A very silly KJVO argument...

Only problem is that is not what Paul is saying. When Jesus said if your hand offends you to cut it off, it is obvious hyperbole. Or maybe you actually believe Jesus was telling people to literally cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes? Oh yeah, I forgot, you believe babies are born with the ability to speak lies, are poisonous like adders, and have teeth like lions. So obviously you do not understand what hyperbole is.

If you are correct Paul is wishing physical harm to another human being, a very un-Christian attitude.

And I showed before, commentators like Matthew Henry understood cut off to mean to disassociate with false teachers, not to have fellowship with them. I agree with Henry's interpretation, not yours.

But the real point I am trying to make is that the KJV and the MVs are very different and are not saying the same thing in many verses.

 

But the real point I am trying to make is that the KJV and the MVs are very different and are not saying the same thing in many verses.

Where is the "in my opinion."? In my opinion they aren't that different. Anyone with any reasonable level of intelligence, when reading the Bible in context, and not lifting out stand alone proof texts to support an opinion, would have no problem with a MV. In fact, in my opinion, one who speaks and reads modern english, would have even less problems. Personally, I have no problems with the KJV because of my life long exposure to it. However, I can tell you story after story of new Christians who have had no exposure to the KJV who perfer a MV because it is easier for them to understand.

 

When I spoke of politics, I was referring to your answer where you did not take a stand. It's like the politician that came to my door and asked for my vote. I asked, "Are you pro-life or pro-choice?" He said, "I am pro-solution!" with a big grin on his face. I asked him to leave and promised I would never vote for him. He asked why, and I told him you can't ride the fence on this matter, you are either on one side or the other.

And that is what I keep asking here. I have demonstrated that the KJV and MVs are very different and do not say the same thing in many verses. In the example of Acts 13:20 there is an obvious problem, either the KJV must be in error or the MVs must be in error. They cannot both be inerrant at the same time.

But you insist Acts 13:20 is the same in both versions. Even Dr. Bob did not say that. And I have no idea if Jonathan Borland is KJVO or not. He simply said that the Alexandrian (MVs) and Byzantine (KJV) manuscripts differ very distinctly. He did not say he was KJVO.

What I have noticed though is that when you come right out and ask those who support the MVs if the KJV is corrupt and full of errors, they suddenly disappear and refuse to answer the question. I think that is very revealing.

 

Well, I wouldn't say guesswork and opinion, I would say faith. Now you are correct, God never said in his word that he would preserve the scriptures in the English language in a version called the Authorized King James Version. Of course, he didn't mention any other version as well.

But I believe God clearly promised to preserve his word.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

And when God said he would preserve his word (which he did), he also said his word was pure, which means without corruption. So, his word is not like those books a few years back called "Where's Waldo", where we have to hope we can find God's word in a jumble of man's writings.

Now, maybe you don't believe this. I will admit is is a matter of faith, I have no absolute way of proving this. That is what faith is. If there was absolute proof, then there would be no faith required.

But if you agree that God preserved his word, then the question is, "Where is it?". It must be somewhere. It cannot be in all the various versions, because they are very different from each other. In fact, all the versions are different, even the MVs are very different from each other.

There are really only two possibilities.

#1 God did not preserve his word and it is lost forever.

#2 God did preserve his word in one version.

This is not rocket science. It is simple, straightforward, and pure logic.

 

Sorry, but you are only wishing there were only two possibilities. A third possibility is that you are wrong and God preserved his word in a variety of good translations.

 

Ann, no matter how many times I say it, you just can't seem to grasp my position. I agree with you 100% that translation is difficult. I agree that the men who translated the KJV were normal, fallible men.

You keep talking about the translators, I am talking about God. My faith is that God promised to preserve his word. I simply believe God made sure those translators got it right. Did they believe themselves to be infallible? No. But God used them just the way he used very normal men in the scriptures.

James 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.

Elijah was a very normal man, that is what this verse is saying. He had the same problems we all have. He made mistakes. But he had faith in God and God used him.

And this is what I believe about the KJV. I believe God moved men to write the scriptures in the language of the common man so every man could know God's word for himself and be saved. No longer would he be dependent upon the church (especially the RCC) to be told what God was saying in his word. They didn't call it the Dark Ages without reason, the Catholic church held men in ignorance for centuries, telling men they had their very souls in their hands. There were a few here and there that had the uncorrupted scriptures, and they were hunted down and killed without mercy.

These translators did not claim to be prophets, they freely admitted they were normal men. But they were good and honest men, and experts in the original languages. I simply believe God was behind their work, preserving his word as he had promised to do.

 

Or not. God's word is with us. We have in many, many English translations although none of them are perfect... nor will they ever be perfect. Why? Because the original was not written in English and any translation will not be in perfect unison with the source because of the differences between the languages themselves.

For some reason you seem to completely miss this very simple concept. It's not what you or anyone else would prefer (I know I don't), but that is the way it is. If you want something better then get to cracking on learning ancient Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek because that will be the only way you are going to get it.

Amen, brother. Sad to see that the KJVO crowd would rather believe in a translation than the One who wrote the original.

I added emphasis for a reason. You say "I believe" and "I believe" that, but it is not "scripture says" this or "scripture says" that. there is a big difference between the two.

So do I. God has also been behind many other groups of translators since then but you refuse to recognize this. The KJV translators were experts and so are those who have translated the scriptures since then. The only differences between then and now are the amount of manuscripts available and the many more tools and other data that are available now that was not available then.

It is a good thing that you have faith in the KJV and I commend you for it. Honestly I do. you stick by your guns and I admire that. My problem is when you try to take that and apply it to everyone else. That crosses over from personal conviction to man-made doctrine and only those like minded will accept that.

 

You and Miles Smith make too much sense. It's perfectly rational and therefore totally unacceptable to the KJVO mindset.

 

I found this difference thanks to Animal Planet while watching a program called Beasts of the Bible.


I have always believed that when Aaron threw down his rod in Pharaoh's palace that it became a snake.

NIV - Exd 7:12 -
Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.

NLT - Exd 7:12 -
Their staffs became snakes, too! But then Aaron's snake swallowed up their snakes.


But that is not correct.


KJV - Exd 7:12 -
For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

ESV - Exd 7:12 -
For each man cast down his staff, and they became serpents. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.

NASB - Exd 7:12 -
For each one threw down his staff and they turned into serpents. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.



Notice even the MV'S disagree with each other, but it is clear that the NIV and NLT are incorrect in their translation of "snake".


The Hebrew word used in this verse is tanniyn.

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
8577. tanniyn
Nynt tanniyn tan-neen'
or tanniym (Ezek. 29:3) {tan-neem'}; intensive from the same as 8565; a marine or land monster, i.e. sea-serpent or jackal:--dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale.

This is not a snake.


In Genesis, we also see the word "serpent", but it is a different Hebrew word, which does mean snake.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
5175. nachash
vxn nachash naw-khawsh'
from 5172; a snake (from its hiss):--serpent.



The snake in the NIV and NLT referred to in Ex 7:12 is not a snake at all. This is a mistranslation.


The point is that like Winman has said, all versions do NOT say the same thing.

 

Which word are you referring to? The one in Genesis or the one in Exodus? Which Strong's number?