The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

Was Jesus lying? Arent most tares and not wheat? Do you think only true believers read the bible?

 

Definitely, if they reject the trinity doctrine as stated in the Ecumenical Creeds.

 

They really have.
I used to be a "KJVO" advocate.
Well, I'm not anymore...
I've done some study of Textual criticism, Original language study, I know some Greek and Hebrew, (I don't claim to have mastered either one).

I can't claim the KJB is perfect.
But, I still find that it was absolutely MASTERFULLY done.

I have spent the last two years studying the history of the English language too.Roby has no idea what he's talking about.
Languages do evolve.....in many ways.
In many ways, they remain amazingly constant. I only know enough to know that he has no clue what he's talking about.

I don't mind if people use other translations....but, denigrating the most venerable translation of the Bible into English for the last 500 years does NOT serve the cause of Christ, and helps no one.
Even Godless pagans know how brilliant the KJV is.
Oscar Wilde called the KJV the best example of English prose in the history of the language, and Wilde wasn't a fan of all it taught, but he understood how good it was.

Denzel Washington starred in the brilliant film:
The Book of Eli
A post-Apocolyptic setting where a blind man memorizes the King James Bible in order to preserve it for mankind....
Even the Godless like Oscar Wilde and the writer of The Book of Eli know how brilliantly crafted that translation was.

I've found fault with it, sure....
I know a few places where I would have translated somewhat differently.
But, no more so than any other translation which I can also find fault with.

The KJV is, and will remain (like Shakespeare) the height of prose in the English language.
It will not be replicated again. To despise it, or denigrate it is ignorance of the first degree.

Roby and Logos denigrate the text itself.
I can handle critique of translational choices (sometimes I think the ESV for instance does a better job for the modern speaker)
But, their critiques have gone far beyond mis-guided KJV-Onlyism….they denigrate what is arguably the most brilliantly crafted work of prose in ANY language of all time.
That is insanity on many levels, and I hate that.

 

It is the difference between the Greek texts. It is the same word in both texts (i.e. εὐδοκία) but the TR is in the nominative case and the CT is in the genitive case. That one letter changes how the whole clause should be translated\understood.

The TR has: ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία.
The CT has: ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

 

Who rejected the Trinity? I believe in the Trinity.

 

So why not the comma when Cyprian quoted it in the 2nd century from a "non-existant" source....supposedly.

 

Having read over 100 books by KJV-only authors, I know of no KJV-only book that presents any consistent, sound textual measures/standards that they are willing to apply consistently and justly to all original-language manuscript copies of Scripture.

It has not been demonstrated that all the textual criticism decisions involved in the making of the twenty or more varying Textus Receptus editions were sound and just. KJV-only authors make no sound case for how they can excuse and justify the actual textual conjectures introduced by Erasmus and Beza and the inconsistent additions from the Latin Vulgate into the varying TR editions.

Inconsistent and unjust KJV-only allegations against the NKJV and a few other present English Bibles based on the same original-language texts as the KJV would clearly demonstrate that the KJV-only argument is not just about manuscripts. KJV-only advocates do not even demonstrate that they apply the same exact measures/standards to the pre-1611 English Bibles as they do to the NKJV or to the KJV. Most KJV-only advocates try to ignore and avoid the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed a good number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament made from the Latin Vulgate.

 

(1) Because there is no evidence it was part of the Greek manuscript tradition.

(2) It does not even show up in the Greek until ca. 1300 years later.

(3) It does not show up in any Old Latin manuscripts until the 7th century.

(4) The two oldest Vulgate manuscripts (i.e. Codex Fuldensis and Codex Amiatinus) omit it.

(5) It is not found in the Peshitta.

And yet I still believe in the Trinity.

 

How do you try to prove something doesn't exist without lessening your credibility?

 

If there is no evidence to believe something exist, and there is evidence to believe it did not exist (as cited above but not addressed), then there is no justifiable reason to believe it.

 

THANK YOU!

 

Your allegations are wrong and unjust.

I would properly and justly advocate the applying of the same measures/standards to the Church of England makers of the KJV as to William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, the NKJV translators, and to all other Bible translators.

In agreement with clear scriptural truth, I maintain that the same standards/measures should be applied to the making and trying of all Bible translations including the KJV.

Applying the same measures/standards that KJV-only advocate allege against other English Bibles to the KJV would be a proper, sound, and scripturally-based response to those unproven, inconsistent KJV-only allegations.

I love and defend the pre-1611 English Bibles, the KJV, and the NKJV as what they actually are. I accept all verifiable facts concerning the KJV. I have read the KJV over 55 years. I agree with the view of Bible translations advocated by William Tyndale, the Geneva Bible translators, and the KJV translators.

I wrote my first book on the KJV-only issue based on acceptance of the same original-language texts on which it is claimed that the KJV is based [the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus].
Since then, I have learned that all the readings and conjectures in the twenty varying TR editions cannot be soundly and justly assumed to be correct as they were not based on any sound textual measures/standards applied justly.

I advocate the stating of actual verifiable facts concerning the many varying editions of the KJV.

 

What some incorrectly allege to be the truth has not actually been proven to be the actual truth.

Some inconsistently and unjustly jump to wrong opinions about any believer who dares to disagree with unproven KJV-only claims.

What was alleged against me is not the truth.

 

I read and love the KJV, and I do not hate it. Your allegation is simply not true.

I seek to find and learn actual facts concerning the KJV and its making.

Inconsistent defenders of the KJV have not proven that my defense of the Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV as what they actually are is unsound or wrong.

 

And what is the foundation of the KJV? Is it not the pioneering translations of William Tyndale in the years 1525-36? And did not his translations pass into Matthews Bible through John Rodgers? From there his pioneering translations went into the Great Bible. Then the Bishops Bible. Then the Geneva Bible. Then the 1611 King James Version.
Many times, especially in the Gospels, the King James Translators reproduce his original translations with barely few differences. A lot of those beautiful passages in the King James Version were taken directly from Tyndale.

It seems his original translations were replicated well beyond the 1611 KJV.

Tyndale Society Home Page

 

Please see post #52 in this thread on Cyprian.

 

KJV-only advocates do not prove their positive assertions or allegations to be true, but instead incorrectly try to demand that others prove a negative. Thus, they even contradict some of their own trusted scholars, Thomas Bilson, a co-editor of the 1611 KJV, and John William Burgon.

Bishop Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the 1611 KJV, wrote: “We never learned to prove the negative” (Perpetual Government, p. 251).

John William Burgon noted: "It is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue" (Last Twelve Verses, p. 15; Unholy Hands, Vol. I, p. C-9).

John S. Hart asserted: “The burden of proof rests naturally with the affirmative” (Manual of Composition, p. 316). Ralph Thomas wrote: “Burden of proof rests upon the fundamental logical principle that he who asserts must prove” (Manual of Debate, p. 29). Thomas also maintained: “One is never obliged to prove the negative of an assertion” (p. 30).

Reformer Francis Turretin observed: “The affirmative is bound to prove, not the negative” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I, p. 38). John A. Broadus wrote: “He who alleges must prove; no man is under obligation to prove a negative” (Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, p. 165).