'Y'all Are a Temple of God,' According to New Texas Bible Plugin
A Dallas Theological Seminary Web director who likes to "tinker with the Bible," has developed a plugin that allows readers to draw out the plural "you" in Scripture by rendering the pronoun as "y'all," "youse guys" or "you lot."
"Here in Texas (and in the Southern U.S. more generally), I tell my audience that we have a perfect equivalent to the original Greek/Hebrew second person plural: 'y'all' the contraction of 'you all.' This of course always gets me a good laugh. And this is not unique to the Southern U.S. â€“ many other areas of the English speaking world also have spoken forms of you plural such as 'you guys,' 'yinz,' and 'you lot,'" explains John Dyer....
No, TS, I'm disagreeing with a cult, is what I'm doing. You can use the KJV if you wish, as bad as it is, Doug said it as well as I can,
Doug Kutilek wrote: ...let me say first, I do not think obscuring the Deity of Christ (as the KJV does at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1) and virtual blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by repeatedly referring to Him as "it" are small matters. But beyond this, I affirm that anything--ANYTHING--which unnecessarily puts an obstacle between the present-day Bible reader and a better understanding of the Word of God is wrong and evil. To enslave English readers to a single translation which is often archaic and obscure, occasionally wholly unintelligible and sometimes plainly inaccurate when other versions that remedy these defects are easily accessible is a monument to mere human tradition and is, as it were, to spit in the face of the very purpose of Bible translation,...
But of course, the AV, isn't the preserved Word of God, it's been corrupted.
Doug Kutilek wrote: ....So, tell me straight out: which one KJV edition is the infallible one. It must be only one (if any at all), not two or three, or the KJV editions taken collectively. It must be just one. Until you can with certainty identify it for us, the objections raised against those who appeal to the "originalsâ€ť as their final authority is entirely discredited.
Rufus wrote: Don't tell me where it is not, tell me where it is. Where is the preserved word of God or is it your belief God did not preserve his word?
Jim never seems to reply to this question, Rufus, so let me make a guess at what he believes but is keeping to himself.
God partially preserved his word, but not through Antiochan mss but Alexandrian mss. Partially, because the Alexandrian mss are most inconsistent with each other, and therefore no definitive greek text could be made from them, which would have any clout. However, some have attempted it, and started producing a greek ms from which we have the modern versions. The most important mss used were the Vaticanus (kept in store in the Vatican Library) and the Sinaiticus (located eventually in a monastery on Sinai). Thus, the mss having such differences, it is unlikely that the Lord preserved his word intact.
These mss differ from the Received Text, which was used for a long line of excellent Bibles, from Wycliff to Tyndale, to Geneva and Bishop's, all leading to the majestic King James Bible, which I doubt will ever be eclipsed before the Lord returns.
For myself, I believe we have the word of God in the KJV, and I have no problem recommending it!
No reverence wrote: John: i guess i came across wrong there, of course copying was necessary, God preserved his word for us down through the ages. I don't buy into any garbage about it being corrupted over time. I have a problem however with making an idol of the KJV, it is not a perfect translation, I am willing to read from it. I'm not anti KJV, but I prefer to read from the NASB or ESV.
Yes, that's fair enough. There is a KJV cult which is excessive and ends up defeating itself through bizarre beliefs, and we should not idolise any Bible but love it as the word of God.
If you want to see why some believe the NASB is not merely another translation which we could choose, please go through this comparison chart which shows the differences between the translations.
How you interpret your findings as a result, is up to you.
no reverence, actually if age and language are the important thing then the Latin Vulgate is the only "perfect" Bible, The Claims of the Latin Vulgate-only View. Since Satan had a hend in what is in the KJV it can hardly be claimed to be the pure Word of God. John U.K., if you have to have the Textus Receptus, you would claim that the --New-- KJV was the only accurate Bible (with it's marginal notes it is a very good Bible! In fact it's the only one I would suggest that a person get as a printed copy, e.g., The MacArthur Study Bible: Revised & Updated Edition [Hardcover]. It's less than $32 from this particular site.
No reverence wrote: The original texts are of course perfect....
What you mean is, "The original texts, which are long gone, were perfect."
Did you buy into the bizarre theory that God arranged to have his word written down, for the benefit of all mankind until the second advent, yet could not prevent the erroneous copying of the original texts?
Think about it. God utilised mere human beings to write down his words in books, words which were authoritative in the world of men, yet only for a thousand years or so? Since then, the word was corrupted, and can no longer be considered authoritative?
That is the slippery slope to unbelief. Unless of course you are a Quaker, who does not bother with the Bible but has the inward light and revelation direct from God; or a charismatic who has a Bible but never reads it because every day there is a prophecy which "tells me what to do".
And if the Bible is not accurate, your biblical doctrine counts for naught. If the Bible is inaccurate, then biblical doctrine is inaccurate.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Well, Rufus, it certainly isn't the AV is it? What a racist idea that it would be preserved in English, but don't worry, it isn't the AV, anyway. ...
I want to have the pure, perfect, preserved word of God in my hands. I want to read it, study it and obey it without question and without cause for saying hath God said. You say it's not in the King James Bible but you know where it is, so...where is it?
I have my wallet nearby, give me a link, or tell me what store and what shelf it is on and I will make it my mission to put it my hands. If you can not provide this, then you are obligated to confess that you do not believe God has preserved His Word.
John 1:32 Geneva 32 So Iohn bare recorde, saying, I behelde that Spirit come downe from heauen, like a doue, and it abode vpon him.
Romans 8:16 Geneva 16 The same Spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit, that we are the children of God.
Romans 8:26 Geneva 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we knowe not what to pray as wee ought: but the Spirit it selfe maketh request for vs with sighs, which cannot be expressed.
1 Peter 1:11 Geneva 11 Searching when or what time the Spirite which testified before of Christ which was in them, shoulde declare the sufferings that should come vnto Christ, and the glorie that shoulde followe.
Well, Rufus, it certainly isn't the AV is it? What a racist idea that it would be preserved in English, but don't worry, it isn't the AV, anyway.
Doug Kutilek wrote: And I could write at length of the KJV's fourfold reference to the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Trinity, as "it" (John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; I Peter 1:11), which in my opinion comes little short, if indeed it comes short at all, of blasphemy. Baptist theologian Emery Bancroft ascribed this horrid translation to Socinian influence among the KJV translators (see Emery H. Bancroft, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961; revised edition], pp. 147-8). The Socinian doctrine of the Holy Spirit was roughly the same as that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose translation--alone of modern Bible versions--also refers to the Holy Spirit as "it.". . . .