Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[tetelestai]

In the first place, I never said that the word "turtle" being used was an ERROR.
I said "turtledove" would be an improvement if used in both places.

:thumb:

Exactly.

For all we know, people called turtledoves "turtles" 3,000 years ago

YOU are the one saying that the KJV cannot be improved upon.
Not me.

That's the dilemma they have created for themselves.

If an obvious improvement is made (i.e. turtledove), they defeat themselves.

So, they can't have any improvements.

KJVO causes confusion.

 

[GuySmiley]

This explains my confusion. I lack the brain cells to properly consult the Hebrew, Webster's 1913 dictionary, and the works of Shakespeare.

 

[George Affleck]

In the first place, I never said that the word "turtle" being used was an ERROR.
I said "turtledove" would be an improvement if used in both places.

YOU are the one saying that the KJV cannot be improved upon.
Not me.

Tambora,

As the KJV was a translation for a particular audience, we cannot even make an objective statement that it would have been an improvement. Perhaps the word was as common as "car" or "TV". What we can say is that, in the 21st century, difficulty will be encountered for the average, uninformed reader.

The question is, should the words be changed or should we learn differently? I suggest we should learn differently. The reason for this is that we have no problem embedding difficult words and phrases in modern important documents. (example in a deed "In witness whereof the parties hereunto have set their hands to these presents as a deed on the day month and year hereinbefore mentioned.") The burden of understanding is placed on the reader.

Certainly we should give our preachers something to explain to us. Otherwise we can dispense with them.

Respectfully

 

[George Affleck]

This explains my confusion. I lack the brain cells to properly consult the Hebrew, Webster's 1913 dictionary, and the works of Shakespeare.

Do you lack the brain cells to understand the following? And should it be changed because of that?

"... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

 

[George Affleck]

Something that needs to be considered is that the enemy of souls has so worked in recent history to deny access to the Bible to children; first the King James, and then any version. This is a long-term strategy that is producing gospel illiteracy.

I would gladly give up my KJV if the schools would allow the NIV or ESV to be read and studied daily.

(Actually, I would secretly hide it under my mattress!!)

 

[brandplucked]

Bible critics abound

Bible critics abound

In the first place, I never said that the word "turtle" being used was an ERROR.
I said "turtledove" would be an improvement if used in both places.

YOU are the one saying that the KJV cannot be improved upon.
Not me.

Hi Tambora. And I said that I would not change a single word of the KJB because I honestly believe it is the inerrant words of God. You would "improve" upon something according to your own understanding and opinion, and the real reason is because you don't believe it is inerrant.

Learn your own English language a bit more. It is not that hard to do. Even the dictionaries tell us that one of the meanings of "turtle" is the turtledove. And every context is speaking of birds, not some reptile.

The final issue is final authority. It is either the Book (KJB) or it is you. By God's grace, He has been teaching me that it is the Book.

God bless.

 

[heir]

Hey now stop making fun t.

"t" will join forces with anyone who mocks the KJB and MAD, even the gospel perverters.

 

[GodsfreeWill]

If there is one, it is the KJB.

How do you get from "if there is one" to "it is the KJB"? I don't see the bridge between the two.

 

[heir]

Well, Tambora. Maybe YOU should just go all the way like so many others think they can do today and write your own bible version. You know...you can then correct all those errors you think you have found in all bible versions (you obviously don't believe that ANY of them are inerrant) and maybe you will become famous and make a boat load of money in the process. Who knows? It boggles the mind just to think of the possibilities

I know of someone who used to correct whatever Bible version he was "using" and replacing it with verses with his added, changed or omitted words and calling it "my version". Yikes!

 

[brandplucked]

Bible mockers

Bible mockers

Yeah, I'm sure those turtles yappin' keep all the neighbors up at night!

Hi Bob. Now you are becoming a Bible mocker. Maybe you will next tell us that if the KJB was good enough for Paul, then it's good enough for you. Yuk, yuk, yuk. That one always gets a good laugh.

Perhaps you can explain to us how your "logic" works out when you tell us that you don't believe 1 John 5:7 is original Scripture and doesn't belong in the Bible, but it is in what you refer to as the inspired and infallible Hungarian Karoli Bible. Now, that would be entertaining, indeed.

"If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind."

Or, as the Bible puts it - "hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Corinthians 1:20

 

[GodsfreeWill]

I posted to WK that he can put KJV after any scripture and it pulls up KJV. Right now all his scripture posts pull up NKJV - :idunno:

Hey Patrick, I noticed you have been ignoring my questions to you here in the Grandstands. Was that accidental or intentional?

P.S. Your KJV Bible verses in your posts link to the 1900 KJB. Is that the one you believe is perfect and without error?

 

[GodsfreeWill]

He certainly couldn't go to the ASV, ESV, NKJV, NIV or NASB as they don't uphold the faith OF Jesus Christ!

I agree with you here that the KJB is correct and most other versions are wrong. Now, if I show you the same thing in another verse, where the KJB is in error and most other versions are correct, will you readily admit it as I just did?

 

[heir]

I agree with you here that the KJB is correct and most other versions are wrong. Now, if I show you the same thing in another verse, where the KJB is in error and most other versions are correct, will you readily admit it as I just did?

How do you know the KJB is "correct" in this instance? You don't believe that we have the pure words of the Lord so what do you put it up against to determine with absolute certainty that it is "correct"?

 

[GodsfreeWill]

I've been reading too much Will Can He going to great detail about how "turtle" and "turtledove" mean the same thing.
When in reality, if the KJV had used the word "turtledove" in both places, it would have been clearer (ie. an improvement).

Had the 1769 changed it turtledove, WK would claim that it was a printer's error in 1611. But since they didn't, he claims it means the same thing. So then why does the KJV translate it as turtledove 10 times in the 1611?

 

[GodsfreeWill]

How do you know the KJB is "correct" in this instance? You don't believe that we have the pure words of the Lord so what do you put it up against to determine with absolute certainty that it is "correct"?

Good question. While I'm thinking about how to answer, why do you assume that the KJB is correct and the rest are wrong? What do you put the KJB up against to determine with absolute certainty that it is correct?

 

[tetelestai]

"t" will join forces with anyone who mocks the KJB and MAD, even the gospel perverters.

Still waiting for you to tell us which KJV is the inerrant one?

Surely a King James bible believer such as yourself can easily tell us?

 

[tetelestai]

Before Ronald Reagan became our president, he starred in "The Voice Of The Turtle"

 

[Tambora]

Tambora,

As the KJV was a translation for a particular audience, we cannot even make an objective statement that it would have been an improvement. Perhaps the word was as common as "car" or "TV". What we can say is that, in the 21st century, difficulty will be encountered for the average, uninformed reader.

The question is, should the words be changed or should we learn differently? I suggest we should learn differently. The reason for this is that we have no problem embedding difficult words and phrases in modern important documents. (example in a deed "In witness whereof the parties hereunto have set their hands to these presents as a deed on the day month and year hereinbefore mentioned.") The burden of understanding is placed on the reader.

Certainly we should give our preachers something to explain to us. Otherwise we can dispense with them.

Respectfully

I hope you realize that I was not suggesting that the folks in the 17th century should have used word phrases in the way a generation in the far future would use them.
No, they should have used word phrases in the way the folks of that time did.

But to say that those very word phrases themselves that were common then should never be altered for a future generation with a much different dialect is baloney.

 

[tetelestai]

But to say that those very word phrases themselves that were common then should never be altered for a future generation with a much different dialect is baloney.

Correct again!

Example:

(Phil 3:20 KJV) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

(Phil 3:20 NIV) But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,

Nobody today says "conversation", we say "citizenship".

Almost every modern bible translation uses "citizenship". It makes zero sense to use "conversation" as a synonym for citizenship.

 

[Brother Vinny]

brandplucked's posts sew confidence and faith, the opponents' posts sew uncertainty and doubt...in my opinion.

Pretty sure that's "sow". And the friendly thing to do when a friend has placed his faith in a demonstrably false premise is to demonstrate the falsity of the premise, not to "sow confidence and faith" in that premise.