Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... I support the correcting of typographical errors. ...
|
Evidently, you do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... The King James Bible does not say "oaths". You are pointing to an edition with no apostrophes in it. But since there are now apostrophes properly placed throughout, we accept the apostrophes. ...
|
My KJB says "oaths". I do not have to accept the apostrophes of printers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... So, how will you resolve the issue? On what basis do you claim that "oath's" must be altered to a plural form? ...
|
How do you resolve the issue? Do you accept some man's word. What is the man's name that put the apostrophe before the
s? My 1611 KJB came first, it is your Bible that is the altered one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... First, there is no final Greek text to appeal to as a perfect standard. ...
|
There are no perfect Greek manuscripts or texts. Correct, but so what? The manuscripts were some ancient believers' (imperfect) Bibles. From those MSS many printed Greek (better, but imperfect) texts were made, and then early English (imperfect) translations. Is there any doubt among the Greek texts that the word translated by the KJB men should be "oaths"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... Second, various people have various opinions on what Greek words mean. ...
|
Among people that understand Greek, is there any disagreement that the word translated "oaths" is plural in Greek here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... Thirdly, by taking this approach, you are essentially rejecting that the KJB men, the proper KJB editors and many Christians who used and supported the KJB were right. ...
|
Nope. I am rejecting that the printers got it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... It is significant indeed to reject the KJB as it stands. It is significant that you seek to match up to the standard of Greek, and to the standard of an edition which clearly contains numerous typographical errors, spelling irregularities and the like. ...
|
You reject the 1611 KJB as it stands. If you sit in judgement of the 1611 KJB without any evidence, you're just guessing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... How can you claim this? If what you were saying was true, you would have to show us what you think they are, ...
|
Well, I tried to show you this one (actually two) but you won't accept it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... otherwise we do not have the knowledge of the Scripture to the jot and tittle today, and that we are somehow being "mislead" when we have doctrines which might hinge upon what you claim is a printer's mistake in present editions! ...
|
Don't be riduclous. The printers' errors don't change doctrine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... That question "which edition?" must be answered.
|
1611, duh.
07-07-2009, 11:03 AM
Threaded Mode