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

[Samuel Owen]

Thermodynamics.

Go back to my OP, and click the link I left there. They have several Word pad downloads. One is the book of Mark, another compares the text to several of the modern versions.

I guess my only hold-back is, it is in a one column layout, that would be much like the NIV with the verses harder to find. Because they would be scattered throughout the text, instead in order like the KJV.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Well just to demonstrate, here are a few verses from the Mark down-load..






1The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.*

2As it is written in the Prophets:
"Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face,
who shall prepare Thy way before Thee."*
3"The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
'Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.'"*
4John baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.* 5And there went out unto him all the land of Judea and those of Jerusalem; and they were all baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins. 6And John was clothed with camel's hair and with a girdle of a skin about his loins, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7And he preached, saying, "There cometh after me One mightier than I, the strap of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8I indeed have baptized you with water, but He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit."*
9And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.* 10And straightway coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him.* 11And there came a voice from Heaven, saying, "Thou art My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
12And immediately the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness.* 13And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto Him.
14Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God* 15and saying,
"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent ye and believe the Gospel."
16Now as He walked by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers.* 17And Jesus said unto them,

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have seen one called "KJVer."

Called a KJVer for just reading the version? Can you point me to that link.

 

[annsni]

Can I ask about the argument against anything from Alexandra? I've heard this argument over and over again in the KJVO argument, and honestly don't understand. I've been told that God has nothing good to say about Egypt and that it is an enemy of God yet we see time and time again God using Egypt to PRESERVE that which is important to Him including Joseph in the OT and Jesus in the new. Is it just a theoretical argument ("Egypt is bad, so anything from Egypt is bad") or is it from solid evidence ("There was a group of men called the washing machines who actively rewrote the Scriptures and this is our evidence.") I'd love to know.

 

[Thermodynamics]

Can I ask about the argument against anything from Alexandra? I've heard this argument over and over again in the KJVO argument, and honestly don't understand. I've been told that God has nothing good to say about Egypt and that it is an enemy of God yet we see time and time again God using Egypt to PRESERVE that which is important to Him including Joseph in the OT and Jesus in the new. Is it just a theoretical argument ("Egypt is bad, so anything from Egypt is bad") or is it from solid evidence ("There was a group of men called the washing machines who actively rewrote the Scriptures and this is our evidence.") I'd love to know.

The argument against Egypt is that it was the center of the Gnostic heresy at that time. So a manuscript (from Alexandria) that is several thousand words shorter than the ones being used everywhere else at that time is suspect* of having gone under some Gnostic editor's knife.

Suspect does not = guilty, but I think it fair to ask the questions.

 

[Keith M]

The word of God is always offered, never forced.

Yet those of the KJVO camp always try to convince others that if they don't use one of the KJVs they're not using the word of God. If that isn't trying to force someone to use your favorite translation, Sal, then what is it?

 

[Logos1560]

I have seen one called "KJVer."

There is an updated edition of the KJV that is called King James Version Easy Reading. It is published by G. E. M. Publishing in Goodyear, Arizona. I have a copy of it.

 

[Keith M]

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.

Askjo, as is always the case, it's YOU who's wrong. Let's look at the facts as opposed to your errant opinion.

"...the Alexandrian type of the text goes back to an archetype that must be dated early in the second century." http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/textype.html#alex

And...

"The Byzantine text...is, on the whole, the latest of the several distinctive types of text of the New Testament." http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/textype.html#alex

See how you erred, Askjo? It's the Alexandrian text (aka CT family) that's older, not the Byzantine text (aka TR family) as you believe. Did you actually get this misinformation somewhere or did you make it up? It doesn't matter. Whether you got the misinformation elsewhere or whether you made it up, it's still WRONG. The quotes I cite come from an Islamic group which should be unbiased on the KJVO issue.

:BangHead:

 

[Keith M]

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?

You are a nayer to the history.

Actually, Askjo, it's YOU and other KJVOists who are the nay-sayers to history and fact as well. You can't reshape history in order to support the KJVO position no matter how hard you try. Closing your eyes, wishing really hard and clicking your heels together three times STILL won't make it happen.

 

[Salamander]

Which new versions are translations of the KJV into new english [sic]? I wasn't aware than any of the major versions were.

Aha! Now we begin to see something we've refused to see before!:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

Cite your source. The TR type texts are generally much younger that the Alexandrian

If you mean the Alexandrian (CT-MV) vs the Byzantine (TR-KJV) text types that may be a different story.

Harry A. Sturz wrote a book called The Byzantine Text Type and New Testament Textual Criticism.

In it he has elaborate charts in which he has collated papyri texts such as p46 and p66 which pre-date either Alexandrian or Byzantine texts and found both text types represented in the papyri. In fact p66 (AD120-AD180) is an almost 50-50 split.

What he did prove is that both families are equally ancient and had a very early on cleavage.

Yes, He did much to deflate the Wescott and Hort theory of a 4th century conflation as many of the papyri readings were of the longer conflated type.

Please let us know where you obtained your information.

Dr. Peter Ruckman?


HankD

When you can't disprove the facts, try to disprove the source.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The argument against Egypt is that it was the center of the Gnostic heresy at that time...

I'm not a historian, but I must challenge this statement. Early Christianity (1st and 2nd centuries) dealt with many heresies. Proto-gnostics existed very early but were scattered geographically. Alexandria becoming a "center" of Gnosticism probably came much later (late 3rd or early 4th century?) well after "at that time" of the making of those early copies of the NT scriptures which have been recovered.

 

[Keith M]

Which new versions are translations of the KJV into new english [sic]? I wasn't aware than any of the major versions were.

As far as I know, you're right, C4K. There are no major translations I know of which are translations of the KJVs. I believe all the major translations are retranslations of text documents. Of course there are versions like the American King James Version and the Modern King James Version which I believe were merely attempts to update the KJV into more modern English.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... This one claims to be just that, KJV in more modern english. And from comparing a few of the sample verses they supply, it is...

Yes, I have this one. The same group publishes the Third Millenium Bible (KJVish) which includes the apocryphal books. There are many others (mostly NTs) including the AV7, the KJV2 & KJV3 by Jay Green. As mentioned, the Evidence Bible has a 'comfortable' update of the KJV text.

 

[Keith M]

Thermodynamics.

This one claims to be just that, KJV in more modern english. And from comparing a few of the sample verses they supply, it is.

But ordering it from the printer, is the only way to get it. They say available in book stores, but we have three here, none of which have ever heard of it.

http://www.kj21.com/

I actually saw the 21st Century King James Version in a small independent Christian bookstore several years ago. But that was the only time I ever saw it available in a bookstore. It seems the major chains like Berean, Family Christian and LifeWay only want to stock what is more likely to sell a lot of copies. Go figure!

:laugh:

 

[Salamander]

Yes, I have this one. The same group publishes the Third Millenium Bible (KJVish) which includes the apocryphal books. There are many others (mostly NTs) including the AV7, the KJV2 & KJV3 by Jay Green. As mentioned, the Evidence Bible has a 'comfortable' update of the KJV text.

"Comfortable" for whom? I thought God wanted us all out of our comfort zones!

 

[Keith M]

Thermodynamics.

Go back to my OP, and click the link I left there. They have several Word pad downloads. One is the book of Mark, another compares the text to several of the modern versions.

I guess my only hold-back is, it is in a one column layout, that would be much like the NIV with the verses harder to find. Because they would be scattered throughout the text, instead in order like the KJV.

Don't fret about the columnar style - read it online. Unless you plan to do a lot of reading in the KJ21 when you don't have internet access, the online version should be just as valuable as the printed edition.

 

[Keith M]

Aha! Now we begin to see something we've refused to see before!

Say what? You're not making sense, Sal.

 

[Keith M]

When you can't disprove the facts, try to disprove the source.

There are no facts in Askjo's false assertion that the TR family dates back farther than the CT family. We're just curious if this misinformation came from an actual source or from Askjo's imagination. Of course anything so blatanly false has to be suspect, and Ruckman is, like other KJVOs, a virtual fountain of misinformation.

Can YOU cite a source for Askjo's misinformation, Salamander?

 

[Keith M]

"Comfortable" for whom?

Anyone who isn't KJVO! :laugh: