Did God Die In 1611?

[RaptureReady]

No, what I meant is, I believe men back then did not question God's word as some do today.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I agree, it seems like a like of KJVO men question any edition of God's word but the one they like.

 

[RaptureReady]

KJBO don't question God's word, they believe it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Only the 1769 Oxford translation I take it?

I think I have it figured out now. KJBO stands for King James Bible Oxford edition?

 

[Craigbythesea]

they believe it

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
KJBO don't question God's word, they believe it.

And yet their mission/objective seems to be to get others to disbelieve God's Word, by constantly attempting to cast doubt on the veracity of other perfectly legitimate & reliable translations of God's Word, which are used & believed by millions of good, faithful Christians.

Seems like a contradiction to me.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
I thought I did.

You didn't.

The printing of the KJB had printing/spelling errors that was fixed.

We are not talking about typos and other printer's errors. We are talking about entirely different words. I even listed them for you.

I believe what I know by faith that the 1769 KJB that I use is God's inspired, preserved word, just like the 1611, Geneva, Tyndale's, etc.

Wait a minute! In your "answer" you said the AV1611 was wrong and the KJV1762/1769 was correct. If the AV 1611 was wrong how could it be the "inspired, preserved word?"

God's message was not lost because of these petty errors that you cling to.

I am not talking about spelling errors. I am talking about entire different words! You said the AV1611 was WRONG! Now you say "God's message" was not lost, Does that mean you believe only the message and not the WORDS were inspired and preserved?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
I truthfully don't know how to explain why the spelling and printing errors occured.

Please, Homebound, don't be deceptive. I did not list any spelling or printer's errors. I listed words from the AV1611 which are DIFFERENT from the words of the KJV1762/1769.

God uses man to relay his message. Just as you witness to someone today, your witness may not be perfect, but the word of God is. Maybe as I grow, I'll have a better answer for you.

So, you are saying that you don't know which bible is the perfect, inspired, preserved word of God, the AV1611 or the KJV1762/1769? If you don't know which one is right, how can you trust the one you are using?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Interesting list, as you have one, so do I. These are words in the "up-to-date" NIV.

Thank you, Homebound. I really needed a good laugh today and your post, pointing out the logical fallacy of Craig's post, gave me a huge laugh. If he can post a list of words that are not commonly understood, and that list proves the KJV is invalid, your list, equally as long, proves the NIV is equally invalid.

What he posted was an invalid argument and your list poked him right in the eye!

Well done! I applaud a good argument no matter which side of the issue it comes from!

You bested him at his own game. Or, to put it another way, he is "hoist on his own petard!"

 

[Trotter]

I dunno, Skan. Homebound's list wasn't all that hard to understand, espacially if one is well read. Problem is, most are not.

If it ain't on the cereal box or in the newspaper, most people don't read it. Which is a shame, really. Reading broadens the horizon, increases mental capacity, and enlarges the vocabulary. But, then, not everyone wants that...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Trotter:
I dunno, Skan. Homebound's list wasn't all that hard to understand, espacially if one is well read.

Neither was Craig's.

Problem is, most are not.

That may be, but in my opinion that is an indictment of the Pastor/teacher more than anything else. Besides, I have found that underestimating the intelligence and willingness to learn of the average person in our church would be an error every time.

If it ain't on the cereal box or in the newspaper, most people don't read it. Which is a shame, really. Reading broadens the horizon, increases mental capacity, and enlarges the vocabulary. But, then, not everyone wants that...

I agree. I am an avid reader. Not because I wanted to be, but my disability forced it on me as a kid and it just stuck with me as an adult. I have tried to pass that love of reading on to my boys, but they would rather play ball than read. But I keep trying.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Thank you, Homebound. I really needed a good laugh today and your post, pointing out the logical fallacy of Craig's post, gave me a huge laugh. If he can post a list of words that are not commonly understood, and that list proves the KJV is invalid, your list, equally as long, proves the NIV is equally invalid.

I posted four list; the first two, long were lists of words in the King James translation of the Bible that do not mean the same thing today as they did in 1611, and because of that fact, they are very commonly misunderstood today. NONE of the words that Homebound posted from the NIV fall into that category, and therefore do not cause that confusion. But even if they did, and the NIV is difficult to read, that does NOT make the King James translation of the Bible any easier to read. Therefore, your point about my “list” is absolutely illogical, invalid, and totally erroneous.


The third list that I posted is a list of phrases that are totally foreign to today’s English. Homebound did not post any such phrases from the NIV, but even if he/she had, that would NOT make the King James translation of the Bible any easier to read. Therefore, once again, your point about my “list” is absolutely illogical, invalid, and totally erroneous.

The fourth list that I posted includes many archaic words. None of the words that Homebound posted from the NIV are archaic words, but even if they were, that would NOT make the King James translation of the Bible any easier to read. Therefore, yet once again, your point about my “list” is absolutely illogical, invalid, and totally erroneous.

Perhaps I need to word this more simply in order for YOU to understand it. The King James translation of the Bible is difficult to read. I posted examples of the wording in the King James translation of the Bible that prove my statement to be true. Homebound replied by giving evidence that the NIV is also difficult to read. Whether or not his/her evidence proves his/her position, the lists of examples from the King James translation of the Bible that I posted prove that that translation is difficult for most readers to read. Therefore my logic is 100% sound; your “logic” is 100% faulty.

If I say that Mr. Smith has a green truck, and Homebound responds by saying that Mr. Jones has a green truck, does that make Mr. Smith’s truck any less green? If you believe that it does, may God heal your mind!

Homebound’s favorite tactic in defending claims against KJOism is diversion, and you fell for it! He/she posted ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to refute my claim that the King James translation of the Bible if difficult to read. Instead he/diverted the conversation to the NIV. And YOU are laughing?

 

[Craigbythesea]

That may be, but in my opinion that is an indictment of the Pastor/teacher more than anything else. Besides, I have found that underestimating the intelligence and willingness to learn of the average person in our church would be an error every time.

Scanwmatos,

I agree with this observation. I do not believe that pastors need to preach from a translation of the Bible that was originally translated at the 3rd or 4th grade reading level (as was the Contemporary English Version) in order for their congregation to understand it. And I do believe that pastor's need to encourage and challenge their congregations to improve their reading skills by gradually reading more and more complex material on Biblical and other matters.

Although I would not preach from the KJV, I believe that there are pastors who can preach from it very well, and probably even better from the KJV than from any other translation. But that is certainly not the case for many pastors or for many congregations.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I'm not so sure these lists mean anything.
If they were made by the person posting,
they might be worthwhile to discuss.
But i've got the idea in my head that they
are copied from somewhere else on the web.

I did check one entry, it made no sense.

Here was the supposed order of the columns:
"NIV, verse, AV"
Actually would have been more correct as:
"NIV, verse, KJV1769"

The entry was:
"armless Num 31:50 chains"

The NIV (sorry, I don't have an electronic NIV
so i won't quote the whole scripture)
says "armlets". I'm sure this is just a
printing error and will be fixed in the next
edition?

More confusing, IMHO is the entry one could make:
"necklace Num 31:50 tablet"

Sorry, i have no idea what a gold "tablet" might
be, i certainly wouldn't expect to find it in
a jewelry drawer. Meanwhile, "armlet" as a piece
of gold finery i understand - tis a peice of jewelry
that goes around the arm and is held onto the
shoulder by gravity. Cloth double armlets for
a man is called a VEST.

So this example verse of hard to understand terms
is really A BAD EXAMPLE.
It really doesn't matter what the stuff of gold was
specifically.

The New King James Version

Numbers 31 31:50 (NKJV)

Therefore we have brought an offering for the Lord,
what every man found of ornaments of gold:
armlets and bracelets and signet rings
and earrings and necklaces, to make atonement
for ourselves before the Lord."

Really, the list of things is unimportant.
What is important to understand is "atonement"
and "before the Lord".

Numbers XXXI:50 (KJV1611):

Wee have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD,
what euery man hath +gotten, of jewels of gold,
golde chaines, and bracelets, rings,
earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement
for our souls before the LORD.

Sidenote: + Hebr. found
This sidenote by saying "Hebr." means there
is a variation in the Hebrew source, one
source saying "gotten" and another
source saying "found".
Here the idea of found is that they gold stuff was
lying around and come upon;
gotten means they could have gone to Wal-marts
and bought it, as well as found it lying along
the way.

 

[robycop3]

Looking over your list, Homebound, I see only a few words not used every day in general conversation or in contemporary literature:
abutted
carnelian
goum(a company of French soldiers)
stadia(This is plural for 'stadium' a Roman unit of distance measure while 'furlong' was not such a Roman term.)
overweening
revening
satrap(the silliest of the NIV renderings)

Most of the rest are words used every day, whose meanings are known by most children.

 

[robycop3]

Homebound:No, what I meant is, I believe men back then did not question God's word as some do today.

I know, KJVOism is a fairly recent thing. KJVOism began the real questioning of God's word by its advocates.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
But even if they did, and the NIV is difficult to read, that does NOT make the King James translation of the Bible any easier to read. Therefore, your point about my “list” is absolutely illogical, invalid, and totally erroneous.

I am so sorry I hurt your feelings. My point was that both lists are silly. Just because some people don't understand what words mean does not invalidate the words.

Perhaps I need to word this more simply in order for YOU to understand it.

Oh! Please do! LOL!

Therefore my logic is 100% sound; your “logic” is 100% faulty.

Let's see. Your list proves there are words in the KJV which are difficult to understand. HomeBound's list proves there are words in the NIV which are difficult to understand. Yes! Of course! I see how faulty that logic is! ROFLOL!

 

[Craigbythesea]

I am so sorry I hurt your feelings. My point was that both lists are silly. Just because some people don't understand what words mean does not invalidate the words

You did not hurt my feeling; you grossly misrepresented the data that I posted. The data proves that the King James translation of the Bible uses not only many archaic words, but very many words that today mean something very different than they did in 1611. Both of these facts prove that the King James translation of the Bible is difficult to read. Data about other translations is 100% irrelevant. The King James translation of the Bible is difficult to read. Those who argue that it is not either lack enough education in the English language to recognize the difference in meaning of the words whose meaning has changed, or they have a very inaccurate understanding of the reading ability of the general English speaking population, especially in the United States.

Just because some people don't understand what words mean does not invalidate the words.

Who besides you is talking about “validating” or “invalidating” words??? Words that are not understood are not understood. Words that are misunderstood are misunderstood. Many of the words used by the translators of the King James translation of the Bible are NOT understood by a large portion of English speaking people, and therefore they do not receive from them the benefit that the translators intended.

Much worse, many of the words used by the translators of the King James translation of the Bible are MISUNDERSTOOD by a large portion of English speaking people, and therefore they MISUNDERSTAND the passage in which the words are used.

These problems with the King James translation of the Bible are real and significant because they demonstrate a need for a more readable yet accurate translation of the Bible. If the King James translation of the Bible was perfect for today’s readers, these problems with the KJV would not exist. However, they do exist, and the fact that the KJV in not a perfect translation for today’s readers is thereby proven.

 

[skanwmatos]

Word lists by either side are stupid. That's the point. If you don't like it, well, what else is new?

When you do as you have done you play right into the hands of the KJVOs who claim that we attack the KJV. Why not deal with the false teachings of KJVOism?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Word lists by either side are stupid. That's the point. If you don't like it, well, what else is new?

When you do as you have done you play right into the hands of the KJVOs who claim that we attack the KJV. Why not deal with the false teachings of KJVOism?

Thank you for answering my question! For many years I have wondered why KJOist do not believe contemporary scholars. Now I see that the answer is very simple—some people who appear to them to be scholars write that the data compiled by true scholars is “stupid.” Why then, should KJOists believe such data, after all, it’s stupid, and they have the word of “scholars” to prove it!

More than anyone else on this board you have given to the KJOists the proof they need that the views of contemporary scholars do not merit their consideration.

KJOists: Take a look at the data yourself, and decide for yourself what and who is really stupid!