And how did all those King James Bibles get over to and read and in the Massachusetts Bay Colony if their was such hostility to the Authorised Version.

Oh, in addition to Joey Faust, Lloyd Streeter has also written on this topic. And Marty Shue has an excellent article as well, with some of the same factual information. We wouldn't consider this very much of an issue one way or another. (Especially considering that the Mayflower was only 9 years after the publication of the King James Bible. And knowing some of the 17th century history.) Except we see obstinate accusers like yourself belligerantly make declarations of some "banning". As they say, put up .. or retract.

I got the information from Nida. Steve, has anyone ever accused you of bloviation? Really, cutting and pasting is no substitute for a through regimen of reading and study. Perhaps you think it's cute or clever to say "There were KJV Bibles in Massachusettes Bay Colony, and how'd they get there if they weren't allowed on the Mayflower? Huh, Huh???

There's another explaination. That there were a whole lot of boats that came to the MBC after the Mayflower. Right? Shall I use a crayon?

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by TimV

I got the information from Nida.

So let us have the quote from Eugene Nida of dynamic equivalence, not English history, fame. (I presume is your ref.) And his primary source. English can be 1600s or modernized.

If you go in Bible discussions a while you find that all sorts of PhD's peddle all sorts of nonsense misinformation when the goal is to attack the King James Bible.

(The one Bible that is a threat to their rarefied position, since the ploughman reads it at least as easily as the seminarian. And it comes with innate authority, hard for the language scholar/ professional exegete to accept.)

Sources - quotes, s'il vous plait.

Should be simple with your "through regimen of reading and study".

Ok, I'll simplify it for you.

"The Pilgrim fathers would not permit the King James Version to be carried in the Mayflower. They clung tenaciously to the Geneva Bible, published some sixty years before." - Message and Mission p. 155

No source given, we already saw the second sentence is simply false. Final answer: do you really think Nida has a source for the first ?

(btw, Not suprisingly the whole paragraph from Nida is a mess, including a vicous Jesuit-style ludicrous accusation-by-unnamed-proxy.)

Shalom,
Steven

PS
If you want a good albeit somewhat humourous example of PhD shenanigans, read the "strain at a gnat" thread and watch the bumbling bee Daniel Wallace.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

[(btw, Not suprisingly the whole paragraph from Nida is a mess, including a vicous Jesuit-style ludicrous accusation-by-unnamed-proxy.)

Here is the UBS editor Nida in action.

"One accusation was that the translation had been distorted to suit the translators' personal views and to cater to King James' predilection for witchcraft"

So .. this is your "through regimen of reading and study".

Oh, what a web...

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Diligent]

It was good to see TimV answered. However, TimV was shown the posting guidelines and chose to continue mocking KJB believers and couldn't seem to type without leaning his head back to look down his nose at the screen. So, he's gone.

Ahhh, good for you Brandon.
It's obvious we have a few trouble makers on the forum lately, seeking to create confusion and cast doubt on the inerrant Word of God.
Let them go, and take their leaven with them.

[George]

Originally Posted by TimV
I'm not going to justify my questions to you, Steve. You offered to help. I asked a few questions. That's all there is to it. I've been polite, and not mocked you. My reasons for wanting to know how many Greek mms have tree instead of book are my own. If you could understand how little I care about what version of the Bible you read, your hair would stand up in shock.

There must be people out there who know, and I'll wait a few days, checking in here on this thread, and if you can't help me, I'll bid you all goodbye and we can all be friends.

Aloha all,

Once again we have someone who has come to this Forum with an obvious "Agenda", and who "pretends" to want to know something (the answer to which he already has). These people come with feigned sincerity and through clever subterfuge they introduce division and confusion and then play the "innocent one" when brought up short for their inane questions.

Earlier on this Forum {05/02/08} I pointed out what all of these people (with a personal agenda) have in common http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...84&postcount=1 Unlike most of us, they will have lots (many in number) of Posts. In other words they haven't come to edify, they've come to debate and to argue; or to demonstrate their "knowledge"; or to try to catch an unsuspecting brother or sister in their words.

It is useless to try to reason with these people, for they are not seeking the truth - they are looking for an argument. You cannot convince people like this about anything, since their minds are already made up and no amount of facts, evidence, or testimony will ever change it!

The following is an excerpt from my previous Post:

{05/02/08} <> HUMANISTS – SOPHISTS – FOOLS – GNAT STRAINERS – HERETICS

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. One of the draw backs of a Forum such as this is that there is very little opportunity to worship or have fellowship together (unless someone makes the effort). Another drawback is the fact that “anybody” can “join-up” and we know little or nothing about them.

I can understand why women on the Forum cannot reveal very much about themselves (what with all of the kooks & perverts out there), but it’s fascinating to me that most of the men who join – join up “Incognito”; that is we know NOTHING about them (and many of them reveal very little about themselves personally.

However, there is something that I have observed since joining this Forum and that is there are a certain number of people (a minority) who come to argue, instruct, and to “straighten us out” on our doctrine.

These people come with a personal “agenda”, and most of them will fall under one of the “headings” on this thread: {HUMANISTS – SOPHISTS – FOOLS – GNAT STRAINERS & HERETICS - Take your pick and if the shoe fits – wear it!} These people are not interested in “edifying” the brethren – they are interested in “persuading” people to their “point of view” in order to have dominion over them.

However, they all seem to have the same basic “characteristics” (or attributes) and operate under the same “modus operandi”.

#1. They know it all.
#2. They cannot (or will not) receive instruction.
#3. They “ignore” the “WORDS” of God – in favor of emphasizing the “Spirit” of God
#4. They are always argumentive.
#5. They are always personally insulting.
#6. They have “knowledge” – but very little: REAL SPIRITUAL Discernment, Understanding, or Wisdom.

But this last “characteristic” is something they ALL have in common:

#7. They are “PROLIFIC” - with their private opinions; private interpretations; False Doctrines & Heresies.

The easiest way to spot these pretenders is to check out their public "profile" on the "Forum Info" and see HOW MANY POSTS they make. Whereas most of us might have on average - 1 to 3 Posts per day, they may have anywhere's from 4 to 12 Posts (or more! ) per day {A sure SIGN that they have a personal "AGENDA".}

These are they who are: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." [2 Timothy 3:7]

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by TimV

Settlement of the US? The KJV wasn't even allowed on the Mayflower. You view of missionary efforts is parochial, and badly so. You may be familiar with mostly English speaking accounts, but that is because you probably don't have the ability to speak any other language.

Like you would know; I don't go around flaunting my abilities like you do. I'm 20 years old, a grammatical expert at English, have a good grasp of the Spanish language, as well as a good understanding of the Spanish Bible issue. I also took a few weeks of Greek class at a Bible Institute I was going to be a part of, and I did rather well at it. Like Doc says: "We don't teach Greek for edification, we teach it for spite!" I'm not into "Textual Criticism" or German Rationalism, on which your flawed, faithless system is built: I'm into believing GOD at His WORDS, which you don't even profess to have. I HAVE GOD'S WORDS. In fact, I have half a dozen copies of it, not including a couple of Bible apps on my Mac.

Good luck, Chuck; see ya' down the road. Maybe at the Judgment Seat of Christ, where you'll be bawling your eyes out at Christ's disappointment that you REJECTED HIS WORDS.

[MC1171611]

Another thing: the Massachusetts Bay colony was settled by Puritans, who were directly involved in the translation of the KJB. Plymouth was settled by the separatists in 1620 (1 + 6 + 2 + 0 = 9 = fruitfulness) who were the ones that came over on the Mayflower (Mayflower = 9 letters; had 99 people on board). The two colonies were separate (the Separatists and Puritans didn't get along well at all!) until 1691 or so, when they combined.

And what relevance does that have in the KJB discussion? These Anti-KJB people don't make any sense, nor do they display much above primal intelligence.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I will say that I like that this forum gives those coming with an agenda a real opportunity to share and listen, or not. It is "cute" how they how they come with such an innocent persona - and then given themselves over to any inane attack on the word of God.

My goal is to use the more legitimate questions (e.g. Rev 22:19 as a whole, not just Greek manuscripts) as a spur to organize the question and make the thread a resource for anybody in the future. And for me to learn, personally I really appreciate the "hard case" verses as my own learning tools. Whether the original questioner receives anything or not. And on a lot of these issues the King James Bible defenders can use more full-orbed resources in one place. (e.g. Thomas Holland may have some excellent material, and Will Kinney, yet more can be dug up or expressed in a full special discussion and research. Also we have room and time to give the verses and the related verses on a forum like this one than is usually given in an article.)

There may have been some elements of sincerity in TimV, it was hard for me to tell. By the time he ended up lauding the ignorant reference of the vicious and petty and deceiving Eugene Nida - much had been exposed.

Moderator decisions are always difficult, Brandon is generally on top of the issues, trying to allow for real dialog, yet keeping at a distance the pseudo-intellectual spirits of mockery and vanity that drag so many forums into the mud. Such human pride is designed to fight the purity of the Bible and does get tiresome, so only so much leeway is proper, as Brandon clearly understands.

Maybe TimV will learn a bit, at least he had an opportunity to consider some views that are outside his Nida-mainstream, on Rev 22:19, Hebrew in the NT, terebinths and oaks, the LXX and NT, Edersheim and a bit more. May his heart be opened to learning more about the purity and perfection of the Bible, by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Josh]

Originally Posted by TimV

Whether it's significant or not is a different question, but yes, the percentage of believers in the world who believe that the KJV is exactly equivalent to the Word of God is less than one percent.

One thing I have to comment on. The KJB IS the Word of GOD!