Featured Conflicting claims concerning the KJV: when was perfect edition made?

It is never a waste of life to attempt to master truth. It is a waste of life to live and propagate a lie.

 

These questions weren't asked of me....but...I'd like to answer anyway:

 

If your entire life's study centers around debating particles which have no discernible difference in the meaning of a phrase when the entire argument is based upon "textual criticism" and not italics for conjunctions (or to be specific...the indefinite particle "a" in English) that don't even exist in a source language.....
Than....it's definitely an UTTER waste of time, talent and energy.

 

Most are....and the knife cuts absolutely BOTH WAYS!!!!

 

Again I say- if it refutes error, it's not a waste. I'm thankful someone is doing the legwork to find the truth of these things.

 

^^^^^ But only when it's against the KJV it seems. There are just as many "errors" in the various MV's that could be refuted, yet I see no one giving countless hours doing that. Say what you will, deny it til the cows come home, but most of the threads on here, disguised as "only trying to refute KJVO", are in truth, demeaning and attacking the KJV. For shame.

 

The "TRUTH" of WHAT things?????
That the original 1611 wasn't "perfect"??????

DUH....find a KJVO on this board who submits that propostion and then you'll be fighting against an enemy who actually...what's the word?....EXISTS

You don't get the KJVO argument at all:

Here's the easy one-step, two-step:
1.)The KJV was translated (masterfully but perhaps not "perfectly")
from a source-group of attested and verifiable manuscripts which do not agree with the general manuscripts used by post KJV translations.

2.) The KJV used manuscripts which differ from the manuscripts used by all modern Bible translations.

3.) Those differing manuscripts DO NOT I'll repeat this DO NOT
say the same things that the manuscripts used by the translators of the KJV do....

4.) If ONE set of manuscripts says ONE thing....and ANOTHER set of manuscripts says ANOTHER....than they are NOT BOTH "EQUAL"...

They DON'T say the same thing...
And if one says one thing, and the other another, than you have two logical possibilities:
a.) One is right and the other is wrong
b.) both are wrong.

Here's the deal. I wouldn't have a heart-attack if "We do you to wit"...(in the KJV) were modernized to say "We would have you to know"....

Nor would I lose my head if "gaddest thou not?"....were modernized to say "know you not?"...

Nor would my head explode if "The wind bloweth withersoever it 'listeth' " were modernized to say: "The wind blows wherever it may"....but ya know what?

English is devolving in it's capacity for expression.
Would I substitute the KJV "shall" for the generic and devolved "will" in modern English???

NOPE! because those two words are not synonymous and DO NOT mean precisely the same thing.

Would I substitute "thee, thou, and ye" for the generic and preposterously inspecific "you" of lazy modern English?...
NOPE. because they don't mean the same thing....it's not that it's more "poetic"...it's more precise and accurate vis-à-vis the original.

 

Let's try this from my perspective:

"But only when it's against modern versions it seems. There are just as many "errors" in the various KJV's that could be refuted, yet I see no one giving countless hours doing that. Say what you will, deny it til the cows come home, but most of the threads on here, disguised as "only trying to refute false doctrine", are in truth, demeaning and attacking the MV's. For shame."

If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

That's mostly your own opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. My opinion is different. Your "devolution" is my clarity of understanding.

But you are not entitled to make up your own facts. That's where Logos comes in. You don't like the facts? Too bad. Most of KJVO is built on opinions, traditions and theological presuppositions, not facts.

The KJV is a beautiful translation. It was my only translation for 25 years. Then I learned Spanish and read the Bible in Spanish. The differences were mind-blowing - and destroyed any tiny belief in KJVO that I ever had. It didn't help when I had pastors who knew no Spanish telling me that my Spanish Bible was "corrupted" because it disagreed with the KJV in various places.

You use your sword, I'll use mine. Let's fight the common enemy. And we both win in the end.

 

My "argument" has NOTHING to do with "Spanish" translations nor the difference betwixt a possibly moronic KJVO supporter and their idiotic assertions that any given Spanish translation might be corrupted.

I say nothing of the sort. Frankly, I'm nominally insulted that you might put any of my statements in the same category as those who might draw comparisons with a Spanish Translation.

If you honestly think that anything I have suggested speaks to Spanish Translations...than I feel you have misunderstood me.

I don't speak Spanish...and I never will....but, if there is a decent Spanish Translation (and I happen to already know that there is) of the Bible from the same body of manuscripts as used to translate the KJV...then I have no argument with it.

It's an issue of manuscript evidence...not particles, conjunctions, italics and plural forms vs. dual forms (and I now suspect that LOGOS has ZERO training in the source languages given his posts).....I haven't a CLUE how to translate into Spanish...but, I'm pretty sure that Logos couldn't take an original source text in either Hebrew or Greek and translate into English.

His arguments suggest as much to me.

 

.
This may be the difference between you and I.....

I don't allow the moronic rantings of foolish men to shape my opinions about a topic..

If you allowed a foolish and ill-educated KJVO supporter to negatively impact your view of the KJVO argument...than your views are suspect, and you are self-admittedly influenced in your views by stupid Ruckmanites.

I'm not.

I know how to eat the meat and spit out the bones.

 

It wasn't ONE "foolish and ill-educated KJVO supporter", it was many. I was first exposed to the teaching in 1976. I've been fighting it almost ever since- even when the KJV was the only version that I used.

The KJVO argument is built on a stack of innuendo and has NO BIBLICAL SUPPORT. None.

So-called "experts" notwithstanding.

I don't have a problem with you or your Bible. But if you are one of those who go around saying that it is the ONLY Bible, exclusively, that all others are Satanic counterfeits, etc. - THAT'S wrong. Especially when there is no proof.

Hasta luego y Dios le bendiga. Spent too much time here today.

 

I just do not understand why demeaning/running down/pointing out the flaws in, etc. the KJV is what you consider fighting KJVOnlyism. I've seen no one on here making the claims that you are accusing them of. Most have simply said they use the KJV, believe it to be the best, and stated that others may use whatever version they like. Logos, roby, and others have posted numerous threads maligning the KJV, which has nothing to do with KJVOism, and, IMHO, is an simply attack on a well loved version of the Word of God. Frankly, I know MANY , MANY people who use the KJV, have used it all their lives, would probably never use anything else, but have ZERO problems with someone else using whatever version they want. I know NNE who believes "you're not saved" etc. unless you read the KJV, and I know of ZERO churches that have split over the KJV vs. other versions.

You guys remind me of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who do everything they can to keep racism going. They NEED racism to keep themselves relevant. Without racism, they've got nothing! And in the same light, it's almost like an addiction with some of you. If you guys didn't have KJVO to post about, it seems your lives would be meaningless. So like Jesse and Al, you need to "keep it alive". It's all you've got in your sad little lives. Logos and Roby are ALL OVER the internet every minute of the day it seems, posting about KJVOism! That is sad...............and as Revmitchell stated..........borders on obsession. Do you people not work, or have a life outside these forums? You seem to spend your every free moment posting on forums pointing out the flaws of the KJV. Something is just WRONG about that. Perhaps you should seek some help. Or better yet, perhaps you should ask God to open a door to a ministry that leads people to Christ, instead of trying to "win the internet argument" over the KJV issue. No one I know really cares too much about it anyway. There are probably a half dozen different versions used by people in my church. We all get along, we all are Christians, have a deep LOVE for one another, and frankly, never even discuss the whole KJVO issue. I would be amazed if most of them would even give it a second thought. We all know that we use whatever particular version we use because we, personally, LIKE that version, and let it go at that. IMHO, this whole thing is "much ado about nothing".

 

BF4 where have you been. There are some rabid KJVonlyist here. They really do believe that it is the only legitimate Bible. Refuting this heresy is not an attack on the KJV. It is an attack on gross error.

 

[filthy and lewd remarks]

 

I don't believe there are such regular posters on B.B. I defy you to name one of these deranged people who have said this.

STOP!!!! the hatred of KJV on B.B....
and no one will care a fig for what translation you use...just try it.

 

Exactly right.

 

[Disgusting and filthy - edited and warned]

 

You couldn't be more wrong IJ.

To those who want to shed light on the KJVO mentality B4L said they lead "sad little lives". He compares them with the race baiters Sharpton and Jackson. He said that they need to seek help.

In short --not Christ-like nor reasonable and sane.

Are you really that obtuse? We object to KJVOism.

Now that is one of the most unChrist-like remarks one could make. Shame on you IJ.

The above is so sinful and infantile of you IJ.