|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 8:37:47 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
You're only quoting 1/3 of the equation. Read 1 Cor. 11:12. Even in the KJV, that's clear.
In many cases, the masculine is used in the ancient sense that implies all people. Do you really think Paul only addressed his letters to men? Or that God only saves men?
Every modern translation I have read retains the gender-specific words when the context demonstrates that it's appropriate to do so.
quote:
Mathew 5:13
KJB
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
ESV
"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.
How, specifcally, does this promote the homosexual-equal-rights-unisexual-new-age agenda?
I haven't read a translation yet with Adam and Steve. Thank God.
8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Its' right in Genesis, Adam was created first.
Using the word person, is gender neutral which is promoted by feminists. Using man is masculine specific denoting hierarchy. Woman being created for the Man is also showing who was created first. Feminists and homosexuals those who are unisex equality lovers hate all of that.
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 8:40:21 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
I haven't read a translation yet with Adam and Steve.
Then perhaps you should consider refraining from language that implies modern translations are doing that.
quote:
Its' right in Genesis, Adam was created first.
I agree. But where did you come from? A man?
quote:
Using the word person, is gender neutral. Using man is masculine specific denoting hierarchy.
There are passages where this is important. For instance, the one you quote there - if gender neutral language was used, it would be very confusing. But I haven't found any translation that does this. Have you?
So, in other passages where specific gender issues are not being addressed - such as Matthew 5:13 - what's the harm in using gender-neutral language?
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 8:49:55 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
I haven't read a translation yet with Adam and Steve.
Then perhaps you should consider refraining from language that implies modern translations are doing that.
quote:
Its' right in Genesis, Adam was created first.
I agree. But where did you come from? A man?
quote:
Using the word person, is gender neutral. Using man is masculine specific denoting hierarchy.
There are passages where this is important. For instance, the one you quote there - if gender neutral language was used, it would be very confusing. But I haven't found any translation that does this. Have you?
So, in other passages where specific gender issues are not being addressed - such as Matthew 5:13 - what's the harm in using gender-neutral language?
Yep, a man. Our genealogy is traced back to Adam. The woman was created by God from a rib of Adam. Then the woman was able to give birth thereafter. It wouldn't have happened in any other way. It was Adam who needed the helper.
Because using man or men is honoring the hierarchy God created. But those who practice the lifestyle of homosexuals, feminists and who are unisex want to strip that away and make gender neutral, and man equal with woman. In some cases they're promoting women as superior to men. That's the harm, in that it opposes what God set as the standard.
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 8:52:37 PM
|
|
|
SurfFirst
Posts: 30
Status: offline
|
quote:
The King James Bible is superior in that it is gender specific and uses the masculine reference correctly. Remember it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Read the new versions like the ESV, and you will see the homosexual-equal-rights-unisexual-new-age agenda is 'people' 'person', when 'man', or 'men' is changed. The woman was made from the Man.
If that's the only reason, it doesn't make any sense. All it does it make the reading gender neutral.
quote:
those who practice the lifestyle of homosexuals, feminists and who are unisex want to strip that away and make gender neutral, and man equal with woman
Wow. I don't have a problem with the gender neutral usage, and I can assure you I'm not homosexual, a feminist or unisex. Nor do I have a desire to make men and women equal.
< Message edited by SurfFirst -- 9/5/2010 8:59:50 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 8:54:35 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yep, a man.
So no woman played any part in your birth. Fascinating.
quote:
Because using man or men is honoring the hierarchy God created.
It's really not. It's a reflection of the culture of the time - a culture that, to some extent, is still in place here in America. We commonly refer to a group of folks by saying, "Hey guys!", even when there are females present. If we addressed the same group by saying, "Hey gals!", folks would probably be upset, or at least confused.
Again - do you think Paul addressed his letters only to men?
quote:
That's the harm, in that it opposes what God set as the standard.
If God is setting the standard, it would've been different in some way from the culture of the time. It wasn't. It was using the cultural language norms. You're reading too much into the gendered language in the instances where gender neutrality doesn't affect the meaning.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 8:58:00 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 2710
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
Folks like me believe and trust that the KJV is perfect,
In what sense do you believe it's perfect? (if you've already explained this, feel free to give me a post number instead)
In what sense? I'm not sure what you're asking, so if my answer doesn't relate to your question I apologize.
The KJVO'ists belief rests entirely upon the doctrine of preservation. Without it, the KJVO'ists belief would be vain.
Furthermore, in any linguistic battle, when debating the accuracy or a certain word/phrase/thought in a dead (or partially dead) language used thousands and thousands of years ago, sometimes the most one can do is speculate, using other extra-Biblical sources (fictional/nonfictional books written during that same time period) as their defense. Even this, though, can not offer 100% assurance in one's personal translational choice because every author of the Bible possessed a different personality, different degrees of grammatical talent and fluidity, etc. These differences in personality and talent were used by God when He inspired His Word. So in that sense, one can not be absolutely completely 100% sure of a specific translational decision because we do not perfectly comprehend the personalities and intelligence of the human authors. Even if we did, time has destroyed the inerrant of ancient languages.
Therefore, a form of belief is required for anyone who believes God's literal Word is complete to this very day. It seems benelchi believes it is, so even in his case belief is necessary (which I was trying to get at during our conversation).
Well I hope that answered your question.
In Christ,
ZG
_____________________________
"Believers are saved from their sin, not merely in their sinning!"--drmark
"Our wills are ours, we know not how; our wills are ours, to make them Thine." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:00:38 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
I hope that answered your question.
I think it did. My next question, and please understand I'm asking this sincerely, not in an attempt to ruffle feathers - do you believe in unicorns?
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:03:14 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
Yeah, it's completely Jewish. Read the genealogy's of the Bible, they don't end at the women, it's the men they trace back to even though since Adam, we're born of the woman. But it's the hierarchy of God that they're stripping away. Men is used in place of people because Adam is the head. Gender neutrality by the unisex, homosexuals and feminists try to strip that away.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
It's really not. It's a reflection of the culture of the time - a culture that, to some extent, is still in place here in America. We commonly refer to a group of folks by saying, "Hey guys!", even when there are females present. If we addressed the same group by saying, "Hey gals!", folks would probably be upset, or at least confused.
Again - do you think Paul addressed his letters only to men?
Right and you would anger a lot of homosexuals, and feminists. My cousin is a lesbian and is one of them. Around them it is "Hey people!" not "Hey guys!"
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
If God is setting the standard, it would've been different in some way from the culture of the time. It wasn't. It was using the cultural language norms. You're reading too much into the gendered language in the instances where gender neutrality doesn't affect the meaning.
The standard is that the Man is over the woman tracing back to Adam.
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:05:24 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Timcp
Matthew 5:22
KJB
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
ESV
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
I don't know if you're actually looking at these verses in the ESV, but the copy of the ESV I have does not omit "without a cause" from this verse.
_____________________________
<<< me, leading the ABC song during VBS
greatdivide46
"Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, 'I am only joking!'". Proverbs 26:18-19
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:06:58 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: Timcp
Matthew 5:22
KJB
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
ESV
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
I don't know if you're actually looking at these verses in the ESV, but the copy of the ESV I have does not omit "without a cause" from this verse.
quote:
Matthew 5:22
Matthew 5:22 (English Standard Version)
22But I say to you that(A) everyone who is angry with his brother[a] will be liable(B) to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to(C) the hell[c] of fire.
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:15:26 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
But it's the hierarchy of God that they're stripping away. Men is used in place of people because Adam is the head. Gender neutrality by the unisex, homosexuals and feminists try to strip that away.
If that were true, you'd see it affecting the passages that actually address the hierarchy. You don't.
quote:
Right and you would anger a lot of homosexuals, and feminists. My cousin is a lesbian and is one of them. Around them it is "Hey people!" not "Hey guys!"
I would say that they're the minority. I haven't personally met anyone who is offended by "Hey guys!", including multiple homosexuals. I know it's bad form in academic writing to use gender specific pronouns when no gender is stated, though. For example, "If someone wanted more information on Christopher Colombus, he should check out..." would be bad form in some schools - unless other non-gender-specific cases used "she" instead. Give equal time to both, and all that.
quote:
The standard is that the Man is over the woman tracing back to Adam.
All right, so where in Scripture does God say, "And the way you'll know this is because of all the masculine pronouns I used. Don't go changing them up, now!" You can't read a standard where God doesn't set one.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:15:49 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Timcp
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: Timcp
Matthew 5:22
KJB
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
ESV
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
I don't know if you're actually looking at these verses in the ESV, but the copy of the ESV I have does not omit "without a cause" from this verse.
quote:
Matthew 5:22
Matthew 5:22 (English Standard Version)
22But I say to you that(A) everyone who is angry with his brother[a] will be liable(B) to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to(C) the hell[c] of fire.
I dunno. Maybe I have a misprinted bible or something. Matthew 5:22 in the ESV I have reads this way, But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother without cause will be liable to judgment; whoever insults is brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!" will be liabe to the hell of fire.
_____________________________
<<< me, leading the ABC song during VBS
greatdivide46
"Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, 'I am only joking!'". Proverbs 26:18-19
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:19:28 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
I dunno. Maybe I have a misprinted bible or something. Matthew 5:22 in the ESV I have reads this way, But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother without cause will be liable to judgment; whoever insults is brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!" will be liabe to the hell of fire.
That is interesting, here it is straight from their website:
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Matthew+5%3A22&src=esv.orgMatthew 5:22
Matthew 5:22
<< Matthew 4 | Matthew 5 | Matthew 6 >>
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother [1] will be liable to judgment; whoever insults [2] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell [3] of fire.
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:21:11 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Matthew 5:22
On Biblegateway.com, their ESV has the "without cause" in a footnote. Just to provide another spin on it.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:21:22 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 2710
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
I hope that answered your question.
I think it did. My next question, and please understand I'm asking this sincerely, not in an attempt to ruffle feathers - do you believe in unicorns?
I honestly don't see the sincerity in that question at all, brother, nor do I see any reason to ask it. Was that a reference to a passage in Revelation? I hope it wasn't a joke...
_____________________________
"Believers are saved from their sin, not merely in their sinning!"--drmark
"Our wills are ours, we know not how; our wills are ours, to make them Thine." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:24:19 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
I honestly don't see the sincerity in that question at all, brother, nor do I see any reason to ask it.
I'm sorry you took it that way. I ensure you there is a good reason to ask it. The KJV mentions unicorns nine times, none of them in Revelation. http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=unicorn&version1=9&searchtype=all I'm asking if you think the KJV is perfect in the sense that you believe unicorns are real because the KJV says they are real.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:36:22 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
If that were true, you'd see it affecting the passages that actually address the hierarchy. You don't.
“Work on this translation began with discontent (largely amongst Evangelical Christians) over the perceived looseness of style and content of recently published English Bible translations, as well as the apparent trend toward gender-neutral language in translations such as the Today's New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version, among others.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version)
1 Corinthians 3:3
KJB
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
ESV
for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
I would say that they're the minority. I haven't personally met anyone who is offended by "Hey guys!", including multiple homosexuals. I know it's bad form in academic writing to use gender specific pronouns when no gender is stated, though. For example, "If someone wanted more information on Christopher Colombus, he should check out..." would be bad form in some schools - unless other non-gender-specific cases used "she" instead. Give equal time to both, and all that.
They maybe the minority, but she's trendy, hip, attractive and she sway's people. And that's how debauchery starts. I believe you're starting to recognize it a little in your example of Christopher Columbus.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
The standard is that the Man is over the woman tracing back to Adam.
All right, so where in Scripture does God say, "And the way you'll know this is because of all the masculine pronouns I used. Don't go changing them up, now!" You can't read a standard where God doesn't set one.
Because Eve is the helper, Adam didn't come from the rib of Eve.
Romans 5
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
**Even though it was Eve who bit the apple.**
Romans 5:19-21 (King James Version)
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:38:20 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
I hope that answered your question.
I think it did. My next question, and please understand I'm asking this sincerely, not in an attempt to ruffle feathers - do you believe in unicorns?
I honestly don't see the sincerity in that question at all, brother, nor do I see any reason to ask it. Was that a reference to a passage in Revelation? I hope it wasn't a joke...
A black rhino could easily be a unicorn. I believe in unicorns.
unicorn
1828 Noah Webster Dicitonary
U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]
1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
2. The sea unicorn is a fish of the whale kind, called narwal, remarkable for a horn growing out at his nose.
3. A fowl.
fossil unicorn, or fossil unicorn's horn, a substance used in medicine, a terrene crustaceous spar.
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:39:47 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
KJB
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
ESV
for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
I don't see how the switch to a gender-neutral word affects the message of either of those passages.
quote:
And that's how debauchery starts. I believe you're starting to recognize it a little in your example of Christopher Columbus.
I don't think recognizing that not everyone is a man = debauchery.
quote:
Because Eve is the helper, Adam didn't come from the rib of Eve.
I must've missed the part of the curse where God said, "And from henceforth shalt all pronouns be masculine. That's the way I want it." Again, the use or avoidance of gender-inclusive words is not a part of God's standard. Scripture doesn't say it is, so we can't say it is.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:42:33 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
A black rhino could easily be a unicorn.
Is that dictionary you keep quoting from just as inspired as the KJV? Because very few people will go by those definitions today. We have to consider what unicorn meant to people in 1611, not what it meant to the writers of the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:49:53 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
I don't see how the switch to a gender-neutral word affects the message of either of those passages.
I don't think recognizing that not everyone is a man = debauchery.
I must've missed the part of the curse where God said, "And from henceforth shalt all pronouns be masculine. That's the way I want it." Again, the use or avoidance of gender-inclusive words is not a part of God's standard. Scripture doesn't say it is, so we can't say it is.
The citation from Wikipedia show's their perception though.
I think not recognizing that Eve was made from Adam = debauchery. And homosexuals, feminists, the unisex, effeminate, don't recognize it and that's why they say "Hey people!"
The Bible says it, Eve bit from the apple, but sin came into the world by the disobedience of man. The Bible doesn't use the words 'pronoun' so how can you say it is?
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:52:29 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
A black rhino could easily be a unicorn.
Is that dictionary you keep quoting from just as inspired as the KJV? Because very few people will go by those definitions today. We have to consider what unicorn meant to people in 1611, not what it meant to the writers of the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary.
It show's the latin: L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:54:24 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
The citation from Wikipedia show's their perception though.
Maybe we're looking at different articles - I didn't see that quote.
quote:
I think not recognizing that Eve was made from Adam = debauchery.
Sure. But how has any of the major translations tried to show that this isn't true? Modern readers expect gender inclusive language when non-gender-specific topics are being addressed. So, I ask again - do you believe Paul was writing only to men? Because if not, then you're admitting that when it says, "I write to you, brothers," he's using brothers to refer to men and women. I'm curious which undermines masculinity more - to say "brothers and sisters," or calling women "brothers."
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 9:55:43 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
It show's the latin: L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.
Ah, so we're expecting modern Bible readers to 1, know the definition of words from a 1828 dictionary, and 2, have a working knowledge of Latin.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
