"Church English"...

[RipponRedeaux]

The esv is a good balance between being too formal, and too much "normal english"

Yeah, I know you're against normal English.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah, I know you're against normal English.

Against becoming too dynamic or inclusive language. you betcha!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Against becoming too dynamic or inclusive language. you betcha!

Pay attention please. I said normal English, as in natural, everyday speech; i.e. idiomatic English.

 

[Yeshua1]

Pay attention please. I said normal English, as in natural, everyday speech; i.e. idiomatic English.

That can bed taken too far, as at times version take away great terms of the faith such as justification and propitiation then!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

That can bed taken too far, as at times version take away great terms of the faith such as justification and propitiation then!

Idiomatic, yet grammatically correct English is not what you are accustomed to. See exhibit A above.

 

[Yeshua1]

Idiomatic, yet grammatically correct English is not what you are accustomed to. See exhibit A above.

I prefer to read the Nas english more so then the Niv one!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I prefer to read the Nas english more so then the Niv one!

Well, if you read it enough then perhaps one day you might be able to incorporate more of it in the way you communicate with others. I'm being hyper-optimistic.

 

[George Antonios]

KJVOs like myself certainly have their share of bad arguments, but so do non-KJVOs.

But here we go, another anti-KJB thread. Ho hum.

 

[robycop3]

KJVOs like myself certainly have their share of bad arguments, but so do non-KJVOs.

But here we go, another anti-KJB thread. Ho hum.

What's a "KJB"? A new model Harley-Davidson?

 

[Logos1560]

KJVOs like myself certainly have their share of bad arguments, but so do non-KJVOs.
.

If you know and realize that they are bad arguments, why do you use them and repeat them?

There are sound, compelling, scripturally-based arguments against human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching, and you seem to avoid or ignore them.

 

[Conan]

An exhaustive listing of the marginal notes of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible

https://en.literaturabautista.com/exhaustive-listing-marginal-notes-1611-edition-king-james-bible

 

[Conan]

Over 331 marginal notes in Genesis alone.

 

[Logos1560]

But here we go, another anti-KJB thread.

Really? Do you possibly jump to a bogus, wrong conclusion?

Disagreeing with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching would not be the thing as supposedly being "anti-KJB". I accept the KJV as what it actually is, and I advocate the stating of the truth concerning the KJV. I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I still read it today.

KJV-only advocates make claims for the KJV that they do not prove to be true, and they believe some claims for the KJV that are not true.

 

[SavedByGrace]

John 6:47 ". . . in Me . . . ." Or omitted.

that is because the 2 oldest Greek manuscripts, do not have εἰς ἐμὲ

 

[SavedByGrace]

KJVOs like myself certainly have their share of bad arguments, but so do non-KJVOs.

But here we go, another anti-KJB thread. Ho hum.

KJVO is a false myth. But you would not know that as you are blinded by it! May the Lord open your eyes.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I prefer to read the Nas english more so then the Niv one!

English is from England, not America!

 

[SavedByGrace]

The KJV was written in mostly the same English as was used every day by the British of the time

I can assure you that the KJV was written in English, used by the English at the time, and not "British English".

 

[SavedByGrace]

The KJV was put into antiquated English. Folks in 1611 didn't speak that way. It used language that was about 75 years old. It was not put into the language of the people of the time. The revisers tried to fancy-it-up. The word 'you' had replaced the old-fashioned 'thou' in ordinary conversation. The same thing applied to the older word 'ye.' The th endings had phased out and replaced with the s. So it was no longer 'hath' but 'has.' The word 'thereof' was not in common usage, but 'its' was.
I compare the KJV to the ESV. Just as the language of the KJV was not the language of early 17th century English --neither is the English of the ESV used by 21st century native English speakers. The ESV came out in the 21st century, but used a form of English that uses an uncommon style. Perhaps no one spoke as the ESV words its translation.

1600s

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Almost every language I've learned at least a smattering of has a theological "dialect". Just as there are medical, law enforcement, and naval dialects. The AV1611 is no different. By the time it was translated, the ecclesiastical use of Latin had long died out with English supplanting it.

 

[robycop3]

I can assure you that the KJV was written in English, used by the English at the time, and not "British English".

The British ARE English.