Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[genuineoriginal]

I believe these verses, but they are not in your "God's word" of the NIV

Then you should question the translation you are using.
It appears someone has added words.

Footnotes:

Matthew 17:21 Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29.

 

[brandplucked]

When the mind turns to mush -

When the mind turns to mush -

Quote:
Originally Posted by heir
Funny, I pick up my Bible with the attitude that it is God's word and believe it is so before I even read a word of it.

Good for you.

I do that with the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, the CJB, the YLT and more.

Tell us, go. Which of these is the inerrant words of God. Do you know for sure?



The Bible Babble Buffet Versions


Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, Douay-Rheims) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)


Judges 18:30 Manasseh or Moses?

KJB - "And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of MANASSEH, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."

ESV (NIV, NET, Holman Standard, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And the people of Dan set up the carved image for themselves, and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of MOSES, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/juds1830manassehmoses.htm

whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Three or Thirty?

2 Samuel 23:18-19 KJB (Hebrew texts, Geneva, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman) - “And Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief among THREE. And he lifted up his spear against three hundred, and slew them, and had the name among three. Was he not most honourable of THREE? therefore he was their captain: howbeit he attained not unto the first three.

2 Samuel 23:18-19 - “…was chief of THE THIRTY…most renowned of THE THIRTY” (RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB)

http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam2381819three.htm

1 Kings 5:11 “TWENTY measures” (Hebrew text, KJB, NASB, ASV, ISV) or “TWENTY THOUSAND baths” (NIV, LXX) “20,000 cors” (RSV, ESV, NET)?

King James Bible - “And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat for food TO HIS HOUSEHOLD, and TWENTY MEASURES of pure oil: thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year.

ESV (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NET) - “while Solomon gave Hiram 20,000 core of wheat as food for his household, and 20,000 cors of beaten oil. Solomon gave this to Hiram year by year.” ESV Footnote 20,000 = Septuagint; 20 = Hebrew.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1k51120or20000.htm



or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard

or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

Look at the new "revision" of the ESV 2011. It came out in 2001 and they revised and changed about 300 verses in 2007 and then they revised it again in 2011. Take a look at what they have done with 1 Samuel 13:1.

1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (C...omplete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years."!

But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?

Can you guess which other bible version reads like the latest ESV? You got it. The Catholic Douay-Rheims and the Douay Version 1950 - "Saul WAS A CHILD OF ONE YEAR WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned two years over Israel."

By the way, here is a more in depth study showing why the King James Bible got it right, as it ALWAYS does.


http://brandplucked.webs.com/1samuel131wordslost.htm

1 Samuel 17:4 How Tall Was Goliath?

In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Hebrew texts tell us that the height of Goliath was SIX cubits and a span, which would make him about 9 feet 6 inches tall. That indeed is a giant. However the LXX tells us that Goliath was a mere FOUR cubits and a span - "ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς" - which would make him only 6 feet 6 inches tall, which would hardly be much among NBA players today. King Saul himself was head and shoulders taller than the other Israelites, and yet he was afraid of this giant. If he were only 6ft. 6 inches, this would not make much sense.

Agreeing with the Hebrew text the he was 6 cubits and a span tall are the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and all Jewish translations.

However there are a few loonies out there like Daniel Wallace and gang's NET version that says: "His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was CLOSE TO SEVEN FEET TALL."

Dan Wallace's group chose the reading found in SOME LXX copies of FOUR and a half cubits tall. Other LXX copies have FIVE and others still have SIX cubits and a span. Also reading this way are the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Catholic St. Josepeh New American bible 1970. So, which one is right? Was he 4 or 5 or 6 cubits and a span tall?

For more information on this see Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/scatterbrainseptuagint.htm


2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV, Douay-Rheims) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac, Catholic New Jerusalem)




or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read "males from THREE years old" (Hebrew texts, KJB, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or "males from THIRTY years old" (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition!!! and once again the Catholic New Jerusalem)

Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"? Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.

King James Bible - Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NASB 1963-1977 editions - “But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NASB 1995 edition - “But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."

Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES? What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?


http://brandplucked.webs.com/luke1042onethingneedfl.htm


Luke 10:1,17 were there 70 sent out to preach (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) or 72 sent out? (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)

or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times? (NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011 edition, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)

Hebrews 11:11 Was it Sarah or Abraham?

Hebrews 11:11 KJB - "Through faith also SARAH HERSELF received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child, when SHE was past age, because SHE judged him faithful who had promised."

(Tyndale, Geneva, Darby, Youngs, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, ESV 2011, NKJV, Holman Standard 2009, Common English Bible 2012 and ALL Greek texts)

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "By faith ABRAHAM, even though HE was past age - AND SARAH HERSELF WAS BARREN - was enabled to become A FATHER because HE considered him faithful who had made the promise."

(Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, NRSV 1989, New Century Version 2005, Names of God bible 2011, Lexham English bible 2012)

NIV 2011 edition - "And by faith even SARAH, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because SHE considered him faithful who had made the promise."

 

[brandplucked]

And the example of "translation error" would be......?

And the example of "translation error" would be......?

Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
Hi C. Since you are a Vatican Version user (St. Joseph NAB) and an unbeliever in the existence of an inerrant Bible in any language, it would be interesting to see how your mind works (or, doesn't) when you affirm that the KJB has "translation errors".

So, why don't you give us your Number One All Time Big Hits "translation error" you think you have found in the KJB and prove that it is wrong. By the way, what is this absolute Standard you consult when you look at and compare the King James Bible?

Don't give me your bible agnostic laundry lists. Just your best shot example and we can then see if you are right or the Book is right and you are wrong.

Thanks.

rightly dividing is probably the worst one

not having the word
test
really bothers me

we are being tested

Hi C. So, where is this specific example of "translational error" you think you have found in the King James Bible?

Surely with all your far reaching knowledge and profound Biblical insight as a confirmed Vatican Version user you could at least come up with one good example, right?

 

[Tambora]

Hi DesertReign. Sir, I have been saying the same thing since the beginning. No Bible version has been gone over with a fine tooth comb and checked for accuracy than the King James Bible. Those who maintain the purity of the KJB are the Cambridge printers, and I have also posted a couple of printing houses here in the USA that are very meticulous about weeding out the printing errors and maintaining a pure text.

Go to any bookstore and buy or order a Cambridge printing of the King James Bible. You won't find printing dates on most of them because they don't use them. You won't find copyright dates, because the KJB has never been revised. The specific underlying Hebrew and Greek texts that were used for this masterpiece, have never changed. This is in sharp contrast to versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.

I can't tell you a specific date because there is none. But any Cambridge King James Bible you can get in any bookstore today is the real deal.

Don't make this more difficult than it is. It is really quite simple.

I hope your expressed desire for an inerrant Bible is sincere. May God grant you the faith and understanding to believe it.

God bless.

Thanks for answering. After I wrote this post, I checked to see what Bible it was I had and it said that it was the Cambridge 1885. It was given to me by a friend a long time ago and was his study Bible and it does look sort of old, the way KJV Bibles should look like, if you see what I mean, so it looks like it is authentic. Is that the right one I have got there? From what you say it sounds like it but on the other hand you said that it most likely doesn't have a date on it whereas mine does. I feel in a bit of a quandary because if a Bible has no date on it, how can I be sure that it is the one you are thinking of? Couldn't you just send me a link or something like that? (See my edited original post.) Oh, and the Bible I have does say that it is authorized, which further leads me to think it must the 100% inerrant one.

EDIT: OK, now you've got me really confused. Because I just looked up on the internet about what Bible was in all the bookshops and it said that it was the Oxford Bible of 1769 that was in all the bookstores and that there wasn't actually a Cambridge Bible of that date but that the Cambridge Bibles afterwards just followed what was in the Oxford 1769 one (barring a few changes in spelling and stuff like that). Does that mean that my one, which says Cambridge 1885, is better than the ones I can get in a bookstore? Do you think it might be valuable?
Although I can see why Cambridge wouldn't want to put a date in their Bibles if they were really just plagiarising from the Oxford Bible. Well, not just plagiarising but taking the whole thing lock, stock and print drum. I'd be interested to know what you think about that. Could it be that if they put a date to it, people would know that they were just stealing it from Oxford? It seems a funny thing to steal a Bible!

EDIT: As you aren't there, I thought I'd just talk to myself a bit because I am beginning to feel really wonderful at the thought of getting the 100% inerrant version of the Bible. And I feel quite privileged because no one before 1769 (or whenever - I'm sure you know more exactly?) had this 100% version. It was the first time in all of history that a fully complete inerrant Bible was available! We are so privileged because most Christians down the ages didn't have what we now have. And to think God chose our own language - English - to produce it in! Even though there were vastly more people who spoke Chinese or whatever. (And even today there are more native Chinese speakers than there are native English speakers.) Do you think God sees us in a special way?

Anyway, sorry for extending this post, but I hope you can answer everything in good time.

opcorn:

 

[chrysostom]

Hi C. So, where is this specific example of "translational error" you think you have found in the King James Bible?

2 Timothy 2:15King James Version (KJV)

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Tell us, go. Which of these is the inerrant words of God.Do you know for sure?

Yes, I do.
As it is written, let God be true, but every man a liar.
That goes for Bible translations as well.

Here is what Jesus said about the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament.

John 5:39 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.​

You are too busy "doting about questions and strifes of words" to actually spend any time searching the scriptures "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

 

[chrysostom]

So, why don't you give us your Number One All Time Big Hits "translation error" you think you have found in the KJB .

rightly dividing is probably the worst one

Hi C. So, where is this specific example of "translational error" you think you have found in the King James Bible?

2 Timothy 2:15King James Version (KJV)

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

only king james related bibles have
rightly dividing
no other bible has it

look here

 

[Shasta]

Shasta. You are still promoting The Santa Claus "bible". You cannot show us a copy or even tell us what is this alluded to "God's words that were spoken and written by the holy Prophets and Apostles in Greek and Hebrew."

You don't have them. You can't tell us or show us what they were, and yet you profess great faith in believing these unseen, unknown and unwritten "Greek and Hebrew words spoken by God".

You don't have a copy of them and you know you don't. Yet you pretend you are a Bible believer. You believer selected parts of various versions out there, but you do not believe all of any of them.

That is just a fact. Now, if you think I am wrong, then all you have to do is SHOW US A COPY of your complete and inerrant Bible. But you won't and never will.

In your myth, Santa's translators produced the KJB from various Greek texts which, after a specified number of revisions and with some editing, was transformed into a perfect word for word expression of the original scriptures. Apparently, after that, however, the texts of the original languages can no longer be used to understand the scriptures.

Now this is an amazing position. Once the perfect translation appears, the source texts are subsequently made inaccessible, no doubt, to keep the KJB from being questioned. My own position is the same as the editors of the Stephanos Greek text and the Textus Receptus of Erasmus (whose texts were the basis for the KJV). The Word of God is contained in the Greek and Hebrew texts which we still possess. The accuracy of all translations, including the KJV, can only be measured by comparing them to Greek and Hebrew. It is easy to point out where this material can be found. I have provided links to them in this thread many times. They are not non-existent or imaginary.

What is mythical is the existence of an English translation that is as infallible as the original autographs. You might feel an "inner witness" to the verity of this idea when you hold the physical paper copy of the KJB in your hands. No doubt your absolute commitment to that idea makes you feel secure but it is a security that is not based on truth. Ultimately, your view is based on personal revelation and borne witness to by your subjective feelings.

Probably you fear that if people do not believe this they will be lost in a sea of uncertainty and maybe end up in unbelief. I believe that having abundance of "maps" makes our understanding of the landscape of God's truth even more certain. Because you believe in the perfection of ONLY ONE map you must be solely and dogmatically committed to it. This a priori commitment compels you to accept whatever the "cartographers" of that "map" have written verbatim. Thus the word "conversation" cannot be altered to the more understandable word "conduct." All archaic words must be retained because they are part of the inerrant text. In this view revision is impossible. Who can reproduce the miraculous multi-staged process that ultimately produced the inerrant KJB?

This makes me wonder about the Wycliff translators. Should they even bother consulting the original languages? Would it not be more expedient to concentrate on translating the KJB? What about all of those who translated the Bible into other languages throughout history? Are pre-KJB translations as "inspired" as it and, how would anyone determine whether they were or not - by personal revelation?

Now you keep asking people if they have a tangible paper copy of a Bible that is "the infallible Word of God." By forcing people to admit their translation might have errors you have maneuvered them into confessing "I do not have the word of God" At that point you hold up the Cambridge edition of the KJB as a fixed star of certainty.

However, your offer of security turns out to be a bait and switch tactic. First, you make them uncertain about their Bibles. Of course, there is always some uncertainty connected with any translations since they were produced by men. Then, you offer them the "infallible" KJB which your hands can handle and your fingers can touch. However, when they lay hold of it and study this "physical text" in depth they will find that it too is just a translation, one which does not always correctly translate the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew text. Whether it is better or worse translation than others is a different matter. You have made it a transcendent one and have declared it to be the best whether any comparison is made or.

No invention of man, not even a translation OF the Word should be elevated above the Word of God itself. We must always be ready to look at the ancient texts and compare them to the translations that have been heroically provided by scholars who gave their time to aquire knowledge of the ancient languages. Your obsession with the literal perfection of the KJB means that it must always be right even when the source texts it is based on say otherwise. Thus, in holding on to the idea of a perfect translation you embrace its errors as well and are thereafter unable to seek a higher source of knowledge that might correct it.

There is a difference between your position and that of many believers who appreciate the KJV and even those who believe it happens to be a better translation than all the others. At least they do not claim that it is infallible or that it transcends and supersedes the original texts it was based on.

BTW I have cited original texts and where they came from. I made sure you knew that the Greek texts I was quoting were the same the KJB was based on. So far none of them have differed from what I read in my own Greek Bible.

 

[genuineoriginal]

only king james related bibles have
rightly dividing
no other bible has it

look here

The KJV translators got it from the Bishop's Bible

2 Timothy 2:15 Bishops' Bible Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman not to be ashamed, rightlie deuidyng the worde of trueth.​

 

[chrysostom]

The KJV translators got it from the Bishop's Bible

2 Timothy 2:15 Bishops' Bible Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman not to be ashamed, rightlie deuidyng the worde of trueth.​

what can you tell us about the bishop's bible?

 

[genuineoriginal]

what can you tell us about the bishop's bible?

You can read it here and there is a wikipedia page about it.

I found out from the Battle Royale that the KJV translators used copies of the Bishop's Bible during the translation, and kept many of the verses intact instead of providing new translations.

 

[chrysostom]

You can read it here and there is a wikipedia page about it.

I found out from the Battle Royale that the KJV translators used copies of the Bishop's Bible during the translation, and kept many of the verses intact instead of providing new translations.

so it can't really be defended?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

so it can't really be defended?

Make a straight cut to a piece of wood and see if it divides with a right angle.

 

[Shasta]

Yes, I do.
As it is written, let God be true, but every man a liar.
That goes for Bible translations as well.

Here is what Jesus said about the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament.

John 5:39 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.​

You are too busy "doting about questions and strifes of words" to actually spend any time searching the scriptures "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

This is a distraction. He does not have an infallible English translation either. what he holds in his hands is a myth. You will not find this text until it is made known to you through divine revelation.

 

[Yorzhik]

How is believing words idolatry?
I am not following you.

Why does KJVO cause division among the brethren?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Why does KJVO cause division among the brethren?

How does it?

If you are saved, I will rejoice to spend eternity with you.

Does MAD cause division among the brethren? Are you MAD?

 

[genuineoriginal]

so it can't really be defended?

"rightly dividing" is an English translation of the Greek ὀρθοτομέω orthotomeō.

to cut straight, to cut straight ways
to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right
to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly.​

It is a compound of two other Greek words

ὀρθός orthos

straight, upright, erect
straight forward, in a straight line
unharmed, safe
prosperous
attentive, expecting
right, just, righteous, upright
true, genuine, exact
decent
(geometry) right angle
(grammar) nominative​

τομός tomos

sharper
slice, piece
piece of land
(geometry) frustum
roll of papyrus, tome, volume​

The Latin Vulgate uses the phrase "recte tractantem"

recte

rightly, correctly​

tractantem

tugging, dragging, hauling
handling, managing
transacting, performing​

The "rightly" part of "rightly dividing" in the KJV is the same in the Latin.
The question comes with the "dividing" part, which the Latin translates as "handling".
The Latin translation appears to be as much in error as is the KJV English translation.

Dividing means separating into two parts.
The KJV translation causes a false doctrine that leads to spitting the scripture apart.

Cutting and slicing are methods of either dividing something or of opening something.

I am of the opinion that the better translation would be "rightly cutting open the word of truth" instead of "rightly separating the word of truth".

 

[genuineoriginal]

Make a straight cut to a piece of wood and see if it divides with a right angle.

Like this?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Like this?

Yes, I see two sides with one foundation.
Looks like a MAD piece of wood.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, I see two sides with one foundation.
Looks like a MAD piece of wood.

So, why do you think the Word of Truth is a piece of wood?