Does TNIV help KJVO?

you say some of the most unusual things when defending your OPINION.</font>[/QUOTE] At this point, I am not defending an opinion. Just stating a fact about the way this argument goes.

KJVO's tend to lump all MV's together and all non-KJVO's together. To many KJVO's, anyone who doesn't agree with them is a liberal and not a Bible believer.

If this generalization is not accurate then feel free to disprove it. However, anyone who objectively looks at even the debate as it goes on this board will know that my contention is true.

you espouse your opinion without true knowledge.</font>[/QUOTE] You disagree? Based on what "true knowledge"?

The facts are the facts. Lockman has the statement of faith required for its translators posted on their website. They list their translators and their credentials. Some of their contributors come from places like Dallas Theological and Bob Jones.

They are the only group of translators that has ever put themselves on record as believing in inerrancy- every one of them. Their beliefs are far more fundamental than those of the KJV translators.

No. But you are.

No, I only used the all too common logic of the mv crowd in their determination to justify ANY modern version.</font>[/QUOTE] You haven't used any logic at all when making these charges. You show no grasp of the "logic" commonly used by non-KJVO's.

None of us that I am aware of tag a commentary with "version". That is the label that is rightly given to all translations.

How? How does that show my lack of study?

English is a living language. Definitions change over time and words drop out of usage. That is fact whether you accept it or not.

But beyond word definitions, the KJV does have some textual flaws. God never said "God forbid" in Romans. He just didn't.

There are other places where the KJV translators followed their opinion on a text when there were other available options with merit. They admitted as much and included alternative readings in the margins. That is also fact whether you accept it or not.

No flaw or weakness in the KJV that I know of threatens any doctrine. But it is ridiculous beyond belief to say that the only way God's Word can accurately be expressed in English is by the words of the King James VERSION of the Bible.

It is a translation of very human, very fallible, doctrinally unsound MEN. It did not proceed from a moving of the Holy Spirit as did the originals.

 

Some of the words are archaic... regardless of the flaws that might exist in MV's. "Conversation" is no longer understood to mean behavior. "Communicate" is no longer understood to mean "share". There are numerous words used in the KJV that aren't understood the way they were 200 years ago.

Again, this is simply a fact and no amount of denial on your part will change it.

Why should a Christian need a dictionary to read their Bible?

I am all for study aids, commentaries, and anything else that will help one discern the same meaning as communicated by the originals... but on the other hand, the originals were given in the language of the people. It was the language they used every day... they weren't walking around with a dictionary so they could understand the diction and grammar of their Bibles.

 

Not at all. Finding rust on a Toyota does not prove that a Ford is the only valid and perfect vehicle.

 

Though i don't believe you meant to compliment me in such fashion! But hey? Thanks!

. Not! that is only your bias.

No, Englis is THE language of commerce, to use your conjecture, English would then be alterable to only your satisfaction, thus opinion demanded by your palate. Every word in the KJB is definable and therefore usable, you're delegating authority to yourself in this matter.

Yeah you're probably right, except Paul spoke by Holy Ghost inspiration, so that "point" is muted.

I would have to agree their opinion is much rather to be accepted over yours, they knew what the Bible is, and you're not really sure. But as far as the marginal renderings, it is determined that the use of such can lead to false doctrine, therefore the inclusion in the margin as nothing more than a footnote in most cases to show fallacy in previous translations, a man of your learning SHOULD know that!

Considering there are no "flaws or weaknesses" as you can only presume, and that by corrupt Greek grammar, the KJB is more accurate than you will ever be able to determine, you are corrupted by that very same CORRUPT definition of Greek.

If and when you apply that &lt;snipped by moderator&gt; logic to any Bible, in ANY language, you would then invalidate and corrupt the very Word of God. I do suppose you still won't harken to that Truth in logic either?

[ March 07, 2005, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Not at all. Finding rust on a Toyota does not prove that a Ford is the only valid and perfect vehicle. </font>[/QUOTE]But driving a Ford does!!!

 

But driving a Ford does!!! </font>[/QUOTE]Does what? There's more than just Fords on the road, Ralph.

 

Sure:

KJV Philemon 1:7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.

NKJV Philemon 1:7 For we have great joy and consolation in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed by you, brother.

HankD

 

Yeah you're probably right, except Paul spoke by Holy Ghost inspiration, so that "point" is muted.</font>[/QUOTE]Not when the TR underlying the KJV does not say God forbid. The KJV translators added "God" where God was not in the text at that point. God inspired Paul to write "certainly not" or as the NASB puts it "may it never be."

 

Now. back to the OP. The TNIV should not help KJVOnlyism. Each translation should stand or fall on its own merit and not on the merit (or lack thereof) of a different translation.

 

Again, since KJVO's tend to lump all MV's into one big pot... along with anyone who uses them, any truly 'bad' version will only fan the flames.

 

What? That is a ludicrous, almost incoherent statement.

It doesn't matter whether English is the language of commerce or not and I haven't altered English. Most of the differences between current English and KJV English occurred long before my birth. I am not changing anything for my satisfaction. I am simply recognizing a fact.

Are you so delusional that you can't discern that English is a living language?

The only people who use themselves as the final authority on this issue are KJVO's like yourself. You have no factual support. Your reasoning is completely irrational. But most of all, you have absolutely no... REPEAT NO!, scriptural support for what you believe about the KJV.

If you could prove that only one version at a time were approved by God then the facts would mitigate against the KJV. Its text was created by a Roman Catholic and it was translated by Anglicans who held a number of false beliefs.

 

Then there is 2 Samuel 16:16 (and a few other places):

KJV 2 Samuel 16:16 And it came to pass, when Hushai the Archite, David's friend, was come unto Absalom, that Hushai said unto Absalom, God save the king, God save the king.

Again, "God" is nowhere in the Hebrew text HAYA HEMELEK but is better translated IMO: Long life to the king!

I have seen KJVO folks defend these expressions as an acceptable dynamic equivalence translation of an implied prayer to God.

HankD

 

Plain ol'Ralph:Your "logic", Sir, is ill-logic, and you hung yourself in your attempt in the very first response.

Did I? Where's your PROOF to the contrary? All I've seen so far are GUESSWORK& EXCUSES. Please show us the Greek justification for "God forbid" in sundry NT verses. Please prove to us that "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is correct when easter didn't exist in the time of Herod Agrippa and Luke. Please justify "the image of" in Romans 11:4. PLEASE PROVIDE SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION FOR BELIEVING THE KJVO MYTH! Now, WHAT'S illogical...the PROVEN FACTS against the KJVO myth, or the KJVOs' guesswork, imagination, excuses, fairy tales, straw men, double standards, and outright DISHONESTY in support of it?

That's it, though, you may get away with what you espoused, to the less educated and illiterate, but not here.

Right...WE KNOW, AND HAVE REPEATEDLY PROVEN that KJVO is false. Yet, these educated KJVOs believe they have enough imagination to make it legit.


Wemake use of our dictionaries everyday, and contend earnestly for the faith once handed down,

So do we...while using Bibles in our own language as well as older versions whose language is now out of everyday use. God, and His word, are ALIVE.


as well as refute any attempt to "point out errors", or show "inaccuracies" in the King James Bible, REPEATEDLY and to the vehement reactions by your class daily.

Sir, you haven't refuted ANYTHING. Shoot, you can't even tell us WHICH KJV EDITION is the "perfect" one, let alone justify the PROVEN BOOBOOS in the KJV. Most telling of all, you CANNOT provide the first peep of SCRIPTURE to support your KJVO myth.

One may say you are "mad", by your much speaking, as one that beateth the air, I suppose.

And YOU think that by your little speaking that you're gonna probe me & others like me wrong? THAT'S what's mad. We have FACTS...YOU have GUESSWORK.

Fact: "Easter: in Acts 12;4 is WRONG.
KJVO response: Herod was observing a feast of Ishtar...PURE GUESSWORK

Fact: Easter didn't exist in Luke's time, so he could not possibly have been writing about it.

KJVO response: I just toldja about Ishtar! never mind it was pronounced "ish" as Ishmael and "tar" as target. never mind Luke wrote 'pascha' which in his day meant only 'Passover'. It's RIGHT cuz it's in de KJV!

Fact: "The image of" in the KJV's Romans 11:4 is NOT found in any known Greek sources for this verse, nor in the Hebrew of 1 Kings 19:18, the verse which Paul is quoting, nor in any English translation of 1 Kings 19:18.

KJVO response: It's in de KJV so it's RIGHT.

Fact: There's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. Therefore it's shown false without even looking at any other detail about it.

KJVO response: D'oh!

Try dealing with each of those PROVEN FACTS, and THEN tell us who's "mad". Then, we can move on to many more facts.

And I do have "better" things to do than those of you who insist on spending redeemable time spewing forth your garbage.

In other words, you're tired of getting hammered, and hammered thoroughly, whenever you try to justify the KJVO myth. As I said...try dealing with some of the FACTS which PROVE KJVO false and THEN tell us who's been wasting their time.

Unlike the KJVOs, I deal in FACT. Start PROVING, or admit you're WRONG. Excuses & fairy tales just won't cut it.

 

Then there is 2 Samuel 16:16 (and a few other places):

KJV 2 Samuel 16:16 And it came to pass, when Hushai the Archite, David's friend, was come unto Absalom, that Hushai said unto Absalom, God save the king, God save the king.Again, "God" is nowhere in the Hebrew text HAYA HEMELEK but is better translated IMO: Long life to the king!

I have seen KJVO folks defend these expressions as an acceptable dynamic equivalence translation of an implied prayer to God.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]It might be best for you to research the meaning of "Long" life to the king/ God save the king before you speak out again, friend, they mean the same, simply because the king is in the hand of God to do whatsoever He desires to do, so in turn, God "saving" the king would then grant "long-life" to the king. Simple linguistic basics, friend; much like "Uh-uh" is understood to mean "no", but then linguistics first needs to be understood when "arguing" against the KJB, not recommended, you then are handling then Word of God deceitfully, note that I did NOT say on purpose, but deception is then become the rule when establishing the Truth is rather to be sought.

 

In Other Words: dynamic equivilencies are good if they are in the KJV and bad when they are in other versions.

 

Then stop speaking English and speak only that which you say God used.</font>[/QUOTE] What? I should stop using English because of the FACT that it is a living language? That makes less sense than most of the junk you post.

Now I didn't say anything like this did I? In fact, I would contend that God can use the language that we speak... which is not KJV English.

This statement is incoherent. I would love to respond to it but I have no idea what you mean. The statement addresses nothing that I have ever said.

Biblically speaking, the NKJV translators and NASB translators were more godly than the KJV translators.

The NASB translators have stated for the record a belief in salvation by grace without works and have never persecuted someone for denying Anglican beliefs.

Really? The KJV translators better understood what God said? I guess that's why the imprisoned and persecuted Baptists, Separatists, Independents, and non-conforming Puritans? I guess that's why religious dissenters began to flee England to Holland and North America in the early 1600's?

I guess that's why they held so many unbiblical doctrines like the unity of church and state, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, etc. Bishop Andrewes even taught that communion was both sacrament and sacrifice.

I love to use facts. Now if you will just support this statement with some, we can have a discussion of substance.

Here's another fact for you to chew on. The popular Bibles used in China are translated from the critical texts... and thousands of people are being saved in spite of governmental suppression of evangelism and Christianity. One of the great movements of the Holy Spirit in our day is occurring without a TR based Bible translation.

No, I am a realist,</font>[/QUOTE]

The only thing "real" about this statement is that it "really" doesn't make any sense.

BTW, I am not a liberal. My beliefs are very fundamental including my beliefs about the Bible. What you believe about the Bible was not a belief of fundamentalists when the movement began about 100 years ago... mine is. Your belief isn't even remotely biblical.

There are several folks here that will testify that I do not believe in naturalism or evolution and certainly not higher textual criticism.

The only thing being exposed by your responses is your willful ignorance on this subject.

We have the Bible, you have a mass of confusing</font>[/QUOTE] Funny thing is we aren't confused. The only people that seem to be confused by MV's are KJVO's.

You have been challenged repeatedly and have NEVER produced a single example of a doctrine omitted by MV's.

Nope. I use the KJV and compare other versions... this provides clarity, not confusion.

That's interesting. You accuse me of choosing according to my taste presumably on a case by case basis (which isn't true BTW)... but it is you that have chosen KJVOnlyism according to some baseless bias.

Show me one example where I have done this. I want to know what God meant. I don't want to read anything into what He said nor omit anything.

You can find a number of Creation v Evolution threads where I have argued that what God said in the first 11 chapters of Genesis is a narrative of what occurred.

If you find a case where I have not submitted to what God said then please bring it to my attention.

That said, it is you who is reading between the lines to come up with KJVOnlyism. God didn't say it- men did.

[/qb] No it wouldn't. You have indicted yourself. It is you that says modern scholars aren't fit to translate the Bible... even though they are more doctrinally sound than those responsible for the KJV.

Show me the verse in the KJV that establishes that the only valid version of God's Word in Engish is the KJV and I will believe it. Otherwise, you are asking me to accept the word of men who presume to speak when God has not spoken. They are false prophets.