Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
As Brandon points out, whatever Sophro is accusing me of is quite outside what I believe and have written.
I believe that the King James Bible itself was not made by inspiration, but that it is the inspired Word.
I believe that we have access to a purified form of the King James Bible, where all the typographical errors, spelling variations and so on have been made right.
I believe that none of the jots and tittles of Scripture have failed in English, and that “jot” and “tittle” are English words (just look up the Oxford English Dictionary) applying to the English Bible.
This is a gross misrepresentation. Of course the presentation has been altered historically, so that it is pure now. Just not every time it says "divers" should it be made "diverse", etc., etc., because they always were two different words. The 1611 Edition was actually meaning what we can see today. There are reasons for why the 1611 seemed to have got it wrong, such as that the printers made a mistake, or that both spellings were acceptable for the word/s where separate spellings are used and known today. (Used and known by at least a few today.)
|
Prove that divers and diverse are different words. What's the difference in meaning? Again, I challenge you to show wherein throughly and thoroughly differ! If you are going to base an entire religion around making sure that your Bible say throughly rather than thoroughly, then you ought to be able to give a reason of the obstinancy that is in you. (I couldn't say 'hope' since it isn't hope.) But you ignore this very thing because you know you would be taking up an impossible task. You know very well that you are wrong and that divers and diverse are the same word and throughly and thoroughly are the same word, but to admit it would be to abdicate your papal throne.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
There are many examples of so-called synonyms which have two differing though similar meanings, such as alway and always, example and ensample, beside and besides, vail and veil, among and amongst, etc., etc. Every word as it now appears in the KJB is exactly right in its exact place with its exact meaning.
|
Oh my! Are you smoking crack? Vail and veil are different words now? What kind of crazy religion of sacred insanity are you creating for yourself? Everyone knows that vail and veil are just two different spellings of one word! You perhaps (I will give you the benefit of the doubt) are confusing vail with vale. Yes, vale means valley while vail means veil. Perhaps you were confusing vail and vale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
If it doesn't really matter about these different words with different jots and tittles, then it is only one more step to accept both "he" and "she" as being correct at the same place (at Ruth 3:15), and not much further (not farther) to believe that black is white and white is black. The madness is not with those who believe that God has presented His word exactly to the Church today.
|
You shoot yourself in the foot here. Since KJVs differ on "he" and "she" in Ruth 3:15, how are we going to determine which is right without the Hebrew text which you despise as replaced by the KJV wholly and as being a corrupt offscouring? We cannot. Without the Hebrew text we are forever in doubt as to whether it is "he" or "she" there. Sure, we could take your word for it that you have the pure Cambridge edition. But who says the Cambridge edition is the pure one to begin with? You. But why should I beleive you? I have no reason to. In fact, quite to the contrary I have every reason to doubt a man who is so insane as to try and make throughly and thoroughly, divers and diverse, vail and veil out to be different words and have different meanings (and who yet as an indignant obstinate dunce refuses to show wherein they differ!!!)!!!