I love Dog Latin… 
I tried listening to it but I haven’t heard it say a thing. It just sits there not moving doing nothing. I think it takes a person to open and read it and then draw their own conclusions. I don’t think it will actually speak and claim anything.
Diogenes & Polycarp,
I’m sorry, but I remain skeptical - I think you guys may be seeing or hearing the foolish things that you want your adversaries to say rather than what they actually say. Since you’ve cited H4E as your example I did a bit of a search on her posts (“His4ever” & “circular”) and got this. Despite immediate accusations of circular reasoning, there is nothing in her post that suggests anything other than what I’ve said (gobear fills in her argument on circular lines, but that is not what she actually says). Here’s another post, also ambiguous. (And frankly, H4E is about as good as you are going to get - there are people of various levels of intelligence in every grouping, and you could not compare an H4E to a Joe Cool, despite both being fundamentalists).
In A Brief History of the English Bible Dr. Errico states that “the KJV was a revision of the Bible based on the Bishops’ Bible which was a revision of the Great Bible, the Great Bible being based on the Matthew, Coverdale and Tyndale Bibles.” It seems dishonest to me for KJV Bibles describing in their title page, newly translated out of the original tongues.
I think the reason many theologians encourage their flock to cling to the KJV Bible is because it gives them plenty of leeway to interpret it how they see fit, and it also helps leave their flock in the dark about a lot of things.
An evangelical Christian by the name of Dr. Wallace, I think does a good job of detailing The History of the English Bible. He notes that since the authorized 1611 version was published, that there has been nearly 100,000 changes since then. While most of these he says are minor spelling and punctuation changes, he at least acknowledges how silly it is for a Christian to proclaim, “We read only the original 1611 King James Version of the Holy Bible”! Among some of the changes that Dr. Wallace pointed out that I thought were interesting were:
JZ
Actually I wasn’t talking about Daniels prophecies about end times, I was talking about Daniels prophecies concerning Israel.
Nope, no thesis, I have to find the cite to the recent confirmation of the date of Daniel, since they were so accurate that most then have to say Daniel didn’t write them.
Well, if Dr. Errico stated it, it must be accurate. Heaven forbid the translators know more than Dr. Errico.
Perhaps you like some of the older KJV’s better, in particular “thou shalt commit adultery.” You don’t need to be a translator to know that this verse among many more were phuqed up. OTOH, the cult KJV crowd might think the translator’s did just fine with this verse and the others, and wouldn’t dare question it, being “inspired” and all.
JZ
Timothy could spell his name correctly.
Daniel didn’t exist. He was a literary device invented in the 2nd century BCE. There are some passages in Daniel that are retrojected prophesies, meaning that a fictional character was portrayed as making predictive prophesies but that those “prophesies” were written after the fact. Daniel is set during the Baylonian exile but it was written 400 years later. We know this because of Greek words in the text and other anachronisms (such as the mention of a musical instrument that wasn’t invented until the 2nd century BCE) as well as the fact that it gets its Babylonian history wrong. It claims that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar and was the last king of Babylon. Belshazzar was neither.
Some prophecies about Alexander and the Seleucids are put into the main character’s mouth but the book was written after the fact. They are not predictive prophecise. Daniel is essentially a political and religious treatise disguised as a historical novel. As I pointed out before, the attempts at real predictive prophesy that the author of Daniel did try to make did not come true.
Believe it or not that’s the second time I’ve Gaudered myself making that same rhetorical point. The last time I screwed up the “God” sentence, itself. Something weird is going on here.
“God moves in a mysterious way…”[sup]1[/sup]
- Actually, the “mysterious ways” argument is one of Gaudere’s “favorite” topics, from back in the day when she was actively debating stuff.
Diogenes: I am here-God.
Diogenes: I am here-God.
How did THAT happen?
2 posts at exactly the same time???
ohhhhhhh