skanwmatos
New Member
You seem to have missed the point. ALL of them are Modern English.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A new King James Bible defense book
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
I'm sorry, but in reality, maybe the Bible is not "strictly speaking"; old English, but the Words Have changed in the last 200 years. Like was stated before, if you were to speak in the style of English used in the Bible, your co-workers would think you were crazy.
I have nothing against the KJV whatsoever. I posted that clearly when I told you my stance. The KJV was an MV when it was translated.
I do not appreciate being accused of "putting down" the KJV, it is simply an older translation and (most) MV's carry the exact same message; therefore, there is a big difference between what I say about the KJV and what you say about the MV's; calling them "anti-christ", "demonic" whatever. This is skating on thin Ice. If one can be saved using an MV, it obviously carries the testament of Jesus Christ. The anti-Christ would not want this.
Now, if you will, please give me the translation which is the "true and inspired", the 1611, or a version thereafter? Only ONE can be 100% inerrant as far as text goes. Which one? Or are they all, in your view? That is all I ask, one single question. This is not an attack.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
I was referring to your pathetic KJVOnlyism. But of course you already knew that. Perhaps this is an attempt to add "bearing false witness" to the list of extremes to which you will go to defend your Unscriptural position.
Unless, of course, you are equating God with the "King James Bible." If that is the case, then you really have taken your KJV-Onlyism to an unsafe level.
Read it again! What does this verse say? </font>[/QUOTE]
Okay, here it is in the 1599 Geneva Bible:
For I haue giuen vnto them the wordes which thou gauest me, and they haue receiued them, and haue knowen surely that I came out from thee, and haue beleeued that thou hast sent me.
Notice that this Passage does not mandate one Translation in ANY language. If you are implying otherwise, not only are you lying, you are adding to the Message.
Read it again! What does it say?</font>[/QUOTE]Once again, from the 1599 Geneva Bible:
(But nowe is opened, and published among all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophetes, at the commandement of the euerlasting God for the obedience of faith).
Now, let's look at the ENTIRE sentence:
To him nowe that is of power to establish you according to my Gospel, and preaching of Iesus Christ, by the reuelation of the mysterie, which was kept secrete since the worlde began: (But nowe is opened, and published among all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophetes, at the commandement of the euerlasting God for the obedience of faith) To God, I say, only wise, be praise through Iesus Christ for euer. Amen. <Written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe, seruaunt of the Church which is at Cenchrea.>
Note that this also fails to lend ANY legimitacy to your claim that there is only one translation in the English language.
As you are willing to take Scripture out of context to defend your Unscriptural KJV-Onlyism, I am now of the opinion that you are rapidly approaching a violation of two of the 10 Commandments.
Pastor KevinR
New Member
The point I'm trying to make, along with a few others is that albiet the English of the KJV is "Modern English", no one I know speaks like the English of the KJV, as a matter of fact, not one person on this entire thread, has written the same way the the AV was written. Although the English of the KJV is "Modern" and at the same time we speak "Modern English", there's still a distinction of the "Modern English" of 1611, and that of 2004. What am I missing here?
Skanwmatos:You seem to have missed the point. ALL of them are Modern English.
No, I haven't; YOU have, by acting as if people still use 17th C. English for everyday conversation.
The Model-T is a modern car, but how often do you see anyone using one for everyday transportation?
No, I haven't; YOU have, by acting as if people still use 17th C. English for everyday conversation.
The Model-T is a modern car, but how often do you see anyone using one for everyday transportation?
John 17:8For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.
26but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith--
Once again, not one hint about any particular language, let alone any given version in one language. It takes quite a stretch of a fevered imagination to read KJVOism into either of these passages.
A_A:Did God give you His ONE Book? Or Did God give you His MANY Books for your ONE tongue -- English-speaking?
Many.
Why 2 sides -- "accurate and corrupted" Bibles that you have there?
They're all accurate.
26but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith--
Once again, not one hint about any particular language, let alone any given version in one language. It takes quite a stretch of a fevered imagination to read KJVOism into either of these passages.
A_A:Did God give you His ONE Book? Or Did God give you His MANY Books for your ONE tongue -- English-speaking?
Many.
Why 2 sides -- "accurate and corrupted" Bibles that you have there?
They're all accurate.
I have 1525, 1537 and 1557 NT. They mostly agreed with the KJV. Should I complain about the accuracy? Why you? </font>[/QUOTE]Hello, you are the one that said I have corrupted Bible version and should get an accurate one. Now, you are acting like I'm the one that has a problem with those versions. However, it is more of your double standards shining through.
skanwmatos
New Member
The point I'm trying to make, along with a few others is that albiet the English of the KJV is "Modern English", no one I know speaks like the English of the KJV, as a matter of fact, not one person on this entire thread, has written the same way the the AV was written. Although the English of the KJV is "Modern" and at the same time we speak "Modern English", there's still a distinction of the "Modern English" of 1611, and that of 2004. What am I missing here? </font>[/QUOTE]That is exactly my point. For a few of the massively uninformed to continue to insist that the KJV is not Modern English is ridiculous. The KJV is just as much Modern English as Ebonics is Modern English, even though Ebonics is even less understandable than Chaucer! The problem seems to be that too many of the posters suffer from a regional bias which assumes that their form of English is the standard which is simply not true. There are many quite difference dialects all of which are Modern English, including the English of the KJV.
skanwmatos
New Member
Please don't lie about what I said or believe. I have said it over and over again. The KJV, according to every Philologist in print, is Modern English. And, again, there are literally dozens of regional dialects, all different, and all Modern English.
skanwmatos
New Member
Show him/them this as well
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Which, unfortunately for you and your position, does not exist.
Alex Mullins
New Member
Unfortunately, there are only so many ways to say these things without sounding repetitive.
I love the KJB because it works for me. I also suspect it is the one God wants me to use today because it is (A) His pure, perfect, infallable, inerrant, preserved word for me today or (B) it is the closest thing to it.
A few questions:
1. Would God be able to, if He so desired, to preserve His word, 100% free of error, if He wanted to? (My answer would be "Yes")
2. Why would He desire anything less than that for His children? (Yy answer would be "He wouldn't".)
3. Is it possible that Satan might want to get into the word, tinker with it, corrupt it, make it less effective and cause God's people to bicker and fight over it. (My answer would be "He, would and did do that")
Take a quick look at a few verses, from the Gospels alone) and see how they have been corrupted. There are thousands of differences, omissions, some more subtle than others. The name of "the Lord Jesus Christ" has been reduced to "He", "The One", "Lord" in thousands of places throught the 66 books. Interesting that Muslims, Buddhists, Satanists, Englishment refer to their leaders as "Lord", isn't it?
Here are but a very few changes to consider when comparing the KJB with the NIV. The differnces run into the hundreds of thousands when comparing the KJB with all of the other 25 MV's but generally tend to agree against the KJB in the same places.
- Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 19.9, 20:7, 20:22, 23:14, 25:13
- Mark 2:17, 6:11, 7:16, 9:42, 9:44, 9:46, 9:49, 13:33, 15:28, 16: 9-20 (The footnotes in the NIV for these last 12 verses of Mark have been proven to be patently false but the "educated" will still try to defend their omission. )
- Luke 1: 28, 4:4, 4:8, 4:41, 9:54-56, 11:2-4, 17:36, 21:4, 23:17, 23:42, 24:6.
- John 1: 14 (There is no exact equivalent for the word "begotten"), 1:27, 3:13, 5:3-4, 6:47 (two small but very important words omitted), 16:16, 17;12
The list is far too exhaustive to compare and list here.
Suffice it to say that the KJB (1611) and the three subsequent revisions (not rewritings) have stood the test of time.
Prior to Westcott and Hort (late 1800") my guess is that there was very little bickering over the "versions".
I know many who have researched this and have arrived at the same conclusion, that the KJB is in fact God's perfect word for us today, just the way He wanted it, just the way he planned.
I know none who can make the same claim for any one of the others.
Now that we have it settled once and for all lets get out there and tell them about the prescious message.
God bless all of you who are about to attack me personally for my stand on this vital issue.
Alex
I love the KJB because it works for me. I also suspect it is the one God wants me to use today because it is (A) His pure, perfect, infallable, inerrant, preserved word for me today or (B) it is the closest thing to it.
A few questions:
1. Would God be able to, if He so desired, to preserve His word, 100% free of error, if He wanted to? (My answer would be "Yes")
2. Why would He desire anything less than that for His children? (Yy answer would be "He wouldn't".)
3. Is it possible that Satan might want to get into the word, tinker with it, corrupt it, make it less effective and cause God's people to bicker and fight over it. (My answer would be "He, would and did do that")
Take a quick look at a few verses, from the Gospels alone) and see how they have been corrupted. There are thousands of differences, omissions, some more subtle than others. The name of "the Lord Jesus Christ" has been reduced to "He", "The One", "Lord" in thousands of places throught the 66 books. Interesting that Muslims, Buddhists, Satanists, Englishment refer to their leaders as "Lord", isn't it?
Here are but a very few changes to consider when comparing the KJB with the NIV. The differnces run into the hundreds of thousands when comparing the KJB with all of the other 25 MV's but generally tend to agree against the KJB in the same places.
- Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 19.9, 20:7, 20:22, 23:14, 25:13
- Mark 2:17, 6:11, 7:16, 9:42, 9:44, 9:46, 9:49, 13:33, 15:28, 16: 9-20 (The footnotes in the NIV for these last 12 verses of Mark have been proven to be patently false but the "educated" will still try to defend their omission. )
- Luke 1: 28, 4:4, 4:8, 4:41, 9:54-56, 11:2-4, 17:36, 21:4, 23:17, 23:42, 24:6.
- John 1: 14 (There is no exact equivalent for the word "begotten"), 1:27, 3:13, 5:3-4, 6:47 (two small but very important words omitted), 16:16, 17;12
The list is far too exhaustive to compare and list here.
Suffice it to say that the KJB (1611) and the three subsequent revisions (not rewritings) have stood the test of time.
Prior to Westcott and Hort (late 1800") my guess is that there was very little bickering over the "versions".
I know many who have researched this and have arrived at the same conclusion, that the KJB is in fact God's perfect word for us today, just the way He wanted it, just the way he planned.
I know none who can make the same claim for any one of the others.
Now that we have it settled once and for all lets get out there and tell them about the prescious message.
God bless all of you who are about to attack me personally for my stand on this vital issue.
Alex
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Alex,
If you believe that the King James Bible is the "perfect Word of God," and wish to use it exclusively, that is perfectly fine. If you qualify that as a personal preference, then you are okay in my book. But if you falsely claim, as others on the board do, that this personal preference is Doctrine, then you have crossed the line.
NOBODY can provide a Scriptural Justification for the exclusion of all other English translations of God's Holy Word.
Though I love the 1611 Authorised Version (probably more than you do), I disagree with you on its perfection for two reasons:
1. In many areas it was simply a copy of the previous versions.
2. King James' motive for commissioning this translation was less than virtuous.
3. King James wasn't the righteous person that some on this list have made him.
Notice that I qualify this as a personal preference and I have not held this out as Doctrine. Also, note that I do not flame those who post rational thoughts.
Hope this post finds you well.
If you believe that the King James Bible is the "perfect Word of God," and wish to use it exclusively, that is perfectly fine. If you qualify that as a personal preference, then you are okay in my book. But if you falsely claim, as others on the board do, that this personal preference is Doctrine, then you have crossed the line.
NOBODY can provide a Scriptural Justification for the exclusion of all other English translations of God's Holy Word.
Though I love the 1611 Authorised Version (probably more than you do), I disagree with you on its perfection for two reasons:
1. In many areas it was simply a copy of the previous versions.
2. King James' motive for commissioning this translation was less than virtuous.
3. King James wasn't the righteous person that some on this list have made him.
Notice that I qualify this as a personal preference and I have not held this out as Doctrine. Also, note that I do not flame those who post rational thoughts.
Hope this post finds you well.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company.
More:
Amsler, Mark. "From Standard Latin to Standard English." Language Variation in North American English: Research and Teaching. Ed. Wayne A. Glowka and Donald M. Lance. New Yourk: MLA, 1993.
Cable, Thomas. "Rise of Written Standard English." The Emergence of National Languages*. Ed. Aldo Scaglione. Ravenna: Longo, 1984.
Crowley, Tony. Standard English and the Politics of Language. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1988.
James Milroy and Leslie Milroy, "Standard English and the complaint tradition, in their book Authority in Language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1983)
Shaklee, Margaret. "The Rise of Standard English." Standards and Dialects in English. Ed. Timothey Shopen and Joseph M. Williams. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1980.
Wright, Laura. "On the Writing of the History of Standard English." English Historical Linguistics 1992. Ed. Francisco Fernandez, Miguel Furster, and Juan Jose Calvo. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1994.
HankD
[ March 29, 2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
So you admit that it is modern English?
Perhaps, but they would understand what you are saying for the most part.
Do you or don't you believe that the language of the KJV is archaic?
Stop fast while you still have some credibility. I am surprised that someone hasn't corrected you on my Bible stance yet. I also offer a challenge. Please point out where I claimed MVs were "anti-christ", "demonic" or anything of the like. I only want one quote.
It would be if I lined up with the picture you drew of my beliefs.
Agreed. Of course, Satan thought he killed Christ too.
The original manuscripts authored by the Holy Spirit through men of God. Now that wasn't so hard was it.
Now, if you will, please give me the translation which is the "true and inspired", the 1611, or a version thereafter? Only ONE can be 100% inerrant as far as text goes. Which one? Or are they all, in your view? That is all I ask, one single question. This is not an attack.
The facts remain the same. The KJV is an understandable translation written in modern English.
Jason
By the way, I am anxiously looking forward to what you can dig up about what I have said about MVs.
Pastor KevinR
New Member
Skan, thanks for clearing it up, I gotta admit, it seemed "appled and oranged" to me.
skanwmatos
New Member
"Word on the Street: Debunking the Myth of "Pure" Standard English" by John McWhorter.
"The Standard Language Myth" by Esther Akehurst, Joel Stanier and Jack Mellin.
"The Myth of Language Abuse" by Mark Sebba and Erika Hoyt.
"Boddah You?" by Cynthia Oi.
"Influences of Regional versus National Standards in Dialect Shift: A Case Study in the Southeastern United States." The Morpho-Syntax Interface, The Acquisition of Syntax, and The Myth of Standard English. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 2000.
"The Language Instinct" University of Berne, Department of English.
"The Standard Language Myth" by Esther Akehurst, Joel Stanier and Jack Mellin.
"The Myth of Language Abuse" by Mark Sebba and Erika Hoyt.
"Boddah You?" by Cynthia Oi.
"Influences of Regional versus National Standards in Dialect Shift: A Case Study in the Southeastern United States." The Morpho-Syntax Interface, The Acquisition of Syntax, and The Myth of Standard English. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 2000.
"The Language Instinct" University of Berne, Department of English.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
This article has to do with spoken accent in language, and not written language. Their conclusion is that there is standard English - but that people don't speak it. Accent changes everything. This doesn't seem to help your conclusion.
"The Myth of Language Abuse" is a class paper, not a published article, and can be found at: http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/cis/wp/hoyt/LanguageAbuseMyth.htm
"Boddah You" is from http://www.bambooridge.com/danews.asp?n=4, and is in no way on the scholastic level as the ones that Hank presented, and is about pidgin language. How exactly does this help you?
How does McWhorter's piece back up your assertion? Do you have a quote or two here?
And the Language Instinct was written by Stephen Pinker - where did you get the University of Berne?
Honestly, what kind of scholarship is this?