Accuracy and Precision

[Precepts]

Originally posted by gb93433:
"I believe our youth need to see the real aspect of living for God and get rid of the entertainment mentality."

I agree, but The apple doesn't fall from the tree. Who is leading them?

Only one possible answer: godly men and women, those not eaten up with the "apples and oranges" issue, or the "we've got to figure out how to keep them entertained long enough so we count them in our numbers" dilemma.

Have you checked out the sites I recommended a few pages back? They're KJVO by yalls standard.

 

[Precepts]

In my estimation, you never did justice to my “first”. From your answer(s), I still don’t know what the 1 Chronicles 26:12-19 passage in the KJ Bible is saying, particularly the last 4 verses.

Maybe that gives it away, I am just more intelligent than you.

The literary style of the KJB gives us the answer, right along side with the actual passage. Your attempt is fruitless and unintelligable.

Each of the aforementioned names are representative of the families that each "porter" was to come. But you already knew that didn't you and your "bait and switch" tactic won't work here.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Ed, your "4-barrel" needs rebuilt. Better check that Job 24:22. Follow the context.

Sorry, i don't have time to
translate your Crypto-Quote. Speak
plainly. Thank you.

Be aware that there is a variation
within the TRs here. Recommend looking
BEFORE you leap. Recommend you
drop the discussion on Job 24:22
and tell me whether or not you are
KJV1769 ONLY or not. Thank you.
BTW, the only place i've really found that
the KJV1769 is the only KJB
and that the KJV1611 is the devil's spawn
-- the only place i found this doctrine is
in a comic book.

</font>[/QUOTE]In the flurry of posts,
apparently this got overlooked
by QuickeningSpirit. Thank you.

 

[HankD]

OK, but he did qualify it with "more than".

HankD

 

[HankD]

Maybe that gives it away, I am just more intelligent than you

At least more adept at ad hominems.

HankD

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Why? What qualifies you to be the final authority on what Bible version someone else should use?

There is no biblical mandate to only use the KJV. There is no historical case for only accepting the KJV as the Word of God in English. Therefore the only reasons to use the KJV alone are contrived by men.Not when they accurately communicate the original meaning to the modern reader. On the other hand, words that a reader doesn't understand or words whose meaning has changed over time does detract from the original.

I have noticed your ability to contradict yourself, you're beginning to look rather professional at it. </font>[/QUOTE] Please feel free to cite an example of my contradicting myself. If you are wrong, I would like the opportunity to explain my point further. If you are right, I would like the opportunity to recant and rethink my position.

If my position is inconsistent with either scripture (KJV) or history, I do not wish to continue operating under false beliefs.

Divine authority, I have only authority given from above.

Brian has tried to get you to clarify this claim but so far you have evaded the issue.

How did this "Divine authority" manifest itself to you? If you can actually answer this question in an intelligent, biblical way, you will have shown me merit in the KJVO position.

I believe that KJVOnlyism is a false, man-made doctrine no more godly than the RCC doctrine of papal infallibility. It is my position that God never established the notion that only the KJV is the Word of God in English. From your statement above, you seem to believe He did. I live in Missouri so... show me.

No historical case? 400 years has nothing to do with history now?

Hmm? I never thought of it like that, and won't either!

For one, it wasn't 400 years. The Geneva continued to be the Bible of choice for Baptists, Separatists, Independents, and Puritans for years after 1611. At one point, the CoE outlawed the Geneva Bible because the KJV was not gaining acceptance quickly enough.

Secondly, the Latin Vulgate reigned supreme for over 1000 years. Its advocates said that translating the Bible into the vulgar tongues would result in catastrophic changes to God's Word and His church.... not completely unlike modern KJVO arguments. Satan just recycles his methods, doesn't he?

"Biblical mandate"? Am I understanding you right? Are you now saying man has written the Bible and has this authority over God to make a mandate?

No. I am saying that the Bible does not teach KJVOnlyism in any way, shape, nor form. Therefore, there is no requirement established by God to believe that only the KJV is the Word of God in English or that MV's are not acceptable versions of God's Word.

Is Pslams 12:6,7 still in your "book"?

Yes... and the KJVO abuse of this scripture has been so well rebutted on this board that it would be unfruitful to rehash it here. Anyone who still believes this verse points to the KJV being the sole English manifestation of God's Word is willfully ignorant of the truth.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Congratulations. However your experience and subjective reasoning is not sufficient to establish a rule for others.

So do you or don't you believe studying is the rule for gaining knowledge? Have you invented another way?</font>[/QUOTE] Yes and no respectively... although direct inspiration and experience are methods of gaining knowledge as well.

Do you actually read things before responding to them?

Let me restate it for you. YOUR study, experience, and subjective reasoning is not sufficient to establish a requirement or rule for anyone else.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Or they could just find the "real meaning of the Greek and Hebrew" in a Bible version that uses their language and thus remove one obstacle from their quest to know God's will.

But then they would have to take your word for it, and I would never recommend anyone do that.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope, they wouldn't. Neither would I recommend they take my word for it, by the way.

Since most of us are not versed in the original languages, I would point anyone concerned about the meaning of a passage to the advice of the KJV translators- to use a multitude of translations to find the true sense of scripture. Additionally, there is a wealth of lexicons, commentaries, and even opportunities to learn the original languages.

Still, a dictionary, an accurate and precise dictionary, is the rule for any language.

The fact remains that God did not inspire the Bible in English. The best dictionary is wholly insufficient to account for mistranslations or poor translations by the translators.

Or do you suggest you are the "final authority" now?

Absolutely not! God's Word is the final authority...

Since you believe that the KJV alone is the Word of God and claim to accept it as your final authority, please show me from the KJV proof for KJVOnlyism.

Do you know Dan Johnston? Your method is identical to his.

No. I don't know him but I wouldn't mind looking him up if you will tell me where. Maybe by looking at his arguments, I gain perspective.

He thinks he knows it all too.

I am under no such delusion. I accept what the Bible says as best as I am able and make no claim to knowing it all.

The Bible simply does not say what you believe... the facts of the Bible's history disproves what you believe... the example of scripture weighs heavily against what you believe... therefore, I reject your belief as false. This decision is validated every time one of you folks fail to answer the most basic requests for proof... which is almost every hour in this forum.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Maybe that gives it away, I am just more intelligent than you

At least more adept at ad hominems.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, I just can't seem to be able to quit, it's just too much fun. Besides, the only reason I say these things looked at in that way, is to give the viewer a second chance to look at himself.

 

[russell55]

'm sorry, I just can't seem to be able to quit, it's just too much fun. Besides, the only reason I say these things looked at in that way, is to give the viewer a second chance to look at himself.

Really? I guess that sets you apart from most people who use ad hominem arguments. They are usually used to when someone is unable to make any proper logical arguments. They are a tactic of last resort.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
KJV

Psa 12:6. The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
Psa 12:7. You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever.
NASB, 1995 Update

Praise God! His truth shall remain truth forever!


Scott,

Thank you for your posts. I enjoyed reading them. Keep up the good work!

 

[Craigbythesea]

I'm no expert on this topic, but from my research I have learned that most of the English speaking Americans don't read the 1611 edition of the King James. I myself read and thoroughly enjoy the 1796 version. But the 1832 version seems to be the most popular of the King James Bibles.
Now for my own personal soap box. I have noticed that there are so many AV1611 websites and "Bible Believing Churchs" that say if you don't read the 1611 King James then you're going to hell. At the risk of sounding rude: Grow up! The majority those people have no concept of the different revisions.

BTW: If your wondering which translation you have look at Philippians 4:4. If the word is always with the letter s then its the 1832. If not, its the 1796.

This post made me a little curious so I took a look at our family Bible that was printed in 1824. The last paragraph on the "To The Reader" page reads as follows:

The publisher has only further to add, that he has made the following impression from the Oxford edition of 1784 by Jackson and Hamilton—and has been particularly attentive in the revisal and correction of the proof-sheets with the Cambridge edition of 1668 by John Field—with the Edinburgh edition of 1775 by Kincaid, and, in all variations, with the London edition of 1772 by Eyre and Straham—that where there was any difference in words, or in the omission or addition of words, among these, he followed that which appeared to be most agreeable to the Hebrew of Arias Montanus, and to the Greek of Arias Montanus and Leusden, and always adopted some one of the above-mentioned English copies as his authority, except in the mode of spelling, in which he has generally followed Johnson.

I checked Phil. 4:4 in this 1824 family Bible and it has “always” spelled with an “s.” I checked Phil. 4:4 in an older King James Bible printed in 1817, and it has “alway” spelled without an “s,” as do 1611 printings. Matthew Henry (1662-1714) and Adam Clarke (1760-1832) both have “alway” spelled without an “s.” Therefore, we can be sure that the spelling with an “s” was not original, but was introduced at least as early as 1824, and probably earlier.

 

[Craigbythesea]

C. H. Spurgeon had this to say:

"It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others."

The King James Bible Only gang does not have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit.

The King James Bible does not have a monopoly on accuracy.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I am looking at a pamphlet that I purchased for $.25 at a King James Bible Only Baptist Church bookstore. The Pamphlet says,

WHY does the NKJV use harder words than the KJV? The derivative copyright law insists that: "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright pur- poses." Therefore all new Bible versions must change those simple one or two syllable Anglo-Saxon words to complex Latinized words. Consequently the KJV reads at the 5th grade level and the NKJV reads at the 6th grade level. Because of this copyright law, there will never be an easier to read Bible than the KJV.

I checked out the contents of the paragraph and I learned that every claim in it is entirely fictitious. It seems that the King James Bible Only gang has a very difficult getting their facts straight and that everything they tell us is based on fiction rather than truth.

Perhaps the most obvious fictional statement in this paragraph is that the KJV reads at the 5th grade reading level. Even the KJV Only people on this thread have admitted many times that they, as adults, have to resort to dictionaries to understand the KJV. If it was translated at the 5th grade reading level as this pamphlet claims, that would not be the case. The truth is that the KJV reads at the 12th grade reading level (some language analysis programs indicate that it reads at the 14 grade reading level—ssecond year of college).

However, many passages in the Old Testament portion of the KJV are unintelligible to the average reader, some even to the average professor of English. How well do you understand the following examples from the KJV:

"And Jacob sod pottage" (Gen. 25:29)
"And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke" (Exod. 19:18)
"Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof." (Job 26:5)
"The noise thereof showeth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapor." (Job 36:33)
"Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing" (Psalm 5:6)"For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I?" (Eccles. 2:25)
"The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market" (Ezek. 27:25)

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
KJV

Psa 12:6. The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
Psa 12:7. You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever.
NASB, 1995 Update

Praise God! His truth shall remain truth forever!


Scott,

Thank you for your posts. I enjoyed reading them. Keep up the good work!

Uh, you'd better pay closer attention to the Bible. The nas"v" uses the word "refined" indicating the works of men, allowing bits and pieces of error to slip through, remember, man is fallable, God is not. That is why I know the nas"v" is NOT the Word of God.

The statement of the nas"v" that the word is tried in a furnace on the earth does not determine the furnace, but does indicate the location. That is a direct contradiction to scripture, God hasn't placed His Word on the earth to be tried in any furnace, but His Word is forever settled in Heaven. Uh, guess where that furnace is He used to purify His Word? Uh, that word "settled" means a little more than just coming to rest.

The nas"v" confuses the passage by affilating the works of men in a place designed by men, and them saying the Lord preserved what man has refined, when from the "beginning" it was not so.

Yall keep trying to refine the Word and God has it purified seven times already. You really should consider what "seven times" indicates according to Jewish custom, uh, it means PERFECT! PURE!, not refined, man can only refine silver to a .999 purity, God has taken care of that .001 of dross. So let's not "add" dross to the KJB by saying the nas"v" is it's equivelent, when even to the least of us it's not hid.

You guys really crack me up!

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />'m sorry, I just can't seem to be able to quit, it's just too much fun. Besides, the only reason I say these things looked at in that way, is to give the viewer a second chance to look at himself.

Really? I guess that sets you apart from most people who use ad hominem arguments. They are usually used to when someone is unable to make any proper logical arguments. They are a tactic of last resort. </font>[/QUOTE]Really! I'm set apart and sanctified.

 

[HankD]

Besides, the only reason I say these things looked at in that way, is to give the viewer a second chance to look at himself

Ditto.

HankD

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
C. H. Spurgeon had this to say:

"It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others."

The King James Bible Only gang does not have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit.

The King James Bible does not have a monopoly on accuracy.

Sorry you attempt to deify Spurgeon, but he too can be wrong, gifted yes, wrong on some points as well.

 

[HankD]

Yall keep trying to refine the Word and God has it purified seven times already.

"God forbid" that we should try to do that.

HankD

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I am looking at a pamphlet that I purchased for $.25 at a King James Bible Only Baptist Church bookstore. The Pamphlet says,


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> WHY does the NKJV use harder words than the KJV? The derivative copyright law insists that: "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright pur- poses." Therefore all new Bible versions must change those simple one or two syllable Anglo-Saxon words to complex Latinized words. Consequently the KJV reads at the 5th grade level and the NKJV reads at the 6th grade level. Because of this copyright law, there will never be an easier to read Bible than the KJV.

I checked out the contents of the paragraph and I learned that every claim in it is entirely fictitious. It seems that the King James Bible Only gang has a very difficult getting their facts straight and that everything they tell us is based on fiction rather than truth.

Perhaps the most obvious fictional statement in this paragraph is that the KJV reads at the 5th grade reading level. Even the KJV Only people on this thread have admitted many times that they, as adults, have to resort to dictionaries to understand the KJV. If it was translated at the 5th grade reading level as this pamphlet claims, that would not be the case. The truth is that the KJV reads at the 12th grade reading level (some language analysis programs indicate that it reads at the 14 grade reading level—ssecond year of college).

However, many passages in the Old Testament portion of the KJV are unintelligible to the average reader, some even to the average professor of English. How well do you understand the following examples from the KJV:

"And Jacob sod pottage" (Gen. 25:29)
"And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke" (Exod. 19:18)
"Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof." (Job 26:5)
"The noise thereof showeth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapor." (Job 36:33)
"Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing" (Psalm 5:6)"For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I?" (Eccles. 2:25)
"The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market" (Ezek. 27:25) </font>[/QUOTE]Craig, you should go back to Stanford and Princeton and ask your literary science professors what the differences are in metaphorical passages and dynamic equivelence. Ask them to explain personification while you are at it, it might help.

Some one of your intelligence and degree should boast a walking dictionary. Instead you make yourself the example of modern "able to process information but lacking the ability to think".

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"And Jacob sod pottage" (Gen. 25:29)
"And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke" (Exod. 19:18)
"Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof." (Job 26:5)
"The noise thereof showeth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapor." (Job 36:33)
"Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing" (Psalm 5:6)"For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I?" (Eccles. 2:25)
"The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market" (Ezek. 27:25) [/qb]

Craig, you should go back to Stanford and Princeton and ask your literary science professors what the differences are in metaphorical passages and dynamic equivelence. Ask them to explain personification while you are at it, it might help.

Some one of your intelligence and degree should boast a walking dictionary. Instead you make yourself the example of modern "able to process information but lacking the ability to think". [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, so you don't know either? Maybe the Hebrew would help?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I checked out the contents of the paragraph and I learned that every claim in it is entirely fictitious. . . . Perhaps the most obvious fictional statement in this paragraph is that the KJV reads at the 5th grade reading level.

That is not a fictitious statement. It is misleading but not fictitious.

I have read comparisons between the KJV and the modern versions based on the Fleish-Kincaid method of determining readability. They show the KJV is "easier to read" than many of the most popular modern versions.

However, what must be kept in mind is that the Fleish-Kincaid method measures the number of syllables per word to make that determination.

It is true that the KJV, for the most part, has fewer syllables per word than the NIV or the NASB. However, if those short words are archaic or are contained in a grammar and syntax not familiar to the modern reader, comprehension will go way down.

The statement is technically accurate but misleading.