KJV hate

[robycop3]

You can't be serious. You need only peruse some of the threads I posted. The "KJV A Model T Translation" for example.







Just a FEW examples.....

And you say you know of no one who "even mildly dislikes" the KJV? Sure, those posts were glowing praise for the KJV!

I don't CARE for the KJV & never have. However, I'll use it when witnessing if the audience wishes me to use it. It DOES have its share of goofs, & its English is simply archaic & out of use now. And it IS a Model T version, whose day has come & gone.

 

[robycop3]

Well if he does isn't that between him and his God?. I'm not saying the KJV is error free but at the same time the newer versions cannot make that claim either. IMHO the critical text and all versions that come from it are full of errors. Even the JW's get there new world translation from it. Before you say the the latter day saints use the KJV I admit they do but they don't observe what is in it. Modern versions to me are confusion because of the contradictions between them and the KJV.Changing the name of Jesus to the number "one" Is just plain wrong.
For those who claim they can't understand the KJV because of the use of old English. Your ability to read is up to you isn't it ? Most of the real experts agree the KJV is the most accurate.
You stated;
"Nothing, long as such believers don't claim it's the ONLY valid English Bible translation, or that someone using other translations is using the wrong versions or corrupt versions."

Isn't this what you are claiming when you say what is wrong with the KJV as if you are some Bible expert. What ever is error is only your opinion and that does not make it fact. When the truth is we are all dependent on copies of the original. So there is nothing to prove you are right or wrong.
MB

No one has said any newer Bible translation is error-free, least of all, me.

And I HAVE provided proof that the goofs I've mentioned in the KJV ARE goofs. For example, in this board's archives are many discussions about the KJV's "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4.

 

[MB]

I don't CARE for the KJV & never have. However, I'll use it when witnessing if the audience wishes me to use it. It DOES have its share of goofs, & its English is simply archaic & out of use now. And it IS a Model T version, whose day has come & gone.

Exactly my point about those who hate the KJV. The model T had a better reliability than any other make of Cars. It was easy to keep it going the maintenance was easy and the mechanics were understandable. Today not so much. Man just isn't happy ,with simplicity. There are words in the NASB I can't find the meaning of in a common dictionary.
MB

 

[Reynolds]

Unfortunately the Geneva Bible is a John Calvin study Bible. And he is a murderer. I wouldn’t say heretic. I even wouldn’t say he wasn’t saved. But he was a murderer and modern followers of his have that blood on their hands.

Really? Though no direct tie had been proven, I think it fair to say Calvin had his hand in the process. It's definitely not a study Bible.

Do we want to talk about King Jimmy and his moral values?

Did this man named King David write any of the Bible? Seems like he did. Seems like he was a murderer as well.

 

[MB]

No one has said any newer Bible translation is error-free, least of all, me.

And I HAVE provided proof that the goofs I've mentioned in the KJV ARE goofs. For example, in this board's archives are many discussions about the KJV's "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4.

If you don't hate the KJV why keep running it down. No one is complaining about the mistakes in your version
.
Act 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Easter was a celebration of spring even before Christ. Easter has nothing to do with Christ resurrection.

MB

 

[Salty]

Many have agreed with me. I don’t need to post again. The most hateful of those to the KJVO group in all reality just hate the KJV cause they can’t understand it. So the attack in the under the false pretense of kjvo.

Rule 5 : No trolling. Trolling consists of provoking large volumes of responses by posting absurdities, deliberately offensive insults, etc
https://www.baptistboard.com/help/termsis

When you start a thread -you should be involved - especially when folks ask questions.


You mention people hate the KJV - many times it has been stated that is normally NOT the case. - In fact - if you see one, alert the mod team. -- Now on the other side - many KJO talk about the MV perversions. That is considered hate!

We have no problem with people who are KJ-preferred - I call myself KJ-T ie by tradition. Though I do use many other versions.
A big problem comes when some say the KJV is perfect. - it is not. No translation can be perfect. Think of that saying - "it lost something in the translation"

Will try to comment more when I get the chance.

 

[MB]

Wrong thread

 

[JonC]

Not sure what you mean. KJVO where? Here on the BB? In comparison to what? KJV-preferred? MV-preferred?
I sort of agree, but there is some gray area as well. For example, the NWT of the JWs may contain some of God's word, but I oppose the translation as a bad translation, as well as a translation skewed to a denominational viewpoint.

Another thing in order to be fair is to realize that someone who sees the RSV, for example, as a corruption of God's word does not see himself as opposing God's word when he opposes the RSV. You may disagree, but should also understand that they are operating from their own viewpoint and not that of another.

To help clarify - by "translation" I mean a legitimate translation of the given text and not deliberately reading into the text (for example, the Jefferson Bible, or the JW Bible).

The KJV is influenced by the Anglican concerns of the day (not a deliberate attempt to read into the translation). The NASB is influenced by a particular philosophy interpretation, etc.

Going back to your post (and to something I should have asked early on) - do you think those who recognize translation issues in the KJV should "hate" the translation for those few times it is inaccurate, or for its lack of clarity to the contemporary vernacular?

What I am getting at is, if I believe there are better translations than the KJV then should I hate the KJV for being an inferior translation?

 

[MB]

Really? Though no direct tie had been proven, I think it fair to say Calvin had his hand in the process. It's definitely not a study Bible.

Do we want to talk about King Jimmy and his moral values?

Did this man named King David write any of the Bible? Seems like he did. Seems like he was a murderer as well.

The difference between Calvin and Moses. Moses spoke directly to God. Calvin wanted to be Pope of Geneva forcing everyone in to Calvinism, Ignoring God's determinism in favor of his own determination
MB

 

[Reynolds]

The difference between Calvin and Moses. Moses spoke directly to God. Calvin wanted to be Pope of Geneva forcing everyone in to Calvinism, Ignoring God's determinism in favor of his own determination
MB

And that has what exactly to do with Bible translation?
Who is talking about Moses?

 

[rlvaughn]

What I am getting at is, if I believe there are better translations than the KJV then should I hate the KJV for being an inferior translation?

You are the one who will have to decide whether you should or should not hate the KJV, and the reasons for your choice. "Hate" is not a word I would generally use even in describing translations that I do not think are good translations.

I do not know of anyone here who even mildly dislikes the KJV.

This sounds at least like a mild dislike:

I don't CARE for the KJV & never have.

 

[Reynolds]

I have have heard the same from many of those who prefer the modern versions. No one says that about shakespeare.
MB

Honestly, you need to venture back into reality for a bit. You seem to not know the differences between some, many, most, and all.
Sure, SOME prefer the modern versions simply because they are easier to read. SOME prefer certain modern versions because they believe they are more accurate. There is no blanket ALL that fits here.

Please tell me how a modern TRANSLATION of W.S. would be more accurate than the ORIG manuscripts we have today?
Hint: Shakespeare was written in English, not translated to English.

 

[Reynolds]

I don't CARE for the KJV & never have. However, I'll use it when witnessing if the audience wishes me to use it. It DOES have its share of goofs, & its English is simply archaic & out of use now. And it IS a Model T version, whose day has come & gone.

For the record, I don't agree with any of that. Nothing Archaic about KJV. You would have to strictly define "goofs". I see nothing I would call "goofs".

 

[Marooncat79]

Not to inject myself into a conversation in which I do not belong, but I have received hate (not merely disagreement or alternative preferences) from both saved and unsaved individuals for my use of the 1611 King James Version. (Yes, I know all about the 1769 revision, as well as the 1629, 1638, and 1873 revisions/reformatting. There is a man in my church who publishes and sells high-quality KJV Bibles using only the 1611 text.)

Local Christians in my area from other congregations have scorned our church and its members for using "that old, dumb version" for years. I have talked to multiple individuals through the years when going doorknocking that expressed dislike for our church. Their reason? We use "that relic" or "the old version" that they "do not like." It didn't matter that our church was friendly, had numerous ministries, and was known for its community service and outreach to children and the underprivileged. All that mattered to some was that I and my fellow congregants used the King James Version as our preferred translation of Scripture.

Surprisingly, the unsaved have been even more vitriolic against the King James than the Christians that use modern translations. Just last month, I was confronted by two women of an irreligious status who wanted to know if I "used that King James Bible." My affirmative answer was all it took to elicit a response: "That Bible is terrible! How can you use it? It is just man's opinions. The KJV condemns homosexuality, drunkenness, and talks about men as evil by nature! Obviously it would be just man's opinions; hateful men, at that. God is all love. Look at the other versions. They don't say those things!!!"

'Twas a fun conversation.

Which versions do not condemn these things?

 

[Marooncat79]

The best Bible version is the one that you will read

 

[Reynolds]

The best Bible version is the one that you will read

For the most part I agree. I am not so sure I can include the Message "translation" in that statement.

 

[Southern Fried Baptist]

Rule 5 : No trolling. Trolling consists of provoking large volumes of responses by posting absurdities, deliberately offensive insults, etc
https://www.baptistboard.com/help/termsis

When you start a thread -you should be involved - especially when folks ask questions.


You mention people hate the KJV - many times it has been stated that is normally NOT the case. - In fact - if you see one, alert the mod team. -- Now on the other side - many KJO talk about the MV perversions. That is considered hate!

We have no problem with people who are KJ-preferred - I call myself KJ-T ie by tradition. Though I do use many other versions.
A big problem comes when some say the KJV is perfect. - it is not. No translation can be perfect. Think of that saying - "it lost something in the translation"

Will try to comment more when I get the chance.

So you’re gonna alert the mods and claim I’m trolling? Saying things people don’t want to hear is not trolling. If I am banned for trolling than this board is no different than cancel culture. Wow!

Your responses to me have been mostly hateful in my opinion. Most responses in this thread have been in a demeaning manor against those that are KJV. But shut me down I guess brother.

 

[Salty]

So you’re gonna alert the mods and claim I’m trolling? Saying things people don’t want to hear is not trolling. If I am banned for trolling than this board is no different than cancel culture. Wow!

Your responses to me have been mostly hateful in my opinion. Most responses in this thread have been in a demeaning manor against those that are KJV. But shut me down I guess brother.

What concerned me is that you were not responding to valid questions about your OP.

 

[Southern Fried Baptist]

So if I ask a question in a post then don’t respond that is grounds for a mod smack? That is ridiculous.

I think I’m rubbing some the wrong way cause I’m stating my opinion which is unpopular.

 

[rlvaughn]

The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

KJV's Textual Error

KJV Wrongly Translates the Hebrew

All of those are in response to "Onlyism". Context, contex, context

Brother, I am curious how you view these posts as being in response to “Onlyism”. The KJV...the Model T Bible Version thread asserts that the KJV is out-of-date. It is not even in “OUR language.” KJV’s Textual Error claims that the KJV editors made a mistake in italicizing “he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” in 1 John 2:23. KJV Wrongly Translates the Hebrew states that the KJV translation “desperately wicked” in Jeremiah 17:9 is a wrong translation. These are specific and direct assertions about the King James translation, its translators, and its editors. In what way are they a response to “Onlyism”?

Thanks.