Why I am KJV only

By the way, there is no such thing as an actual formal equivalent translation in English.

Daniel

 

Not so fast there Thomas.

KJV Revision is No Myth

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
By the way, there is no such thing as an actual formal equivalent translation in English.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, there are several. The Tyndale, Geneva, KJV, ASV, NASV, NKJV, Jay Green's Literal Translation, KJVII, KJV for the 21st Century, and the 3rd Millenium bible, just to name a few.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Not so fast there Thomas.

KJV Revision is No Myth<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And your point is? I never said that the revision of the KJV was a myth. There have been several revisions, or, as I prefer to call them, editions, all which differ from one another in minor ways. I have noted there are 421 changes which can be heard when the 1611 is read from the pulpit and you follow along in your 1762/1769. How does Bob Ross and his web page contradict that?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Actually, there are several. The Tyndale, Geneva, KJV, ASV, NASV, NKJV, Jay Green's Literal Translation, KJVII, KJV for the 21st Century, and the 3rd Millenium bible, just to name a few.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, Thomas, I was about to say that. Also the ESV. There are no actual word-for-word translations available in English (outside of an interlinear). A Formal translation is not a wooden word-for-word translation, another strawman that needs putting to rest!

 

actually, it's FE that shd be the exception. because formal priority in a target language usually sounds unnatural in terms of idiom and word order, it shd be reserved for "special effect."

other than that, God forbid but we shd employ perfect 2002 parlance.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I am glad to see you have finally come over to my way of thinking. You will find that you new position is much easier to defend then the blanket endorsement of DE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Thomas,

My point is you referred to the idea that there are meaningful differences between the 1611 KJV and the KJV of today as a straw man. That page, along with the chart, clearly shows that this idea is indeed not a straw-man.

 

Tom, I guess you and I have a different definition of what makes something "meaningful" (a word I did not use).

Could you please point out to me a difference between the 1611 and the 1769 which you consider "meaningful" and give your reasons for believing such? Thank you.

 

Thomas,
No, you used the word "very." And you don't think the changes in number, that is, From singular to plural or plural to singular, are significant? (Jer 51:12; John 11:3) There is a big difference between one something and many somethings.
What about the change in pronoun number in Jeremiah 51:30? Ezekiel 24:5? Ruth 3:15?

You cannot get around the fact that the differences in the KJVs are more than insignificant. But I'm sure you'll try

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
And you don't think the changes in number, that is, From singular to plural or plural to singular, are significant? (Jer 51:12; John 11:3) There is a big difference between one something and many somethings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jeremiah 51:12 (1611) Set vp the standart vpon the walles of Babylon, make the watch strong: set vp the watchman: prepare the ambushes: for the LORD hath both deuised and done that, which hee spake against the inhabitants of Babylon.

Jeremiah 51:12 (1769) Set up the standard upon the walls of Babylon, make the watch strong, set up the watchmen, prepare the ambushes: for the LORD hath both devised and done that which he spake against the inhabitants of Babylon.

I suspect you are talking about the "e" and "a" difference? Simple typo corrected in later editions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What about the change in pronoun number in Jeremiah 51:30?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jeremiah 51:30 (1611)The mightie men of Babylon haue forborne to fight: they haue remained in their holdes: their might hath failed, they became as women: they haue burnt their dwelling places : her barres are broken.

Jeremiah 51:30 (1769) The mighty men of Babylon have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women: they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken.

Still refering to the same people/nation. No difference. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ezekiel 24:5?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ezekiel 24:5 (1611) Take the choice of the flocke, and burne also the bones vnder it, and make it boyle well, and let him seethe the bones of it therein.

Ezekiel 24:5 (1769) Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the bones under it, and make it boil well, and let them seethe the bones of it therein.

Antecedent is still the same. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ruth 3:15?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have 4 1611s. Only the first edition, first printing reads "he" and is very famous as the "He Bible." It was a printers error which was corrected in the 1611 edition, second printing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You cannot get around the fact that the differences in the KJVs are more than insignificant. But I'm sure you'll try.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tom, I generally consider your posts to be will thought out, but if you really think these little insignificant differences are of any consequence, well, I will have to revise my opinion of you (downward!). This type of s*t*u*p*i*d nit picking is unworthy of you! It sounds more like something a radical Ruckmanite would post! I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you had a bad day.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]