Questions From A KJV-Onlyist

Still means intestines.

 

Still means intestines. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly my point. When Paul wrote to Philemon, I'm sure that "bowels" as found in the KJV would confuse the child. Personally, I appreciate the NKJV's "heart" would better convey the point Paul was trying to get accross to Philemon. I'm not saying that "bowels" is inaccurate per se, but Paul's intention is better understood by a child and most adults by this word, "heart"...wouldn't you agree?

 

So you prefer "heart" (kardia) to "bowels" (splagchnon). And how does that avoid confusion in the mind of this hypothetical child? Oh, and which word did God inspire? Kardia or splagchnon? I believe translation should be just that. Interpretation is a matter for marginal and footnotes.

 

Still means intestines. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly my point. When Paul wrote to Philemon, I'm sure that "bowels" as found in the KJV would confuse the child. Personally, I appreciate the NKJV's "heart" would better convey the point Paul was trying to get accross to Philemon. I'm not saying that "bowels" is inaccurate per se, but Paul's intention is better understood by a child and most adults by this word, "heart"...wouldn't you agree? </font>[/QUOTE]Well if the KJV was good enough for Paul, I think we ought to leave it as "bowels".

 

That sounds like the type of idiotic statement a Ruckmanite would make. Have you converted?

 

So you prefer "heart" (kardia) to "bowels" (splagchnon). And how does that avoid confusion in the mind of this hypothetical child? Oh, and which word did God inspire? Kardia or splagchnon? I believe translation should be just that. Interpretation is a matter for marginal and footnotes. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't have a problem w/ attempting to interpret the word to what the original author was trying to say. I guess the point I'm trying to make would be better put this way: Phile v7 "For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the intestines of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother." or "For...because the hearts of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother." I'd appreciate your opinion (or anyone for the matter) which word would most likely convey Paul's thought.
Let me add, that I do not have a problem so much with the interpretation found in Rom 6:2 "God forbid", even though that is interpretation instead of translating literally. Don't we today sometimes say today, "God forbid" as much as "Certainly not" or "May it never be"? Thanx in advance for your reply(ies).

 

Do you therefore object to the following KJV “interpretation(s)” ?

KJV Luke 1:78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,

KJV 2 Corinthians 7:15 And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.

HankD

 

It is a typical conversation. Textual problems are presented, and the proponets bring up words like "pisseth" or "bowels".

Would I prefer it to not say "pisseth" when refering to men? Sure. Do the new version change this? Sure. Do they also adopt spurious readings based on comflicting mss's? Yes they do. See my above posts...

So the issue is which is better: A goofy word, or a bible with readings (many readings) based on corupted texts.

How do we know that they are corrupted?

It really very simple - they don't agree even with each other! One of them is wrong, and both of them are quoted!

 

So by your logic, the AV1611 is right and the 1769 KJV is wrong or the AV1611 is wrong and the 1769 KJV is right. Which is right and which is corrupted? After all, they disagree with each other some places. Both the Geneva and Tyndale's differ from each other and from the KJV. Which is correct and which is corrupted? How can you tell?

 

I am not KJVO but I believe your approach is what is wrong with most of the antikjvo group represented here. You tell him, "by your logic" then you abandon what he said and make up your own "logic." He clearly stated he did not believe the problem was the differences in the English readings but the differences in the underlying texts. In fact he clearly said he would prefer a different reading in some instances. Address what he actually said and you might get somewhere in this discussion.

 

This issue is much bigger than this. The difference between the 1611, and 1769 is very miniscule - almost non existant.

The bigger issue is why is their a bias towards the vaticanus & siniaticus mss?

These mss omit dozens of complete verses.

It kinda like this. you have two guys show up at church. One takes Niquil. Is that a good thing? probably not... The other is a binge alcholoic.

Well, since the first guy drinks a bit of booze in his niquil, then it's OK to be a binge alcohlic?

Is this sound logic?

Even if I were to state what version of the "TR" I prefer, and even if you could find a few points that are problems, they are niquil compared to the binge drunkenss of the mss evidence for the new versions. Just becasue a few words are slightly different in the versions of the 1611, does this open the door to a mass rejection of entire sections of scripture?

Well that depends, what is the evidnce for the rejection? If it is sound, then let's reject it. But if the only evidence is two conflicting mss's - probably not wise to reject it.

The Goal is to be true to the word of God, not to some mss's that conflict.

I would even conceed, for arguments sake, to the whole notion of textual critism. But then lets look at the reading the textual critics have given us! Are they consistant? Do they reflect the reality of the evidence? Or do they have a bias toward a cirtian view?

Why will no one address the MSS evidence I have presented? Why is the defense always to attack the KJV postion rather than to honeslty evaluate the facts presented?

 

David Rea:The bigger issue is why is their a bias towards the vaticanus & siniaticus mss?

These mss omit dozens of complete verses.

Can you PROVE these verses were actually OMITTED, & not ADDED in later mss? How can something OLDER omit something that wasn't found until LATER? That's like saying the Egyptians OMITTED Uranus, Neptune, & Pluto from their sky charts!

 

It's already been dealt with many times on the BB and you have yet to prove that you are right. As roby has pointed out, where is your evidence?

 

What manuscript evidence? I didn't see any. Could you repost it? Thank you.

 

Yes,by Scripture....Gen 3,Numbers 22:12,13,and Jeremiah 36;as you can plainly see(or maybe not)Satan and his ilk are all about omission..No matter how much spin you put on it..

Because they are found in older witnesses such as the Old Latin for instance-which pre-dates the "oldest and best mss." by at least 150 years-that's how.

 

Look at my previous post...

Refering to John 1:18...
If you have two manuscrits that support a reading, and all of the quotes from all of the Church fathers (over 170 quotes) are all unified against these two manuscripts AND ALL OF THESE QUOTES PREDATE THE MANUSCRIPTS, and all of the other texts are all unified against these two manuscripts. AND THEN... these two manuscripts disagree with each other MANY TIMES...


Can I prove it? What does the evidence support?

 

It's already been dealt with many times on the BB and you have yet to prove that you are right. As roby has pointed out, where is your evidence? </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly what are you looking for?

A small sliver of evidence was given on the bottom of page 17 of this group.

I try to have an open mind, I find it embaresing reading most of the arguments that are made in support of the KJV. Good points are have been brought up. But when the evidence is brought up about the soundness of the texts used in the new versions... it is ignored. Why is this?

 

What manuscript evidence? I didn't see any. Could you repost it? Thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]It is on the bottom of page 17-top of page 18. If you need me to repost, no prob.

 

The issue is the internal realiability of these manuscripts. They conflict with each other! With this in mind, HOW DO YOU TELL WHICH ONE IS RIGHT!?!?!!?!? :eek:

Somtimes translators reject Aleph, and accept B

Other times they reject B and accept Aleph

Is not thier a ring of cirular reasoning? If these are the oldest then "best" is rather subjective...

 

2386, a 12th century minuscule, also omits verses 9-20. However, there are not 1000's and 1000's of manuscripts which contain the long ending. In fact there are only about 400 manuscripts of Mark's gospel which contain the long ending.