Featured How best to deal with KJV Onlyists.

While the KJV was a good translation for it's time in that it used the most accurate word choice for the time period in which it was written we now have more and better manuscripts from which to work.

 

No hablo inglés arcaico.

Rob

 

To repeat what the person was saying, from a KJV Supremacy position and not a KJVONLY stance, I would add that;

"Three of the most conspicuous characteristics of the modern versions of the Bible is the omission of complete Bible verses, the omission of key parts of many verses, and the changing of the text thus changing it‘s meaning completely."

Then, see if looking at them meant anything to them, as far as the nature of the content left out or changed.

And ask, "why? those omissions and why? those changes??

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...MQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1vqGp9wyb8TptgFMdm6P4H

KJV Bible Comparison Page.

That leads me to want to see all of what God said and more correctly, by turning in a KJV.

 

Only those not in the linage of the KJV... William Tyndale's translation, Miles Coverdale, Geneva Bible, Douay Rheims, but these are not modern translation now, are they?... So I guess if it was the Geneva Bible which is part of the KJV among William Tyndale's contributions... You would have problem with that?... So in reading and studying the KJV, I get the benefit of those in linage of it... There is no linage following the KJV... I wonder why?... There are those who believe what it is and there are those still trying to figure it out... Brother Glen

Alan... Here is link you might enjoy

The Percentage of Words in the Geneva and King James Versions taken from Tyndale's translation.

 

Most likely because they are just using those modern texts that are based on all those extra manuscripts that have been found and also updating the language so those in the 2000's can read it with out the aid of a decoder ring.

 

Very good. Thank you.

 

Its called rightly dividing the word of truth and can be done without a decoder ring... This OP has run its course... Farewell in the Lord... Brother Glen

 

What might that be, Br.37?

Something else where KJVOnlies look half-crazy?

 

Ough-Oh! The jig is up.

Like when a KJVOnly says any of the tenants of KJVOnlyism, which are all not true?

Pow. Shazam!

 

Based on something like this New American Standard Bible verse
“As the firstborn of his ox, majesty is his, And his horns are the horns of the wild ox".

First, we substitute "the wild ox" with "the unicorn", including the 'the'.

Second, we ask if there is a difference to see between:
"And his horns are the horns of the unicorn" and
"And his horns are like the horns of unicorns"?

with "the horns of the unicorn" being spoken with 'unicorn' being read generically, which would make 'unicorn' represent all or more of the unicorn family.

That would make them both say the same thing. As if both of the represent more than one in number. 'Plural', in other words.

Does "the horns of the unicorn" with 'unicorn' representing all or more of the unicorn family, generically speaking

equal

"the horns of unicorns".

(Third: this is not counting whether the plural there was correct, because, for all intents and purposes, we both believe it to not be correct.

This is just asking if "the horns of the unicorn" and "the horns of unicorns" can be seen as similar or equal when they are both viewed as 'plural' in essence?)

 

It has been maintained that Psalm 22:21 indicates that the reem [the Hebrew noun that is translated unicorn in the KJV] had two horns. Friedrich Delitzsch asserted: “Who does not see the obvious contradiction involved in the translation of Psalm 22:21, ‘For thou hast heard me from the horns [dual in Hebrew] of the unicorns,’ where more than one horn is ascribed to the unicorn?” (Hebrew Language, p. 6). Moses Stuart noted: “The dual in Hebrew is used principally to designate such objects as are double either by nature or by custom” (Hebrew Grammar, p. 271). Gary Long observed: “The dual, though, is restricted to nouns that occur in natural pairs (like hands),” “convey certain expressions of time,” and “measure two” (Grammatical Concepts, p. 32). Scrivener indicated that where KJV editions have “two horns” or “two horns” at Daniel 8:3, 6, 20 “the noun is dual” (Authorized Edition, p. 34). Just as this dual form for the Hebrew word for horns was translated “two horns” in Daniel, it could have just as accurately been translated “two horns” in reference to the reem. Robert Brown cited Deuteronomy 33:17 as follows: “his horns (i.e. two horns) are like the horns of a wild bull” (Unicorn, p. 9).

In his commentary, John Hewlett wrote: “The reems are in effect called ‘wild bulls’ by the Psalmist, Psalm 22. For those he styles ‘bulls of Bashan;‘ i.e. of the mountains of Bashan, verse 12, he calls ‘reems;‘ verse 21, as though they were synonymous terms” (Vol. 2, p. 397). Charles Taylor also quoted or noted that the “reems are in effect called wild bulls” . . . “as though they were synonymous terms” (Scripture Illustrated, p. 192). In the Companion Bible, E. W. Bullinger has this note: “unicorns=the bulls of v. 12” (p. 740). In his 1839 book edited from the writings of others, George Bush indicated that the three animals in verses 20 and 21 correspond “to the three before mentioned as besetting him, but ranged in an inverted order, viz. the dog, the lion, and the reem, in place of the bulls of Basham (Illustrations of the Holy Scriptures, p. 403). He added that “the interference is almost irresistible, that the reemim of verse 21 are the parim of verse 12, the bulls of Bashan (Ibid.). He continued: “At least we may infer that the reem was an animal not so unlike those bulls that it might with propriety be interchanged with them in poetic parallelism” (Ibid.). In his Commentary on the Bible, J. R. Dummelow asserted: “In this [Ps. 22:21] and the preceding verse the figures of verses 12, 13, 16 (bulls, lions, dogs) are repeated” (p. 338). Does Psalm 22:12 provide the scriptural built-in definition for reem?

KJV-only author Gail Riplinger maintained that one of the ways to find the built-in definition was to “look for parallellism” (Language of the KJB, p. 25). Riplinger wrote: “Locate the parallelism. Find the word or words which sit in a parallel position to the word in question” (In Awe, p. 62). Riplinger asserted: “The parallel definition is perfectly suited to the context” (p. 65). Does this parallelism use the Hebrew word for the tame or domesticated animal in one place and the Hebrew word for the wild animal in the other?

At Deuteronomy 33:17, a London edition of the KJV printed by Henry Hills in 1660 and the KJV in the 1696 edition of Matthew Poole’s Annotations have this marginal note for unicorns: “Or of a wild bull.” Did the person responsible for the additional marginal notes in the 1660 KJV find and give this built-in definition for reem?

 

What is your point 37?

 

So are you jumping into the KJV onlyist camp now? The KJV was good for it's time but it's time is past. The modern translations have a better textural support than something written in the 16 or 17 hundreds.