Pure and Sure Word

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
QnA	Re: The Humanistic Trash in 1999 with NO answers	#81	[-]
Posts: 545 (12/25/1999 17:05:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	>Why did you fail to address a couple of very reasonable points about the text that you espouse? What "reasonable points" (I'm sure they're very reasonable)? What text are you talking about? I don't recall "espousing" any text? 2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/alexandra/849/nehushtan.htm
QnA	All the thoroughness your argument deserves	#82	[-]
Posts: 545 (12/25/1999 17:12:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/alexandra/849/nehushtan.htm
Mark Hays	Re: Nestle-Aland 27th contrary trash	#83	[-]
Posts: 108 (12/25/1999 17:29:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	"As many times as in the significantly longer Book of Esther. O:-) " Are you comparing that self-agrandizing piece of rubbish with the Book of Esther??? Ain't that a fer piece to stretch??? "Do you read Esther with a barf-bag close by? O:-)" No. But then I don't call Catch 22 the scriptures either. Please compare your next two answers, use your critical thinking skills, and tell me what smells like a four day old roadkill possum (in August). Your answers were: "Certainly. Glad to oblige. When the MSS evidence overwhelmingly tells us that a particular passage was a later addition to the text, we know it wasn't part of the original text." And "The sentence states that the double-bracketed passages "derive from a very early stage in the tradition, and have often played a significant role in the history of the church (cf. Jn. 7:53-8:11)." Please, beat those two together fo awhile, and get back to me later. If you don't see the problem, don't bother. Maybe Santy Clause will give it to ya! Mark Hays Eph 3:8
RexText	Re: The Original Readings Preserved	#84	[-]
Posts: 616 (12/25/1999 17:32:14) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Without the originals, it doesn't matter if you have eleventeen trillion copies, you don't know if ANY of them match the original. Especially since none of those thousands of copies exactly match each other. You have no idea which variants were in the originals. << Wrong. It is precisely because we have so many copies that we can determine by collation and careful examination which variant is original and which is the later corruption. This is what the discipline of textual criticism is all about. >> Numbers means something is right? I hope you are supportive of our two-time elected President Bill Clinton. I'm sure any day now you will be joining the billion strong Catholic church. Surely you realize that most verses are in a minority of manuscripts? There are some 5,400 different manuscripts, but they are not all of the same portions of scripture. Say you're looking for manuscript evidence for a certain verse. If only 1,000 of them contain the particular book, you are already dealing with a minority reading. Then say only 500 have the chapter in question, but 200 of them don't have the portion with the verse you're checking (it was on the next page which was lost). Of the 300 remaining pieces, the verse in question only appears in 15, so the scholars contend it doesn't belong in the Bible. But if the truth be known, Polycarp's wife tore a corner off one of his copies to write a grocery list on the back of, which contained that verse. Then when Polycarp gave his copy to be copied by a few of his friends, they copied it without the verse in question. Then the omission spread to the next generation of copies from those. Then some friends of Origen took advantage of the situation to infuse a few hundred copies of the chapter with that verse removed on purpose! The early Christians (except for the Bible critics) recognized the omission, and didn't use the corrupted versions. But Polycarp had already made other copies before they went shopping, and they continued to be copied and used by the Christians. But due to use, they wore out, even they were originally contained in the rest of the 5,000+ manuscripts. So what was originally in over 5,000 manuscripts is only retained in 15, and thrown out by modern Bible critics. That's how textual criticism works. Without the originals, you don't know which ones are closer to the original, which ones are intentional corruptions, which ones have been lost. At best, textual criticism is inexact guesswork. At worst, mistaken denial of the scriptures. RexTextBible Page http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/index.htmlKJV Inspired? http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/inspired.htmlBible Studies http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/study/index.htmlKing James Authorized Bible - The King of Books!
Mark Hays	Apologies Qna, I addressed wrong person. Oops.	#85	[-]
Posts: 108 (12/25/1999 17:38:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	See, even "KJVO's" do err once a millenium or so : ) Mark Hays Eph 3:8
QnA	Okie-doke EOM	#86	[-]
Posts: 545 (12/25/1999 17:49:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/alexandra/849/nehushtan.htm
RexText	Righteous English chauvinism	#87	[-]
Posts: 616 (12/25/1999 17:56:48) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	English is the most widely-spoken language in the world. In "The Right Word at the Right Time" (Reader's Digest 1986) it was estimated that English is spoken by one billion people, or one-fourth of the world's population. The next language is Mandarin Chinese, with 800 million; Spanish, with 250 million; Hindi, 200 million; and Arabic, Bengali, and Russian, with about 150 million each. Now that we have just hit six billion (12-99) people in the world, if the ratios remained the same there are one and a half billion English speakers, one and a quarter billion Mandarin speakers, 375 million who speak Spanish, 300 million Hindi speakers, and 225 million of the others listed. ---------------------- "English Language, chief medium of communication of people in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and numerous other countries. It is the official language of many nations in the Commonwealth of Nations and is widely understood and used in all of them. It is spoken in more parts of the world than any other language and by more people than any other tongue except Chinese." ("English Language," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation." Of course, Chinese is spoken nearly exclusively in China. ------------------------ According to the World Almanac, English is currently (1999) 4th in amount of native speakers, but 2nd (behind Mandarin) in amount of total fluent speakers. In ratio of native speakers to total speakers Mandarin has a 20% increase (no doubt mostly among other Chinese dialects). Hindi increases by 33%. Spanish by 16%. English increases by a whopping 49%! No doubt the number is even higher when those who don't speak English fluently is considered. English is certainly the best language to reach the most people around the world with God's word. Only 1% of the people in the world speak Hebrew, and Koine Greek is not even spoken by Greeks today. RexTextBible Page http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/index.htmlKJV Inspired? http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/inspired.htmlBible Studies http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/study/index.htmlKing James Authorized Bible - The King of Books!
Archangel	Re: The Original Readings Preserved	#88	[-]
Posts: 292 (12/25/1999 19:31:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	>>That's how textual criticism works. Without the originals, you don't know which ones are closer to the original, which ones are intentional corruptions, which ones have been lost. At best, textual criticism is inexact guesswork. At worst, mistaken denial of the scriptures. I disagree. When we have over 5000 different Greek copies of the NT writings, and those copies are in TOTAL agreement (i.e., there are NO textual variants) for around 90% of the NT text, then we are absolutely certain that the original readings have been faithfully preserved in these cases. The vast majority of the remaining 10% are insignificant variants (e.g., transpositions in word order or the presence / absence of a moveable "nu" at the end of a word.) Of the important variants, the original reading can be determined by careful application of the principles ot textual criticism. At any rate, none of these variants has any significant effect on any major Christian doctrine. Bottom line: God has providentially preserved His Word for us in the Greek MSS. And the Greek text of the NT is the standard against which ALL English translations must be compared.
Archangel	NA27 GNT	#89	[-]
Posts: 292 (12/25/1999 19:45:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	"As many times as in the significantly longer Book of Esther. O:-) " Are you comparing that self-agrandizing piece of rubbish with the Book of Esther??? Ain't that a fer piece to stretch??? I'm only comparing them in one respect: neither of them mention "God." Curiously, that fact bothers you about the foreword to the NA27 but not about the Book of Esther. Interesting. Oh, and might I suggest that if you want to find God mentioned in the NA27, you might try reading the actual NT text itself rather than the foreword? O:-) Your answers were: "Certainly. Glad to oblige. When the MSS evidence overwhelmingly tells us that a particular passage was a later addition to the text, we know it wasn't part of the original text." And "The sentence states that the double-bracketed passages "derive from a very early stage in the tradition, and have often played a significant role in the history of the church (cf. Jn. 7:53-8:11)." Please, beat those two together fo awhile, and get back to me later. If you don't see the problem, don't bother. Maybe Santy Clause will give it to ya! I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me? (Besides, Santy has had a long day, and I wouldn't want to disturb him now that he's enjoying a well-earned rest. O;-) )
Archangel	Original Language Texts	#90	[-]
Posts: 292 (12/25/1999 19:53:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	English is the most widely-spoken language in the world. English is certainly the best language to reach the most people around the world with God's word. Would that be modern English or 17th C. English? O:-) Only 1% of the people in the world speak Hebrew, and Koine Greek is not even spoken by Greeks today. True. But whether we like it or not, these were the languages God chose in which to give us His Word. All English translations (whether 17th C. or 20th C.) must be judged against the standard of the original language texts.
RexText	Re: The Original Readings Preserved	#91	[-]
Posts: 616 (12/25/1999 20:14:08) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	<< I disagree. When we have over 5000 different Greek copies of the NT writings, and those copies are in TOTAL agreement (i.e., there are NO textual variants) for around 90% of the NT text, then we are absolutely certain that the original readings have been faithfully preserved in these cases. The vast majority of the remaining 10% are insignificant variants (e.g., transpositions in word order or the presence / absence of a moveable "nu" at the end of a word.) Of the important variants, the original reading can be determined by careful application of the principles ot textual criticism. At any rate, none of these variants has any significant effect on any major Christian doctrine. Bottom line: God has providentially preserved His Word for us in the Greek MSS. And the Greek text of the NT is the standard against which ALL English translations must be compared. >> You can disagree for the rest of the millennium and be millennially wrong. The 5,000+ Greek manuscripts are not in "total agreement". They don't even all contain the same portions of scripture. None of them is complete. But the fact is, if all 5,000 did agree, it still wouldn't prove that's what the original said. In fact, the very fact that they exist could indicate that they weren't used by the early Christians because they were corrupt and the original said something different. Textual criticism is as much guesswork and assumption as the dating methods used by evolutionists. RexTextBible Page http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/index.htmlKJV Inspired? http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/inspired.htmlBible Studies http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/study/index.htmlKing James Authorized Bible - The King of Books!
RexText	G&H Chauvinism	#92	[-]
Posts: 616 (12/25/1999 20:29:58) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	English is the most widely-spoken language in the world. English is certainly the best language to reach the most people around the world with God's word. Only 1% of the people in the world speak Hebrew, and Koine Greek is not even spoken by Greeks today. << True. But whether we like it or not, these were the languages God chose in which to give us His Word. All English translations (whether 17th C. or 20th C.) must be judged against the standard of the original language texts. >> Whether you like it or not, you can't prove that Hebrew and Greek were exclusively the original languages (read the post on Heathen Original Languages). Nor can you prove it would matter if they were. I wonder why you changed the thread title from English Chauvinism? Was it to hide that you are and even greater chauvinist, just with languages spoken by fewer people? RexTextBible Page http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/index.htmlKJV Inspired? http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/inspired.htmlBible Studies http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/study/index.htmlKing James Authorized Bible - The King of Books!
Archangel	No Originals? Then Which KJV is Correct?	#93	[-]
Posts: 292 (12/26/1999 05:29:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The 5,000+ Greek manuscripts are not in "total agreement". They don't even all contain the same portions of scripture. None of them is complete. Wrong. Please re-read what I said. Those 5000+ MSS agree completely, without textual variants, in some 90% of cases. That's impressive evidence of God's providential care of His Word as originally given. But the fact is, if all 5,000 did agree, it still wouldn't prove that's what the original said. In fact, the very fact that they exist could indicate that they weren't used by the early Christians because they were corrupt and the original said something different. Or that God preserved them for us so we would have them today O:-) Textual criticism is as much guesswork and assumption as the dating methods used by evolutionists. If we can't know what the original Greek text of the NT said, then we have no way of knowing if the KJV or any other English translation is accurate. And if we can't know what the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible said, then we have no way of knowing which of the many different versions of the KJV is the "correct" one. Note the differences between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV's: - Ruth 3:15 - "...and HE went into the city." Today's KJVs read "...and SHE went into the city." - 1 Samuel 18:27 -- "David arose, he and his men...." Today's KJVs read, "David arose AND WENT, he and his men...." - Psalm 69:32 - "...and your heart shall liue that SEEKE GOODE." Today's KJVs read, "...and your heart shall live that SEEK GOD." - Jeremiah 34:16 - "...and euery man his handmaide, whom YEE had set at libertie...." Today's KJVs read, "...and every man his handmaid, whom HE had set at liberty...." - Ezekiel 24:7 -- "...poured it upon the ground...." Today's KJVs read, "...poured it NOT upon the ground." - 1 Timothy 1:4 -- "...rather than edifying." Today's KJVs read, "...rather than GODLY edifying" If we can't check the KJV's English text against the original Hebrew and Greek text from which it was translated, how do we know which of these KJV's is correct?
Archangel	The Importance of the Original Languages	#94	[-]
Posts: 292 (12/26/1999 05:48:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Whether you like it or not, you can't prove that Hebrew and Greek were exclusively the original languages (read the post on Heathen Original Languages). Nor can you prove it would matter if they were. Go back to that thread. I've posted both the proof and the reason why it should matter, ESPECIALLY to a KJVO. I wonder why you changed the thread title from English Chauvinism? Was it to hide that you are and even greater chauvinist, just with languages spoken by fewer people? Nope. It was to put the focus back where it belongs, namely, whether we like it or not it was GOD'S decision to give us His Word in Greek and Hebrew.
RexText	90% fails on God's scale	#95	[-]
Posts: 616 (12/29/1999 01:56:30) Banned User Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	<< Wrong. Please re-read what I said. Those 5000+ MSS agree completely, without textual variants, in some 90% of cases. That's impressive evidence of God's providential care of His Word as originally given. >> For one, that's not true. Few of the manuscripts contain 90% of the Bible. Thus if they all agreed totally, you wouldn't hit 90%. In any case, that's not impressive at all for an omnipotent God, in fact that would be appalling. Look at God's requirements for His prophets: Deut 18:20-22 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. One error is fatal! 99% is not enough, God's prophecy is 100% Does your 90% Bible meet these rigid qualifications? RexTextBible Page http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/index.htmlKJV Inspired? http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/inspired.htmlBible Studies http://www.vbe.com/~tdg/kjv/study/index.htmlKing James Authorized Bible - The King of Books!
amarillo	Re: 90% of KJBOism fails	#96	[-]
Posts: 3645 (12/29/1999 03:55:07) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	don't KJBOs hand out tracts? i suspect the percentage of Scriptures in them are far lower than 100%. also, the KJB1611 had 100% plus Apocrypha neatly sandwiched in between. why should anyone bother with KJBOist arguments on %ages? Joseph Ng"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."Ps 119:89 KJB
Nsaccord	Pure and sure greeting!	#97	[-]
Posts: 290 (12/29/1999 04:41:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Hello Mark and welcome! Hope that Uncle Sam is treating you well and that you are enjoying the holidays! God bless, Nsaccord
Archangel	Re: Better Check Your Scale O:-)	#98	[-]
Posts: 292 (12/29/1999 04:59:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	<< Wrong. Please re-read what I said. Those 5000+ MSS agree completely, without textual variants, in some 90% of cases. That's impressive evidence of God's providential care of His Word as originally given. >> For one, that's not true. Few of the manuscripts contain 90% of the Bible. Thus if they all agreed totally, you wouldn't hit 90%. Please re-read what I said one more time. I said that there were NO textual variants for 90% of the Greek text of the NT. In any case, that's not impressive at all for an omnipotent God, in fact that would be appalling. I see. And what word would you use to describe a God who guided the KJV translators to produce a "perfect" English text, but then permitted printing errors to creep into it to such an extent that it took over 150 years for that "perfect" text to appear in an allegedly corrected form? Look at God's requirements for His prophets: Deut 18:20-22 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. *Yes, those are God's requirements for His prophets. You will notice the passage says nothing about requirements for copyists.* One error is fatal! 99% is not enough, God's prophecy is 100% Does your 90% Bible meet these rigid qualifications? If this is true, then you'd better pitch your KJV, because it's FULL of errors and contradictions -- everything from kings that were eight years old when they were eighteen, to people who allegedly "saw" sounds. If there's a perfect Bible, is sure isn't the KJV.
dochenley	Re: The Scatterbrained KJV-only God	#99	[-]
Posts: 156 (12/29/1999 20:22:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	>>As a rule, psalms are about a single subject, and you can usually guess what that subject is just by reading the first verse. >> Well let us just see if the subject changes in this Psalm. Psa 12:1 To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David. Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. Psa 12:2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. They is a pronoun and refers back to a noun. THis would mean that those doing the talking are those who failed as being faithful in v.1. Psa 12:3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Here in v. 2 the subject broadened to ALL that have flattering lips. Not just to the Jews. Psa 12:4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? Psa 12:5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The Lord has promised to execute judgment, so now we see that the suject of this Psalm has changed and from help to the author taking comfort in the words of the Lord from where the Lord said He would avenge. Psa 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. >>Yet, KJV-onlyists, in an attempt to "prove" preservation from this psalm, have to pretend that God is sort of scatterbrained, and changes the subject for two verses (12:6-7), for no reason. >> God did change subjects. and yet He wove another subject into this one: God being the only God of His words.... SOrry, you do not get the brass ring this time. But then of course, brass is a type of judgement, so I am not sure you would want a brass ring... >>Furthermore, the psalm is a plea to protect the godly. Does God ever promise to do this, according to the KJV-only interpretation? No, says God, I'm too busy preserving my words. Sor-ree! >> Well, it God does not preserve His words, then those who need help do not have a prayer. Nothing like a little bible study to clear up a big misunderstanding in plain english.
dochenley	Re: The Scatterbrained KJV-only God	#100	[-]
Posts: 156 (12/29/1999 20:23:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	>>As a rule, psalms are about a single subject, and you can usually guess what that subject is just by reading the first verse. >> Well let us just see if the subject changes in this Psalm. Psa 12:1 To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David. Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. Psa 12:2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. They is a pronoun and refers back to a noun. THis would mean that those doing the talking are those who failed as being faithful in v.1. Psa 12:3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Here in v. 2 the subject broadened to ALL that have flattering lips. Not just to the Jews. Psa 12:4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? Psa 12:5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The Lord has promised to execute judgment, so now we see that the suject of this Psalm has changed and from help to the author taking comfort in the words of the Lord from where the Lord said He would avenge. Psa 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. >>Yet, KJV-onlyists, in an attempt to "prove" preservation from this psalm, have to pretend that God is sort of scatterbrained, and changes the subject for two verses (12:6-7), for no reason. >> God did change subjects. and yet He wove another subject into this one: God being the only God of His words.... SOrry, you do not get the brass ring this time. But then of course, brass is a type of judgement, so I am not sure you would want a brass ring... >>Furthermore, the psalm is a plea to protect the godly. Does God ever promise to do this, according to the KJV-only interpretation? No, says God, I'm too busy preserving my words. Sor-ree! >> Well, if God does not preserve His words, then those who need help do not have a prayer. Nothing like a little bible study to clear up a big misunderstanding in plain english.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Pure and Sure Word

Quick Reply