Originally Posted by MDOC

These are stepping stones to being diligent. Then you do the word. Get it? You don't just study and study, and then more study. It's not enough to merely divide up the word. Read, if you have it, the note in the aforementioned verse in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.

I wouldn't say that you should just study and study and never do the word. But I would say that the context of the passage in question is more about a teacher studying to be approved to God as a teacher. Hence the phrase "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed" and specifically "rightly dividing the word of truth." So, you are right that you don't just study to study. But you are stepping away from the context of the passage in question a bit too far I think. At the same time, I grant you that "be diligent" (along the same lines as the KJV renders the same base word in 2 Tim 4:9 and Titus 3:12) or even "labor" (as the KJV renders in Heb 4:11) would not be wrong translations. However, I think "study" fits the context very good here, even moreso than "be diligent." "Be diligent" is weak in connotation although the denotation is ok. It sounds too much like a state of mind rather than an actual effort. So, really, "be diligent" is the least favorable translation. "Labor" certainly beats it by far! Yet, study, being that is has the double sense, seems more to fit the context.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by MDOC

Come off it. In the beginning I'm sure you did "cope" with it, especially if you were young. This is analogous to Heb 4:13 ("with whom we have to do").

The only thing I need to "come off" of, if I am to see this the way you do, is my reading comprehension. Apparently you do not understand the words being used here. Her claim was that "we" all "cope" with the Bible:

I agree new converts can cope with the King James as we do

And to your point: when I was healed of being NIV+ there was surprisingly little "coping" with the language of the KJV. Once one lets go of one's prejudice, it's not "coping" with the language that's a problem!

PS: "Study to show thyself approved" cannot really be misapplied like "labor to show thyself approved" could because people would certainly try and apply the labor to everything but study, whereas the passage clearly is mostly about "rightly dividing the word" and hence about study, so study is the best translation.

Originally Posted by Diligent

And to your point: when I was healed of being NIV+ there was surprisingly little "coping" with the language of the KJV. Once one lets go of one's prejudice, it's not "coping" with the language that's a problem!

Perhaps he doesn't mean personal coping so much as coping with the blank stares of others when he reads a passage to them.

Perhaps coping isn't the best word to use, but think about this passage. 1st Thessalonians 4:15 "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep." I don't have to cope with the passage, since I understand it and I beleive it, and I love it. But I do have to cope with heretics misusing the archaic language, specifically the word prevent, to make this passage mean something other than it means. This passage, properly understood, kills the secret-silent-rapture theory by showing that we will not by any means PRECEDE (prevent here means precede) the dead saints, that is, we will not be raptured UNTIL the dead saints are RAISED FROM THE DEAD. So, the rapture theory common among oh so many today is blasted to smitherines. But I have to "cope" with all the heretics running around making this mean "we will not stop the dead saints from raising" when it really means "we will not precede the dead saints" (that is, "we will not be raptured until they are raised and raptured with us"). There probably would be no ridiculous pre-resurrection rapture theory today if someone would have updated this archaic language a century ago! But I'll bet at least 80% of you guys on here beleive that the rapture will take place before the resurrection and some of you are going to jump me and say "nu uh! the word prevent here does mean 'stop' and all it means is 'we cannot stop the saints from being raised.' Prevent doesn't mean precede and it doesn't mean we will not be raptured before the resurrection." Such is a lot of times the impetus behind many people being KJVOs--they simply want to keep the archaic language to prop up some certain heresy. Not everyone is such, as I am not, but many MANY are. Now, Job says in Job 3:12 "Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?" He doesn't mean "why did the knees stop me?" because clearly he is lamenting that they DIDN'T stop him. He is wishing he had died in infancy, but he didn't, because the knees preceded him!

Originally Posted by George

The foregoing little "gem" is a perfect example of not only "sophistry", but it is also a prime example of the results of "the Socratic Method" - always "QUESTIONING EVERYTHING" -never able to come to a final conclusion (I think your term = "hidebound")

I'm becoming unsure whether you can rightly divide ordinary English, George. I said nothing about questioning anything, I meant that different people mean different things by their use of scripture so we always have a question about how they are using it and whose reading is the correct one. That's simply a fact, a simple fact, and for you to call it the Socratic Method and sophistry is, truly, ridiculous.

I DO come to a final conclusion, I did not imply anything else. I KNOW what I think, and in this case I think you are being a reviler and an accuser without cause, a watcher for iniquity, and that in that long list of scripture verses about people refusing reproof and instruction you are misusing God's word to express your own personal opinion of me as if it were God's.

The above post refers to this post:

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...9&postcount=45

Originally Posted by Connie

I do believe that God put men over women but I don't believe that I'm to answer to all men, only proper authorities. I accept Paul as God-inspired so what he says doesn't just apply to his own culture but to all of us. I accept that I'm answerable to proper church authorities, but George hasn't been defined as an elder in the Church of AV1611 Forums. (And don't get me wrong, I think George and his wife Renee are admirable people and admirable Christians. I even like them as people -- in spite of his dogging my case). I accept that I'm not to teach men, no matter how much I know, but I don't see that a forum like this puts me in the position of teacher since anyone can accept or reject what I say. I'm also working on starting a blog of my own, which I'm hoping doesn't put me in that role either, and I don't see why it should. So as you can see, I do have questions about all this. I'm not sure how it's to be worked out in today's world.

Connie, it's true that God put husbands over their wives, but not if they're unmarried. This distinction is consistent in scriptures. The only authority you're answerable to are those in your church, the one where God placed you, and not any outside the church. The pastor there is responsible for ecclessiastical order there. I don't have any authority over you simply because I'm a male, though I understand the tendency you alluded to of women putting themselves under men simply because of gender. It's not biblical. But I won't get into it anymore.

But you know, women do have some authority (except in domestic situations): Phebe (or, Phoebe) in Romans 16:1 was a deaconess. Did you know that? (But don't take that to mean I support Hillary. I hope she fails miserably. Absolute foolishness!)

How it works in today's world is simply a matriachical society... they have it both backwards and upside down. The world's methods are not to be followed, and this is scripturally consistent, too.

[bibleprotector]

As Brandon points out, whatever Sophro is accusing me of is quite outside what I believe and have written.

I believe that the King James Bible itself was not made by inspiration, but that it is the inspired Word.

I believe that we have access to a purified form of the King James Bible, where all the typographical errors, spelling variations and so on have been made right.

I believe that none of the jots and tittles of Scripture have failed in English, and that “jot” and “tittle” are English words (just look up the Oxford English Dictionary) applying to the English Bible.

And furthermore what is lunacy is allowing for an updating of euen to even and voyces to vioces, and euen of diuers to divers but not by any means of divers to diverse or sith to since!

This is a gross misrepresentation. Of course the presentation has been altered historically, so that it is pure now. Just not every time it says "divers" should it be made "diverse", etc., etc., because they always were two different words. The 1611 Edition was actually meaning what we can see today. There are reasons for why the 1611 seemed to have got it wrong, such as that the printers made a mistake, or that both spellings were acceptable for the word/s where separate spellings are used and known today. (Used and known by at least a few today.)

There are many examples of so-called synonyms which have two differing though similar meanings, such as alway and always, example and ensample, beside and besides, vail and veil, among and amongst, etc., etc. Every word as it now appears in the KJB is exactly right in its exact place with its exact meaning.

If it doesn't really matter about these different words with different jots and tittles, then it is only one more step to accept both "he" and "she" as being correct at the same place (at Ruth 3:15), and not much further (not farther) to believe that black is white and white is black. The madness is not with those who believe that God has presented His word exactly to the Church today.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

There are many examples of so-called synonyms which have two differing though similar meanings, such as alway and always, example and ensample, beside and besides, vail and veil, among and amongst, etc., etc. Every word as it now appears in the KJB is exactly right in its exact place with its exact meaning.

If it doesn't really matter about these different words with different jots and tittles, then it is only one more step to accept both "he" and "she" as being correct at the same place (at Ruth 3:15), and not much further (not farther) to believe that black is white and white is black. The madness is not with those who believe that God has presented His word exactly to the Church today.

2Sa 24:14
(14) And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

1Ch 21:13
(13) And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man.

Notice anything different about this set of refs? "Much learning doth make thee mad," Ruckman would say. (I'm not a Ruckmanite.)

George, I'm going to apologize for my last post to you. I felt bad about it after I wrote it and then prayed about it and saw my error. I believe you have been dealing with me unfairly, but that is not an excuse for me to attack you back. I'm truly sorry.