In reality you are going against all reason.
Quite untrue IJ. Before the 16th century the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was rather very low. There have been undeniable advances in both languages since 16th and 17th centuries. They KJV revisers struggled with some passages because they honestly didn't have the knowledge of the original languages as biblical scholars do today.
Question for those who use modern translations.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Jordan Kurecki, Nov 14, 2013.
Page 4 of 7
-
-
-
-
Inspector Javert said: ↑Do you know what the word "prosaic" means?....I assure you:
"dull" and "commonplace" is not it.Click to expand...
.
I've never admitted as much either. Not once, never. Never happened. You couldn't possibly search through the whole of my posts and find me saying that languages evolve over time. NOPE, never happened.Click to expand...
Not inherently...but if they LOSE meaning and nuance over time, than it IS a "negative" thing right?Click to expand...
Take that up with Eliot. I was simply quoting his verbiage there actually. I just stole his adjectives instead of his whole quote, so I didn't cite it at the time.Click to expand... -
Rippon said: ↑It is the primary sense of the word. It doesn't just mean words that are not written in poetic form.
.
You are on a joy ride of some sort. You said the English language has "devolved" and I said it is developing --as all languages do with the passage of time.
Words change meaning over time. It is undeniable. You can't stop it. It is not necessarily a bad thing.
Well,TSE wasn't even a Christian,so I don't believe that is worth much. And we are talking about today --not decades ago.Click to expand... -
evenifigoalone Well-Known Member
I'm one of those oddballs who uses both the KJV and modern translations.
-
Inspector, you didn't answer my question. Have you been here before under another name? It's not a hard question, unless you want to avoid the truth.
-
questdriven said: ↑I'm one of those oddballs who uses both the KJV and modern translations.Click to expand...
-
Amy.G said: ↑So do I. Many others on BB do also, contrary to what the "inspector" thinks.Click to expand...
I am also passably well-versed in the original Hebrew when I read the Old Testament.
So, I often like to read the Masoretic Hebrew and compare with KJV, Young's Literal (sometimes NASV) ...which you adore so much.etc......
I have no problem with that.
If you understand anything about the whole "KJVO-THINGY"....you would understand that it essentially boils down only to the "Textual Criticism" issues of New Testament manuscripts only (which is why I choose to study Hebrew and not Greek). -
Amy.G said: ↑Inspector, you didn't answer my question. Have you been here before under another name? It's not a hard question, unless you want to avoid the truth.Click to expand...
Have the Moderators ban my profile if you want. I don't care. I'm sure that will prove you "right" about everything you post wouldn't it? -
questdriven said: ↑I'm one of those oddballs who uses both the KJV and modern translations.Click to expand...
You aren't an "odd-ball" on that account. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporterquestdriven said: ↑I'm one of those oddballs who uses both the KJV and modern translations.Click to expand...
-
Inspector Javert said: ↑Sure...why not?
Have the Moderators ban my profile if you want. I don't care. I'm sure that will prove you "right" about everything you post wouldn't it?Click to expand... -
Since KJV-only advocates do not present any consistent, logical, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory, do they try to excuse or justify their non-scriptural KJV-only opinions by attacking or misrepresenting believers who disagree with those opinions?
-
evenifigoalone Well-Known MemberLogos1560 said: ↑Since KJV-only advocates do not present any consistent, logical, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory, do they try to excuse or justify their non-scriptural KJV-only opinions by attacking or misrepresenting believers who disagree with those opinions?Click to expand...
To the church I grew up in, any church, speaker, preacher, or book that uses any version other than the KJV is apostate and not to be trusted, the epitome of deceit, run don't walk away. That kind of talk annoyed the crap out of me. I had seen plenty of material from those who used other versions and it rang true to my spirit whether at the time I agreed with the version they were using or not. (I used to be KJO.)
On the other hand, when I began researching the issue, I found plenty of articles that concentrated on bashing the KJO side more than I cared for. I wanted facts, not an exchange of ad hominems. -
questdriven said: ↑I wanted facts, not an exchange of ad hominems.Click to expand...
Facts have been presented about the many changes and revisions that the KJV made to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. The makers of the KJV made many of the same type changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles as later translators make to the KJV. A few of those changes introduced in the KJV were even made for questionable reasons such as to favor the divine right of kings view of King James I and to favor the Episcopal church government view of the Church of England.
Facts have been presented about the actual errors that were found in the 1611 edition of the KJV. Facts have been presented about the errors in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. Facts have been presented that document some of the hundreds of differences and variations in the many varying editions of the KJV.
KJV-only advocates seem to want to claim incorrectly that posting established facts and documented evidence is supposedly slandering the KJV. -
Amy.G said: ↑No, but it proves you're not honest about everything you post.Click to expand...
Like, if I am running against Chris Christie for political office and I simply call him "fat" because I've got nothing else.. That's what it proves. -
Logos1560 said: ↑Since KJV-only advocates do not present any consistent, logical, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory, do they try to excuse or justify their non-scriptural KJV-only opinions by attacking or misrepresenting believers who disagree with those opinions?Click to expand...
-
Inspector Javert said: ↑It proves you are reaching....and you've got nothing.
Like, if I am running against Chris Christie for political office and I simply call him "fat" because I've got nothing else.. That's what it proves.Click to expand... -
Rippon said: ↑Let's just say that honesty is not your strong suit JI (or rather HoS).Click to expand...
Because, that's what it sounds like you are doing. Point out what lie I told, and I'll admit to it...
I await.
Page 4 of 7