ZOOM!
-
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!
How to answer this KJV Only?
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Baptist Brother
Active Member
If the KJV translators weren't fans of the KJV, they wouldn't have made it. As for recognizing other versions as as valid, that's an invalid argument. Before there was a KJV, then we had no choice but to use other versions. Very importantly, those other version at the time didn't suffer from the the post-Christian modernism that corrupts modern translations.
Please point out the "post-Christian modernism that corrupts" the NKJV, EMTV, or the WEB.
Thank you.
Many have issues with those versions that used Critical greek text source,
The real truth is that NONE of those compromised any of the essential Christians doctrines of the Faith!
Those that you listed also are all good versions, butr he would not like them as not TR!
Last edited:
the Geneva Bible was a superior version to the Kjv though, and there have been better manuscripts found since 1611 to be used for translation purposes!
He can answer for himself, or withdraw the assertion.
Well do, but think that we will be awaiting his reply for awhile!
According to your inconsistent argument, the KJV would be a revision of earlier invalid English translations. The KJV is more of a revision of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles than it is a new, original translation of multiple-varying original language editions of the Scriptures.
If the KJV is a revision of earlier invalid English Bibles according to your argument, does that make the many words that the makers of the KJV kept or borrowed from those English Bibles invalid?
Are you aware of the fact that the makers of the KJV even borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament?
They basically redid Tynsdale/Geneva, correct?
You did not name and identify what you consider to be "translation liberties."
Have you ever examined and compared the Bible translations made during the time of Reformation and seen their many translation differences and liberties?
Perhaps you are uninformed. Many of the same-type translation differences or liberties may be found between Luther's German Bible and the KJV or between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV. Even the makers of the KJV may have taken some of what you term "translation liberties."
The makers of the KJV actually had the Bishops' Bible as their starting English text. They did seem to take more of their English words from the Geneva Bible than they kept from the Bishops.
There is much agreement between Tyndale's New Testament and the KJV, but the makers of the KJV may have taken most of Tyndale's renderings from secondary sources such as the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the Great Bible instead of directly from Tyndale.
Would you agree that the new Geneva was in someways still superior to Kjv?
Still waiting to see specific examples where the Nasb/Esv/Nkjv all took those liberties, and resulted in denying essnetials of the faith, or change doctrines!
And that will be strong evidence that he is just blowing smoke and has no real knowledge of bible texts or translation.
And has some problems with the names of the OT prophets in the NT also!
No. The KJV was a revision of the Bishops' Bible which was the second Authorized Version which, itself, was a revision of the Great Bible which was the first Authorized Version.
So th eGeneva Bible was really more of the one used by the puritans and calvinists of the times?
So Kjv more akin to Nasb that came from Asv, then the Niv, that was a fresh translation?
That would be the majority of them holding to the KJVO position...!
These are all three very poor places to support your position.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary "easter" in 1611 had a secondary meaning of "The Jewish Passover."
That is because the OT was originally in Hebrew and the quotes in the New Testament were translated into Greek It is well known that the LXX does not closely follow the Hebrew OT in many places.
Joshua was the Hebrew translation and Jesus was the Greek translation of the same word. Neither is wrong.