This is amazing. I am sure after I show the ignorance of these posts, it will simply be ignored by the KJVO, so I'll post it for the benefit of any lurkers who wish to know the truth.
from standing firm
No translation is inspired? Then why do people claim all the translations since the 1611 KJV are more accurate? Why stand for them if you do not believe they are inspired? Isn't that being sort of hypocritical?
I dont follow, and neither does anyone else able to define the term LOGIC. People claim that translations since the KJV, such as the NASB for starters, are more accurate because they are, and rather than discuss this from an issue of hard evidence and plain reason, people like you avoid the issue, and argue in a circle. When that doesnt work, you make statements like this one above. It is completely asinine to claim that one MUST think a TRANSLATION is inspired in order to feel it is more accurate than ANOTHER TRANSLATION. I stand for the NASB, and others here stand for many others, even some for the KJV, even though they know they arent inspired. You have ZERO PROOF that it is, and you have been asked for it repeatedly. You quote Timothy all day long, with ZERO evidence that "all scripture" means the KJV and no other translation. Its a shell game; a charade, a desperate attempt to support legalism in hopes no one calls you out. Its foolish to claim that these acts of dishonesty are anything close to defending the Word of God. The hypocrisy is not in defending another translation over the KJV, its in making the claims you have and having NOTHING to support it.
And just for information, the Message is a translation. Most call it a paraphrase, but the Websters 1828 Dictionary defines paraphrase as 'translation with latitude.'
GREAT. I think the AUTHOR would have been a better source, but in order to defend a myth, one will use almost any line they can find! Do you even have a clue what Andrew Peterson had to say about his work? Can you answer that question without libel?
The changes from the original 1611 were to correct grammatical errors and punctuation. They did not add to the Word as Bibles of today do, nor did they remove key words, verses, passages, etc.
What do you consider "key words" and who made you the authority on what can and cant be removed from the KJV and it still be perfect? If one NEW WORD was added or one WORD taken away, can both reading still be perfect? I am certain you will not answer this honestly, so anyone lurking take note: there is a reason why he will not answer this question. Ill tell you after he fails to answer.
from Linda64
Now YOU are paraphrasing, Rippon! Now there's the problem--just by saying "These passages should have rendered, you are changing the ORIGINAL intent.
Interesting, since you clearly have no clue what the greek here actually means. God forbid is a horrid translation, if in fact it can even be called that. The word GOD is simply not there. You advocate adding the name of God into the word when it is not there? Once again, I am sure you wont answer this honestly, so Ill just inform anyone lurking that there is a reason you wont answer it, and that will be revealed after you dont answer it.
