Hey KJVOs a question for you.

I submit that the reading of the KJV is such as you propose only if one is dishonest with the text and the whole of Scripture.

JMO. Just as valid as your opinion BTW.

How is it that I can read it and find NO SUCH SUGGESTION but YOU can?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Chapter and verse for that "sin" please?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

David J, are you saying that Peter and other apostles are wrong to say that?

 

"robycopI don't believe the diehard KJVO will accept any other version, no matter WHAT it's franslated from. I believe their rejection of the NKJV proves that. Sure, there were other materials used for the NKJV besides what the AV men used, but it would be sinful for a Christian translator to not use ALL the material available."

How is it that you can speak for all of the diehard KJVOs. You are assuming a lot and that is always dangerous. I am new here, and don't always agree with the way my fellow KJVOs argue...frankly very foolish stuff sometimes. However, I see your posts consistentlylumping every KJVO together...which is certainly less than honest and extremely assuming.

I don't get a lot of time to post, I will when I can, but please choose your assumptions wisely in the futuer.

Your servant for Jesus' sake,
Max

 

Max, have you read the KJVO definitions at the very top of this forum? "KJVO-Preferred" is very different from "diehard KJVO". However, all KJVOs have a few traits in common, and if one also uses other versions, he/she isn't a KJVO, right? Therefore, when I refer to a KJVO, I'm referring to those who won't use any other English version at all.

There's only ONE valid reason to be KJVO...PERSONAL PREFERENCE. All the other "reasons" simply aren't true.

 

Yeah , back to "work" discrediting all of Scripture by your logic, NONE of those who penned what the Holy Ghost inspired were ever perfect! And to think, these THINK themselves as a sort of "eggspert" on the translation discussion, always using such ill-logic in their means to discredit, you heard it! The King James Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]No, actually back to work working 12 hours working at UPS and then landscaping.

But seeing as you cannot deal with the facts nor stay away from ad hominem attacks, why continue a conversation with you?

 

Spoudazo, by now you shoulda seen that the ONLY thing the KJVOs have is a goofy theory invented by a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST. They have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING evidence-wise to support it. All they defend it with is guesswork , imagination, fairy tales, double standards, and, at times, OUTRIGHT LYING AND DISHONESTY!(I don't think any members here use dishonesty, but several of them sure aren't ashamed to QUOTE those who do, or advance their fishing stories!)

No matter WHAT they say, they have a Bible made from the same material as was the KJV, but they invent excuses to run it down, I.E. the triquetra on the cover is an evil symbol & other stupid ideas. So, I stand by my statement that a true KJVO won't use any other English version, while running them down to whoever will listen.

 

AV1611Jim: I submit that the reading of the KJV is such as you propose only if one is dishonest with the text and the whole of Scripture.

No dishonesty in quoting it AS WRITTEN, and remind everyone that was NOT the order of events.

JMO. Just as valid as your opinion BTW.

Difference is...MINE is backed by the empirical proof in the KJV AS WRITTEN, while YOURS is based upon wishful thinking.

How is it that I can read it and find NO SUCH SUGGESTION but YOU can?

Because you don't WANT to. The words are SLAIN AND HANGED...that CANNOT be denied. That's not a suggestion...it's FACT! Sometimes the KJVOs test the limit of credulity with their wild ideas. How can one make anything else outta the plain words as written. It's simply a booboo & that's that...the writing is right in front of us!

 

Originally posted by robycop3:
I don't believe the diehard KJVO will accept any other version, no matter WHAT it's franslated from. I believe their rejection of the NKJV proves that. Sure, there were other materials used for the NKJV besides what the AV men used, but it would be sinful for a Christian translator to not use ALL the material available.

AV1611Jim: Chapter and verse for that "sin" please?

From the KJV:

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

If ya don't use every Scriptural resource available, aren't you "diminishing" from it?

 

David J, are you saying that Peter and other apostles are wrong to say that? </font>[/QUOTE]No, he is pointing out the translational error in the KJV. Stop trying to obscure the issue.

 

4His_glory asked:

Would you accept a modern translation of Scripture, if it was literaly translated from the TR and the Masoratic text?

There is such a one: the New King James Version.

The KJV-onlyists hate it with a special passion.

So I guess the answer to your question is, "no."

 

Obviously sir, you did NOT read this thread, for I answered in the affirmative with special restrictions.
So, if you would like to remove your foot from your mouth, I would like to see you retract.
In HIS service;
Jim

 

So, if you would like to remove your foot from your mouth, I would like to see you retract.

You KJVers will mouth all the pretty platitudes about accepting a modern TR/MT Bible in theory, but we've already seen the hatred you show when someone actually publishes one.

Retraction? Get used to disappointment.

 

Ransom;
If you are referring to the NKJV then you are wrong. There is NO modern translation made from the exact and only texts of the KJV. It cannot be done. You KNOW the NKJV is not translated exclusively from the same texts as the old KJV. Or did you not read you buddies post?

robycop3
3,000 Posts Club
Member # 221

posted March 11, 2005 05:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe the diehard KJVO will accept any other version,
no matter WHAT it's franslated from.
I believe their rejection of the NKJV proves that.
Sure, there were other materials used for the NKJV besides what the AV men used,
but it would be sinful for a Christian translator to not use ALL the material available.

__________________________________________________

BTW; ALL the readings we have today were available to the AV translators, whether they be in one form or another. There has NOT surfaced anything different from what they had. They simply chose not to use certain readings.


In HIS service;
Jim

 

Other than personal preference, what makes the source texts of the KJV any better than those used today? After you boilit all down, you still have a manuscript that was edited together by someone (be it an individual or a group), where the word choices for the manuscript was picked from the various ones present.

Bottom line: Appealing to the "lost" manuscripts that the KJV came from is but another KJVO ploy to deify the KJV.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Bottom line: Appealing to the "lost" manuscripts that the KJV came from is but another KJVO ploy to deify the KJV.

In Christ,
Trotter

__________________________________________________

You are entitled to your opinion of course. The fact is you cannot produce an updated KJV WITHOUT the exact text they used. Which is the subject of this thread.
BTW: There is not ONE man in the KJV camp who makes a god out of that Book.
Your charge is inflammatory and blatantly a lie.


In HIS service;
Jim

 

Inflammatory? Yes, it could be.

A lie? No, not according to the way some KJVOs howl and scream about the KJV being God's only book. Notice that I said SOME, not all.

When the use of a certain translation is the test of fellowship, the Lord has been replaced with a man-made idol...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Where is your evidence that identifies the specific exact and only texts that underlie the KJV? Do you have any statements from the KJV translators themselves that name them? Until you have identified and proven the exact texts that were the only texts supposedly used by the KJV translators, you have no foundation for claiming that the NKJV cannot possibly be translated from the same texts.

Most KJV-only authors use the name "Received Text" and "Textus Receptus" to include several
varying editions of the Greek text. D. A. Waite wrote: "The Coverdale Bible (1535) used the Received Text" (DEFENDING THE KJB, p. 48). He stated the same thing for the Matthew's Bible, the Taverner's Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible. Waite wrote that "the Erasmus Greek New Testament (1516) used the Received Text" (p. 47), that "the Stephanus Greek New Testament (1546-51) used the Received Text,"
(p. 48), and that "the Beza Greek New Testament (1598) used the Received Text" (p. 48).

The KJV is actually more of a revision of the earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') than it is an original new translation. KJV-only advocates place these earlier pre-1611 English Bibles on their same line, stream, or tree of good Bibles as the KJV. The NKJV belongs on this same line and stream just as much as these earlier English Bibles. At many verses, the NKJV is more in agreement with the KJV than some of the earlier English Bibles are.

KJV-only advocates have yet to provide consistent, valid evidence for claiming that the NKJV is not based on the same underlying texts as the KJV.

 

av1611jim said:

There is NO modern translation made from the exact and only texts of the KJV. It cannot be done.

You are blowing smoke. Unless you can cough up the precise list of textual selections made by the KJV translators, you have no grounds on which to make this claim.

Let's see it.