The imperfect King James Bible

[prophet]

The AV translators forgot that they were afraid in Psa 22:22
22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren:
in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
(KJV)

Heb 2:12
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
(KJV)
Thanks for making my point.
Conregation, assembly, church are synonyms.
Easter, Passover are synonyms.

I'm not sure why you are so bent on proving that the AV was some RCC secret agent.

The attacks on the RCC begin in the notes to the reader, continue in the epistle dedicatory, and in the text throughout.

If they had wanted to Anglicize, or Catholicize the scriptures, they sure shot themselves in the foot.

Again...
Show me Maryolatry in the AV...You know, Hort's preferred form of worship?
Surely, they woulda tossed the queen of heaven a bone, had they believed that she was.

You are blinded, my friend.
The AV isn't the IFB's problem, we would mis-handle whichever scripture we were given.
We don't study, we parrot.

And yes, I believe that Satan is wooing IFB's to the Great Whore.  This must needs be accomplished, the end is nigh.

It isn't the KJB that is to blame. 
Start with Darby
Or Spurgeon
Or any other man, who is lifted up....Hyles didn't invent it, Calvin was here along time ago.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

I guess Tyndale "got it wrong" 23 times.

Absolutely. Even by your own standards, Tyndale got it wrong 22 times. So, what is one more error?

I can usually figure out what your angle is, what you are trying to get across,  whether I agree or not.

I don't know what you are getting at, here.

Anishinabe

 

[Mitex]

No other questions. You view all of the other Polish Bibles as tainted, imperfect and not worthy of a recommend for use in the churches. To you, all other versions are so inferior, that a new translation (not from the Greek & Hebrew) will be superior to all the other Bibles.

That's all. I just wanted to have that clarified.

If you and Alice hurry you can catch up with Don Quijote and his sidekick Sancho.

By your own confession, having personally divorced yourselves from the AV, you and your buddy took over a church founded by the teaching and preaching of the AV. You then supplanted the AV with which version? In your Alice and Wonderland thinking that must mean you believe all others were tainted, imperfect and not worthy of to recommend for use in the churches. It also means that you believe that the AV is "unworthy of being used in the churches", not even the church founded by the preaching, teaching and believing the AV.

Unlike you, I'm not in the habit of calling into question books, chapters, verses and words of any version of the Bible for I know that the very meanest of them may be the only means of salvation for some. I have never in my life taken over a church and forced my preferred version upon them through subtle teaching. You never heard me state that your preferred version is a perversion, tainted, or replete with errors - excuse me - translational mistakes.

You go on chasing them windmills, you might catch one someday!

 

[Mitex]

I certainly do not, nor have I "rejected the word Easter" as found in the English Authorized Version. I just happen to know that it is an archaic word. Again, not an error, not proof of imperfection of the Scriptures, but simply an archaic word which means passover. See the context.

"Easter" is not an archaic word. It was the wrong word.

The KJV translators got the word "passover" right in two other passages.

The KJV revisionism you use is nonsense.

The Oxford English Dictionary (the BIG one) is considered the standard dictionary among scholars and plowboys alike. Admin blunders once again, I quote:

Easter, n.1
†2. The Jewish passover. Obs.
  971 Blickl. Hom. 67 Hælend cwom syx da¼um ær Iudea eastrum.  c1000 Ags. Gosp. Mark xiv. 1 Æfter twam da¼um wæron eastron.  1398 Trevisa Barth. De P.R. ix. xxxi. (1495) 366 Ester is callyd in Ebrewe Phase, that is passynge other passage.  1535 Coverdale Ezek. xlv. 21 Vpon ye xiiij. daye of the first moneth ye shal kepe Easter.  1563 Homilies ii. Whitsunday i. (1859) 453 Easter, a great, and solemne feast among the Jewes.  1611 Bible Acts xii. 4 Intending after Easter to bring him foorth. 
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition on CD-ROM, Oxford University Press

Care to retract your statement, sir?

The Saxon Gospels (1125), Tyndale (1525), Coverdale 1534, Matthew (1549), the Bishops 1568, etc. all use the word Easter, with different spellings of course, in translation of the Greek pascha.

I stand technically corrected as I stated that it was "archaic" when in fact it is obsolete - note the nuance!

Again archaic or obsolete words in this case are not errors, nor are they proof of imperfection.

Mitex, you are spinning so fast that you do not know what you believe. As you spin you go through 360 degrees looking at everything for all possible viewpoints without choosing one and holding to it.

Tell your mommy to stop putting quarters in the merry-go-round and others will no longer appear to you to be spinning!

Easter is an obsolete word? Really!

When the word Easter is used to mean "passover", such as in Acts 12:4, it is indeed obsolete. It wasn't obsolete when Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops and the AV translators translated. It became obsolete over time.

Would you care to enlighten the Gentle Reader when the first time the English word "passover" appeared in the English language? I'll give you a hint: Think Tyndale.

Dictionaries are nice, but what really matters is what the Plowboy understands as the meaning.

Help yourself! And the plowboys down at Walmart understand the meaning of "days of unleavened bread", do they? They understand what it means "to be born again", do they? They have a complete understanding of the Trinity, do they?

That would be my modern day Walreeens employee.

How many people are going to be looking up words in a dictionary during a conversion in a drug store?

I'll lay you two to one odds that 75% of the people down at Walgreens can't point in the Bible where the first passover took place or even the significance of passover as it relates to salvation. I'll double down if they can define the Hebrew word חספ even if you transliterated it pecach. Does this mean the original is in error? And the transliteration is a mistake?

If I walked in to any Walgreens at Easter time in the US and asked the manager if Easter was obsolete or an obsolete word, he would be able to tell me from contemporaneous concomitant experience that Easter was not obsolete but was instead a time of the year when they make some of the highest profits of any of the major holidays.

And when you fly over to Greece and land at the Athens airport at Easter time and see Πάσχα (pascha) plastered all over the chocolate Easter bunnies, what then? Ever hear of thing called C-O-N-T-E-X-T? Care to take a stab at the questions I presented to you?

How many different meanings (nuances) of the word Easter do you find in the Oxford English Dictionary? Are any of them archaic or obsolete? Which ones? Note the following sentences:

Easter in 2014 will fall on Sunday, April 20th.
Mr. Tyndale in 1534 translated John 6:4 as "And Easter, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

Did you notice the same word was used with DIFFERENT meanings? One of the meanings is obsolete, but not the other. Can you identify which sentence used the obsolete meaning?

Shall we try another one:
I read books at Walgreens every day.
I read books at Walgreens yesterday.

Did you notice the exact same word - read - jots and tittles and all? Did you notice how the context of each sentence changed the meaning?

Hold unto your hat, one more time with gusto! Let's go down to Walgreens this Easter and ask all the common folk if the word "K-N-O-W" is archaic? What do you think they will say?

Online Dictionary
Know
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
...
3. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
...
9. archaic to have sexual intercourse with

I knew a girl named Ruth, who lived in Florida.
Gen 4:1 ESV Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”

Can you identify which sentence is using the archaic meaning of "know" - to have sexual intercourse? Can you identify which sentence the verb "know" means to be acquainted with? Words have more than one meaning - the meaning is determined by usage and context!

The context of Acts 12:4 is the Jewish Passover, the AV translators and those before them used the word Easter in that sense. Nothing complicated about this, unless one is determined to pronounce error in our English Bible when there is none.

P.S. I quoted the ultra modern English Standard Version for you sake.

Archaic? Obsolete? Hardly. Want to try again?

The use of Easter in Acts 12:4 is most certainly archaic or obsolete. Your ignorance will not change that fact.

Have you bothered to read what Miles Smith said about why they translated Greek word "pascha" with the English word "Easter"? You might be surprised.

I've read the preface several times and found no mention of the Greek word "pascha" or the English word "Easter".

Maybe the biggest reason they used Easter was the King's commandment that they use the Ecclesiastical words and not even make a proper translation.

Too funny.

How about this:

But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never suppose; if one where pain, never ache; if one where joy, never gladness, &c. thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist, than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?

 

[bgwilkinson]

No other questions. You view all of the other Polish Bibles as tainted, imperfect and not worthy of a recommend for use in the churches. To you, all other versions are so inferior, that a new translation (not from the Greek & Hebrew) will be superior to all the other Bibles.

That's all. I just wanted to have that clarified.

If you and Alice hurry you can catch up with Don Quijote and his sidekick Sancho.

Having personally divorced yourselves from the AV, you and your buddy took over a church founded by the teaching and preaching of the AV. You then supplanted the AV with which version? In your Alice and Wonderland thinking that must mean you believe all others were tainted, imperfect and not worthy of to recommend for use in the churches. It also means that you believe that the AV is "unworthy of being used in the churches".

Unlike you, I'm not in the habit of calling into question books, chapters, verses and words of any version of the Bible for I know that the very meanest of them may be the only means of salvation for some. I have never in my life taken over a church and forced my preferred version upon them through subtle teaching. You never heard me state that your preferred version is a perversion, tainted, or replete with errors - excuse me - translational mistakes.

You go on chasing them windmills, you might catch one someday!

I see you are quoting Miles Smith.

It has always been amazing to me that most people have no idea what Miles wrote.

I hope you enjoy reading and studying Translators to the Reader.

It sure clears up a multitude of erroneous and fallacious presuppositions regarding the English Bible and Bible translation in general.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Mitex said,

Tell your mommy to stop putting quarters in the merry-go-round and others will no longer appear to you to be spinning!


Why are you so mean and surly?

My Swedish mother is in heaven, she dead in 1976.

She and her mother taught me Greek and Latin as a child for which I am grateful.

I do not know about you, but I do not pray to the dead, not even my mother.

I forgive you.

 

[Mitex]

I hope you enjoy reading and studying Translators to the Reader.

It sure clears up a multitude of erroneous and fallacious presuppositions regarding the English Bible and Bible translation in general.

I especially enjoyed reading:

"But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held, in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."

• No need to make a new translation
• Not make a bad one a good one
• Out of many good ones ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE - "onlyism" at its finest!

I also enjoyed reading:
"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: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where."

• The affirmed and avowed that translations do indeed contain the word of God, nay ARE the word of God.
• The King's speech translated is still the King's speech - same authority.
• The King's speech is still the King's speech even when not translated with "so fitly for phrase" or "expressly for sense, everywhere".

What do you think Miles meant when he said, "contain the word of God, nay is the word of God"?  What is the difference between something "containing the word of God" and "being the word of God"?

Apologies to you for referencing you mother and thank you for your forgiveness. Let me rephrase the sentence:
Tell whoever is putting quarters into your merry-go-round to stop doing so, that way others won't appear to be spinning.

Since your you kind and loving mother taught you Greek and Latin then you know that the Greek word Πάσχα (Páscha) is translated as Easter.
Would you be so kind as to inform us, the readers, what the translations of εβραϊκό Πάσχα and Πάσχα are? What is the difference?

How are you coming on those questions?

 

[Mitex]

I have never in my life taken over a church and forced my preferred version upon them through subtle teaching.

Nope. You are just making a new translation from Old Polish and English. You want to change the Bible for the whole "Church" of Poland.

You get the luxury of accusing the brethren of arrogance while working on a translation that will inevitably be deficient. (Old Polish to English to Modern Polish) You bypass the ultimate source languages of Greek and Hebrew.

Is the mirror playing tricks on your eyes again or did the blade of Quijote's windmill hit your head so heard you can't think straight?

Not a "new translation", but an update, or revision if you insist, of the old Polish - not English as you erroneously suggest. Not change the Bible, but change the FORM of the Bible - yes, for the entire Church of God in Poland.

I wouldn't say that calling out arrogance is a luxury, needed at times, but not a luxury.  It is indeed arrogance to presume that all the translators in history translated So. 7:2 incorrectly. It is arrogance or willful ignorance to insist repeatedly that the word Easter as found in older English Bibles is "not obsolete or archaic". It is you preferred doctrine that insists that "the ultimate source languages" are Greek and Hebrew. I don't find that doctrine in the Scriptures in any language and am therefore not bound by it. Besides, we aren't technically translating, we are updating the old archaic syntax and grammar structures of the Polish Bible which was originally (hold unto your hat!) translated from Hebrew and Greek. You so want to pretend that we are translating the KJV into Polish or translating old Polish into English and then into modern Polish. If you keep at it long enough you are bound to catch up to Sancho.

We taught the church (who already had modern version users) through expositional preaching and teaching. A couple of KJVOs saw the error of their ways and we did not lose a single member by moving to the NIV.

Nonetheless you divorced yourself from the AV and supplanted it with another version. In your Alice and Wonderland thinking that must mean you believed all other versions were tainted, imperfect and not worthy enough to be recommended for use in the churches. It also means that you believe that the AV is "unworthy of being used in the churches", not even the church founded by the preaching, teaching and believing the AV. How's that image in the mirror looking?

You never heard me state that your preferred version is a perversion, tainted, or replete with errors - excuse me - translational mistakes.

You never heard me say the KJV was a perversion. Hiding your head in the sand about errors does not mean you have a high view of Scripture. It means you have a higher priority to a tradition.

That is correct. I never heard you say that KJV was a perversion. You have stated, implied or directly, that our English Scriptures (that's what you call the AV when the wind is blowing in the right direction) tainted, replete with errors, must be replaced, contains words and verses that don't belong, and worse.

Pretending that there are errors in the Scriptures belies your profession. Insisting that archaic words such as Easter are proof of error is willful ignorance at best and most likely manifest arrogance in attempt to cause people to not trust our English Bible completely.

 

[rsc2a]

Personally, I "believe in" Jesus,  not a particular translation.

 

[Mitex]

Personally, I "believe in" Jesus,  not a particular translation.

I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the words of the Lord Jesus Christ as they are found in the Scriptures - in any language, not limited to the original languages, but all languages in which the Scriptures are found.

J 5:47  But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Joh 4:50  Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

[rsc2a]

Of course you still haven't addressed that pesky problem where translations are legitimately different...

 

[Mitex]

Of course you still haven't addressed that pesky problem where translations are legitimately different...

I wonder what you mean by "legitimately different"? The wild-eyed Any Version Will Do Club (AVWDC), which doesn't believe every word of any translation since they all have errors in them, has insisted for years that, "there are no legitimate differences in translations". They have insisted that any differences (apparently not of the legitimate variety) have no affect on doctrine, and all versions, despite their differences, are sufficient for the man of God when dealing with issues of faith and doctrine. Check with your club members and when you get things hashed out please get back with me.

Some things to consider at your next club meeting:

1. The original language manuscripts are all different (legitimate?).

2. The non-original compilations are different - multiple versions each with multiple editions with differences (legitimate?).

3. There are some major differences (legitimate differences?) in the Gospel accounts of the same events.

4. There are differences (legitimate?) in the 10 Commandments.

5. There are notable differences (legitimate?) in the Scriptures that Jesus read from in the synagogue located in Nazareth (LK 4) and every extant Isaiah in any language including the original language (I added the word "language" here so that FSSL wouldn't get confused).

6. The New Testament authors and Jesus Himself are quoted as saying, "It is written..." and have you noticed the huge differences (legitimate?) in what they said, "Is written..." and what is actually written in every extant copy in any language of their alleged source text?

I understand club meetings have a one hour limit due to concerns about family matters, so, I'll cut the list short for now. Be sure to get back with me when you get it all hashed out.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Of course you still haven't addressed that pesky problem where translations are legitimately different...

I wonder what you mean by "legitimately different"? The wild-eyed Any Version Will Do Club (AVWDC), which doesn't believe every word of any translation since they all have errors in them, has insisted for years that, "there are no legitimate differences in translations". They have insisted that any differences (apparently not of the legitimate variety) have no affect on doctrine, and all versions, despite their differences, are sufficient for the man of God when dealing with issues of faith and doctrine. Check with your club members and when you get things hashed out please get back with me.

Some things to consider at your next club meeting:

1. The original language manuscripts are all different (legitimate?). That is correct.

2. The non-original compilations are different - multiple versions each with multiple editions with differences (legitimate?). This is again correct.

3. There are some major differences (legitimate differences?) in the Gospel accounts of the same events. Yes I think you've got it.

4. There are differences (legitimate?) in the 10 Commandments. I think you finally looked at the evidence.

5. There are notable differences (legitimate?) in the Scriptures that Jesus read from in the synagogue located in Nazareth (LK 4) and every extant Isaiah in any language including the original language (I added the word "language" here so that FSSL wouldn't get confused). Yes you are quit correct. I am having a hard time believing you wrote this. Did you have an Epiphany?

6. The New Testament authors and Jesus Himself are quoted as saying, "It is written..." and have you noticed the huge differences (legitimate?) in what they said, "Is written..." and what is actually written in every extant copy in any language of their alleged source text?  You are actually noticing the differences?

I understand club meetings have a one hour limit due to concerns about family matters, so, I'll cut the list short for now. Be sure to get back with me when you get it all hashed out.

Ok what's the catch?  You are a very obtuse man that does not express himself in an understandable manner. You write endlessly using words and hyperbole that is confusing and oblique. Maybe you know what you mean but I sure don't know. At times I can agree with you, other times you are off in left field.

At times you seem to be arguing against yourself (I called that spinning), you even blame Rick Norris. Did he smoke you in a debate? You seem to have enmity against him.

Are you playing some kind of a word parsing game?

No matter what you sure are entertaining. Thanks for your responses.

 

[Mitex]

...
Some things to consider at your next club meeting:

1. The original language manuscripts are all different (legitimate?). That is correct.

2. The non-original compilations are different - multiple versions each with multiple editions with differences (legitimate?). This is again correct.

3. There are some major differences (legitimate differences?) in the Gospel accounts of the same events. Yes I think you've got it.

4. There are differences (legitimate?) in the 10 Commandments. I think you finally looked at the evidence.

5. There are notable differences (legitimate?) in the Scriptures that Jesus read from in the synagogue located in Nazareth (LK 4) and every extant Isaiah in any language including the original language (I added the word "language" here so that FSSL wouldn't get confused). Yes you are quit correct. I am having a hard time believing you wrote this. Did you have an Epiphany?

6. The New Testament authors and Jesus Himself are quoted as saying, "It is written..." and have you noticed the huge differences (legitimate?) in what they said, "Is written..." and what is actually written in every extant copy in any language of their alleged source text?  You are actually noticing the differences?

Ok what's the catch?

No catch, just the facts. I've been saying this for years, where have you been? Did you have me confused with Barry's strawman or Quijote's windmill?
You still haven't answered my questions concerning - different meanings in context! Nor did you tell the Gentle Reader how the club meeting went. Were all the above mentioned differences LEGITIMATE? And what does "legitmate differences" mean in your mind?

You are a very obtuse man that does not express himself in an understandable manner.  You write endlessly using words and hyperbole that is confusing and oblique. Maybe you know what you mean but I sure don't know. At times I can agree with you, other times you are off in left field.

If you don't understand something point out the specific point that you do not understand. If you agree with something point that out and state that you agree. If you disagree with something point that out as well and explain why you disagree. It will makes things much easier for all those involved. The point of any real debate is to reach a consensus of truth and the only genuine winner in a debate is the loser - he's the only one that learned anything.

No matter what you sure are entertaining. Thanks for your responses.

I try to keep it light so you don't think I have anything against you personally. I consider all born again Christians my brothers in Christ and would not let our differences on these important issues affect that relationship we have in Christ. Next time you are in Poland you are invited for a sit down meal on me. That goes for you too Barry!

 

[rsc2a]

I wonder what you mean by "legitimately different"? The wild-eyed Any Version Will Do Club (AVWDC), which doesn't believe every word of any translation since they all have errors in them...

Mitex: Does your NT have any errors in it?

You expect him to answer this without making stuff up? He explains the "Easter"/"Passover' discrepancy by saying they are the same thing!

He completely ignores that one translation uses "copper" and the other "brass". He completely ignores that one translation says "thou shall not kill" and the others say "thou shall not murder". He completely ignores that one translation says "the love of money is the root of all evil" and other say "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil".

Well...in honesty, he doesn't ignore this...he says these are actually the same thing!

 

[Mitex]

I wonder what you mean by "legitimately different"? The wild-eyed Any Version Will Do Club (AVWDC), which doesn't believe every word of any translation since they all have errors in them...

Mitex: Does your NT have any errors in it?

How'd the club meeting go? What was the outcome?

Legitimate errors? Accusations of error? Errors in form? Printing errors? Archaic word "errors"? Obsolete word "errors"?

Once again, the third time, the New Testament in any language is by definition without error - it's an axiom. Therefore "my" (as if it were mine) New Testament is without error. I'm pretty sure there aren't any obsolete words in it and we did our best to eliminate all the archaic words, but who knows there might still be a few. By the time Professor Dunaj edits and prints his next edition of the Polish Dictionary there might very well indeed be  more archaic words and a few obsolete ones as well. Languages do that you know they grow old and change on you. We have an erratum published somewhere with corrections. It seems getting edited documents from the original to the layout page and then to the printed page causes such things even in this electronic age. As for accusations of error - your "accusations of error" are more than likely still there -

1J 5,7 Trzej bowiem świadczą w niebie: Ojciec, Słowo i Duch Święty, a ci trzej jedno są.
1Tm 3:16  A bez wątpienia wielka jest tajemnica pobożności: Bóg objawiony został w ciele...
J 1:18  Boga nikt nigdy nie widział. Jednorodzony Syn, który jest w łonie Ojca, on nam o nim opowiedział.
J 3:13  A nikt nie wstąpił do nieba, tylko ten, który zstąpił z nieba, Syn Człowieczy, który jest w niebie.
etc.

P.S. Does your Greek New Testament have any errors in it? What version or edition would that be? Is your Greek NT legitimately different than my Greek NT?

 

[Mitex]

We have an erratum published somewhere with corrections.

... and these errors do not make your NT any less Scripture.

When we note errors in the KJV, it should not result in inflammatory speech from you. We are not attacking Scripture when we note errors. Our commitment is to truth. We are not arrogant for wanting to clearly understand the right meaning.

You didn't address the point of this thread - Legitimately different - and you failed to answer these questions: 
1) Does your Greek New Testament have any errors in it?
2) What version or edition would that be?
3) Is your Greek NT legitimately different than my Greek NT?

You most certainly do attack the Scriptures with your inflammatory accusations of error -

* You state that the presence of archaic/obsolete words are proof of error.
* You state that all translations have errors in them - the NT is is full of translations. Every NT that I have ever read has been a translation.
* Some of you (the "we" in "We note errors...: and "We are not arrogant...") accuse ALL the Scriptures in the vulgar of error, excuse me a "mistake in translation" in So. 7:2.
* Some of you accuse the Scriptures of translational errors - i.e. not translating jot and tittle, word for word, failing to translate the source text with the exact same word in the target language.
* Some of you accuse the Scriptures of errors for not following the original.
* Some of you accuse the Scriptures of additions and subtractions.
* Some of you accuse "my" NT of NOT being given by inspiration of God.
* Some of you accuse a particular individual printing of the Scriptures of a printing error ("Thou shalt commit adultery" comes to mind as one example) and then use that as proof that the Scriptures in English are in error.
* You claim that the Scriptures in English are not perfect.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Mitex says,

Would you care to enlighten the Gentle Reader when the first time the English word "passover" appeared in the English language? I'll give you a hint: Think Tyndale.


Well lets see. Tyndale does not use the word passover in the version I have.

He has instead the incorrect translation of ester. WRONG

TNT  Acts 12:4 And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternions of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people. (Act 12:4 TNT)


When you said think Tyndale I thought, no Wycliffe is the first to have the proper word pask which is just  transliterated from the Greek pascha byway of Latin Vulgate pascha.



Acts 12:4
Wycliffe(i) 4 And whanne he hadde cauyte Petre, he sente hym in to prisoun; and bitook to foure quaternyouns of knyytis, to kepe hym, and wolde aftir pask bringe hym forth to the puple.


Oh look at this.

GNV  Acts 12:4 And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intending after the Passeouer to bring him foorth to the people. (Act 12:4 GNV)

Well the Calvinists in Geneva got it right. How about that.

Oh look at this one by Gregory Martin and his English Roman Catholic translators.

Rheims
Act 12:4  And when he had apprehended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him to four files of soldiers, to be kept, intending, after the pasch, to bring him forth to the people.

That is a few that predate the 1611 version.


Mitex, this is one of the places where you are not clear. Maybe you have a Tyndale version with Passover. I'm checking to see if I can find one by Bede.

So here is the question. What are you trying to say. Or are you just spinning as fast as you can.

You alluded to the Wizard of Oz, do you think of yourself as the little guy behind the curtain?

 

[biscuit1953]

Brent, this is from your website.

4. The word of God once confirmed was committed to the care of Israel (Old Testament) and now the Church of God (New Testament and Old Testament).  The Jews had a history of “standardizing” their Hebrew text.  The current standard is the Massoretic Text.  The Church of God has also “standardized”.  That standard being the Textus Receptus – the text received by all.
a. If we can find a time in history where it was clear WHAT the Church of God recognized as “the standard” then we can identify the true word of God today.  There was a Church that “kept his word” Rev. 3.8 we would do well to find that Church!

      b. There is no doubt from either side that the Textus Receptus was the standard in Greek – this is confirmed by the fact that every Bible in every language was translated from the Textus Receptus through 350+ years after the Reformation.  The English AV was THE recognized standard for 350+ years.  To this there is not doubt, argument or division.

      c. The question asked, however, is:  “Is it STILL the standard”?  Obviously it is not for the “critical text” side.  It is not their standard.  They have REJECTED its authority. They feel quite confident that they can find fault with it, correct it and belittle those who STILL believe it.

      d. I remind our dear brothers that the AV (English standard) was THE STANDARD accepted by ALL Bible Believers for over 350+ years.  It behooves them to prove that the AV is no longer the standard.  They must prove that something has “replaced” the AV as the standard.  That Something must be recognized by ALL as the standard. For low and behold on the “critical text” side they are divided into 100’s of fractured groups as to which is the “most accurate”, “best versions”, “most literal”, “most faithful”, etc.

You go on and on about the King James being the "standard" for 350+ years.  The Latin Vulgate was the "standard" for over a THOUSAND YEARS!  You are using the same lame arguments that were used against Erasmus.  On another forum you defended Peter Ruckman and his stand on abortion even though you say you didn't.  You accused those who exposed his vile teachings as "talebarers."  You are nothing more than a "Ruckmanite" who is trying to bring a different "nuance" to his damnable teachings.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Brent, this is from your website.

4. The word of God once confirmed was committed to the care of Israel (Old Testament) and now the Church of God (New Testament and Old Testament).  The Jews had a history of “standardizing” their Hebrew text.  The current standard is the Massoretic Text.  The Church of God has also “standardized”.  That standard being the Textus Receptus – the text received by all.
a. If we can find a time in history where it was clear WHAT the Church of God recognized as “the standard” then we can identify the true word of God today.  There was a Church that “kept his word” Rev. 3.8 we would do well to find that Church!

      b. There is no doubt from either side that the Textus Receptus was the standard in Greek – this is confirmed by the fact that every Bible in every language was translated from the Textus Receptus through 350+ years after the Reformation.  The English AV was THE recognized standard for 350+ years.  To this there is not doubt, argument or division.

      c. The question asked, however, is:  “Is it STILL the standard”?  Obviously it is not for the “critical text” side.  It is not their standard.  They have REJECTED its authority. They feel quite confident that they can find fault with it, correct it and belittle those who STILL believe it.

      d. I remind our dear brothers that the AV (English standard) was THE STANDARD accepted by ALL Bible Believers for over 350+ years.  It behooves them to prove that the AV is no longer the standard.  They must prove that something has “replaced” the AV as the standard.  That Something must be recognized by ALL as the standard. For low and behold on the “critical text” side they are divided into 100’s of fractured groups as to which is the “most accurate”, “best versions”, “most literal”, “most faithful”, etc.

You go on and on about the King James being the "standard" for 350+ years.  The Latin Vulgate was the "standard" for over a THOUSAND YEARS!  You are using the same lame arguments that were used against Erasmus.  On another forum you defended Peter Ruckman and his stand on abortion even though you say you didn't.  You accused those who exposed his vile teachings as "talebarers."  You are nothing more than a "Ruckmanite" who is trying to bring a different "nuance" to his damnable teachings.

Ug. I guess that kinda exposes Mr. Wizzard. Thank-you biscuit1953. You have pulled back the curtain to

reveal the surly devious twister of all logic.

No wonder his arguments don't make sense. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. No disrespect to the wolf intended.

I guess there is no need to continue with someone who is so twisted.

I completely disagree with the quotes attributed to Mr. Mitex.

Thanks again biscuit1953.