Featured Question for those who use modern translations.

The subject of the sentence is "disdain"....not "text".

 

^^^^ BINGO!!!! :laugh:

 

And, THAT! folks is "disdain" for the KJV. That's not disdain for KJV-onlyism. It's disdain for the KJV.

 

How much calculus would he learn if his textbook was written in 1611 English? How about if the instructions for filing your tax returns were written in 1611 English?

The material one is reading may indeed be understandable in their current vernacular, but put in a 400 year old, outdated language and errors in interpretation will be made. I see this frequently with KJVO's.

You may understand old English from the 1600's but I guarantee that you were taught to understand it. Outdated language is a stumbling block to knowing what the writer actually meant to say.

 

I didn't understand most of the 5 syllable words in my high school biology textbook either, but I learned them. I teach 7th and 8th grade kids at my church. They use anything from the NIV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, to the Good News Bible. None of them use the KJV. I can tell you there are also hundreds of words in those translations that they don't understand. You TEACH them the meanings, you don't throw the Bible away.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with the mocking and disrespect the KJV gets this forum. Again, if you can't see it, you're either blind or in denial. That's all I'm saying. There are people on here that dislike, discredit, and disrespect the KJV under the guise of fighting KJVOism. That's just a fact. Some of them (logos) seem to devote their entire day to posting negative information about it. Their posts don't argue against KJVOism, they post over and over about the mistakes, the antiquated language, how the KJV should be "put out to pasture", words added, words taken out, etc., all stating that they still like the KJV! Listen, read and use whatever version you like, but please, don't tell me the KJV isn't slandered on this forum! I'm not that stupid.


I've other things to do. :godisgood:

 

The purpose of his analogy is eluding you Amy.

Did you study Shakespeare in school? It's WAY harder to understand than the KJV.

Should his work be ignored because it isn't in the vernacular of today?

Nay, indeed, I imagine you know today what the (very antiquated) word anon means, or you probably can understand if I say "I shall see you on the morrow" because Shakespeare wasn't avoided altogether.

The idea is that if it is a good (or superior) translation, than it behooves us to learn what some of those words mean rather than simply chuck it. Shakespeare's work was worth studying on it's own merit DESPITE it's difficulty. IF the KJV is worthy of use and accurate in it's presentation, than it is worth wading through some difficulties until it becomes second nature.

If you were merely to search quotes by authors (secular and non) linguists, novelists etc... You will find them by the DROVES extolling the KJV as the HEIGHT of English prose. We can only better ourselves by learning and reading it.

George Bernard Shaw (not precisely a Christian)

"The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture, but the word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes. In this conviction they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic result...they made a translation so magnificent that to this day the common human Britisher or citizen of the United States of North America accepts and worships it as a single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author being God."

Merit Students Encyclopedia

"The greatest English Bible is the Authorized, or King James, Version. Based on Tyndale's translation and original texts, it was produced in 1611 by six groups of churchmen at the command of King James I. The King James Bible became the traditional Bible of English-speaking Protestants. Its dignified and beautiful style strongly influenced the development of literature in the English language. The influence can be seen in the works of John Bunyan, John Milton, Herman Melville, and many other writers."

Compton's Encyclopedia

"One of the supreme achievements of the English Renaissance came at its close, in the King James Bible...It is rightly regarded as the most influential book in the history of English civilization...the King James Version combined homely, dignified phrases into a style of great richness and loveliness. It has been a model of writing for generations of English-speaking people."

Ken Follett
"I have quite a few different Bibles. Having rejected my parents' religion, I still think the King James Bible is the most important work of literature in English. None of us can help being influenced by it."

Here's a few from Christopher Hitchens from his article in Vanity Fair:
This and other phrasings, not all of them so authoritarian and conformist, continue to echo in our language: ........ Not many committees in history have come up with such crystalline prose.

Thus the “Good News Bible” for American churches, first published in 1966: “Love never gives up; and its faith, hope and patience never fail.” This doesn’t read at all like the outcome of a struggle to discern the essential meaning of what is perhaps our most numinous word. It more resembles a smiley-face Dale Carnegie reassurance. And, as with everything else that’s designed to be instant, modern, and “accessible,” it goes out of date (and out of time) faster than Wisconsin cheddar
:laugh: (I love that....and can't help but agree with Hitchens here.) :laugh:

A culture that does not possess this common store of image and allegory will be a perilously thin one. To seek restlessly to update it or make it “relevant” is to miss the point, like yearning for a hip-hop Shakespeare. “Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward,” says the Book of Job. Want to try to improve that for Twitter?

Obviously, literary style and skill aren't the end-all-be-all. But, frankly......we are losing the prosaic capacity in what I think to be the most nuanced and literarily powerful languages on Earth. English as a language is de-volving rapidly.......and I can't help but think that this fascination for trivial and pedantic language from Bible translators is partly to blame.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup: Yes, and they then claim that they "recommend" the KJV to others"....seriously. I know they think all KJVO'S are perilously stupid.....but, c'mon. No one is THAT stupid.

My question is:
WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU RECOMMEND IT IF YOU THINK THAT WAY ABOUT IT??

 

We don't read the Bible to improve our "prose". We read it to learn what God says.

Read whatever you want. But don't try to convince me that outdated English will help me to understand what God is saying to me.

William Tyndale gave his life to put the scriptures in the language of the common man. KJVO's would side with the Catholic church to keep the scriptures in Latin.

 

When KJVO's use certain tactics to disparage modern versions it is ok. But, when those same tactics are used on KJVO's not to attack the KJV but to show the absurdity of the KJVO arguments it becomes wrong. KJVO's love to attack modern versions but when called out they love to play the victim.

 

KJV-only advocates in effect support readings in the KJV that are considered conjectures and that are found in no Greek New Testament manuscripts.

The KJV also has some minority readings that are not supported by a majority of Greek NT manuscripts so is your question based on a double stadard?

The KJV-only use of unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures in accepting the same type readings in some places in the Textus Receptus and in the KJV that they attack in other places when found in other translations does not make suggest a clean conscience on the part of those who advocate inconsistent KJV-onlyism.

 

That is no fact.

It may be your biased, subjective opinion, but it is not an established fact. Are you attempting to demonstrate that you are unable to distinguish between what is fact and what is opinion?

You cannot read the minds of others. You are not entitled to assert that your speculations and assumptions concerning what they believe should be accepted as fact.

 

Since you asked!

Thanks for your question. First I believe the Greek texts underlying the modern bibles (Critical Text) and the text underlying the modern World English Bible (Byzantine Text) are vastly superior to the Greek text underlying the KJV (Received Text). To put it plainly, I believe your view is mistaken.

Second, I believe you overstate the argument favoring the "Majority Text." Sometimes a text in the MT is actually in the minority of the extant copies.

In any event, unless you want to cite a particular passage and assert the KJ version provides a doctrinally different and less corrupted message, we would end up saying my experts are closer to the truth than your experts. Not productive.

 

That is outright untrue.

That's purely subjective. And no, you've said way more than that.

More erroneous nonsense. What people dislike on here is the FABLE, LIE and MYTH of KJVOnlyism, thus they love truth, and will not sell it, Proverbs 23:23.

It is noteworthy that even one of the biggest students of KJVOnlyism on here (some 30 years) can offer NO PROOF or EVIDENCE whatsoever to support his claims, BY HIS OWN WORDS.

And he has a right to his opinion, as do you, and I happen to agree with most of what you say he said. BTW, the KJV is open on my desk as we speak, along with the NKJV, NASB and ESV. I value all of them.

Have a nice day, and there is really no need to be so angry about this B4L.

 

You make an invalid comparison. Your argument does not hold up.

The writings of Shakespeare are the original words he used although they are likely printed today in consistent, up-to-date English spelling instead of the likely old, varied English spelling of his day.

The KJV is not composed of the original specific words that God gave by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. The KJV is actually a translating and thus a re-phrasing of the original language words into different words in a different language.

Most present KJV editions do not keep the original exact spellings in the 1611 edition, and they over 2,000 changes from the 1611 edition.

 

the truth is that there is NO credible evidence from textual criticism , nor the bible itself, to support ONLY one version into English as the "word of God!"

 

Let's work with reason....(not something I tend to accuse fundamentalist radical KJV-haters of very often) but....who knows: