in 1611 and no complete rules for English grammar,
Please give examples of complete rules for English grammar that were incomplete in 1611.
And what makes grammar rule 'complete' ?
Does this mean that the rule has no exceptions ?
Or that it is listed in some specific work like "Complete's Rules of Grammar" ?
inconsistent, non-standard, or incorrect spelling, grammar, or other English forms
On the externals :
Who determines the "standard" and "correct" spelling or grammar ?
Is the "standard" necessarily "correct" ?
Is my navy blue colour font incorrect ?
And consistency, as has been explained to you, is an internal measure.
100% internal on italics, parenthesis, hyphens, etc.
Which can include the source languages on the spelling of proper names, such as Solomon.
Shalom,
Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-07-2009 at 01:16 AM.
Is "Bible English" a label that is used to attempt to excuse, whitewash, or rationalize inconsistent, non-standard, or incorrect spelling, grammar, or other English forms in the KJV?
There are a lot of errors here.
Since the 1611 Edition was an IMPURE presentation, as compared to the Pure Cambridge Edition, which came about by a process of purification, that is, correction of typographical errors, standardisation of the language and other regularisation, how could the 1611 edition's presentation be therefore said to be the exact standard of Biblical English? Clearly, there is no "excusing", "whitewashing" nor attempts to rationalise "non-standard" or "incorrect" spelling, etc. in regards to the 1611 or other similar early edition. The word "purification" explains it all.
When the English of the King James Bible is examined "throughly", the "veil" is penetrated, and we see "glistering" truths.
The term "Biblical English" is correct, because when examined, it is a unique and complex formation, quite unlike what modernist editors would produce, if they were able to alter the King James Bible according to their subjective, limited and darkened standards.
Accordingly, one might disavow words like "womb", another might end the neesings of a dragon, and another might ban Easter...
Who determines the "standard" and "correct" spelling or grammar ?
KJV-only posters seem to assume that they determine the "standard" and "correct" spelling or grammar of English words with their arbitrary assumptions and speculations concerning one edition of the KJV.
according to their subjective, limited and darkened standards.
"Subjective, limited and darkened standards" describe the inconsistent, man-made double "standards" [actually speculations and assumptions] of the KJV-only theory.
KJV-only posters seem to assume that they determine the "standard" and "correct" spelling or grammar of English words with their arbitrary assumptions and speculations concerning one edition of the KJV.
When I agree the the KJB colour is a fine Biblical English I am not accusing somebody who writes about the color blue of being incorrect or unstandard. And I do not accuse the NIV of having a misspelling, they simply have a terrible text combined with horrid translation. KJB defenders have an appreciation for the refinement and purity of our Bible text .. the PCE view is a step more simply in the same direction. So you look to fudge some confusion and we will be happy to affirm the purity of the tangible word of God in our hands.
Since you are the one who is trying to make accusations on these nuances like hyphens and italics and spelling .. you should try to be clear as to what is your position. Are you claiming there is anything incorrect or in error in the Bible I read ? If not, your words about editions and this and that continue to flop to the ground, which is fine, since that gives them a nice resting place.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-07-2009 at 05:27 PM.
And I do not accuse the NIV of having a misspelling, they simply have a terrible text combined with horrid translation.
Based on our current discussion on KUE and Avery's inability to make translational sense, it seems to me he is not in a position to say the NIV has a "horrid translation." In fact, the NIV is a fine translation based on a functional equivalent approach.
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
We know that Rick defends not one verse of any English Bible as the pure and perfect word of God. However the Norris Bot can surely sludge out some stuff ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
arbitrary assumptions and speculations .... inconsistent, man-made double "standards" [actually speculations and assumptions] of the KJV-only theory.
So Rick .. first question for you ..
Do you believe it is possible for any English Bible to be pure and perfect ?
A diversion attempt or the refusal to answer will show your "inconsistent" stuff to have no meaning whatsoever.
We know that Rick defends not one verse of any English Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.
You continue your smear tactics, misrepresentations, and attempts to put words in the mouths of others that they have not stated. You demonstrate that you do not know when you attempt to put words in the mouths of others that they have not stated or written. Your misrepresentations are wrong.
My actual stated view is the same basic view as that held by the early English translators including the KJV translators. An essential part of that view is the important matter that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all translations. Because I did not accept the KJV-only fallacy that a translation can or should be assumed to be greater in authority or superior to its underlying original language texts on which it was based, KJV-only posters attempt to misrepresent that view as being something that it is not. Questions based on the inconsistent and unproven man-made KJV-only theory are invalid. KJV-only posters even attempt to use the fallacy of a false dilemma: answer their biased KJV-only question or else. KJV-only advocates ignore the good alternative of accepting the view of Bible translation held by the KJV translators instead of the modern view held by KJV-only advocates. KJV-only posters seem to desire to force everyone into their KJV-only straitjacket or else their view supposedly wins by default.
When the KJV translators identified the pre-1611 English Bibles as being the "word of God" in their preface to the 1611, are KJV-only advocates claiming that the KJV translators were in effect saying that those pre-1611 English Bibles were "the pure and perfect word of God" and thus no changes should be made to them?
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
complete rules for English grammar
Linear Mode
