A Chronology of Apostacy

Well, I'd say you've made the same blanket statement in the opposite direction. You have certainly not given any cause to believe let alone proven that any of these men, involved as they were in a criminal act of sabotage and betrayal of the Christian public, were in any sense honest or trustworthy, let alone of the quality to be 'translating' and interpreting the O.T. for Christians.

Even if they were 'Theists', as you claim, whatever that's worth, has any 'Theist', deist, agnostic, atheist, or even religious Jew any business translating and interpreting a Bible intended for consumption by the trusting Christian public at large?

These clowns have about as much right to translate the the Bible for the public as a Muslim has the right and credibility to teach Christian history for your children in Sunday school.

 

As regarding 'differences', I'd have to see at least a few glaring ones:

(1) Between the Anglicans of 1600s and those of today.

The majority of those ancient Anglicans were real men of faith, strongly convinced of the truth of Christianity and the gospel, and some of them even died horrible deaths to uphold their beliefs.

Anglicans today are a wishy-washy bunch of grotesque liberal agnostics, for whom even the "Christianity" of C.S.Lewis' children's books are a bit too strong. These fags and fruitcakes couldn't put a basic doctrine together on any subject, to save their own lives. And yes, I ought to know, I grew up as a nominal Anglican.

(2) Between Nazaroo and other modern Anglicans.

You may be excused from knowing, but I have had to distance myself from fellow-Anglicans over such issues as ordaining homosexuals, approving of gay-marriages, and other foolishness. I consider the Anglican heirarchy apostate at this point. They have removed the Common Book of Prayer, and now also the KJV from the pews, and replaced them with the 'Alternate Services Manual' (without the 39 Articles of Faith!) and The Message (a horrible paraphrase).
However, I'm an anchronism. I would have been quite at home in 1611, and probably quite satisfied with the KJV had I lived then. But I can't take that position now, with what I know.

(3) Between Ancient Translators and 'modern translators'

It must be obvious to anyone that the collective brilliance of the KJV translators, based on a clear understanding, an unshakeable faith, and a good grasp of their mother-tongue, will outshine any group of modern idiots you care to gather together.
Modern committees like that of the UBS (Aland, Metzger, Nestle, Cardinal Martino) are a joke in comparison, and couldn't shine the shoes of the Authorized Version Committees. These open heretics and doubters are about as useful to God as a Jehovah's Witless pamphlet.

As for Metzger's blasphemous abomination called the RSV/NRSV, that 'thing' should be burned along with the Koran and your Beatle records.

We are in total agreement here, and I'll answer your other post in advance:

I couldn't possibly make a decent, powerful, accurate, and useful translation of the New Testament acceptable to the body of Christ and suitable for adopting in any public services, or study. At best I could offer a few personal notes regarding what I believe the Lord has shown me, and for which I am grateful.
But I think it is the height of academic arrogance, not just for me, but for any motley crew of university philosophers, to think they could be worthy of translating, let alone editing, God's Holy Scriptures.
I'll settle for what God has given: The Authorized Version, and the wonderful printed copies of the traditional Greek text, and Hebrew OT available to anyone.

Don't confuse me with modern 'translators'. Hang onto your traditional texts.


peace
Nazaroo

 

Its a factual statement. I don't see how truth can be arrogant.
I do make occasional facetious statements, or jokes,
and use hyperbole or irony liberally.
Don't mistake that for arrogance.
I also make arrogant statements occasionally.
Catch me if you can.

You're confused.
I didn't deny using the KJV.
I said clearly "except for reference".
Your reading comprehension is typical.

As I explained previously, I don't rely upon my own translations
in debate or instruction. No one would listen anyway.
I use the KJV when dealing with idiots, of which there are legion.

 

Your 'logic' may appear impeccable to you,
but its wrong.
You edit my statements to make them more universal
and say more than I originally said.

"I don't use the KJV myself, except for reference."

...is straightforward.
But I'm happy to elaborate and fill it out more.
I prefer reading the Greek NT, which I read alot,
regularly, and I also tend to write in Greek.

My skills in Greek are good enough for my own purposes.
I don't presume to be able to translate the NT for others,
nor do I expect them to accept my translations on their own.
If I were to defend a particular interpretation or rendering,
I would do so using independent evidences, like usage in other documents,
or the opinions of other scholars.
Not that I have any respect for them, but the assumption would be,
that others whom I would be trying to convince would.

When arguing and debating with others, in English,
I would naturally use the KJV (which they would recognise and respect),
not my own translations, although I have no hesitation in
making slight modifications to any quotation to better express
in modern language the meaning and intent of the original,
and also the intent of the KJV translators.

My own personal preference in English translations available
to the public is Young's Literal version. Not because its great,
but because relatively speaking, its better than most modern
versions, particularly with regard to the text used (TR).

I don't need the KJV or YLT or any other version.
I'm quite comfortable reading the NT in Greek for myself.
Since this is just a personal story of my personal preferences,
I don't see how it is even relevant to the discussion.

No. You are making blanket statements about my statements.
But who cares?
I very much DO rely upon my own translations, for myself.
Its just that I don't care to share them with others,
or expect others to rely upon my translations.
What part of that is unintelligible to you?

This extreme language is false and also very wrong.
Resorting to name-calling, especially accusations such as this,
is totally inappropriate and uncalled for.
You are the one distorting my statements.
You are the one then who would be 'lying',
that is knowingly and actively changing truths to suit your purpose.

This isn't a question of 'honesty',
its a question of meaning of language,
which we all know is not easy to solve.

What do you mean by "for reference"?
I know what I mean.
I use the KJV for reference,
meaning I check my understanding of Greek passages,
when I am in doubt or curious, by looking at what others have done.
I almost never correct my own translations or understandings
to conform to the KJV, or any other translation.
I use them 'for reference', meaning to assist my own thoughts,
for clarity of expression in English, and a variety of other purposes,
like examining textual variants.

But I work most in Greek when dealing with the NT.

On the other hand, I appreciate Dictionaries, Grammars,
and Lexicons, as well as commentaries, and other publications.
I use them for reference.

None of my statements is "more accurate" or "more honest"
than any other statement.
They are all accurate and honest representations
in my own words of what I do.

 

"These clowns" have the right to translate the bible for themselves alone, not others.

No one has the right to edit the NT text, deleting some 200 whole and half-verses from it. That is an assault upon the word of God.