mean one does not exist, for indeed it must, to supply any and all wells.

Whether or not one can or will ever find this source, is another question, entirely. And how would one know if one did, considering the aquafier and its contents is generally unseen, except when water is drawn from it, or it appears in a spring somewhere, although no one is apparently showing the existence of any springs that are purported to 'emit' "pure water".

Would it not be more accurate to say that we cannot find, or at least have not found the actual source as of yet, for the purposes of these allegories?

Ed

 

[Salamander]

Some of the people prefer the water of the authorised well. Some prefer the water from the other wells. Which is "better" is an opinion. Which is closer to the original source of water? No one really knows since that well is no longer available.

By observation, coupled with true discernment, only a modernist could believe that the other wells referred to by the allegory as modern versions, that no one has been adversely effected by its water.

The verse comes to mind that "evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse".

 

[Salamander]

What is the difference in these two above sentences?

Try this one for size.

Only humanistic reasoning equals only humanistic reasoning.

Hence, one conclusion from a viewpoint of humanistic reasoning is no better, no worse and/or no different than another conclusion from a different viewpoint of humanistic reasoning.

The simple fact of the matter is that no one has ever shown a definitive empirical test as to the actual purity of the water from any location, in the allegory. They have only assumed from the observation that no one or no creature was apparently harmed, that the results 'prove' that the water was pure, in each and every instance.

Ergo, all have 'used' their own preferred 'humanistic reasoning' in the attempt to 'prove' the quality of the water.

Ed

I think you forgot the godly addage that those who are led of the Spirit have an unusual reasoning that this humanistic world cannot comprehend.

 

[HankD]

I think you forgot the godly addage that those who are led of the Spirit have an unusual reasoning that this humanistic world cannot comprehend

Dear brother, why throw an oblique ad hominem dart?

Have you forgotten this adage from our English well?

KJV 1 Peter 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.​

There have been several wells dug along the way: the Old Itala, the Peshito/Peshita, the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, the "Authorized" none perfect being translations from manuscripts with scribal errors.

Nevertheless all have been cherished by believers down through the ages.

God bless you brother.

HankD

 

[Salamander]

Dear brother, why throw an oblique ad hominem dart?

The shagrin expresses my motive, not your suspicious nature.

Have you forgotten this adage from our English well?

KJV 1 Peter 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.​

My response does bless the child of God that he has the Comforter to guide him into all truth, if that is a "dart", then it came from above.



I do like your use of the word "oblique" though, and it also exposes your suspicious nature here that my response was intended as rendering evil for evil. I have to cry "FOUL"!​

There have been several wells dug along the way: the Old Itala, the Peshito/Peshita, the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, the "Authorized" none perfect being translations from manuscripts with scribal errors.

Thank you for pointing out that we who know the KJB translators reasoned out any scribal errors to give us pure water by diggin the well in the right place!

Nevertheless all have been cherished by believers down through the ages.

God bless you brother.

HankD

God Bless you too, Brother Hank. The KJB blesses me every time I read it when the Holy Ghost witnesses with my spirit that I am a child of God.:godisgood:

 

[rbell]

My response does bless the child of God that he has the Comforter to guide him into all truth, if that is a "dart", then it came from above.

Addendum to BB rules: Ad hominems are OK, as long as "God tells you to do it."

 

[HankD]

The shagrin expresses my motive, not your suspicious nature.

My response does bless the child of God that he has the Comforter to guide him into all truth, if that is a "dart", then it came from above.



I do like your use of the word "oblique" though, and it also exposes your suspicious nature here that my response was intended as rendering evil for evil. I have to cry "FOUL"![/left]

Thank you for pointing out that we who know the KJB translators reasoned out any scribal errors to give us pure water by diggin the well in the right place!

God Bless you too, Brother Hank. The KJB blesses me every time I read it when the Holy Ghost witnesses with my spirit that I am a child of God.:godisgood:

And to you as well, I am also blessed by drinking from the the NKJV and many other English translations which were/are able to quench my thirst for His word.

For instance here is a quote from the Douay-Rheims well (which though has some impurities inherited from the Church of Rome they are easy to isolate).

Proverbs 27:6 Better are the wounds of a friend, than the deceitful kisses of an enemy.​

Your friend and brother
HankD​