Featured Question for those who use modern translations.

OH brother not another one.

 

I don't think anyone attacks the KJV. People object to KJV-onlyism. The manuscripts the modern versions come from are older manuscripts that have not been copied and copied and copied and copied again. The reason why there are so many manuscripts found from the Byzantine family is because of frequency of copying.

 

More copies only confirms reliability not hurts it.

 

Yes, here we go again... Could be an educational opportunity.

 

More copies means possibility of copiest error and/or alterations.

 

I don't get this statement. You can look to see if they line up. The fact that there are so many copies and they line up is a plus not a negative.

 

Welcome to the BB, Jordan.

In your opinion, how many manuscripts should it take to confirm a reading?

 

More copies, to me, means that the text being copied was worth preserving and was being copied because it was the best manuscript. To find manuscripts not being used, with minimal copies, again to me, means that those copies weren't worth using and therefore just put on a shelf somewhere.
Why would people waste so much time copying a manuscript that they believed was not as good as another one that was not being copied?


And, yes, I agree with the OP that the KJV is maligned on here constantly, under the guise of fighting KJVOism. Whitewash it anyway you like, but the KJV is discredited on this forum.

 

You are primarily addressing the New Testament B4L. But you would no doubt have to play a different tune when it comes to the Old Testament. Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? There were indeed put on shelves for many centuries.

Back to the drawing board you go!

 

You should read someone like Maurice Robinson. He attacks both King James Version Onlyists and the main critical Greek text. I like that! But only because I think he's right!

 

In what way is it discredited? Have you witnessed any lies said about it? If so,be specific and tell us about any false information that has been said about the KJVs here on the BB. Unless you want to excuse KJVOs from their misrepresentations and falsehoods regarding the KJVs.

 

But you totally ignored the point of my post. Why were certain manuscripts copied, then copied again and again, if they weren't the best manuscripts? Yet the ones that some consider the better manuscripts were just left on a shelf somewhere, and not copied at all. That doesn't make much sense, does it? And, yes, I agree that I'm talking about the NT, because that is where the differences lie.

 

:thumbsup:Agreed....I have no problem with hostility to KJVO but 90% of the time it is maligning the KJV itself.

I know people often claim they aren't "anti-kjv"....just "anti-kjvo" (I think they often honestly believe that too).

I just don't believe them. Often I think their anti-KJVOnlyism evolves into a true disdain for the text that they can't hide.

 

I am convinced that as more times passes there will be more discoveries of even older manuscripts. Many left undisturbed for centuries.

 

You know, that question doesn't even deserve a response, but I'll give you one. You've been posting here a long time. If you cannot see the negativity concerning the KJV then I have serious doubts about your comprehension. I have a neighbor whose wife is very unattractive, and probably 75 lbs. overweight. Should I go tell him "hey buddy, your wife is fat and ugly?" Why would that be considered wrong? Because according to you, if it's the truth, then it's OK to do, right? Besides, he might think his wife is thin and beautiful.



You used to post that people didn't understand the KJV. That is a falsehood, because people have used it for many, many years and understand it just fine. Those that have trouble with the KJV at the beginning LEARN to understand it, just like any text book they use in school. Does the average college student understand his calculus textbook on the first day of school? Well, my gosh, let's just throw that book out and get him a first grade arithmetic book!

Posts about the KJV being wrong in certain verses, posts about certain words the KJV uses, countless posts by logos pointing out flaws in the KJV, even people making fun of the "thees and thous" in the KJV. Running the KJV down................same thing as talking to my neighbor about his wife. Truth or not ( and that's only a matter of someone's opinion, btw), it's still maligning something or someone, and it's wrong.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup: It's blatantly obvious, yet they'll deny it.

 

What is this "text that they can't hide" exactly?What in the world are you talking about?

 

So it's like you're married to one of the KJVs. She's (Miss 1611)actually ugly,but you think she's gorgeous. We should not want to offend you and tell you your wife is not so pleasant-looking.

I'm missing the point of your analogy.

There are parts that are perfectly understandable --but many sections that have a lot of dense undergrowth.

That's your belief, but you are entitled to be wrong B4L. Actually for more than 150 years at least,it has been acknowledged that it is not that easy to read and comprehend. I know you don't like to hear it...but the language has changed a great deal over the last 400-odd years.

Another one of your weak analogies.

It is. But it doesn't mean we are saying it is not the Word of God.

All very legitimate things I must say. Very reasonable.

In 1611 folks were playing around with that old-fashioned lingo too. It's not the way many spoke --even in 1611. Perhaps in written form --but not conversationally.

Don't be so defensive B4L. Pointing out flaws in the KJV is not running it down. It is showing KJVO folks that the KJV (of whatever flavor) is not perfect as they claim --no translation is.

Back to the ugly wife comparison you go again. She may be ugly,but you think she's beautiful....B4L,...shh...it's not the same thing.

 

Told ya! :tear: