Question for those who use modern translations.

[Inspector Javert]

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

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

 

[Baptist4life]

.........I have serious doubts about your comprehension.

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

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

 

[Inspector Javert]

So it's like you're married to one of the KJVs. She's (Miss 1611)actually ugly,but you think she's gorgeous.

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

 

[Amy.G]

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!

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The material one is reading may indeed be understandable in their current vernacular, but put in a 400 year old, outdated language and errors in interpretation will be made.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 Outdated language is a stumbling block to knowing what the writer actually meant to say.

 

[Baptist4life]

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The material one is reading may indeed be understandable in their current vernacular, but put in a 400 year old, outdated language and errors in interpretation will be made.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 Outdated language is a stumbling block to knowing what the writer actually meant to say.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:

 

[Inspector Javert]

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.

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

. 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.

: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??

 

[Amy.G]

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.

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

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

True....and IF the KJV more accurately contains that....THEN it behooves us to work through our sloth and grow into it.

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.

The out-dated English won't "help" (again you aren't grasping the point). But if the "modernized" English doesn't accurately give you what God is ACTUALLY SAYING...than it's modern style won't help you either....get it?

KJVO's would side with the Catholic church to keep the scriptures in Latin.

You're becoming irrational here. You are far better than that.

 

[Amy.G]

True....and IF the KJV more accurately contains that....THEN it behooves us to work through our sloth and grow into it.

But there is no proof of that. Only opinions moved by emotion.

The out-dated English won't "help" (again you aren't grasping the point). But if the "modernized" English doesn't accurately give you what God is ACTUALLY SAYING...than it's modern style won't help you either....get it?

Yeah I get it. My NASB is far superior in conveying what God says than the 400 year old English of the KJV.

You're becoming irrational here. You are far better than that.

Actually I'm not. :laugh:

 

[sag38]

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.

 

[Logos1560]

Can you really with a clean conscience use bibles that are translated from from Greek texts that have readings that are often only supported by 2 or 3 manuscripts while ignoring the readings of the 99.9 percent of the evidences?

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.

 

[Logos1560]

There are people on here that dislike, discredit, and disrespect the KJV under the guise of fighting KJVOism. That's just a fact.

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.

 

[Van]

Since you asked!

Why do you attack the King James bible on issues that are so minor compared to the issue of the Modern critical Greek texts?

Can you really with a clean conscience use bibles that are translated from from Greek texts that have readings that are often only supported by 2 or 3 manuscripts while ignoring the readings of the 99.9 percent of the evidences?

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.

 

[preacher4truth]

Anyway, that has nothing to do with the mocking and disrespect the KJV gets this forum.

That is outright untrue.

Again, if you can't see it, you're either blind or in denial. That's all I'm saying.

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

There are people on here that dislike, discredit, and disrespect the KJV under the guise of fighting KJVOism. That's just a fact.

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.

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.

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.

I've other things to do. :godisgood:

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

 

[Inspector Javert]

But there is no proof of that. Only opinions moved by emotion.

That's why I repeatedly used "IF"--"THEN" statements....I haven't TRIED to "prove" it to you Amy...I'm saying it's perfectly reasonable (only assuming it's true).

.........Your saying that it is "moved by emotion" is simply ignorant of the issue. Emotions inform the reactions of almost EVERYONE with respect to their opinions. Yours, mine, everyone's. But, taken at face value, your statement conveys that the ONLY reason someone is KJVO is due to emotion. That's not realistic, nor the crux of why anyone remains KJV.

Here's the quick skinny:

People honestly believe your NASB is a WONDERFUL TRANSLATION...................of the WRONG TEXT. Provided that's true...(that's an assumed "if" of course). THAN...it behooves us to put up with some archaic verbiage in order to actually read what God is "saying" to us.

Just like you don't re-phrase Shakespeare simply because he isn't in modern vernacular....his value in innate. The same view is espoused by KJVO's (be they right or wrong.)

Yeah I get it. My NASB is far superior in conveying what God says than the 400 year old English of the KJV.

The NASB is infinitely less "readable" or "understandable" to many modern readers as far as translations go.

The ESV (for instance) is actually remarkably understandable vs. the NASV in almost any objective test. Yet, it is equally as formal and literal as the NASV if not more so.

I don't claim to be happy about the fact, but the ESV is (given comparisons) probably the best for balancing literal rendering for readability. As a ratio...........it kicks the NASV's behind.....BIG TIME. If that were your only concern, than I would suggest converting to ESV (unless you are emotionally attached to it of course) :laugh:

Actually I'm not. :laugh:

You said that KJVO's would have kept us reading in Latin........that's irrational Amy....irrational.

 

[Logos1560]

Just like you don't re-phrase Shakespeare simply because he isn't in modern vernacular....his value in innate. The same view is espoused by KJVO's (be they right or wrong.)

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

: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.

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!"

 

[Yeshua1]

That's why I repeatedly used "IF"--"THEN" statements....I haven't TRIED to "prove" it to you Amy...I'm saying it's perfectly reasonable (only assuming it's true).

.........Your saying that it is "moved by emotion" is simply ignorant of the issue. Emotions inform the reactions of almost EVERYONE with respect to their opinions. Yours, mine, everyone's. But, taken at face value, your statement conveys that the ONLY reason someone is KJVO is due to emotion. That's not realistic, nor the crux of why anyone remains KJV.

Here's the quick skinny:

People honestly believe your NASB is a WONDERFUL TRANSLATION...................of the WRONG TEXT. Provided that's true...(that's an assumed "if" of course). THAN...it behooves us to put up with some archaic verbiage in order to actually read what God is "saying" to us.

Just like you don't re-phrase Shakespeare simply because he isn't in modern vernacular....his value in innate. The same view is espoused by KJVO's (be they right or wrong.)

The NASB is infinitely less "readable" or "understandable" to many modern readers as far as translations go.

The ESV (for instance) is actually remarkably understandable vs. the NASV in almost any objective test. Yet, it is equally as formal and literal as the NASV if not more so.

I don't claim to be happy about the fact, but the ESV is (given comparisons) probably the best for balancing literal rendering for readability. As a ratio...........it kicks the NASV's behind.....BIG TIME. If that were your only concern, than I would suggest converting to ESV (unless you are emotionally attached to it of course) :laugh:

You said that KJVO's would have kept us reading in Latin........that's irrational Amy....irrational.

Again, the Kjv is a fine version, one of the better ones to use, but NOT quite as good as either Nasb/Nkjv/Esv, and yes, even the Niv/Hcsb versions!

And the Esv is in a weird placement among versions, as not as smooth to read as say Niv/Hcsb, but neither as formal as either Nasb/Nkjv!

Much of this discussion comes back to'can you read with understanding?"
say can with any of those versions, but also that some such as Nasb/Nkjv really intended for serious studying, while Niv/Nlt more "lighter" reading...

 

[Inspector Javert]

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

You make an invalid comparison

The comparison was perfectly valid.
I know that every analogy ALWAYS breaks down as SOME point...but, that's why they are merely "analogies". They simply ILLUSTRATE points, they don't MAKE them.

Your argument does not hold up.

Reasonable people know that it was an analogy...not an "argument"...but, I don't accuse KJV-haters of reason.
You wouldn't re-word Shakespeare into modern trash-English....Thus, if the KJV were accurate and well-worded...you wouldn't re-word it either. It was an ANALOGY!!! Do you know what an ANALOGY!!! is used for?....it "illustrates" or "analogizes" it doesn't "argue".

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.

duh.

Spelling was more inconsistent then, and they habitually added "e's" to the end of words for no identifiable reason...so what? That's "spelling" not verbiage....nor sentence structure...nor textual criticism, but, whatever :sleep:

The KJV is not composed of the original specific words that God gave by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

God didn't speak in English to them, I grant you that....what's your point?

The KJV is actually a translating and thus a re-phrasing of the original language words into different words in a different language

.
IT IS!!!!!

OMG!!!! I need to tell my fellow KJV appreciators that the ORIGINAL SCRIPTS WERE NOT IN ENGLISH!!! I'M SOOOOO glad you wrote a book about that, I did not KNOW THIS!

That just changes EVERYTHING!

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.

Yes....so, then, are you supporting the idea that the best translation of God's word would be to take the original 1611 KJV and up-date the SPELLING!!!

I CONCUR!!! Let's set to work on it right now!.........:thumbsup:

Oh, no, wait....that's been done already, guess we missed the boat. :tear:

It was simply an analogy...the purpose of which was to demonstrate ONE (and only one) point, and here it goes:
SOME things....are of such innate value, that it doesn't serve to alter their rendering MERELY for the sake of "readability"...
That's the point...that's all it was. That's all it was ever meant to be.

You don't defeat a point by pointing out the particular place where an analogy breaks down. That's not a defeater for an argument......it's "hair-splitting".

And people who have an innate hatred of the KJV will split hairs all day to trash it.