Homosexuality as sin... clearer in the modern versions than in the KJV

[prophet]

If the AV would have clearly left the door open for those who 'leave nature, and burn in their lust' for strange flesh, to be the 'washed' in 1 Cor.6:9...
Anishinabe

Since it did and the KJV is not clear to you, why be KJVO? Why not just use clearer, better, translations for 2013 ears?

Nice try.  And I never said I was 'KJVO'.  The 'KJV' is clear, and not translated from the same mss, that any m.v. is, so I asked you not to pretend that there are any 'clearer translations' available.  That would be intellectual dishonesty, and baiting.
 


Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

Nice try.  And I never said I was 'KJVO'.

Oh... so you deny that you are KJVO? Are you suggesting that you are TRO, or are you playing games?

The 'KJV' is clear, and not translated from the same mss, that any m.v. is, so I asked you not to pretend that there are any 'clearer translations' available.  That would be intellectual dishonesty, and baiting.
Anishinabe

No dishonesty and no baiting. I posted above, and others have asked, repeatedly, what mss difference exists in this passage? You refuse to answer.

 

[prophet]

Nice try.  And I never said I was 'KJVO'.

Oh... so you deny that you are KJVO? Are you suggesting that you are TRO, or are you playing games?

The 'KJV' is clear, and not translated from the same mss, that any m.v. is, so I asked you not to pretend that there are any 'clearer translations' available.  That would be intellectual dishonesty, and baiting.
Anishinabe

No dishonesty and no baiting. I posted above, and others have asked, repeatedly, what mss difference exists in this passage? You refuse to answer.

I am not KJVO.  Here is 1Cor. 6:9 in the Reina Valera :  'ni los que se echan con varones,'

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

Nice try.  And I never said I was 'KJVO'.

Oh... so you deny that you are KJVO? Are you suggesting that you are TRO, or are you playing games?

The 'KJV' is clear, and not translated from the same mss, that any m.v. is, so I asked you not to pretend that there are any 'clearer translations' available.  That would be intellectual dishonesty, and baiting.
Anishinabe

No dishonesty and no baiting. I posted above, and others have asked, repeatedly, what mss difference exists in this passage? You refuse to answer.

I am not KJVO.  Here is 1Cor. 6:9 in the Reina Valera :  'ni los que se echan con varones,'
BTW, echan means 'to cause to move, to send by throwing, and is used in wrestling, as in 'to throw to the ground'  varones is the masculine noun  plural. 
Again, we have a more 'extreme sport'  Roman Colliseum style self abuser, and not a reference to Sodomy.
Anishinabe

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

What language did Job speak?
Nebuchadnezzar?
Luke?
Matthew?
Paul? 
I count five different tongues right here.

Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

I am not KJVO.

Are you TRO?

Here is 1Cor. 6:9 in the Reina Valera :  'ni los que se echan con varones,'
BTW, echan means 'to cause to move, to send by throwing, and is used in wrestling, as in 'to throw to the ground'  varones is the masculine noun  plural. 
Again, we have a more 'extreme sport'  Roman Colliseum style self abuser, and not a reference to Sodomy.
Anishinabe

Why go to to an old Reina Valera... You have not convinced us that you understand 1611 English, so how do you think you will convince us that you understand 1500s Spanish?

Here is the CLEARER up-to-date, Reina Valera...
¿No sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No os engañéis: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales,

 

[FSSL]

What language did Job speak?
Nebuchadnezzar?
Luke?
Matthew?
Paul? 
I count five different tongues right here.

Anishinabe

Doesn't matter. Stick to the point instead of obfuscating around the fact that you misspoke about 1 Corinthians 6:9 having a different mss.

 

[prophet]

What language did Job speak?
Nebuchadnezzar?
Luke?
Matthew?
Paul? 
I count five different tongues right here.

Anishinabe

Doesn't matter. Stick to the point instead of obfuscating around the fact that you misspoke about 1 Corinthians 6:9 having a different mss.

You haven't seen the mss that the AV was translated from, nor the Translators notes...on the other hand, the mess that got shuffled into the mix, to make up Nestle-Aland we can look at. 
 

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

I am not KJVO.

Are you TRO?

Here is 1Cor. 6:9 in the Reina Valera :  'ni los que se echan con varones,'
BTW, echan means 'to cause to move, to send by throwing, and is used in wrestling, as in 'to throw to the ground'  varones is the masculine noun  plural. 
Again, we have a more 'extreme sport'  Roman Colliseum style self abuser, and not a reference to Sodomy.
Anishinabe

Why go to to an old Reina Valera... You have not convinced us that you understand 1611 English, so how do you think you will convince us that you understand 1500s Spanish?

Here is the CLEARER up-to-date, Reina Valera...
¿No sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No os engañéis: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales,

You mean the one you like.
I thought you were more intelligent, but I should have known. 
  Go ahead and call 'abuse' a hard word to understand, and insist that taking it at face value is 'private interpretation'.  Go ahead, find mysterious hidden homosexuality in a phrase that says no such thing, and claim you have understanding of '1611' English, Koine Greek, and Klingon, more than anyone else, ever.  You are the one who is 'challenged' in your perception of English.  Your constant deriding of me, assumption that your cracked opinion is right, and your persistent intellectual dishonesty, in trying to pawn off the NIV, or 1960 Reina Valera as 'clearer translations', rather than competing different translations is all symptomatic. 
  Go visit a nursing home, preach in a prison, start a church in a poverty stricken area, and give the Gospel out to everyone you run accross, that God grants you an opportunity to do so.  Give your last dime to someone who needs it more than you.  Have a normal week, for once.

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

If the AV would have clearly left the door open for those who 'leave nature, and burn in their lust' for strange flesh, to be the 'washed' in 1 Cor.6:9...
Anishinabe

Since it did and the KJV is not clear to you, why be KJVO? Why not just use clearer, better, translations for 2013 ears?

Nice try.  And I never said I was 'KJVO'.  The 'KJV' is clear, and not translated from the same mss, that any m.v. is, so I asked you not to pretend that there are any 'clearer translations' available.  That would be intellectual dishonesty, and baiting.
 


Anishinabe

Actually, you claimed that God translated the KJV...

There you go again, attacking the messenger. God is the King James Translator...if I believed it was left to men, I'd do something else with my time. - prophet

...so, you are right up there with Ruckman in your KJVO-ism.

 

[Ransom]

prophet said:

I am not KJVO.

Glad to hear it. What other English translations of the Scriptures would you recommend?

 

[FSSL]

Go ahead and call 'abuse' a hard word to understand, and insist that taking it at face value is 'private interpretation'.  Go ahead, find mysterious hidden homosexuality in a phrase that says no such thing, and claim you have understanding of '1611' English, Koine Greek, and Klingon, more than anyone else, ever.

We hear the desperation in your voice. Your argument just gets thinner and thinner. The fact that you are unable to understand 1 Corinthians 6:9 does not lie in superior intelligence. It comes from being exposed to God's word in its original language, modern versions and commentaries.

Surely the KJV translators did not use the word abuse to refer to tatoos or wrestling. In fact, Paul used the word "wrestling" in a positive sense and never attributed it to abuse. (cf. 1 Cor 9) You have simply foisted your understanding on the Bible.

Instead, you need to work in the other direction. Ask the following...
1) What is the Greek behind the word "abuse?" YET, in your own arrogance and need to stay uninformed, you will not even consider the very word God gave Paul and the ones the KJV translators translated.
2) How have commentators understood this passage throughout history? It simply lies in the fact that this is the way the verse has been understood for generations. John Gill commented on this verse and simply noted: "Sodomites."

Until you provide us with the source of your private interpretation, we must consider it your own idea sucked deep out of your thumb.

Go visit a nursing home, preach in a prison, start a church in a poverty stricken area, and give the Gospel out to everyone you run accross, that God grants you an opportunity to do so.  Give your last dime to someone who needs it more than you.  Have a normal week, for once. Anishinabe

I am not going to do as the Pharisees do and recount the things I have done. Nor should you assume that I am not spending my time doing what God intends for me to do.

 

[prophet]

I dont care what 'Greek' is behind anything.  The Word in Heaven is prolly not in Greek.
Get a life.

Anishinabe

[oops... meant to hit quote, not modify... I restored what you wrote, eventhough it pains me! FSSL]

 

[prophet]

If the AV would have clearly left the door open for those who 'leave nature, and burn in their lust' for strange flesh, to be the 'washed' in 1 Cor.6:9...
Anishinabe

Since it did and the KJV is not clear to you, why be KJVO? Why not just use clearer, better, translations for 2013 ears?

Nice try.  And I never said I was 'KJVO'.  The 'KJV' is clear, and not translated from the same mss, that any m.v. is, so I asked you not to pretend that there are any 'clearer translations' available.  That would be intellectual dishonesty, and baiting.
 


Anishinabe

Actually, you claimed that God translated the KJV...

There you go again, attacking the messenger. God is the King James Translator...if I believed it was left to men, I'd do something else with my time. - prophet

...so, you are right up there with Ruckman in your KJVO-ism.

Yeah, I'm  a Ruckmanite, because I believe in God's divine preservation.  Ok.  No biggie.  But to say I'm KJO, is a lie.  The R.V. was translated into Spanish prior to the AV, and I believe it is God's preserved Word in Spanish.
I'm too happily married to follow the Pensecola Pimp, anyway.
Why would anyone listen to him?
Sorry  I know I'm venting.


Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

I dont care what 'Greek' is behind anything.  The Word in Heaven is prolly not in Greek.
Get a life.

Anishinabe

[oops... meant to hit quote, not modify... I restored what you wrote, eventhough it pains me! FSSL]

The Word in Heaven is a Jewish carpenter.

 

[FSSL]

The Word in Heaven is a Jewish carpenter.

Reason #4657 why the KJVO cannot be trusted with interpreting the Bible.

 

[FSSL]

prophet said:

I am not KJVO.

Glad to hear it. What other English translations of the Scriptures would you recommend?

Bump!

 

[Ransom]

prophet said:

I am not KJVO.

Glad to hear it. What other English translations of the Scriptures would you recommend?

All I'm hearing are crickets . . .

 

[prophet]

prophet said:

I am not KJVO.

Glad to hear it. What other English translations of the Scriptures would you recommend?

All I'm hearing are crickets . . .

Although it's basically the Vulgate  in Middle Anglish, for sake of Etymology, I recommend Wycliffe's translation.  I keep a copy of Tyndale's handy, as well.

Anishinabe

 

[SAWBONES]

Although it's basically the Vulgate  in Middle Anglish, for sake of Etymology, I recommend Wycliffe's translation.  I keep a copy of Tyndale's handy, as well.

You're kidding, right?

Wyclilffe's versions (which include Purvey's) from the Vulgate are of genuine historical interest, but are certainly no more accurate than other Vulgate-derived Bibles, and of course only those already comfortable with Chaucer, Caedmon or Piers Plowman will have an easy time with Wycliffe.

Tyndale's versions are definitely to be cherished (I've owned multiple facsimile editions myself), and are innately valuable, not to mention being the source for some 75-80% of the KJV, but c'mon; they're based on the TR!

Do you actually believe that the TR is a more accurate representation of the NT than either the Byzantine Textform or the Critical Text?