Two Simple Rules of Thumb

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't that make them brothers-in-law?

That too, but the "in law" distinction is not present in the Bible.

Neither is "half brother" ... a distinction I don't use when referring to my own brother, who is from a different father.

 

[Strathos]

So, in other words, you're adding context that isn't directly stated by the literal words in the KJV.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is no secret that the manuscript evidence available to the KJV translators was poor compared to what is available today. Personally, I like the KJV, but it certainly isn't the "most accurate" translation, as some people are heard to claim.

Depends on which side of the KJVO line you are on.

That's certainly your prerogative.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, in other words, you're adding context that isn't directly stated by the literal words in the KJV.

That is correct.

It's called "clarifying."

 

[DogmaHunter]

Based on over seven and a half years here, I'm now condensing my apologetics down into two simple rules of thumb:

Rule One: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the literal translation of the King James Bible to be contradicted.

If necessary, use even the punctuation therein to defend your point; but never let a point contradict the Bible -- ever.

Rule Two: Seek a logical explanation first; and if that doesn't work, then go with a theological explanation.

Scripture first, followed by basic doctrine, followed by suppositions; but don't let the logical trump the theological.

Why do you even bother with the second rule? It seems rather redundant.

If your first rule is that you will accept nothing that contradicts your religion of choice, then you don't need other rules. You can just stick to what your religion says and be done with it.

Why do you even require "logic" in the second rule? You already sacrificed "logic" and "reason" in your first rule.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you even bother with the second rule?

Because I'm an embedded age creationist, not a YEC.

And since the Bible doesn't mention the age of the earth at any given point, I use what the scientists say it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Rule One: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the literal translation of the King James Bible to be contradicted.

I don't get the whole KJV-only thing....

I mean, all bibles in existence today are copies of copies of translations of copies of translations of...

Why would one particular version be more accurate then another?
It seems to me that if one would commit to any specific version while rejecting all others, the sensible thing to do would be to go with the original versions in the original language.

So here's a question for you...

Why do you commit to KJV as opposed to any other version? What sensible reason do you have to do so?

Is it just an arbitrary decision? Are you just following orders from your local pastor? Or what is it?

 

[Kylie]

Both.

Abijam married Maachah, the queen mother; as did Asa.

Which testifies to the debauchery in operation at the time.

So you speculate in order to solve the problem, even though the Bible never mentions this. And that anyone reading these passages would not be told of this.

Right.

Isn't it more likely that someone made a mistake somewhere in the translations?

Anyway, what was in the Ark of the Covenant?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't get the whole KJV-only thing....

The story is told of a man who captured a Leprechaun and demanded of him where he had hidden his pot of gold, or he was not going to let the Leprechaun go.

So the Leprechaun took him deep into the forest and showed him where it was buried.

The man tied a red ribbon around the tree, then went home and got a shovel and wheelbarrow.

Returning to the forest, to his horror, the Leprechaun had tied red ribbons around every single tree.

When you understand this story, you'll understand the KJVO movement.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you speculate in order to solve the problem, even though the Bible never mentions this.

The Bible doesn't mention it as a "problem" either.

I did not speculate in order to solve the problem; I speculated in order to solve your problem.

And that anyone reading these passages would not be told of this.

I don't know ... would they?

Isn't it more likely that someone made a mistake somewhere in the translations?

No.

Anyway, what was in the Ark of the Covenant?

Nothing at first.

At maximum capacity, it had the Ten Commandments, Aaron's rod that budded, and I believe a pot of manna; if my memory serves me correctly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The story is told of a man who captured a Leprechaun and demanded of him where he had hidden his pot of gold, or he was not going to let the Leprechaun go.

So the Leprechaun took him deep into the forest and showed him where it was buried.

The man tied a red ribbon around the tree, then went home and got a shovel and wheelbarrow.

Returning to the forest, to his horror, the Leprechaun had tied red ribbons around every single tree.

When you understand this story, you'll understand the KJVO movement.

Can you try answering without using riddles?

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't get the whole KJV-only thing....

I mean, all bibles in existence today are copies of copies of translations of copies of translations of...

Not so. Even the KJV was translated from the Greek and Hebrew, and modern translations certainly are.

 

[Ubogion]

so wormwood is star?

 

[AV1611VET]

so wormwood is star?

Yes.

 

[Strathos]

Except the only kind of star small enough to fall and hit the earth is as neutron star... which would completely destroy the earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except the only kind of star small enough to fall and hit the earth is as neutron star... which would completely destroy the earth.

It wouldn't be a star as we know it.

Remember the star of Bethlehem?

I believe it was a hologram.

 

[Ubogion]

It wouldn't be a star as we know it.

Remember the star of Bethlehem?

I believe it was a hologram.

but that no literal translation, or is rule 1 not valid now?

 

[Strathos]

It wouldn't be a star as we know it.

Remember the star of Bethlehem?

I believe it was a hologram.

A hologram is not a star. And I don't see how a hologram could poison 1/3rd of the earth's waters, either.

 

[AV1611VET]

but that no literal translation, or is rule 1 not valid now?

It's either a type of star that God created that scientists are unfamiliar with; or it's an object that can be semantically referred to as a star; e.g., "falling star" for meteor.

 

[AV1611VET]

A hologram is not a star.

But a star can be a hologram.

And I don't see how a hologram could poison 1/3rd of the earth's waters, either.

Are we back to Wormwood now, or the star of Bethlehem?

The star of Bethlehem led the wise men to a specific address and appeared and disappeared, then reappeared.

It appears to have only been seen by these men, as Herod had to inquire when it appeared.