Scriptures

[Bruh]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Hebrews 4:8 - For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 

That's directly from my KJ bible.

Funny....

So you really believe Hebrews 4:8 is talking about your Master Jesus?

Many people are bewildered with the expression.

 

[Mitex]

First question would be "What is the purpose of Scripture?"

Feigned ignorance. The OP declared "the purpose of Scripture" in the first section.

Defining the Scriptures:

"The word γραφή (graphe) - Scripture - as used in the Scriptures 51 times is a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts - it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

Or as one kibitzer stated:

"The term γραφή (graphe) - Scripture - as used in the Scriptures 51 times in the NT refers to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings which are and have been properly regarded by believers as divinely inspired, holy and authoritative."

Purpose    Purpose    Purpose    Purpose    Purpose    Purpose:
1) Make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2Tm 3:15, J 20:31)

2) Are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2Tm 3,16-17)

 

[Bruh]

[quote author=rsc2a]First question would be "What is the purpose of Scripture?"

The Bible enables us to know God.

So does a sunrise.

How is the Bible unique in this regard?

It is a divine book.  In that if read and meditated on will transform a person.

Sure. Now how is the Bible any different than a sunrise in this regard?
[/quote]

Psalms 1:1-3 - 1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

The sun cannot do this. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]First question would be "What is the purpose of Scripture?"

The Bible enables us to know God.

So does a sunrise.

How is the Bible unique in this regard?

It is a divine book.  In that if read and meditated on will transform a person.

Sure. Now how is the Bible any different than a sunrise in this regard?

Psalms 1:1-3 - 1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

The sun cannot do this. [/quote]

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him? (Psalm 8:3-4, ESV)

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard. (Psalm 19:1-3, ESV)

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20, ESV)

May the glory of the Lord endure forever;
may the Lord rejoice in his works,
who looks on the earth and it trembles,
who touches the mountains and they smoke!
I will sing to the Lord as long as I live;
I will sing praise to my God while I have being.
May my meditation be pleasing to him,
for I rejoice in the Lord. (Psalm 104:31-34, ESV) Note the meditation is on things of nature in this prayer.



So again...

How is the Bible unique when it comes to "enabl[ing] us to know God"?

 

[rsc2a]

Outstanding rep, admin!

 

[prophet]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Heb 4:8
8 For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.
(WYC)

8 For if Iosue had geven them rest then wolde he not afterwarde have spoke of another daye.
(TyndaleBible)

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
(KJV)
Darby has Jesus here, as well.

8 Porque si Josué les hubiera dado el reposo, no hablaría después de otro día.
(RV09)
And the RVA has Joshua.
Sounds like the two words are interchangeable to many scholars.


Anishinaabe

 

[Ransom]

If I am witnessing to someone I would feel obligated to inform them that there is error in the book from which I get the message I am telling them. 
Wouldn't you feel the same obligation?

I have invited KJV-onlyists to offer instances where modern versions taught something that was not factually true.  I haven't seen any examples yet. Therefore, I can't actually anticipate a situation where I would have to correct the translation.

 

[christundivided]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Hebrews 4:8 - For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 

That's directly from my KJ bible.

Funny....

So you really believe Hebrews 4:8 is talking about your Master Jesus?

Many people are bewildered with the expression.

So you admit the translation confuses people?

 

[christundivided]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Heb 4:8
8 For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.
(WYC)

8 For if Iosue had geven them rest then wolde he not afterwarde have spoke of another daye.
(TyndaleBible)

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
(KJV)
Darby has Jesus here, as well.

8 Porque si Josué les hubiera dado el reposo, no hablaría después de otro día.
(RV09)
And the RVA has Joshua.
Sounds like the two words are interchangeable to many scholars.


Anishinaabe

I take you for an honest man. An honest man would never say Joshua and Jesus are the same person. If they are not the same person, then you can not use the words interchangeably. Why are you being dishonest . The next time you preach about Joshua, by all means if you believe what you actually wrote....change it to Jesus

Now there is a easy explanation for the mistake but don't tell me it's not a mistake in English. The mistake has people believing the Jesus doesn't give rest to those who come to him. I can tell you Jesus does. Joshua doesn't.

 

[Mitex]

Bruh: Printing errors were corrected.... Printing errors.

FSSL: Okay... errors. Why is it that "printing errors" get a pass from the KJVO? Aren't printing errors, errors? Besides, there are MORE than printing errors in the KJV. There are errors in translation. identification of animals, weights and measures... the list goes on and on. Mitex could even tell you that "strain at a gnat" is wrong.

Dear Bruh and the Gentle Reader,

Never let Barry, that critic and purveyor of doubt in the extant Scripture, hoodwink you with his craftiness -  Mitex will not tell you that our extant-Scriptures are wrong, because they aren't - the Scriptures are never wrong, for they are the very words of God!

Our seminarian has deluded himself into believing his own misguided opinions. Infallible denotes the quality of never deceiving or misleading. Thus, Barry's opinions and interpretations are NOT infallible for they deceive and mislead. Inerrant means "wholly true". Hence, when we say the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant we are saying that they are wholly trustworthy - every word, phrase, verse, chapter and book.

Keep the faith in our extant-Scriptures, don't let the skeptics, critics and purveyors of doubt steal your faith. Search the Scriptures! Read the Scriptures! Preach the Scriptures. Obey the Scriptures. It is the devil's work to steal the word of God out of the hearts of men. Beware!

 

[Mitex]

Printing errors are errors. Logic a problem again?

If "strain at" is not wrong, then please tell us why you didn't translate it that way in your Polish update.

Printing "errors", penmanship, grammar structures, spelling, etc., are irrelevant to the issue of infallibility and inerrancy of the extant and non-extant Scriptures. Your constant mixing of this issue is more proof of your subtleness.

"Strain at" is not wrong in English. It adequately expresses the word of God in English. Kings, presidents and English speaking plow-boys understood and use the expression where seminarians stumble over themselves in their never ending attempt to point out "errors" in the extant Scriptures. You didn't misunderstand it no matter how much feigning you do.

The Polish Scriptures read:  "Ślepi przewodnicy! Przecedzacie komara, a połykacie wielbłąda."

A variety of translation is good for the reader. I'm perfectly aware that a text can be translated CORRECTLY using different words (not erroneous as you falsely presume) or phrases. It's the Original Language Onlyist such as yourself and your counterpart English Language Onlyist who have difficulties with this concept.

 

[prophet]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Heb 4:8
8 For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.
(WYC)

8 For if Iosue had geven them rest then wolde he not afterwarde have spoke of another daye.
(TyndaleBible)

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
(KJV)
Darby has Jesus here, as well.

8 Porque si Josué les hubiera dado el reposo, no hablaría después de otro día.
(RV09)
And the RVA has Joshua.
Sounds like the two words are interchangeable to many scholars.


Anishinaabe

I take you for an honest man. An honest man would never say Joshua and Jesus are the same person. If they are not the same person, then you can not use the words interchangeably. Why are you being dishonest . The next time you preach about Joshua, by all means if you believe what you actually wrote....change it to Jesus

Now there is a easy explanation for the mistake but don't tell me it's not a mistake in English. The mistake has people believing the Jesus doesn't give rest to those who come to him. I can tell you Jesus does. Joshua doesn't.

How about teaching that 'Jesus' is a translation of 'Joshua'?
That doesnt take long.
You do the same in Acts:
Act 7:45
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Whatever happened to "study to shew..."?

45 Which also oure fadris token with Jhesu, and brouyten in to the possessioun of hethene men, whiche God puttide awey fro the face of oure fadris, til in to the daies of Dauid,
(WYC).
Oops.

45 Which tabernacle oure fathers receaved and brought it in with Iosue into the possession of the gentyls which God drave out before the face of oure fathers vnto the tyme of David
(TyndaleBible)
Hmmmm.

45 El cual recibido, metieron también nuestros padres con Josué en la posesión de los Gentiles, que Dios echó de la presencia de nuestros padres, hasta los días de David;
(RV09)

Tied at 2, so far....

Darby has 'Joshua', here, but 'Jesus' in Hebrews.


Anishinaabe

 

[christundivided]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Heb 4:8
8 For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.
(WYC)

8 For if Iosue had geven them rest then wolde he not afterwarde have spoke of another daye.
(TyndaleBible)

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
(KJV)
Darby has Jesus here, as well.

8 Porque si Josué les hubiera dado el reposo, no hablaría después de otro día.
(RV09)
And the RVA has Joshua.
Sounds like the two words are interchangeable to many scholars.


Anishinaabe

I take you for an honest man. An honest man would never say Joshua and Jesus are the same person. If they are not the same person, then you can not use the words interchangeably. Why are you being dishonest . The next time you preach about Joshua, by all means if you believe what you actually wrote....change it to Jesus

Now there is a easy explanation for the mistake but don't tell me it's not a mistake in English. The mistake has people believing the Jesus doesn't give rest to those who come to him. I can tell you Jesus does. Joshua doesn't.

How about teaching that 'Jesus' is a translation of 'Joshua'?
That doesnt take long.
You do the same in Acts:
Act 7:45
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Whatever happened to "study to shew..."?


Anishinaabe

Jesus is not a translation of Joshua. First, both are English words. There is no need for a "translation". Second. There is no exacting translation of the Hebrew root for Joshua into Jesus. Now its close but not exact. The issue is with the Old Greek translation of Joshua and it subsequent translation into to English. Now, I don't every expect you to see this. Its rather complicated. I would however, remind you that even the resulting English names for the books of the OT came from an Old Greek translation of the various books of the OT. A Old Greek translation that you KJVOists reject as being a lie. At every turn most of you are entirely dishonest and deceptive. You use these words most every day and then deny the very place you received them.

Either way, You know as well as I do.... that no one calls our Master..... Joshua. No one. I will ask you.... if there is no issue with seeing Joshua in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4.... then why not change the translation to say "Joshua"?

Now be honest. You know it would be better if the translation was "Joshua". There would be no confusion and no one would have to come to YOU.... to try and understand what is written. I know how all of you KJVOist focus so much on how easily understood the KJV has been for hundreds of years.  :

 

[prophet]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Heb 4:8
8 For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.
(WYC)

8 For if Iosue had geven them rest then wolde he not afterwarde have spoke of another daye.
(TyndaleBible)

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
(KJV)
Darby has Jesus here, as well.

8 Porque si Josué les hubiera dado el reposo, no hablaría después de otro día.
(RV09)
And the RVA has Joshua.
Sounds like the two words are interchangeable to many scholars.


Anishinaabe

I take you for an honest man. An honest man would never say Joshua and Jesus are the same person. If they are not the same person, then you can not use the words interchangeably. Why are you being dishonest . The next time you preach about Joshua, by all means if you believe what you actually wrote....change it to Jesus

Now there is a easy explanation for the mistake but don't tell me it's not a mistake in English. The mistake has people believing the Jesus doesn't give rest to those who come to him. I can tell you Jesus does. Joshua doesn't.

How about teaching that 'Jesus' is a translation of 'Joshua'?
That doesnt take long.
You do the same in Acts:
Act 7:45
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Whatever happened to "study to shew..."?


Anishinaabe

Jesus is not a translation of Joshua. First, both are English words. There is no need for a "translation". Second. There is no exacting translation of the Hebrew root for Joshua into Jesus. Now its close but not exact. The issue is with the Old Greek translation of Joshua and it subsequent translation into to English. Now, I don't every expect to see this. Its rather complicated. I would however, remind you that even the resulting English names for the books of the OT came from an Old Greek translation of the various books of the OT. A Old Greek translation that you KJV reject as being a lie. At every turn most of you are entirely dishonest and deceptive.

Either way, You know as well as I do that no one calls our Master..... Joshua. No one. I will ask you.... if there is no issue with seeing Joshua in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4.... then why not change the translation to say "Joshua"?

Now be honest. You know it would be better if the translation was "Joshua". There would be no confusion and no one would have to come to YOU.... to try and understand what is written.

Why do you insist on calling me KJV? 
Why, after you paint me with this brush, do you insist on projecting onto my testimony, the perceived wrong that you see in others?
Isnt this something Christians grow out of?


No one has to "come to me", to understand anything.  They have the same Teacher that I have, living within. 

Now, some ACTUAL scholars disagree with you, and I'm sure you can find some who make the case which you are sharing.  But dont blame the KJVO for Wycliffe's translation.  That is just prejudice talking.

Anishinaabe

 

[christundivided]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Heb 4:8
8 For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.
(WYC)

8 For if Iosue had geven them rest then wolde he not afterwarde have spoke of another daye.
(TyndaleBible)

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
(KJV)
Darby has Jesus here, as well.

8 Porque si Josué les hubiera dado el reposo, no hablaría después de otro día.
(RV09)
And the RVA has Joshua.
Sounds like the two words are interchangeable to many scholars.


Anishinaabe

I take you for an honest man. An honest man would never say Joshua and Jesus are the same person. If they are not the same person, then you can not use the words interchangeably. Why are you being dishonest . The next time you preach about Joshua, by all means if you believe what you actually wrote....change it to Jesus

Now there is a easy explanation for the mistake but don't tell me it's not a mistake in English. The mistake has people believing the Jesus doesn't give rest to those who come to him. I can tell you Jesus does. Joshua doesn't.

How about teaching that 'Jesus' is a translation of 'Joshua'?
That doesnt take long.
You do the same in Acts:
Act 7:45
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Whatever happened to "study to shew..."?


Anishinaabe

Jesus is not a translation of Joshua. First, both are English words. There is no need for a "translation". Second. There is no exacting translation of the Hebrew root for Joshua into Jesus. Now its close but not exact. The issue is with the Old Greek translation of Joshua and it subsequent translation into to English. Now, I don't every expect to see this. Its rather complicated. I would however, remind you that even the resulting English names for the books of the OT came from an Old Greek translation of the various books of the OT. A Old Greek translation that you KJV reject as being a lie. At every turn most of you are entirely dishonest and deceptive.

Either way, You know as well as I do that no one calls our Master..... Joshua. No one. I will ask you.... if there is no issue with seeing Joshua in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4.... then why not change the translation to say "Joshua"?

Now be honest. You know it would be better if the translation was "Joshua". There would be no confusion and no one would have to come to YOU.... to try and understand what is written.

Why do you insist on calling me KJV? 
Why, after you paint me with this brush, do you insist on projecting onto my testimony, the perceived wrong that you see in others?
Isnt this something Christians grow out of?


No one has to "come to me", to understand anything.  They have the same Teacher that I have, living within. 

Now, some ACTUAL scholars disagree with you, and I'm sure you can find some who make the case which you are sharing.  But dont blame the KJVO for Wycliffe's translation.  That is just prejudice talking.

Anishinaabe

Because you are KJV. You're just hiding behind the cloak of earlier English translations. You very clearly said that people needed to study the issue so they could understand that Jesus and Joshua are one in the same name and can be used interchangeably. That is what you said. No one using any common sense would make such an argument. You are making this argument based on the fact you support the translation at the expense of common sense. Every later translation of the Scriptures into English uses the name Joshua in Acts 7 and Hebrew 4. Appeal to other scholars if you want. They are wrong. It just common sense to point people to the correct person being referenced. Acts 7 and Hebrew 4 are not referencing JESUS.

Wycliffe made the same mistake and I never said Wycliffe was right.

 

[prophet]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Heb 4:8
8 For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.
(WYC)

8 For if Iosue had geven them rest then wolde he not afterwarde have spoke of another daye.
(TyndaleBible)

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
(KJV)
Darby has Jesus here, as well.

8 Porque si Josué les hubiera dado el reposo, no hablaría después de otro día.
(RV09)
And the RVA has Joshua.
Sounds like the two words are interchangeable to many scholars.


Anishinaabe

I take you for an honest man. An honest man would never say Joshua and Jesus are the same person. If they are not the same person, then you can not use the words interchangeably. Why are you being dishonest . The next time you preach about Joshua, by all means if you believe what you actually wrote....change it to Jesus

Now there is a easy explanation for the mistake but don't tell me it's not a mistake in English. The mistake has people believing the Jesus doesn't give rest to those who come to him. I can tell you Jesus does. Joshua doesn't.

How about teaching that 'Jesus' is a translation of 'Joshua'?
That doesnt take long.
You do the same in Acts:
Act 7:45
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Whatever happened to "study to shew..."?


Anishinaabe

Jesus is not a translation of Joshua. First, both are English words. There is no need for a "translation". Second. There is no exacting translation of the Hebrew root for Joshua into Jesus. Now its close but not exact. The issue is with the Old Greek translation of Joshua and it subsequent translation into to English. Now, I don't every expect to see this. Its rather complicated. I would however, remind you that even the resulting English names for the books of the OT came from an Old Greek translation of the various books of the OT. A Old Greek translation that you KJV reject as being a lie. At every turn most of you are entirely dishonest and deceptive.

Either way, You know as well as I do that no one calls our Master..... Joshua. No one. I will ask you.... if there is no issue with seeing Joshua in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4.... then why not change the translation to say "Joshua"?

Now be honest. You know it would be better if the translation was "Joshua". There would be no confusion and no one would have to come to YOU.... to try and understand what is written.

Why do you insist on calling me KJV? 
Why, after you paint me with this brush, do you insist on projecting onto my testimony, the perceived wrong that you see in others?
Isnt this something Christians grow out of?


No one has to "come to me", to understand anything.  They have the same Teacher that I have, living within. 

Now, some ACTUAL scholars disagree with you, and I'm sure you can find some who make the case which you are sharing.  But dont blame the KJVO for Wycliffe's translation.  That is just prejudice talking.

Anishinaabe

Because you are KJV. You're just hiding behind the cloak of earlier English translations. You very clearly said that people needed to study the issue so they could understand that Jesus and Joshua are one in the same name and can be used interchangeably. That is what you said. No one using any common sense would make such an argument. You are making this argument based on the fact you support the translation at the expense of common sense. Every later translation of the Scriptures into English uses the name Joshua in Acts 7 and Hebrew 4. Appeal to other scholars if you want. They are wrong. It just common sense to point people to the correct person being referenced. Acts 7 and Hebrew 4 are not referencing JESUS.

Wycliffe made the same mistake and I never said Wycliffe was right.

Good thing you know everything, in case God dies or something.

Anishinaabe

 

[christundivided]

I was meaning my comment wasn't too bad given that Mitex considers me all of those things... oh well... the comment was probably confusing

I am not a TR advocate. But, with that said, it is a more reasonable position than KJVO. Being that you are a TR advocate, then you do see where there are errors in the KJV.

One of the terms that is confusing because people use it in different ways is "infallible."

Many use "infallible" to speak of BOTH "without error" and "not leading one into wrong." That is fine. I just don't do that, myself.

I like the technical distinction by using "inerrant" and "infallible." The reason is that I want to distinquish my position from liberals. Liberals will speak of "infallibility" while telling us that the autographs had errors. (e.g., Fuller Seminary) Mitex drinks from the Fuller fountain.

All of the changes were of minor nature, such as:
Printing errors were corrected.  This was almost exclusively the nature of the corrections made in the 28 years following the first printing. 

Psalm 69:32 - "seek good" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "seek God" in 1617

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - "the place" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "his place" in 1638.

Matthew 6:3 - "thy right doeth" was a printing error in the 1611 that was corrected to "thy right hand doeth" in 1613. 

Printing errors.

Really? How about Hebrews 4:8? Its still in every edition of the KJV being printed/produced. Jesus gives rest. He does not deny those that come to Him rest. Now, Joshua.... that is a different story. Joshua didn't have the power to give rest. There is a distinct difference in the name Jesus and the name Joshua in the English language.

Heb 4:8
8 For if Jhesus hadde youun reste to hem, he schulde neuere speke of othere aftir this dai.
(WYC)

8 For if Iosue had geven them rest then wolde he not afterwarde have spoke of another daye.
(TyndaleBible)

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
(KJV)
Darby has Jesus here, as well.

8 Porque si Josué les hubiera dado el reposo, no hablaría después de otro día.
(RV09)
And the RVA has Joshua.
Sounds like the two words are interchangeable to many scholars.


Anishinaabe

I take you for an honest man. An honest man would never say Joshua and Jesus are the same person. If they are not the same person, then you can not use the words interchangeably. Why are you being dishonest . The next time you preach about Joshua, by all means if you believe what you actually wrote....change it to Jesus

Now there is a easy explanation for the mistake but don't tell me it's not a mistake in English. The mistake has people believing the Jesus doesn't give rest to those who come to him. I can tell you Jesus does. Joshua doesn't.

How about teaching that 'Jesus' is a translation of 'Joshua'?
That doesnt take long.
You do the same in Acts:
Act 7:45
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Whatever happened to "study to shew..."?


Anishinaabe

Jesus is not a translation of Joshua. First, both are English words. There is no need for a "translation". Second. There is no exacting translation of the Hebrew root for Joshua into Jesus. Now its close but not exact. The issue is with the Old Greek translation of Joshua and it subsequent translation into to English. Now, I don't every expect to see this. Its rather complicated. I would however, remind you that even the resulting English names for the books of the OT came from an Old Greek translation of the various books of the OT. A Old Greek translation that you KJV reject as being a lie. At every turn most of you are entirely dishonest and deceptive.

Either way, You know as well as I do that no one calls our Master..... Joshua. No one. I will ask you.... if there is no issue with seeing Joshua in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4.... then why not change the translation to say "Joshua"?

Now be honest. You know it would be better if the translation was "Joshua". There would be no confusion and no one would have to come to YOU.... to try and understand what is written.

Why do you insist on calling me KJV? 
Why, after you paint me with this brush, do you insist on projecting onto my testimony, the perceived wrong that you see in others?
Isnt this something Christians grow out of?


No one has to "come to me", to understand anything.  They have the same Teacher that I have, living within. 

Now, some ACTUAL scholars disagree with you, and I'm sure you can find some who make the case which you are sharing.  But dont blame the KJVO for Wycliffe's translation.  That is just prejudice talking.

Anishinaabe

Because you are KJV. You're just hiding behind the cloak of earlier English translations. You very clearly said that people needed to study the issue so they could understand that Jesus and Joshua are one in the same name and can be used interchangeably. That is what you said. No one using any common sense would make such an argument. You are making this argument based on the fact you support the translation at the expense of common sense. Every later translation of the Scriptures into English uses the name Joshua in Acts 7 and Hebrew 4. Appeal to other scholars if you want. They are wrong. It just common sense to point people to the correct person being referenced. Acts 7 and Hebrew 4 are not referencing JESUS.

Wycliffe made the same mistake and I never said Wycliffe was right.

Good thing you know everything, in case God dies or something.

Anishinaabe

Same to you buddy. You do know that works both ways don't you?

 

[Bruh]

Printing errors and changing the thoughts and deity are two different things.  Which is what the other translations do. 
I am quite busy at the moment but will state my case when the time presents itself.   

 

[Mitex]

Col 4:11  And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.

Jose Jesus Hernandez, Guadalupe Jesus Gonzalez, Jesus Antonio Guadalupe Castillo, etc.
No one but a rabid over zealous anti-KJVO zealot would confuse these men with Jesus, the Christ.

Ἰησοῦς (Iesous) is translated as Jesus 900+ times in the New Testament those reading Greek were no doubt confused when they got to Act 7 and Hebrew 4. It's a joke son, you'll get over it. What ever happened to the old seminarian song and dance about "consistency in translating"? It goes out the door when an opportunity to find fault with the extant Scriptures presents itself.

FSSL is Admin who is Barry...
Michael, Mike, Miguel, Michał, etc.

 

[christundivided]

Col 4:11  And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.

Jose Jesus Hernandez, Guadalupe Jesus Gonzalez, Jesus Antonio Guadalupe Castillo, etc.
No one but a rabid over zealous anti-KJVO zealot would confuse these men with Jesus, the Christ.

Ἰησοῦς (Iesous) is translated as Jesus 900+ times in the New Testament those reading Greek were no doubt confused when they got to Act 7 and Hebrew 4. It's a joke son, you'll get over it. What ever happened to the old seminarian song and dance about "consistency in translating"? It goes out the door when an opportunity to find fault with the extant Scriptures presents itself.

FSSL is Admin who is Barry...
Michael, Mike, Miguel, Michał, etc.

Hey. Don't run away. You've been ignoring me Mitex. I'm glad you've finally shown me some attention.

You know what's really funny. Col 4:11 shows that Jesus is referenced with the surname Justus. You might be interested to know that the Old Syriac translation of Hebrews 4:8  references "Jesus" as "the son of Nun".

Its very evident that the authors of the Scriptures didn't want people confusing Jesus Christ with Joshua the son of Hun..... or anyone else for that matter. However, your holier than everything else.... KJV..... doesn't do such in Hebrews 4:8 does it? Nor does it do such in Acts 7:45?

Why are you being so dishonest?