Do You Admire Any Preachers...

Has everything to do with the KJV when I have it in my hands as I read it. maybe your experience is something different?

 

Your opinion. I dont ever find Jesus wholisticly using the Douay Rheims.

You gotta chip on your shoulder about the Dutch Version. Since i know absolutely NOTHING about it your insistence is rather boring.

But the KJV is far superior.

You've fabricated this is your mind all by yourself. My own words are a version of the Bible in your ideas about versions and I know my words are not equal to the KJV.

I believe any translation ought to follow the KJV for clarity and superiority. Those which deviate, deviate.

How can you overlook my insertion of "First Bible" and make your claims?

I'm all for having the Bible in the native tongues of those who do not have the Bible.

My friends with First Bible recently signed an agreement with the Prime Minister of Mongolia to begin printing John and Romans in the Mongolian tongue. This endeavor is the first time they will ever have the word of God in their language.

Something is very wrong with your view of what I've said.

maybe I'm not as "KJVO" as you like to preclude? but then again maybe you're......:BangHead:

 

True, and all the more reason to be certain why those words were written as they are and exactly what they mean.

 

You don't find Jesus holistically using the KJV either.

It's not that I have a chip on my shoulder. It's that the KJVO argument falls apart with the introduction of any nonenglish translation of scripture. Same applies with the Reina-Valera. No KJVOist can explain how the KJV is superior to non-english translations.

Wow, that doesn't follow your argument. You accused me of attacking the KJV in this thread; I replied "I haven't made any specific comments about the KJV at all. " and your reply is "the KJV is far superior". The fact is you falsely accused me of attacking the KJV. You need to retract that statement.

Base on what?

My language is contemporary American English. The KJV is not written in contemporary American English.

You believe that all translations should be subject to the KJV in regards to superiority. There's nothing in scripture that warrants that. Further, there's nothign in the history of bible translations that supports that idea.

 

All your vitriole isn't worth answering

and your contemporary English is not native. The KJV is understandable to anyone who wants to research its words, that is not necessarilly the case with other versions. they depend upon dialect and cultural addages to understand them.

Nope, I believe the KJV ought to be referenced to explain things in english.

You're really obsessed with this "KJVO" junk aren't you.

 

Of course you're not going to answer it. You'd have to acknowlege that you falsely accused me of something.

You're quite in error, on several accounts. First, the language of the KJV was considered archaic even by people in the 1600's. Second, the first settlers of the American Colonies used the Geneva, not the KJV. In fact, their use of the Geneva Bible was one of the reasons they were being persecuted by the British government.

There are several problems with that.

First, the text of the KJV no longer conveys correct meaning in several palces, due to evolving lenguage. For example, "corn" today is called "grain"; "brass" today is called "bronze", "suffer" today is called "permit", "advertize" today is "advise" and "God save the King" today is translated "long live the King".

Second, there are also transliterations which were used due to a lack of antropological knowlege. For example, the word transliterated "leviathan" is what the OT Hebrews referred to as a "crocodile". The word transliterated "behemoth" is the old Hebrew word for what they called a "water ox". Today, the water ox is known as a hippopotamus. The translators of the KJV and prior did not know what these referred to, so they simply transliterated the words.

Third, it presumes that future use of English will remain consistent with 17th century English. The fact is that English is constantly evolving, and will continue to do so.

Fourth, it presumes one should reference a translation of a writing as superior, rather than reference the writing itself as superior. That notion is contradictory to the very concept of translating.

It's actually you, not me, who keeps beinging up the KJV-as-superior issue, which is a form of KJVOism. Since that's false doctrine, it's reasonable that others call that false doctrine out.

 

Elder bradley's name correctly spelled is
Lasserre Bradley.
Before his conversion to the Doctrines of Grace, he suffered many trials in the other order that he pastored and had many battles within himself. He loved the doctrine of the Primitive's but he thought that if he could just find a spot where no one knew the doctrines of grace that he found continually confronting him but he wrestled with the flesh until he found that if the doctrines was in the Bible, then he wanted to do the will of GOD moreover than sumit to the doctrines that his former church believed in. He has been with the Primitive Baptist for sense 1957 or 08. I am not absolutely sure but I think it was in the month of October. I believe a total of 61yrs. and still contends to the doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints. In fact, he has said that he had went to his Pastor of the other order while he was wrestleing within himself and asked them about the doctrines taught in the Bible about Election and Predestination and he was told by his Pastor at that time that it is/was in the Bible but don't preach it, because that doctrine has caused more division and splits in the church than any other doctrine. Just go preach and forget about it as if it wasn't in the Bible. But he said I can't preach against it if it is in the Bible. His former Pastor told him, you go ahead and preach that and your followers will leave the church and you will be left to yourself, but as a matter of fact, the church is still growing here in 2009.

 

Nope, it's just that a discussion with you is a never ending saga

Only in your world, the Geneva was purely a Puritan thing.

Only in your world

Nuances, nuances and not exactly the truth.

Nope, it is established, never presumptuous.

Perversion of a language in no way constitutes accuracy, that, Sir, IS exactly what is happening to the English and you decry that which is at first pure.

Waiting for you to insert the dutch at any time now:type:

It's only an issue to those who can't stand its superiority.

You create a strawman and then burn him at the stake for having a brain.

 

Of course, because I consistently ask you to provide support for your "KJV is superior" claim, and you never do.

Let me get this straight: Your position is that future use of English will remain consistent with 17th century English?

There is no evidence to support the concept of superiority of any English translation over any other.

The fact remains, there is no scriptural or historical support for the concept of sincle-translation-onlyism.

Single-translation-onlyism is quite a strawman argument.

 

I have proven it in several threads and your OPD is just as serious as roby's OPD.

man, yall need to get help!

 

Charles Stanley and J. Vernon Mcgee. sorry to interupt I just wanted to answer the original question.

God's Grace, Bill

 

:laugh: funny that answering the OP would be considered interrupting. But around here it usually is.

 

Only interupted Johnv and his rants as well as roby's rants.

 

Not to mention YOURS! D'oh!!

 

only rants I've seen her are yours, Mr. Garvey

 

I happen to like Charles Stanley quite a bit. I remember a few years back some wackos complained he was preaching "too much" about God's love. I didn't know there was such a thing. Go figure.

 

I do not know about that, but you could nominate your buddy John Calvin for a preacher you admire. You know, Mr. Fire and Water, fire for burning people at the stake, and water for sprinkling infants.

 

BTW, D James Kennedy used the KJV exclusively in his ministry's earler years, and switched to the NIV later in years. I always loved D Hames Kennedy, even though he speant more time preaching politics than gospel sometimes.