2,000 Errors with the KJV? Unlikely, but I am willing to check it out

[Philip]

I worked off of memory and off of the one paragraph you gave me of Pericles. I explained what Gower was reciting in the portion you provided.

As to the NKJV, it does far more than modernize the KJV. It destroys many of the verses. It replaces many easy-to-understand words with words that one would need a dictionary to look up. Just as its predecessors, the NIV, NRSV, etc., the NKJV attacks many Biblical doctrines.

If that is modernization, I suggest you get back to the old paths and walk therein.

I actually thought you may nail the Shakespeare, and I was prepared to give you props for that. But, you didn't nail it at all. It was not a nail but a fail. No offense. But, I'm just holding you to your own words. Maybe turn down the boasting just a notch?

All right then.

[Led By The Master]

I actually thought you may nail the Shakespeare, and I was prepared to give you props for that. But, you didn't nail it at all. It was not a nail but a fail. No offense. But, I'm just holding you to your own words. Maybe turn down the boasting just a notch?

All right then.

Since you admitted earlier that you don't understand Shakespeare, you are not qualified to ascertain whether I nailed or failed in the interpretation of the paragraph in question. I would say my having studied Literary Arts in Senior High School and my having taught a semester of it at Christopher Newport Community College in 88 makes me more qualified to understand Shakespeare.

Maybe turn down the false accusations a bit, eh?

But Shakespeare is not the subject of this thread... the Bible is. Go open a new thread on Shakespeare if you want to discuss him.

[Philip]

Sorry bro. You didn't nail the Shakespeare - at all. But, I'll be glad to step off your thread. Regards.

[Led By The Master]

Sorry bro. You didn't nail the Shakespeare - at all. But, I'll be glad to step off your thread. Regards.

As I said, you already admitted you don't understand Shakespeare. Since you don't understand him, you have not the qualifications to say that I failed.

Regards.

[Kyrigma]

Are we no longer using the word boat today? Acts 27:30 NKJV changed boat to skiff. Where is their proof that the boat in question was a skiff?
.

Original Word: σκάφη
Transliteration:skaphé
Phonetic Spelling: (skaf'-ay)
Short Definition: boat
Word Origin
from skaptó
Definition
anything scooped out, spec. a light boat


boat, dish
A "skiff" (as if dug out), or yawl (carried aboard a large vessel for landing) -- boat.

A skiff is kind of boat. Skiff a more accurate description of what kind of boat it was. The greek "skaphe" is almost identical phonetically for our English "skiff." The proof that it was a skiff is that it was translated from the Greek word "skaphe" which is a skiff. Boat is less descriptive and more general term for boat. It was a boat but more specifically, what kind of boat was it?: it was a skiff.

skiff.jpg

[Led By The Master]

Original Word: σκάφη
Transliteration:skaphé
Phonetic Spelling: (skaf'-ay)
Short Definition: boat
Word Origin
from skaptó
Definition
anything scooped out, spec. a light boat


boat, dish
A "skiff" (as if dug out), or yawl (carried aboard a large vessel for landing) -- boat.

A skiff is kind of boat. Skiff a more accurate description of what kind of boat it was. The greek "skaphe" is almost identical phonetically for our English "skiff." The proof that it was a skiff is that it was translated from the Greek word "skaphe" which is a skiff. Boat is less descriptive and more general term for boat. It was a boat but specifically it was a skiff.

Attachment 445

A dinghy is also a small boat, as is a kayak, as is a canoe.

The point is, the word boat is the word that was used. The word skiff is found nowhere in the Bible.

[Kyrigma]

It was before man decided to translate skiff(a specific kind of boat) into a more general term "boat".

[Philip]

As I said, you already admitted you don't understand Shakespeare. Since you don't understand him, you have not the qualifications to say that I failed.

Regards.

I thought you wanted me to step off your thread? I said I would do that for you. I never said I didn't understand Shakespeare. I said sometimes it's difficult to understand because the English is so old. I used the example of an early 1970's movie that had dialog I didn't get. I understand enough to know that you didn't nail the Shakespeare. But, even if I didn't it's clear that your explanation of the first part was completely lacking; and you didn't even try the second.

You're the one who said you could read original KJV 1611 and Shakespeare without any difficulty. I asked you to prove that and you didn't IMO.

PS. Good post Kyrigma.

PSS. I will step off now, unless you respond to my posts again.

[Led By The Master]

I thought you wanted me to step off your thread? I said I would do that for you. I never said I didn't understand Shakespeare. I said sometimes it's difficult to understand because the English is so old. I used the example of an early 1970's movie that had dialog I didn't get. I understand enough to know that you didn't nail the Shakespeare. But, even if I didn't it's clear that your explanation of the first part was completely lacking; and you didn't even try the second.

You're the one who said you could read original KJV 1611 and Shakespeare without any difficulty. I asked you to prove that and you didn't IMO.

PS. Good post Kyrigma.

PSS. I will step off now, unless you respond to my posts again.

Your opinion is duly noted... and rejected.

[03cobra]

bibleman7 writes:

Cobra tries to say that this passage only applies to the prophecy in the Bible

That is what the passage says. It says it is about prophecy:

2 Peter 1 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

This is about prophecy. If you want to claim it is about the entire Bible, then you are, once again, denying what the text actually says to support your fantasy about the KJV.