|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 2:05:50 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4642
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ezra
quote:
Those errors have been posted repeatedly,
And those allegations of *errors* have also been refuted repeatedly.
With nonsensical rationale to support a thoroughly untenable position, as the rest of your post shows. I'm amazed at the lengths people will go to excuse error.
Well it seems you are going to quite some length to claim error!
Can you find any other place (in biblical or secular literature) where the Aramaic plural אלהין is translated as God and not gods? If no support can be found to justify this translation, how can this not be an error?
Can you find any verifiable historical evidence for the claim Ezra made that "Passover" and "Easter" were understood to be the same thing in 17th Century England? If not how can the use of Easter not be considered a translation error?
Can you find any other place (outside of the KJV) where the Hebrew ראם is translated as "unicorn?" If not, how can this not be considered an error?
These are just some of the examples of errors that were recently brought up in this thread. and many more can be provided. The "lengths people will go to excuse error" that Eutychus was talking about wasn't about how much work or information was gathered, but it was about how many "facts" are simply invented in order to support a belief that is not rational. Many of the claims used by KJVO'ist (as demonstrated by Ezra) have no foundation in fact; they are simply invented to try and add support for an undefendable position. The fact that many KJVO'ist believe it is necessary to invent "facts" to support their position itself should serve as a warning against their position.
Please note, this is not a criticism of the KJV as every modern version also demonstrates translation errors in some passages. Sometimes the KJV translation is better than translations found in modern versions and sometimes it is not. This issue is that KJVO adherents are unwilling to look at the at objective and verifiable evidence for translation errors in the KJV simply because it contradicts their belief that the KJV text itself is inerrant.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 7/2/2009 2:32:22 PM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 4:48:01 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1539
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
I used to teach through the Bible, chapter by chapter, verse by verse. The reason I began looking for another version was that I found myself spending way too much time explaining the KJV's quirks and language than actually teaching the content.
Elizabethan English was spot-on for its 17th century audience. But NOBODY speaks it any longer.
I had the exact same problem trying to teach children in Sunday School. The kids couldn't pronounce many of the words and didn't know what they meant even though they knew the stories. One would think that if it was perfect, it would be perfectly intelligible to a native English speaker.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 4:50:28 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1539
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LetGo2God
I've often said the same thing.I do not dislike the KJV in any way.I just don't use words like "concupiscience" or lasciviousness" very much, and even the meaning of some words(such as "conversation") has changed over the years.I'm not saying it is outdated.I just think that the newer translations speak in a way that is easier to understand.I remember asking the young man in the bookstore if he knew what concupiscience or lasciviousness meant, and he did not.I know you can look them up, but it just seems like it is more helpful if you understand what you are reading.
Words changed meanings. Some words are not used any more in ordinary conversation. Why wouldn't it be considered outdated?
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/3/2009 1:24:13 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 206
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
You may want to read a bit more about the history of the Church of England.
While I haven't read about the history of the Church of England, I have read some on the history of England, and read about the animosity between the Anglicans and the Catholics in those days. The Anglican Church seems to me to be very close to the Catholic church in beliefs, but that does not exclude the animosity between them. Some of this animosity can be seen in the preface to the readers of the KJV written by the translators.
quote:
At the time the KJV was translated, there was NO relationship between Easter and Passover. These celebrations could happen almost a month apart on some occasions.
The relationship between Easter and Passover had nothing to do with what time these were celebrated. The fact is, that in England, the word "Easter" was used to refer to both the Passover celebration, and the celebration of the resurrection. The word Passover did not exist until the 1520's or 1530's when William Tyndale coined the word while translating the Old Testament. His New Testament used the word "Easter" to translate Passover in every instance of the word, although he spelled it "ester". The term "Passover" gradually became accepted, and it is interesting to note the number of times it appears in each successive English translation. As I recall, the Bishop's Bible used "Easter" only twice, and the later versions of the Geneva did not use it at all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/3/2009 11:55:35 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4642
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
At the time the KJV was translated, there was NO relationship between Easter and Passover. These celebrations could happen almost a month apart on some occasions.
The relationship between Easter and Passover had nothing to do with what time these were celebrated. The fact is, that in England, the word "Easter" was used to refer to both the Passover celebration, and the celebration of the resurrection. The word Passover did not exist until the 1520's or 1530's when William Tyndale coined the word while translating the Old Testament. His New Testament used the word "Easter" to translate Passover in every instance of the word, although he spelled it "ester". The term "Passover" gradually became accepted, and it is interesting to note the number of times it appears in each successive English translation. As I recall, the Bishop's Bible used "Easter" only twice, and the later versions of the Geneva did not use it at all.
I always respect the research you put into your posts, so your post prompted me to look a little harder. What I found is that middle English did have a separate term for passover i.e. 'peske'; so far I don't know why Tyndale didn't use this term, but it is clear that did use 'ester' quite consistently in his translation (1534). The Bishop's bible (1595) used Easter three times (twice in Jn. 11:55, and once in Ac. 12:4) and the Geneva Bible (1599) did not use this term once. While there are several references that demonstrate some kind of interchangeability in these terms, aside from Tyndale's bible all are 15th century or earlier. By the time of the late 16th century it appears that the differences in these terms were pretty well understood in the literature contemporary with the bible. Even when we consider the Bishop's bible and the KJV, the differences seem to have been well understood i.e. out of 24 references, only 3 were translated as Easter in the Bishop's bible and 1 was translated this way in the KJV. Interestingly enough, in the Bishop's bible there were 9 references and only two (in the same verse) were translated Easter. From what I can tell, the difference between these terms was well understood by the time of the Bishop's bible and these were simply mistakes in translation.
PS. I could not find any information about Tyndale coining the word 'passover', do you have a reference.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/4/2009 1:34:16 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 206
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
What I found is that middle English did have a separate term for passover i.e. 'peske'; so far I don't know why Tyndale didn't use this term, but it is clear that did use 'ester' quite consistently in his translation (1534).
Do you mean "paske"? (I haven't seen it spelled with an e in the middle.) Anyway, that is the transliteration for the Hebrew word. Even the Greek word is a transliteration for the Hebrew word. I believe peske, or pask made it's way into the English language through use of the Latin Vulgate before English translations became available.
quote:
By the time of the late 16th century it appears that the differences in these terms were pretty well understood in the literature contemporary with the bible. Even when we consider the Bishop's bible and the KJV, the differences seem to have been well understood i.e. out of 24 references, only 3 were translated as Easter in the Bishop's bible and 1 was translated this way in the KJV.
I participated in a discussion on another board, with person who insisted that "Easter" was not an error. He pointed out that the word was understood to mean both Passover and Easter (Resurrection Day) to English speaking people of the day. He pointed out the Oxford English Dictionary (I believe) which gave references to usage in literature. There were some 16th century uses, and maybe earlier, and the KJV in the 17th century. He said that proved that Easter = Passover still in the 17th century. I said that reasoning was kind of circular, if it was still in use there should be other literature which retained that use, but no one could produce anything.
I sure would like to know what the KJV translators reasoning was for using it.
quote:
PS. I could not find any information about Tyndale coining the word 'passover', do you have a reference.
I think I've read it a number of places, and I never kept a bibliography of the resources I've used in my research - I didn't realize I should have until it was too late. But, I think the first place I read it was in an introduction to a modern spelling edition of Tyndale's New Testament. I found it a number of years ago at Barnes and Noble, and since I am interested in reading different translations of the Bible, and reading about their history, I snapped it up.
I still believe there was a lot of animosity between the Anglicans and the Catholics in England, but it was interesting to read that where the KJV differs from the Tyndale, the KJV was translated with a "high church" perspective, whereas Tyndale's goal was to provide a translation that "even a common ploughboy could read".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/4/2009 6:36:17 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4642
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
What I found is that middle English did have a separate term for passover i.e. 'peske'; so far I don't know why Tyndale didn't use this term, but it is clear that did use 'ester' quite consistently in his translation (1534).
Do you mean "paske"? (I haven't seen it spelled with an e in the middle.) Anyway, that is the transliteration for the Hebrew word. Even the Greek word is a transliteration for the Hebrew word. I believe peske, or pask made it's way into the English language through use of the Latin Vulgate before English translations became available.
Yes, I did mean "paske", I just made one of those "peske" typos ; however, it was linked to the correct spelling. Yes, it made its way into English quite early; the link I provided has a reference from 1200AD i.e. ?c1200 Orm.(Jun 1) 15850: Passke..tacneþþ..tatt uss birrþ a33 Uss flittenn towarrd Criste.
quote:
quote:
By the time of the late 16th century it appears that the differences in these terms were pretty well understood in the literature contemporary with the bible. Even when we consider the Bishop's bible and the KJV, the differences seem to have been well understood i.e. out of 24 references, only 3 were translated as Easter in the Bishop's bible and 1 was translated this way in the KJV.
I participated in a discussion on another board, with person who insisted that "Easter" was not an error. He pointed out that the word was understood to mean both Passover and Easter (Resurrection Day) to English speaking people of the day. He pointed out the Oxford English Dictionary (I believe) which gave references to usage in literature. There were some 16th century uses, and maybe earlier, and the KJV in the 17th century. He said that proved that Easter = Passover still in the 17th century. I said that reasoning was kind of circular, if it was still in use there should be other literature which retained that use, but no one could produce anything.
I sure would like to know what the KJV translators reasoning was for using it.
Looking at the usage of Easter in 17th century literature that was contemporary with the KJV, it is hard to believe that the translators didn't get this wrong. And when you add to the fact that the KJV correctly translated this as passover on the other 23 occurrences, such a claim is very hard to justify.
quote:
PS. I could not find any information about Tyndale coining the word 'passover', do you have a reference.
I think I've read it a number of places, and I never kept a bibliography of the resources I've used in my research - I didn't realize I should have until it was too late. But, I think the first place I read it was in an introduction to a modern spelling edition of Tyndale's New Testament. I found it a number of years ago at Barnes and Noble, and since I am interested in reading different translations of the Bible, and reading about their history, I snapped it up.
I still believe there was a lot of animosity between the Anglicans and the Catholics in England, but it was interesting to read that where the KJV differs from the Tyndale, the KJV was translated with a "high church" perspective, whereas Tyndale's goal was to provide a translation that "even a common ploughboy could read".
There was quite a bit of animosity between the Catholics and Angilicans and the KJV was never accepted by the Catholics; they instead used the Douay-Rheims."; even today within the Catholic church there are groups of Douay-Rheims only'ist i.e. the equivalent of the KJVO'ists. Maybe this only'ism is a modern reflection of that 17th century animosity??????
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/5/2009 1:27:56 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 206
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
There was quite a bit of animosity between the Catholics and Angilicans and the KJV was never accepted by the Catholics; they instead used the Douay-Rheims."; even today within the Catholic church there are groups of Douay-Rheims only'ist i.e. the equivalent of the KJVO'ists. Maybe this only'ism is a modern reflection of that 17th century animosity??????
The "only'ist" kind of animosity goes back farther than that. Back in his day, Jerome dealt with a lot of animosity, too. It seems that there was outrage on the part of some because he translated the OT from the Hebrew instead of from the LXX.
It is my opinion that "onlyism" concerning Bible versions is not healthy for the church. I don't think it was good for the Catholic church, and it doesn't appear to me to be healthy for churches today either, at least, not for people I know personally.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/6/2009 12:20:40 PM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Words changed meanings. Some words are not used any more in ordinary conversation. Why wouldn't it be considered outdated?
Good question.I guess I was trying to be diplomatic.By the way, I like the picture of the cat.It looks like Don Imus(although the cat may not appreciate that).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/6/2009 1:05:07 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3800
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Can you find any verifiable historical evidence for the claim Ezra made that "Passover" and "Easter" were understood to be the same thing in 17th Century England? If not how can the use of Easter not be considered a translation error? Did that word even exist before the KJV? I am not that familiar with early or middle english. I do know that the translators "invented" some words to not overly upset the Church of England hierarchy at the time. (James was not well liked by the clergy) "Baptize" is just one good example.
I am not sure that you could count that an "error" as such.
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/6/2009 1:10:21 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3800
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
Do you mean "paske"? (I haven't seen it spelled with an e in the middle.) Anyway, that is the transliteration for the Hebrew word. Even the Greek word is a transliteration for the Hebrew word. I believe peske, or pask made it's way into the English language through use of the Latin Vulgate before English translations became available.
It must be a transliteration by way of the Greek or Latin (like Jesus) before coming into English. A direct transiteration would be "Pay-sock."
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/6/2009 1:11:25 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4642
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Can you find any verifiable historical evidence for the claim Ezra made that "Passover" and "Easter" were understood to be the same thing in 17th Century England? If not how can the use of Easter not be considered a translation error? Did that word even exist before the KJV? I am not that familiar with early or middle english. I do know that the translators "invented" some words to not overly upset the Church of England hierarchy at the time. (James was not well liked by the clergy) "Baptize" is just one good example.
I am not sure that you could count that an "error" as such.
Yes, both words existed (in some form) for centuries before the KJV. Passover (if Phyl2 is correct) was coined by Tyndale almost 100 years before KJV and whether he invented this word or not, he clearly did use it. Paske in various forms dates to centuries earlier. Additionally, the word easter/ester is attested in English literature that dates centuries earlier than the KJV.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/6/2009 4:49:22 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1539
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Yes, both words existed (in some form) for centuries before the KJV. Passover (if Phyl2 is correct) was coined by Tyndale almost 100 years before KJV and whether he invented this word or not, he clearly did use it. Paske in various forms dates to centuries earlier. Additionally, the word easter/ester is attested in English literature that dates centuries earlier than the KJV.
Belenchi,
The claim that Tyndale coined the word "Passover" turned up rather quickly when I googled it recently. I did not get picky about the accuracy of the source any more than Phyl.
I don't know how to qualify this source with regard to reliability.
http://www.easterau.com/
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/7/2009 1:08:38 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 206
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
It must be a transliteration by way of the Greek or Latin (like Jesus) before coming into English. A direct transiteration would be "Pay-sock."
Yes, that's what I was trying to say.
quote:
I do know that the translators "invented" some words to not overly upset the Church of England hierarchy at the time. (James was not well liked by the clergy) "Baptize" is just one good example.
Baptize is like the Hebrew word for Passover, it is not an "invented" word, it is a transliterated word.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/7/2009 6:47:54 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3800
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
I used "invented" for baptize because of the reason the translators did not translate the word but used a transliteration: the Greek word means to dip, plunge, immerse and the practice of the church was to sprinkle. So to avoid the questions as to why we don't dip or plunge, they came up with a new word that the man in the street (or pew) had no idea what it meant: baptize.
_____________________________
Avatar is my daughter Laura and SIL David on their wedding 9/20/09 ====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/18/2009 5:03:17 PM
|
|
|
ComyndeComines
Posts: 23
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear GC,
Surely you are not saying that the KJV translators had AUTOGRAPHS of the Scriptures?
Thanks,
Comyn
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/18/2009 5:18:32 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1539
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ComyndeComines
Dear GC,
Surely you are not saying that the KJV translators had AUTOGRAPHS of the Scriptures?
Thanks,
Comyn
Uh, no. When I mentioned "qualifying the source," I was referring to some of the alleged facts. Obviously, the source was waaayyy off on some of the conclusions. I suppose I should always be suspicious when some conclusions are there when I disagree with them. Backing up a step, I was hoping at least that there was some way to corroborate some of the facts. I was hoping at least that the basic facts were right. I admit that I didn't scrounge through the site for things like what you mentioned.
If the source I referenced claimed that the KJV translators had autographs, I would disagree entirely. I would even disagree if they said that the KJV manuscripts were identical to the autographs.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/19/2009 7:41:23 AM
|
|
|
ComyndeComines
Posts: 23
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Larry,
That makes sense and I agree with you.
Unfortunately, I betcha some KJVOers would claim that the KJV is identical to the autographs or even superior to the autographs. I have even seen a disregard for the Hebrew-Greek texts from many KJVOers.
regards to you,
Comyn
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/19/2009 8:17:42 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1539
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ComyndeComines
Larry,
That makes sense and I agree with you.
Unfortunately, I betcha some KJVOers would claim that the KJV is identical to the autographs or even superior to the autographs. I have even seen a disregard for the Hebrew-Greek texts from many KJVOers.
regards to you,
Comyn
Some. But in all fairness the KJVOs here do not like to be linked with those.
BTW, I don't think it would be correct to say that they believe the KJV is superior to the original autographs. Those particular people would say that the KJV is superior to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts now in existence. That would be the position of people like Peter Ruckman, I believe. I have had KJVOs ask in all seriousness where the Greek manuscripts were. Of course, I didn't know that they were in libraries and museums. But they took my silence as "proof" that scholars referencing Greek manuscripts had none.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/19/2009 6:01:35 PM
|
|
|
ComyndeComines
Posts: 23
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Larry,
I did say "some" KJVOers thought the KJV was superior to the autographs. I think only the most extreme would harbor this opinion. If we actually had an autograph found, and it disagreed with the KJV, all KJVO'ers ( in my humble opinion) would go for the KJV. But the criteria for evidencing an autograph would have to be pretty rigorous. I would hate to be the scholar on THAT committee!
Comyn
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/19/2009 6:47:46 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1539
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ComyndeComines
Larry,
I did say "some" KJVOers thought the KJV was superior to the autographs. I think only the most extreme would harbor this opinion. If we actually had an autograph found, and it disagreed with the KJV, all KJVO'ers ( in my humble opinion) would go for the KJV. But the criteria for evidencing an autograph would have to be pretty rigorous. I would hate to be the scholar on THAT committee!
Comyn
Comyn,
Yes. I was merely echoing you as an expression of my essential agreement with your statement.
I heard Daniel Wallace at church today. I think/hope you know who he is. He said (and I paraphrase) that the autographs were dust within a few short years of having been penned. To be really honest, I believe that is the first time I have heard a scholar say something like that. From the people I grew up around that would be a very daring statement.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/19/2009 10:40:31 PM
|
|
|
Godhead
Posts: 289
Joined: 1/28/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Well it seems you are going to quite some length to claim error!
No great lengths on my, the errors speak for themselves. The ones that go to great lengths are the KJVO crowd that jump through hoops to excuse the errors.
I used to teach through the Bible, chapter by chapter, verse by verse. The reason I began looking for another version was that I found myself spending way too much time explaining the KJV's quirks and language than actually teaching the content.
Elizabethan English was spot-on for its 17th century audience. But NOBODY speaks it any longer.
The minor errors in the KJV actually prove the book of Mormon fake, where it had verses that were obviously copied from the KJA word for word such as the sermon on the mount. earlier manuscripts don't have , "Fort thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory." At the end of the Lords prayer, but it is in the book of Mormon. Sometimes minor errors can be really the providence of God, which I believe it was in this case. clearly the book of Mormon is a fake. They claim that the book of Mormon was copied from golden tablets and is without error. The errors that are in the KJV are not important and I am not entirely convince by some modern scholars as to some of those errors. The KJV is the most used English bible. But the original manuscripts were not written in English. I think that the KJV although it has a few minor mistakes, is overall the most reliable and faithful to the original. That does not mean that I will not use other translations if it better explains in English the original meaning. I do not think the KJVO have a real foundation for their stance. But since they use the KJV, their faith is still grounded on a great and proven version of the bible, that has lasted for centuries.
_____________________________
"Faith consists in the knowledge of God and Christ. It is always by his word that he manifests himself to those whom he designs to draw to himself." (John Calvin)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/20/2009 2:42:37 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 206
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If we actually had an autograph found, and it disagreed with the KJV, all KJVO'ers ( in my humble opinion) would go for the KJV.
If an autograph was found, I don't know how we would know it was the autograph. But, based on stereotypes, and the way I've seen many KJVOs on a number of boards respond -if a manuscript were found that enough evidence would suggest that the manuscript dates from the approximate time of the writing, many KJVOs would say that the manuscript could not be the autograph because it doesn't match the KJV.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/20/2009 11:05:13 AM
|
|
|
ComyndeComines
Posts: 23
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Larry.
Yep. I have a deep respect for the honestly and scholarship of Dr.Wallace. He is indeed a believing scholar.
As far as the autographs go, I personally think he stretched it a bit. Why would not a church keep the original of an epistle or Gospel till it just wore out? Religious devotion and human nature being what it is, I think this better states the case than that by Dr. Wallace.
Do you think there was a Q behind the Synoptics? I used to think so, but now am not so adamant about that? I am beginning to think that Revelation may have been written earlier than 98 +/- (under the persecution of Domitian) and probably under the Neronian persecution in the later 60's.
In all of my study since 1965, I have yet to find any evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or any other NT author had a copy of KJV in their hand with an urim and thummin to write the autographs (grin)!
anyway,
Comyn
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
