skanwmatos
New Member
What part of "attacking the KJV bible is not the solution to KJVOism" don't you understand?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Which, of course, is NOT THE POINT! KJVOism isn't about archaic words! It is about a denial of historic and manuscript evidence!Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I did not play any games here; I simply posted data showing that the KJV uses many words that are not commonly understood by English speaking readers.
Only a [snip]would insist that the word "bible" is a proper noun and require capitalization.In the post that I am now addressing, you spelled the word Bible in reference to the KJV using a lower case "b." And YOU accuse ME of attacking the KJV???
I agree. When Homebound condemns the Alexandrian text she also condemn 95% of the text type from which the KJV was translated. Everyone who has ever looked at both text types knows they agree 95% of the time, and of the 5% of the time they disagree, 90% of those disagreements are simply minor differences in the spelling of Greek words. I wonder why they attack the Alexandrian manuscripts for spelling differences and in the same breath excuse the 70,000 spelling differences between the AV1611 and the KJV1762/1769?Originally posted by DeclareHim:
There is no proof about texts. But I can say you are the one attacking Alexandrian texts so its up to you to find fault with them not me to prove your texts are wrong.
Well of course it's gotta look like the real thing.And yes,it will match "95%" of the time;BUT,the 5% is leaven--Begining with the Arian rendering of John 1:18:A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,Galatians 5:9.I agree. When Homebound condemns the Alexandrian text she also condemn 95% of the text type from which the KJV was translated. Everyone who has ever looked at both text types knows they agree 95% of the time,
This is an excellent point. Changing even less than 5% of the text of the Bible could radically change the teachings of the Bible. Simply by changing John 3:16 to read,Well of course it's gotta look like the real thing.And yes,it will match "95%" of the time;BUT,the 5% is leaven....
That is why we, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
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.
No diversion, just showing that the other versions has words that cannot be understood. As I have said before, the only reason the Bible is difficult to read is laziness on the reader, myself included. Sure there are some words that are not used today, and/or have changed meaning, but a new translation every time a word changes is not necessary. I have learned that reading in context is a big helper. Also praying that God will give one understanding of his word helps also.Homebound’s favorite tactic in defending claims against KJOism is diversion, and you fell for it! He 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?![]()
![]()
![]()
I do not have the knowledge to do this. However, in the Bible, God saved his people(Israel) from Pharaoh, who was in Egypt. Alexandria is in Egypt, so the way I see it is, no good thing came from Egypt.Originally posted by DeclareHim:
There is no proof about texts. But I can say you are the one attacking Alexandrian texts so its up to you to find fault with them not me to prove your texts are wrong.
Uh, I think you may have missed AA's point. No part of the NT was directed to churches in China, Japan, or the Americas.Originally posted by robycop3:
The KJV is silent about the Chinese, Japanese, and all the people of the two American continents, as well as many others. Did not Jesus die for their sins also?
Uh, well, for the most part, AA is correct.NOT fact!
Uh, check out where those writings were addressed to.the NT was written in various places from Jerusalem to Rome to several Greek cities, and other cities in Asia Minor under Roman control.
The Gospel accounts were written starting about 65-70 AD for Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and John sometime after 90AD. Ask yourself where those men were at that time. None of them were in Jerusalem.The ROOTS of the NT are from the Judea area where JESUS walked.
But where were the writers and where were the writings distributed?No matter where the Gospels were written, they're narrations of Jesus' earthly life in the land promised to Israel.
The English word "study" is one of those words in the KJV that now has a very different meaning. The word "study" as used in the KJV in 2 Timothy 2:15 then meant to "be diligent." Paul is not telling Timothy to study the Bible; he is telling him to be diligent in his Christian walk, displaying conduct showing that he is approved by God, rightly dividing the word of truth. (Even a quick glance at the Greek text will show this to be so.)That is why we, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)
Very amusing, but his really should be posted in the "Clean Humor" forum rather than in a Bible forum.It stands to reason that the areas to which the NT writings were initially directed would more likely be the source of the most correct copies of those writings, and, with the presence of the original writings, destroying old and damaged copies would be more likely as the original was still available for copying. It was only in Alexandria that the old, damaged, and poorly copied apographs were kept in storage.