Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - logos1560

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 31
1
Bibliophiles / Re: "Daily Driver" KJV Study Bible Recommendations
« on: April 15, 2019, 08:55:08 AM »


    I looked at a Fifth Improved Edition of Thompson's Chain Reference Bible with a 2007 copyright in a bookstore this past week, and it still has the incorrect  name "Zithri" at Exodus 6:21 from Exodus 6:22.    It should have the name "Zichri".

    This same error had been introduced in the 1769 Oxford KJV edition and remained in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for over 100 years before it was corrected.

    2
    Bibliophiles / Hyles' book The Need for an Every-word Bible
    « on: April 14, 2019, 08:45:12 PM »

    Hyles, Jack. The Need for An Every-Word Bible. A Layman's Guide to Understanding the King
     James Bible Issue
    .    Hammond, IN:  Hyles Publications, 2003. 168 pages

     Second printing, August, 2015.      Price $15.00

     This book is said to be transcribed from Hyles's Wednesday night series on "the King James Bible."   It was printed after Hyles' death.  The editors of this book do not identify themselves except to indicate that they are some of his former members.

     In this book based on his preaching, Jack Hyles showed that he had adopted erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching in contradiction to what he himself taught in some of his own earlier books such as his book on the book of Revelation.

     This book would not actually help laymen understand the King James Bible issue since it would misinform and mislead them. Several times there is use of fallacies evident in its claims and statements. The either/or fallacy or fallacy of false dilemma can be seen in several claims.

     Jack Hyles asserted: "Either somewhere in this world there is a book that contains the words of God that God has preserved word for word, or Christians have to believe in thought inspiration" (p. 15).

     Hyles claimed: "I have only two choices: the Catholic Bible kept in the Catholic church or the King James Bible" (p. 25).

     Hyles said: "Remember, if one Bible is true, the other Bible must be false. If one is genuine, the other is counterfeit" (p. 30).

     According to a consistent, just application of Hyles' own claims and reasoning in his book, would he suggest that the KJV is a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles which were false or counterfeit?  Hyles does not even mention the fact that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles perhaps because they would be a serious problem for some of his claims.   He skips over and ignores the fact of a pre-1611 English Bible.

    Jack Hyles said: "You say, 'Brother Hyles, do you mean if there is one word wrong in the Bible, you have to throw everything else away?' That's exactly what I mean!" (p. 39).

     Hyles said: "If God has preserved His words, then only one set of words can be the preserved ones" (p. 14).

     According to a consistent, just application of Hyles' own statements and arguments, you would have to throw away the varying Textus Receptus editions, the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, and the 1611 edition of the KJV along with other KJV editions when they have one word wrong and since the KJV translators did not follow any one set of words for its OT text or for its NT text.   The KJV is not based on only one set of words since it was based on multiple textually-varying sources.   Present KJV editions are not every word the same as the 1611 edition or even as the 1769 Oxford edition.   There were words actually wrong in the 1611 edition of the KJV and in the 1769 Oxford KJV edition.  Some words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in most present KJV editions, and over 140 words not found in the 1611 editions are added in them.

     A just application of Hyles' own reasoning and claims in this book would prove that the KJV could not actually be an every-word Bible.

    3
    Bible Versions / Re: Why I Thank God for Gail Riplinger (and the FFF)
    « on: March 15, 2019, 10:34:45 PM »

    Has anyone published a book about her errors?

    Yes, several books point out the actual errors in Gail RIplinger's claims, including even some books and booklets by KJV-only authors or KJV defenders.

    KJV-only author Kirk DiVietro wrote a book entitled Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials:  A Refutation of Gail Riplinger's Hazardous Materials in answer to one of Riplinger's books.

    KJV-only author D. A. Waite wrote a book entitled A Warning on Gail Riplinger's KJB & Multiple Inspiration Heresy.

    Phil Stringer wrote a book entitled The Messianic Claims of Gail A. Riplinger.


    4
    Bibliophiles / Reprint of 1769 Oxford KJV Edition
    « on: March 14, 2019, 10:59:14 PM »







    The Bible: 1769 Revised Standard Oxford Edition, 1st Edition, 1st Printing.
     Copyright 2017 The Bible Museum.

     There is a reprint of the 1769 Oxford KJV edition available. It is a large size--15 inches in length, 10 inches in width, and 3 inches in thickness. It includes the 1611 preface The Translators to the Reader and the Generalogies of Holy Scripture. It includes the Apocrypha as the 1769 edition did.

     It was available on Ebay and at the Bible Museum's Greatsite.com web site.

     It was reprinted in honor of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation --1517-2017.

    5
    Bible Versions / Is the name the Holy Bible only for the KJV?
    « on: February 02, 2019, 07:46:25 PM »
    Does the name "the Holy Bible" always refer to only or solely the KJV?
     Does the KJV have sole and exclusive rights to this general name "the Holy Bible"?
     Was the name "the Holy Bible" used for any other English translation before 1611?

     The 1611 KJV was both a revision of earlier English translations (Tyndale's to Bishops') and a translation of the printed original-language text editions of Scripture.

     While now know as or called the 1560 Geneva Bible, it had the following title on its title page in 1560:

     The Bible and Holy Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testament, translated according to the Hebrew and Greek.

     While accurately identified as the 1568 Bishops' Bible, it had the following on its title page:

     The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New
     Authorised and appointed to be read in churches.

     The 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible, which is the edition prepared by the printers of the 1611 KJV and given to the KJV translators as the starting point in English for their work, had the following on its title page:

     The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New
     Authorised and appointed to be read in churches

     Thus, the 1611 KJV was not the first to have this title or name the Holy Bible. The 1611 KJV merely kept this name from the title page of the Bishops' Bible, even though the Church of England makers of the KJV made hundreds and thousands of changes to the text of the Bishops' Bible.

    The Holy Bible [English translation] in the Bishops' Bible is not the same as the Holy Bible [English translation] in the 1611 KJV even though both had the same name on their title page.  One important difference between the title page of the Bishops' Bible and that of the KJV was that the KJV's title page did not have the word "authorized" on it.  To distinguish between an earlier English Bible translation and the KJV, it would soon be referred to as King James' version or translation or the translation made during the time of King James.

     Some editions of the KJV were printed with the title The Holy Bible containing the Old Testament and New while other editions were printed with the title The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments.

     The 1833 Webster's Bible had the following on its title page:

     The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments in the common version with amendments to the language by Noah Webster.

     In 1842, an English Bible had the following on its title page:

     The Holy Bible, being the English Version of the Old and New Testament, made by order of King James I,
     carefully revised and amended by several Biblical scholars.
     Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1842.

     In 1901, the American Standard Version was published with this title:

     The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongues.

     A. D. 1901
     Standard Edition
     New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1901.

    The non-specific general name "the Holy Bible" does not identify to which Bible text or to which Bible translation someone is referring.

    6
    Bible Versions / Re: I used to be KJV only...but that's changed!
    « on: January 15, 2019, 10:56:07 AM »

    Evidently, it was too much for you to back up and prove what you claimed or speculated or repeated from unreliable KJV-only sources.
    Translated:
    "I'll deny your sources, you'll deny mine, nothing will change, because I refuse to acknowledge points that are made by someone with which I disagree."


    Your translation and allegation is bogus and erroneous.    It is not what I stated.

    I acknowledge and accept sound evidence.    Rejecting unproven speculations or claims would not be a refusal to acknowledge the facts.

    I examine and consider all the evidence that I can find.  I have read over 100 books by KJV-only authors.  I accept their points when they are scriptural or factual, but I am right not to accept mere unproven claims or speculations such as the one that you may blindly repeat.    I have checked over 1,000 sources concerning the KJV and its making.   

    Evidently you know that you cannot back up and prove your previous claim to be factually true so you use the diversionary tactic of trying to put words in my mouth that I did not state.    Do you avoid admitting the truth that you cannot prove your claim to be true?

    7
    Bible Versions / Re: I used to be KJV only...but that's changed!
    « on: January 12, 2019, 09:09:11 AM »

    Since the "KJV" was translated from a no longer accessible set of documents, (yes I know that the missing portions, filled in mostly by Syriac texts, are not that many in number) how can you prove "booboo" vs translation preference?


    You have not proven your claim or speculation that the KJV was supposedly translated from a no longer accessible set of documents to be factually true.     

    Actual printed texts used by the KJV translators are still accessible.
    I'm sorry, I assumed a level of scholastic aptitude in this discussion...was that too much?


    Evidently, it was too much for you to back up and prove what you claimed or speculated or repeated from unreliable KJV-only sources.

    8
    Bible Versions / Re: I used to be KJV only...but that's changed!
    « on: January 09, 2019, 11:06:51 PM »

    Since the "KJV" was translated from a no longer accessible set of documents, (yes I know that the missing portions, filled in mostly by Syriac texts, are not that many in number) how can you prove "booboo" vs translation preference?


    You have not proven your claim or speculation that the KJV was supposedly translated from a no longer accessible set of documents to be factually true.     

    Actual printed texts used by the KJV translators are still accessible.

    9

    And it's THE AUTHORITY OF OTHER MEN that's telling you it's wrong to be KJVO.

    It is the authority of actual scriptural truths applied justly that would tell believers that human KJV-only reasoning is wrong.

    KJV-only advocates have not proven their human opinions or claims concerning the KJV to be acceptable to the Lord and to be taught in the Scriptures.

    Eph. 5:10
    Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

    10
    The immediate context of Acts 12:4 demonstrated that king Herod was aware that his earlier action of vexing certain of the church “pleased the Jews” (Acts 12:3).  The context also revealed that Herod “proceeded further” to take another action that he thought would please the Jews.
     Would Herod be continuing to please the Jews if he supposedly waited to observe a pagan holiday or festival?  Would the celebrations and practices associated with a pagan festival please or offend the Jews?  Does the context actually maintain that Herod in proceeding further to take Peter would then do something contradictory to this action intended to please the Jews?  It was actually Luke that used the Greek word pascha for the time for which Herod was waiting since this verse gives no indication that Herod was being directly quoted.  The Bible verse or context does not directly say that Herod was keeping or observing pascha.  “The people” of Acts 12:4 could be referring to or would be including the Jews mentioned in verse 3.  In Acts 12:11, it refers to “the expectation of the people of the Jews.”  Therefore according to the context, the Jews were clearly the people that Herod wanted to please again by his further action.  Therefore, nothing in the verse and context proves that Herod could not have been waiting for the Jews to finish keeping their pascha so that he could bring Peter forth and please the Jews again.  In other words, the context indicates that Herod did not want to risk displeasing the Jews by executing Peter during their Jewish pascha and may not indicate whether Herod personally had any scruples or principles against executing Peter during a festival.  Herod also would have no reason to seek to displease the Jews and to honor and respect the church that he was vexing by waiting until after any claimed church celebration.  Therefore, the clear evidence from the context clearly supports the understanding that the Jews would be the ones keeping the pascha [also called the feast of unleavened bread in Luke 22:1] instead of the assertion that Herod had to be the one keeping it.  If Herod was also keeping it, the context indicates that it was the Jewish pascha that he would be keeping and not some pagan festival nor any Christian celebration.

         Moved by the Holy Spirit, Luke could definitely have used the Greek word in the same sense as he did in Luke 22:1.  Comparing Scripture with Scripture, the context of Acts 12:3-4 is in agreement with the understanding that this Greek word was used in the same sense as in Luke 22:1.  KJV-only author Floyd Jones asserted that “the context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase” (Which Version, p. 14).  If there remains any uncertainty concerning how the word pascha was used at Acts 12:4, it should be translated and interpreted by the light of what is plain, clear, and certain as in Luke 22:1.  Is it not sound reasoning to consider Luke and the Holy Spirit competent and credible witnesses as to the sense in which the Holy Spirit used the word pascha at Luke 22:1 and Acts 12:4?

    Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 31