King James vs King James

[AV1611VET]

No, this is not about a king, either.

You must have missed my posts where I post this:

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

... and make the point that kings & scientists were one and the same.

Does it bother you that I elevate one of your philosophers to the status of a king?

Or do you think I'm so dead-set against science that I wouldn't do something like that?

 

[Colter]

King James Bible vs [King] James McGraw of McGraw-Hill science textbooks.

Or, to put it another way: AV1611 KJB vs AV2017 KJT.

Why can't these two agree with each other?

Because they are human to begin with. The Bible books don't even agree with each other which puts Bible worshipers in an embarrassing position.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because they are human to begin with.

FYI the Author of the Bible isn't human. Any mistakes wouldn't have been divinely preserved.

The Bible books don't even agree with each other ...

They compliment each other, not contrast.

... which puts Bible worshipers in an embarrassing position.

I somehow don't think anyone is blushing.

 

[Colter]

FYI the Author of the Bible isn't human. Any mistakes wouldn't have been divinely preserved.They compliment each other, not contrast.I somehow don't think anyone is blushing.

You just don't realize that people are blushing at you. Belligerent denial. That's what Biblical idolatry requires, reject facts, wear blinders, ignore reality.

 

[quatona]

Does it bother you that I elevate one of your philosophers to the status of a king?

No, your semantics games do not really bother me. I just can´t take them seriously.

Or do you think I'm so dead-set against science that I wouldn't do something like that?

Well, creating your own pedestal to place something upon just to push it off that self-made pedestal is, well, not so impressive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, creating your own pedestal to place something upon just to push it off that self-made pedestal is, well, not so impressive.

Then you impress me.

King James Bible vs [King] James McGraw of McGraw-Hill science textbooks.

Or, to put it another way: AV1611 KJB vs AV2017 KJT.

Why can't these two agree with each other?

 

[quatona]

Then you impress me.

King James Bible vs [King] James McGraw of McGraw-Hill science textbooks.

Or, to put it another way: AV1611 KJB vs AV2017 KJT.

There is no King James McGraw, to begin with.

Why can't these two agree with each other?

It´s your premise (which you have loaded your question with) that two books can´t agree with each other - why would it be on me to try to support your premise?

Let me guess: Does it have anything to do with Thalomide or Pluto?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no King James McGraw, to begin with.

Is the word "king" confusing you?

Why is it you're the only one who seems to be having trouble here?

It´s your premise (which you have loaded your question with) that two books can´t agree with each other - why would it be on me to try to support your premise?

Let me guess: Does it have anything to do with Thalomide or Pluto?

This is a classic example of {"God"? What do you mean??} vs {Science can take a hike}.

"King" throws you ... "God" throws you ...

And you want me to consider you guys "wise men" by classification?

That is just so ironic!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Me neither.

Try this one and see if it helps.

But that's not James McGraw, that's a publishing house which started publishing science texts many years after James McGraw died. This is James McGraw. Now please stop dancing around and tell me why you think James McGraw and KJV disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

But that's not James McGraw, that's a publishing house which started publishing science texts many years after James McGraw died.

So? The KJB isn't King James. King James died centuries ago. In fact, King James didn't write the King James Bible. He commissioned the work to be done.

This is James McGraw.

This is King James.

 

[quatona]

Is the word "king" confusing you?

Confusing? No, but you seem to be quite confused about this word.

Why is it you're the only one who seems to be having trouble here?

Because I am exceptionally smart.

This is a classic example of {"God"? What do you mean??} vs {Science can take a hike}.

An example of a question vs. an affirmative statement?

"King" throws you ... "God" throws you ...

]
Neither "throws me". I know what "king" means, I don´t know what "God" means.

And you want me to consider you guys

Me guys?

"wise men" by classification?

Not sure where you found me saying this.
But since you consider McGraw a king, I don´t actually see why you couldn´t consider me a wise men. You are pretty loose with the way you use words, so...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So? The KJB isn't King James. King James died centuries ago. In fact, King James didn't write the King James Bible. He commissioned the work to be done.This is King James.

AV, your OP specifically says that the KJV Bible (a particular translation of the bible, not King James the person) and James McGraw (the person, not a publishing house) disagree. Can you support that claim or is it just another unsupported piece of nonsense?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, your OP specifically says that the KJV Bible (a particular translation of the bible, not King James the person) and James McGraw (the person, not a publishing house) disagree. Can you support that claim or is it just another unsupported piece of nonsense?

No, my OP does not say that.

Read it again.

It says the 2017 KJT.

The 2017 King James Textbook.

That means it is the newly-updated textbook for students this year.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No, my OP does not say that.

Read it again.

It says the 2017 KJT.

The 2017 King James Textbook.

That means it is the newly-updated textbook for students this year.

Let me quote the exact seven opening words from your OP:

King James Bible vs [King] James McGraw

So, do you still insist that it doesn't say Bible vs person?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, do you still insist that it doesn't say Bible vs person?

Yes.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes.

It's not often you can get away with calling somebody dishonest on this forum, but this would appear to be a situation where I can accuse you of being just that with no fear of reprisal

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not often you can get away with calling somebody dishonest on this forum, but this would appear to be a situation where I can accuse you of being just that with no fear of reprisal

Not a problem. No offense taken.

 

[JustMeSee]

I don't suppose it crossed your mind to call It our "sacred text," did it?

Calling It 'religious' just puts It in with all the other religious texts: like the Book of Mormon or the Urantia Book.

Our Sacred Text is a science text?
It's your thread to muddy the water. Quite often it is like reading riddles that only the author has the solution and takes joy in keeping it that way.

I wasn't aware that they disagreed on anything. Perhaps you could provide examples. I have Holy Bibles, but am uncertain which McGraw textbook is in question. I imagine there are numerous ones over the years. ???

 

[JustMeSee]

No, my OP does not say that.

Read it again.

It says the 2017 KJT.

The 2017 King James Textbook.

That means it is the newly-updated textbook for students this year.

Oh, okay I don't have this book? Are there passages in KJ1611 Holy Bible that covers chemistry in contradiction to the review textbook?
Textbooks often have mistakes? Is that the case? Is The Bible even discussed in that test preparation book?

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't suppose it crossed your mind to call It our "sacred text," did it?

Calling It 'religious' just puts It in with all the other religious texts: like the Book of Mormon or the Urantia Book.

Depends who you ask, but aren't they all "sacred" to someone?