The King James Bible

[posthuman]

is that better than 37?

I still lack a phd class in measure theory. Will have to get back to you...

But I will. 'count on it' teehee

 

[Willie-T]

I got 1. I had to write the problem down on a piece of paper It's been a while, okay?

"Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally" has never failed me. (Though her name could have been Sarah, or Samantha, or any other name that starts with a S, technically...)

And she could have been named Alice Smith.

 

[MultilingualMessenger]

And she could have been named Alice Smith.

Or Annabelle Smyre

 

[posthuman]

Or Annabelle Smyre

or Anything Similar

 

[dcontroversal]

i went and looked it up.

it's

THINK​

​

I wonder what was going thru J-poos mind.....

 

[tourist]

close lol , the answer is 1

...no cigar.

 

[Dino246]

Methinks Mr. Numbers got offended and put me on Ignore. He hasn't responded to any of my questions for several pages now.

 

[IamWhoIam]

...no cigar.

A consolation prize indeed, not a Havana but close, hehe...

 

[James37]

It only 'should be randomness' if you assume that they are all meaningless character sets randomly arranged in a meaningless sequence. But this book isn't the result if a thousand monkeys in front of typewriters for a thousand years or an explosion in a print shop.

Telling ya, you're doing your probability calculation wrong, you're not using the right distribution.

Should we expect to find the same thing in the NASB, ESV ,and NIV since they were not the result of monkeys and type writers?

 

[IamWhoIam]

No, you don't stand alone on the word of God, the BIBLE!

Let me tell you why you think you're being Sola Scriptura, or, that your standing on Scripture alone, when you in fact are not.

The things you are doing in this thread are not "based upon Scripture."

Chapter numbers, verse numbers, even the names of the books (since you absurdly used the book of "Numbers" as proof that you can chase Bible numerology) pay attention; these are not Scripture.

These were added, they are not a part of God's Word whatsoever. You are then basing your mysticism, "faith", superstition, yes, even your hope on things man added to the Word of God to enable ease of finding portions of text.

These are not inspired divisions of chapters and verses. They are not part of God's Word, nor are they from God.

You are on an unsustainable path, have left sound doctrine (if you've ever been sound in the past) and are in fact following myths and fables, not God's Word.

All I hope for is that God delivers you from this snare you are in, you are thoroughly hoodwinked and deceived.

Good Lord son, he never said he thinks he is Sola Scriptura, that is what you called him bird Brain.

minutes and seconds of a hour is not based on scripture but you sure do believe in them, lol another drunkard statement.

 

[Susanna]

Methinks Mr. Numbers got offended and put me on Ignore. He hasn't responded to any of my questions for several pages now.

Lol, sometimes I don't want to answer because I think the other person is just a stupid old hag/geezer (I kid you/kid you not), and I would just like to say "boooooooh", but instead I just say something semi-good/bad/ugly, and said person still thinks I'm a little normal.

Well...

Lol

 

[hornetguy]

That is what you get, you call me as having a numbers fetish,

why on earth did you ever say that, you don't know me to say such a thing, I posted a couple of things on numbers and all of a sudden I got a numbers fetish, please save your analogy and apology , I already know it's old time rubbish.

In the town were I live people say, panties in a crunch, lol

I've heard "panties in a bunch", also.... the variations of English slang....

Actually, I meant the general "you", not you personally. The OP is the one with the numbers fetish, in my not-always-right opinion.

To borrow from Seinfeld.... "not that there's anything wrong with that...".... it's simply wrong, again, in my opinion, to try to "prove" that some kind of secret number code means that the KJV is the one true translation.

I don't think the KJV is a bad translation, but it's not the best translation... and, it's more tiring to read. I don't read Shakespeare for "fun", either. I prefer to read the word in the same language I speak.

 

[Speak2Me]

I want to ask all the KJVonly people: What if they decided to make a new translation from the same manuscripts that were used in the KJV, but they decided to make it more modern english, would that be acceptable?

What im asking is: Do the manuscripts really matter? Or is it just the fact that KJV is KJV and everything else isnt? This is circular argument at its best if thats the case.

Can't you read, mon?!?
This is a triangular argument! Gee whiz! (just kidding, LOL!)

 

[John146]

I don't think the KJV is a bad translation, but it's not the best translation... and, it's more tiring to read. I don't read Shakespeare for "fun", either. I prefer to read the word in the same language I speak.

When words are changed, the meaning is changed. As the English language we speak continues to devolve, I guess we continue to change the words of God to devolve with us?

 

[Musicus]

Should we expect to find the same thing in the NASB, ESV ,and NIV since they were not the result of monkeys and type writers?

Rather similar, yes, lots numbers adding up to other numbers. But salvation isn't in scripture anyway, it's in the real, living Christ Jesus.

 

[John146]

Rather similar, yes, lots numbers adding up to other numbers. But salvation isn't in scripture anyway, it's in the real, living Christ Jesus.

And the way you know about the Savior is through Scripture. The two cannot be separated. When you trusted in the Savior, you were putting your trust in what the Scriptures say about the Savior. Faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

 

[James37]

Rather similar, yes, lots numbers adding up to other numbers. But salvation isn't in scripture anyway, it's in the real, living Christ Jesus.

"[FONT=&quot]Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

[/FONT]John 5:39

How would any of us even know of Jesus Christ without the scriptures?

 

[IamWhoIam]

I've heard "panties in a bunch", also.... the variations of English slang....

Actually, I meant the general "you", not you personally. The OP is the one with the numbers fetish, in my not-always-right opinion.

To borrow from Seinfeld.... "not that there's anything wrong with that...".... it's simply wrong, again, in my opinion, to try to "prove" that some kind of secret number code means that the KJV is the one true translation.

I don't think the KJV is a bad translation, but it's not the best translation... and, it's more tiring to read. I don't read Shakespeare for "fun", either. I prefer to read the word in the same language I speak.

Ahh then that explains it, I miss read what you had said, I thought you were saying I had a numbers fetish.

i do agree with you about the KJV bible it is a good translation, I'm not going to say it is the best by no means, lol.

i apologize if I had said anything unfairly or wrongly to you, it is always refreshing to see someone explain what they meant, I do admire things like that, and I do respect you brother,

 

[preacher4truth]

Faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Wait, you don't believe that, you had inherent faith all along.

And, btw, it has to say "cometh" not "come" or it's corrupt. According to you. Do you get a bye for corrupting the pure words of the "KJB?"

 

[preacher4truth]

I've heard "panties in a bunch", also.... the variations of English slang....

Actually, I meant the general "you", not you personally. The OP is the one with the numbers fetish, in my not-always-right opinion.

To borrow from Seinfeld.... "not that there's anything wrong with that...".... it's simply wrong, again, in my opinion, to try to "prove" that some kind of secret number code means that the KJV is the one true translation.

I don't think the KJV is a bad translation, but it's not the best translation... and, it's more tiring to read. I don't read Shakespeare for "fun", either. I prefer to read the word in the same language I speak.

Good post. Which translation(s) do you like the best?