Help

[[serious]]

Good thing the call went out in relatively modern English, eh? I'd be screwed if God's divinely inspired scripture was divinely translated at the order of the king of Spain rather than the king of Scotland.

Why?

because if it was divinely translated into spainish, I wouldn't be able to read it.

yes, but none of them say it in German. Hence, Germans can't recieve the true word of God, right?

Why not?

because there is not "divinely inspired" german translation. according to certain people, the current "true version" of the bible happens to be in English and as such would not be available to anyone who didn't read English.

That means that the 1611 KJV is a dive translation fo non-divine translations.

No it's not --- only when a word or phrase was in question was a non-authorized writing used. In other words, the TR and MT were used only as a reference tool.

out of curiosity, what do you think they were translated from? Do you have a citation for which documents they translated from? Everything I've seen that specifies what works were being translated cited those two for the OT and NT.

 

[Skaloop]

Okay --- guys --- now I'm beginning to suspect you're just pulling my chain to rile me, so I'll do us all a favor and leave this thread for awhile.

I'm not pulling your chain at all. In fact, I'm using your line of resoning, your logic, and your arguments to show how outrageous your claims actually are. If I'm pulling your chain, it's only because the rest of the time you're pulling ours.

 

[AV1611VET]

more factual errors in independent fundamental baptists in rewriting history.

Not hardly ---

James I was particularly worried about marginal notes such as the one in Exod 1: 19, which allowed disobedience to Kings. Consequently, King James eventually introduced the King James Version, which drew largely from the Geneva Bible (minus the marginal notes that had enraged him).

Please note that both the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible say the same thing:

• 15 Moreouer the King of Egypt commanded ye midwiues of the Ebrewe women, (of which the ones name was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah) 16 And sayde, When ye doe the office of a midwife to the women of the Ebrewes, and see them on their stooles, if it be a sonne, then yee shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then let her liue. 17 Notwithstanding ye midwiues feared God, and did not as the King of Egypt commaunded them, but preserued aliue the men children. 18 Then the King of Egypt called for the midwiues, and sayde vnto them, Why haue yee done thus, and haue preserued aliue the men children? 19 And the midwiues answered Pharaoh, Because the Ebrewe women are not as the women of Egypt: for they are liuely, and are deliuered yer the midwife come at them. 20 God therefore prospered the midwiues, and the people multiplied and were very mightie. 21 And because ye midwiues feared God, therefore he made them houses.

• 15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: 16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. 18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? 19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. 20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. 21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.

If it's the marginal notes you're talking about, big deal, God had nothing to do with those. Only the corpus of the text is under His divine care - (Psalm 12:6-7).

the KJV is was commissioned because the Geneva Bible, esp. the marginal notes, was too Calvinistic for King James

Again, the marginal notes were never a part of the text itself, and speaking of the text:

• For whosoeuer shall call vpon the Name of the Lord, shalbe saued.

• For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Neither of these are pro-Calvinism.

however the words in the KJV are about 60% the same as in the Geneva.

Okie-doke.

 

[Tomk80]

Where do you think I learned them?

Most of it, I think you're making it up as you go along, or at least made it up before.

The King James is profitable for correction - (2 Timothy 3:16).

If I had a dollar bill that was in question, how could I verify it's not a counterfeit?

Look which marking should be on it and compare it to that. Relevance?

No, I don't claim that. Wow --- let's go through this again.

There are 7 (seven) other translations just as accurate as the King James:

1. AV100 Koine Greek Version
2. AV330 Gothic Version
3. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
4. AV1389 Wycliffe Version
5. AV1530 Tyndale Version
6. AV1568 Bishops' Bible
7. AV1587 Geneva Bible

And the original hebrew is not in that line. Funny that.

I don't even understand what you're saying here.

Look at 1 - 7 above as "legal tender", so to speak. Any other translation is a counterfeit.

Does that help?

And there you go again. Other translations also derive from the original hebrew. In some places, the KJV does not agree with the original hebrew. In those cases, you claim that the original hebrew is false, not the KJV. You consistently take the KJV, the translation of the original documents, as the gold standard instead of the original documents. You effectively and consistently claim that in the places where the original hebrew and the KJV disagree, the original hebrew is false. In other words, you consistently claim that the KJV is more accurate than the original hebrew. You try to talk around it, but is really all there is to it.

 

[AV1611VET]

because if it was divinely translated into spainish, I wouldn't be able to read it.

That's right --- not until it would have been translated into English.

However, you would have probably been reading either the 1587 Geneva Bible, or the 1568 Bishops' Bible all your life, until you got the 1611 King James in English.

God is going to hold us accountable for what is written in His Word. How can He do that if He Himself doesn't preserve its content?

 

[WilliamduBois]

God is going to hold us accountable for what is written in His Word. How can He do that if He Himself doesn't preserve its content?

He translated it Himself then? Or was if fallible men?

And again, to back up Tom:

if you read a translation which contradicts the original, which one will you rely on? Do you think it's logical to trust the translation instead of the original? Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Most of it, I think you're making it up as you go along, or at least made it up before.

Says you.

1. AV100 Koine Greek Version
2. AV330 Gothic Version
3. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
4. AV1389 Wycliffe Version
5. AV1530 Tyndale Version
6. AV1568 Bishops' Bible
7. AV1587 Geneva Bible

And the original hebrew is not in that line. Funny that.

That's right --- it's not. The Hebrew Originals are transliterations of the Autographs --- not translations.

You consistently take the KJV, the translation of the original documents, as the gold standard instead of the original documents.

Not gold --- silver:

• The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

 

[Tomk80]

Says you.

Yup, says me. You have yet to give me one reason to think I am incorrect in that assertion.

That's right --- it's not. The Hebrew Originals are transliterations of the Autographs --- not translations.

And somehow those are less accurate? How does that work?

Not gold --- silver:

 

[AV1611VET]

He translated it Himself then? Or was if fallible men?

Fallible men --- God always uses fallible men --- like Moses, Joshua, Nehemiah, Ezra, Isaiah, Hosea, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul.

BUT, they were holy men:

• [bible]2 Peter 1:21[/bible]

In 1607-1611, He superintended another translation of His Word.

if you read a translation which contradicts the original, which one will you rely on?

The original.

Do you think it's logical to trust the translation instead of the original? Why?

Only if the two come from the same infallible Source.

 

[shernren]

What on earth are five pages of KJVO pontification doing in Creation and Evolution??

 

[WilliamduBois]

Fallible men --- God always uses fallible men --- like Moses, Joshua, Nehemiah, Ezra, Isaiah, Hosea, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul.

BUT, they were holy men:

• [bible]2 Peter 1:21[/bible]

In 1607-1611, He superintended another translation of His Word.

So it was written by holy, but fallible men. So why trust it literally?

The original.

But that's not what you do, you've said plenty of times you trust the KJV over the original Hebrew. So what is it?

Only if the two come from the same infallible Source.

But they contradict eachother at points. Is it logical to follow the translation instead of the original?

 

[USincognito]

I keep hearing Creationists make this claim about the Hittites, but I have never seen any evidence supporting it, just ad hoc assertions. Of course since AV is the one who made it in this thread, I don't expect any evidence to be forthcoming, but it would be nice at some point to see a citation of some sort.

My main problem with this assertion is that Hieroglyphics had been translated long before Hattusas was unearthed, and there are plenty of writings of Rameses II's battles with the Hittites and his victory at Kadesh.

Have any Creationists provided any evidence for the Hittite assertion or am I still waiting? I've been seeing it with some regularity since 1999 or so, so there must be some substance behind the bluster.

 

[AV1611VET]

So it was written by holy, but fallible men. So why trust it literally?

Because as we say in America:

• The quality goes in before the name goes on.

God superintended His work.

But that's not what you do, you've said plenty of times you trust the KJV over the original Hebrew. So what is it?

There is no original Hebrew today. They went bye-bye; victims of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

But they contradict eachother at points. Is it logical to follow the translation instead of the original?

Well you'd better. If you (or anyone) are following the originals, I suppose next you're going to try to sell me some land in Florida?

Get the phone --- the Smithsonian is calling.

 

[shernren]

Have any Creationists provided any evidence for the Hittite assertion or am I still waiting? I've been seeing it with some regularity since 1999 or so, so there must be some substance behind the bluster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hittites

Wikipedia isn't The Bible (KJV) but it sure does come close.

Now, can this be taken somewhere appropriate? GA, maybe?

 

[WilliamduBois]

Because as we say in America:

• The quality goes in before the name goes on.

God superintended His work.

How do you know that?

There is no original Hebrew today. They went bye-bye; victims of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Let's change this then: if the KJV disagrees with an ancient Bible, which one is more likely to be correct?

Well you'd better. If you (or anyone) are following the originals, I suppose next you're going to try to sell me some land in Florida?

I don't get that last one.

I do, however, that it's more logical to follow the original instead of the translation, if they disagree with eachother.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know that?

He said He would:

• [bible]Psalm 12:6-7[/bible]

Let's change this then: if the KJV disagrees with an ancient Bible, which one is more likely to be correct?

The KJV.

I don't get that last one.

The "originals" no longer exist.

I do, however, that it's more logical to follow the original instead of the translation, if they disagree with eachother.

Let's say you see a bookshelf with the following books:

1. New International Version
2. Today's English Version
3. The Living Bible
4. King James Version
5. Masoretic Text
6. Vulgate
7. Septuagint
8. Textus Receptus

Which one is the true Word of God?

Now you see another bookshelf with the following books:

1. King James Version
2. The Geneva Bible
3. The Bishops' Bible
4. The Tyndale Bible
5. The Wycliffe Bible
6. The Anglo-Saxon Bible
7. The Byzantine (Gothic) Bible
8. The Koine Scriptures
9. The Autographs

Which one(s) is/are the true Word of God?

 

[Baggins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hittites

Wikipedia isn't The Bible (KJV) but it sure does come close.

Now, can this be taken somewhere appropriate? GA, maybe?

Neither of those two links seem to back your assertion that mainstream history/archaelogy didn't believe the Hittites existed until recently, it seems that there has just been a 100 year squabble about who the biblical Hittites were.

Why did you link to pages that don't back up your claims?

 

[USincognito]

Neither of those two links seem to back your assertion that mainstream history/archaelogy didn't believe the Hittites existed until recently, it seems that there has just been a 100 year squabble about who the biblical Hittites were.

Why did you link to pages that don't back up your claims?

Ummm, Baggins, meet shernren, he's a TE. Shernren, this is Baggins, I'm sure you've seen his posts before.
(Didn't you see his postdeluvial archaeology thread where he mentioned reading Guns, Germs and Steel and didn't have a problem with it?)

The links just evidence my point. YECs have been blowing this flatus about archaeologists saying "the Bible says the Hittites existed, therefore they didn't" for years and it turns out this oft repeated tale is nothing but offal. I'd say it belongs in a PRATT file along with all the rest.

I first encountered the Hittite argument from Fred M. Williams himself back on Yahoo message boards back in 1999 or so. I mentioned to him about hieroglyphs, the Rosetta Stone, Rameses II, Kadesh, etc. and his only response was, Oh? I had the same experience when I told Mark Kennedy about the importance of the foramen magnum in fossils.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I can't see anything special in the Bible claiming that the Hittites existed.
This is just a variation of JohnR7's tired reasoning that Babylon was a real city, so the Bible is true (and as has been pointed out, New York therefore proving Spiderman)

 

[WilliamduBois]

He said He would:

• [bible]Psalm 12:6-7[/bible]

And how do you know he really said that?

The KJV.

Why?

The "originals" no longer exist.

Still don't get what that has to do with selling land in Florida.

Let's say you see a bookshelf with the following books:

1. New International Version
2. Today's English Version
3. The Living Bible
4. King James Version
5. Masoretic Text
6. Vulgate
7. Septuagint
8. Textus Receptus

Which one is the true Word of God?

Now you see another bookshelf with the following books:

1. King James Version
2. The Geneva Bible
3. The Bishops' Bible
4. The Tyndale Bible
5. The Wycliffe Bible
6. The Anglo-Saxon Bible
7. The Byzantine (Gothic) Bible
8. The Koine Scriptures
9. The Autographs

Which one(s) is/are the true Word of God?

You can't know, because you don't know what God thinks about it.