Members Tyndale Posted April 13, 2017 Members Share Posted April 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said: No single man or group had total control over any part of the translation. Can you provide documentation for your assertion? Would you suggest that the committee of revision that went over the work of the earlier six groups of translators could not make changes and revisions without approval of the entire group of translators? Did the rules for the translating made and approved by Archbishop Richard Bancroft and King James provide for no control over any part of the translating? Are you saying that Archbishop Richard Bancroft who was made overseer for the translating could not have exercised any control over any part of the translating? Could any of the KJV translators overrule any control or any decision by Archbishop Bancroft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted April 14, 2017 Members Share Posted April 14, 2017 I am confused as to your motive for the various lines of argument. Are you following this line in preparation for an attack on the KJV? Can I ask you outright, because of my confusion, are you a supporter of the KJV or a detractor? I ask only because I am unsure of your point here or in other threads. Please don't take this as an aggressive question - it is not meant that way. Jim_Alaska 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Invicta Posted April 15, 2017 Members Share Posted April 15, 2017 (edited) On 12/04/2017 at 0:19 AM, DaveW said: Actually, there was disquiet about the process because James was Scottish and there was concern that his perceived Calvinistic position might produce a biased translation. This itself shows that at least a visible group were opposed to calvinism in some fashion. In fact, James was likely not Calvinistic at all, as he was independently taught and often opposed the mainstream thologists. You have to be careful in reading histories that you are not relying on biased information. Calvinists are constantly rewriting history and misrepresenting historical characters to portray them as Calvinist when many were not, or in some cases not as much as they would like. The CofE 39 articles were Calvinistic. In fact it was said the were based on Calvin's teaching,not Luther;s. Edited April 15, 2017 by Invicta Spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted April 16, 2017 Author Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Invicta said: The CofE 39 articles were Calvinistic. In fact it was said the were based on Calvin's teaching,not Luther;s. Well, evidently those scholars/translators and the Church of England missed their chance to promote their heretical beliefs, back in 1611, because the King James Bible ain't Calvinistic. Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. ...and I believe He did, sir, in spite of any translator/s. DaveW 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted April 16, 2017 Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Invicta said: The CofE 39 articles were Calvinistic. In fact it was said the were based on Calvin's teaching,not Luther;s. Why should we believe anything that you say, considering you believe that Paul was a murderer after he was saved, and without repentance compare Paul to Calvin as a murderer. Aside from your constant rewriting of history to suit your own beliefs, which you have done constantly over the years you have been a member here, misrepresenting all sorts of baptist beliefs according to your own twisted views of both history and theology. And of course you keep saying you are not a Calvinist, but also keep promoting and defending Calvin seemingly at every opportunity. I think I hear quacking....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members weary warrior Posted April 16, 2017 Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Invicta said: The CofE 39 articles were Calvinistic. In fact it was said the were based on Calvin's teaching,not Luther;s. "It was said" that the earth is flat. It's not. "It was said" that Jesus was created by God the Father. He wasn't. "It was said" that "Saint" Augustine was a born again Christian. He wasn't. "It was said" that Peter was the first pope. He wasn't. "It was said" that Invicta is not a Calvinist ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tyndale Posted April 16, 2017 Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 On 4/13/2017 at 0:29 PM, Tyndale said: Can you provide documentation for your assertion? Would you suggest that the committee of revision that went over the work of the earlier six groups of translators could not make changes and revisions without approval of the entire group of translators? Did the rules for the translating made and approved by Archbishop Richard Bancroft and King James provide for no control over any part of the translating? Are you saying that Archbishop Richard Bancroft who was made overseer for the translating could not have exercised any control over any part of the translating? Could any of the KJV translators overrule any control or any decision by Archbishop Bancroft? Asking proper questions about an unsupported claim that another poster made is not actually making an argument. If the poster can provide documentation and evidence for the claim, I will consider it. I have read several histories of the KJV, and I am unaware of any sound evidence that would prove what was claimed. My questions were soundly based on what I have learned concerning the actual process involved in the making of the KJV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tyndale Posted April 16, 2017 Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 On 4/14/2017 at 1:55 AM, DaveW said: Can I ask you outright, because of my confusion, are you a supporter of the KJV or a detractor? I am a supporter of the KJV as what it actually is. Would not seeking the truth concerning the KJV and standing for it be being a proper supporter of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members weary warrior Posted April 16, 2017 Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 25 minutes ago, Tyndale said: I am a supporter of the KJV as what it actually is. Would not seeking the truth concerning the KJV and standing for it be being a proper supporter of it? I am a supporter of the Koran "as what it actually is". When 30 cloudy words are used in the place of 1 clear "yes" or "no", somebody is prevaricating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted April 16, 2017 Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Tyndale said: I am a supporter of the KJV as what it actually is. Would not seeking the truth concerning the KJV and standing for it be being a proper supporter of it? I am sorry, but this still isn't clear. What does you qualification "as what it actually is" mean exactly? Isn't the KJV "what it actually is"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tyndale Posted April 16, 2017 Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 7 hours ago, weary warrior said: When 30 cloudy words are used in the place of 1 clear "yes" or "no", somebody is prevaricating. Do you jump to unproven conclusions as you make your allegations that you do not back up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tyndale Posted April 16, 2017 Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 6 hours ago, DaveW said: I am sorry, but this still isn't clear. What does you qualification "as what it actually is" mean exactly? Isn't the KJV "what it actually is"? It is just as clear as your question was. Yes, the reality is that the KJV is what it actually is. My statement properly suggests support for the KJV based on reality and truth, not on speculations or assumptions. The KJV is not necessarily what some may claim for it or assume concerning it, but what they do not prove to be true or scriptural concerning it. Some seem to think that support of the KJV means having to accept blindly the unproven opinions of men concerning it or means claiming more for it than they can prove to be true or scriptural. Seeking to learn the truth concerning the KJV and then standing for it would be proper support for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted April 16, 2017 Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 Ok, I think I understand. I really was not trying to be difficult, it just seemed to me that your intent was unclear. A problem with my understanding or your explanation? Not sure which, but there was a disconnect between us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted April 16, 2017 Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 On 14/04/2017 at 6:55 AM, DaveW said: Are you following this line in preparation for an attack on the KJV? Can I ask you outright, because of my confusion, are you a supporter of the KJV or a detractor? 5 hours ago, Tyndale said: Seeking to learn the truth concerning the KJV and then standing for it would be proper support for it Well, that is a definition of being a supporter of the KJV. By that definition an atheist or hindu or a muslim etc. could be a supporter of the KJV. But given this is an IFB forum and given the history of folk coming on here to disagree with the forum's position about the KJV, which is that it is "God's preserved Word for the English speaking people", I expect what Dave meant by supporter/detractor is whether or not you agree with the forum's aforementioned position yourself. Might be wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members weary warrior Posted April 16, 2017 Members Share Posted April 16, 2017 9 hours ago, Tyndale said: Do you jump to unproven conclusions as you make your allegations that you do not back up? Of course I do. What a silly question. When a young man shows up at my door with long hair, tattoos and a leather jacket asking about one of my daughters, I immediately conclude what his character is based upon how he chooses to present himself. If he doesn't like my presumption, he needs to change his presentation. It's not my responsibility to prove that he is not what he seems be. Not simply because my conclusions offend him. As a cop, I would have been dead long ago if I were stupid enough to believe a punk wasn't actually a punk if he presented himself as a punk. BTW - That last was just an illustration, NOT in any way referring to you. When you were asked a yes-or-no question, twice, you chose to not answer it with a clear answer. You have presented yourself in a certain manner, and I made a conclusion based on your self-presentation. I've been lied to by professionals for years, by both perps and lawyers. 90% of my job seemed to be trying to determine who was lying, who was telling the truth and who was ... prevaricating. And in my experience, the fuzzier, wordier,more indirect the answer, the more that is not being said. And your final answer, which DaveW apparently accepts, is still a lawyer's answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.