Textual Critical Methods of the KJV Translators

Bibleprotector didn't stumble over the clarity of the question. I don't hear anyone else having an issue with it.
 
FSSL said:
Bibleprotector didn't stumble over the clarity of the question. I don't hear anyone else having an issue with it.
Click to expand...
Matthew gave a more general spiritual-source answer to your question:

"They use the received from providence method."

And you indicated that you did not consider that really the specific textual answer your requested.  So again, if you want the question addressed more on a textual analysis level, you are welcome to go back to my post pointing out that your question was vague, possibly covering three different elements.

Steven
 
In order to claim that a providential method is unique to the KJV, then surely you know how to explain that method.

Your parsing of this question is just avoidance.

It's not difficult.... unless you do not know and just rely on vacuous platitudes.... or your non-answer reveals that the method was not superior to the approaches you diss.
 
"Whatever" signals who is interested in a solid discussion. Your lack of credibility is once again noticed.

You claim an exclusive providential method and yet cannot give us the details. Why not? Certainly this method, if it is based in reality, is communicable.
 
FSSL said:
In order to claim that a providential method is unique to the KJV, then surely you know how to explain that method.

Your parsing of this question is just avoidance.

It's not difficult.... unless you do not know and just rely on vacuous platitudes.... or your non-answer reveals that the method was not superior to the approaches you diss.
Click to expand...
"Whatever" was an answer to your baiting post above, obviously.

You, as usual concerning translation/version discussions, turn into a petty playground atagonist, wholly out of character from the rest of your otherwise carefully measured verbiage.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

This has been an important discussion, and I, for 1, am hoping that it plays out as what both sides are selling it to be: namely , a comparison of methods for choosing the preferred readings that eventually yielded us our two lineages of texts.

Yes, I have a dog in this fight, I don't pretend to be unbiased, nor uninformed.
It was this exact comparison that led me to solidly stand on the side that I have taken.
I believe this is extremely important to any who have the gift of prophecy, or teachers, to be above reproach (in this case laziness or ignorance would be the reproach).


Steven Avery said:
Whatever. If you answer mr question I will return and reply.
Click to expand...
Steven, if he won't play ball and reframe the questions to allow the discussion to take shape,
Would you be willing to ask the question properly, and then answer it?

There are onlookers who will be enlightened, though the debaters have closed their minds on the subject.
 
Good posts, prophet. Spot-on.

Another poster actually did seem to ask a sincere question, on another thread, about the Byzantine priority position and how it is represented by Maurice Robinson as related to the Hortian theories. So I responded, and have noticed a bit more since the response, in my studies.
 
FSSL said:
What method/s did the KJV translators use in determining the text?
Click to expand...

I do not know of anyone who has presented any sound case that demonstrates that the KJV translators used any consistent, just textual measures or methods in determining their underlying text from the several textually varying sources that they consulted.

The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to the Scriptures (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Lev. 10:10, Deut. 16:20, Ps. 19:7-9). 

A failure to use consistent, “altogether just” measures, standards, criteria, or principles (Deut. 16:20, Prov. 16:11, Ezek. 45:10, Deut. 25:15) in comparing or trying manuscripts or translations of Scripture would condemn the inconsistent, unfair, uneven, and unjust judgments that will result. 
 
The question was appropriate and clear. KJVOs beg the question when they claim the KJV translators used an exclusive "providential method." If it was an uniquely providential method, then certainly you should be able (and more than willing by now) to proclaim the from the rooftops! Instead, we get contortions regarding the question.

Why are KJVOs willing to term it the "providential method" and yet are unwilling to discuss it?

As Logos1560 correctly stated... there are questions that remain regarding the consistency of KJVO logic.

I framed the discussion. If you want to change the questions asked, then start a new thread.
 
FSSL said:
The question was appropriate and clear. KJVOs beg the question when they claim the KJV translators used an exclusive "providential method." If it was providential, then certainly you should be able (and more than willing by now) to proclaim the from the rooftops! Instead, we get contortions regarding the question.

Why are KJVOs willing to term it the "providential method" and yet are unwilling to discuss it?

As Logos1560 correctly stated... there are questions that remain regarding the consistency of KJVO logic.

I framed the discussion. If you want to change the questions asked, then start a new thread.
Click to expand...
When you use the term: KJVO, which most of us realize has no definite meaning, you detract from the argument.

For instance:

If I asked for the uninformed and ignorant to present their side of any argument, and dedicated a thread to it, who would show up to answer?

It's like preaching a sermon on Sodomy, who's gonna walk the aisle at the end of that?
You'd be like "I'll just pray at my seat, even though I felt convicted about something unrelated".

Do we really have to throw about a derogatory term in order to have this discussion?
Especially a term that has several distinct definitions.


 
Then what term should we use if KJVO is unacceptable?

Why all of the distractions on this thread? Why not just tell us the particulars of the "providential method?"
 
FSSL said:
Then what term should we use if KJVO is unacceptable?

Why all of the distractions on this thread? Why not just tell us the particulars of the "providential method?"
Click to expand...

Pro 1:17
17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.

You don't expect the Eagle to land, when you blow the turkey call, do you?
 
I'm sorry you feel trapped when we ask you to explain this "providential method."
 
Once again... we must have hit the KJVO nerve. 34 posts in and the KJVOs cannot even tell us, simply, what the "providential method" means.
 
FSSL said:
Once again... we must have hit the KJVO nerve. 34 posts in and the KJVOs cannot even tell us, simply, what the "providential method" means.
Click to expand...
There you go again.

Throw out an insult: KJVO
Expect people to show up and own it.

Why, so you can feel superior?

I'm hoping to see the facts laid out, for all to judge.

I don't have access to anything other than a smart phone here, so for me to post excerpts with long cut/pastes is impossible, or I would gladly share what I studied 20 years ago.
I fear I've forgotten much, and have given away all my reference material several times over, to others who were studying the issue.
 
I am not throwing out an insult. I am noting the continued unwillingness, perhaps inability, of the KJVO to explain what "providential method" means. It's their own position. They should be able to define/explain it.

Post #37...
 
FSSL said:
I am not throwing out an insult. I am noting the continued unwillingness, perhaps inability, of the KJVO to explain what "providential method" means.

Post #37...
Click to expand...
'KJVO' is an insult.

It assumes a less than scholarly approach, and by default is an insult against someone who you are at least willing to debate, thereby acknowledging that they have some modicum of respect for scholarship.

This post is filler, I'll admit it, I'm just standing around in the lobby with you, waiting for the show.
 
I started a new thread. The "mental disorder" thread is an insult, but not the label.

Okay... let's see if they have an answer.
 
My former pastor JH said he believed in providential preservation but I never once heard him explain how it worked with examples of the preservation. It was always yelling and screaming that it was true.

We had Al Lacy in many times, he also said he believed it. He never could adequately explain it either, he just believed it.

I am looking forward to someone explaining how it could work and include examples.
 
FSSL said:
I started a new thread. The "mental disorder" thread
Click to expand...

Simply demonstrates that most of the posters here are not interested in any real learning or level playing field discussion. The thread stands as an indictment of the forum.

That is the only relevance of the contra psychobabble attack upon the AV perfection position. 

Steven Avery
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top