Originally Posted by MDOC

No. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary in the OT has the answer.

Is it based on a tradition of which Cambridge KJV is the pure Cambridge? Somehow I doubt it. So where do Keil & Delitzsch get their answer? From the Hebrew text? I don't know, but I suppose you do. I also suppose you were being sarcastic like that would be Bibleprotector's way of getting around having to go to the Hebrew, he would go to Keil & Delitzsch. Very clever.

That's OK. This site isn't worth my time anyway.

Originally Posted by sophronismos

Is it based on a tradition of which Cambridge KJV is the pure Cambridge? Somehow I doubt it. So where do Keil & Delitzsch get their answer? From the Hebrew text? I don't know, but I suppose you do. I also suppose you were being sarcastic like that would be Bibleprotector's way of getting around having to go to the Hebrew, he would go to Keil & Delitzsch. Very clever.

You are presumptuous. I was not being sarcastic.

It comes from partly Hebrew, partly exegesis, partly an external reference. The answer is they both "went", not just "she," because the barley was too heavy and too much for her to carry alone. The external reference used conjecture to arrive at a unit of measure which is not given in scripture ref, but it could be valid.

Originally Posted by Connie

That's OK. This site isn't worth my time anyway.

I'm arriving at the same conclusion myself.

I'm back just to try to explain what I meant, which obviously went over your head, Renee. And Beth's. Your husband (and your son in law too I believe) accused me of being a humanist because I dared to express my opinion about the Bible as a personal one, so it only seems fair that he apply the same judgment to your also expressing your opinion about the Bible in personal terms.

Beth of course believes that because my personal opinion is that some changes are in order I'm a humanist, while since your personal opinion is in favor of the status quo you are exempt from the charge. That's not what was said by George, however, what he said was that putting it in personal terms was my offense.

Goodbye.

Originally Posted by Connie

I'm back just to try to explain what I meant, which obviously went over your head, Renee. And Beth's. Your husband (and your son in law too I believe) accused me of being a humanist because I dared to express my opinion about the Bible as a personal one, so it only seems fair that he apply the same judgment to your also expressing your opinion about the Bible in personal terms.

Beth of course believes that because my personal opinion is that some changes are in order I'm a humanist, while since your personal opinion is in favor of the status quo you are exempt from the charge. That's not what was said by George, however, what he said was that putting it in personal terms was my offense.

Goodbye.

The Greek text that the King James Version translated was printed by humanists (not in the modern sense of humanist, of course) like Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, so consider it a compliment that people who trust in some unnamed committee of men that revised the text of the KJV in the around 1900 and came up with the "pure Cambridge text" which these wise acres say is alone perfect and inspired of God, and yet they name their forum AV1611 when they see the 1611 as being as corrupt as the NIV itself and only accept the very modern "pure Cambridge text."

Thanks. Yes, there are ironies here. It's just so sad that Christians remain so isolated in their own doctrinal camps, but it seems to be the case that people get dug into a point of view and that's that -- counting myself of course. That's bad enough but then to get called a humanist (in the sense of "secular" humanist, sophist and so on) because you differ does take it to an even more depressing level.

Originally Posted by sophronismos

of the KJV in the around 1900 and came up with the "pure Cambridge text" which these wise acres say is alone perfect and inspired of God, and yet they name their forum AV1611 when they see the 1611 as being as corrupt as the NIV itself and only accept the very modern "pure Cambridge text."

Please back up your accusation. Could you give a quote of someone on this board saying such a thing?

Please be careful with false accusations. It looks as though you are just trying to cause problems, like some others on this forum that later cry "victim"

Bibleprotectos say so. He says that if your Bible says thoroughly rather than throughly that you are a bible corrector. He claims they are different words. Yet he still refuses to explain wherein they differ, because he is a liar and knows they are the same word, but cannot admit it because then his claims that his pure Cambridge is so much better than other 1769 KJVs would fall to the ground.

sophronismos, why are you here? To defend the KJV? To show some flaws in people's defense of it? You would have more impact in those intentions if you stopped with the insults and mockings? I have no problem with SOME of the issues you are stating (ie. I may agree with what you are saying), but it is hard to accept posts that are continually slamming others on these boards - and building straw men. Forget the Ad hominen (however you spell that) attacks, and deal with the issues. (And no, I am not against exposing someone's sins and bad attitudes - if that is relevant in some way to the issue being discussed - but calling someone names when that has nothing to do with what they have posted, is not helping your cause - whatever it may be.)