you say some of the most unusual things when defending your OPINION.</font>[/QUOTE] At this point, I am not defending an opinion. Just stating a fact about the way this argument goes.
KJVO's tend to lump all MV's together and all non-KJVO's together. To many KJVO's, anyone who doesn't agree with them is a liberal and not a Bible believer.
If this generalization is not accurate then feel free to disprove it. However, anyone who objectively looks at even the debate as it goes on this board will know that my contention is true.
you espouse your opinion without true knowledge.</font>[/QUOTE] You disagree? Based on what "true knowledge"?
The facts are the facts. Lockman has the statement of faith required for its translators posted on their website. They list their translators and their credentials. Some of their contributors come from places like Dallas Theological and Bob Jones.
They are the only group of translators that has ever put themselves on record as believing in inerrancy- every one of them. Their beliefs are far more fundamental than those of the KJV translators.No. But you are.
No, I only used the all too common logic of the mv crowd in their determination to justify ANY modern version.</font>[/QUOTE] You haven't used any logic at all when making these charges. You show no grasp of the "logic" commonly used by non-KJVO's.None of us that I am aware of tag a commentary with "version". That is the label that is rightly given to all translations.How? How does that show my lack of study?
English is a living language. Definitions change over time and words drop out of usage. That is fact whether you accept it or not.
But beyond word definitions, the KJV does have some textual flaws. God never said "God forbid" in Romans. He just didn't.
There are other places where the KJV translators followed their opinion on a text when there were other available options with merit. They admitted as much and included alternative readings in the margins. That is also fact whether you accept it or not.
No flaw or weakness in the KJV that I know of threatens any doctrine. But it is ridiculous beyond belief to say that the only way God's Word can accurately be expressed in English is by the words of the King James VERSION of the Bible.
It is a translation of very human, very fallible, doctrinally unsound MEN. It did not proceed from a moving of the Holy Spirit as did the originals.
Does TNIV help KJVO?
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Phillip, Mar 1, 2005.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
Again, this is simply a fact and no amount of denial on your part will change it.
I am all for study aids, commentaries, and anything else that will help one discern the same meaning as communicated by the originals... but on the other hand, the originals were given in the language of the people. It was the language they used every day... they weren't walking around with a dictionary so they could understand the diction and grammar of their Bibles. -
-
:rolleyes:
[ March 07, 2005, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: C4K ] -
-
-
KJV Philemon 1:7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.
NKJV Philemon 1:7 For we have great joy and consolation in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed by you, brother.
HankD -
-
Now. back to the OP. The TNIV should not help KJVOnlyism. Each translation should stand or fall on its own merit and not on the merit (or lack thereof) of a different translation.
-
Again, since KJVO's tend to lump all MV's into one big pot... along with anyone who uses them, any truly 'bad' version will only fan the flames.
-
It doesn't matter whether English is the language of commerce or not and I haven't altered English. Most of the differences between current English and KJV English occurred long before my birth. I am not changing anything for my satisfaction. I am simply recognizing a fact.
Are you so delusional that you can't discern that English is a living language?
The only people who use themselves as the final authority on this issue are KJVO's like yourself. You have no factual support. Your reasoning is completely irrational. But most of all, you have absolutely no... REPEAT NO!, scriptural support for what you believe about the KJV.
If you could prove that only one version at a time were approved by God then the facts would mitigate against the KJV. Its text was created by a Roman Catholic and it was translated by Anglicans who held a number of false beliefs. -
KJV 2 Samuel 16:16 And it came to pass, when Hushai the Archite, David's friend, was come unto Absalom, that Hushai said unto Absalom, God save the king, God save the king.
Again, "God" is nowhere in the Hebrew text HAYA HEMELEK but is better translated IMO: Long life to the king!
I have seen KJVO folks defend these expressions as an acceptable dynamic equivalence translation of an implied prayer to God.
HankD -
Plain ol'Ralph:Your "logic", Sir, is ill-logic, and you hung yourself in your attempt in the very first response.
Did I? Where's your PROOF to the contrary? All I've seen so far are GUESSWORK& EXCUSES. Please show us the Greek justification for "God forbid" in sundry NT verses. Please prove to us that "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is correct when easter didn't exist in the time of Herod Agrippa and Luke. Please justify "the image of" in Romans 11:4. PLEASE PROVIDE SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION FOR BELIEVING THE KJVO MYTH! Now, WHAT'S illogical...the PROVEN FACTS against the KJVO myth, or the KJVOs' guesswork, imagination, excuses, fairy tales, straw men, double standards, and outright DISHONESTY in support of it?
That's it, though, you may get away with what you espoused, to the less educated and illiterate, but not here.
Right...WE KNOW, AND HAVE REPEATEDLY PROVEN that KJVO is false. Yet, these educated KJVOs believe they have enough imagination to make it legit.
Wemake use of our dictionaries everyday, and contend earnestly for the faith once handed down,
So do we...while using Bibles in our own language as well as older versions whose language is now out of everyday use. God, and His word, are ALIVE.
as well as refute any attempt to "point out errors", or show "inaccuracies" in the King James Bible, REPEATEDLY and to the vehement reactions by your class daily.
Sir, you haven't refuted ANYTHING. Shoot, you can't even tell us WHICH KJV EDITION is the "perfect" one, let alone justify the PROVEN BOOBOOS in the KJV. Most telling of all, you CANNOT provide the first peep of SCRIPTURE to support your KJVO myth.
One may say you are "mad", by your much speaking, as one that beateth the air, I suppose.
And YOU think that by your little speaking that you're gonna probe me & others like me wrong? THAT'S what's mad. We have FACTS...YOU have GUESSWORK.
Fact: "Easter: in Acts 12;4 is WRONG.
KJVO response: Herod was observing a feast of Ishtar...PURE GUESSWORK
Fact: Easter didn't exist in Luke's time, so he could not possibly have been writing about it.
KJVO response: I just toldja about Ishtar! never mind it was pronounced "ish" as Ishmael and "tar" as target. never mind Luke wrote 'pascha' which in his day meant only 'Passover'. It's RIGHT cuz it's in de KJV!
Fact: "The image of" in the KJV's Romans 11:4 is NOT found in any known Greek sources for this verse, nor in the Hebrew of 1 Kings 19:18, the verse which Paul is quoting, nor in any English translation of 1 Kings 19:18.
KJVO response: It's in de KJV so it's RIGHT.
Fact: There's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. Therefore it's shown false without even looking at any other detail about it.
KJVO response: D'oh!
Try dealing with each of those PROVEN FACTS, and THEN tell us who's "mad". Then, we can move on to many more facts.
And I do have "better" things to do than those of you who insist on spending redeemable time spewing forth your garbage.
In other words, you're tired of getting hammered, and hammered thoroughly, whenever you try to justify the KJVO myth. As I said...try dealing with some of the FACTS which PROVE KJVO false and THEN tell us who's been wasting their time.
Unlike the KJVOs, I deal in FACT. Start PROVING, or admit you're WRONG. Excuses & fairy tales just won't cut it. -
-
Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Not when the TR underlying the KJV does not say God forbid. The KJV translators added "God" where God was not in the text at that point.Click to expand...
KJV 2 Samuel 16:16 And it came to pass, when Hushai the Archite, David's friend, was come unto Absalom, that Hushai said unto Absalom, God save the king, God save the king.Again, "God" is nowhere in the Hebrew text HAYA HEMELEK but is better translated IMO: Long life to the king!
I have seen KJVO folks defend these expressions as an acceptable dynamic equivalence translation of an implied prayer to God.
HankD </font>[/QUOTE]It might be best for you to research the meaning of "Long" life to the king/ God save the king before you speak out again, friend, they mean the same, simply because the king is in the hand of God to do whatsoever He desires to do, so in turn, God "saving" the king would then grant "long-life" to the king. Simple linguistic basics, friend; much like "Uh-uh" is understood to mean "no", but then linguistics first needs to be understood when "arguing" against the KJB, not recommended, you then are handling then Word of God deceitfully, note that I did NOT say on purpose, but deception is then become the rule when establishing the Truth is rather to be sought. -
In Other Words: dynamic equivilencies are good if they are in the KJV and bad when they are in other versions.
-
Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It doesn't matter whether English is the language of commerce or not and I haven't altered English. Most of the differences between current English and KJV English occurred long before my birth. I am not changing anything for my satisfaction. I am simply recognizing a fact.Click to expand...So? You really think God cannot use the language known in the commerce and industry in translateral zones when so many other languages are less understood? Wouldn't that limit God in reaching others?Click to expand...
You say you understand what you say is "wrong" with the KJB, but then deny that it can be understood rationally, that is heretical at best.Click to expand...
On top of all you said, let me ask this question: is man getting better, closer to godliness, as a whole, or NOT?Click to expand...
The NASB translators have stated for the record a belief in salvation by grace without works and have never persecuted someone for denying Anglican beliefs.I already KNOW the answer, but then if you know the Truth, you then would establish the need for use of the Elizabethan English for those to better understand what God said,Click to expand...
I guess that's why they held so many unbiblical doctrines like the unity of church and state, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, etc. Bishop Andrewes even taught that communion was both sacrament and sacrifice.else the corruption and it's degressive process mandates the newer versions to be headed into the same corruption? Yes, and the more men try to explain away the KJB, (written in the purest form of English), the more corruption creeps in, since you like to use FACTS!Click to expand...
Here's another fact for you to chew on. The popular Bibles used in China are translated from the critical texts... and thousands of people are being saved in spite of governmental suppression of evangelism and Christianity. One of the great movements of the Holy Spirit in our day is occurring without a TR based Bible translation.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Are you so delusional that you can't discern that English is a living language?Click to expand...and you liberals love to try and make us out to be "delusional", when all the while your delusion is evident in thinking English doesn't have a basis in understandabilityClick to expand...
BTW, I am not a liberal. My beliefs are very fundamental including my beliefs about the Bible. What you believe about the Bible was not a belief of fundamentalists when the movement began about 100 years ago... mine is. Your belief isn't even remotely biblical.and that it is always changing it's very base of it's origin, sounds a little to "evolutionary" to me, thanks for exposing this for all to see!Click to expand...
The only thing being exposed by your responses is your willful ignorance on this subject.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The only people who use themselves as the final authority on this issue are KJVO's like yourself. You have no factual support. Your reasoning is completely irrational. But most of all, you have absolutely no... REPEAT NO!, scriptural support for what you believe about the KJV.Click to expand...
You have been challenged repeatedly and have NEVER produced a single example of a doctrine omitted by MV's.and at best every version being an arguement against the other,Click to expand...and that what best suits your palate is agreed upopn,Click to expand...then that which you are incapable of comprehending is written off as "not what God really meant"Click to expand...
You can find a number of Creation v Evolution threads where I have argued that what God said in the first 11 chapters of Genesis is a narrative of what occurred.
If you find a case where I have not submitted to what God said then please bring it to my attention.
That said, it is you who is reading between the lines to come up with KJVOnlyism. God didn't say it- men did.
And God has used sinful men to bring us his Word throughout the generations, and that APOSTATE type of thinking would then discredit all versions, even your "best liked".Click to expand...
I don't try to "prove" what you insist, but the Word of God PROVES itsself, contrary to what you believ, and that is truly sad.Click to expand...
Page 2 of 2