Featured Question for those who use modern translations.

In reality you are going against all reason.

Quite untrue IJ. Before the 16th century the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was rather very low. There have been undeniable advances in both languages since 16th and 17th centuries. They KJV revisers struggled with some passages because they honestly didn't have the knowledge of the original languages as biblical scholars do today.

 

As time goes by you might see your "friend" in a different light B4L.

 

It is the primary sense of the word. It doesn't just mean words that are not written in poetic form.
.

You are on a joy ride of some sort. You said the English language has "devolved" and I said it is developing --as all languages do with the passage of time.

Words change meaning over time. It is undeniable. You can't stop it. It is not necessarily a bad thing.

Well,TSE wasn't even a Christian,so I don't believe that is worth much. And we are talking about today --not decades ago.

 

....o.k...

 

I'm one of those oddballs who uses both the KJV and modern translations.

 

Inspector, you didn't answer my question. Have you been here before under another name? It's not a hard question, unless you want to avoid the truth.

 

So do I. Many others on BB do also, contrary to what the "inspector" thinks.

 

I consult numerous translations as well (contrary to what you think)..

I am also passably well-versed in the original Hebrew when I read the Old Testament.

So, I often like to read the Masoretic Hebrew and compare with KJV, Young's Literal (sometimes NASV) ...which you adore so much.etc......

I have no problem with that.

If you understand anything about the whole "KJVO-THINGY"....you would understand that it essentially boils down only to the "Textual Criticism" issues of New Testament manuscripts only (which is why I choose to study Hebrew and not Greek).

 

Sure...why not?

Have the Moderators ban my profile if you want. I don't care. I'm sure that will prove you "right" about everything you post wouldn't it?

 

Most people do.
You aren't an "odd-ball" on that account.

 

Me too. But after using the KJV almost exclusively for the past 40 years (and some NKJV) I'm pretty much going with the NIV now.

 

No, but it proves you're not honest about everything you post.

 

Since KJV-only advocates do not present any consistent, logical, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory, do they try to excuse or justify their non-scriptural KJV-only opinions by attacking or misrepresenting believers who disagree with those opinions?

 

That's one thing that annoys me. I find that both sides some measure of posturing and accusing the other side, though. To the same extent? Probably not.
To the church I grew up in, any church, speaker, preacher, or book that uses any version other than the KJV is apostate and not to be trusted, the epitome of deceit, run don't walk away. That kind of talk annoyed the crap out of me. I had seen plenty of material from those who used other versions and it rang true to my spirit whether at the time I agreed with the version they were using or not. (I used to be KJO.)


On the other hand, when I began researching the issue, I found plenty of articles that concentrated on bashing the KJO side more than I cared for. I wanted facts, not an exchange of ad hominems.

 

KJV-only advocates seem to want to misrepresent and attack those who attempt objectively to present facts and documented evidence.

Facts have been presented about the many changes and revisions that the KJV made to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. The makers of the KJV made many of the same type changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles as later translators make to the KJV. A few of those changes introduced in the KJV were even made for questionable reasons such as to favor the divine right of kings view of King James I and to favor the Episcopal church government view of the Church of England.

Facts have been presented about the actual errors that were found in the 1611 edition of the KJV. Facts have been presented about the errors in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. Facts have been presented that document some of the hundreds of differences and variations in the many varying editions of the KJV.

KJV-only advocates seem to want to claim incorrectly that posting established facts and documented evidence is supposedly slandering the KJV.

 

It proves you are reaching....and you've got nothing.

Like, if I am running against Chris Christie for political office and I simply call him "fat" because I've got nothing else.. That's what it proves.

 

It has not been demonstrated otherwise.

 

Let's just say that honesty is not your strong suit JI (or rather HoS).

 

What lie have I told???? Do tell? Or are you slandering for no reason?

Because, that's what it sounds like you are doing. Point out what lie I told, and I'll admit to it...

I await.