Sword Or A Butterknife?

[Guest Guest]

Mr. Dude, I'm not KJVO by any stretch, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm sure you are aware that many English words have more than one meaning. Here's a really stupid example--the only one that comes to mind right now: stamp (as a verb). One meaning: to forcibly hit one's feet on the floor/ground. Another meaning: to press an ink image onto a surface.

Here's a (stupid) little story...

John the post office worker is a calm-tempered man. He is never ruffled, never frazzled. When things go wrong, he doesn't stamp or curse; he simply hums a tune and assures himself that his luck will improve soon.

....later in the (stupid) story....

After John finishes his filing and stamping each day, he takes his coat from its peg and walks home, whistling a tune.

Does my story (stupid though it may be) say conflicting things about John the postman? Can one say, as you have said about the KJV, "JOHN DOES NOT STAMP. That's exactly what the very same story says. Look at it for yourself. The only explanation is that the story is internally inconsistent." This argument sounds like something my nine- and eight-year-old kids would say--jokingly--about a story like this...Even they can recognize that certain words have multiple meanings. So...the question that remains is this: how do we know which meaning is being used? The answer, again, is simple enough for a child to understand: We know which meaning is intended by looking at the context. The first "stamp" is used in connection with tantrum-like activity, so we know it means the forcible foot action. The second occurrence of the word is used in connection with John's duties as a postal worker, so we know it means the pressing ink action. Therefore, we understand that the story is not contradicting itself by saying that John "stamps," after it has said that he doesn't "stamp." At the risk of insulting your intelligence, I'll spell it out further: John never stamps his foot in a show of temper, but John stamps piles of letters every day. [end of second grade lesson on homonyms]

God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man...The context is "tempting with evil," or "enticing to sin."
I'm not sure what other occurrences of the words "God tempted" you are talking about. I guarantee you that in those passages, God is not enticing someone to sin, but testing them. Check it out for yourself.

No offense, but I find your argument expressive of an incomplete understanding of a basic fact about the English language that can be grasped even by my young children. One of the following things is true:

1. You are unaware that the word tempt has more than one meaning. Let's allow http://www.dictionary.comto clear that up for you right now:

tempt /t?mpt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tempt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?verb (used with object)
1. to entice or allure to do something often regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral.
2. to attract, appeal strongly to, or invite: The offer tempts me.
3. to render strongly disposed to do something: The book tempted me to read more on the subject.
4. to put (someone) to the test in a venturesome way; provoke: to tempt one's fate.
5. Obsolete. to try or test.

[Origin: 1175?1225; ME < L tempt?re to probe, feel, test, tempt]

....OR.....

2. You are so bent on proving your case that you ignore the obvious evidence. ("My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts.")

You seem to be a fairly intelligent person...As you said of yourself, "I'm pretty good with definitions and such."

It's still a poor translation of the word nevertheless. The word translated should have been TESTED not TEMPTED. I'm very familiar with the fact that one word has many different meanings, the english language is famous for such a thing. Now enough about this cause I see this is gonna go nowhere...

I did however find something else out... I found that KJVO's think the Septuagint is corrupt? This is sad, because Jesus HIMSELF and His own disciples quoted from it! It's an accurate translation, besides, if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

I've also got a few links to other site, since y'all like doing such things...

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-KJVo.html

http://www.KJV-only.com/doctrinalcontradiction.html

http://www.KJV-only.com/jesusnew.html

I found these links quite revealing... I mainly used this site to find these:
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/kingjames.html

Should be an eye-opener for some of y'all, it most definitely was for me...

God bless...

[ezra517]

Good Morning.

Mr Dude you have a very interesting way of looking at things. I want to let you know though that Jews would never take a Greek version of God's word over a Hebrew version. Granted I know they will not teach you that in your Bible collge, not because they necessarily dont believe, but because they do not know it. It is obvious you are just proudly repeating what you have heard because you feel it is true. What if I was to ask you if what you believed was wrong and there was a truth out there. Would you want to know that truth? If you are sincere about wanting to learn the Tanach (Old Testament), study it in a Jewish mindset. And when a say Jewish mindset I do not mean Orthadox Jews, but I mean in a Karaite mindset. I will stop with that for now and will continue on with a article I hope you would be interested in reading. With everything we must weigh the evidence.

=====================================================================================================================================
WHAT ABOUT THE SEPTUAGINT?

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-septuagint.html

[Alimantado]

Mr. Dude' date=' I'm not KJVO by any stretch, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm sure you are aware that many English words have more than one meaning. Here's a really stupid example--the only one that comes to mind right now: [i']stamp (as a verb). One meaning: to forcibly hit one's feet on the floor/ground. Another meaning: to press an ink image onto a surface.

Well I think you've fairly stamped out Mr Dude's argument, there.

[Pastor Matt]

Praise God, I got myself a Sword.

[Guest Guest]

Besides...My Sword cuts a lot sharper than a butter knife. In battle...I would rather have a sword. :smile


Matthew 10:34...Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send (bring) peace, but a sword. KJV 1611 AV. The words of Jesus Christ...(Conditions of Discipleship).

[Pastor Matt]

:amen: I'll tell you, in this day and age we need to use that Sword everyday.

[joyfulpraise93]

[quote="BroMatt"]:amen: I'll tell you, in this day and age we need to use that Sword everyday.[/quote]

Absolutely! :)

[RayJr]

[quote="BroMatt"]Praise God, I got myself a Sword.[/quote]

I thought you had a stick (ie big stick wielder) j/k

[Guest Guest]

Good Morning.

Mr Dude you have a very interesting way of looking at things. I want to let you know though that Jews would never take a Greek version of God's word over a Hebrew version. Granted I know they will not teach you that in your Bible collge, not because they necessarily dont believe, but because they do not know it. It is obvious you are just proudly repeating what you have heard because you feel it is true. What if I was to ask you if what you believed was wrong and there was a truth out there. Would you want to know that truth? If you are sincere about wanting to learn the Tanach (Old Testament), study it in a Jewish mindset. And when a say Jewish mindset I do not mean Orthadox Jews, but I mean in a Karaite mindset. I will stop with that for now and will continue on with a article I hope you would be interested in reading. With everything we must weigh the evidence.

=====================================================================================================================================
WHAT ABOUT THE SEPTUAGINT?

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-septuagint.html

Took a look at that site... I found the homepage had some info to shed some light as to the biased against anything non-KJV, it's an IFB top 1000. That's how I found this site. No offense, but I find that most IFB sites will be biased about their information and you will almost never find anything thats 100% truth. The one that made IFB's hard to believe was Kent Hovind, the very image of an IFB. I thought all his arguments were pretty good, so I used them, only to immediately get shot down and proven wrong. So I did research, and was appalled at all the lies he puts forth. I then began researching IFB's and found it very interesting the many evidences for things I believe vs. what IFB's believe. What I see from wayoflife.org is just a repeat of what I've already seen in past research. I'd like to see a non-biased for anything site that says the Septuagint is severely corrupt and Jesus never quoted from it.

In fact, I looked this subject up myself, and sure enough, Jesus DOES quote directly from the Septuagint. Matthew 4:4 for example. The words line up perfectly.

Now I have a question for you... What about the Peshitta?

http://www.KJV-only.com/peshitta.html

[ezra517]

What if the Septuagint was written years later than the New Testament? And instead of Jesus quoting from the Septuagint like you claim, but actuallly the Septuagint is quoting from the New Testament? Anyways, here is another link from a non IFB site. This site has some very interesting articles concerning Bible versions. I am sure you will find a pleasure in looking them over.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/sept_001.asp


Satan will do anything he can and use anyone he can to try to cause God's people to doubt. Those of us which are saved are firmly rooted and grounded by the precious blood of Jesus Christ.



1 Corinthians 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

[ezra517]

oh here is another that I found interesting.

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/septuagint.asp

[Guest Guest]

Chick Publications? In my opinion, that's probably the worst and most biased resource you could possibly find for textual criticism of the Bible-no offense. I found both of those filled with lies, half-truths, and speculation. From reading both these little articles, I'm noticing some extreme similarities between them and Kent Hovind's attempt at explaining Bible versions. Where the chick publications don't go into as much detail, the implications are still there: the byzantine text can be traced all the way back to the time of Christ, and the textus receptus came from these complete Bibles, being copied by hand since a little bit after the time of Christ, and the alexandrian text are bibles from the corrupt alexandrian cult that called themselves Christians but were much like today's Jehovah's witnesses. I've got the notes of kent's presentation sitting right in front of me(I'm writing a paper on him for one of my professors).

First off, the Septuagint was written somewhere in between the 2nd-3rd century B.C. To say it's written from the Vaticanus and Sinaticus is absurd. Where's the evidence for such an idea? Alexandria wasn't full of some cult-like Christians that translated the Bible inserting their own doctrine, the Biblical cannon wasn't even present until the 4th century! The Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars from the 12 tribes in Jerusalem using Hebrew texts. Many of the errors found in the Septuagint were mostly due to the haste put into the translation work, although KJVO's shouldn't be quick to dismiss this haste due to Erasmus' quick put-together of the textus receptus. Jesus and the apostles both quoted from the Septuagint, in fact, most anywhere in the New Testament that you find the O.T. quoted, it's from the Septuagint. The Septuagint was considered scripture...

And by the way, I'm still waiting on any response as to anyone's thoughts on the Peshitta text...

[nymusicman]

I do hope someone more knowledgeable on Bible history than I can clear this up. I've heard this contradiction of history too, and I still believe the KJVO version. Why? Because in the KJVO version they can list names, times, places, and events. Who did what, why, when, how and where. James Knox's audio on the KJV Bible is a great example of that.

On the other argument even the greatest scholars I've heard/read on this issue didn't have it quite this accurate. On this side I hear words like sects, groups, ranges, possibilities. No where near as concise on this history. Hopefully someone else on this forum can explain it a lot better.

[Pastor Matt]

I like how Mr. Dude change the subject from the Septuagint to the Peshitta. I believe that tactic is called the The Bait & Switch.

[kevinmiller]

Besides...My Sword cuts a lot sharper than a butter knife. In battle...I would rather have a sword. :smile


Matthew 10:34...Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send (bring) peace, but a sword. KJV 1611 AV. The words of Jesus Christ...(Conditions of Discipleship).

I don't think that was the sword He was referring to...