It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It takes a big pair to make the claim of atheism.

page: 16
6
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Do you understand the first book said to be a dictionary waswritten as Robert Cawdrey, a schoolmaster and former Church of England clergyman, in 1604.

Before that it was word lists . There were several.

Stop making things up.




posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Wow, what do you know something you don't know about and you doubt it. I gave the place where you can download it go see it for yourself.

Word lists are not necessarily dictionaries. Remember things that are different are not the same.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Actually something I DO know about. Given my spiritual studies involve a study of Indo-European Poetics (and thus Linguistics).

Thus your first dictionary is actually a word list.

You need to stop arguing, when you are wrong.

*gwénh2 h1est. sáh2 h3réḱs pótnih2
mədhéu̯ei̯ su̯áh2deu̯ei̯ ḱléu̯os n̥dhgwhitóm tósi̯ah2ai̯ h1est.
*di̯éu̯s, h2ŕ̥tḱosi̯o u̯éi̯dos, médhu h3odi̯ed nú dṓm h1ei̯d nú tód ĝeĝou̯se.
gwénh2 h2ŕ̥tḱom derḱt nú sáh2 memone: “tósmei̯ médhuh1 h3ókwih1 h1stó.”
sah2 h2ŕ̥tḱōi̯ h2usí dérēu̯ médhu dheh1t.
matstós h3rḗḱs dṓm h1ei̯d, h2ŕ̥tḱosi̯o nasí, dn̥ǵhu̯áh2i, h1éh1si médhu derḱt, nú mn̥i̯eto.
pl̥h1úh1 dhuh2móh1 páh2u̯r̥ dheh1t, ápo-kwe h2ŕ̥tḱos h1ei̯d.
matstós h3rḗḱs né derḱt, méĝh2onts-u̯e h1ógwhis gwemd nú h3réĝnīm selh1t.
ápo h2ŕ̥tḱos gwemd nú h1ógwhim gwhend. só tósi̯ah2s dṓm h3réĝnīm bhéred.
pótnih2 tósi̯ah2s ḱḗr h2ŕ̥tḱōi̯ doh3t,
nú h2ŕ̥tḱos di̯éu̯s bhuh2t!



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

His "Special book" is not a dictionary. No matter how much he wishes.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TJames

Whatever you say first thread no reply guy.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

You may be correct, and whether it was a word list or dictionary (as it did define the words in it) is had single and two syllable words all of about 50 in total, they were not recognizable as English words, they seemed to be more Gaelic English than modern English. But the educated people of the day knew how to pronounce them, what they were and what they meant.

If I am not mistaken, it was the simplicity of the English words is one of the reasons the of it being employed around the word as a trade language. By the time of the death of King James I of England, English was used throughout the English Empire, where the sun never set. It was around 1580's when English was being hailed as a replacement for the trade language of Latin, as Latin was difficult and virtually dead. I read some of the works of Richard Mulcaster (1531-1611), he is known for penning some word lists and he did call them dictionaries from the 1560-1590's that's what he used in his schools when teaching English grammar and etymology.

In 2007, I downloaded that dictionary from Gutenberg Society onto my church computer in the mission field, that computer is still there. I had planned on going back into the mission field but do to my son's disability we gave up our desire to return, and are focusing on his needs and educating my other two children as well. Been back for almost five years now.

Anyway, the list you typed out above (I assume that is a word list) does not look like the one I had downloaded. As I understand it Dictionaries were used at the time of the AV. The one I had downloaded was said to be used by the Cambridge group, this group made up one of the three groups of men who translated the AV Bible. One of the groups (if I remember correctly) was located in Westminster, one at Oxford and one at Cambridge. These groups came together at certain times and exchanged their works with each other and the King.

Upon one of those occasions in 1605 Guy Fawkes, a Jesuit Preist and father of the Princess Elizabeth, was arrested in an attempt to blow up the Parliament. If he had succeeded he would not only had destroyed the leadership of England but the translators and all the work they had done in translating the Authorized Version. Some believed that part if not the main reason was his intent to destroy the work of the AV Translators, and with the leadership all but gone, the Roman Catholic Church could step in and fill the void naming Elizabeth Queen.

Terry, it was not "His special book" or mine, it was something I had learned about while researching the translators of the AV bible. I found it on Gutenberg Society online. If I had the copy with me I would just go ahead and post it, it wasn't but two pages long and very limited anyway.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Neighbour cite your source. Don't quote from it. It is not good form to hold out on the citation. OR it looks like you are making things up again.


The fact remains you were wrong.

Just like insisting Terry is Christian
Just like insisting that there is an "preserved word of God" out there, which is written in English.

SO yes I know what I am talking about neighbour.

Oh and it is your "special book". the AV Bible is a highly edited book, of a book that has been edited in multiple languages, and compiled by committee. IF that is the word of god preserved, he's a bureaucrat.
edit on 8-10-2017 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I jest with Terry about being a believer in God, he is not a Christian in the least really. But the words we use do show what we believe.

I insist that the AV is the preserved word of God because God says he would preserve his words to every generation forever. Before English was the primary trade language and has been such since the 1600's until to day. I believe his word to be true and will stand by it. And as I have already laid out why I believe it is, so far no one has refuted the facts I numbered out on why I believe it is the preserved word of God.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I’m sure you’ve got a source to back up what you say, right?

You wouldn’t want to be caught lying, again, would you?

(I won’t hold my breathe because we all know you’re wrong)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Yeah. Your god got men to write a book instead of just clicking its fingers and making one appear in all languages that everyone can understand and doesn’t need “interpreting”.

Pathetic god.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Please do cite this source where God says that th King James Bible is that document. You are citing yet more words of man.

You still are unable to prove your point.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Oh and it is your "special book". the AV Bible is a highly edited book, of a book that has been edited in multiple languages, and compiled by committee. IF that is the word of god preserved, he's a bureaucrat.


Link to me the bibles that are supposedly the AV in a foreign language. I could tell you by looking at just a few verses if it is an AV translation or not.

Just last week someone said they had finally found a AV in their native tongue. I asked to see it, and I read only four passages, and even though I do not fully know their language, I was able to tell them that it was not translated from an AV. At best it was a translation from the NKJV but more likely the NIV.

The Santa Biblia claims to be a AV translation into Spanish but it is not, as does the Tagalog Diglot Bible also known as the Ang Biblia both of these foreign language Bibles are not taken from the AV. I also know of a German Bible that someone claimed was a German translation of the AV, I asked them to read me five different verses and I knew within the first two verses they read, it was not a translation from the AV.

Once you know the true one, a forgery can not get by you. As a bank teller is trained in telling the difference in a forgery of currency, one can be trained to know the difference between the True word of God containing all his words and the over 600 different versions of the Bible no matter what language it is in.

Moral of the story is don't believe what Bible salesmen say about a Bible version or translation. They will say anything to make a sale. Today Bibles translations or versions are all about the money. The only way anyone can make money and have any type of copy right on an AV Bible is for their study notes, their cross-references, their maps and dictionaries they place in with the text of the AV.

One thing I never said yet about the AV being the preserved word of God, is that it is hated today just as much as the living Word of God was when he was here during his earthly ministry. And He is still hated and called names by many today.

Good night, time for me to hit the hay.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Neighbour.

The language that your God supposedly first was communicated in would have been an old form of Hebrew. Then Greek, then Latin. etc

English is not the language of God.

To assume that the King James Bible is the undiluted word of god, is some Angolcentric nonsense. Next you will tell me you are a British Israelite?

Again.

There is no preserved word of god.

The holy texts which were included in what you call the bible, were selected by committee. From many. They've been translated, retranslated, and corrupted in translation for centuries. The King James has fewer books than the Catholic Bible, thus implying it involved editorial shenanigans. That is the hand of man, not the word of your little God.

Quite simply, you need to provide proof, or back off.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Psalm 12:6, 7 God says he will preserve his words to every generation.

Now, having said that, I have rear over 25 English versions of the Bible. Not a one other than the AV has all the verses in it. If it does have all the verses in it they always mark it and call it "spurious at best", "not in all texts", or my favorite "scholars say there is an error".

Either we believe God's word is preserved or we don't. I believe He has preserved it and the proof is in the AV Bible itself. But if one is not interested in finding the preserved Bible they will not. And they are left to follow every wind of doctrine, with questions of translations and always need to go to original languages (that are dead). They refuse to believe the truth that there are no original documents (autographs as the scholars call them). And fall for the trap that is heard from almost every pulpit in the world and that is, "the original Hebrew/Greek word means this or that or another thing". And they never get beyond the milk of the word to feast on the true meat of God's wisdom.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

No, I am no British-Israelite.

Read the AV with a pure heart and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

My Saviour, my God, my LORD is Jesus Christ.

I will never back off saying the truth that the AV Bible is the preserved word of God, ever.

Goodnight friend.
edit on 8-10-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

That is the word of man. It was written by men, in a language other than the one we conversing in now. Thus it does not count. Its a gnosis you Christians may hold. However if you insist we believe this too. You must accept my gnoses as well. Otherwise you would be being hypocrites


I don't have to believe your deities words are preserved. He is not my deity. However you must make more of an argument than "it is so, believe it" to make it so. That holds no water

You are proselytizing it seems. Do you know the rules on that here?

SO quite simply, be intellectually honest here. Or admit you have no proof.

If you have "a big enough pair" to do so.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join