Featured Question for those who use modern translations.

:thumbsup::applause:

 

Inspector, you sound familiar to me. Have you been here before under a different name?

 

the Kjv translators did NOT have the various Greek manuscripts that we have available to use since their time...

they did NOT themselves view their version asbeing either perfect or last one to come...

Are you saying that there has been NO textual advances/manuscripts discovered/liguistic/grammar/lexicon advances since thetranslated the Kjv?

 

"sound" is not accurate............that would be a sort of KJV-rendering not acceptable to the modern reader:

Better you said "you READ familiarly, to my perception".

Is that more "understandable" to everyone on B.B.?

 

You "read" familiar to me. Happy?

Have you been here before under a different name?

 

The KJV is not slandered at this forum. You failed to show that it was in your apparent attempts to slander believers who disagree with the opinions of those who advocate a KJV-only theory.

 

Your biased opinion and claim that a statement is correct does not demonstrate that it is.

Why would I or anyone accept that an unproven, bogus, false accusation of slander was supposedly true based on your faulty, biased opinion that is evidently based on use of divers measures?

I hold the same basic view of Bible translations that the makers of the KJV advocated.

Did the makers of the KJV supposedly slander the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision when they changed, altered, and revised many renderings in them?

Did the later editors of KJV editions supposedly slander the KJV when they made many changes, revisions, and corrections to the text of the 1611 edition?

 

You have not demonstrated that the renderings in all modern English Bibles are supposedly altered MERELY for the sake of "readability."

Did the makers of the KJV alter and revise many renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles merely for the sake of readability?

If revision, alteration, and updating of the renderings of earlier English Bibles is wrong according to a consistent application of your own claimed point, are you in effect proving that the makers of the KJV were wrong to revise, change, alter, or update them?

 

Thank you for your defense, Inspector Javert. As you can see, the denial continues, yet we, and I know many others, can see it plainly. As for Logos, I tend to just ignore him because, frankly, his pride and arrogance tend to make me upset, and I find it best to just not respond to him at all. God bless you, my friend.

 

When KJV-only posters will not or cannot provide sound evidence for their accusations against believers in the Scriptures that disagree with a KJV-only theory, it may be that they show that they are blinded by their own subjective KJV-only opinions and faulty KJV-only reasoning.

Providing accurate, true information about the making of the KJV, about the KJV itself, about the KJV translators, about editions of the KJV and their actual differences, etc. does not slander the KJV. In effect, I defend the KJV against the incorrect and false claims that some make for it.

What have I supposedly posted that slanders the KJV?

Taking the claims, reasoning, arguments, and accusations of KJV-only advocates and applying them consistently including to the KJV does not slander the KJV.

I have clearly stated the KJV is a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same way and in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same way and in the same sense that later English translations such as the NKJV are.

The KJV is the word of God in English in the same way and in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same way and in the same sense that later English translations such as the NKJV are.

I have read the KJV from my childhood and since I was saved. I accept the KJV as what it is: a good overall translation of the Scriptures.

The fact that I disagree with a modern, man-made KJV-only theory and its incorrect claims does not show any disrespect for the KJV. The KJV translators themselves rejected a one-perfect-translation-only theory.

 

The aforementioned versions have far fewer words that would be misunderstood than the KJV --be honest B4L.

Nobody is saying anything about throwing the Bible away. Those SS children haven't thrown the Bible away by not using the KJV. They have the Bible in the various translations you have said they use.

 

Of course not.You're saying the Lord wants us to continually use the KJV --jump through the hoops of understanding its ancient phraseology to actually understand what God is saying to us? Nonsense. God speaks through modern translations much more clearly --thank you very much. God didn't give you your error-filled message.

It is a decided improvement over the KJV in being understandable to folks of this era.

Well,I made a thread or two in the past on the BB comparing the two and the NASBU has much more natural English than the ESV in a number of places.

No,the NIV would be the best candidate for balancing those two factors.

 

That's good! Who wants a prosaic translation? Why endorse something dull and commonplace?

No it is developing. You just don't have a perspective of time. All languages change considerably over time. It's not a negative thing.

Well,you aren't thinking clearly. And you really don't don't know what you are talking about. You're just playing Devil's Advocate anyway because the KJV is not your Bible translation of choice.

In the maninstream English translations none are trivial.Pedantic --perhaps the ESV at times. But the ERV of the 1880's certainly qualifies as being pedantic.

 

I think Logos meant well.

I think Logos actually does LOVE the Word of God.

I think he saw and balked at most of the fallacious arguments often propounded by many KJVO advocates.

I think that to defeat them...he researched much and lost his way in the process.

I think he is truly "anti-KJV"...but that he simply doesn't know that. His purpose was genuine and admirable:

His purpose was to defeat false doctrines of "Double-Inspiration" a-la Ruckman etc...I think that was an admirable goal. I think he lost his way in the process. I think he IS "anti-KJV"...but he honestly isn't even aware of it. I think it took his toll on him.

That's my sheer opinion of course, and I speak with no authority whatsoever. (As though I can Psycho-analyze him) But, that's my assessment anyway. I think he's a good man who turned full-circle and isn't aware of how FAR he's come.