Featured I'm Not Attacking The Bible...

I didn't know that! Just goes to show, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

I suppose (since you did not explicitly state) that your evaluation of "good" actually means that you can appreciate the irony of such statements that begin with "I'm not attacking..." and then seemingly precede to do precisely the opposite.

But I could not conclude that this collection of statements without any context whatsoever and without defining some critical terms is "good". I am a bit surprised and disappointed that any genuine Christian could.

 

Didn't know that. Thanks!

If I remember correctly, Augustine was one who believed the LXX was a perfect, inerrant translation.

 

Thanks. It was fun to read those again. You are right that Augustine is not advocating for an inerrant LXX. Maybe it was Origen that I was thinking of. Old Origen had so many other bizzarre beliefs that an inerrant translation wouldn't be a stretch for him.

 

Of course you would think its good, the author promotes KJVO ideals while erecting strawmen to burn in an effort to make us modern English Version proponents look bad. However, he is doing in Polish what he decries in English. He claims that the old Polish version is antiquated and hard to understand, so he is updating it into modern Polish - while telling us English speakers that the much older KJV (older than the old Polish version) is good enough for us.

 

Why are so many lined up to attack the King James Bible with differing views of scripture based on their versions of the modern Bible?

Why isn't there an equivalent "fight" over the differences between modern versions by their owners/supporters? Why don't we see pages and pages of debate because of NIV and Holman differences, errors, omissions, etc. & etc.? American Standard vs the Message or any other of the 200-300 "versions" of God's word that have been published since the 1880's? Yes, there is some, but so minor to be almost insignificant to the KJB opposition.

Why do so few question why the NIV (for example) has to re-issue it's latest greatest best Bible every few years? Far less years than it takes for "language usage" to be a material factor? Is it because supporters of the Holman (again just an example) know their own Bible is undergoing similar re-translations? Thus they can't question the NIV publishers?

Even though each of these Bibles, claiming to use "the oldest and best manuscripts", have hundreds, perhaps, thousands of differences in translation. And, as a general rule, the various editions/revisions of each disagree with earlier ones. NIV vs Holman seems to disappear as each line up against the KJB.

Why are KJB attackers taking on the behavior of the liberal news media? The liberal media outlets are going to use the worst of the extremist positions for a conservative position as the "examples" to support opposition against all conservatives. To paint, if you will, all conservatives with the same brush or one very similar. Are the majority of Baptist pastors like the Koran burning one? Are all pro-life supporters planning to throw bombs at abortion clinics? The liberal media would like the world to think each is the case.

Is satan pleased when pastors "fight" with each other over God's word? Is satan pleased when scholars "fight" over originals that don't exist. Is satan pleased when professing Christians don't beleive God kept His word to preserve His word? Is satan pleased when Koran beleivers use Christian bible controversy as weapon against Jesus?

How can Christians put on the whole armour of God when they don't know where to find it? Ephesians 6:9-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6:9-19&version=KJV

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

Repeat: Why are so many lined up to attack the King James Bible with differing views of scripture based on their versions of the modern Bible?

In closing, I own a number of bible versions. Have now spent a couple of years looking at this issue. I'm not a scholar, just a layman, who's coming to a singular conclusion regarding this question.

Amos 8:10-12 KJB
11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

 

Not happening.

I have had threads comparing the NIV with the HCSB. But there was no issue with "errors and omissions etc."

The updating was nwecessary because the older niv 84 is almost 30 years old. The English language has changed in a little more than a quarter of a century. The 84 is still understandable;but the updating provides greater clarity. The slight revision makes the language more natural. And,of course,their have been steps in scholarship as well.

Translations.

You're not being clear. Do you mean that the newer Bible versions differ with your standard of the KJV?

If not the above,of course each modern version differs with other modern translations. It's not a major deal.

You're being silly. Take a look at any Bible translation and you will note that Ephesians 6:9-19 is intact. It's very easy to find.

It is stated in virtually the same manner in the NIV.

Repeat...what's the big deal?

 

If you can't fathom the obvious I feel sorry for you.

 

You Amen the silliest things B4L.

 

Of course it's happening. Every new translation implies directly or indirectly that it's better than the KJB. For example from the NIV, 1984 copyright:
"A present-day translation is not enhanced by forms that in the time of the King James Version were used in everyday speech, whether referring to God or man." Taken from the introduction discussion on the use of pronouns.

a) A direct reference to the KJB.
b) According to what I understand, the KJB translators did not use "everyday" speech (everyday spoken language) of the time. Instead they used the form of English that most accurately portrays the scripture intent. Ya'll or you to bring in a little Southern dialect.

You've made my point. There's no issue when one modern version omits verses and another includes them? There is no issue when one modern version states specifically that Jesus was born of a virgin, while another uses the term "young woman" without any indication that she was indeed a virgin? Just two issues of many that can be cited, specifically, if the need arises.

If clarity plus advancement in scholarship were the sole and valid reasons, why have some versions flip-flopped from one edition to the next. It'll take me a while to dig out examples, but can supply same.

Nitpick. You are a highly educated, intelligent person, based on your postings. As I said, I'm just a layman trying to understand God's word. I'm sure you well understood what I meant. At least at this point, I'm giving you credit for that.

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. I'm well aware of the different lines of manuscripts used for the KJB and most modern versions. That accounts for some of the differences. My point is that if modern A and modern B are using the same line of manuscripts (oldest/best) then why don't they agree with each other and disagree with the KJB? A & B disagree with each other. Yet, this doesn't seem to be an issue to any extent. It is a material issue that warrents pages of discussion when A disagrees with the KJB. Same when B disagrees with the KJB.

I respectfully disagree. It is a major deal as God isn't the author of confusion for those within the body of Christ. Nor those who we, as professing Christians, are to bring into the body of Christ by proclaiming His word. (And, I know we don't actually bring anyone into the body of Christ, so this shouldn't be a debate rebuttal point.)

Silly? No. Perhaps, unclear in my point. I wasn't referring to those verses for comparision between Bible Translations.

Again, I wasn't referring to these verses for comparison.

This is the big deal.

Amos 8:10-12 KJB
11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

Why can't/won't, born again in Christ, people agree on one translation, whether it's the American Standard (1901) or the King James Bible (4th printing - don't have the date handy) and stick with it? Or, stick with those two?

At the rate that new translations and revised revisions of revisions are rolling off the presses, how soon before there's a 1,000 to chose from, none of which are in agreement.

If we believe that God doesn't lie, at some point His truth will not be available to girth our loins, as we won't hear the word of God spoken in the land.

 

Wow, that OP is just plain misleading and silly. I would say more but that is all the commentary it deserves.

 

No,they did not use the form of Entglish that most accurately protrayed the scripture intent. You didn't get that from the Preface.

They used a form of English from about 70 years prior which no one actually spoke.

The KJV added a lot than what was in the originals. They removed a lttle too.

Not the sole reasons,but among the most imporant. no flip-flop at all --improved accuracy.

There is no conflict between the KJV and the NIV (and many other more modern versions in the passage from Amos. Why do you insist there is?

Because it has pleased the Lord to have a variety of translations.

 

B4L,have you actually lisened to Young's rant? You apparently are speaking off the top of your head. You would be ashamed of yourself if you actually listened to it. You owe Mexdeaf an apology.

 

We have access to manuscripts and miniscules that are much closer to the time of the autographs than that which the KJV revisers had access to. Therefore the the originals would be reflected in the documents just a couple decades to a few centuries afterward.