Is KJVO a mental disorder?

[Steven Avery]

he is not using "pure" in an absolute 100% pure sense. 

We have only been through this time and again, on multiple forums.

Pure is by nature a comparative word.

And it is used in Bible textual circles in this comparative manner by all sorts of writers with a variety of Bible text positions.  The contra objections here are simply nothings. And the definitional attempted dissection of a clear and sensible English word only comes when the word is used by TR and AV defenders.

Define "clear". Define "sensible". Define "defenders".   <-- contra style posturing

Steven

 

[FSSL]

So... when you use the Scripture "Thy word is pure" you think it means a comparison between textual mss?

 

[Steven Avery]

So... when you use the Scripture "Thy word is pure" you think it means a comparison between textual mss?

 
Nope.  All words have a range of meaning, and in that context it is a high-level usage. In other contexts pure in the scripture is more directly comparative.  This has been pointed out to you before, and as usual you only cherry-pick positions and responses.

Steven

 

[logos1560]

Pure is by nature a comparative word.

Really?  You fail to demonstrate that "pure" in the positive or absolute degree is a comparative word.

The actual comparative word or form is "purer" or "more pure."

Words of the LORD asserted to be wholly and completely pure in the positive or absolute degree could not be made more pure. Thus, the quality of being completely pure and completely free from all impurities that is asserted concerning the words of the LORD could not be increased.  Nothing can be asserted to be more pure than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in the context. 

Pure is clearly not used in a comparative degree concerning the 100% absolutely and completely pure and perfect words of the LORD.   The word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7).  Pure words of the LORD have the very same absolute, complete purity as very pure words (Ps. 119:140).  The use of “very” would emphasize the fact of the absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure. 

 

[FSSL]

Definitions are critical to understanding God's word and rightly discussing it. Without the proper meaning, we can talk past each other all day long with no comprehension.

Unfortunately, the KJVO is determined to remain vague and misdirect when it comes to defining terms.

"Pure," like logos pointed out above is not a comparative term. It is an adjective which speaks to its ETHICAL qualities. "refined" "tried" These are ethical terms that speak to the genuineness and trustworthiness of Scripture.

Anyone who is willing to consult the marginal note in the 1611 will see that Avery's comparative analysis is bogus.

 

[Steven Avery]

You fail to demonstrate that "pure" in the positive or absolute degree is a comparative word.

Pure is generally used in a comparative sense.

If I drink pure water from a spring it may be better than tap water in most cities, but it is not absolutely pure.  It may still have a degree of fertiziler run-off and other blemishes.  It is purer than the tap water, and most water you would drink, so you call it pure.  Thus it is purer than an alternative when used in a specific delineated comparision.

Generally purer is used in comparing two items, purest when there are more than two.

Why do we have to teach Remedial English 101 to the contras?

Steven Avery

 

[prophet]

Give me 2 glasses of water, and let me piss in one of them, just a little.
Now, which one will you lable which?

The one with piss in it is obviously the KJV.

You have a great sarcastic sense of humor.
That was a good one.

Zooooommmm! Right over his head!

Isaiah 36:12 (KJV) But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Actually, I was well aware of the appearance of the word "piss" in the KJV, and also Ransom's reference to the much ballyhooed Steven Anderson pisseth blowup a few years ago on the old 666.

That's what made it so funny.

;D

 

[FSSL]

You fail to demonstrate that "pure" in the positive or absolute degree is a comparative word.

Pure is generally used in a comparative sense.

If I drink pure water from a spring it may be better than tap water in most cities, but it is not absolutely pure.  It may still have a degree of fertiziler run-off and other blemishes.  It is purer than the tap water, and most water you would drink, so you call it pure.  Thus it is purer than an alternative when used in a specific delineated comparision.

Generally purer is used in comparing two items, purest when there are more than two.

Why do we have to teach Remedial English 101 to the contras?

Steven Avery

Well then... what mss were David comparing when he proclaimed God's Word was very pure?

Your so-called lesson is deficient.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

We can use John William Burgon to teach you Remedial English and textual theory at the same time !

Revision Revised 1883
John William Burgon
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PR28

So far from "its paramount claim to the respect of future generations," being " the restitution of a more ancient and a purer Text,"—I venture to predict that the edition of the two Cambridge Professors will be hereafter remembered as indicating the furthest point ever reached by the self-evolved imaginations of English disciples of the school of Lachmann, Teschendorf, Tregelles.  p. xxviii

If so, though you (Dr. Hort) may ' have no doubt' as to which is the purer manuscript ... One is reminded of a passage
in p. 61: viz.—
If we find in any group of documents a succession of Readings exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, that is,—
Readings which the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence pronounces to be right, in opposition to formidable arrays of Documentary Evidence; the cause must be that, as far at least as these Readings are concerned, some one exceptionally pure MS. was the common ancestor of all the members of the group.' p. 253

Hort .. informs us (p. 276) that "the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that the preeminent relative purity" of those two codices is approximately absolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs.'   p. 284

Hort ..  according to him those primitive Fathers have been the great falsifiers of Scripture; have proved the worst enemies of the pure Word of God  ..  p. 290

Hort ... how can he possibly overlook the circumstance that, unless he is able to demonstrate that those two codices, and especially the former of them, has preserved not only a very ancient Text, but a very pure line
of ancient Text' also (p. 251), his entire work, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically handled, crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the first puff of wind ? p. 305-306

Dr. Hort ... his fundamental position, viz. that Codex B is so exceptionally pure a document as to deserve to be taken as a chief guide in determining the Truth of Scripture. p. 306

Dr. Hort ...considers that his individual 'strong preference' of one set of Readings above another, is sufficient to determine whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is pure or the contrary.  p. 307

And thus, I venture to presume, the imagination has been at last effectually disposed of, that because Codices B and א are the two oldest Greek copies in existence, the Text exhibited by either must therefore be the purest Text which
is anywhere to be met with.  p. 328

Compromise of any sort between the two conflicting parties, is impossible also; for they simply contradict one another. Codd. B and x are either among the purest of manuscripts,—or else they are among the very foulest. The Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is either the very best which has ever appeared,—or else it is the very worst; the nearest to the sacred Autograplis,—or the furthest from them. There is no room for both opinions; and there cannot exist any middle view. p. 365

Notice purest being used in a multiple comparison. Also p. 29 and p. 244.

===============================

In fact see the whole conversation between S.O. (supposed objector) and Q.R. (Quarterly Reviewer = Burgon) and on p. 328 F. C. (friendly critic).

(j.) Dialogue of tho Reviewer with a Supposed Objector, in proof that the most ancient document accessible is not of
necessity the purest also ..      .. 321  (p. xxxvii topic of this section)

Q. B. " You are perfectly right. The oldest Manuscript must exhibit the purest text: must be the most trustworthy. But then, unfortunately, it happens that we do not possess it. 'The oldest Manuscript' is lost. You speak, of course, of the inspired Autographs. These, I say, have long since disappeared."

At the outset, remember, you delivered it as your opinion that ' the oldest Manuscript we possess, if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest' I asserted, in reply, that 'it does not by any means follow, because a manuscript is very ancient, that therefore its text will be very pure' (p. 321) ; and all that I have been since saying, has but had for its object to prove the truth of my assertion. p. 332

===============================

This one is super spot-on.

[size=10pt]Now therefore that you re-open the question, I will not scruple publicly to repeat that it seems to me nothing else but an insult to our Divine Master and a wrong to the Church, that the most precious part of our common Christian heritage, the pure Word of God, should day by day, week by week, month by month, year after year, have been thus handled; for the avowed purpose of producing a Translation which should supersede our Authorized Version. p. 506

See also p. 29 p. 288 320 327

See, you get a twofer!  You learn our wonderful English language, and you learn about the purity and corruption concepts of Burgon vs. Hort.

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

so... when you quote "Thy word is very pure" you ignore the KJV translators and think David is thinking in terms of Burgon?

 

[Steven Avery]

The issue was my usage of the pure Reformation Bible. 

Now you are up to speed. I covered Psalm 12 before.

Why not try to learn?

 

[Steven Avery]

Actually, I was well aware of the appearance of the word "piss" in the KJV, and also Ransom's reference to the much ballyhooed Steven Anderson pisseth blowup a few years ago on the old 666. That's what made it so funny. ;D

Amen. Otherwise it would have been borderline blasphemy.

 

[FSSL]

Why try to deceive the board? You connect that passage all of the time.

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92194-thy-word-very-sure.html

You use the word "pure" without any consideration as to how it is used biblically... and yet you tack verses on like a postage stamp to see if you can get mileage.

 

[Steven Avery]

Why try to deceive the board? You connect that passage all of the time.
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/92194-thy-word-very-sure.html
You use the word "pure" without any consideration as to how it is used biblically... and yet you tack verses on like a postage stamp to see if you can get mileage.

FSSL, I have no idea why you are going bonkers.  The issue the contras raise is that they object to terms like pure Reformation Bible and textus corruptus. 

Today, I taught you the usage of pure in textual theory, from Burgon. You should be thankful, since you had stumbled over this for many years. Remedial English for Rick Norris and FSSL.

This usage is complementary, the war-zone is only in your head.

Psalms 119:140 
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[logos1560]

You fail to demonstrate that "pure" in the positive or absolute degree is a comparative word.

Pure is generally used in a comparative sense.

Pure when used concerning the word of God in the Scriptures has not been demonstrated to be "generally used in a comparative sense." 

The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar [The New authoritative guide]
at its entry for absolute stated:  "Used to describe the uninflected form of a gradable adjective or adverb in contrast to the comparative and superlative forms.  The same as positive" (p. 3).

 

[Steven Avery]

The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar [The New authoritative guide] at its entry for absolute stated:  "Used to describe the uninflected form of a gradable adjective or adverb in contrast to the comparative and superlative forms.  The same as positive" (p. 3).

The point of this barely relevant reference?  Oh, you need more remedial English.

Absolute adjectives
http://www.englishgrammar.org/absolute-adjectives/
Some adjectives express ideas that cannot be graded. For example, a person can’t be more or less dead. In the same way, a sphere can’t be more or less round. In grammars these adjectives are called non-gradable or absolute adjectives.

Non-gradable adjectives do not have comparative or superlative forms. There are very few non-gradable adjectives, so you can learn them by heart if you really want. Here is a list of common non-gradable adjectives in English. Note that this is not a comprehensive list.

Absolute, impossible, principal, adequate, inevitable, sufficient, complete, main, unanimous, unavoidable, entire, minor, fatal, unique, final, universal, ideal, whole, preferable, dead etc.    

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt, Rick.  With your fishing edition for a quote-snippet, maybe you just wanted to demonstrate that pure does not have an absolute form.

==================

Contras have many little diversions and tricks to try to avoid having an honest inquiry into issues like the Westcott-Hort text and the corruption and hard errors caused by the ultra-minority Vaticanus variants.

This thread can be an education as to their modus operandi.  Notice the total lack of ability to interact with the arguments from Burgon that dissected the hortian errors.  This dance is one area where the contras here are of one mind and accord .. in agreement in avoiding discussing the basic textual issues.

==================

Steven Avery 

 

[FSSL]

FSSL, I have no idea why you are going bonkers.

Using biblical meanings for biblical concepts is considered bonkers by those who don't accept the priority of Scripture to define its own words

This usage is complementary, the war-zone is only in your head.

Words have only one usage at a time. You cannot have two complementary usages for a word in one context.

This is called double-talk.

 

[Steven Avery]

And I think we are finally seeing a mental disorder in this thread.  It is the obsession and confusion that refuses to accept a common and well understood term like pure when applied to the Bible editions, texts, manuscripts and versions. 

e.g. The pure Reformation Bible.

Even though that usage of pure is common from writers, even of the Hort and Metzger and Comfort ilk, as well as from Burgon and todays pure Bible defenders.

Now, the honest hortian would say ...

"no, the Received Text editions are corrupt, and our Critical Text editions are pure".

They would take the contra position and try to defend their text.  Such would be a rare type of honesty, even if the actual position is indefensible.

In practice, contras are buffeted by seeing Bible text issues through their main Bible concern .. opposition to the AV as the pure and perfect word of God.  No text to defend, no pure Bible, simply contra the AV. 

And that is why they are called contras.

Steven Avery 

 

[FSSL]

Nope. Never.

I never would call God's word corrupt or perverse. That blasphemy comes from the KJVO.

David had copies and translations of Moses' originals and called them very pure.

He never let variants and copies lead him to blaspheme.

The KJV is the "very pure word of God." Only an unbelieving mindset allows someone to deny God's word whether it is the NIV, ESV, NKJV or even Millennium KJV.

 

[Biblebeliever]

The man who does not believe that the Holy Bible is the perfect and inerrant word of God;  that very man is the one who has a spiritual and mental  problem. Not the other way around.

The Christian who believes that God is able to keep and preserve His pure and infallible words; that same Christian has a sound mind and is filled with the precious Holy Spirit.