Featured Yes,the KJV has mistakes too

Tsk,tsk,tsk.....!

:sleep:Your opinion of my comments has been noted...and ignored:sleeping_2:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

You know, in eight years I have never seen a post of yours that made any theological sense. It does no good to know Hebrew and Greek if you do not know how to apply it and relate to others in the light of the Gospel. Any disagreement with you always results in an insult as the above quote.

I suggest you take a sabbatical from BB until you realize your opinion is not the Inspired word of God.

 

Amen!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup: I suggest rippon start READING the Bible he argues so much about, and then obeying it! Behaving like a Christian towards his brothers and sisters in Christ would be a great start! I've never seen someone who claims to be a Christian be so nasty to other believers! :BangHead:

 

Do you not read carefully the posts of KJV-only advocates or do you apply a different standard [divers measures] to their posts? It seems that KJV-only advocates think that they are entitled to attack believers who disagree with a man-made KJV-only view.

What is kind, right, consistent, and scriptural about accusing believers of attacking the word of God because they disagree with opinions of men about a translation--the KJV?

 

I'm just going to go on record here as saying that I have read this entire thread.
:wavey:

 

And don't you feel edified? :laugh:

 

Yes, that was basically my point. :tongue3:

 

The Kettle Has Hit The Boiling Point!!!!

Rippon is THE "Peter Ruckman" everyone claims Peter Ruckman to be.....except he's not as smart. Besides....I wasn't even talking to him...I was addressing Logos...er..Rick Norris. Lest I let my temper get farther out of hand...that is my last post in this thread. I'm done here.

Bro.Greg

 

This is at least the second time you've said you're done. KJV Onlyism is a [snipped]Which revision is inspired? Where was the inspired Word of God before? What about the poor quality of Erasmus's Greek text? Jesus is the living word and the Holy Spirit alone is able to teach us the truth of God using errant translations. The original was inspired and we have many quite accurate translations. When I witness to catholics and Jehovah Witnesses I often use their translations to show them their errors. Even those trying to lead people astray can't mask all the truth.

The King James Only Controversy by James White is an excellent book on the topic.

And please don't get me started on Peter Ruckman. We used to live in Pensacola near his cult. Had some good discussions with some of his students and was amazed by others prejudice and stupidity.

 

It's also important to remember that there are not only two positions on the subject. There is a whole spectrum of ideology out there. The following observations are my own, not directly from any book, and I will state right now that this is my understanding of the subject, and thus, not "gospel fact".

The spectrum goes something like this.

A. KJ despisers. Think the KJ should never be used, that it is anathema.
B. KJ antagonists. Think the KJ is a very poor bible, totally outdated, obsolete
C. KJ minimalists. The KJ is one of many to choose them, and they don't like it
D. KJ pluralists. Put KJ on fairly equal value with others, but prefer others
E. Point zero. No opinion, or undecided.
F. KJ preference. Like the KJ, but have no philosophical reason.
G. KJ Selective. Prefer the KJ, thinking it is the best, but allowing others.
H. KJ Decisive. Believe KJ is the best, but believe it possible for a better to come. Warn believers about errors in other translations.
I. KJ Imperative. Believe that Thou shalt use the King James or Thou sinneth.
J. KJ Tyrannical. The KJ is absolutely the only game in town, and if you do not use the KJ, or if it was not used at your conversion, you are not saved. Not only this, but all non-English translations must be translated directly from the KJV. Thou hast no tolerance for people who believe otherwise; they are going to Hell.

Now that is the opinion for the KJV. There is a similar spectrum for the text families the translations came from. That spectrum, again, according to my understanding, is like this:

A. The Received Text (TR) is absolutely flawed and useless.
B. The TR is badly flawed, and decidedly worse than the W+H.
C. The TR is the lesser of the two text families, but still important.
D. The texts are of essentially equal value, or the person has no opinion.
E. The TR is the better text. It would be best to use it for all translation work.
F. The TR is definitively better, and the other texts are not to be considered. All translation, work to any language, MUST be done from the TR. (and the KJV is considered to be the embodiment of it in English).
G. God gave special, post-canonical blessing to the TR and its translation to English. Thou must believe that it is impossible to have a better English translation than the KJV. The translation itself was inspired with equal authority as the original manuscripts. The KJV itself is flawless.
H. Not only that (see G, above), but the KJV itself is now God's only endorsed word on earth today and for henceforward, such that using foreign language Bibles is wrong. If you are in a foreign land that speaks French, you must either convert a Bible directly into French from the English text of the KJV, or you must teach the French person to speak English (King James English, no less), so that they can read "the Bible" for themselves.
I. And not only that (see G and H above), but the original manuscripts and EVEN THE Textus Receptus ITSELF are irrelevant today, because the Heavenly endorsement of the KJV in 1611 means it is never necessary to study earlier documents today.


Now, that being my understanding of the situation, it is also true that there are more variations than I could list here, and "sideways, or non-linear" variations as well.

But everyone should be able to look through my list and more or less find their position on the KJV itself and the Textus Receptus.

 

:wavey::thumbs: An EXCELLENT post Wherever...Thanks! :godisgood:

Personally: I'm something like:

on issue 1 because I nominally believe that:

 

Yes...they did, and there were some VERY sound reasons why they did so:
I would encourage you to do some research as to why they did. If you research this objectively, you may find as I do, that the translators of the KJV got it ABSOLUTELY correct! :wavey: and that the MV's are actually WRONG on the issue.

The KJV translators were anything but stupid, and frankly, I think they had some understandings that we have forgotten in this modern era. It is charming humanism to assume that we have such BETTER resources and knowledge than they did, (and granted there is some research they didn't have).....but knowledge is often LOST over time as well!

Does anyone here know how to make concrete which will harden under water?? Anybody? Anyone?

Because the ancients sure did! We've simply forgotten how. I for one, do not assume for a second, that the available scholarship available NOW is inherently superior in ALL ways as theirs was....Different, and some more manuscripts, yes....but that doesn't mean they didn't know stuff we don't. Frankly, I find that arrogant and somewhat humanistic assumption to be short-sighted at best. I wonder why no KJV proponent has mentioned that? It's a fait-accompli to the KJV detractors that we are so much more knowledgeable.....I defy that premise.

 

Acts 12:4--Easter

What are those "very sound reasons" that prove that the KJV's rendering "Easter" at Acts 12:4 is "absolutely correct"?

 

'Inspired to them by the Holy Spirit!"

 

Do you hold that the modern versions are still bibles, just that there are inferior to the kjv?

that would be KJVP, NOT KJVO!

And MOSt of the Kjvo, if not all of them, do hold to teachings of the cult of rucerism or gail R!

 

REALLY? Is that what you honestly think? That the only reason one might think the translators of the KJV were correct in that translation is because they assume the translators were "inspired"?....you didn't bother to research it at all did you?

Fact: The word is translated "passover" 29 times in the NT.....in essentially EVERY modern version.

Fact: The KJV proceeds them also translating it that way EXCEPT for in that ONE instance. The KJV translators were AWARE of what they were doing, man. Whatever you should conclude, there is obviously, a reason (good or bad) for it.

Fact: It has nothing to do with the manuscripts they were using, as the word is the same as in modern texts.

Fact: Some earlier English Bible also translated it that way as well. Off the top of my head....the Coverdale and the Great Bible did....others did not.

Fact: The immediately preceeding Geneva also translates it as "Passover" as well.

Fact: Again...this was all info available to the translators of the KJV who were not near as stupid as you seem to think they were, and are either intentionally or not implying that I also am.

Logical conclusion: There is probably a very specific reason they translated it that way which it would behoove you to research. You obviously have not done so.

BTW: It is possible that I misspoke by saying the other translations were "wrong" to say Passover.......If you bothered to research the question for yourself, you might find that neither is (strictly speaking) "in-correct"....but, rather, I should have possibly said the KJV's rendering is "better".