Is it just my imagination, or are many folks here hostile to people who read the KJV?

[Samuel Owen]

for all have synned and lacke the prayse yt is of valoure before God: (Tyndale)

For there is no difference: for all haue sinned, and are depriued of the glorie of God, (Geneva)

For all haue synned, and are destitute of the glorie of God, (Bishops')

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (KJV)

I know one thing, all these guys failed spelling in school. The KJV was just as bad, in its original 1611 edition.

Next to the KJV, I guess I favor the NASB, especially in the Old Testament.

 

[EdSutton]

I know one thing, all these guys failed spelling in school. The KJV was just as bad, in its original 1611 edition.

"This?

And coming from one who attempted to 'con' Language Cop by making up 'pledurise,' no less?"

Signed, Language Cop

 

[Keith M]

quote: I believe those who deny this are backslidden and believe God is weak and a liar..

Chapter and verse please. I don't mind being called a backslider, but calling God weak and a liar is a bit much.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim, there's no "chapter and verse" to support my belief just as there's no "chapter and verse" that supports the KJVO position. But I still believe, as I said before, that those who deny God can preserve His word in more than one Bible translation are backslidden and believe God is weak and a liar. And in the case of those who hold to the extra-biblical KJVO position I believe it would be very hypocritical of them to chide me for my extra-biblical belief.

 

[Keith M]

OK - let's talk reality here. The KJV is a wonderful, solid version. However, there are those who say that any of the other version are "perversions", "grossly in error", "full of lies" and "Satan's Bibles". When that happens, then we will not stand for it because they are lies. We vehemently oppose the stance that the KJV is the only preserved Word of God or the most accurate version for today's people. But it is an absolutely solid, honored version that has withstood the test of time.

You will find, with one exception, no one on this entire bulletin board who will attack the KJV. I love the KJV. I quote the KJV. I use the KJV. It is not, however, the only Bible version we have for today.

Yeah, these last 3 posters are those who have spoken against the modern versions and have participated in threads speaking of such. But show me where the KJV is attacked. It doesn't exist.

Amen, Sister Ann! Preach it!

There's a huge difference between being against a Bible translation or those who use it and being against a false teaching that a particular Bible translation is the ONLY valid word of God in English. I've never seen anyone on this board declare the KJVs aren't the word of God. Yet that accusation is freely used in regard to modern translations by KJVOs. I have never seen anyone on this board call the KJVs "false Bibles," "fake Bibles," "perversions" or whatever the denigration of the day might be. But those accusations are freely made toward the modern translations by many who hold the KJVO position. I have never heard anhyone declare people can't be saved by reading the KJVs. Yet there are those among the KJVO group (not all of them, by any means) who make that accusation against the modern translations. I fully accept the KJVP position, but I stand in strong opposition to the false KJVO position.

 

[Keith M]

I respectfully think you are right AND wrong.

It is true that the Majority Text and Critical Text are about 98% the same. It is true that all major doctrines are there in both. Most important, God's plan of salvation can be found in both.

However, it is also true that the Critical Text is shorter by several thousand words than the Majority Text. There are a number of whole verses that appear in the MT that do not appear in the CT.

Thus either words have been removed from the CT or words have been added to the MT. I would prefer not to have a Bible that has words removed or words added.

As a rule, CT manuscripts are older and, IMO, more likely accurate because they're closer on the time line to the original autographs. MT manuscripts are much newer meaning that more time passed, allowing for the addition of words and for other changes, whether intentional or unintentional.

I don't think for one minute God intended to preserve only a particular set of printed words. I believe that if God meant to preserve a particular set of words that He would have done something to prevent or at least discourage translating the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into other languages. Why? Because in translating from one language to another it's impossible to translate anything as vast as the Bible with 100% word-for-word accuracy. I firmly believe God's intent was to preserve His message to us and that's the reason He has graciously provided us with various Bible translations.

 

[Keith M]

The KJV is neither 17th century english, or Shakespearean. It is Tyndale, when William Tyndale started to translate the Greek and Hebrew, he found the English language in its form of the time; to be inadequate.

So he developed what is now called Shakespearean english, to get a closer match. So without Tyndale there would have been no KJV, or W. Shakespeare. If you go on-line and look up the Tyndale Bible, you will find it almost a dead ringer for the KJV. Language and words, that was the 16th century before W. Shakespeare was even thought about.

Tyndale "developed" that type English on his own? Apparently a little more investigation on your part is called for, Samuel.

Tyndale translated the Bible into the current English of his day. Unless he was solely responsible for the English spoken in his day, then he didn't develop the language of the early English Bible.

He (Tyndale) was hospitably entertained at the house of Sir Humphrey Monmouth, and also financially aided by him and others in the accomplishment of his purpose to translate the Scriptures into the commonly spoken English of the day.
- English Bible History/William Tyndale
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

 

[Keith M]

[Sigh!] "Well, at least you are improving. I actually found one entry when I 'Googled' for 'pledurise', and zero on MSN. You have now improved by a count of exactly one.

The word you are attempting to appropriate (while consciously avoiding the use of a dictionary) is "plagiarize". Try that one. You'll get ~ a half million 'hits' on that one!

FTR, I not only already knew what 'plagiarize' means, I could also spell it. And I can assure you, the word is no "modern web-word", having been 'imported' into the English language from Latin, a few centuries ago, which I'm fairly sure precedes not only the 'web', but also even Al Gore!"

Signed, Language Cop

C'mon, Ed, leave Al outta this. We all know he invented the internet.

Ouch! I just bit my tongue because it was so firmly planted in my cheek when I typed the sentence above.

:smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

 

[Keith M]

I simply state my stand on the KJB and I am treated with hostility.:tongue3:

Your stand on the KJV is that there is no other valid Englih Bible translation. The main reason you're "treated with hostility" is because you denigrate and deny God's word in any tanslation that isn't one of the KJVs. Sorry, Sal, the fault is your own. Stop promoting a myth and you'll be much more accepted and respected.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Yes.....What is that?

Why assume that one is completely correct and the other is totally wrong (in the places where they disagree)? Maybe the TR/MT is right to sometimes include 'added' text, but the CT properly 'leaves out' some words which are truly later copiest conflations. What if both the TR/MT and CT have flaws, and that the absolute truth lies somewhere in between?

 

[Keith M]

If a person wants to read the KJV, fine!

But don't, I beg you, force it on me.

Amen, TCGreek! Preach it!

It's fine to prefer one Bible translation over another. I think everyone who reads the Bible prefers one translation over most others. There's nothing wrong with that position. When it goes wrong is when certain people become their own "final authority" and declare a certain translation is the ONLY true word of God in English and that no other translation is the word of God. This position should strongly attacked by all who truly love the word of God.

 

[Keith M]

Anybody who does not agree with Askjo. Guess that makes me one as well.

Okay, if you insist, you naturalistic defender of God's word!



We should all defend God's word against the attacks made on it by KJVOs.

 

[Samuel Owen]

"This?

And coming from one who attempted to 'con' Language Cop by making up 'pledurise,' no less?"

Signed, Language Cop

Give me a break!!. You should have seen some of my stuff, before I got a spell checker. I never said I was the brightest bulb on the block,,,, did I??. :laugh:

Besides - I didn't know how to spell it, and I asked someone who didn't know how to spell it either. :laugh:

My spell checker had no idea what I was trying to spell, and just locked up. :laugh:

 

[Jim1999]

Just curious, Did you ever get plagiarize? One could have used an old word, pledger as in a pledger of one's troth...:thumbs:

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Samuel Owen]

Yep! I got it, and entered it into my spell check dictionary - just in case I ever try to spell it again. :thumbsup:

 

[Keith M]

Maybe you won't have to use the word again.

:thumbsup:

 

[Salamander]

If a person wants to read the KJV, fine!

But don't, I beg you, force it on me.

The word of God is always offered, never forced.

 

[Askjo]

No!

No? Explain why?

 

[Askjo]

As a rule, CT manuscripts are older and, IMO, more likely accurate because they're closer on the time line to the original autographs.

Not true! The separation between CT family of texts and the autographs is 300 years. The separation between the TR family of texts and the autographs is 150 years.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Are many of the people here hostile to people who prefer the King James Version of the Bible?

No, there is no hostility towards those who prefer the KJV. As a whole, there are many of us who love the Bible too much to let it be hijacked by the KJVO crowd. We think God's word is too important for that. And so those who are KJVO will find a very rough road here, and rightly so. False doctrine should always been immediately and openly refuted.

The separation between CT family of texts and the autographs is 300 years. The separation between the TR family of texts and the autographs is 150 years.

That just plainly false. How in the world can you say such a thing?

 

[Jim1999]

Larry, I am lost half the time in here with all the reprints of who said what.

Someone just ask me what "NO" was and I haven't a clue....even going back three pages........:BangHead:

Cheers,

Jim