Have MV's caused more confusion than good?

You have no idea what you are talking about APFH . There was no such preface saying what you said . Besides , there were two Wycliffe versions . The first came out around the same year as his death as I recall . It was a stilted word-for-word translation of the Latin into English . But it was not the kind of English that the ordinary person could quite understand . The second version ( about 12 years later ) was in an idiomatic form -- in the contemporary English of that time -- in the vernacular .It was popular . I think a couple hundred still survive .

 

There is no such thing as a literal translation. It does not exist.

 

If you are using historic facts to support your assertion, then please be so kind as give a casual citation (preferably in context), or at least a web link or bibliographic reference that can be followed by those interested in verification or further study. Thanks

 

Apreacher4Him,

I know it has been said before but it bears repeating, no one is attacking the KJV or the TR. I'm sorry but you have it backwards, you and your like thinking friends are doing the attacking, attacking the modern translations.

Again, how has God annointed the KJV? Where do you come up with this stuff?

Finally, do you think that God needs man to preserve his word? You seem to be implying this.

Tom

 

A Preacher 4 Him:All I have to say

is that it is a good thing that the KJV isn't copyrighted...

Duhh...it IS copyrighted, & it has been since its inception...first, by Sir Robt. Barker, Royal printer to QE 1 and KJ1. The copyright is now held by the British Crown, which gives printing rights to the universities of Oxford & Cambridge, Eyre & Spottiswoode Co. & to Collins Co.(now Harper Collins). Don't believe it? Just ask the British Embassy.

Because in a generation or two all of these, yes confusing translations will be
even greater in number and the ones people prise today will be long forgotten...

I doubt it.

Even the NIV will not make it two more generations (it was after all only a NON T.R. "dynamic equivilen" revolt from the litteral KJV anyways - which it largely was successful at unfortunately) ... But, with all of the money driving these translation printings you can bet they will continue to feed the next curiosity.

As if money didn't drive the KJV printings! The AV 1611 bore the king's TAX STAMP. And the AV wasn't exactly given away. In fact, the geneva bible remained the 'peoples' choice' for awhile because it was priced far lower than the AV was. And even today, no one prints any version for free.

If the KJV was copyrighted it would be in the hands of the wrong, confusing, transitory, NON T.R. people.... point being if you "ain't" translating from the correct text or your "ain't" translating literally... then you "ain't" providing a reliaible translation.... The KJV would be "out of print" faster than you could shake a stick...

Truthfully, I'm GLAD I have two copyrighted KJV editions, because I know they're genuine products!

I know many won't believe me, but the attack of the KJV has been on for years, but since it is not copyrighted the common man will have it so long as men speak English or Christ comes.
For that I am thankful...

I dunno where your "knowledge" of copyrights comes from, but a copyright appearing in an edition of ANY book is an assurance that it's the genuine article, worded just as it was when it was submitted for copyright. Since you're such a big fan of the KJV, ya oughtta be happy it IS copyrighted, as ya know you're getting the real thing.

God's providence has already proven the KJV to be an annointed translation work worthy of praise.... perfect? no... But, tried, tested, literal, translated from the Preserved T.R. absolutely.....

It's just one in a long series of English Bible translations.

God save the KJV from the modern attacks, and the diluting of modern translations..

God save the English-using people from the myth that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there...

 

Can you give at least one citation from a book written in the last 40 years where anyone cited W&H in any of their supporting documents to support their position? Perhaps you could give an example of a scholar in the last 40 years that totally supports to W&H. I just cannot think of one. If you do know then give us one.

Your theory seems parallel to supporting the idea of what some people said years ago that the old cars were far better then the new cars and that cars should not have seat belts because in case of fire you would want to get out. Those people seldom saw a car go over 100,000 miles before it was a rust bucket and the engine was in need of an overhaul. Today we are laughing at such statements.

 

Do you mean like the translations that were around during the time of Jesus? Do you mean translations like the LXX?

 

And the attack on the modern translations of God's word has also been going on for years. It is sad to see people defaming the various versions of God's word He has so graciously provided for us.

Just which of the various KJVs is it you prefer, Preacher?

 

Impossible that something which changes the thought pattern to suggest those things contrary and leaning more towards apostacy could in anyway, becuase it is used more to be considere superior.

I would suppose, by your logic, if a coven of witches used thier spellbook more often than the NIV it also would become "superior"?

 

Paul neither would have been much of the soul winner, nor would Jesus today, if they didn't speak English to English speaking people.

The 17th century English is very precise and doesn't contain all the convoluted renderings of words of today, so go figure. (for a very lllllllllooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggg time!)

 

"Let no man say he is tempted of God"

 

I like the way you limit God's word to only the message of salvation.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Those versions contain portions of the word of God and therefore leave men wanting for more of what God wants them to know.

Don't tell me something about versions in English and then attack English in the same breath, please.

 

Yeah, just like where the NASV tells us that God can be deceievd.:tonofbricks:

 

And when did you assume that title?? Your comments tempted me, not Him.

 

I cannot believe some one I think was so highly educated would stoop so low to try and tell us that "The Authorized Version" is the same as "copyrite"

Over 1,000 Bibles in the Authorized Version were printed and GIVEN away to anyone anywhere on this planet without ever consulting the "Crown" by a man in our church through "Bibles4free.com"

Be "Honest Ed", but then you might have to go selling used cars.:laugh:

 

You presume too much. Study linguistics awhile and maybe you won't have to succumb to anymore of your temptations concerning the word "human".

 

Sorry, I didn't realise that you were a linguist.

Okay - we on almost to page 20 anyway. Show me one reputable etymological source that says that the word "human" is taken from the names of two pagan, false, Egyptian gods. Even better, how does that make the word "divine" somehow. "Hu" looks hopeful, for that was rhe god of the spoken word, but "Min" is the fertility god, usually depicted in a pornographic manner. And these are the gods that the True God used to make the English word "human" special???

Most sources tell us the word came from something similar to this

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=human

 

Lest we digress... lol

Lol... quibble over the crown, the point is well known that monies drive the modern proliferation while the KJV will remain strong with its grasp firmly planted through generations tried and tested... not like those transitory curiosities and proliferations of Modern Versions... shesh..

Nevertheless, AGAIN, in a generation or two all of these, yes confusing translations will be
even greater in number and the ones people "prise" today will be long forgotten...

Even the NIV will not make it two more generations (it was after all only a NON T.R. "dynamic equivilen" revolt from the litteral KJV anyways - which it largely was successful at unfortunately) ... But, with all of the money driving these translation printings you can bet they will continue to feed the next curiosity.

Right now of course the Modern versions are in the hands of the wrong, confusing, transitory, NON T.R. people.... point being if you "ain't" translating from the correct text or your "ain't" translating literally... then you "ain't" providing a reliaible translation.... That is why a sober minded man holds fast to the KJV in these times.

I know many won't believe me, but the attack of the KJV has been on for years, but since it is has been providentially placed into the hands of the common man the Church and Believers will have it so long as men speak English or Christ comes. For that I am thankful...

God's providence has already proven the KJV to be an annointed translation work worthy of praise.... perfect? no... But, tried, tested, literal, translated from the Preserved T.R. absolutely.....

God save the KJV from the modern attacks, and the diluting of modern translations..


And, as I "tried" to conclude for Baptist 4 Life,

Baptist 4 Life is in GREAT COMPANY....

Wycliffe and the K.J.V. Translaters (in their very preface) were also vehemently
against a proliferation of casual translations and multiplicity of readings for the
very reasons that you are humbly presenting against all these "intellectuals"

Well, you may not have the best arguments or the best writing skill;
you may not have the highest degree or position in a church, but you
my dear soul, are right!


So away with the "intellectuals," but the last thing I want to do is "answer a fool according to his folly"
... because you "aint" "listnen" "anyways" !

But, I posted this one more time for those who should read and want to find the truth... this will be my last effort
for some time...

In Sincerity and Truth,

- Michael

 

Well, being you've accused many here of doing something they aren't, and you've inferred that they are "fools" because they don't use your approved version...

promise?