I've noticed that the coverage of Chile's horrible quake is scant compared to the nonstop 24/7 the Haiti quake got....I'm wondering about why CNN and FOX and MSNBC are spending so little time in comparison. Do you think it's because the amount of dead was so much higher (though Chile's, sadly, is rising and has hit over 700 as of tonight's reports) in Haiti? Is there another reason you care to share? Maybe it's because they can't really get cameras in there yet what with the difficulties in infrastructure collapses? What do you think? It seems odd to me.
Now for ECCLESIASTES, which fellow blogger buddy Beamish and revered commenter tiob discussed on another post recently.....(Not that this has anything to do with quake coverage!)
Ecclesiastes 10:2-3 has the following lines I think might be part of why good solid conservatives like Beamish and tiob like Ecclesiastes so much!:
"The heart of the WISE inclines TO THE RIGHT, but the heart of the FOOL to the left, Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is."
Beamish, there's a phrase you use frequently to Ducky and I thought this kind of fit! Ah, the wisdom of the RIGHT...right there in the Bible!
z
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
225 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 225 of 225If I wasn't sure about what you did believe then why would I ask?
I'm curious, which one of those listed would you most closely relate to?
I believe I've been clear in my posts without having to choose from your list, but I'll do it:
I'm closest to the Trinitarian Bible Society:
the Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation,
Me too
only that it is the best available translation in the English language",
Yes (and this is by default because the others are bogus both in the Greek and the English)
and "the Society believes this text [the Textus Receptus or --possibly -- more recent versions of it] is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers,
Yes
which texts [those of the United Bible societies and other Bible publishers] have as their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from the 4th century
YES. This is what Dean Burgon laboriously documented in lengthy detailed writings throughout the late 19th century.
and which have been compiled using 20th century rationalistic principles of scholarship."
I'd say 19th century since that's where it all started -- Westcott and Hort were rationalists.
Yes.
This is not the KJVO position you have been caricaturing.
thank you for your clarification
so you would and do use other translations?
Only to check how modern English might make it read better in some cases. Otherwise, no.
The King James is the only trustworthy Bible we have today because all the others are corrupt in one way or another but it still needs revision.
I don't LIKE having to read the King James. I wish we had an updated King James, one done by a reliable committee of church-appointed Holy-Spirit-led highest caliber scholars of all the relevant languages.
I was also going to add that I don't think the Majority Text is the improvement on the Textus Receptus that is needed. I think the TR does need revision but the revision that is needed doesn't exist, the Textus Receptus being closest but not what we need, just as the English Bible we need doesn't exist, the King James being the closest but not what we need.
Summary: The best Greek text doesn't exist at the moment, just as the best English Bible doesn't exist at the moment. The TR and the KJV are simply the best we have.
thank you for your clarification
you could dispel this by simply saying you would and do use other translations.
so you're a KJVO in both belief and practice. So I'm not sure what you take umbrage with?
If you think I consider you the same as the likes of an LDS than the answer is no BUT,
I'm not sure just what I've suggested that isn't included in those defintions?
I didn't call you a cultist but I would suggest that your views are unorthodox and in the minority, for the reasons I listed earlier.
well thanks for not using an ad hominem but I truly am trying to understand.
what doesn't make you a KJVO then?
Go read the quotes you put up a long time ago that define a KJVO. They don't define me.
I've got to leave this board before I get an ulcer.
Bye.
I think I just figured out one thing that's so disturbing about your posts. You don't really care what the TRUTH is, you are only interested in CATEGORIZING beliefs and deciding whether they are minority/cultist or majority. It doesn't figure in your thinking that the majority view could be WRONG, that all those modern Bibles really could be corrupt.
This is why you won't think about what the arguments really are, what Dean Burgon said, and so on, to consider the merits of their views. You just want to label people KJVO or not.
Yes, and you present what CRI says, Hank Hanegraaff or James White, because they ARE CRI, Hanegraaff and White -- and whatever they say you treat as authoritative for that reason and don't even consider for a moment that they could be wrong. I criticize them and that just puts me outside the pale, the merit of my argument simply means nothing to you and you don't even give it a thought, do you? Yes, I think this is the madness that I've been feeling trapped by in this discussion. It's all categorical thinking, or authoritarian-based. Truth is defined that way to you, by who holds the opinion, not by thinking it through for yourself. I could talk all night about how Dean Burgon shot holes in the claims for the "new" Greek texts and all you'd care about is whether that makes me a KJVO or not.
You joined this discussion by presenting what you called "the other side" although nobody had GIVEN the side yours was the "other side" to. How can that familiar anti-KJVO stuff be the "other side" when nobody has argued FOR the KJVO stuff you're presenting the supposed alternative to? I'd even argued against it myself really.
Again it seems you were just thinking in terms of categories and labels and not substance, not thinking about the argument itself. The "other side" to the ARGUMENT I was making would be something entirely else.
Then you'd deny you were addressing any of it to me although it was the "other side" and I was the only one arguing any "side" at all and it sure wasn't the other side to anything I was saying.
And I still haven't quite put my finger on what you were doing but it was the most crazy-making thing I've been through in a LONG LONG time.
Elbro, I'm beginning to think Faith's right on the 'crazy making'...and, really, what's the point?
Thanks, Z, I came back to delete the last few posts because I see there's no point, but since you're here I'll leave them. I should get out of arguments like this a lot earlier anyway, but it's hard when someone seems to be playing with your mind and I'm a sucker for the thought that just ONE more explanation ought to do it. It never does.
I'm sure he's not intentionally playing with my mind, I'm sure he THINKS he's addressing the topic, but that only makes it worse in a way.
Thanks. Pray I'll have the self control to stay out of things like this.
I think labels are usually not that important and it seemed we were getting into that realm far too deeply....
it doesn't help a conversation move along.
I like the depth of discussion you were all having, Faith, and I sure don't discourage it!
If any of us in these threads gets that bugged by a direction of commenting, then that direction should probably end.
Thanks, everybody...
Much Ado About Nothing.
Good play!
Reason is but the slave of Passion.
- David Hume
I don't all agree about this being "nothing", "anonymous", sorry you do! I found it fascinating and educational enough that I copied and sent some of it to a friend of mine who has no computer but will enjoy reading it all... Maybe it's not your topic of interest.
As for Hume's quote, that resonates a bit with where this thread went...
We're all passionate about the subjects, apparently....
I think reason says it's OVER NOW! And we might give in to that reason now ....for many reasons.
When we see people aren't moving, maybe they needn't, or maybe they're just going to stay strong in their view of a subject, and it's time to move on.......
I thank everybody again for a really terrific exchange on many subjects.
This is definitely not to keep this discussion going. It should just provide a final word.
While organizing my books I just ran across James White's The King James Only Controversy and flipped through it, finding this quote which OUGHT to put Elbro's contention to rest since he apparently accepts White's arguments:
Page 91: In my opinion many of the great scholars of the past who have defended the Byzantine textual tradition {which underlies the King James] cannot honestly be included in the 'KJV Only' came (though they are often cited as if they were). Men like Dean Burgon, F.H.A. Scrivener, H.C. Hoskier -- all of whom were true scholars of the first rank -- were not KJV Only advocates. All saw the need for revision in the KJV and in the TR as well....
He goes on to quote Burgon to this effect. Burgon is my main source. Burgon is not a KJV-Only and neither am I.
The definition of that term is BELIEVING THE KJV OR ITS UNDERLYING GREEK TEXTS DO NOT NEED ANY CHANGES.
This is definitely not to keep this discussion going. It should just provide a final word.
While organizing my books I just ran across James White's The King James Only Controversy and flipped through it, finding this quote which OUGHT to put Elbro's contention to rest since he apparently accepts White's arguments:
Page 91: In my opinion many of the great scholars of the past who have defended the Byzantine textual tradition {which underlies the King James] cannot honestly be included in the 'KJV Only' came (though they are often cited as if they were). Men like Dean Burgon, F.H.A. Scrivener, H.C. Hoskier -- all of whom were true scholars of the first rank -- were not KJV Only advocates. All saw the need for revision in the KJV and in the TR as well....
He goes on to quote Burgon to this effect. Burgon is my main source. Burgon is not a KJV-Only and neither am I.
The definition of that term is BELIEVING THE KJV OR ITS UNDERLYING GREEK TEXTS DO NOT NEED ANY CHANGES.
That's "camp," not "came."
I'm glad you enjoyed this discussion after all, Z.
I want to thank Elbro for heeding my request to give this whole thread a rest.
Post a Comment