What are the KJOists going to do?

Bad news! Wycliffe died Dec. 31, 1384.

 

What are the KJOists going to do when their translation becomes as difficult to read as the John Wycliffe translation is today?

Declare the NKJV to be the only Word of God for the English speaking world. I figure that some bold KJVO will declare the NKJV to be the AV1611 and the ball will start rolling!

Who knows what the KJVO Camp will do. They all play follow the leader and it really depends on who the new leaders will be when Cloud, Ruckman, Gipp, and crew are long gone from the picture.

 

Rely on what John 16:13,Proverbs 22:21,and 1st Corinthians 2:9-13 says;rely on the AUTHOR of Scripture to give understanding.

 

The same thing that they did BEFORE those men;you know,like the Waldenses,Hussites,Donatists,et al--the rejection of Alexandrian mss.and their fruit:NWT,NIV,NAS,RSV,ASV,etc ad nauseam.

 

Uh, i hate to belabor the obvious.

"The NWT,NIV,NAS,RSV,ASV,etc " are English
versions.

The "Waldenses,Hussites,Donatists,et al"
did not speak English.

You beat the air with vigor - help me
remember that if i get overheated this
summer

 

Rely on what John 16:13,Proverbs 22:21,and 1st Corinthians 2:9-13 says;rely on the AUTHOR of Scripture to give understanding.

Is that what they did prior to the so called perfect KJV(which ever flavor you think is perfect)?

Show me where God has not worked through the NIV, NKJV, and NASB. Show me with scripture where God limits His Word to a revision of the AV1611. What? You have no scripture! Thats what I thought! Let me guess, it based on emotions and feelings right?

Hey Anti-A while you are throwing scripture around why don't you give me the scripture to support KJVOism. Also please tell me which KJV is perfect and list the scripture that tells me which KJV is perfect. Remember that God is not the author of confusion and things that are different are not the same. Please clarify this for me and I will once again become a KJVO(I just need to know if I need to be a AV1611KJVOist, 1762KJVOist, 1769KJVOist, or a 1873KJVOist).

Who knows Anti-A, the NIV is the current best selling Bible and 50 years from NIVOist might surface! LOL!!!!!

Don't be anti-answer Anti-A.

 

They don't know. And I think this is what they are trying to figure out right now. Is what will they do. I asked my parents pastor a KJVO what he thought. He said sometime in the way future a new version translated from Byzatine text only and with careful study from the KJV it could done but he said it wouldn't be till 2050 or something so he wouldn't have to worry about it.

 

I also called a "pastor" in the area that travels around the country preaching KJVO (he wont speak to his sister because she uses an NASB) and he said that Christ would come back before the KJV got that out dated and He would just come back so that His Word would always be preserved. Also He didn't have it translated until 1611 so it wouldn't become outdated before He returns.

 

"The same thing that they did BEFORE those men;you know,like the Waldenses"
''
You mean try to become a movement within Roman Catholicism?

Well I guess the good news is that the odds of that not ending in bloodshed are a lot better than during the middle ages.

But still...

 

What are the KJOists going to do when their translation becomes as difficult to read as the John Wycliffe translation is today?

Anti_Alexandrian:Rely on what John 16:13,Proverbs 22:21,and 1st Corinthians 2:9-13 says;rely on the AUTHOR of Scripture to give understanding.

As WE do today, relying on God to provide His word in today's language, as He's done in English for hundreds of years.

 

Who knows what the KJVO Camp will do. They all play follow the leader and it really depends on who the new leaders will be when Cloud, Ruckman, Gipp, and crew are long gone from the picture.

Anti_Alexandrian:The same thing that they did BEFORE those men;you know,like the Waldenses,Hussites,Donatists,et al--the rejection of Alexandrian mss.and their fruit:NWT,NIV,NAS,RSV,ASV,etc ad nauseam.

In other words, make laughing stocks of themselves as the KJVO authors of today do.

 

Craigbythesea said:

The copy of the Wycliffe Bible from which I quoted was dated 1395. If that date is correct, that copy was issued posthumously.

There were two Wycliffe Bibles: the earlier one, completed within his lifetime, was a slavishly literal translation of the Latin Bible. The 1395 version, which you quote, was completed posthumously by his associates, and is better English.

 

nice title of thread ... What r KJBOists gonna do?

cldn't help recalling this TV show called COPS ... somehow, its theme song kept coming to mind:

> The same thing that they did BEFORE those men;you know,like the Waldenses,Hussites,Donatists,et al--the rejection of Alexandrian mss.and their fruit:NWT,NIV,NAS,RSV,ASV,etc ad nauseam.


seems to me that they rejected whatever Romish heresy was imposed on them, but they accepted the bible then in use, where they lived.

does Anti-A know of any trip any of them made to St Catherine's monastery to burn the bibles there? or do we here have another incident of blowin smoke?

 

Change the spelling and archaic words. In fact, isn't this what the 21st Century KJV has done?

 

All of Wycliffe's translation was published posthumously. What we call the Wycliffe Bible today (I have the Photographic Facsimile of the Rawlinson manuscript, #259, which is in the Bodleian Library, Oxford), is actually the 1388 revision of Wycliffe's 1382 original edited by John Purvey. Wycliffe's original version was a strict, literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe maintained the word order of the Latin Vulgate which made the English translation sometimes unclear, often awkward, and even inaccurate in some places, particularly in the Old Testament.

By the way, the revision of the Wycliffe bible by Purvey is an illustration that all bibles, no matter how venerable, are in need of some revision sooner, or later.

 

Amen, brother Skan.

English is a language in evolution. It changes meanings of words constantly, creates new ones, drops old ones, revives dead ones. Each year new dictionaries must be compiled, and are often outdated by the time they go to press.

The language that our bible translations are written in are frozen in time. The ink does not move on the paper, the bits do not rearrange themselves. The ever-evolving juggernaut of the English language barrels onward, not caring that the meanings of the very words used to convey God's message to man are being changed and altered. The more time that passes, the more the language of a translation no longer acurately reflects what was intended.

Without updates, revisions, and new works of translation, the bible will slowly slide into the sunset of obscurity. How can anyone think that people will put forth the effort to learn the archaic words of a single translation? Why should they have to?

People today are hard pressed for one thing. This one thing is more precious than gold or silver. It only passes this way once, and once it is gone it can never return. What is it? Time. So how can we expect the masses of unsaved people to invest the time that would be involved to understand the unwieldy venacular of the King James? Simple. We can't.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I think there should be a distinction between a revision of a language vs revision of a text. You can revise a language of the bible or whatever written material "to that matter" and have it still mean the same as the originator intended. But why would you need to revise a text is not the original good enough or copy's of the originals good enough.

I would much rather learn archaic words of a bible that derived from a purer text than read a modern bible that evolved from a conglomeration of dead, rejected, unwanted, unused, lost texts.

You think christians of times past lost their bibles or scrolls and they had to be refound, its more likely some humanist or philosopher wrote some trash about jesus and tried to circulate it among christians and it wasnt accepted so he threw it away then later some archeologist finds it under a rock and because it was written in the early A.D.'s and preserved that it somehow has athority over the Recieved Text and should be included into bible revisions. So much so that there are even whole bibles dedicated to those junk text "New World Translation" is a good example a new bible for a new religion.

 

"Purer text"? How so? On what basis can you, or anyone else, make this statement?

"A conglomeration of dead, rejected, unwanted, unused, lost texts." Hmmm... Sounds a lot like what Erasmus used to compile the Received Text. But, then they couldn't be called "dead, rejected, unwanted, unused, lost texts" could they?

Actually, most were placed in secure storage and forgotten. Ever been cleaning up around church and find a box of old hymnals/pew bibles/songbooks/files? I have. They had been stored, and then forgotten. (Same thing happens at my house, too...hmmm, ya think I might one day be a link in all this?)

Which family of manuscripts are the most accurate? No one knows for sure. But there are a lot of them, and none of them agree with the Received Text 100%. But so many (saul^paul included, apparantly) are dead set that a hodge-podge manuscript edited together by a RCC priest from a few Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, and an active imagination MUST be superior to Greek manuscripts that excede the age of those used by Erasmus by several hundred years.

You might want to get your facts straight. The NWT is not really a translation (although the JW claim it is), but rather an edited version. Besides, the Jehovah's Witness use 37 or 38 different translations (and I use that term loosely) to back up their nonsense.

Not everything that someone slaps the name of "Bible" on is one. And just because a bible is not the King James does not make it not a bible. There are many very wonderful translations out there, but there are also some down right heretical ones.

In Christ,
Trotter