Featured The flaws of the KVJ

1) Did I claim to know what goes on in heaven? Nope - thus obfuscation
2) Nothing wrong with interpreting and commenting on scripture. The issue is rewriting scripture and claiming the corruption is scripture.

 

Okay, we have your opinion. Give quotes from others who agree with you. Check with Van and see what he says.

Van, if you read this you can see these comments by this fellow. Do you agree with him?

 

Well, YOU made the error & won't admit it.

 

1) How many flaws does it take to be deeply flawed?
2) How many mythical animals in the KJV does it take to make the translation flawed?
3) How many times will it be claimed that non-equals are equal? Through faith = through Him, Unicorn = wild ox, etc

The KJV is deeply flawed, that is why we have the NKJV!!!

 

Not opinion, but FACT. I posted the verses as they appear in the Bible versions mentioned. Those are the 3 versions I use every day. And I've NEVER seen anyone claom any of them are perfect.

 

Robycop3 makes false charges to hide falsehoods. He misrepresented "deeply flawed" as "deep flaws." See post 109.

 

So you claim it while saying you don't. KEWL !

 

How silly. If something has deep flaws, it's deeply flawed. COMMON SENSE !

 

Now we get rapid fire post after post, all off topic disparagements.

 

How many non-equals will be claimed to be equal? Through faith = through Him; Gehenna and Hades both = Hell, unicorn = wild ox; and now "deeply flawed" = "deep flaws."

 

You may have missed it but that is what I am claiming about the new translators.

 

Where have I claimed to believe that the KJV is "corrupt" or "terrible"? It seems that you rely upon the improper tactic of putting words in my mouth that I have not stated and that I do not believe.

Overall the KJV is a good translation, but it is not perfect. Its archaic language can sometimes mislead present readers as they read different meanings into some words than was intended by the KJV translators, and it does have some inaccurate renderings.

 

I have clearly stated that the KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense and in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense and in the same way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. I correctly and accurately claim that the KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same way that the NKJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

You started it.

 

Interesting that you identify this as a "goof". You do know that in current English usage "you" is both singular and plural, right? I am a fan of the distinguishing of the singular and plural second person as found in the KJV, but am surprised that you call these modern translations of Exodus 16:28 "goofs".

• CSB Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
• CEB The Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
• CJB Adonai said to Moshe, “How long will you...
• DRA And the Lord said to Moses: How long will you...
• ESV And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
• MEV Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
• NOG Yahweh said to Moses, “How long will you...
• NABRE Then the Lord said to Moses: How long will you...
• NASB Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you...
• NCB Therefore, the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
• NCV Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
• NET So the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you...
• NIV Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
• NLV Then the Lord said to Moses, “How much longer will you...
• RSV And the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you...
• TLV Adonai said to Moses, “How long will you...

Some newer translations have overcome the singular/plural problem in that verse by using "you people".

 

Well RBC3, that did not take long to prove your proof was just a personal opinion (like most of your stuff is) and that I am right. I said no one would agree with you concerning goofs in new translations. Here is a response.

There are no admitted goofs in new translations, period. MV proponents are just as adamant for the perfection of their versions as any KJV only proponent is for his.They just use covert language to hide that fact.

 

I'm pretty sure that's an untrue statement. I think there are no modern bible user's that believe that at all. Especially on this board.

 

Your opinion is incorrect. You jump to a wrong conclusion perhaps in order to try to rationalize your own human KJV-only reasoning. Because someone acknowledges the fact that in present English the pronoun you can be either singular or plural does not suggest that they do not admit any inaccurate renderings in new translations.

 

Why would a MV translating committee or a publisher knowingly put goofs in their translations? If you and everyone else knows where the goofs are (and that they were indeed goofs) then surely they knew they were goofs when they produced them and included them anyway. Or, if in the beginning they did not know for some reason, why have they not done a revision and corrected the goofs since everyone knows about them now? Robycop3 says there are goofs in all translations. He says he is not just quoting a talking point, he knows where they are, and he is not that much smarter or wiser than anyone else. If he knows then everybody knows.

There is a way to have perfect translations if everyone agrees there are goofs, as robycop3 says, and if they agree with robycop3 on what the goofs are and if they all, including the publishers, agree together to fix them.

Robycop3 knows and publishes every goof in the KJV on a regular basis so he has proven he is expert on goofs. On this thread he has let the cat out of the bag and published two or three goofs in MV's. The only problem I see is that someone has revised the KJV with the NKJV but he sees there are still goofs in it as well.
This raises an obvious question; why wasn't robycop3 consulted by the NKJV committee?