Featured 1 John 5:7,8

You like the taste of your foot, Sir.

I did not mention the RSV.

I suggest that you read the chapter that I suggested, and see for yourself the Complaints of Armitage against the KJVO in the 19th Century.

I own the 2 volume set, and have read through the aforementioned chapter many times.

What is unfortunate, is that you, who hasn't actually read it, accuses me, who suggested it, of not having read it. Yet you have commentary. As if my quote was out of the blue, or a lie, or my misconception.

Read the book. There was a KJVO movement among the American Bible Societies in the mid 1800's, and Armitage complained loudly about it.

BTW, no Baptist, in my opinion, should be without Armitage's work.
Nearly 1,000 pages of invaluable
resource.

 

I had heard this but it is not in the biographies. Rolland McCune does document it (http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/nonissue.pdf, footnotes), but he says it was only once and then JRR wrote a retraction and apology the very next issue.

The RSV is a pretty literal, accurate translation as far as it goes. I'm sure you're aware that the main objection of evangelicals in general (including fundamentalists) was the rendering of almah as "young woman" instead of "virgin."

One thing that has been said on the Internet that is mistaken is that John R. Rice sometimes quoted the RSV in his books, but the version he actually quoted sometimes was the ASV/ERV.

 

Are you paying attention? As I said, I did read the whole chapter carefully and found none of what you said. I think the problem is that you don't comprehend 19th century English well enough. The book nowhere says that any translation whatsoever was made from the KJV. I dare you to give a quote that proves me wrong. You can't.

I read the chapter, as I told you clearly. I'll take your word that you have read it. I deny that you understood the 19th century English. And by the way, I did not accuse you. I questioned whether you had read it. Now you've answered that. Please be more careful with your words.

I completely disagree. Give quotes to prove your point. You've simply stated it, not proved it all. If you can't do that, at a bare minimum, give page numbers, or otherwise you are simply giving your opinion, not historical fact.

 

I just read your previous post, which didn't come up as a notification, so I apologize for not knowing that you had now read the chapter.

I suggest you reread it, you now know how tedious that book is to get through.

Look for the quote, about translators who felt that the kjv descended from Heaven.

Yes, Baptizo was mentioned, but you missed the part where these societies determined, by vote, to only use the common English Bible as the basis for translation.

You mentioned the change, to the TR, in your post, led by Armitage, so there was obviously a change from a previous position.

You could not have absorbed that chapter, in 1 perusal, no one can, it is like an encyclopedia.

Now you accuse me of not speaking English, but of course, you'll deny it later, like some shyster lawyer who says things in front of a jury, that will be stricken from the official record, but will potentially affect the outcome of the trial. You'll say that you were only supposing.

I understand English, so do you.

If I find the text, in some E-form, I'll share it, with a breakdown.

You have provided nothing more than I have, here....a commentary with no supporting evidence.

 

Tell you what, it's late here in Japan and I have to hit the sack. But lest we derail this thread any more, I'll start a new thread.

And STOP MIS-QUOTING ME. It's incredibly irritating. I did not say you don't understand English, but that you don't understand 19th century English.

 

Same thing.

Anyway, page 901 is where the KJVO are denoted. You have to understand 19th Century English to grasp it, though.

 

I would also inquire as to what "untenable position" was being complained about , on page 895?

I submit that it was the 19th century version of the KJVO movement.

 

It seems that we are in agreement here then, as you seem to be saying that the kjv is the word of God to those in missions fields being taught from it, and that while it has some flaws, we should agree with John and not run them down for not being abreast of all current textual criticism!

 

The 19th C. version of KJVO didn't draw much interest from the public, as the current edition does, one reason being there weren't too many new versions for them to diss. Also, the two main methods of spreading a view was thru newspapers or worda mouth. What KJVO views there were then, were largely confined to academic circles. There's no record of it having been preached in sermons too often.

The current KJVO myth is a monster of different-colored scales from the 19th C. versions.