Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysis (E

[Sean]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Ummm, yes it does. You simply don't know what you're talking about (btw, I did not "parse" anything - the Greek text is already parsed).



*Not worth my time. KJVO is patently absurd & farcical.

Which leaves you in the no man's land of multiversionism.

What a lousy trade off.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

Which leaves you in the no man's land of multiversionism.

What a lousy trade off.

Sean, you are a retard.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Esaias

For someone who has made it abundantly clear that it isn't worth your time to engage in the discussion, any headaches resulting from banging your head on the floor would be likely self-inflicted.

*Which is my entire point .

Originally Posted by Sean

Which leaves you in the no man's land of multiversionism.

What a lousy trade off.

*And which revision of the KJV do you use again (& do you use the Oxford or Cambridge KJV?)? I assume ye' useth the "original" 1611 KJV (I have a copy if you need me to send ya' one ) ?

*Better watch all of those "multiversions" of the KJV .

[Sean]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Which is my entire point .



*And which revision of the KJV do you use again (& do you use the Oxford or Cambridge KJV?)? I assume ye' useth the "original" 1611 KJV (I have a copy if you need me to send ya' one ) ?

*Better watch all of those "multiversions" of the KJV .

I use a KJV and an old dictionary(only).

No commentary or fake Greek definitions for this guy.

I have no problem with revisions in the KJV from the 1611 version.

They are not adding, subtracting or redefining meanings and verses as the modern versions do.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sean

I use a KJV and an old dictionary(only).

No commentary or fake Greek definitions for this guy.

I have no problem with revisions in the KJV from the 1611 version.

They are not adding, subtracting or redefining meanings and verses as the modern versions do.

An old dictionary? Try reading the Bible in a language you can understand.
They have them in Sunday school room. Filled with pictures. Sean, 17th century English is lost on you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Which is my entire point .



*And which revision of the KJV do you use again (& do you use the Oxford or Cambridge KJV?)? I assume ye' useth the "original" 1611 KJV (I have a copy if you need me to send ya' one ) ?

*Better watch all of those "multiversions" of the KJV .

Hey I didn’t read this whole thread, but did Sean pull out Gail Riplinger the homec teacher?

She will prove that demonic lesbians rewrote the Bible. From the godly English to nasty modern English. It is like Elder LeDeayism of God’s language is Hebrew. How the Bible must be retranslated into Hebrew to get its true meanings. Gail Riplinger believes (as does Kent Hovine) that 17th century English is the only way to preserve scripture. But to be totally fair, this happened a few times before. Latin Vulgate translated from the Original GREEK Bible. That didn’t go over to well, with the purists of the time. Listen, no one over in China or Italy are studying KJV Only baloneyism. The Bible is translated almost into every language. Missionaries preach, teach, and reach the people in the people’s language of birth. They don’t go out and teach everyone to speak 17th century English first.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Hey I didn’t read this whole thread, but did Sean pull out Gail Riplinger the homec teacher?

She will prove that demonic lesbians rewrote the Bible. From the godly English to nasty modern English. It is like Elder LeDeayism of God’s language is Hebrew. How the Bible must be retranslated into Hebrew to get its true meanings. Gail Riplinger believes (as does Kent Hovine) that 17th century English is the only way to preserve scripture. But to be totally fair, this happened a few times before. Latin Vulgate translated from the Original GREEK Bible. That didn’t go over to well, with the purists of the time. Listen, no one over in China or Italy are studying KJV Only baloneyism. The Bible is translated almost into every language. Missionaries preach, teach, and reach the people in the people’s language of birth. They don’t go out and teach everyone to speak 17th century English first.

*Good point(s) - and oh-so true.

*Apparently Sean doesn't realize that he is defending a gay king whose name appears on the very front cover ! Though KJVO's desperately attempt to deny this historical fact - it is an exercise in futility since we have his very own quotes (& he is buried next to his lover: http://www.ministers-best-friend.com...omosexual.html).

http://www.advanceministries.org/art...es/theking.htm

https://etb-history-theology.blogspo...s-was-gay.html

*Of course, it is more rationale to believe in Bigfoot than it is to attempt logic & facts w. KJVO's .

[rdp]

*More debunking of the supposed "lesbian translators" (which is false BTW) from the NIV editors themselves (this is painful for KJVO's):

[rdp]

*Incidentally, for those interested in continuing education in biblical Greek & painfully meticulous discourse analysis - here are two excellent on-line resources that I have been periodically taking classes from (it is on Greek II level):

http://exegeticaltools.com/

https://biblicalgreek.org/grammar/