Anyone for a free car? in KJV-Only Forum

RSS
Email

Anyone for a free car?

Author	Comment
Scott McClare	Anyone for a free car?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 3189 (08/14/2009 16:38:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tags : None Remove this ad I got this amusing little email from a KJVer named Keith Whitlock last night. (FYI, Whitlock is the author of the false accusation concerning Lewis Carroll that I posted earlier today.) Subject: a little KJV humour From: [redacted; I'm a merciful soul] Date: 02:41 AM To: [me] Thought you might be interested in a little laugh. Got a nice BMW in restoration right now. If you can come up with any errors in the KJV or any lies in Gail's works I'll deliver it to your door. Great deal, Eh? Good luck! I've already sent in my lie, but given that KJV-onlyists aren't generally known for their honesty, I'm not expecting a car anytime soon. So if anyone else wants to take a stab at it, I'll be glad to send it along to Keith and give you proper credit where due, and perhaps post your ideas to my blog. Good luck. I'm sure this is a real challenge. Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
mko		#1	[-]
Posts: 638 (08/14/2009 17:12:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	We could create a tome full of her lies. Of course, KJVOs are not people of their word.
Scott McClare		#2	[-]
Posts: 3190 (08/14/2009 18:16:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Already got my first answer. BTW, my lie was the most obvious one I know of: Riplinger's fabricated quotation of Bruce Metzger in chapter 35 of NABV, making him falsely identify P75 as Byzantine. Keith's answer: So the Butcher never said P75 supports the Textus Receptus/Majority/ Byzantine? I'll check it out. Anyway, what is your favorite color? Don't get your hopes up. Oh I'm sure you're rushing right off to the library, at this very minute and you'll check it out real soon now, Keith. You gotta laugh. But if perchance you ever do grow a spine, I'll have that in the closest automotive equivalent to Pantone 300, please. Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
Scott McClare		#3	[-]
Posts: 3191 (08/14/2009 19:57:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Whoops! Looks like the lying started early for Keef: Scott, P75 does support the TR in dozens of places. Kiln and Pickering researched that. Why don't we ask the Butcher himself? I'll email him. Keith Note the shift in categories, from the fact that Riplinger cooked up a fake quotation, to the facts behind the quotation? I won't be seeing that Bimmer any time soon, I fear. My response to Keef: Hi Keith. I wondered how long it would take you to fabricate an excuse not to honour your offer after making it. Didn't take long, did it? Not even three hours, and you're already lying to my face. Hypocrite. Gail the Ripper said that the words: [quote]p75 supports the Byzantine text dozens of times appear in Bruce Metzger's _Manuscripts of the Greek Bible_ on page 64 or 108. Those words do not appear in that book on those pages or elsewhere. Gail the Ripper made up a quotation. Therefore, Gail the Ripper lied. It is disingenuous of you to try to claim now that my beef was with whether or not P75 supports the TR, when you know full well my beef is with manufactured quotations. Try again. Can you find the following words in the 1981 edition of _Manuscripts of the Greek Bible_ by Bruce Metzger: p75 supports the Byzantine text dozens of times What's that? They're not there? Then man up, and give me my car. [/quote] Yeah, I should be getting that any minute. These people are better than television. Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa Last Edited By: Scott McClare 08/14/2009 19:59:26. Edited 1 times.
Armchair Scholar		#4	[-]
Posts: 1116 (08/15/2009 05:50:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I've been working on a--not sure what to call it--that is turning into a book because there are so many errors in NABV alone. I've documented so many errors I've lost count. If Mr. Whitlock gives a whit (and his buddy Rashad, too), he may freely go to avpublications.org and read some of the articles I've placed there. I am adding more as time permits. Personally, I'm not a BMW fan (not that I really believe he owns one) but I can personally attest to the FACT that there are so many errors in GAR's works that it would make their heads spin if they attempted to be honest about this issue for just 10 seconds. As to his offer to you, Scott, my only reaction is ... ROFLOL, hysterically. Jude 10: "But what things they don't understand, they denigrate; and things they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves." Last Edited By: Armchair Scholar 08/15/2009 05:53:11. Edited 1 times.
logos1560		#5	[-]
Posts: 589 (08/15/2009 07:46:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Gail Riplinger wrote: "James Price showed no loyalty to his NKJV (1982), when he joined the Calvinistic and ecumenical ESV (2001) translation committee" (Hazardous Materials, p. 448). Dr. James D. Price told me himself that he assisted with the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004) made by Southern Baptists, not the ESV. Riplinger is also inconsistent in attacking James Price for working on two translations when she praises Miles Coverdale who worked on three or four different English translations. Miles Coverdale was involved with his 1535 Coverdale's Bible, his 1538 Latin-English New Testament [different textually because it was translated from the Latin Vulgate], the 1539 Great Bible, and the 1560 Geneva Bible. Riplinger also ignores the fact that most of the early English translators were Calvinists, including the majority of the KJV translators. Riplinger wrote: "Miles Coverdale was the editor of one of the early English Bibles; the words of the Coverdale Bible are still seen in todlay's KJB, particularly in the Old Testament. He was intimately involved in the process of the Bible's being 'given' (2 Tim. 3:16) and 'purified' (Ps. 12:6, 7) in English" (Hazardous Materials, p. 1165). www.unboundscriptures.com
JaggyThistle		#6	[-]
Posts: 7 (08/16/2009 11:52:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	He's not going to acknowledge errors in the KJV's textual basis or translation, so it's probably best to take a different approach. How about Matthew 16:13: "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (KJV) This contains a grammatical error. It should read "Who" instead of "Whom". No question about it, that's an error. Will he finish the car before delivering it? :-)
brandpluckt		#7	[-]
Posts: 271 (08/16/2009 14:40:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Scott, thanks for this glaring error. I was unaware of this one. Armchair: I've been working on a--not sure what to call it--that is turning into a book because there are so many errors in NABV alone. I doubt there is enough space on the web for all the errors. Ken Willy
Armchair Scholar		#8	[-]
Posts: 1121 (08/16/2009 16:16:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	brandpluckt wrote: Scott, thanks for this glaring error. I was unaware of this one. Armchair: I've been working on a--not sure what to call it--that is turning into a book because there are so many errors in NABV alone. I doubt there is enough space on the web for all the errors. You're probably right. Jude 10: "But what things they don't understand, they denigrate; and things they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves."
BrianT		#9	[-]
Posts: 1961 (08/16/2009 17:38:55) ezOP Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Scott, I am not interested in sending in any "entries" to this contest, but I would appreciate you asking him one question for me: What would qualify, as far as he is concerned, as an error in the KJV or a lie in Riplinger's works? I've seen challenges like this before (sans the car), and the point of contention always boils down to what they would accept. If you don't get this from them up front, they waffle on the definition later and waste everyone's time. Good luck. If he is honest, send me a pic when you get your beemer. Brian
Armchair Scholar		#10	[-]
Posts: 1122 (08/16/2009 18:01:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad Somehow, these guys remind me of carnival workers that tell you you can win a really big, cute stuffed animal if you can just toss 4 ping-pong balls into a little goldfish jar...they have it rigged just right, to make it as unlikely as possible that you will win. Jude 10: "But what things they don't understand, they denigrate; and things they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves."
kiwiray		#11	[-]
Posts: 88 (08/16/2009 19:45:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	One of them had made the comment that Copernicus had been refuted and referred me to http://www.geocentricity.com/ Oh my goodness me. "And, behold, I tell you these things that you may learn wisdom; that you may learn that when you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God". (Mosiah ch1.49 - RLDS version)
Wes Cottonhort		#12	[-]
Posts: 40 (08/17/2009 02:42:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Perhaps the BMW is a hot wheels edition, or comes in the form of a model car. This would allow Whitlock to "technically" fulfill his end of the bet.
77		#13	[-]
Posts: 843 (08/17/2009 09:17:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	kiwiray wrote: One of them had made the comment that Copernicus had been refuted and referred me to http://www.geocentricity.com/ Oh my goodness me. "the entire universe rotates once a day and vibrates once a year about the earth when seen from the third heaven" 77: Back away slowly, being careful to avoid eye contact...... "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one of a good one ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
Euthymius		#14	[-]
Posts: 1976 (08/17/2009 13:07:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	JT: "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (KJV) This contains a grammatical error. It should read "Who" instead of "Whom". I hate to burst bubbles, but that one is not an error within the category of 17th-century English, particularly when it is translation-English that deliberately follows the Greek structure. The Greek itself has the accusative (TINA = "whom"), and therefore an older English representation of the sentence following the Greek would demonstrate this structure: "The men say me, the Son of Man, to be whom?" (the infinitive EINAI according to Greek grammatical rules, requires an accusative object). Thus, "Whom do men say that I am?" when regularized to the Greek, is correct (regardless of present-day predicate nominative rules). Last Edited By: Euthymius 08/17/2009 13:10:16. Edited 1 times.
amarillo		#15	[-]
Posts: 3369 (08/17/2009 14:43:15) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	but i wonder what justification there might be when the KJB violates the Greek structure n adopts an English one instead (sorry, can't think of an example offhand). typically, i hear KJBOs (the VPPers, in particular) argue from the volatility of the grammar in 1611. at any rate, they always have a double standard! Joseph Ng "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Ps 119:89 KJB
Scott McClare		#16	[-]
Posts: 3196 (08/17/2009 16:09:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	This contains a grammatical error. It should read "Who" instead of "Whom". Not that it matters (he can just argue that the KJV sets proper grammar, after all), but whom is, in fact, grammatically correct. Take care, Scott Ottawa, Ontario, Canada The Crusty Curmudgeon On Twitter: RansomOttawa
Euthymius		#17	[-]
Posts: 1979 (08/18/2009 10:56:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	To return to the free BMW issue: I noticed in Hazardous Materials -- supposedly citing Harold Scanlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament (Tyndale, Wheaton, 1993, p. 11) -- Riplinger's statement that Scanlin supposedly said that the DSS of Isaiah (IQIsa-a) "has vowel points." Unfortunately, I don't have any access to Scanlin's book to see what he -- having been a longtime translation consultant for the United Bible Societies -- really said on this matter (it would be nice if someone were able to check for me). However, having seen clear and sharp photographs of that particular Isaiah scroll (e.g., in Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, pp. 141, 143), it is 100% certain that (a) the manuscript in question does not have any vowel points; (b) that Scanlin therefore could not have said what GAR claims; (c) that GAR herself has never looked at the manuscript in question; (d) that GAR therefore doesn't know diddly about what she is talking about; and (e) I would like to own a BMW also.... Please submit on my behalf. I am willing to travel to get the BMW and drive it home.... Last Edited By: Euthymius 08/18/2009 11:01:13. Edited 2 times.
brandpluckt		#18	[-]
Posts: 274 (08/18/2009 14:20:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Here is everything I could find in Scanlin in this approximate location: (I have an electronic copy): "The first scroll to be published was the nearly complete scroll of the book of Isaiah (1QIsa-a). Scholars were immediately struck by the fact that in many ways it corresponded to the great medieval manuscripts of the Old Testament, all of which are at least a thousand years later than the Dead Sea Scrolls. But they were also intrigued by a number of different readings in the manuscript and the spelling system used by the scribes. The earliest forms of Hebrew writing use few, if any, vowels. However, to aid the reader and ensure that potentially ambiguous words and phrases be correctly read and understood, scribes gradually added more and more vowels. This was done less frequently in Bible manuscripts than in nonbiblical material, but 1QIsa-a incorporated the fuller spelling system, suggesting that this manuscript was designed for easier reading by resolving the potential ambiguities created by the lack of vowels in the text." Later in the book Scanlin describes the MS. "The text is generally similar to proto-MT, but with some significant variants. Many of these variants are in orthography, with a strong preference for plene (full) spellings. This characteristic has led to the belief that this scroll was a "popular" copy because the plene spelling makes reading easier. This was the first Dead Sea Scroll to receive widespread attention. The RSV committee, which was nearing completion of their work at the time, adopted thirteen readings from 1QIsa-a" One fact she left out. Dr. Scanlin's book lists numerous variants in this MS from the KJV. Ken Willy
Euthymius		#19	[-]
Posts: 1980 (08/18/2009 15:08:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Scanlin: "but 1QIsa-a incorporated the fuller spelling system, suggesting that this manuscript was designed for easier reading by resolving the potential ambiguities created by the lack of vowels in the text." Thanks to Ken Willy for being able to check and obtain this quote, which clearly shows how GAR totally misunderstood Scanlin's comment (which has to do with the so-called matres lectiones, or "vowel letters" that appear in differing places in virtually all Hebrew manuscripts -- even those that have the Masoretic vowel points present). But the matres lectiones are most certainly not "vowel points" under any definition (and are themselves ambiguous (e.g., a Waw when used as a vowel letter could be either an "o" vowel or a "u" vowel) -- which is the very point GAR was trying to disprove. So my previous comment stands, and is vindicated: GAR doesn't know diddly regarding what she is talking about, and this is once more proven clearly.
brandpluckt	Metzger on "Whom do men say that I... am?"	#20	[-]
Posts: 279 (08/21/2009 17:47:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad The final editors had also to regularize punctuation and decide questions of grammar, unless they were able to find helpers for such work, which today would be called "copyediting." Some points of grammar in the King James Bible have bothered readers more than they did the men of 1611, who, like the Elizabethans, wrote with the freedom of a language still more or less fluid. The question in Matthew 16:13, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" violates English grammar. So does the colloquial "It's him," yet many today are ready to accept it, though here him is a usage comparable to the whom. With their feeling for sound, it is possible that the translators considered "whom do" less objectionable than "who do …?" Occasionally, the wrong pronoun gives a comic effect. In 1 Kings 13:27, the 1611 Bible says "And he spake unto his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled him." The "him" is in italics to indicate that is not in the original Hebrew, so there can be no argument when subsequent versions change "him" to "it." The aim of the revisers is clearly stated in the preface. It was not to make "a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one." Although usually called a translation,4 it is in fact merely a revision of the Bishops' Bible, as this itself was a revision of the Great Bible, and the Great Bible a revision of Coverdale and Tyndale. A great deal of the praise, therefore, that is given to it belongs to its predecessors. For the idiom and vocabulary, Tyndale deserves the greatest credit; for the melody and harmony, Coverdale;5 for scholarship and accuracy, the Geneva version. Bruce Manning Metzger, The Bible in Translation : Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 76. Ken Willy

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Anyone for a free car?

Anyone for a free car?