As I provided an explanation with that statement, implying that “Yes, it is” was the whole argument is disingenuous.This is what he is referring to:
As I provided an explanation with that statement, implying that “Yes, it is” was the whole argument is disingenuous.This is what he is referring to:
Thy words dost confound me. Prithee speak plain if thou wishest me to respond.Forsooth, what sound through yonder voice doth spring?
I sorrowest muchly as my light of wisdom hath been parted from me.Thy words dost confound me. Prithee speak plain if thou wishest me to respond.
I beseech thee, tarry not, most gracious one, and enlighten me with thy wisdom!
Nay, nay! Nay say I!!! Prithee forsooth tell me such a tragic fate hast not befallen thee!!I sorrowest muchly as my light of wisdom hath been parted from me.
I do not belive the word of God is a secret code that has to be figured out, unlocked or decoded.
God is not a god of mystery, he is not a god of confusion.
He does not hide from us, but shows himself openly. He is like the morning star.
He's word is ment to be easy to understand.
I know Jesus talked in parables to people, but Jesus said this was done to fullfill prophecy.
I do not beleive you have to attend a University to learn the meaning behind God's word. I believe you just have to reach out and take the KJV, and read it.
I woke up from my smart dream.Nay, nay! Nay say I!!! Prithee forsooth tell me such a tragic fate hast not befallen thee!!
Again, my KJV is most certainly not written in 16th Century English. I have never seen someone quote or even use a 16th Century Edition. What is your point?Letter shapes and spelling have changed. Print runs in the last 100 years (at the very least) use updated form and spelling.
Post# 34 -- "Yes, it is"I haven’t attempted to defend my point with, “Yes, it is” so your comment is baseless at best.
"Why do you think it contains words strange to modern readers like "wimples", "beesom", and "thou"? It was penned by scholars who were already adults by the time the 16th century turned into the 17th, so their language was from the previous."As I provided an explanation with that statement, implying that “Yes, it is” was the whole argument is disingenuous.
Are you typing in tongues???I sorrowest muchly as my light of wisdom hath been parted from me.
That would be something since I've never spoken except in one tongue. Well two if you accept limited Spanish with a gringo accent. I do a pretty good John Wayne impersonation. Would that count?Are you typing in tongues???
That is the original KJV. KJ onlyists often fail to mention that, though.Here is John 3:16 in 16th Century English:
¶ For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that
whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
So what am I missing?
Actually it's a rare but known tongue...Typonese. People aren't familiar with it because it's only a written language.Are you typing in tongues???
Agreed.That is the original KJV. KJ onlyists often fail to mention that, though.
They will say nothing has changed when obviously much has...
It's a rarely used language because of the many "typos".Actually it's a rare but known tongue...Typonese. People aren't familiar with it because it's only a written language.
Actually it's a rare but known tongue...Typonese.
While on my nese?Oh wow... you type with your tongue??
![]()
Now that's funny. I almost shot root beer out my nose.Oh wow... you type with your tongue??
![]()