Not Jacobean English though.....
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Questions for those holding an extreme KJVO position
- Thread starter Thermodynamics
- Start date
- Status
Will J. Kinney
Member
universal English
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
God knew English would be the last days universal language, but not everybody has to learn English.
Not Jacobean English though.....
Yes, the slightly antiquated but far more accurate King James Bible English is what God used if you want the have the perfect, preserved and 100% true words of God.
Look at the pattern. The Hebrew used in the O.T and the Greek used in the N.T. are both slightly antiquated but native Jews and Greeks can read them and understand them. What God fearing Jew would dare make a comic book translation of his Hebrew Old Testament?
When you read the KJB you get the more accurate "thee, thou, and ye, you" and you know you are reading a book that has been around for a long time, has stood the test of its critics and is about eternal truths. It does not read like the morning newspaper, nor is it supposed to. It is God's Book with God's words. There is none else like it.
Will K
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
God knew English would be the last days universal language, but not everybody has to learn English.
Not Jacobean English though.....
Yes, the slightly antiquated but far more accurate King James Bible English is what God used if you want the have the perfect, preserved and 100% true words of God.
Look at the pattern. The Hebrew used in the O.T and the Greek used in the N.T. are both slightly antiquated but native Jews and Greeks can read them and understand them. What God fearing Jew would dare make a comic book translation of his Hebrew Old Testament?
When you read the KJB you get the more accurate "thee, thou, and ye, you" and you know you are reading a book that has been around for a long time, has stood the test of its critics and is about eternal truths. It does not read like the morning newspaper, nor is it supposed to. It is God's Book with God's words. There is none else like it.
Will K
No, not entirely. The Hebrew text is actually in worse shape than the Greek text in some respects. Of course, you probably can't read Hebrew either, and so discussions about Hebrew variants would go further over your head than discussions about Greek variants.
The KJV follows the “fictitious” LXX and Syriac as well at times. Again, your statement can only be attributed to ignorance.
Yes, and I fail to see an answer. Why?
Yes. I am well familiar with the topic.
There are a number of references to preservation. I didn’t think that was in dispute. The issue is the claim that the KJV alone is the preserved word of God. You are dodging the question and we all know why: You don’t have an answer because God never anywhere said to believe what you say we should believe. You have added to the Words of God. I reject that.
No, you are doing quite fine on your own.
You are wrong yet again. I have applied the standards to the view that I hold. I hold my view for a reason: I can support it from Scripture. I don’t have to make it up.
And where did God say this?
No, not really true. Modern Hebrew and modern Greek is very different than the ancient languages. A great many people who can speak and read modern Hebrew and Greek can't make much sense out of the biblical languages. I have specifically asked before. One of my Hebrew professors was in class with a modern day native Hebrew speaker, and my professor could read biblical Hebrew better than the native could.
This is the only possible upside, but the downsides far outweigh it.
Shakespeare would read the same way, but it would be an evidence of eternal truth.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the language of it. It has to do with its character.
Samuel Owen
New Member
Not Jacobean English though.....
I see a little history may be needed here. The language of the KJV is neither Jacobean English, or Shakespearean English. When William Tyndale started his English translation, he found the syntax of the English of the day could not give an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew. So he struggled for some time with the problem, finally formulating the poetic syntax of the English.
Then we just might have to call it KJV Bible English. Because that is what it is. If it had not been for William Tyndale, there would have been no Shakespear, he actually took credit for something that was not his. There also might not have been a KJV Bible, had it not been for William Tyndale, and his Bible English.
People need to stop mistakenly giving Shakspear credit for having anything to do with the KJV, he had absolutely nothing to do with it.
I see a little history may be needed here. The language of the KJV is neither Jacobean English, or Shakespearean English. When William Tyndale started his English translation, he found the syntax of the English of the day could not give an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew. So he struggled for some time with the problem, finally formulating the poetic syntax of the English.
Then we just might have to call it KJV Bible English. Because that is what it is. If it had not been for William Tyndale, there would have been no Shakespear, he actually took credit for something that was not his. There also might not have been a KJV Bible, had it not been for William Tyndale, and his Bible English.
People need to stop mistakenly giving Shakspear credit for having anything to do with the KJV, he had absolutely nothing to do with it.
It was the "Shakespearean Age" as far as literature was concerned. Shakespeare was far more popular and well known then either Tyndale or the KJV translators. He lived between 1564 and 1616, approximately the same time as both Tyndale and the translation of the KJV.
Well, you stepped in it there.
That's simply not true.
Of course, it would disappoint and disgust Will to learn that the Bible versions he castigates (the word of God)...simply doesn't lead to the theological flaws he wishes it did.
Show me one significant theological flaw that reading an MV will give me versus reading the KJV (and since I use both, this should be doubly hard).
*crickets*
Samuel Owen
New Member
You read it, now you can take it to the bank. Shakespear had nothing to do with the KJV Bible.
The English style of the KJV, is not from Shakespear. It is William Tyndales baby. Shake-a-spear used Tyndales English, and did not bother to tell anyone.
God knew?Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
God knew English would be the last days universal language, but not everybody has to learn English.
Will K
How do you know what God knows? This is an inference of omniscience of Will Kinney is it not?--that Will Kinney knows the mind of God, that which is outside of Scriptures.
Who said (besides you) that God said that English would be the universal language of the last days? Is it not possible that this scenario could change? Perhaps with the fast changing face of this world, the ever increasing rise of the Islamic world, you will be faced with learning Arabic some day. Who knows? Nothing here is set in stone.
There are more people in the world that speak Chinese than there are that speak English.
I agree with you. Tyndale's work is the basis of the KJV. Shakespeare had nothing to do with it. Of course that is true.
I am merely pointing out that it is called "Shakespearean English" because of the man "William Shakespeare" himself, a prolific author of that time period, who people of our age generally refer back to as symbolic of that period of time when speaking of literature. And thus it is called Shakespearean English. We are speaking of the English language in general, not simply the Bible.
Thermodynamics
Member
I think one other point should be made about William Shakespeare and the King James Bible. While they mark the to highest points in the use of the English language, they are polar opposites.
William Shakespeare used a very rich vocabulary, something on the order of 30,000 different words. The King James Bible on the other hand uses a very simple, I would say almost Spartan vocabulary, something on the order of 8,000 different words.
William Shakespeare used a very rich vocabulary, something on the order of 30,000 different words. The King James Bible on the other hand uses a very simple, I would say almost Spartan vocabulary, something on the order of 8,000 different words.
Samuel Owen
New Member
I just wanted to point out for some, who maybe don't know any better. That Shakespear did not have anything to do with the KJV. I would hate to think he had anything to do, with any version of the Bible. Shake-a-spear was an absolute maniac.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
I do not limit it to the translators of the KJV. Any scribe or copyist who accurately reproduced a reliable copy of the original was used by God to providentially preserve His Word.
In my opinion, the KJV translators were used by God to translate into English, a version that is based upon extant mss that accurately reflect the originals. This is no way implies double inspiration, but rather providential preservation. I do not believe that the translators were inspired as were the writers of the autographa. I do, however, believe that their work was a result of God's preservation, and that the KJV, above all other English translations, holds that distinction.
My authority in all matters of faith and practice is the Word of God. You said "I believe..." Show me from the Word of God where this belief comes from. Otherwise I shall conclude that it is just a passing imaginary thought based on nothing but imagination. That is how cults get started. Their founders state "I believe...." But they have no basis for their beliefs. If you truly are a Baptist, a Bible-believing Christian then you ought to show from the Bible that the "King James Bible is the final product of the purification process God used to give the world a perfect Bible." And you ought to be able to defend against all others that it is a perfect Bible. That you have not done.
Is this called historical hyper-dispensationalism of the KJV?
If you concede that such a process was in process, then would it not be possible for me to make a translation of the NT, and my translation be just as "inspired" in your eyes as the KJV? Why not?
James 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
--I also am a man subject to like passions as others. I am no less or greater than others. And the same goes for the KJV translators.
You only speak theoretically, not practically. You follow ideas not truth. The truth is that more than 90 % of the world that does have a Bible has a translation of the Bible that is based on the Critical Text, not on the TR. You can holler all you want what should be; but that is not reality. The reality is that most of the world's Bibles are akin to the ASV, RSV, NASV, etc. They are nowhere close to the KJV or a text similar to the TR. One might conclude from that logic that since: from all the nations of the world that do have a Bible, over 90% are translated from the Critical Text, that perhaps it is God's will for the Critical Text to be the basis for the Bibles that we have today and not the TR. After all that is what God gave to 90% of the world isn't it? That is not my personal belief, but it is something to think about.
Again, your opinion; but nothing substantiated in Scripture.
Why then did God give so many nations a Bible translated from a text so different from the KJV?
This is just nonsense--something that I would expect to find in the Book of Mormon. Where did you get it from?
How so? (Off-topic I realize.)
The Geneva, Bishop's Bible, the Great Bible among others are quite like it. It's not so original. It's largely derivative in that it borrowed so heavily from Tyndale's work. You'll have to do better if you'd like to name a really unique translation.
Exactly! This is what you, personally, choose to believe - nothing more and/or nothing less.
This is purely, flatly, and simply bunk! (Or bull, for the farmers, such as I happen to be, in this crowd!) If this were true, as you allege, then the KJV (or the textual basis that lies behind the KJV, anyway) would have stated this to be true.
However, it does not. Ergo, again the above quoted statements are nothing more than the personal opinion of Will J. Kenney, which make them, by definition, no more or less valid than that of EdSutton, DHK, Samuel Owen, Thermodynamics, Dr. Bob, Pastor Bob, Pastor Larry, Mexdeaf, rbell, any other poster on this thread (since I did not check to see who all had posted but remembered these), or any 'Joe Blow' who may happen to venture a personal opinion on this (or any other) subject.
Yes, certainly 'God hath said' many things. However, one thing that God hath not said is that the KJV is any sort of the ultimate Bible, anyway.
Again, this is nothing more than your own personal opinion. The Bible, in any version, simply never makes this claim.
We actually agree on this, at least here.
Just can't keep your own opinion out of the discussion, can you.
Assuming the textual basis of this version is the best, which may or may not be the case, again I agree.
I completely disagree, here. This has (A.) introduced a two-step process of translation, where the actual meaning of the Hebrew, Chaldee/Aramaic, and Greek, when rendered into another language, has to also be subject to English. (Tell that one to the translators of the Bible into French, German, Italian, Spanish, and some other 'Modern languages', all of which preceded and predated the translation of the Bible into 'Modern English' beginning with Tyndale, Rogers and Coverdale. They would probably disagree with this one, completely.
And they certainly should!!); plus (B.) This assumes that the English language of the KJV does a better job of rendering the Hebrew. Aramaic and Greek, than is possible in other languages, which is, as another has pointed out, an 'ethnocentric' position, as well as an 'egocentric' position, at best, and smacks of something similar to the teachings of Mormonism, as still another has already pointed out.; and (C.) The question is how well does the version accurately render the translation into the language in view, not some other language, which may or may not be 'cognate' upon the language into which the Bible is actually being (or has been) translated.For one example, our Baptist Board member and friend, John of Japan is currently actively involved in translating the Bible into the Japanese language. One may actively and accurately question this translation as to the texts being used, as to whether or not they are the best available. However, no one can accurately and fairly question the translation on whether or not is accurately reflects the English language, rather than the Japanese language, into which it is being translated.
Now, having likely wasted 2 hours more than I should, I am going to :sleeping_2: .
G'nite, all!
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL. When I read Milton's Paradise Lost I get the same old time feeling.
- Status