Redefining Inerrancy to allow for errors

[bgwilkinson]

It's better to call this a printer's error than to accuse the KJV translators as having such a poor translation that even Shakespeare didn't understand it.

They would have been hard pressed to explain how "strain at" matched the original better than the Bishop's "Stain out", not to mention all the versions before the Bishop's.

 

[Steven Avery]

They would have been hard pressed to explain how "strain at" matched the original better than the Bishop's "Stain out", not to mention all the versions before the Bishop's.

Clearly you have not looked at the history or the papers referenced.  However, that is par for the course.  We know that those hardened against the AV will virtually never withdraw a mistaken accusation.  So we present evidences, , and move on.  We know when contras are intractable.

The misprint canard was deliberate. From Goodspeed, and others, and later Wallace (who easily could see it was false from the scholarship available.) The idea of the canard was to represent a misprint that could not be defended, as it was falsely claimed that the text did not represent the translators for hundreds of years and was never corrected. That is why Goodspeed did a special article on the one supposed misprint. Oh, look!

It was all bogus nonsense.  The history is interesting and is in the AV1611 thread.  While the meaning of the verse and the translation issues are interesting, what made this special was how the opponents of the purity of the AV fabricated a bogus accusation for 200 years.  And try to keep it going even after it was fully refuted.

Steven

 

[praise_yeshua]

So.... Who should we believe... YOU.... or the evidence?

You clearly have not studied the evidence.

Much is in the Jeffery Nachimson paper.

Matthew 23:34
The Case of the Alleged Perpetual Misprint
Jeffrey D. Nachimson
http://web.archive.org/web/20070825035615/http://www.av1611answers.com/apm.html

One key element was the Constantin Hopf paper.

And much more is on the AV1611 thread.

Straining at or straining out gnats.
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=379

Steven

I gave evidence. I'm not going to read through your list of references in an attempt to decipher what you intend to argue. Are you really just going to post links to discuss this issue?

Pick what you believe is the most credible evidence and post it.

By the way, I know the evidence well. Obviously you think "Googling" till you find someone that agrees with the error.... is evidence, in and of itself. Please try be a little more scholarly than this.....

You COULD start by giving a reason that other translation from the time period did not use show the same words. Anyone with common sense isn't going to just accept the answer that the KJV was right and everyone else was wrong because..... "I said so".

 

[Ransom]

Clearly you have not looked at the history or the papers referenced.

Neither have you, so what's the problem?

 

[Steven Avery]

I gave evidence. I'm not going to read through your list of references

It is your choice not to read what has already been published.

Would you like a couple of the main urls from those pubs and forum.

Here is the Jeffrey Nachimson paper.

Matthew 23:34 - The Case of the Alleged Perpetual Misprint
http://web.archive.org/web/20070825035615/http://www.av1611answers.com/apm.html#_edn28

e.g. you could read posts 60, 61 and 67 here:

Straining at or straining out gnats
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=379&page=6

Neither have you, so what's the problem?

Here Scott is simply lying.  Typical.

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

Here Scott is simply lying.  He would not blunder so badly if he knew the material.

Hey Stevie, you remember that time you quoted an April Fool's joke as an actual academic source? I wish I had a tote board listing all the times you have righteously owned because you made assertions proving you didn't know the material you quoted. How many times do you have to cry "wolf" before we can consider you discredited? What a hypocrite.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hey Stevie, you remember that time you quoted an April Fool's joke as an actual academic source?

This is the type of stupidity we get from Scott, because he follows the rantings of a different ranter.

The source was quoted with a type of note on the TC-Alternate forum.  The post is still there. 

And how would any error on my end, in 5-10 years of posting, justify your habit of lying?

Steven

 

[Ransom]

This is the type of stupidity we get from Scott, because he follows the rantings of a different ranter.

Right. You fell for the joke, and it's someone else's fault.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously, Stevie?

 

[Steven Avery]

Your lying once again.

Anyone who reads the TC-Alternate post can easily see that I did not "fall for the joke".

Steven

 

[Ransom]

Anyone who reads the TC-Alternate post can easily see that I did not "fall for the joke".

Anyone who takes anything you post seriously is falling for a joke.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I gave evidence. I'm not going to read through your list of references

It is your choice not to read what has already been published.

Would you like a couple of the main urls from those pubs and forum.

Here is the Jeffrey Nachimson paper.

Matthew 23:34 - The Case of the Alleged Perpetual Misprint
http://web.archive.org/web/20070825035615/http://www.av1611answers.com/apm.html#_edn28

e.g. you could read posts 60, 61 and 67 here:

Straining at or straining out gnats
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=379&page=6

Neither have you, so what's the problem?

Here Scott is simply lying.  Typical.

Steven Avery

I'm being honest.... I tried to read through your references..... and I just can't get through them. The "Jeffrey Nachimson paper" is so prone to bloviation.... that I can't get much of anything out of it. The man is obsessed with Rick Norris. Its pitiful.

Sorry Avery, I ask again. Post one single piece of evidence that proves your argument. I'm not asking for you to rewrite anything. Just post something easily followed. I'm not going to waste my time digging through that nonsense again.

 

[Ransom]

I'm being honest.... I tried to read through your references..... and I just can't get through them. The "Jeffrey Nachimson paper" is so prone to bloviation.... that I can't get much of anything out of it. The man is obsessed with Rick Norris. Its pitiful.

Jeffrey Nachimson is a Ruckmanite clown. He had a flash-in-the-pan "A.V. 1611 Answers Association" Web site years ago. It's now defunct (but still viewable via The Wayback Machine).

At one time the site was still hosted on Blogspot, and I was one of the "Alexandrian Apostates" on his blogroll, an honour I shared not only with James White and Doug Kutilek (as you would expect) but also, for some reason, Harold Camping and the "Christian Identity" organization Scriptures for America.

I was also mentioned by name on the site in his testimony for my "mocks and scoffs" because he got much of his theology from Chick comics. That really tells you all you need to know about Jeffrey Nachimson. I strongly hesitate to call any words he happened to type a "paper," except perhaps insofar as it happened to be printed on some.

 

[subllibrm]

BP you have not corrected your PCE yet.

The KJB correctly has "at", and that is the proper translation.

As for me, I did not make the PCE, it was made many decades before I was able to read.

But thankfully you fixed it.  :

 

[subllibrm]

Your false assumption is that the NIV's text and translation have no bearing on the Scripture it represents.

Premise 1: Scripture has no errors.
Premise 2: The NIV is Scripture.
Conclusion: Therefore, the NIV has no errors.

That is an illogical syllogism, because even you know that the NIV does not match exactly what the Autographs contained.

It is the exact argument you make for the KJV.

And even you must know that the KJV does not match exactly what the Autographs contained.

 

[bibleprotector]

And even you must know that the KJV does not match exactly what the Autographs contained.

More trickiness. Of course the Autographs were not printed in English.

 

[praise_yeshua]

And even you must know that the KJV does not match exactly what the Autographs contained.

More trickiness. Of course the Autographs were not printed in English.

He wasn't being tricky. I've never known him to be anything but straight forward.

 

[Steven Avery]

That really tells you all you need to know about Jeffrey Nachimson.

The article has a lot of good and accurate information on the gnat.

This is augmented by additional referrences in the AV-1611 thread. 

You folks are far more interested in ranting and harumphing than truth and accuracy.

Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

We are more interested in the correct meaning of Scripture. Words, even as small as "at" have caused confusion.

Even Will Kinney misses the meaning of the passage.

What good is it to defend a poor translation that causes confusion?

 

[praise_yeshua]

That really tells you all you need to know about Jeffrey Nachimson.

The article has a lot of good and accurate information on the gnat.

This is augmented by additional referrences in the AV-1611 thread. 

You folks are far more interested in ranting and harumphing than truth and accuracy.

Steven Avery

I'm ask a vey simple question and you refuse to do something as simple as copy and paste the most compelling part of your argument. What's so difficult about this?

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm ask a vey simple question and you refuse to do something as simple as copy and paste the most compelling part of your argument. What's so difficult about this?

On every thread you do the same thing, rabbit trails and mulberry bushes.

However, when it was a new study (submersion-immersion) I will lilkely do the new study and place it here (since this forum has a reasonable permanence), when I point you specifically to easy-read material already posted, es suficiente.

Steven