| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 24187
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clara Listensprechen wrote: I've read different versions besides the KJAV--which is why I know for a certainty that what you just said is a bunch of hooey.
Really? Post it? Where do you think the Millennium will be? Earth. Where do you think Jesus will rule forever and ever? Earth.
This is the same in every translation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Clara Listensprechen
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If that was true, neither King James nor Cromwell would have seen fit to tailor their own versions of The Bible to suit their delusions of divine grandeur.
Betcha didn't know that Cromwell did the same kind of thing to The Bible that King James did--authorize a "translation" that was tailor made to suit his megalomaniacal asprirations of dominion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
John
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 24187
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clara Listensprechen wrote: If that was true, neither King James nor Cromwell would have seen fit to tailor their own versions of The Bible to suit their delusions of divine grandeur.
Betcha didn't know that Cromwell did the same kind of thing to The Bible that King James did--authorize a "translation" that was tailor made to suit his megalomaniacal asprirations of dominion.
From the research I've done personally..The King James Version does a pretty good job translating what really there. Most of the errors happen in the Old Testament and don't have anything to do with anything that would have served Kind James.
Don't just believe any ole conspiracy web site that you come across.
Next you'll be telling us King James was gay. :lol: |
|
| Back to top |
|
cap'n queasy
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 34968
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| More likely, she will tell us he was Shakespeare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
psholtz
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 23468
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
cap'n queasy wrote: More likely, she will tell us he was Shakespeare.
William Shakespare used the Geneva Bible, not the KJV..
Those who claim that Shakespeare was involved in editing the KJV like to point to Psalm 46, where the words "shake" and "spear" appear 46 lines from the front and back, respectively. Ironically, the Geneva Bible, which appeared before Shakespeare was even born, contains the same coincidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cap'n queasy
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 34968
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for that interesting tidbit.
I wasn't aware of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Clara Listensprechen
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The most widely used Bible version prior to the King James Authorized was the Geneva version, in primary use by Puritans. Compare the KJAV to the Geneva for proof of King James' "more accurate" (laughable!) "translation" by using the French codex of Beza.
"More accurate" my arse. It is a political agenda document. What's hilarious is how religiocons thump any given KJAV-based version and then cite the Pilgrims and Puritans who escaped religious persecution as a reason to call this country a "Christian nation" when it was King James himself that caused the persecutions to begin with, writing his own version of The Bible for that purpose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
John
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 24187
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clara Listensprechen wrote: The most widely used Bible version prior to the King James Authorized was the Geneva version, in primary use by Puritans. Compare the KJAV to the Geneva for proof of King James' "more accurate" (laughable!) "translation" by using the French codex of Beza.
"More accurate" my arse. It is a political agenda document. What's hilarious is how religiocons thump any given KJAV-based version and then cite the Pilgrims and Puritans who escaped religious persecution as a reason to call this country a "Christian nation" when it was King James himself that caused the persecutions to begin with, writing his own version of The Bible for that purpose.
:lol:
The Da Vinci Code is a fictional book sweatheart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
psholtz
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 23468
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: The most widely used Bible version prior to the King James Authorized was the Geneva version, in primary use by Puritans. Compare the KJAV to the Geneva for proof of King James' "more accurate" (laughable!) "translation" by using the French codex of Beza.
"More accurate" my arse. It is a political agenda document. What's hilarious is how religiocons thump any given KJAV-based version and then cite the Pilgrims and Puritans who escaped religious persecution as a reason to call this country a "Christian nation" when it was King James himself that caused the persecutions to begin with, writing his own version of The Bible for that purpose.
:lol:
The Da Vinci Code is a fictional book sweatheart.
:shock:
wtf does her post have to do w/ the Da Vinci Code? |
|
| Back to top |
|
John
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 24187
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
psholtz wrote: John wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: The most widely used Bible version prior to the King James Authorized was the Geneva version, in primary use by Puritans. Compare the KJAV to the Geneva for proof of King James' "more accurate" (laughable!) "translation" by using the French codex of Beza.
"More accurate" my arse. It is a political agenda document. What's hilarious is how religiocons thump any given KJAV-based version and then cite the Pilgrims and Puritans who escaped religious persecution as a reason to call this country a "Christian nation" when it was King James himself that caused the persecutions to begin with, writing his own version of The Bible for that purpose.
:lol:
The Da Vinci Code is a fictional book sweatheart.
:shock:
wtf does her post have to do w/ the Da Vinci Code?
Grab a ride on the Clue Train..
She's grabbing hold of something she read in the Da Vinci code about the Codex Bezae but failed to do any real research to learn that it's a sixth century manuscript (Codex D ) that is considered to be corrupt by credible Biblical scholars....do the research yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
psholtz
Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 23468
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John wrote: psholtz wrote: John wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: The most widely used Bible version prior to the King James Authorized was the Geneva version, in primary use by Puritans. Compare the KJAV to the Geneva for proof of King James' "more accurate" (laughable!) "translation" by using the French codex of Beza.
"More accurate" my arse. It is a political agenda document. What's hilarious is how religiocons thump any given KJAV-based version and then cite the Pilgrims and Puritans who escaped religious persecution as a reason to call this country a "Christian nation" when it was King James himself that caused the persecutions to begin with, writing his own version of The Bible for that purpose.
:lol:
The Da Vinci Code is a fictional book sweatheart.
:shock:
wtf does her post have to do w/ the Da Vinci Code?
Grab a ride on the Clue Train..
She's grabbing hold of something she read in the Da Vinci code about the Codex Bezae but failed to do any real research to learn that it's a sixth century manuscript (Codex D ) that is considered to be corrupt by credible Biblical scholars....do the research yourself.
I don't know about the Codex Bezae (I'll look it up), but the bulk of her post is entirely correct.
* The Geneva Bible was widely used before the KJV
* The Geneva Bible was used by the Puritans
* King James was a tyrant
and these, I think, were the points she was trying to make. I'm not sure that the Codex Bezae is really all that relevant one way or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
