Why are Proponents of Modern Versions so Anti KJV?

Ulsterman
"My problem is this, why do those who want to use a myriad of versions never poke holes in other Modern Versions but constantly attack the fidelity and veracity of the KJV?"
Because they are fighting the KJVO crowd?

In a sense I am blessed.
I can read Dutch, German and English fluently enough that half the time I don't notice in what language I am reading my Bible.
In practice I never bother with English, partly because some of the others in my Biblestudygroup are monolingual and partly because there are 2 Dutch translations that are more accurate than the KJV.

 

I have not seen this to be the problem. We do point out problems in various translations. Unfortunately, the KJVO crowd likes to focus on one particular version so we show that the KJV is not perfect. We do not claim perfection for any other translation either. Anyone of us can list a number of disagreements with various translations.

 

Ulsterman
Both Bibles use the Masoretic text for the OT.
1 of the 2, the Statenbijbel had it's NT translated from the Elsevier edition of the Received Text.
The NT of the other, the Nieuwe Vertaling was based on a number of texts.

 

I've never found this to be an issue.

I believe that the KJV is the Word of God, just as I believe the NIV, NASV, and many other faithful translations to be the Word of God. I came to Christ out of a KJV, and I frequently use my KJV. You will never hear me deny that the KJV is God's Word.

Now in contrast to that, you WILL find that KJVO-ers WILL deny that ALL other versions EXCEPT the KJV are the Word of God.

I would ask then: Who is anti- (fill-in the version) in your question?

 

First of all, I use the KJV as my primary Bible.
All will hear it (may have difficulty understanding) and it is based upon the three popular versions of the TR of their day (KJV translators - Scrivener's 1894/5 is a singular collation of those three).

"poke holes" and "attack the fidelity and veracity of the KJV".
To me this is the language of the paranoia of the KJVO who see an Alexandrian and the antichrist hiding under every MV page with a satanic plot to dethrone Christ and destroy the Word(s) of God.

My research has found that this is simply not true.

True, everyone to one degree or another is duplicitous, subjective and prejudicial.
but this can be proven of King James and the KJV translators as well as the "Alexandrians".

crticism can be valid, for instance when God first gave the Word it was in the common (koine) language of the comman man. Elizabethan English is not (anymore). So, the need of modernization of the English. I wouldn't say that this is "poking a hole" but a desire to re-align with God's original intent.

The spiritual one-upsmanship, along with the insult and innuendo that prevails in many of these "debates" proves nothing apart from what the flesh is capable of.

There is however quite a bit of substantive information concerning this matter in these discussions.

Hopefully, at the core of it is the desire to know the Word(s) of God in its perfection and in the language of the current mass of humanity.

Personally and for me this requires a study of the original languages and the history of their cultures and assemblies (church, synagogue) in order to fulfill this very important element of the Great Commission.

"myriad of versions" this is a blessing in disguise especially with the advent of the personal computer. I can line up a passage of 20 different English versions of the Bible on my screen to see the "sense" of the passage (as the KJV translators declared in their prologue RE: The proliferation of translations).

HankD

 

My problem is this, why do those who want to use a myriad of versions never poke holes in other Modern Versions but constantly attack the fidelity and veracity of the KJV?
______________________________________________

The answer is because many KJVOs claim PERFECTION for the KJV. Unlike the KJVOs, we can provide EVIDENCE for our claims. We do so, not trying to discredit the KJV, but to prove the "perfection" claims wrong. The KJVO claims are based upon guesswork and opinion, while ours are based upon FACT.

 

Question. Do you spend more time proving the Bible or disproving it?

 

AGAIN, there is a difference between disproving the Bible and disproving a *view about* the Bible.

 

I don't spend any time doing either. The Bible is true ... it does not need my proving it and I cannot disprove it. I haven't seen anyone in this forum trying to disprove the Bible.

 

I HAVE: They go by the Login names of HomeBound, Askjo, Anti-Alexandrian, and others.

They repeatedly attempt to disprove the non-KJV Bibles in use by the majority of American Christians.

 

As for your example of an individual preacher telling people to abandon the KJV, you'd have to ask him. However, to answer your question in general terms, I think the answer is partially because nobody is claiming that other versions are without holes - in other words, the "poking holes" are in *response* to someone saying there are no holes in the KJV. By showing problems with the KJV, we are not attacking the KJV, but rather demonstrating that the *view about* it is wrong. The way to "attack" a viewpoint is simply to demonstrate instances where the viewpoint is wrong.

BTW, I *have* seen "MV" people "poke holes" in modern versions quite often, when detailed verse comparison (outside of the KJV-only context) is done. If you can find discussions where KJV-onlyism hasn't seeped in, you'll find lots of examples of multiple-version users discussing problems with modern versions. It's just that once KJV-onlyism gains a foothold in a discussion, it tends to dominate and degrade an otherwise great discussion.

 

Two things:

1 - Proponents of modern versions aren't anti-KJV. They're anti-KJVO (as well as any version only). They're not anti-KJVP.

2 - The term "modern version" is often used by KJVO's to refer to those folks who are anti-KJVO. But in reality, it's not about "modern" versions. Non-KJVO folks also recognize the validity and significance of pre-KJV translations such as the Tyndale and WH. They also recognize the validity of non-Elglish translations, such as the Guterburg and Dutch editions. The non-KJVO person is usually open to recognizing translational problems in other-than-KJV texts, as well as the KJV. The problem we run into is that, since the KJVO position is that the KJV is error free and authoritative over all other translations and texts (incliding the texts from which it was translated), any discussion regarding translation issues in the KJV is seen as an attack on the KJV and defense of "MV"'s, when that clearly is not the case.

 

Why are Propenents of Protestantism So Against the Virgin Mary?

I have always found this interesting. Those who are Protestant often condemn the vitriol of Roman Catholics. Fair enough. Sometimes such men may be obnoxious in their presentation of their position.

Personally I love the Virgin Mary, I believe she was never bettered, and at this stage I don't believe she ever will be. I once attended a seminar in which a prominent Protestant theologian acknowledged that no other woman could compete with the grace evident ni Mary. Yet the whole tenor his his lecture was on why Mary was never immaculately conceived or a perpetual virgin or bodily assumed into heaven where she intercedes on behalf of the saints. I find that peculiar. Why is he not calling people away from the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Mormons, or the Oneness Pentecostals or whatever? Why is he singling out one woman, whom he acknowledges the virtue of, and ignoring a myriad of heresies, all of which are IMO inferior in every way to the doctrines of Mary?

I have read many of the arguments pro and con Mary. My problem is this, why do Protestants never poke holes in other herresies but constantly attack the character and faithfulness of Mary?

 

It is a laughable fallacy to say that MVPs are anti-KJV and do not critique other translations. 5 nanoseconds on here shows you this.

 

The KJV as written in 1611 is never used, for there have been MANY revisions to this since. So do you propose the 1611 version, or lets say the major revision in the early 1700's? Since the only non Greek versions prior to 1611 were the Wycliff and the Geneva Bible(to which the KJV translaters used some as a reference), were people prior to the KJV spiritually in trouble since they did not possess the KJV? Although I believe the KJV is a good Bible I can show you several times in which words were not accurately translated, which, in more modern translations, were.

 

Correct! However the KJV is most accurate translation.

 

6,500 words in the NIV and 4,000+ words in NASB are not the word of God. How would you call them, the Word of God?

 

6,500 words in the NIV and 4,000+ words in NASB are not the word of God. How would you call them, the Word of God? </font>[/QUOTE]The KJV translators answer your question thusly:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. ... A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."