Is the KJV inferior to you?

It's not just any God-ordained English. It's Special Preserved Majestic God Ordained English. It says so in the book of Assumptions, chapter 3, verses 1 through 5.

:tonofbricks:

 

:laugh: Oh, sorry! Special Preserved Majestic God-Ordained English! Wowee. Gotta git me some o' dat.

 

Wow...well, there goes your credibility.

Here we go:

hmmm...I'm sure that thousands of scholars over the millenia wish they had known how they were wasting their time.

Gee...didn't know that the introduction was also inspired. Besides...why did they need translators...wasn't this particular Bible written, according to you?

Read up on history. The Geneva Bible also deserves some of that credit.

Speak for yourself.

huh??? No one claims that Spurgeon is Scripture, either. Dunno what this has to do with the Asian Egg Market economics.

Men have also put down the Truth, the NIV. And the Truth, the NAS. Et cetera.

If I were a mod (I'm not...I'm wayyyy underqualified :laugh: ), that statement would be snipped and you would be warned. What an ugly, untrue lie that is. How dare you accuse many Christians on this board of blasphemy and heresy. You have no proof of that statement, and in fact, Scripture (from your hated MV's) will obliterate you on that assertion. Just retract, or have tums handy to go with your crow.

Greeeeaaaat. So, why don't you:

• show me where the "other versions Jesus" OK's the "sins" you enumerate.
• show me where the "King James Jesus" prohibits said "sins."
• describe exactly how the "looks and smells like the world" works. Because dollars to doughnuts says that you'll describe a few sins, describe a few personal preferences of yours that you liken lo sins (when they're not followed), and a few things you're just off about. I'm trying really hard not to hijack this thread, but the "King James allows Godly music but modern versions encourage devil music" is so far off it's actually humorous.

Remind me again where prophecy fortells the rejection of a particular version for another?

Ohhhhh.....you mean the gradual preference of the KJV over the Geneva Bible in the 17th century.

You don't?!?!?

It's just fine for the KJV to replace another version over time. But not for another faithful translation to become used more than the KJV. Now exactly where was that spelled out in Scripture?

Will people reject God's Word in the latter days? Sure. But let's define "reject" faithfully. I'm not rejecting the Word of God simply because I'm using the ESV, NIV, etc.

 

Don't you all know that when God confused the languages He said, "And you there... Thou shalt Speaketh mine special preserved ordained majestic language... hip hop.... NO... striketh that... English..."

 

Yeah - you should see the size of those tires! I really meant he probably drove a rental car from the airport. Guess I left somethin' out, huh? Sorry!

 

You would best sound more intelligent if you would study the English in which the KJB is written.

"Elizabethen" does only primarilly fit the style, but no one ever really spoke as such. No, not Shakespeare, who used 37,000 words in his literary works while the KJB incorporates only 8000 words.

The eloquence and poetical style that makes up the KJB has no match in its ability to demonstrate the Hebrew and Greek into English.

Anyone can research the English the KJB is written in and come to the same conclusion of what the Hebrew and Greek also mean, everytime. That cannot be said about the plethora of English translations available in the so-called "current" or koine English language which incorporate MSS that most honest Bible scholars admit have many alterations and outright corruptions in their content.

The KJB is never found inferior in any given time in the English language. It is the pinnacle by which we English speaking people can determine life's princples and place them into practice accordingly.

A simple lesson in the language of the KJB will at least educate the reader in the things of God and more accurately than what other versions have to offer in the same respect.

We want people to know God and know Him more personally, not skip anything deemed important to a full understanding of salvation and how to live in a progressive sanctification of his or her alotted days here on this earth.

We want people to become more educated in the things of God while others want to congratulate their illiteracy and make apology for it.:sleeping_2:

 

Try reality sometime. it does wonders for knowing the truth.

 

Monorail?:tonofbricks:

 

At this point nothing new is being added to the mix and things are starting to get ugly. Nothing is being accomplished with phrases that are insulting to peoples' use of the English language or their intelligence.

As we have found time and time again, there is a group unwilling to accept any version other than the KJV period. AND there is no discussion.

BUT I still would like to have the item below addressed. Several others also brought it up -- rbell, I remember for sure.

This to me goes so much farther than many other things that are said in so many of these threads. Because Ehud is telling me that the Jesus I read about day after day is not the same Jesus he reads about. This comment may go so far (notice the may. I'm trying desperately to be generous) as to say that the Jesus I read about is not the Jesus who offers salvation, if he is indeed a different Jesus. If this is indeed what he has said, this is an terrifying statement, and I'd like some clarification.

 

1. I quite agree with you that we need to leave out the ugly stuff

2. I'm a NASB guy, but I dare not condemn others what other conservative versions they use, the TNIV included.

3. But since Ehud has made his "not the same Jesus" comments he has not returned to clarify anything.

4. I would sure love for him to return and clarify his position as to the meaning of the comments.

 

I'm an NASB gal, and I'm not going to condemn those that use other conservative versions either. I've got quite a few of them on my shelves, so it would also probably embarrass me in the longrun.

On TNIV (which I don't have) - one of the very reasons that I wouldn't condemn TNIV is that Rippon speaks so highly of it. I have a great deal of respect for him and his studious comparison of versions. If it weren't for him, I might have believed some of the hype put out by it's opponents.

 

1. Good to know that you're an NASB gal! I love its layout and the way it reads too. The translators struck a good balance.

2. Yes, Rippon is good with his comparisons; he and I have gone over some of the issues I have with the TNIV. I reject some of its gender inclusive renderings. Besides that obvious hangup, the TNIV is a worthy improvement on the NIV.

 

Sounds to me like he (kubel) not only "tried" reality, but accepted it completely.

Ed

 

Unh-hunh!
And where exactly does the AV or KJV do all this better than other versions, again? Are you seriously suggesting that only an English reader is "more educated" in the things of God, than any other language, including the Biblical languages that God used to gave His word to us? Somewhere, somehow, some time, I missed that stated anywhere, even in the KJV.

And if you really want people to become more educated in the things of God, wouldn't you suggest the best translation available in Mandarin?? After all, as many, if not more, people speak Mandarin as their "native" language than speak English, Spanish, and Hindi combined, which take up the next three spots on the chart. Or if you include 'secondary languages, more speak Mandarin than do English, Spanish and Russian, combined, which again, are 2, 3, & 4 on the list. How come the largest group of speakers among mankind is ignored, here?

Thank God for such starting with Robert Morrison, as Lottie Moon, L. Nelson Bell, Jonathan Goforth, J. Hudson Taylor, John and Betty Stam, and John Birch, to name just a handful. And those who have ventured to translate the Bible into the language of the largest group of speakers in the world!

And thank God for such as Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming, Roger Youdarien, and Jim Elliot, who likewise gave their all just to get the Gospel and the Word to a mere handful of people in an isolated tribe in the Amazon jungle of Peru, the Waodani.

And yes, John Birch, an independant Baptist Missionary, who was murdered by the Chinese Communists (as were John and Betty Stam), was not a 'political' figure per se, but a Baptist missionary, despite the naming of a 'political' Society in his honor.

BTW, the last sentence here is just FTR.

Ed

 

Preach it, Brother!:thumbs:

 

One of the reasons there are modern versions, Salamander, is so that people can "know God and know Him more personally, not skip anything deemed important to a full understanding of salvation and how to live in a progressive sanctification of his or her alotted days here on this earth." That's why Scripoture is translated into modern English for today's readers.

Equating the fact that some people are not familiar with 400-year-old English with illiteracy is really a stretch, Salamander. There are many people who are not at all illiterate and who know little of Elizabethan English. To call these folks illiterate is a judgmental misrepresentation, to say the least.

What a strange comment from one who is extremely unaware of the truth. Maybe you should try reality sometime, Salamander! Your "reality" is a fairy-tale world all its own. Your "reality" is extremely far from the truth.

 

Salamander:You would best sound more intelligent if you would study the English in which the KJB is written.

Why study a form of English no longer in use?

"Elizabethen" does only primarilly fit the style, but no one ever really spoke as such. No, not Shakespeare, who used 37,000 words in his literary works while the KJB incorporates only 8000 words.

Shakespeare wrote entertainment, and, while some of his plays were based on existing stories, he wasn't limited to any certain words or definitions. He had free rein in his writings. OTOH, Bible translators are limited to translating whatever mee they're using, which limits their selection of words. Thus it was with the AV men.

The eloquence and poetical style that makes up the KJB has no match in its ability to demonstrate the Hebrew and Greek into English.

In Bible translating, eloquence & poetical style should take a back seat to ACCURACY. Now, while I'm not saying the KJV is inaccurate except in some places, most of which we've discussed, the antiquity of its language now makes it much less-understandable than modern versions.

Anyone can research the English the KJB is written in and come to the same conclusion of what the Hebrew and Greek also mean, everytime. That cannot be said about the plethora of English translations available in the so-called "current" or koine English language which incorporate MSS that most honest Bible scholars admit have many alterations and outright corruptions in their content.

What an inaccurate statement! Given the multiple meanings in English of many, many hebrew & Greek words/phrases, one simply CANNOT pick-n-choose any of them as being the ONLY valid translation. As for the mss thingie, it's no more settled now than it was in the 1870s.

The KJB is never found inferior in any given time in the English language. It is the pinnacle by which we English speaking people can determine life's princples and place them into practice accordingly.

Yes, it IS. its English is now mostly obsolete.

A simple lesson in the language of the KJB will at least educate the reader in the things of God and more accurately than what other versions have to offer in the same respect.

Know what "Bah! Humbug!" means? As God has given us His word in OUR CURRENT language, we need not retrogress in our language.

We want people to know God and know Him more personally, not skip anything deemed important to a full understanding of salvation and how to live in a progressive sanctification of his or her alotted days here on this earth.

thus, we have His word in OUR language.

We want people to become more educated in the things of God while others want to congratulate their illiteracy and make apology for it.

If you go to Quebec, but can't speak French, does that make you illiterate? If you're not 400 years old & therefore don't use 400-yr-old English, does that make you illiterate? Your misplaced zeal makes ya look slightly silly, Sal.

 

While I disagree with you, I appreciate your zeal for knowledge, and your zeal for discipleship.

This is a question for everyone:

Does anyone know of a study in which the English in the KJV has been compared to the grammatical rules of the English language today?

IOWs, if I were to write sentences in a college English class today the way sentences are written in the KJV... would I pass the class?

I have a sneaky suspicion I wouldn't.

We all want to sound intelligent, but if the sentence structure goes against English rules, it sounds ignorant.

On a side note... I was raised on the KJV...I learned to read using the kJV... When I was 3 I wanted to learn to read just so I could read the Bible.
And in my freshman English class in college I used some words and spellings that are in the KJV....and they were marked wrong....
I wish I could remember the words.. I think it was contractions that are no longer in use... and no longer allowed in the rules of English.

 

I strongly suspect there's a lot of that these days. The English language has changed in the last 400 years. What was correct in 16th and 17th century England is not considered correct today either in England or in the US.

 

So it is not so much that people have become dumber... it is the nature of language to change.

I guess really smart people can read the Bible in any language.