|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ GUINNESS ” |
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 11 · Found: 335 user comments posted recently. |
|  | |  |
|
|
 11/8/09 3:15 PM |
| Guinness | |  |  |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Whoso, JohnUK, Jim,What is irony? Due to the 1300 character limit I was not able to post an introductory sentence.So let me make myself clear now. When I take Whoso's fallacious argumentation and turn it around the purpose is not to endorse fallacious reasoning but to expose it and the double standards on which it rests. These are Whoso's arguments not mine! Whoso - Please be advised the 15th century ran from 1401 to 1500.Please give me an example of a 15th century English translation of the scriptures? Preferably an uncorrupted Protestant Reformation translation (again irony intended).Or even a Greek text? So the TR is okay because it is only a little bit eclectic? Double standard. Where was your unadulterated Bible to be found before it's publication? Name the Greek manuscript you hold to in its 100% entirety. May God deliver the Authorised Version from silly and stupid modern argumentation and defences! As said on another thread - When will it all end? I don't know exactly when it will all end, but end it surely shall in a blessed day and hour. But one step along the way here was the Authorised Version. This was a simple political device by a man who decided in his own "infinite" wisdom to have a new Conservative version written for his own ends. |
|
|
| 11/8/09 1:17 AM |
| Guinness | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
1. This argues in favour of the Geneva Bible and other earlier Bibles over the KJV.
2. And, why are there so many different 16th and 17th century versions?
3. Being as there is a myriad of variant ancient texts in both the Byzantine and Alexandrian families - which one is accurate? Can you prove it?
4. The “Textus Receptus” is an eclectic Greek Text which post-dates the eclectic KJV and is based in part upon it.
5. And their major opponent was heretical Dean Burgon who believed in the heresy of baptismal regeneration. Why do you use a version defended by such dubious sources?
6. The KJV came amidst a flood of Bible versions from Tyndale, Matthew’s, Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops Bible, Rheims and the glorious schism of the Reformation. Or should we go back to Rome?
7. And contemporary Christians 'led by the Holy Spirit' rejected the KJV ...
8. False dichotomy but note that the KJV translators said “So that to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue … was esteemed most profitable to cause faith to grow in men's hearts the sooner, and to make them to be able to say with the words of the Psalm, As we have heard, so we have seen.”
9. False dichotomy. The KJV is not the “Spirit and Truth”, but an excellent translation of the Scriptures.
10. Equally you “proved” nothing. |
|
|
| 11/6/09 6:31 PM |
| Guinness | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Neil wrote:
I think I have heard of McGrath's book in an Economist review. Is it a good read & informative? Yes, it was a good read. |
|
|
| 11/6/09 5:45 PM |
| Guinness | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Neil,Alister McGrath has some observations on this issue in his book "In The Beginning" (pp266-271). Firstly, he affirms that the "The English word "you" came to have the same associations as the French "vous". Following normal French practice the singular forms (thou; thee; thy) were used within a family, or to address children or people of an inferior class". It was the PLURAL forms that were a mark of respect. By [the late] 16th century the use of the SINGULAR form had virtually ceased except as "a form of studied insult". The use of thou, thee and thy (for God, Satan and other individuals) dates he suggests from Tyndale's 1525 translation 86 years before the KJV was published. This was absorbed via Matthew's, Coverdale's and the Great Bible into the Bishop's Bible. The usage was anachronistic before 1604. McGrath suggests that the reason why it is retained in the AV was simply because of the terms of reference for the translators that they alter the Bishop's Bible as little as possible. |
|
|
| 11/4/09 11:41 PM |
| Guinness | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Jim Lincoln wrote:
Of course you don't have a KJV unless it also has the preface, marginal notes, and the apocrypha in it. It has been gutted by secular publishers if it doesn't. Sounds like my KJV. I did not know the Trinitarian Bible Society were secular publishers. Jim, thank you for the new information. |
|
|
| 10/25/09 1:58 PM |
| Guinness | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
rhymnrzn2zion wrote:
You say it is not relevant, whereas all I was saying was for you to count me in agreement with the Translators, who I have no reason to accuse of un-Christian/selfish/political motives, reguardless of King James I's person. To transplant your subjective opinion of yourself and impose that on the Translators of 400 years ago is an anachronism.Likewise at no point did I accuse the Translators themselves of "un-Christian/selfish/political motives". However, the delegates at the Hampton Court Conference were most certainly involved in a political process, and political lobbying. btw again- you refered to the Puritan's complaints. What were the chief of these in summary and which of them were entertained? What bone did King James VI and I throw them instead? Would you like to address Neil's counterexamples from the Geneva Bible's book of Acts? Neil- thanks for the examples, I think I will do my own private study of Tyndale, Geneva, and AV on the translation of this word. It would also be interesting to find out more history on who in the period 1604-1611 was continuing to press the issue to the extent that it provoked a written response from the Translators. Tyndale was long dead, but the principles evidently alive. |
|
|
| 10/25/09 3:32 AM |
| Guinness | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Hello RTZ,If refusing to indulge your subjective anachronism causes you unjustified offense then, sadly, so be it. I have tried to explain to you. Yes, the Translators avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans. More is the pity!
The Puritans avoided ecclesiastical accretions and went back to the pure Word of God. That's what Protestants and Bible believers are supposed to do. It should indeed be congregation or assembly instead of "church". That is a case in point. btw - you refer to the Puritan's complaints. What were the chief of these in summary and which of them were entertained? What bone did King James VI and I throw them instead? Frank,
The AV Translators were in principle more generous in their age:-
"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." |
|
|
| 10/24/09 9:44 PM |
| Guinness | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Good evening Neil,I believe the translators comment was geared more towards Tyndale than the Geneva. As I understand it from the experts in such matters both the Geneva and the AV borrowed very heavily from Tyndale. btw - if you haven't already come across it, a facsimile of the Tyndale New Testament was republished last year by the British Library. You will already appreciate that I found a delicious irony in the headline of the piece and the KJV Readers' KJV defending comments. |
|
|
| 10/24/09 8:07 PM |
| Guinness | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Happy KJV Reader wrote:
So man in his "infinite" wisdom decided to write a new version... Why did man need to repeat the process again, and again, and again and........??? 
When will it all end  I don't know exactly when it will all end, but end it surely shall in a blessed day and hour. But one step along the way here was the Authorised Version. This was a simple political device by a man who decided in his own "infinite" wisdom to have a new Conservative version written for his own ends.It happened to still turn out a fairly good translation but only because it stood partially on the shoulders of giants. Sadly, by their own written admission they made a real translation worse and substituted ecclesiasticospeak for the free and simple (i.e. liberal) use of the Word of God:- "Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptism, and Congregation instead of Church" Oh for the scrupolisity of the Puritans! Try substituting the word congregation every time someone uses the word "church" today and you will see what a bad choice the AV translators made (not that they had any choice of course!). |
|
|
| 8/14/09 3:45 AM |
| Guinness | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
SteveR wrote:
Tony,
Sermonaudio should not have posted this article from 8/2 because it was branded a fake on 8/6.
http://washingtonindependent.com/54104/punkin-the-birthers-priceless Sadly, Sermonaudio lost a degree of credibility a long time ago with their regular use of wnd.com as a "news" source. This is not the first time. |
|
|
| 7/10/09 5:18 AM |
| Guinness | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Guinness wrote:
Sadly this is not just the hallmark of fundamentalist churches. Biblicist wrote:
So are you an enemy within the ranks? Or are you just taking a pot shot at Fundamentalist churches? Huh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
