OT: Some thoughts on the KJV
Comments
-
[^o)] HHHMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]
0 -
Hi Schezic ! I must admit that I don't see the statements you cite as being at odds with each other - perhaps you should re-read them? Matthew was spending a fair amount of time responding to very direct questions when the points he was making were quite simple. I thought he responded with grace and tact.
I'm sure many people will welcome the KJV to their collection of Bibles and include it within their research activity. Yet I guess the problem for those that haven't settled on a particular Bible version is whether they know which one (or all of them) is the Word of God? The "radical fringe element" has at least settled that question and (in my view) that is to their great credit. Sometimes the value of such groups isn't so much in their radical claims - but that they force us to examine ourselves and what we believe. If there is a whiff of sulphur on some Bible versions - wouldn't we want to know? Keep well Paul
0 -
Paul said:
Hi Schezic ! I must admit that I don't see the statements you cite as being at odds with each other - perhaps you should re-read them? Matthew was spending a fair amount of time responding to very direct questions when the points he was making were quite simple. I thought he responded with grace and tact.
I'm sure many people will welcome the KJV to their collection of Bibles and include it within their research activity. Yet I guess the problem for those that haven't settled on a particular Bible version is whether they know which one (or all of them) is the Word of God? The "radical fringe element" has at least settled that question and (in my view) that is to their great credit. Sometimes the value of such groups isn't so much in their radical claims - but that they force us to examine ourselves and what we believe. If there is a whiff of sulphur on some Bible versions - wouldn't we want to know? Keep well Paul
If you profess to believe in the verbal inspiration of scripture, I would think that they would be forced to say that none of them is the Word of God. How can they be since they are different words? I would then say that you must read the original. At least the Muslims are consistent in that. Of course, I don't have any problem with translations (when I choose to use them) since I would claim that the message is what is inspired and not the words. Therefore, pick the translation you wish (though I would have my preferences). They are all the Word of God if they are accurate translations.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Now, That was a definite maybe. [:P]George Somsel said:They are all the Word of God if they are accurate translations.
0 -
George Somsel said:
Compare each to the original. Open the NA27 and compare it with a version. Open BHS and compare it with a version. Better yet, just read the original.
Alexandrian manuscripts are old but age does not constitute correctness. The Ronald Reagan of 1980~1988 was a better thinker than the one of 1996~2004. [:D] (He was older in 2004, but less correct.) If you discover a 5 year old document on my cousin's computer entitled "Matthew's autobiography" and a recent document on my wife's computer by the same name, which one is likely to be more correct? My wife's computer is in closer geographical proximity than my cousin's. The underlying principle of all textual critics is "Modern scholarship is more reliable than older scholarship." Since by your own admission we do not possess the original autographs, the Byzantine manuscripts must be the more reliable of the two categories. They are the more modern set. [:D]
There is a reason Codex Sinaiticus was found in a trash can. The monks who discarded it recognized it for the trash that it is.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Ron Keyston Jr said:
Matthew, would you mind elaborating on this point?
Yes, stay tuned.
David Ames said:But
as Matthew will tell us it is not completely about textual criticism
[I.E. there is a big part of the story that we have not yet told – I
will let Matthew handle that part]Yep, I will. [;)]
Schezic said:Matthew is still alive. He was not abducted by
aliens. He is responding to other threads. I assume he is still
compiling an answer for us. Be Patient !!!Done compiling, now "indexing."
And that we will. As soon as it is done indexing.Schezic said:Do the research
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
George Somsel said:
Stephanus and the Byz Maj texts are somewhat corrupt. I believe that Bart Ehrman in his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture speaks regarding some of these corruptions -- being ever careful to portray them in the worst possible light.
This is the same Bart Ehrman who says he lost his faith doing textual criticism. He does not believe any of the Bible manuscripts. Now why would any believer revere and listen to a scholar who denies the Bible came from God?
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Schezic said:
Now, That was a definite maybe.George Somsel said:They are all the Word of God if they are accurate translations.
Thankful for Logos capabilities to look at original languages along with translations. Also Thankful for Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament , hoping Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible Bundle (6 vols.) receives enough pre-orders for publication (would like to see Hebrew with discourse markers open in a panel beside ESV with discourse markers along side Cambridge Authorized Version in another panel).
Matthew C Jones said:My point is there is not one KJV-Only post. I'm sure glad this thread was not about foot-washing. We might actually offend someone.
Many years was KJV-Only (much to my wife's chagrin); learning Koine Greek helped me mature. Concur with George Somsel about reading original languages and comparing English translations to original languages. All English translations fall short of adequately expressing the rich verbal diversity and intensity in Greek (e.g. John 1:1 "In the beginning was being the Word" lacks some intensity of continuous action associated with imperfect tense). The historical basis for KJO is God's magnificent blessings on English people doing God's will for several centuries while using an Authorized Version Bible.
Searching Logos Library for "King James" BEFORE 1-3 WORDS only found some results
The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament logosres:bbackcom;ref=Bible.1Jn5.6;off=455
(The trinitarian formula found in the KJV of 1 Jn 5:7 is orthodox but not part of the text. It appears in only three manuscripts—of the twelfth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries—out of the thousands available, placed there by scribes who knew it from the Latin Vulgate, which took it from an early marginal note based on a popular early interpretation of the text. The KJV includes it only because that translation was based on a recension dependent on the third edition of Erasmus’s Greek text; Erasmus included the verse to fulfill a wager, protested it in a note and withdrew it in subsequent editions of the text.)
Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (1 Jn 5:6). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
The Moody Handbook of Theology logosres:mhndtheo;ref=Page.p_619;off=1879
SUMMARY EVALUATION OF NEO-FUNDAMENTALISM
Neo-fundamentalism may be identified as the modern movement that, while holding to the historic fundamental doctrines of Scripture, has evolved into a movement with different emphases and perspectives. Neofundamentalism has remained true to the historic doctrines of the Christian faith, steadfastly defending those doctrines in pulpits and classrooms. However, although historic fundamentalism has fielded intellectual giants like Robert Dick Wilson, W. H. Griffith Thomas, Bishop J. C. Ryle, J. Gresham Machen, and many others, neo-fundamentalism has tended to reject intellectualism and seminary training.
This anti-intellectualism has resulted in aberrations of orthodoxy, particularly seen in the “King James only” movement. Even though early fundamentalists certainly believed in the inspiration of the autographs, some neo-fundamentalists have tended to go further and actually advocate the inspiration of the King James Version, even including it in their doctrinal statements.
Neo-fundamentalism has also tended toward legalism, adding explicit statements regarding behavior to doctrinal statements.
In addition, neo-fundamentalism has also advocated secondary separationism, calling for avoidance of other Christians who do not follow the same rigid standards. In advocating this attitude, neo-fundamentalism has tended toward divisiveness, splitting of churches, and fostering of ill will among genuine Christians. This is an unfortunate commentary on those who otherwise hold to correct doctrine. Ultimately, sound doctrine should issue in life-changing behavior, the relational expression of which must be love (John 13:34–35; 1 John 2:10,11; 3:14). Love is the Christian’s duty even when engaged in conflict with heresy or immorality. The biblical admonitions to love need to be taken seriously, especially where alleged compromise is not in the realm of doctrines central to the faith.
Enns, P. P. (1997). The Moody handbook of theology (619–620). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:George Somsel said:
Compare each to the original. Open the NA27 and compare it with a version. Open BHS and compare it with a version. Better yet, just read the original.
Alexandrian manuscripts are old but age does not constitute correctness. The Ronald Reagan of 1980~1988 was a better thinker than the one of 1996~2004.
(He was older in 2004, but less correct.) If you discover a 5 year old document on my cousin's computer entitled "Matthew's autobiography" and a recent document on my wife's computer by the same name, which one is likely to be more correct? My wife's computer is in closer geographical proximity than my cousin's. The underlying principle of all textual critics is "Modern scholarship is more reliable than older scholarship." Since by your own admission we do not possess the original autographs, the Byzantine manuscripts must be the more reliable of the two categories. They are the more modern set. There is a reason Codex Sinaiticus was found in a trash can. The monks who discarded it recognized it for the trash that it is.
You are MOST CONVENIENTLY ignoring certain facts. In the case of your your cousin's copy of your biography (autobiography), your wife has a nearer relationship to you to be able to adjust the facts as they become known to her so that later information can be more reliable. In the case of documents, the greater temporal distance from the originals allows for greater corruption (though it does not demand increased corruption). Bart Ehrman has written regarding the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. While I disapprove of the obvious tendency Ehrman has to throw bombs, he does speak the truth regarding the facts. Scribes did tend to improve the grammar and even to adjust the facts to comport with their view of what should have been written. Therefore, a greater distance in time allows for increased "correction" of the texts. Furthermore, the monks of St Cathereine's are in the Orthodox tradition which follows the Byz Maj textform. It is only to be expected that they would support their own tradition (as you support your obviously perverted tradition). That they regarded א as trash is therefore only to be expected. Most generally, the older text is the better text though this is not a hard and fast rule.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:George Somsel said:
Stephanus and the Byz Maj texts are somewhat corrupt. I believe that Bart Ehrman in his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture speaks regarding some of these corruptions -- being ever careful to portray them in the worst possible light.
This is the same Bart Ehrman who says he lost his faith doing textual criticism. He does not believe any of the Bible manuscripts. Now why would any believer revere and listen to a scholar who denies the Bible came from God?
His rejection of the faith does not change his eyesight nor does it make his thought processes any less correct. Faith is not knowledge (remember Paul?). His faith position is revealed in his propensity to state everything in the most provocative terms from the standpoint of the Christian faith. Nevertheless, he is a careful scholar.
BTW: Where do you stand on the question of the Johannine Comma?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Paul said:
The reason is that there is wonderful scholarship out there and writers who enrich us whether or not we agree with them. I may read with horror what Hort and Westcott did in the 19th century or worry about the rationale for accepting particular Greek manuscripts over others as authoritative or squirm in my seat at church as "The Message" is read in place of Scripture etc, but the point is that with the Logos tools I and many others are now empowered to look more closely at these things.
Thank you Paul. You say what I think better than I am able to!
I have no problem if God uses a Muslim heart surgeon to save my life. I do have a problem reading textual criticism from a scholar who does not even believe the manuscript he touts as the best.
With the awesome capabilities of the Logos Bible software we no longer need the elite scholars to tell us what to believe. We can check for ourselves what the differences are between versions. We can discover the doctrines that are undermined when we change the wording. And we can do all this without getting ordained and with no license (other than the one for the software [:D] )
Seems like Logos Bible software is helping Tyndale reach even the plow boys, and girls.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
George Somsel said:
While I disapprove of the obvious tendency Ehrman has to throw bombs, he does speak the truth regarding the facts. Scribes did tend to improve the grammar and even to adjust the facts to comport with their view of what should have been written.
George Somsel said:Furthermore, the monks of St Cathereine's
are in the Orthodox tradition which follows the Byz Maj textform. It is
only to be expected that they would support their own traditionSo you cut an agnostic a break while you question the devotee's veracity?
George Somsel said:Most generally, the older text is the better text though this is not a hard and fast rule.
The rules are always flexible when you and I have our own "perverted traditions."
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
So you cut an agnostic a break while you question the devotee's veracity?
Yes !
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Paul said:
If there is a whiff of sulphur on some Bible versions - wouldn't we want to know?
Hmmm. Have you been reading Arthur Hort's biography of his father and Wescott's involvement in occult societies at Cambridge? How else would one smell sulphur? [6]
Now back to "indexing."
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Alexandrian manuscripts are old but age does not constitute correctness. The Ronald Reagan of 1980~1988 was a better thinker than the one of 1996~2004.
(He was older in 2004, but less correct.) If you discover a 5 year old document on my cousin's computer entitled "Matthew's autobiography" and a recent document on my wife's computer by the same name, which one is likely to be more correct? My wife's computer is in closer geographical proximity than my cousin's. The underlying principle of all textual critics is "Modern scholarship is more reliable than older scholarship." Since by your own admission we do not possess the original autographs, the Byzantine manuscripts must be the more reliable of the two categories. They are the more modern set. There is a reason Codex Sinaiticus was found in a trash can. The monks who discarded it recognized it for the trash that it is.
[Y] [:D]
Matthew C Jones said:Yes, stay tuned.
Waiting patiently, thanks! [:)]
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
How else would one smell sulfur?
Have you checked your email? there may be a explanation of sulfur there or something worthy of deleting. [one or the other]
0 -
George Somsel said:
BTW: Where do you stand on the question of the Johannine Comma?
Keeping in mind that this thread is about the KJV and not the doctrine of the Trinity and the Johannine comma is across several manuscripts and translations, I answer Thee thus:
I accept the Trinitarian perspective because it is in agreement with other scriptues. (Always use the Bible to critique the Bible. Everything else is secondary.) The removal of the Johannine comma would not effect my view of the doctrine. It's inclusion also does not present me with a problem. But this is not about doctrine, is it? btw, check out this: Trinitarian Studies Collection (4 vols.)
The Comma Johanneum is not a problem for me. It's inclusion or exclusion presents no quandry doctrinally. I do believe it is supposed to be there. [:)]Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
copied & deleted.
will read within the hour.
gotta go get my grandkids.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
The Comma Johanneum is not a problem for me. It's inclusion or exclusion presents no quandry doctrinally. I do believe it is supposed to be there.
I'm not surprised that you would take that position. [I didn't ask about your doctrine of the trinity but about a text] Even the Byz Maj text doesn't support the Johannine Comma. It was in the Vulgate, but Erasmus only put it into his NT when someone phonied up a Greek manuscript to show him that it was in Greek. One's theological position isn't really pertinant to other aspects of his life. I would rather have "Dr. Death" Kevorkian as a physician than Joe the Plumber (even if it can be shown that he is very pious [I don't know about that]) because he does know medicine even though he is evil. As Dooyeweerd maintained in his Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee, there are various irreducible aspects to reality such as energetic, numerical, physical, etc. One's faith determines how those are directed, but it does not supply a deficiency in any of those aspects. I will therefore defer to Ehrman's judgment in his area of expertise, but not for his statements which go beyond the evidence.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Hmmm. Have you been reading Arthur Hort's biography of his father and Wescott's involvement in occult societies at Cambridge?
Matthew, does the questionable moral character of King James not shake your confidence in the KJV? Is that how we are to judge the quality of a translation?
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Now why would any believer revere and listen to a scholar who denies the Bible came from God?
I don't know why the word "revere" appears in this sentence. However, I can admire a scholar who allows his academic studies to refine his beliefs - if the scholar's faith was built on unsustainable positions, loosing one's faith may be a necessary step to gaining a much more profound faith. I listen to scholars based on the quality of their scholarship not based on their personal faith. I listen to scholars I disagree with in order to refine my own beliefs. Why else would I have Logos?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I do have a problem reading textual criticism from a scholar who does not even believe the manuscript he touts as the best.
Does this mean I can only read texts of the Avesta (Parsi scripture) that were developed by Parsi? of the Rg Veda by Vedic scholars (oops, they are all Hindus now)? ancient medical texts by practitioners of ancient medicine? ... I will go with the manuscript that was subjected to the best available textual criticism and that has the best documentation explaining the reasoning behind its choices.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
How else would one smell sulphur?
By driving through a town with an old-style paper mill? [;)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
We wait a week for a response only to hear drivel about your mentor getting senile. If your analogy holds...He would have been even more correct when he starred in that classic, "Bedtime for Bozo".[:)]Matthew C Jones said:The Ronald Reagan of 1980~1988 was a better thinker than the one of 1996~2004.
(He was older in 2004, but less correct.)EDIT... Was Ronald a KJO'er?
0 -
George Somsel said:
Even the Byz Maj text doesn't support the Johannine Comma. It was in the Vulgate, but Erasmus only put it into his NT when someone phonied up a Greek manuscript to show him that it was in Greek.
I never said it was or wasn't in the Byzantine manuscripts. About 2 years ago I posted how much I appreciate Erasmus and I will add to that opinion by claiming Desiderius Erasmus was a better textual critic than Ehrman. [H] "Now we see thru a glass darkly....."
I'm not trying to introduce Trinitarian debate into this thread, I just don't see why the Johannine comma is a KJV issue. It is present in several Greek manuscripts. preceding 1611. In other words, it is of more relevance in a discussion of original language manuscripts. And you already know which of those I accept.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Desiderius Erasmus was a better textual critic than Ehrman.
"Now we see thru a glass darkly....."I didn't know you were so funny. [^o)]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Schezic said:
We wait a week for a response
Still indexing.
Schezic said:only to hear drivel about your mentor getting senile. If your analogy holds...He would have been even more correct when he starred in that classic, "Bedtime for Bozo".
I worked in his campaign in 1984 and yes, he was brilliant. And I assure you, in his "Bonzo" days he could run circles around Westcott & Hort [:D] Weren't they contemporaries? One had words with a monkey and the others monkeyed with the Word.
Schezic said:Was Ronald a KJO'er?
Ronald was raised Disciples of Christ (attending one of their colleges) and became Presbyterian.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I was convinced you were in the know. You wear it like a badge of honor. [:P]Matthew C Jones said:I worked in his campaign in 1984 and yes, he was brilliant. And I assure you, in his "Bonzo" days he could run circles around Westcott & Hort
Weren't they contemporaries? One had words with a monkey and the others monkeyed with the Word.Schezic said:Was Ronald a KJO'er?
Ronald was raised Disciples of Christ (attending one of their colleges) and became Presbyterian.
You still didn't answer the question...Was he a KJOer?
0 -
Michael Childs said:
Matthew, does the questionable moral character of King James not shake your confidence in the KJV? Is that how we are to judge the quality of a translation?
King James did not do any of the translation work.
If we apply that strict of a litmus test we have to throw out the whole NIV OT. and quit using Apple computers
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Schezic said:
Was Ronald a KJO'er?
Matthew C Jones said:Ronald was raised Disciples of Christ (attending one of their colleges) and became Presbyterian.
Schezic said:I was convinced you were in the know. You wear it like a badge of honor.
You still didn't answer the question...Was he a KJOer?
Obviously Matt doesn't know, but he doesn't want to admit that.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Schezic said:
You still didn't answer the question...Was he a KJOer?
You are getting silly. I can guarantee you he was not an NIV user, nor an NASB user while in office. I doubt many Presbyterians in the 1980's used the Vulgate, RSV, ASV, or even TLB I'd wager my collection of High Frontier newsletters that Reagan used KJV. But it really doesn't matter to me.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Schezic said:
I was convinced you were in the know. You wear it like a badge of honor.
That's because it is.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
You are getting silly.
I"M getting silly?,,,You are the one who brought Ronald into the conversation. [:D] If he is the yardstick...do we not need to know his credentials?
0 -
George Somsel said:Schezic said:
I was convinced you were in the know. You wear it like a badge of honor.
You still didn't answer the question...Was he a KJOer?
Obviously Matt doesn't know, but he doesn't want to admit that.
http://books.google.com/books?id=S-o1dxTi6V0C&pg=PA409&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 409 of Reagan in His Own Hand, recounts a radio address he gave on the matter.
Go eat crow for dinner, George. [:D] Happy now Schezic?
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Page 409 of Reagan in His Own Hand, recounts a radio address he gave on the matter.
The plot thickens...Matt did know...he was just hoping that we didn't know. [:)]
Is that resource available in Logos? Is that what was downloading and indexing?
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:George Somsel said:Schezic said:
I was convinced you were in the know. You wear it like a badge of honor.
You still didn't answer the question...Was he a KJOer?
Obviously Matt doesn't know, but he doesn't want to admit that.
http://books.google.com/books?id=S-o1dxTi6V0C&pg=PA409&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 409 of Reagan in His Own Hand, recounts a radio address he gave on the matter.
Go eat crow for dinner, George.
Happy now Schezic?No crow needed. It shows that he appreciated an preferred the Authorized Version, but he doesn't say that it is the ONLY version he would use. I like the Authorized version myself if I'm simply looking at the beauty of the words, but not if I want someone younger than my 38 yrs to understand it.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Schezic said:
Is that resource available in Logos? Is that what was downloading and indexing?
No but you can put it in a reading list to save the reference for others who may need to know.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
George Somsel said:
It shows that he appreciated an preferred the Authorized Version, but he doesn't say that it is the ONLY version he would use.
Neither the OP nor I said we were KJV Only. I still think nobody has protested use of other English versions in this thread.
Care for seconds? Look here.Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:George Somsel said:
It shows that he appreciated an preferred the Authorized Version, but he doesn't say that it is the ONLY version he would use.
Neither the OP nor I said we were KJV Only. I still think nobody has protested use of other English versions in this thread.
Care for seconds? Look here.Thank you for the link. Reagan did like to "tell it like it is", but today we can't even call a terrorist ... well, what he is. BTW: What is that picture? If it's a fancy taco, I don't think I like the looks of it and will pass not only on seconds, but firsts as well.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
BTW: What is that picture?
I did not count them but it is supposed to be 4 & 20 blackbirds, baked in a pie.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Now back to "indexing."
How long does indexing take? Or is this thread too close to breaking forum rules? Or are we on a topic that is too difficult to resolve on this particular forum and that we should just drop it. As in if we go any further we may step on toes? Or is Matthew writing a book, in Logos native format, that we will need to add to our library to get the answers? Hope that he makes it a freebe!
0 -
SunFlower said:
Welcome to Logos forums [:D]
Depends on Logos library size and computer capabilities, Logos indexing can take many hours.
SunFlower said:Or is this thread too close to breaking forum rules?
Primary purpose of Logos forums is discussing how to use Logos Bible Software.
SunFlower said:Or is Matthew writing a book, in Logos native format, that we will need to add to our library to get the answers? Hope that he makes it a freebe!
Logos Personal Book Builder (PBB) possibility (hearing rumors about progress), only Matthew can answer about writing a book for Logos users.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
SunFlower said:Matthew C Jones said:
Now back to "indexing."
How long does indexing take? Or is this thread too close to breaking forum rules? Or are we on a topic that is too difficult to resolve on this particular forum and that we should just drop it. As in if we go any further we may step on toes? Or is Matthew writing a book, in Logos native format, that we will need to add to our library to get the answers? Hope that he makes it a freebe!
First Time or Original indexing can take a very, very long time. But, then it's over! *smile*
Then, the indexing on new resources goes quite quickly. Sometimes only a few minutes.
Peace to you!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Question: Why is SunFlower asking how long indexing takes in this thread? [and as the lead in to more ‘words’]
Does ‘indexing’ have anything to do with the rest of SunFlower’s post i.e. this thread and the topic we were on?
Is SunFlower referring to how long Logos 4 takes or how long Matthew takes? [It takes awhile to write a book] Matthew used ‘indexing’ to implying that he was still working on trying to come up with an answer to some very deep theological questions raised in this thread
Matthew – need help or should we just drop this?
As in: Sorry everyone but we are just getting too close to the edge on this one – If we come up with a good answer that does not step on toes we might answer this the next time this subject comes up – but not now. Sorry we are just not smart enough to do it correctly - we tried and failed.
[One on one we could explain but on an open, not to be used for theological discussion forum – with too many toes to step on?] Sorry END GAME!
0 -
SunFlower said:How long does indexing take?
God bless you Sunflower, and welcome to the Logos forums!
SunFlower said:Or is this thread too close to breaking forum rules?
Could be. That is why I took a sabbatical to ponder a proper response.
SunFlower said: Or are we on a topic that is too difficult to resolve on this particular forum
It hasn't been resolved for more than a hundred years so I'm not promising anything.
SunFlower said:and that we should just drop it.
Probably, but I'm not known for having great wisdom.
SunFlower said:if we go any further we may step on toes?
I've only got 5 left. [:D]
SunFlower said:Or is Matthew writing a book
My writing days are mostly over. I've now got 5000+ books to read and only about 5000 days left to live.
SunFlower said:Hope that he makes it a freebe!
You think waiting on me takes time? Your wait on PBB in Logos 4 is gonna be longer. [6]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously folks, I think I have come up with a method whereby we can each resolve this issue to our own satisfaction while staying completely in the forum guidelines. The only requirements will be:
- You have to have Logos 4 Bible software
- You have to be willing to invest a little time
- You have to be honest with your self.
- (and you have to reasonably know where you stand)
So if God grants me a tomorrow I will share what I have. "Silver & gold have I none......"
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Peace, Matthew! *smile*
You somehow forgot # 5.
To have a little love and respect for your Brothers and Sisters. To truly listen to them as well as share with them. To appreciate their integrity also and where they have been!
*smile*
I said a little prayer this evening about the terrible storms you are having down there in Oklahoma!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
So if God grants me a tomorrow I will share what I have.
Hey Matthew, if you wouldn't mind, you can feel free to e-mail me. My address is ron keyston (obviously without the space) "at" the MicroSoftNetwork "dot" com. I'm just curious about what doctrinal changes resulted from the new translations compared to the KJV. I don't recall coming across that aspect of the debate before, though I may have just missed it. [:)] Thanks again!
0 -
Ron Keyston Jr said:Matthew C Jones said:
they reject the change of doctrine that results from modern versions.
Matthew, would you mind elaborating on this point? Despite my having done some fairly extensive reading on both sides of the KJV-Only debate, I don't remember coming across this argument...though I could be wrong. Thanks!
[Dave Note: In a full study on Fasting there are many other verses that would be used – just pointing out one place where someone’s study on fasting would blow up if the study had been written using the KJV and a student tried to follow it in the NIV84]
[One way of reading a difference between the KJV and the NIV is as follows:]
In the NIV84 all you have to do to solve any problem is pray but in the KJV 1769 you also have to fast.
Matthew 17:21 [Verse not in the NIV84]
21 Howbeit this gkind goeth not out but by hprayer and hifasting.
g So 1 Cor. 12. 10, 28. & 14. 10.
h Acts 13. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 5. So Luke 2. 37.
h Acts 13. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 5. So Luke 2. 37.
i ch. 6. 16, 17, 18. & 9. 15. Acts 13. 2. & 14. 23. 2 Cor. 6. 5. & 11. 27.
[1] The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version., Mt 17:21 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009).
Matthew 17:20
20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. a” 2
a Some manuscripts you. But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.
2 The Holy Bible: New International Version, electronic ed., Mt 17:20 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).
Mark 9:29 [Fasting not in the NIV84]
29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. 3
3 The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version., Mk 9:29 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009).
Mark 9:29
29 He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer. b” 4
b Some manuscripts prayer and fasting
4 The Holy Bible: New International Version, electronic ed., Mk 9:29 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).
Matthew 9:15
15 And Jesus said unto them, oCan pthe children of the ppbridechamber mourn, as long as the qbridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and qqthen shall they fast.5
o John 3. 29.
p Comp. Ezra 2. 1. ch. 8. 12. Luke 20. 34, 36.
pp Tobit 6. 13, 16.
q See ch. 25. 1.
qq See ch. 17. 21.
5 The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version., Mt 9:15 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009).
Matthew 9:15
15 Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast. 6
6 The Holy Bible: New International Version, electronic ed., Mt 9:15 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).
That His followers will fast is given as a fact (Mat 9:15) but the when and why is [or can be seen as] missing (Mat 17:21 and Mark 9:29)
0 -
Thanks for those comparisons David.
0
