Is it just my imagination, or are many folks here hostile to people who read the KJV?

I know one thing, all these guys failed spelling in school. :) The KJV was just as bad, in its original 1611 edition.

Next to the KJV, I guess I favor the NASB, especially in the Old Testament.

 

"This?

And coming from one who attempted to 'con' Language Cop by making up 'pledurise,' no less?" :rolleyes:

Signed, Language Cop

 

Jim, there's no "chapter and verse" to support my belief just as there's no "chapter and verse" that supports the KJVO position. But I still believe, as I said before, that those who deny God can preserve His word in more than one Bible translation are backslidden and believe God is weak and a liar. And in the case of those who hold to the extra-biblical KJVO position I believe it would be very hypocritical of them to chide me for my extra-biblical belief.

 

Amen, Sister Ann! Preach it!

There's a huge difference between being against a Bible translation or those who use it and being against a false teaching that a particular Bible translation is the ONLY valid word of God in English. I've never seen anyone on this board declare the KJVs aren't the word of God. Yet that accusation is freely used in regard to modern translations by KJVOs. I have never seen anyone on this board call the KJVs "false Bibles," "fake Bibles," "perversions" or whatever the denigration of the day might be. But those accusations are freely made toward the modern translations by many who hold the KJVO position. I have never heard anhyone declare people can't be saved by reading the KJVs. Yet there are those among the KJVO group (not all of them, by any means) who make that accusation against the modern translations. I fully accept the KJVP position, but I stand in strong opposition to the false KJVO position.

 

As a rule, CT manuscripts are older and, IMO, more likely accurate because they're closer on the time line to the original autographs. MT manuscripts are much newer meaning that more time passed, allowing for the addition of words and for other changes, whether intentional or unintentional.

I don't think for one minute God intended to preserve only a particular set of printed words. I believe that if God meant to preserve a particular set of words that He would have done something to prevent or at least discourage translating the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into other languages. Why? Because in translating from one language to another it's impossible to translate anything as vast as the Bible with 100% word-for-word accuracy. I firmly believe God's intent was to preserve His message to us and that's the reason He has graciously provided us with various Bible translations.

 

Tyndale "developed" that type English on his own? Apparently a little more investigation on your part is called for, Samuel.

Tyndale translated the Bible into the current English of his day. Unless he was solely responsible for the English spoken in his day, then he didn't develop the language of the early English Bible.

 

C'mon, Ed, leave Al outta this. We all know he invented the internet.

Ouch! I just bit my tongue because it was so firmly planted in my cheek when I typed the sentence above.

:smilewinkgrin: :laugh: :rolleyes:

 

Your stand on the KJV is that there is no other valid Englih Bible translation. The main reason you're "treated with hostility" is because you denigrate and deny God's word in any tanslation that isn't one of the KJVs. Sorry, Sal, the fault is your own. Stop promoting a myth and you'll be much more accepted and respected.

 

Why assume that one is completely correct and the other is totally wrong (in the places where they disagree)? Maybe the TR/MT is right to sometimes include 'added' text, but the CT properly 'leaves out' some words which are truly later copiest conflations. What if both the TR/MT and CT have flaws, and that the absolute truth lies somewhere in between?

 

Amen, TCGreek! Preach it!

It's fine to prefer one Bible translation over another. I think everyone who reads the Bible prefers one translation over most others. There's nothing wrong with that position. When it goes wrong is when certain people become their own "final authority" and declare a certain translation is the ONLY true word of God in English and that no other translation is the word of God. This position should strongly attacked by all who truly love the word of God.

 

Okay, if you insist, you naturalistic defender of God's word!

:eek: ;)

We should all defend God's word against the attacks made on it by KJVOs.

 

Give me a break!!. You should have seen some of my stuff, before I got a spell checker. I never said I was the brightest bulb on the block,,,, did I??. :laugh:

Besides - I didn't know how to spell it, and I asked someone who didn't know how to spell it either. :laugh:

My spell checker had no idea what I was trying to spell, and just locked up. :laugh:

 

Just curious, Did you ever get plagiarize? One could have used an old word, pledger as in a pledger of one's troth...:thumbs:

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yep! I got it, and entered it into my spell check dictionary - just in case I ever try to spell it again. :thumbsup:

 

Maybe you won't have to use the word again.

:thumbsup:

 

The word of God is always offered, never forced.

 

No? Explain why?

 

Not true! The separation between CT family of texts and the autographs is 300 years. The separation between the TR family of texts and the autographs is 150 years.

 

No, there is no hostility towards those who prefer the KJV. As a whole, there are many of us who love the Bible too much to let it be hijacked by the KJVO crowd. We think God's word is too important for that. And so those who are KJVO will find a very rough road here, and rightly so. False doctrine should always been immediately and openly refuted.

That just plainly false. How in the world can you say such a thing?

 

Larry, I am lost half the time in here with all the reprints of who said what.

Someone just ask me what "NO" was and I haven't a clue....even going back three pages........:BangHead:

Cheers,

Jim