A new King James Bible defense book

[robycop3]

Skanwmatos:And the "King's English" and that of Shakespeare, was not the common language of the people either! That is the WHOLE POINT! How many more times do I have to make that very simple point!?

Until you accept the BRUTAL FACT(and also a simple point) that no English dialect in common use in 1611 is in common use today.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by HankD:
Forget it, it's a lost cause.

let the BB readers check the references and decide/discern for themselves.

HankD

God is always right. He is never wrong!

 

[HankD]

God is always right. He is never wrong!

Duh!

Amen gb.

HankD

 

[TC]

As to the original subject - this KJVOnlyism defense book, I still see no reason to buy it.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Until you accept the BRUTAL FACT(and also a simple point) that no English dialect in common use in 1611 is in common use today.

And until you accept the BRUTAL FACT that the English of the KJV was not in common use in England in 1611 either! Your entire "language" argument is invalid and a straw man. That has been proven over and over again but you keep coming back to it as a dog returns to his own vomit.

 

[TC]

The English of the KJV was in common use back then. The people then certainly knew it much better than people today. Ever read Shakespear? His writing is much like the KJV and the people then had no trouble reading it then. But people have trouble with it today.

 

[HankD]

That has been proven over and over again but you keep coming back to it “as a dog returns to his own vomit”.

Nice, in your innuendo you proved the point Robycop was making.

Until you accept the BRUTAL FACT(and also a simple point) that no English dialect in common use in 1611 is in common use today.

You used the word “returns” of “standard English (NASB, NKJV, RSV, etc)” rather than “returneth” of “KJV English”.

HankD

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by TC:
The English of the KJV was in common use back then.

No, it wasn't. The KJV, like the writings of Shakespeare, were written in the formal language thought suitable for publication, not in the common langage of the people. Shakespeare wrote in the formal style of all books, plays, etc., in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. In fact, not only did Shakespeare not write in the language of the common people he felt free to make up words as he went along if the existing formal English words were, in his judgment, insufficient for his purposes. It has been claimed that Shakespeare added as many as 2,000 words to the English language in that manner.

The people then certainly knew it much better than people today.

The common people "within the sound of Bow bells" certainly did not use Shakespeare's English in their common speaking.

Ever read Shakespear?

No, but I have read Shakespeare. And noted his very formal use of language.

His writing is much like the KJV and the people then had no trouble reading it then.

He writing, much like all formal writing of that day, was much like the KJV and quite unlike the common language of the people.

But people have trouble with it today.

Yep. But that doesn't make it be something other than what it is, Modern English.

 

[gb93433]

skanwmatos:

Not knowing all that much about the history of English myself then where would you draw the line? From what I read in the KJV many words have changed meaning in their common usage today. For example just in the last 20 years the word "computer" has changed meaning a lot. "Gay" is another. "Conversation" in the KJV has. So if you call the KJV modern English then how do you distinguish between that English and what is commonly spoken and written today?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
So if you call the KJV modern English then how do you distinguish between that English and what is commonly spoken and written today?

All philologists distinguish between Early Modern English (eME 1500-1800), and Late Modern English (lME 1800-Present). Out of Late Modern English came American English, which also birthed several dialects.

So, what is "commonly spoken and written today" is, in the US, one of the regional dialects of lME.

An excellent overview of the History of English can be found at http://www.wordorigins.org/histeng.htm

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
So if you call the KJV modern English then how do you distinguish between that English and what is commonly spoken and written today?

All philologists distinguish between Early Modern English (eME 1500-1800), and Late Modern English (lME 1800-Present). Out of Late Modern English came American English, which also birthed several dialects.

So, what is "commonly spoken and written today" is, in the US, one of the regional dialects of lME.

An excellent overview of the History of English can be found at http://www.wordorigins.org/histeng.htm </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks

 

[robycop3]

Skanwmatos:And until you accept the BRUTAL FACT that the English of the KJV was not in common use in England in 1611 either!

It musta been in use for the AV translators to have written in it. And it appears that every English reader of the time who read the AV and who commented about it understood what he'd read. so it musta been fairly common.

Your entire "language" argument is invalid and a straw man.

Actually, YOURS is. I stand upon REALITY. Reality is of GOD; falsehood is of the devil. And the REALITY is that the English dialects of 1611 are not in common use any more. Some examples of some of those dialects are preserved for us in the AV 1611, & the writings of Shakespeare, Milton, & King James, to name a few, and we don't see anyone writing or hear anyone speaking in any of those dialects except on special occasions such as the performance of a Shakespeare play, a reading of Milton's poetry, or a worship service using the KJV. Oh yes-there MIGHT be a colony on the island of Slobbovia which speaks in Elizabethan English only, but that's not common usage. By your reasoning, that would be just another little local dialect, eh?


That has been proven over and over again but you keep coming back to it as a dog returns to his own vomit.

That's an activity God built into a dog, and while it's disgusting for us, it's perfectly natural for a dog. Seems that some men think it's perfectly natural for themselves to keep harping about an asinine thing that flies in the face of the real-life world. You may call any English dialect of 400 years ago any name you like or place it into any category you like, but you simply cannot overcome the fact that the English of 400 years ago is different from today's English, and that the 400-yr-old English is no longer in everyday use. That's REALITY.(If you wish to give your dog a hit of Nux Vomica, feel free...)

 

[skanwmatos]

Study the link I gave to gb93433. It may help you avoid making such a public fool of yourself.

but you simply cannot overcome the fact that the English of 400 years ago is different from today's English, and that the 400-yr-old English is no longer in everyday use.

And it is interesting that you are so devoid of truth that you have to lie about what I said. I never said that today's English is not different from the English of the early 17th century. In fact I am the one who posted that today we use lME and in 1611 they used eME. You seem to have overlooked that. Also, if you would be honest for just a moment, you would notice I said that the English of the KJV was not the common English of those living within the sound of Bow's bells, which is a reference to those living in central London. Please, try to be honest. Lying is a terrible sin for a self-professed Christian to fall into.

 

[gb93433]

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
I rec'd the book in the mail sent free to me last year. I skimmed it and realized it was another same ole same ole biased book based on certain assumptions. I do not know even where the book is unless it's buried in my library, or perhaps I gave it away.
For a much, much, much better book, may I recommend Unbound Scriptures by Rick Norris? The book is fair, balanced, well documented, and if certain folks would read it with an open mind, maybe they'll realize their myth is just that!
--------------------------------------------------

I read Will Kinneys threads to which he refutes Norris on many points. I agree 100% with Will, and it only confirmed my position regarding this issue.

I also highly recommend Sorenson's book. It is not new, it has been out since 2000, so it is a few years on the market. I recently bought a few, and have almost finished reading it. What an eye-opener it can be for those who do not know much about this issue and why it is so important, and I praise the Lord for this book.

It is funny, how many (although not all) on here claim that we who stand for the pure word of God in the KJV would make claims and assumptions that we do not read both sides of the issue, when they themselves do not, and have no desire to. Amazing.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
" The RT is "guided
by usage of believing churches,"


What, when was the RCC church considered a believing church by a KJVO?

--------------------------------------------------

This is of course misunderstanding, and assuming that all the manuscripts used for Erasmus greek text, along with all other manuscripts that the KJV translators used was SOLELY from the RCC.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:

I read Will Kinneys threads to which he refutes Norris on many points. I agree 100% with Will, and it only confirmed my position regarding this issue.

Whew... What a relief. You agree with someone who draws their conclusion first then manipulates the facts to make them fit.

It is funny, how many (although not all) on here claim that we who stand for the pure word of God in the KJV would make claims and assumptions that we do not read both sides of the issue, when they themselves do not, and have no desire to. Amazing.

I used to be KJVO, as did many others here. I/we have read more than enough of the KJVO propaganda.

Also, there is a huge difference between reading a book with a discerning eye and just swallowing false teaching whole because it agrees with what we already believe.

Anti-KJVO's give references and use their references fairly and within context. If KJVO authors give references at all, they frequently use quotes out of context and twist meanings. I have found this to be true of even the more moderate KJVO's like Cloud. He selectively quotes from Philip Mauro in an effort to claim him as a KJVO. In context, Mauro's writings say nothing of the sort. His views would basically line up with Skan or HankD.

Speaking of both sides of the issue, I wrote a lengthy response to you in "Questions From A KJV-Onlyist".

Are you going to attempt escape and evasion again? Or for once, will you try to give real proof to counter solid refutation of your false dogma?

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
TC quoted:

As to the original subject - this KJVOnlyism defense book, I still see no reason to buy it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TC,

This book is not at all a KJVonlyist defense book. If you would read it, you would know this.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Scott J. quoted:

In context, Mauro's writings say nothing of the sort. His views would basically line up with Skan or HankD.

Speaking of both sides of the issue, I wrote a lengthy response to you in "Questions From A KJV-Onlyist".

Are you going to attempt escape and evasion again? Or for once, will you try to give real proof to counter solid refutation of your false dogma?
--------------------------------------------------

Scott,

What I have observed on these posts of Hank and Skan are in the same position as the mvo's only. They prefer the KJV, but do not find error in the mv's and, if they do, they do still approve of them. Their position is the same as the mvo's.

Regarding your lengthy post in response to me, I have not been on those threads today, for I have been reading all these posts on this thread, and have not yet seen your post. Why do you and others continue to "assume" that I am "attempting to escape and evasion again? Why do you even care? Because when I do respond and answer, many, including, you, disagree, call it emotional appeals, and state matter of factly that what I say is not true, that I am ignorant concerning this, and not biblically supported, and in reality have no real desire for the answers, but only to tear it apart. Many here already misunderstand mine, and others positions regarding this issue, and approach us, and read our posts with this false understanding and label that has been applied to us.

I have repeatedly asked of many of you all, for scriptural support for approving of, and using of those things that would corrupt God's word, and no one has provided it. Not one of you has provided scriptural support, that God would not preserve his words for every generation or that he would allow his children to believe additions to his words for generations. Why are you and many here avoiding answering my questions? Do you believe that you have available today, God's very words of truth accurately preserved for you that are authoritative in all matters of life and faith? If so, which one? Do you really believe that all the mv's that differ are the very preserved words of God for you? If so, then please tell me, how you judge what is, and what isn't the preserved words of God for you, if this version has this scripture, and the other doesn't? Please explain this to me and include scriptural support. Please also explain to me how the doctrine of biblical separation has nothing to do with the very words of God? Please provide scriptural support. No one here, has even remotely come close to convincing me that the mv's based upon the critical greek text are God's preserved words for us, in not only our language, but any other.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[KJV Warrior]

Is it OK for me to post on this forum? I don't want to be accused again of trying to " hijack" a forum. Is this an open forum or is it closed?