Amaleq13

I predict that this will be quoted back at you very soon.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

If Closeau or Amaleq wants to ignore my posts, that is fine.

Either way, my question to Closeau is obviously very salient,
if he purports to believe in the Bible as the word of God.

The questions can be helpful to others, in refining their own
thinking.

We note that Closeau is especially critical of the King James Bible,
that the KJB is not his Final Authority. So we wonder what is.

===============================================

Do you believe that any manuscript in any language is the inspired and preserved, pure and perfect, inerrant word of God ?

How can someone seriously criticize the King James Bible if they offer no superior alternative in its place ? Perhaps a skeptic could criticize the KJB from a point of no-Bible-truth but surely not someone who purports to accept the Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.

================================================

Even another question could be asked:

If you reject the manuscripts behind the King James Bible,
what are the source langauge manuscripts that you accept
as God's pure and perfect word ?

What is your plumbline for evaluation ?

(Apparently Closeau feels that manuscripts are not an issue,
however anybody even mildly familiar with the topic knows
that the difference in underlying source manuscripts can easily
be considered the single most significant issue in the King James
Bible discussion.. most major Bible differences - the resurrection account of Mark, "God was manifest in the flesh.." the Pericope Adultera, only-begotten-God in modern versions, the swine marathon and many more - are simply reflections of the difference in the underlying texts.)

Shalom,
Steven

Johnny Skeptic

In this case, I agree with you. It is about time that someone showed how ridiculous Clouseau's arguments are. Good job.

Clouseau

The King James Version is still said by some to be the greatest piece of literature in English. Thomas Hardy, the famous novelist and poet, particularly respected by fellow authors, knew more than a thing or two about English, and the English. In 1918 he wrote this of the 'Authorised Version' (one should note in reading that Coverdale and Tyndale posthumously made more or less great contributions to this version):

'By the will of God some men are born poetical. Of these, some make themselves practical poets, others are made poets by lapse of time who were hardly recognised as such. Particularly this has been the case with the translators of the Bible. They translated into the language of their age; then the years began to corrupt that language as spoken, and to add grey lichen to the translation; until the moderns who use the corrupted tongue marvel at the poetry of the old words. When new they were not half so poetical. So that Coverdale, Tyndale, and the rest of them are as ghosts what they never were in the flesh.'

Today, nearly a century, and around fifty modern English translations later, there are modern atheists, so adamant that science has outmoded religion, yet whose preference is almost always the KJV; not at all for poetic expression, but because archaic English is easy to mock, and hard to understand. There's no victory so convincing as achieved by shooting of self in the foot.

Toto

Clouseau: can you identify the source for that Thomas Hardy quote? And the text before it?

Clouseau

The source is Hardy's journal, April 30, 1918. The text is mine.

Steven Avery

Clearly you are either new to the forum, or having paid attention. Again and again the skeptics here insist on the modern version duckshoot texts, full of errors, that are favorable to their disposition.

And they try to insist that I not defend the pure, inerrant Bible, that I should lay down the old sword and swith to the verse readings of the errant texts - for their skeptic convenience. They really, really like those modern version alexandrian errors throughout the text.

Shalom,
Steven

Clouseau

Whenever I see that word on the 'net, I think, "Here we go..." Yes, that word 'clearly'. The KJV was the only version I saw used in this forum until I first made this same point, and there was then a brief protest, a brief use of the NASB that I had recommended, and then a return to the same old, same old, beloved steam Bible.

Atheist sites like the KJV partly because it contains errors, or that seems to be the motivation. Their objections would fall down if they used a modern version.

Ah. Ok, I surrender.

Steven Avery

Hi Clouseau,

So yes, you are new to discussing such issues with skeptics and you are not familiar with the apologetics of the verses where the Received Texts, including the King James Bible, differs from the modern version alexandrian text.

Have you looked up or seen Asa and Asaphe, the "smackdown" of the errancy wiki ? Have you looked up the claim of a false location, the swine marathon, from Gerash. 35 files into Jordan, not remotely close to the Sea of Galilee ? Did you see the recent claim that Jesus lied because he said he was not going to the feast ?

Why not start with those three and simply share what versions the skeptics were using, and insisting on, for errancy claims. After you have really studied those three I will be happy to give you more.

Oh, you might also consider how many mythicist and skeptic claims are built around Mark not having written a resurrection account, another claim of the modern versions but not the King James Bible or any Received Text or Traditional Text Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

Clouseau

I'm sure that a multitude of fundies, bedfellows with atheists, would like to think so. It is the continued use by these fifth columnists of the clapped out steam Bible, that Christians have long since with exceeding gladness forsaken, that gives atheists some sort of a desperately needed foothold in their attempted assault on Christianity.

The word is 'Alexandrian'. And it's not nearly as simple as that. Or simplistic, should I say.

Of course atheist positions, practices and habits vary according to the situation atheists find themselves in. It has ever been thus. I'm not a total fool.

Christians need no help from the KJVO cult, thank you.