Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-31-2008, 10:54 AM
Will Kinney's Avatar
Will Kinney Will Kinney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado, a beautiful state with four distinct seasons; sometimes in the same day!
Posts: 252
Default DIVERS were hardened - Acts 19

“DIVERS were hardened, and believed not” - Acts 19:9

Bible Mockers Reveal Their Ignorance and Hatred towards The Book

There is a mocking article I have seen several times now circulating around the internet. The often copied author seems to think he is really cute and clever as he offers up what he calls his “lampoon of King James Only”.

So you can see it for yourself, here it is in all its devious wit. We will then explode this fool’s lampoon as being nothing more than mocking ignorance.

SCUBA IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE - A King James Only Lampoon

http://www.acts17-11.com/cows_scuba.html

“Persuaded beyond sensibility by Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, Texe Marrs, and Jack T. Chick; and encouraged by D. Haucsor of Wittenburg Door (whose basic idea I here expand upon); I hereby offer this Thesis to apply for a Doctorate of Religion from Babble Bible College.

Ps 42:7 (KJV) Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy waterspouts...

SCUBA IN THE KING JAMES VERSION will come as a shocking insight to those weaned from the truth by modern translations. I have found in my studies that in every modern translation, the following points are largely unintelligible, if not completely obscured. But in the Olde English of the "Authorized Version" (AV), or King James Version (KJV), SCUBA is a major topic in both the Old and New Testament. Following are the major points that have emerged from my King James Only research concerning Diving.

i.) Concerning Those Lead Things SCUBA Divers Use To Overcome Buoyancy

Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights. (De 25:13 - KJV all, of course)

Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord. (Pr 20:10)

ii.) The KJV on Divers Garb and Accessories

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts... (De 22:11)

...To every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey of divers colours of needlework, of divers colours of needlework on both sides, meet for the necks of them that take the spoil? (Jud 5:30)

iii.) The Strange Appeal of Diving

For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures... (Tit 3:3)

For in the multitude of dreams and many words also divers vanities: but fear thou God. (Ec 5:7)

My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations. (Jas 1:2)

iv.) The "Bends"... Not Beyond Redemptive Power?

And they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. (Mt 4:24)

v.) Foreign Practitioners Properly Repent, Retreat to City Far From Temptation

Nevertheless divers of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem. (2Ch 30:11) vi.) Eisegetical Thesis Summary

Be not carried about with divers doctrines. (Heb 13:9) With this treatise specimen, the real utility of the KJV is made manifest. Some say the KJV is out of date and prone to lead to doctrinal errors due to language migration over nearly 400 years. This is merely a thin excuse propounded by groups like "The Fellowship of Christian Divers" who would keep us from our traditional methodology for misinterpretation. I ask you--in what other version could you make so clear a case on this deep, contemporary issue? In what other translation could such points even be made?

The divers, thus, are the ones behind the conspiracy of all these new translations. And this is nothing new...

But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school. (Ac 19:9 [...and note the reference to "school", as in "fish".])

The KJV is essential to "deep teaching" such as this. Bible study should be hard, after all. If people don't earn it by groping through a fog of obfuscation, they will not value what they have! Confusion and lack of clarity have their religious benefits. Furthermore, creating a sheen of superiority concerning defunct languages engenders dependence on "scholars" like us at Babble Bible to act as seers and interpreters. They will need us to keep them from "divers doctrines”.

This should serve, by way of example, as a fit rejoinder to those who would confront us at Babble Bible with any of these "new age" translations. They just don't sound like the "Word of God" to us--lacking pomp and obscurity, nor do they appeal to the same lofty, religious instincts. Clearly, it takes all the fun out of it to know what it really means. Besides, we've got this old stuff down! Let's keep the laity right where we need them. And that certainly is not in modern SCUBA gear, replete with those abominable weights.

And so I thus submit my Doctrinal Thesis to the "professors" of Babble Bible College, in the vain hope that it might enlighten some to their errors.

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better." Luke 5:39, KJV - (End of article)

LANCING THE LAMPOON

First of all, you can be absolutely assured that the man who put this piece of drivel together does not believe that ANY Bible in any language is now the complete, preserved, infallible and 100% true word of God in any language. Secondly, we can also see that this bufoon is woefully ignorant of his own English language and how to use a simple dictionary.

There are two words in the English language that are very similar in both appearance and meaning, and both of them are used in the King James Bible and in many other English translations as well. Had our Bible mocker merely bothered to first consult any English dictionary, he could have saved himself both his time and his embarassment. The word “divers” is not even listed as ‘archaic’, and it is found in any decent English dictionary.

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College edition lists the word “divers” and tells us it means: ‘various or sundry; several’.

The next word found is “diverse” which means ‘different, dissimilar, varied or diversified’. Both words are etimologically related and both have similar meanings. Neither one is archaic.

The Encarta World English Dictionary lists “divers” as meaning - “several or many: more than one, and of various types.” Likewise the American Heritage dicionary 2000 lists “divers” as meaning - “Various; several; sundry.”

The King James Bible uses both words - divers and diverse. We see the word ‘diverse’ used eight times as in “cattle gender with a diverse kind” Lev. 19:19 or “and it was diverse from all the beasts” in Daniel 7:7.

Not only does that “archaic King James Bible” use the other word “divers” but so also do the following English Bible translations:

The English Revised Version 1881 uses the word “divers” 26 times as in “Thou shalt not have in thy bag DIVERS weights, a great and a small.” Deut. 25:13 and “o another DIVERS kinds of tongues” 1 Cor. 12:10.

The American Standard Version 1901 uses the word ‘divers’ some 20 times in both testaments. - “And she had a garment of DIVERS colors upon her” 2 Samuel 13:18; “and there shall be famines and earthquakes in DIVERS places.” Matthew 24:7.

The Douay-Rheims uses the word ‘divers’ 69 times as in “Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with DIVERS seeds” Deut. 22:9 and “He spoke, and there came DIVERS sorts of flies and sciniphs in all their coasts.” Psalm 105:31.

Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902 uses the word nine times as in “Thou shalt not have in thy house DIVERS measures, - a great and a small.” Deut. 25:14 and “he cured many that were sick with DIVERS diseases” Mark 1:34.

Darby’s translation uses the word ‘divers’ eleven times as in “to be set, glistering stones, and of DIVERS colours” 1 Chron. 29:2 and “of meats and drinks and DIVERS washings” Hebrews 9:10.

The Jewish Publication Society 1917 Hebrew translation, as well as the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company verion use the word ‘divers’ many times in their Old Testament translations as in “was filled with sweet odours and DIVERS kinds of spices” 2 Chron.16:14 and “DIVERS weights, and DIVERS measures, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.” Proverbs 20:10

Webster’s 1833 translation uses the word 32 times as in “to Sisera a prey of DIVERS colors, a prey of DIVERS colors of needle-work, of DIVERS colors of needle-work on both sides” Judges 5:30.

Young’s uses the word nine times as in “In DIVERS colours she is brought to the king” Psalm 45:14, and the word DIVERS is found many times in the previous English Bibles of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, and John Wesley’s New Testament 1755 in such places as “For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving DIVERS lusts and pleasures”.

In addition to all these, those old and outdated KJV 21st Century version 1994 and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible both use the word “divers” some 30 times each, as in “Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with DIVERS seeds”Deut. 22:9 and “But when DIVERS ones were hardened and believed not, but spoke evil of that Way before the multitude...” Acts 19:9

All the guy who wrote this silly and pointless “lampoon of King James Onlyism” had to do to save himself the embarassment of being revealed as just another ignorant Bible mocker was to simply look up the word in a dictionary!

The vast majority of Christians today do not believe that there exists such a thing as a complete, preserved and perfect word of God in any language and their minds have become gross and blinded in their mocking hatred towards any Final Written Authority. I would not want to be in the shoes of an ignorant clown like the man who wrote this idiotic “lampoon” against the Monarch of the Bibles on the day when he gives an account of how he treated the words of the living God.

The King James Bible is always right.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/

Accepted in the Beloved,

Will Kinney
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #2  
Old 10-29-2008, 04:07 PM
Traditional Anglican Traditional Anglican is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 134
Default

Can't stand it when people think they are cute and funny and do a "stand-up" routine with the AV 1611. I do not even "make fun" of new "versions" even if I do not feel they ARE the word of God, they can contain truths about salvation. If I am critical about a Bible Version, it is never in a clowning way, I simply show where they are flawed. I do this in a sober respectful manner, esp. given the fact that many new Christians do not know about text-types and translation methods, I surely did not when I was first saved. A Godly Anglican writer in a Position Paper in a Synod address convinced me of the truth on the AV. Those who are critical of the King James accuse it's defenders of being "over the top", odd thing is they are usually worse in this regard!
  #3  
Old 10-29-2008, 07:16 PM
Vendetta Ride
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traditional Anglican View Post
Can't stand it when people think they are cute and funny and do a "stand-up" routine with the AV 1611. I do not even "make fun" of new "versions" even if I do not feel they ARE the word of God, they can contain truths about salvation. If I am critical about a Bible Version, it is never in a clowning way, I simply show where they are flawed. I do this in a sober respectful manner, esp. given the fact that many new Christians do not know about text-types and translation methods, I surely did not when I was first saved. A Godly Anglican writer in a Position Paper in a Synod address convinced me of the truth on the AV. Those who are critical of the King James accuse it's defenders of being "over the top", odd thing is they are usually worse in this regard!
Amen, brother. I'm just as contemptuous and vitriolic as can be when I talk with mature believers about the new versions; but if I'm dealing with a young Christian, or one who doesn't know the issues, I approach it slowly and gently. That's how it was presented to me, and it worked: I had used the new versions for the first thirteen years of my Christian life!

  #4  
Old 10-29-2008, 08:15 PM
Traditional Anglican Traditional Anglican is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendetta Ride View Post
Amen, brother. I'm just as contemptuous and vitriolic as can be when I talk with mature believers about the new versions; but if I'm dealing with a young Christian, or one who doesn't know the issues, I approach it slowly and gently. That's how it was presented to me, and it worked: I had used the new versions for the first thirteen years of my Christian life!

Of course we must be gentle with the new Christian, I totally agree. Look, when I was saved, I thought, "Well, I need a Bible." I knew I needed something with introductions and maps, I found one, an NIV, BUT God is also gentle! Even with the NIV flaws the Holy Spirit taught me a lot. It was also a gentle leading that made me say "Why does this Bible have this verse, and that one does not?" God is good! You know he works with our flawed frames, our flawed Bibles, but God gave us this, He will lead us into Truth. I learned about the manuscripts and text types, it was all part of my journey.
  #5  
Old 10-30-2008, 03:00 PM
JMWHALEN JMWHALEN is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 57
Default

"Translation"(play on words): "I don't understand the word of God, so I will be the authority and change it to something I 'prefer', 'like'....."


That is, our understanding/comprehension of the law in no way determines/affects the legitimacy of its authority. If "understanding" determined legitimacy of authority, perhaps we need to change our "medical" books(my brother is a doctor).

People confuse the objective truth of God's word as given by revelation, and its availibility, with illumination, i. e., understandability.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen


PS(1):If I was not clear in the preceding, "Oops, my bad" . But I do feel that what I wrote was "Sweet." And any comments to the contrary will result in dis dude "Snuffing the punk. " Do we all agree? Yes? "That's wack, man."

PS(2):If any should not understand this, I will send them my "New and Improved, Unabridged, 89th Edition expanded Revised Combination Lexicon Strong's Interlinear George Foreman Grill Street DictionaryThesaurus of 'the 'Modern English."

PS(3) Well, "Ize gottsta go." My boss at work is tapping me on the shoulder, and he does not look happy(or is that "gay"? Oops, I need to "revise" James 2:3 to reflect the "subtil"(Gen. 3:1), everchanging nuances of this "evolutionary""the" English, to reflect what the author really "meant/intended", in this "modern, enlightened,civilized, tolerant" society/world). I "figger" he just did not like me changing/"revising" the Training Manual he gave. I told him I just don't "like"/"prefer" it-it is not my "favorite", although I do "use" it. Go "figger!" "Whussup with this dude?" "Whussup with that?" As Jed Clampett would say: "It don't rightly seem fair." Where is Jethro when I need him, with that 6th grade "eggeekayshun!?"

In Christ,

John M. Whalen
  #6  
Old 10-30-2008, 08:12 PM
Traditional Anglican Traditional Anglican is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMWHALEN View Post
"Translation"(play on words): "I don't understand the word of God, so I will be the authority and change it to something I 'prefer', 'like'....."


That is, our understanding/comprehension of the law in no way determines/affects the legitimacy of its authority. If "understanding" determined legitimacy of authority, perhaps we need to change our "medical" books(my brother is a doctor).

People confuse the objective truth of God's word as given by revelation, and its availibility, with illumination, i. e., understandability.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen


PS(1):If I was not clear in the preceding, "Oops, my bad" . But I do feel that what I wrote was "Sweet." And any comments to the contrary will result in dis dude "Snuffing the punk. " Do we all agree? Yes? "That's wack, man."

PS(2):If any should not understand this, I will send them my "New and Improved, Unabridged, 89th Edition expanded Revised Combination Lexicon Strong's Interlinear George Foreman Grill Street DictionaryThesaurus of 'the 'Modern English."

PS(3) Well, "Ize gottsta go." My boss at work is tapping me on the shoulder, and he does not look happy(or is that "gay"? Oops, I need to "revise" James 2:3 to reflect the "subtil"(Gen. 3:1), everchanging nuances of this "evolutionary""the" English, to reflect what the author really "meant/intended", in this "modern, enlightened,civilized, tolerant" society/world). I "figger" he just did not like me changing/"revising" the Training Manual he gave. I told him I just don't "like"/"prefer" it-it is not my "favorite", although I do "use" it. Go "figger!" "Whussup with this dude?" "Whussup with that?" As Jed Clampett would say: "It don't rightly seem fair." Where is Jethro when I need him, with that 6th grade "eggeekayshun!?"

In Christ,

John M. Whalen
There was an "ebonics" version, and in Genesis it said (of the serpent) something to the effect of:" The Snake was one BAD dude!" Not sure wheter to laugh or cry on that one.
  #7  
Old 10-30-2008, 09:00 PM
MC1171611's Avatar
MC1171611 MC1171611 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Western Ohio
Posts: 436
Default

Now the Serpent was one bad dude, one of all the baddest of all the creatures the Almighty had made. And the Serpent said to the sista, "Sista, you mean the Almighty said you can't eat of the tree?" She said "Yeah, snake, He said we can't eat of that tree or we'd be knocked off." And the Serpent said, "Naw, sista, He just knows that if you eat of that tree, you'll be hipped to what's goin' down."

etc.

  #8  
Old 10-30-2008, 09:19 PM
Traditional Anglican Traditional Anglican is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MC1171611 View Post
Now the Serpent was one bad dude, one of all the baddest of all the creatures the Almighty had made. And the Serpent said to the sista, "Sista, you mean the Almighty said you can't eat of the tree?" She said "Yeah, snake, He said we can't eat of that tree or we'd be knocked off." And the Serpent said, "Naw, sista, He just knows that if you eat of that tree, you'll be hipped to what's goin' down."

etc.

LOL. I SHUDDER to think how the Psalms would be rendered.....
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com