The King James Bible

[posthuman]

[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
#flashback
#nightmare
#ohno!

hey it's 1/3 of 111

i don't think that guy ((James)) is as nuts as most people think. i just think he doesn't know enough math to be doing anything really interesting with it. it's like he just collects data but he doesn't do anything with it, a bunch of dots on a graph with no statistical analysis or curve-fitting. i want him to do the analysis; collecting data isn't interesting if you never do anything with the data once you have it.

 

[PS]

How many heavens are there?

There are approximately 2 trillion galaxies, each with their own heavens.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/13/hubble-telescope-universe-galaxies-astronomy

We are only one galaxy. I'm assuming God created them all.

 

[Locutus]

 

[hornetguy]

It contradicts the scripture that says that God created the heavens later in chapter.

This is for all you KJVO folks who think that punctuation that didn't exist in the original manuscripts somehow matters, once it was carved in stone by the KJV translators....

 

[SovereignGrace]

Notice the ‘v’ in the KJV. It’s a version of the word of God. Just like the ESV, NIV, NASB, (H)CSB, et al.

 

[trofimus]

There are approximately 2 trillion galaxies, each with their own heavens.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/13/hubble-telescope-universe-galaxies-astronomy

We are only one galaxy. I'm assuming God created them all.

I think that Genesis is written from the man´s perspective.

So, man was standing on the ground and saw sky with stars, moon, sun above him and dry land below him -> In the beginning God created the heaven above and the earh below [me].

The word heaven would include all heavens, something like our modern word "universe".

 

[Dino246]

It is in the same first chapter.

So you say, but until you step up and quote it, I will continue to consider your assertion baseless.

Try presenting your case completely in one post, as follows:

I assert "X" because of the following evidence: "[quoted passage or passages (with version(s)]" or "[quoted statements from others, with source(s)]". I think it's right (or wrong, as the case may be) because it does (or doesn't) line up with [quotation from Scripture]. Where your reference Scripture is from a specific translation of the Bible, please note that, so that your readers aren't confused as to your reasoning.

 

[Locutus]

Just think now crazy the KJV onlylies will be when the New Universal Translation comes out.

 

[Dino246]

How many heavens are there?

Three (at least), according to 2 Corinthians 12:2.

 

[posthuman]

I think that Genesis is written from the man´s perspective.

So, man was standing on the ground and saw sky with stars, moon, sun above him and dry land below him -> In the beginning God created the heaven above and the earh below [me].

The word heaven would include all heavens, something like our modern word "universe".

since "earth" could be equivalently translated "land" or "dirt" you could even understand that it means, "heavens and earth" as in energy and matter, things that do not have mass and things that do, fluids and solids. this is a phrase which encompasses all things in the material universe, all baryonic and non-baryonic substance, not merely this planet and its clouds and sky.

'Let there be a universe' -- BANG, time, space, substance & radiation

 

[Dino246]

since "earth" could be equivalently translated "land" or "dirt" you could even understand that it means, "heavens and earth" as in energy and matter, things that do not have mass and things that do, fluids and solids. this is a phrase which encompasses all things in the material universe, all baryonic and non-baryonic substance, not merely this planet and its clouds and sky.

... and here we have biblical proof of dark matter. There was matter, before God said, "Let there be light."

 

[posthuman]

since "earth" could be equivalently translated "land" or "dirt" you could even understand that it means, "heavens and earth" as in energy and matter, things that do not have mass and things that do, fluids and solids. this is a phrase which encompasses all things in the material universe, all baryonic and non-baryonic substance, not merely this planet and its clouds and sky.

'Let there be a universe' -- BANG, time, space, substance & radiation

or, "heavens and earth" could be all spiritual things and places, "heavens," and all corporeal things and places, "earth"

He hath made all things

 

[trofimus]

since "earth" could be equivalently translated "land" or "dirt" you could even understand that it means, "heavens and earth" as in energy and matter, things that do not have mass and things that do, fluids and solids. this is a phrase which encompasses all things in the material universe, all baryonic and non-baryonic substance, not merely this planet and its clouds and sky.

'Let there be a universe' -- BANG, time, space, substance & radiation

I do not know if ancient Jews had a concept like "energy" in its technical form, I think its more from later Greek philosophy.

 

[posthuman]

... and here we have biblical proof of dark matter. There was matter, before God said, "Let there be light."

yes -- and every 'big bang' model agrees with this. if the universe in the earliest times was superdense, expanding, then at a certain, definable time, it was too dense for a photon to move at all -- therefore no light -- and then at a certain, definable time, it expanded to the point that photons had enough space to 'wiggle' for the first time ever, and BANG! there was light

i learned this in whacha call one of them liberal ejoocashanall institutions, where they teach astrophysics to the best of their knowledge. from one of those Christian physicist/professors that everyone tells you don't exist.

 

[Joseppi]

what do you mean "it's an analogy" ?

Phillip remarked that a certain, definite amount of money relevant to the present time and culture in which he made the remark would not be enough to buy food for all the people there.

how is that an analogy? they were real people, he was talking about real food, and he mentioned a real amount of money.

what i'm asking is whether the amount of money he mentioned is accurately & perfectly represented by "$2" as the KJV reads . . ?

i only understand it in terms of assuming the KJV is wrong, finding what the Greek says, finding out how much a denarii was roughly worth 2,000 years ago in Israel, and making a currency conversion and adjusting for 2,000 years of inflation.

I mean that it is analagous to not having sufficient means to accomplish the task of feeding so many in any economy.
And again, you did understand it and thus prove it was effective.
Your concern for updating the money for modern man is based on supposing that money value remains stable butb we all know it isn't.
An analgy does deal with real things.

 

[posthuman]

I mean that it is analagous to not having sufficient means to accomplish the task of feeding so many in any economy.
And again, you did understand it and thus prove it was effective.
Your concern for updating the money for modern man is based on supposing that money value remains stable butb we all know it isn't.
An analgy does deal with real things.

i think you missed the point whereby i only am able to understand this phrase in the KJV by working from the assumption that the KJV is inaccurate and ineffective at transmitting what John actually wrote here.

and you're neatly dodging the question: is two hundred pennies perfectly equivalent to the actual amount of money Phillip mentions or not?

 

[posthuman]

I mean that it is analagous to not having sufficient means to accomplish the task of feeding so many in any economy.

there's a big difference between not enough money to feed even a single person at a fast food dive and enough money to buy lunch for a couple thousand people.

is Phillip being just plain stupid and trollish, talking about pocket change, or is he being realistic, talking about a half a year's salary or more?

details.
dude, if you're going to say some translation is 100% perfect, it's in the details where this becomes important. you don't get to make a claim like that and then gloss over the details​.

 

[Joseppi]

If you are based on such small details as plural vs singular, my question is:

Why does the KJV changes the OT texts so much that they divert from the NT quotations in even whole sentences?

First let me say that I think you are assuming that truth is set in stone like the law was.
Facts are set in stone.
And facts can be temporary.
But the truth of God is eternal.
And many men using many means can express truth.
This is proven by noting the diversity of preachers serving God effectively. Notice the diversity of gospels.
So, I find that when God presents diverse quotes in his book there is a reason. One hearer velyd differently butb you'll you will find a truth or purpose in both.
If you would like let us review some that strike you as interesting.

As for the little "s", well, the Devil is often in the details.

 

[posthuman]

well, the Devil is often in the details.

yeah i was asking your opinion about a certain "detail" . . . ?

is Phillip talking absolute nonsense in John 6:7 ((if i take the KJV to be 100% literally perfect in every word)) or is he talking about a a hyperbolically large restaurant tab ((if i do some legwork to correct the KJV)) ?

two dollars ((as KJV has)) or more than ten thousand dollars?

it's a detail. what do you think? details not important here?

 

[Joseppi]

How many heavens are there?

There was one heaven until God divided it.
Now there are three.
Our immediate heaven is analagous to the higher that we may understand what we can't see.
So, we see waters on the earth, we see heaven where the birds fly and waters above it, then we see heaven where the stars are above those waters etc...

And waters can be metaphorically understood as words.