Featured How is the KJV a Bible translation in any different sense than the NKJV is?

For an old man you act very juvenile. Congrats.

 

Your link supplied nothing about which I had asked. There isn't even a name of any author that I saw.

You prefer the Byzantine text form. You had maintained that "when compared to the most ancient manuscripts and quotes by Patristics we can discern a consistancy [sic]"

You have not submitted any evidence to support your haughtily worded claim.

 

And what evidence do you have that supports your belief that the KJV is a perfectly preserved version? Not being snarky, but I have read many posts on here over the years(since 2007), yet when asked, they say they use their faith to believe it.

From the movie El Dorado...

Milt:
You've got a lot of faith in me, don't ya Nelse?
Nelse McLeod:
Faith can move mountains, Milt. But it can't beat a faster draw. There's only three men I know with his kind of speed. One's dead. The other's me. And the third is Cole Thornton.
Cole:
There's a fourth.
Nelse McLeod:
Which one are you?
Cole:
I'm Thornton.
Nelse McLeod:
Aren't you glad you didn't try, Milt? Pick up your guns, both of you, real easy.
Cole:
Like he said, real easy.


You can say you have faith that it is perfect, but that faith does not amount to the evidence you need to provide to support you claim.

 

Would the KJVO position survive being subjected to the exact same standards they would place on other translations?

 

Didn't the Kjv use 5 different TR texts, and also have some varients coming in from the Latin Vulgate?

 

From Wikipedia, so use with caution:

New Testament
For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[135] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[136] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[137] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[138]
​

 

Si they seemed to have actually followed the way the Critical text editors did, by pulling together and complied from a mixture of sources what they regarded as representing the originals the best.

 

Yeah, I don't think they did bad for what they had. Obviously more manuscripts have been discovered, so a few minor edits along the way are probably justified. The biggest possible criticism is that they used secondary sources (someone had already compiled the Greek manuscript they used from multiple original manuscripts) so they were relying on the accuracy of others before even starting. I admit to knowing too little about Greek scholarship to know if this is potentially a big deal, or if this is less than a molehill.

The only 'bad' point to the KJV is the learning curve for the archaic language for a new Christian. One of it's best features is it has a good cadence for reading out loud. (Both in my opinion).

 

The Kjv was the most influential english version ever done, and is still a good version to use, but it does not have that "magical quality: that the KJVO have assigned to it!

 

I am not KJV only but I use it because I like it.

Our church uses the NIV which I think is a very bad version, not a translation.

You cannot have an accurate translation in English without the thee and thou, etc.

 

I think that you can, see the updated Nas.Nkjv/Esv for examples!

 

"Very bad"? Really? On what basis? Why do you continue at your assembly if the preaching text is the NIV then?

How can you possibly say it's "not a translation"? Of course it is. s Your statement is as absurd as saying the KJV is not a translation.

You have got to be putting us all on!

 

While I don't agree with his rhetoric (there is some hyperbole involved) David Kent does make a valid point. The Old English of the KJV distinguishes between things like '"you" (just one person) and "you" (multiple people) ... the equivalent to "I" vs "We" ... in a way that Modern English does not. [Except in the South where we say "you" and "y'all", but I have not seen a 'Southern Bell' Translation of scripture.]