Is it just my imagination, or are many folks here hostile to people who read the KJV?

"There is no such word as "pleduriser" that one can find anywhere. FTR, I both 'Googled' and searched MSN for that word to find zero matches anywhere on the internet."

Signed, Language Cop

 

Double Post

 

Yeah I know, I added the "r" to the end of pledurise. Which is also a very hard to find word, but it does exist.

Definition "One who claims another's literary works".

Seems its a modern web-word, sort of slang for crook.

 

[Sigh!] "Well, at least you are improving. I actually found one entry when I 'Googled' for 'pledurise', and zero on MSN. You have now improved by a count of exactly one.

The word you are attempting to appropriate (while consciously avoiding the use of a dictionary) is "plagiarize". Try that one. You'll get ~ a half million 'hits' on that one!

FTR, I not only already knew what 'plagiarize' means, I could also spell it. And I can assure you, the word is no "modern web-word", having been 'imported' into the English language from Latin, a few centuries ago, which I'm fairly sure precedes not only the 'web', but also even Al Gore!"

Signed, Language Cop

 

Boy! My name has been dropped more than by you and B4L than when I have been more active on the BB.Of course EdSutton has a more positive slant on my views here than does B4L.

By the way,I'm indeed taking a little rest.I'm on vacation for the next two weeks.

 

Well,I'll pray that you have many more "weak moments". After all,in the Lord when one is weak they are actually strong.

 

There are scholars who claim that William Tyndale should get first mention here above that of even Shakespeare.

Actually the Geneva Bible though published decades earlier might lay better claim in using more modern language.The KJV team made their version sound slightly archaic than the normal Joseph and Josephine of 1611 would have used English.

 

The "nonsense" is entirely at the doorstep of the anti-TNIV faction with Wayne Grudem's nonsense laid bare for all to see.It makes as much sense as when modern versions no longer used thee,thou,thine etc. -- many saw this as the demise of Christianity.


You'd think that after so much time has passed since the tabloid Christian press was vainly villifying Today's New International Version that people would have wised-up somewhat by now.But,human nature being what it is...

 

My premise still stands.

The Word of God needs retranslation in any/every language for each generation until He comes.

Or, what happened to the Vulgate (and others) will happen over and over again.

Latin turned into Italian and only the sacerdotal (select) priesthood had the right to read and interpret the Latin for the people.

We already have folks telling us about "double-inspiration" and "advanced revelation" and they (actually he) seems to be the only one who has the ability to discover it and knows just what the "advanced revelation" means.


HankD

 

It's not that EdSutton (that's me) necessarily has a more positive slant on your views, even here, than does Baptist4life - it's that I expect any 'charges' against (and even 'support for' someone) from anyone, to be accurate and factual.

FTR, as a matter of practice, I identify any an all BB posters by their BB handles, even when and if they give (and perhaps even go by) their own personal name, lest I make a distinction on how I treat any individual, here.

Have a nice vacation! A coupla' weeks R&R might go a long way in curing "whatever it is that ails ya'" with a coupla' versions, such as HSCB and TNIV.

Although I suspect the 'bug' of Calvinism, like that of mononucleosis, might take a little longer to overcome. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Most naturalistic defenders of MVs often said that. Sorry, you are one of them.

 

No, that is not an accurate statement. I am reading daily through the NT texts of Tyndale 1534, Great (Cranmer's), Geneva, and Bishops' in parallel format. The volume also has the Rheims, KJV, RV, and NRV (which I often glance at). I can tell you that there is a considerable difference between Tyndale and the KJV. For example, compare the differences in this short verse (Romans 3:23) --

for all have synned and lacke the prayse yt is of valoure before God: (Tyndale)

For there is no difference: for all haue sinned, and are depriued of the glorie of God, (Geneva)

For all haue synned, and are destitute of the glorie of God, (Bishops')

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (KJV)​

The Great Bible seems to often borrow Tyndale's wording, while the KJV seems to agree equally as often with the Geneva as the Bishops'. Besides the obvious changes in spelling and vocabulary, it is surprising how often Tyndale simply mistranslates (or has different underlying text). The Great Bible has many superfluous additions in its text. Until you actually read Tyndale, you cannot really appreciate how different it is from the KJV (I am thoroughly enjoying the variations).

 

What about a very highly probable third possibility?

 

I simply state my stand on the KJB and I am treated with hostility.:tongue3:

 

Naturalism's twin is rationalism. Let me ask you a simple question:

Were all disciples of Jesus Christ rationalists?

 

No! Peter was a fisherman. I thought everyone knew that.

Cheers,

Jim

 

If a person wants to read the KJV, fine!

But don't, I beg you, force it on me.

 

Anybody who does not agree with Askjo. Guess that makes me one as well.