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

I had assumed this was common knowledge, but sometimes I am guilty of assuming too much, I am a history geek after all. You have heard of the Nag Hammadi Library have you not? That was a collection of Gnostic writings discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945. These writings, the most well know of which is the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" are believed to date from the 2nd to the 4th Century AD. Of course there were Gnostics all over the Empire, as would be expected given the ease of transportation during Imperial times. However, there is no doubt that the Gnostics were well established in Egypt by the time the two primary Minority Text documents were written.

 

Ever read the Living Bible? Looks like a Mulligan stew to me.

 

The LB wasn't translated from one of the KJVs. Next...

 

Is that an admission of the source Salamander, or are you or askjo going to cite your source?

I cited mine, now it's your turn brother.

HankD

 

Got one, it is Mulligan Stew. The version was made from the RSV. Makes a pretty good commentary, that is if you agree with Kennith Taylor.

 

Here are the two men, most responsible for the “Older Text Type” (Alexandrian). Both were present in the second, and third century AD. You can read their credentials below. Not such a good report, and very Gnostic.



Origen: (c. 185 - 254) was a theologian, philosopher, and devoted Christian of the Alexandrian school. He famously castrated himself so he could tutor women without suspicion, and he risked his life countless times in encouraging martyrs. He himself was tortured under Decius as an old man and died a short time later. Origen's controversial views on the pre-existence of souls, the ultimate salvation of all beings and other topics eventually caused him to be labeled a heretic, yet his teachings were highly influential and today he is regarded as one of the most important early church fathers.

Clement of Alexandria: (born Titus Flavius Clemens) (c.150 - 211/216), was the first notable member of the Church of Alexandria, and one of its most distinguished teachers. He was born about the middle of the 2nd century, and died between 211 and 216. He united Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine and valued gnosis that with communion for all people could be held by common Christians specially chosen by God.[citation needed] He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos. He developed a Christian Platonism. He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, identified both as Platonism's assimilation into God and the biblical imitation of God.

 

No, Kenneth Taylor used the 1901 ASV the basis of his paraphrased Bible.

 

Ok, I think the person I saw that quoted this, probably did not see the difference. Since the RSV is the English version, and the ASV is the American. I have never even looked to see what the differences are.

 

Samuel, your information on Clement of Alexandria is directly from Wikipedia - nice cut-and-paste job! Why didn't you use the Wikipedia article on Origen? Was it because Wikipedia said Origen was "an early Christian scholar, theologian, and one of the most distinguished of the early fathers of the Christian Church" and that didn't convey the negative image you wanted to project?

Samuel, the actual age of texts has nothing to do with the beliefs of these men. What's your point? Are you saying that because some of their beliefs were inconsistent with the Christian norm that this takes away from the fact that the older manuscripts are more likely closer to the originals than later manuscripts? One has nothing to do with the other.

 

I choose to use cut and paste jobs, because I do not like to type. I have the same information here, and it is the same, but I would have to type it. In fact if I had to pick! Origen was probably the worst of the two. The info I have here is a lot worse, believe me.

Answer to your second question, "could be".

 

Rippon is right. Perhaps you find getting facts correct frivolous, but these post will be archived and available on the web for a long time. People may come to BB seeking answers and so our information should be accurate, even in the details. This is exactly how false information is perpetuated. If you don't know, state "I think..." or something. Check your sources; it would have only taken you a minute or two to confirm that the Living Bible was based on the ASV from reliable independent web sources.

 

Hmm,I do like the sound of that! Now EdSutton may make some salient points about my first sentence.Have at it Ed.

 

Robert Mounce has had a hand in not only the ESV -- but also the NIV,TNIV and NLT --maybe more.

Don't believe the hype.The ESV is only marginally more lieral than the TNIV for instance.

John Purvey who was behind the second Wycliffe version thought a sense-for-sense approach was best when translating -- so have many others through the centuries.The NIV/TNIV go for the same thing -- phrase-for-phrase and sentence-for-sentence not just word-for-word ( they do employ the latter sometimes as well.)

 

Here is the history of the "Standard" translations, Samuel.

The English Revised Version (aka the Revised Version) (1881/1885) was based on manuscripts much like the Greek text of Westcott & Hort (Douglas Kutilek, Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? (5/24/1996) http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html)

The Americans who participated in the translation of the RV preferred some readings different than those preferred by the English translators. The American translators decided to publish their own translation after a specified number of years (14, if memory serves me correctly). The result was the American Standard Version of 1901. See http://www.bible-researcher.com/asv.html for more information.

The New Testament of the Revised Standard Version was published in 1946 and was based on the RV and the ASV. The entire Bible was published in 1952. There were revisions in 1959, 1971 and 1977. (Bible Researcher, The Revised Standard Version (1946-1977) http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv.html)

The NASB (NT 1963, Bible 1971) (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html) and its later updates are directly descended from the ASV, while the NRSV (1990) (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nrsv.html) and eventually the ESV (2001) (http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html) are descended from the RSV.

 

In just the hour I have been scanning through some of the responses and how many times people have been BLASTED for being "KJVO," I could say there is some hostility!!! I and my wife are, as you put it "KJVO." In my wife's oppinion, there may be some archaic words in the KJV that she might not understand and has to pick up a dictionary to understand the word, but, also in some modern day books (secular and non) she has to do the same thing. The KJV only takes a 3rd grade reading level to understand, while some of the modern day translations it takes a college reading level.

Also, in some of the new translations, TLB for instance, they actually use profanity!!! I compare, side by side, what each "Bible" says, and I've noticed where when the KJV says "no joy" every other translation says "joy was added." (Isaiah 9:3) for referance. Also, in the NIV, there are multiple places where scripture has been remove and altered in such a way that it detracts the very deity of Jesus Christ. If one would study the history of the manuscripts, they will find that the TR from which the KJV was translated, used koine greek (redneck common street language) and the new versions come from manuscripts such as vaticanus siniaticus, and alexandrinus. These big three all include classical greek inserted by Origen. They come from NORTH AFRICA. What does the bible say about anything from Africa? (Biblical typology anyone:) )

:tonofbricks:

Origen was of Jewish roots and spoke classical greek. He corrected the TR when he did not understand it and when it undermined his Jewish based mind set.

 

Would you consider the words p***eth and b***ard profanity as used in the KJV?

I would also suggest you research the 'reading level' test a little more thoroughly. The test that was used and from which you (somewhat) draw your stats is only based on word length and sentence length - it is not based on archaic words or sentence structure.


Have a look at Acts 18v24 - was Apollos evil because he was from Egypt?

BTW, welcome the the versions forum :)

 

Matthew you say that KJVOnlyism is blasted on this site. But, I wouldn't use the word "blasted." Rather, I'd say "called out." And, what do you expect when you suggest that people who prefer modern versions are too lazy to pick up a dictionary or that modern versions detract from the deity of Christ, or imply that curse words are indiscriminately used.

*None have come up with a valid scripture to support their position; only strong opinions.
*None can agree upon which version of the KJV that we should be using. One English version means one English version, period.
*Many times it is suggested that the modern versions detract from God's word but in each instance that I have studied, the verses in question, when read in context, do no such thing. Lifted out of the Bible and made to stand on their own the argument might hold some weight, but left in place, as they should be, there are no problems. That's basic hermeneutics but onlyism has to ignore context to support its weak argument.

 

Any hostility is not towards people but towards wrong beliefs and bad doctrine. Out of love for people and love for the truth, we try to correct these errors. You should realize that some of these people have been here for years saying this stuff and being proved wrong by Scripture time and time again. So while you are new here, you might not realize the history.

That's unfortunate. I hope your eyes will be opened through this forum as you interact with the very capable people here. There truly is hope.

This is an often quoted statistic that really makes no sense. These reading tests are performed, not by actually reading, but by counting word lengths and syllables and sentence length. No one who has actually read the KJV thinks it is a third grade reading level.

This is a great example of a common problem. There is a longer explanation for what I am about to summarize, which I will be glad to get into if you like. But simply put, the OT has textual variants that are different than the NT in some ways. The reading "not" or "no" is called a "kethib" from the Hebrew word for "write" meaning "written." The reading that omits the "no" has a prefix preposition with an object meaning "to him" which is called a "qere" (pronounced "ke-ray") which is from the Hebrew word for "call" meaning in this case "read." In a kethib/qere, the verbalization sounds alike. In this case both "to him" and "no" sound like "lo." The difference is a Hebrew consonant aleph.

There evidence points to the absence of the negative, making the modern translations correct. If you read the verse, you will actually see that the KJV makes no sense. The very next phrase shows that God did increase their joy.

This charge has often been made here, but so far, no one has ever actually substantiated with facts. So if you have some facts on this, we would like to see them. If you do, you will be the first.

Mostly incorrect. Classical Greek was done with before the NT era. All the NT is written in koine Greek.

Hopefully this type of "Biblical typology" is quickly dying because it has not basis in the Bible.


Edited only to fix a quotes box

 

Roger, I think Matthew was referring to 1 Samuel 20:30. In the original Living Bible (1971) Saul, in anger, said to Jonathan "You son of a b****!" I believe later editions had the terminology "cleaned up" to "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman!" or something similar. In the NLT, loosely based on the LB, Saul says to Jonathan, "You stupid son of a whore!" A footnote indicates "Hebrew You son of a perverse and rebellious woman."

I believe the reason Matthew perceives "hostility" is because of the blatant denial of extremist KJVOs who post here that there is any true word of God EXCEPT one of the KJVs. Matthew perceives the refutation of false extremist KJVO arguments as being against all who use one of the KJVs. Of course this perception isn't true. "Freedom readers" are hostile toward the unfounded and unscriptural claims of exclusivity for the KJVs. The hostility "freedom readers" show is against a false teaching that there is only ONE true word of God in English. Most extremist KJVOs can't even say WHICH of the various KJVs is the perfect one. I would go so far as to guess that many KJVOs don't have a clue which KJV they use - the original 1611 (not very likely), or one from the Cambridge family of KJVs, or one from the Oxford family of KJVs.

Maybe Matthew is more extremist than I originally thought. After all he cites the misinformation that the KJVs require only a third grade reading level for comprehension. This is one of the myths circulated by KJVOs for a long time because the test used to make this determination doesn't take into account archaic words, words with changed meanings and words no longer used in English - it only looks at the length of words and is therefore wrong in its determination. I have never seen anyone claim the modern translations require a college reading level, but maybe I just missed it. I have often seen it claimed by KJVOs that modern translations require a high school reading level. Of course either way it's claimed (high school or college) it's still misinformation.

Matthew, like many other KJVOs, also claims words and verses are removed from the NIV and other modern translations. In reality, since the manuscripts on which the KJV are based are of a later date than the manuscripts on which modern translations are based, it's much more likely words were added to the later manuscripts. I believe most additions were made by well-meaning scribes and copyists who had good intentions and didn't realize the consequences their additions would eventually have. I don't think the majority of them intended to change the message God gave us.

Is there hostility toward those who use one of the KJVs? Not at all. As a matter of fact, one of the KJVs is one of the Bible translations I use most frequently, along with the NKJV and the NASBs. Is there hostility toward a non-scriptural belief about the exclusivity of one particular Bible translation? Definitely! There's a huge difference between preferring one of the KJVs and believing one of the KJVs is the only true word of God in the English language.

 

Just another new member who can see the bias on this forum, that those who are "good ole boys" can't, or deny! It has nothing to do with KJVO, or not..........it's your ATTITUDE toward other Christians that stinks, and is an offense to God, whether they are KJVO or not! I find some of the "reasoning" for your MV arguments to be laughable, but I would not treat you the way KJVO people are treated. :(