Language changing demands a new version?

But that's EXACTLY what the AV men did...because KJ didn't like the Geneva's footnotes, and the HUMAN Anglican clergy wanted one 'universal' version, appointed to be read in churches. Actually, they coulda done w/o the KJV for some 150 years, as the GB's English was current for the times. We coulda had a "King George Version" instead. The KJV came about because of a groupa men "correcting" and "improving" upon God's word. So, if ya don't believe we needed new versions in OUR generation, ya shouldn't believe that KJ & Co. needed a new version in THEIR time. They already had several versions in their style of English.

 

Salamander: //I edited the "vulgarity" of the wordings
you quoted with astericks.//

Well, at least you are a mentally honest KJVO
with integrity. You believe the words are more important
than the ideas. The KJV rendition of Isaiah 36:12 contains a vulgar word
(according to many dictionaries, a book which keeps track
of such stuff); the CSB = Christian Standard Bible
(Holman, 2003), does not use vulgar words for the
same concepts. It is the words which might be vulgar,
not the ideas. But true KJVOs must believe that
the words are what is important (or in this case, vulgar).
This leads to great contradicion,
for the original N.T. words were mostly Greek, not English;
the original O.T. words were mostly Hebrew, not English.

 

Attacks against mainstream modern versions of the English Bible are against bulletin board rules. Therefore, if a person makes an attack with generalized statements regarding a translation's translators capability at translating Hebrew or Greek, or their command of the English language there is no difference because this points towards a weakened translation. Unwarranted and unproveable attacks against translators of mainstream modern English versions will therefore be edited by me just as quickly as an attack against the Bible they translated.

In other words, I will not tolerate statements indicating the translators of the NKJV were not capable people in the language they translated from or into. The NKJV is a great translation with background texts that many people here think are superior texts. Therefore, unless you know of something specific about a translator, keep your mouth shut about him or her.

 

rbell: //you're equating God with the Word of God. And
by your statement, I can assume any version--including
the AV--is "man trying to improve upon God.//

Amen, Brother Rbell, you are so RIGHT ON!

AKA (also known as): the double standard.
Here is the double standard: the KJVs are not 'man trying
to improve upon God'; the MVs are 'man trying
to improve upon God'.

BTW, YES, dynamic languages need continuing new versions.
This is PROVED by the KJVs which even today continue to
be revised, changed, edited. I personally use two KJVs on
a daily basis and a third on a weekly basis:

1. KJV1611 Edition (electronic & paper)
2. KJV1769 Edtion (electronic & paper)
3. KJV1873 Edtion (paper only)

:wavey: Praise God for the KJVs! :wavey:

 

Salamander, you as well as most KJVO myth supporters, equate God with weakness. You don't think He has the power to preserve His word in various English translations. You think He is so weak that He can only preserve His word in one version. That is laughable blasphemy, Salamander. :laugh:

 

Which is pretty much what KJVO's are attempting to do in a slightly more subtle way. The Vulgate-only crowd arbitrarily determined that Latin was the language of heaven... not dissimilar from KJVO claims about the wording and language of the KJV.

From there they bullied, deceived uninformed/misinformed people into believing the Vulgate was the only God approved Bible. Sounds very familiar again. They took advantage of their fears of straying from the "true faith". Again a direct parallel. Ultimately, they told people that they weren't in the faith if they disagreed with LVO. Not all, but many, KJVO's imply or plainly state that anyone who isn't KJVO isn't saved.

To the minor degree that is true, you are DEMANDING rather than promoting that people do something that is completely unnecessary. The Bible has been accurately translated into the language they know and use. Using your logic, we should just drop English altogether and demand that people learn the original languages.

They can know what the Bible says by reading the NKJV or another faithful translation in their own vernacular. It is not necessary nor profitable for them to learn another language so the can read an older Bible that will render the exact same teachings and doctrines.

If God were going to miraculously endow people with new language ability upon salvation then He probably would have given them the languages that HE chose to inspire the Bible into... not one that wasn't spoken nor understood until 1400 years later.

BTW, it isn't an opinion. It is a simple, common sense fact that you don't have to attend seminary or be an intellectual to understand. To deny the statement I made above is akin to denying the very definition of words.

 

I'm not. People aren't illiterate simply because the primary definitions of many words have shifted. These words all have understood meanings today. There are perfectly legitimate alternatives in modern understanding to replace those words... and absolutely no reason whatsoever not to substitute, ie: conversation=behavior, communicate=share, let=denied.

Yes. And this isn't one. YOU have arbitrarily determined that people must be "educated" to understand KJV English because you have arbitrarily determined that is the only acceptable translation of the Bible... you are attempting to establish yourself and those who agree with you as the authority.

You have no basis in scripture. You have no call from God to do this... and there is no history to support your claims.

God did not inspire the words of the KJV. Period.

The translators denied it and specifically allowed that there might be better words than the ones they chose.

They weren't qualified to receive inspiration and that is the ONLY way man can produce anything of absolute perfection. They weren't Apostles nor prophets... and all of them were born after God used John to pen the final inspired word.

Nope. I don't like your vain assumption that God is on your leash. God never established the KJV as the only acceptable English translation. There is absolutely NO scripture that even hints at such a notion.

KJVOnlyism is very much a case of vain, pride-crippled men assuming authority that doesn't belong to them.

Nope. You on numerous occasions have attempted to blunt debate when you don't have answers for the arguments made against your opinion. It is pretty convenient to say "you just love to argue" when someone makes points you can't deal with.


Quote:
No you haven't. You've offered your opinion... and indirectly yourself as an authority for what others should believe.
Nope, I am under Authority to stay with God's Word.

Your arguements for an edition or version to meet the verbal usage of todays' English has nothing more than liberalism/ sinking sand, to stand on, or is it you don't believe God when He advises us to go back to the old paths?

 

Salamnder, no one is promoting illiteracy here. But you promote myth and error.

BTW you really need to stop accusing others of promoting illiteracy when you can't even spell arguing or argument. It's like the pot calling the kettle black - very hypocritical. :laugh:

As are we all. You slander those who stick with God's word and you blaspheme the very word of God unless it is in the KJV. So you and your type do more against the word of God than you do for it.

Salamander, you and other supporters of the KJVO myth would have the word of God available only to the "elite" who can understand outdated English. God doesn't want it that way - so why do you? God wants His word understandable and of easy access for each generation. Therefore He has preserved His word in various English Bible versions. Why do you belittle God's preserving work? And going back to the old paths doesn't refer to Bible versions - it refers to the values and mores of days gone by. And in days gone by people did not argue as you do - you deliberately promote falsehood when you have been shown the truth repeatedly.

If following God's will to spread the Gospel is liberalism, then I'll remain a liberal. Keeping God's word fresh and alive for every generation is important - yet you would keep it secret and hidden from those of modern times. How sad! You really need to start working for God and not against Him as you do now, Salamander. Give it a try and see how much more fullness you can have in your life.

Yes, God's word needs to be in time with current usage, not stuck in the darkness of the past as you and your type would have it!

 

Man can never improve upon the Word of God.

However man must never be so proud and vain in ignorance as to assume that the communication of God's Word in a single translation is beyond improvement.

It isn't God's Word people are attempting to improve upon it is the rendering of it so that it is understood as much as possible as if one were being taught by the inspired prophets and Apostles themselves.

 

Please quit jumping from subject to subject...all you're doing is making yourself seem unsure of what you're talking about.

Only in our day with nukes can ONE MAN cause all others to be unsure of their lives, while GOD could/can do it any time.

Ever consider that there mighta been more than one person named Goliath? After all, lotsa people today are named after one of their parents or grandparents.

You're gonna hafta do a LOT better than you've done so far, Sal. Common sense calls for a new translation after so long, and reality shows they have been, and are being, made.

 

Salamander:I know God has preserved His Word in many translations, but I have yet to find Him confused and still guessing what the Word of God says.[/i]

No, but YOU are. You're GUESSING He's preserved it in English ONLY in the KJV, a guess you cannot even BEGIN to justify. Didja ever consider guessing GOD isn't in your hatbox, and can preserve/provide/present His word however He jolly well chooses? Didja ever guess He wants His word to be read and understood by us, His creations, & therefore provides it in the languages He's chosen for us to use?

"Ok, let's see, which manuscripts I like best today?"

"Maybe I should reveal some more manuscripts that haven't yet been discovered to further my ability to preserve my Word?"

Most likely, "I have provided My word in the versions I caused to be made. I'll deal with those who choose to diss My word in versions they don't like in My good time. meanwhile, I'll see that those who REALLY CARE for My word have it in their best language."

I haven't found the LORD of Hosts to ever be dismayed over versions, only men.:sleeping_2:

No, the Lord has provided them AS HE CHOSE. It's MEN, especially KJVOs, who've thrown hissy fits over this or that version that doesn't meet their approval.

 

In addition to the ad-homiinem logical error you make,
you do this wrong also:

//So you have expressed your congratulation of some dictionaries
as having precedence over the Word of God, but there it is: your problem.//

Tee Hee, you have to be kidding???
Humor will get you anywhere

However, there is a basic difference in assumptions.
You assume: It is the ideas which are vulgar; not the words.
I assume: It is the words which are vulgar; not the ideas.

The Bible speaks like i believe:

2 Cor 3:6 (KJV1611 Edition):
Who also hath made vs able ministers of the New Testament,
not of the letter, but of the spirit:
for the letter killeth, but the spirit giueth life.

"for the letter killeth, but the spirit giueth life"
or, in the terms I've discussed:
'for the word killeth, but the meaning giveth life'.


//Actually, and in respect, (only) to BB rules, as you have ordered them,
the KJB rendering is more accurate and less offensive considering
the linguistical IMPACT. So your "arguement" is a bit crippled.//

I didn't order the BB rules. I didn't make the BB rules. I keep
the BB rules, i don't make them.