A new King James Bible defense book

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have and use and love the KJV (multiples copies even - including the AV1611 facimile copy). I also have and use other English translations - both older and newer than the KJV. You implied that I didn't fear God because I didn't want this guy's book (which is what this thread is about) about KJVOnlyism. I said that this guy's book is not a must have for me - not that the KJV is not a must have for me.

 

Technically, yes. But it is closer to the old English than the modern English we speak today.

 

Technically, yes. But it is closer to the old English than the modern English we speak today. </font>[/QUOTE]That is untrue. We must be careful about how far we go in arguing our position, one way or the other. In an attempt to add credence to their position (like it needs any additional credence), MVers, which some would consider me to be, like to use the argument that the language of the KJV is outdated, which is a demonstrable falsehood, as is your statement that the language of the KJV is closer to old English than modern English. It IS modern English and very few of the words, not the language itself have passed from common use.

Jason

 

So you don't think we speak modern English? What then do we speak? I don't speak old English, and I have yet to hear of any "new" English. The spelling and some words (although not that many) of the KJV has been continually updated and changed. Otherwise we would still use the original AV1611 and not the newest revision. The sentence structure is closer to the old English than we use today. English grammer rules have certainly changed over time. When the KJV was written, these rules were not standardized. And spelling was not standardized until the about the beginning of 1800's - at least in America, thank you Mr. Webster.

 

Let's test that assertion.

1. John 3:16 in Old English: "God lufode middan-eard swa', daet he sealde his 'an-cennedan sunu, daet nan ne forweorde de on hine gelyfp, ac haebbe dact 'ece lif."

2. John 3:16 from the 1611 "For God so loued y(e) world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

3. John 3:16 in Contemporary Modern English NKJV "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

After carefully reading the above which two do you think are closest? 1 and 2 or 2 and 3? The answer seems pretty obvious to me that 2 and 3 are nearly identical, but 1 is so strange it is largely unreadable to the early 21st century reader.

In my opinion your thesis is proven to be false.

 

They might believe that the Bible is God's word, their just confused on what Bible.

 

Thanx Bro Will and same to you brother. I haven't been on the particular forum of which you speak, but I can say his book is not "ramblings", but very well documented. I realize what you mean by "ramblings", as what someone says to whom you disagree. This is what I'd call Grady, Riplinger, etc (to whom I disagree).
BTW, I'm not "ignorant" (although I have a long way to go), I simply have reached a different conclusion than you. I haven't stooped to calling you names have I? even though my flesh wants to .
May God bless you, in spite of your view

 

Bro Will, We who are not KJVO do not overlook God and Satan in the preservation of God's Word, that's simply not true.
Your whole theory seems to be based on tradition, preference,assumptions,and conjecture, which is still the opinion of man. ...How is our position "man focused instead of God centered"? that sure sounds kinda silly. Couldn't the very same thing be said in 1611 when the MV known as the AV was produced?
God bless, Bro Kevin

 

John 17:8 refers to the Word of God that God provided us. This included the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and the preservation of the Holy Scriptures.

Romans 16:26 refers to the Word of God that God provided us in our native tongue. If you are Italian, you can have the Italian Bible. If you speak the Russian language, you can have the Russian Bible. If you speak English, you have the KJV.

 

Get an accurate translation! Because it is better than any corrupted translations.

 

This is pathetic.

John 17:8 is not a justification for the rejection of all other English translations of God's Holy Word. This Passage does not address English translations in any way shape or form, and for you to imply otherwise is a dangerous contention on your part, as you are adding to the Message.

Romans 16:26 is not even a complete sentence. Furthermore, this offers nothing in terms of supporting your claim that God's Word is preserved only in the 1769 Revision.
It does, however, prove that we have the Word of God in the English language, but not to the exclusion of other translations.

Remember: If your King James Bible ain't got the Apocrypha, then you ain't got a REAL King James Bible. [sic]

 

Askjo:John 17:8 refers to the Word of God that God provided us. This included the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and the preservation of the Holy Scriptures.

But not one word about any certain language, let alone any certain versions of God's word.

Romans 16:26 refers to the Word of God that God provided us in our native tongue. If you are Italian, you can have the Italian Bible. If you speak the Russian language, you can have the Russian Bible. If you speak English, you have the KJV.

Yes, if you lived in the 17th or 18th centuries & read English, you had the KJV, GB, Bishop's Bible, and several others in the English current for the time. Now, you have all these, plus several others in your native tongue, contemporary English.

 

Askjo:Get an accurate translation! Because it is better than any corrupted translations.

I have several of them-the AV 1611 replica, later KJV editions, NKJV, NIV, NASB, & even a replica Geneva Bible, to name a few.

 

Refreshed:Not to derail this thread or anything, but the KJV is not written in old English or even middle English. It is written in what is referred to as early modern English.

But don't you agree that the AV's English is archaic in comparison with the currently-used style? The Model-T is considered a modern car, but it's quite archaic when compared to a 2004 Ford.

 

This book also fails to state BY WHOSE AUTHORITY its authors make their assertions. I reckon they forgot they were writing about GOD'S WRITTEN WORD TO ALL MANKIND, & just how serious that subject is.

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Early Modern English, as skanwmatos showed us, is quite similar to Contemporary English. Of course I am a Purist with respect to this beautiful language of ours; therefore, my opinion has an obvious bias!!!

 

Baptist in Richmond:ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Early Modern English, as skanwmatos showed us, is quite similar to Contemporary English. Of course I am a Purist with respect to this beautiful language of ours; therefore, my opinion has an obvious bias!!!

But it's not C.E. We simply don't talk, write, or spell that way any more.