How best to deal with KJV Onlyists.

[Silverhair]

In this is the problem. They don't use the better thousands of manuscripts, but dismiss them for a tiny fraction of inferior quality manuscripts full of mistakes like eye skip.





The newer versions should be more accurate. But they are often not. I mean surely they can be more accurate. But why are the not when they should be.

We have had this discussion before and you still hold to the same idea that the KJV is the gold standard. That seems to be your blind spot, you can not accept that the KJV is not as good as you seem to think it is.

 

[37818]

A note.

Translator added words typically not in the Hebrew or Greek in italics.

KJV, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV and MLV are translations which observe this practice.

TR, KJV, NKJV.
CT, RV, ASV, NASB.
MT, MLV.

 

[37818]

We have had this discussion before and you still hold to the same idea that the KJV is the gold standard. That seems to be your blind spot, you can not accept that the KJV is not as good as you seem to think it is.

The issue is textual. The TR versus CT.

 

[37818]

That is a matter of opinion. But if you think the KJV is so good then you should you not be promoting one of the modern versions of the KJV rather than the archaic language version?

You are not understanding the issues.

In 1968 I learned it was largely in the NT and the common Greek NT texts versus the few of so called older are better Greek texts readings. It is the pattern.

 

[JonC]

The thee, thou and thine are singular.
The MLV puts * or ° on the you* or your* singular pronouns.

I think it's a good idea to indicate the tense.

Most of the time it is not needed (it is evident in the context), but it isn't a bad practice.

The only negative I have about the KJV is that it is no longer in the English vernacular. I believe it is important to have a translation of Scripture in the common language.

The Greek text is a good example. Aramaic was the common spoken language and God could have given His Word in Hebrew, but He gave the NT in the common written language of the people.

 

[Salty]

That is a matter of opinion. But if you think the KJV is so good then you should you not be promoting one of the modern versions of the KJV rather than the archaic language version?

Did he say it was perfect? or just very good
If not perfect - then using other translations may be very effective

Keep in mind there are several things to consider
culture, metaphors, points of view, ect....

 

[37818]

I think it's a good idea to indicate the tense.

Most of the time it is not needed (it is evident in the context), but it isn't a bad practice.

The only negative I have about the KJV is that it is no longer in the English vernacular. I believe it is important to have a translation of Scripture in the common language.

The Greek text is a good example. Aramaic was the common spoken language and God could have given His Word in Hebrew, but He gave the NT in the common written language of the people.

Give verse case example of any of this.

Are you familiar with the MLV?

Note, the KJV is my preferred printed translation.

 

[JonC]

Give verse case example of any of this.

Are you familiar with the MLV?

Note, the KJV is my preferred printed translation.

Give an example of what?

I am vaguely familiar with the MLV, but not much (ran across it, never used it).

I also appreciate the KJV, but it is not my go to translation.

 

[37818]

Give an example of what?

I am vaguely familiar with the MLV, but not much (ran across it, never used it).

I think it's a good idea to indicate the tense.

Please give a verse where this is so important in the translaition one is using.

 

[Salty]

Give an example of what?

I am vaguely familiar with the MLV, but not much (ran across it, never used it).

I also appreciate the KJV, but it is not my go to translation.

The KJV is my "go to" version when I am asked to speak at a KJO church!

 

[Conan]

We have had this discussion before and you still hold to the same idea that the KJV is the gold standard.

The KJV is not the gold standard. It is an accurate bible formed from many good ones. That is Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, Geneva, Rheims and a few others.

That seems to be your blind spot, you can not accept that the KJV is not as good as you seem to think it is.

The KJV is not perfect and can and should be improved. But when it's replacement's are not as good as they should be. Or are less accurate than the KJV, then we are forced to consult the KJV, or at least a reformation Bible. That is Tyndale, Matthews, Geneva.

 

[JonC]

Please give a verse where this is so important in the translaition one is using.

I don't think it is very important. That is one reason "thee and thou" was not replaced by a specific tense in the English language. It is typically evident by the context.

If I stand before an audience and say "you must obey God" then it is plural. If you and I are speaking together and I say "you must obey God" then it is singular.

Scripture typically lets us know the audience.

 

[37818]

I don't think it is very important. That is one reason "thee and thou" was not replaced by a specific tense in the English language. It is typically evident by the context.

If I stand before an audience and say "you must obey God" then it is plural. If you and I are speaking together and I say "you must obey God" then it is singular.

Scripture typically lets us know the audience.

Romans 11:15-25.

 

[JD731]

The KJV is my "go to" version when I am asked to speak at a KJO church!

Hmmmnnn, Why would they ask you?

My experience on these forums is that most people do not believe the words and they do not follow the logic and reason things out while reading from any translation. The obvious question then; what does it matter which version, the words of which one does not believe.

I was talking to a fellow once and quoted Romans 5:6 which says;

Ro 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

He wanted me to believe the words do not mean that Christ died for the ungodly, even after the letter had identified every person on earth as ungodly in the previous 4 chapters.

Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

My opinion, the weakness of the professing church is not because we do not have enough Bibles, and never will until God puts a stop to it at his coming, but that we have way too many.

 

[JonC]

Romans 11:15-25.

To whom do you believe Paul was writing?

Romans 1:1–7

We have to remember that these epistles were letters written to various audiences.

Too often people get caught up in verses without realizing these are singular letters to Christians.

 

[37818]

To whom do you believe Paul was writing?

Romans 1:1–7

We have to remember that these epistles were letters written to various audiences.

Too often people get caught up in verses without realizing these are singular letters to Christians.

And how is this to convince KJVOnlists.

 

[Silverhair]

You are not understanding the issues.

In 1968 I learned it was largely in the NT and the common Greek NT texts versus the few of so called older are better Greek texts readings. It is the pattern.

I am understanding the issues. We have had a long long thread on this already. No since going over the same ground again.

 

[Silverhair]

Did he say it was perfect? or just very good
If not perfect - then using other translations may be very effective

Keep in mind there are several things to consider
culture, metaphors, points of view, ect....

I agree with what you said. Those that promote the KJV as the best or only one to use have a serious blind spot. I have several bibles on my system including the KJV but I do not hold any as being perfect.

 

[Silverhair]

The KJV is not the gold standard. It is an accurate bible formed from many good ones. That is Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, Geneva, Rheims and a few others.


The KJV is not perfect and can and should be improved. But when it's replacement's are not as good as they should be. Or are less accurate than the KJV, then we are forced to consult the KJV, or at least a reformation Bible. That is Tyndale, Matthews, Geneva.

You say the KJV is not the standard then you say it is the standard. It can not be both. So I will go with not the standard. It is a good translation for it's time but we have better manuscripts in hand now plus as I am sure you will admit the language is archaic. So if you like the KJV why do you not use one of the update KJV's that are out there?

 

[Silverhair]

And how is this to convince KJVOnlists.

Actually I do not think there is anything that you could say to convince a KJVonlyist as they think all other bibles are corrupt in some way.