You are too much! The KJV was a version,not the original. It is a mad-made document. It is not inspired. It is the Bible but not the Bible in the sense of all other translations not being the Word of God.
The KJVV,NKJ,MASBU,ESV,HCSB,NIV,NLT and many other versions have mistakes because they are not penned by people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit was were the originals.
See,that's one area where you are confused. it was not the dedicatory words,but the Preface written by Miles Smith. If you would take the time to read and digest it you would come to conclusions radically different than your KJVO stance.
Just as the texts they were revising.
...all the evidence to the contrary! :laugh:
I suppose with equal sincerity you would say that water is not wet.
What? You would dare to say that about the Word of God!:laugh:
They wouldn't "own up " to that because it is utterly untrue.
Because the KJVO nonsense doesn't add up to a hill of beans in all the other language groups.
That's right. And my blunt statement to you is to take stock in some actual scholarly materials not the KJVO "literature" and website morons who produce all this garbage.
Yes,the KJV has mistakes too
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rippon, Apr 19, 2013.
Page 4 of 6
-
-
Tsk,tsk,tsk.....!
Bro.Greg:saint: -
-
I suggest you take a sabbatical from BB until you realize your opinion is not the Inspired word of God. -
Baptist4life Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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: -
-
-
The Kettle Has Hit The Boiling Point!!!!
Bro.Greg -
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. -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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. -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
:wavey::thumbs: An EXCELLENT post Wherever...Thanks! :godisgood:
Personally: I'm something like:
H. KJ Decisive. Believe KJ is the best, but believe it possible for a better to come. Warn believers about errors in other translations.Click to expand...
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).Click to expand... -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite SupporterYeshua1 said: ↑i am still trying to imagine what easter in Acts must have been like in the time of the Roman Empire! for they translated easter as being the celebrated festival!Click to expand...
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
HeirofSalvation said: ↑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! and that the MV's are actually WRONG on the issue.Click to expand... -
Logos1560 said: ↑What are those "very sound reasons" that prove that the KJV's rendering "Easter" at Acts 12:4 is "absolutely correct"?Click to expand...
-
HeirofSalvation said: ↑:wavey::thumbs: An EXCELLENT post Wherever...Thanks! :godisgood:
Personally: I'm something like:
on issue 1 because I nominally believe that:Click to expand...
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! -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite SupporterYeshua1 said: ↑'Inspired to them by the Holy Spirit!"Click to expand...
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". -
The Atcs of the Apostles by C.H. Rieu 1957
'It is unfortunate that most of it [KJV] is no longer intelligible,even to churchgoers. A modern congregation often listens to a reading of one of the Old Testament prophets or of an Epistle of st Paul with almost no comprehension,and it is possible that the [preacher] is sometimes as mystified as his hearers. What hope can evangelists have,with such a translation,of converyingthe truths of the Bible to the pagan or to the half-educated outside the church doors?" (9)
Page 4 of 6