Question for those who use modern translations.

[Rippon]

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.

In reality you are going against all reason.

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.....

Quite untrue IJ. Before the 16th century the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was rather very low. There have been undeniable advances in both languages since 16th and 17th centuries. They KJV revisers struggled with some passages because they honestly didn't have the knowledge of the original languages as biblical scholars do today.

 

[Rippon]

Thank you for your defense, Inspector Javert.

As time goes by you might see your "friend" in a different light B4L.

 

[Inspector Javert]

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

Do you know what the word "prosaic" means?....I assure you:
"dull" and "commonplace" is not it.

No it is developing. You just don't have a perspective of time

.
I don't?....Thank the maker you do though right?....Are you KIDDING?...Yes, any Linguist of note will insist that the English Language is ever improving in it's explanatory power? You think that's true?
SURE.....Guess what...I'm Cindy Lauper.

All languages change considerably over time.

They DO???? Well, I just DID NOT KNOW THAT??? I've never admitted as much either. Not once, never. Never happened. You couldn't possibly search through the whole of my posts and find me saying that languages evolve over time. NOPE, never happened.

It's not a negative thing.

Not inherently...but if they LOSE meaning and nuance over time, than it IS a "negative" thing right?

Which one do YOU honestly think is the present situation?

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.

I think you mean it "IS" my Bible translation of choice...not "is not"...but, yes, the general and overall mastery of the English Language is improving as you claim.

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.

I was quoting T.S. Eliot with the use of those words. Great authors (and masters of English prose) like Eliot considered non-KJV translations as: and I quote:

"trivial and pedantic"...

Take that up with Eliot. I was simply quoting his verbiage there actually. I just stole his adjectives instead of his whole quote, so I didn't cite it at the time.

 

[Rippon]

Do you know what the word "prosaic" means?....I assure you:
"dull" and "commonplace" is not it.

It is the primary sense of the word. It doesn't just mean words that are not written in poetic form.
.

I've never admitted as much either. Not once, never. Never happened. You couldn't possibly search through the whole of my posts and find me saying that languages evolve over time. NOPE, never happened.

You are on a joy ride of some sort. You said the English language has "devolved" and I said it is developing --as all languages do with the passage of time.

Not inherently...but if they LOSE meaning and nuance over time, than it IS a "negative" thing right?

Words change meaning over time. It is undeniable. You can't stop it. It is not necessarily a bad thing.

Take that up with Eliot. I was simply quoting his verbiage there actually. I just stole his adjectives instead of his whole quote, so I didn't cite it at the time.

Well,TSE wasn't even a Christian,so I don't believe that is worth much. And we are talking about today --not decades ago.

 

[Inspector Javert]

It is the primary sense of the word. It doesn't just mean words that are not written in poetic form.
.

You are on a joy ride of some sort. You said the English language has "devolved" and I said it is developing --as all languages do with the passage of time.

Words change meaning over time. It is undeniable. You can't stop it. It is not necessarily a bad thing.


Well,TSE wasn't even a Christian,so I don't believe that is worth much. And we are talking about today --not decades ago.

....o.k...

 

[evenifigoalone]

I'm one of those oddballs who uses both the KJV and modern translations.

 

[Amy.G]

Inspector, you didn't answer my question. Have you been here before under another name? It's not a hard question, unless you want to avoid the truth.

 

[Amy.G]

I'm one of those oddballs who uses both the KJV and modern translations.

So do I. Many others on BB do also, contrary to what the "inspector" thinks.

 

[Inspector Javert]

So do I. Many others on BB do also, contrary to what the "inspector" thinks.

I consult numerous translations as well (contrary to what you think)..

I am also passably well-versed in the original Hebrew when I read the Old Testament.

So, I often like to read the Masoretic Hebrew and compare with KJV, Young's Literal (sometimes NASV) ...which you adore so much.etc......

I have no problem with that.

If you understand anything about the whole "KJVO-THINGY"....you would understand that it essentially boils down only to the "Textual Criticism" issues of New Testament manuscripts only (which is why I choose to study Hebrew and not Greek).

 

[Inspector Javert]

Inspector, you didn't answer my question. Have you been here before under another name? It's not a hard question, unless you want to avoid the truth.

Sure...why not?

Have the Moderators ban my profile if you want. I don't care. I'm sure that will prove you "right" about everything you post wouldn't it?

 

[Inspector Javert]

I'm one of those oddballs who uses both the KJV and modern translations.

Most people do.
You aren't an "odd-ball" on that account.

 

[InTheLight]

I'm one of those oddballs who uses both the KJV and modern translations.

Me too. But after using the KJV almost exclusively for the past 40 years (and some NKJV) I'm pretty much going with the NIV now.

 

[Amy.G]

Sure...why not?

Have the Moderators ban my profile if you want. I don't care. I'm sure that will prove you "right" about everything you post wouldn't it?

No, but it proves you're not honest about everything you post.

 

[Logos1560]

Since KJV-only advocates do not present any consistent, logical, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory, do they try to excuse or justify their non-scriptural KJV-only opinions by attacking or misrepresenting believers who disagree with those opinions?

 

[evenifigoalone]

Since KJV-only advocates do not present any consistent, logical, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory, do they try to excuse or justify their non-scriptural KJV-only opinions by attacking or misrepresenting believers who disagree with those opinions?

That's one thing that annoys me. I find that both sides some measure of posturing and accusing the other side, though. To the same extent? Probably not.
To the church I grew up in, any church, speaker, preacher, or book that uses any version other than the KJV is apostate and not to be trusted, the epitome of deceit, run don't walk away. That kind of talk annoyed the crap out of me. I had seen plenty of material from those who used other versions and it rang true to my spirit whether at the time I agreed with the version they were using or not. (I used to be KJO.)


On the other hand, when I began researching the issue, I found plenty of articles that concentrated on bashing the KJO side more than I cared for. I wanted facts, not an exchange of ad hominems.

 

[Logos1560]

I wanted facts, not an exchange of ad hominems.

KJV-only advocates seem to want to misrepresent and attack those who attempt objectively to present facts and documented evidence.

Facts have been presented about the many changes and revisions that the KJV made to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. The makers of the KJV made many of the same type changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles as later translators make to the KJV. A few of those changes introduced in the KJV were even made for questionable reasons such as to favor the divine right of kings view of King James I and to favor the Episcopal church government view of the Church of England.

Facts have been presented about the actual errors that were found in the 1611 edition of the KJV. Facts have been presented about the errors in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. Facts have been presented that document some of the hundreds of differences and variations in the many varying editions of the KJV.

KJV-only advocates seem to want to claim incorrectly that posting established facts and documented evidence is supposedly slandering the KJV.

 

[Inspector Javert]

No, but it proves you're not honest about everything you post.

It proves you are reaching....and you've got nothing.

Like, if I am running against Chris Christie for political office and I simply call him "fat" because I've got nothing else.. That's what it proves.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Since KJV-only advocates do not present any consistent, logical, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only theory, do they try to excuse or justify their non-scriptural KJV-only opinions by attacking or misrepresenting believers who disagree with those opinions?

It has not been demonstrated otherwise.

 

[Rippon]

It proves you are reaching....and you've got nothing.

Like, if I am running against Chris Christie for political office and I simply call him "fat" because I've got nothing else.. That's what it proves.

Let's just say that honesty is not your strong suit JI (or rather HoS).

 

[Inspector Javert]

Let's just say that honesty is not your strong suit JI (or rather HoS).

What lie have I told???? Do tell? Or are you slandering for no reason?

Because, that's what it sounds like you are doing. Point out what lie I told, and I'll admit to it...

I await.