Question for those who use modern translations.

[Baptist4life]

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

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.

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".

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:

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

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!.........
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.

:thumbsup::applause:

 

[Amy.G]

Inspector, you sound familiar to me. Have you been here before under a different name?

 

[Yeshua1]

: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??

the Kjv translators did NOT have the various Greek manuscripts that we have available to use since their time...

they did NOT themselves view their version asbeing either perfect or last one to come...

Are you saying that there has been NO textual advances/manuscripts discovered/liguistic/grammar/lexicon advances since thetranslated the Kjv?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Inspector, you sound familiar to me. Have you been here before under a different name?

"sound" is not accurate............that would be a sort of KJV-rendering not acceptable to the modern reader:

Better you said "you READ familiarly, to my perception".

Is that more "understandable" to everyone on B.B.?

 

[Amy.G]

"sound" is not accurate............that would be a sort of KJV-rendering not acceptable to the modern reader:

Better you said "you READ familiarly, to my perception".

Is that more "understandable" to everyone on B.B.?

You "read" familiar to me. Happy?

Have you been here before under a different name?

 

[Logos1560]

, but please, don't tell me the KJV isn't slandered on this forum! I'm not that stupid.

The KJV is not slandered at this forum. You failed to show that it was in your apparent attempts to slander believers who disagree with the opinions of those who advocate a KJV-only theory.

 

[Inspector Javert]

The KJV is not slandered at this forum.

Yes it is.

You failed to show that it was

What you mean is that he failed to prove it inescapably such that you and others who engage in it will admit to it..............You're quite right.

You will neither accept nor admit to having been a slanderer of the KJV. But, his statement is still correct.

 

[Logos1560]

You will neither accept nor admit to having been a slanderer of the KJV. But, his statement is still correct.

Your biased opinion and claim that a statement is correct does not demonstrate that it is.

Why would I or anyone accept that an unproven, bogus, false accusation of slander was supposedly true based on your faulty, biased opinion that is evidently based on use of divers measures?

I hold the same basic view of Bible translations that the makers of the KJV advocated.

Did the makers of the KJV supposedly slander the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision when they changed, altered, and revised many renderings in them?

Did the later editors of KJV editions supposedly slander the KJV when they made many changes, revisions, and corrections to the text of the 1611 edition?

 

[Inspector Javert]

the Kjv translators did NOT have the various Greek manuscripts that we have available to use since their time...

Thank God for that.

they did NOT themselves view their version asbeing either perfect or last one to come...

Tell us something we don't know.

Are you saying that there has been NO textual advances/

What is a "textual advance"???? These are your words, not mine.

manuscripts discovered

Manuscripts (if by that you mean old pieces of paper) have been discovered post the translation of the KJV...crappy ones often. But, actually most of them agree with KJV.

/liguistic/grammar/lexicon advances since thetranslated the Kjv

What does this mean?
"Linguistic" advances?......My answer is modern scholars don't know a FIG more than the translators of the KJV did...in some ways, I actually think quite less. That's a reasonable assertion actually. It stands as quite probable that when a dead language is spoken of...then information is actually LOST...not GAINED by the passage of time.....

But, I ascribe no limits to human arrogance.

grammar

By that do you mean Greek grammar or English?
If by the Greek, do you mean do I think we know MORE than they did about the grammar?....NO. (possibly less).

English grammar?....PUULLEEZZEE!!!! 80% of all anti-kjv arguments extant are that English speakers are too stupid to understand the nuances of English grammar!!!! Don't expect them to be smart enough to understand the grammar of the KJV...The entire argument is that people are too stupid to get it and that that's "a-o.k."!! :thumbsup:

lexicon

Lexicons are books that contain the meanings of words in both dead and living languages. My position would be this:

As quickly and as assuredly as we gain information about ancient languages....than as quickly and as assuredly we become more distantly REMOVED from their source and remembrance over time.

Unlike many disciplines...it stands quite to reason that an older generation might have QUITE MORE information about something which is (by definition) becoming extinct than people more chronologically removed from it!
Would you rather read a 55 year-old historian's treatise about the on-ground nuances of the battle of Iwo Jima...or speak to some old crusty Marine who was personally there? Do you think that as we discover more "DOCUMENTS" over time about the battle that we'll actually "KNOW" more than they did?

Seriously...Are all of you anti-KJV's just parrots or do you actually THINK!!!

 

[Inspector Javert]

Your biased opinion and claim that a statement is correct does not demonstrate that it is.

Quite true....but, similarly...neither does your denial of it serve in any capacity to defeat it either.

Why would I or anyone accept that an unproven, bogus, false accusation of slander was supposedly true based on your faulty, biased opinion that is evidently based on use of divers measures?

YOU would accept nothing of the sort. No one could convince YOU. I hold to no illusions in that respect.

I hold the same basic view of Bible translations that the makers of the KJV advocated.

Of course you do. I know. Tut Tut.

Did the makers of the KJV supposedly slander the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision when they changed, altered, and revised many renderings in them?

No...and anyone who knows a fig about the issue (and that includes you actually) knows better.
You are asking a dis-honest question.

Did the later editors of KJV editions supposedly slander the KJV when they made many changes, revisions, and corrections to the text of the 1611 edition?

No....duh.

 

[Logos1560]

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 have not demonstrated that the renderings in all modern English Bibles are supposedly altered MERELY for the sake of "readability."

Did the makers of the KJV alter and revise many renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles merely for the sake of readability?

If revision, alteration, and updating of the renderings of earlier English Bibles is wrong according to a consistent application of your own claimed point, are you in effect proving that the makers of the KJV were wrong to revise, change, alter, or update them?

 

[Inspector Javert]

You have not demonstrated that the renderings in all modern English Bibles are supposedly altered MERELY for the sake of "readability."

It has not been demonstrated that I ever claimed that.

Did the makers of the KJV alter and revise many renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles merely for the sake of readability?

It has not been demonstrated that I ever claimed that either.

If revision, alteration, and updating of the renderings of earlier English Bibles is wrong according to a consistent application of your own claimed point

Which one precisely?
I have no idea which particular "claimed-point" you are alluding to....I don't think I ever made such a point.....
I think you are typing before you read.

are you in effect proving that the makers of the KJV were wrong to revise, change, alter, or update them?

I do not throw around words like "prove" as swiftly as you appear to. I think you will find that I haven't claimed to have "proved" anything.

 

[Baptist4life]

Thank you for your defense, Inspector Javert. As you can see, the denial continues, yet we, and I know many others, can see it plainly. As for Logos, I tend to just ignore him because, frankly, his pride and arrogance tend to make me upset, and I find it best to just not respond to him at all. God bless you, my friend.

 

[Logos1560]

When KJV-only posters will not or cannot provide sound evidence for their accusations against believers in the Scriptures that disagree with a KJV-only theory, it may be that they show that they are blinded by their own subjective KJV-only opinions and faulty KJV-only reasoning.

Providing accurate, true information about the making of the KJV, about the KJV itself, about the KJV translators, about editions of the KJV and their actual differences, etc. does not slander the KJV. In effect, I defend the KJV against the incorrect and false claims that some make for it.

What have I supposedly posted that slanders the KJV?

Taking the claims, reasoning, arguments, and accusations of KJV-only advocates and applying them consistently including to the KJV does not slander the KJV.

I have clearly stated the KJV is a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same way and in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same way and in the same sense that later English translations such as the NKJV are.

The KJV is the word of God in English in the same way and in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same way and in the same sense that later English translations such as the NKJV are.

I have read the KJV from my childhood and since I was saved. I accept the KJV as what it is: a good overall translation of the Scriptures.

The fact that I disagree with a modern, man-made KJV-only theory and its incorrect claims does not show any disrespect for the KJV. The KJV translators themselves rejected a one-perfect-translation-only theory.

 

[annsni]

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?

Me thinks we have a parrot. Too bad he doesn't have ANY of his facts correct.

NO one attacks the KJV over "issues that are so minor". The KJV is a version of the Bible just like any of the others. It has strengths and weaknesses just like any of the others.

You ask if we can with a clear conscience use Bibles that are translated by texts that are only supported by 2 or 3 manuscripts, I will turn it around and ask you the same. Heck, there were NO manuscript evidences for some of the passages of the Word when Erasmus wrote his Greek text yet they are in the KJV. Why is that?

 

[Rippon]

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.

The aforementioned versions have far fewer words that would be misunderstood than the KJV --be honest B4L.

You TEACH them the meanings, you don't throw the Bible away.

Nobody is saying anything about throwing the Bible away. Those SS children haven't thrown the Bible away by not using the KJV. They have the Bible in the various translations you have said they use.

 

[Rippon]

it behooves us to put up with some archaic verbiage in order to actually read what God is "saying" to us.

Of course not.You're saying the Lord wants us to continually use the KJV --jump through the hoops of understanding its ancient phraseology to actually understand what God is saying to us? Nonsense. God speaks through modern translations much more clearly --thank you very much. God didn't give you your error-filled message.

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

It is a decided improvement over the KJV in being understandable to folks of this era.

The ESV (for instance) is actually remarkably understandable vs. the NASV in almost any objective test.

Well,I made a thread or two in the past on the BB comparing the two and the NASBU has much more natural English than the ESV in a number of places.

the ESV is (given comparisons) probably the best for balancing literal rendering for readability.

No,the NIV would be the best candidate for balancing those two factors.

 

[Inspector Javert]

When KJV-only posters will not or cannot provide sound evidence for their accusations against believers in the Scriptures that disagree with a KJV-only theory, it may be that they show that they are blinded by their own subjective KJV-only opinions and faulty KJV-only reasoning.

Their evidence is YOU sir...YOU. And the bulk of posters on Baptist Board who make a veritable trade of attacking the KJV.

In effect, I defend the KJV against the incorrect and false claims that some make for it.

One of those "attacks" is your ill-advised (essentially provably false) essay about how "Easter" was an "error" in the KJV.....You wrote essays accusing the KJV of being "wrong" to translate that way and you are provably mistaken.

What have I supposedly posted that slanders the KJV?

Ummmm.....I dunno, take your posting history, and segregate every 5th post...and it will inevitably involve some real or imagined "error" in the KJV....You pick.

Taking the claims, reasoning, arguments, and accusations of KJV-only advocates and applying them consistently including to the KJV does not slander the KJV.

The very fact that you have 1 certain classification for "KJV-only advocates" actually belies your predjudice.
But, when anyone starts to call you on your INSANE hatred of KJV you want to put them in the same basket as any KJVO...and your arguments fail you miserably at that point:
You can defeat Peter Ruckman all day. (I'm glad you can).
But, your obsession with doing so has evolved into a loathing for the KJV that perhaps you are not even aware of.

I have clearly stated the KJV is a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same way and in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same way and in the same sense that later English translations such as the NKJV are.

Yes, you have....and then you spend 15,000 words decrying every real and imagined error you perceive the KJV to have and you publicize it to the World....
And you then falsely accuse the KJV of wrongly translating "Easter" in Acts 12:4

Your actions are who you are Logos....
I don't care What you say. You are what you DO!

The KJV is the word of God in English in the same way and in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same way and in the same sense that later English translations such as the NKJV are.

That's VERY TRUE!!!....But you are failing to mention to the sycophants why you mentioned the Geneva and then skipped RIGHT TO the NKJV....
What about the RSV huh?
What about the NRSV?
NASB?

Why did you skip from Geneva immediately to NKJV????

I know why you did....
Did you admit it to everyone else?

I accept the KJV as what it is: a good overall translation of the Scriptures.

You are not telling your sycophants the whole truth Logos...you accept it as a good overall translation of manuscripts which are not accurate and fully expressive of the Words God preserved for mankind....

You maintain that it is a "good" translation of a lot of God's ACTUAL words....and a few Bull-Crap ones that you assume some scribes just threw in for G.P.

Tell them the TRUTH, Logos.

The fact that I disagree with a modern, man-made KJV-only theory and its incorrect claims does not show any disrespect for the KJV.

No, it doesn't.

It's everything else you post which gives you away.

The KJV translators themselves rejected a one-perfect-translation-only theory

.
Yes, they did...

But you are lying to the populace that you believe "translation" is the issue....One could "translate" a MYRIAD of different ways accurately....

What you maintain is that their manuscripts were inferior...their knowledge was inferior, and that they simply skipped "accurate" renderings in order to conform to certain conventions dominated by C.O.E. politics extant at the time....

That's what you believe. Tell the truth.

 

[Rippon]

But, frankly......we are losing the prosaic capacity

That's good! Who wants a prosaic translation? Why endorse something dull and commonplace?

English as a language is de-volving rapidly

No it is developing. You just don't have a perspective of time. All languages change considerably over time. It's not a negative thing.

.......and I can't help but think that this fascination for trivial and pedantic language from Bible translators is partly to blame.

Well,you aren't thinking clearly. And you really don't don't know what you are talking about. You're just playing Devil's Advocate anyway because the KJV is not your Bible translation of choice.

In the maninstream English translations none are trivial.Pedantic --perhaps the ESV at times. But the ERV of the 1880's certainly qualifies as being pedantic.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Thank you for your defense, Inspector Javert. As you can see, the denial continues, yet we, and I know many others, can see it plainly. As for Logos, I tend to just ignore him because, frankly, his pride and arrogance tend to make me upset, and I find it best to just not respond to him at all. God bless you, my friend.

I think Logos meant well.

I think Logos actually does LOVE the Word of God.

I think he saw and balked at most of the fallacious arguments often propounded by many KJVO advocates.

I think that to defeat them...he researched much and lost his way in the process.

I think he is truly "anti-KJV"...but that he simply doesn't know that. His purpose was genuine and admirable:

His purpose was to defeat false doctrines of "Double-Inspiration" a-la Ruckman etc...I think that was an admirable goal. I think he lost his way in the process. I think he IS "anti-KJV"...but he honestly isn't even aware of it. I think it took his toll on him.

That's my sheer opinion of course, and I speak with no authority whatsoever. (As though I can Psycho-analyze him) But, that's my assessment anyway. I think he's a good man who turned full-circle and isn't aware of how FAR he's come.