Question for those who use modern translations.

[Inspector Javert]

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

Tell me what lie I've told and I'll admit to it. Tell me.

You really just don't like being out-debated. I can't help that.
Do you not realize that this whole line of accusation of yours is actually you tacitly admitting that you've been defeated?

It is. It's a desperate Hail Mary.

You tell me what lie I've told, and I'll own it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Fat is a good beginning point though...proves gluttony. Same for dishonesty ...how you do one thing is how you do everything.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Same for dishonesty ...how you do one thing is how you do everything.

What have I been dishonest about? Pray do tell.

 

[preacher4truth]

What have I been dishonest about? Pray do tell.

How about starting with hos for instance

 

[Inspector Javert]

How about this:
Why doesn't whoever wants to start a new thread about it, and we'll not continue to hi-jack this one.

 

[preacher4truth]

How about this:
Why doesn't whoever wants to start a new thread about it, and we'll not continue to hi-jack this one.

As if you didn't begin the hijacking of this one yourself hos. You began it as a prove you're honest thread and I've called you on it. But go ahead and start there as I've stated and answer. It's simple really.

Now back to the OP.

The accusations of the KJV being hated and attacked is all in the minds of those who hold to KJVOnlyism or who are closet KJVO.

The truths about KJV have been brought forward. It as all translations has issues and is not perfect.

 

[Inspector Javert]

As if you didn't begin the hijacking of this one yourself hos.

You don't read well do you: Pay attention to this verbiage:

Originally Posted by Inspector Javert
How about this:
Why doesn't whoever wants to start a new thread about it, and we'll not continue to hi-jack this one.

See the word "WE"? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[preacher4truth]

You don't read well do you: Pay attention to this verbiage:

See the word "WE"? :smilewinkgrin:

Ah, an inflammatory comment from HoS. How rare.

And you're still hijacking.

I was on OP, why not end your silly game and stick to that?

 

[jonathan.borland]

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?

You mean the tax instructions aren't written in 1611 English? Well I'll be dogged!

 

[jonathan.borland]

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

For those who've been around, his colorful expressiveness fits HOS to a T.

 

[jonathan.borland]

One thing about Inspector Javert: there's a certain evocative, some might say provocative, intensity to his posts that certainly elicits a wide range of responses.

A few days ago he posted this:

I agree with the above post....I thought initially to say as much, (I was gonna post this last night) but, then I assumed that I'd be assaulted as a "KJVO fanatic" or something merely because I didn't see this as a chance to take a big fat wet hot steaming dump on the KJV...so I avoided the conflict.

He's kind of like Jesse Helms in the Senate. He says things like "suck egg Democrats" and votes no when 99 others vote yes, and you at least listen to the grouchy man even if you don't always agree with him or the way in which he says things.

Javert says he's not KJVO and that he's calling people on dissing the KJV for the sake of dissing the KJVOs. If he uses bombastic rhetoric at times, well, welcome to the BB. It kind of comes with the territory. The long-time posters here learn not to take this BB too seriously.

But there are some hints of his mother's rearing in him....I've see the word "sir" pop up a number of times in his responses. Maybe the rest of the seeds of his culturing will blossom into the full-blown southern gentleman, like the Jesse Helms of the BB.

If anything, I read everyone's posts here not just for edification but also for the level of entertainment or diversion from the daily grind that they provide. Some provide more, some less, amusement. Javert's posts are definitely on the more amusing side.

Sorry for the derailing of the thread....

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank God for that.

Tell us something we don't know.

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

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.

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.

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:

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!!!

Are you denying that modern lexicons/word dictionaries/textual criticism etc have NOT advanced a great deal since 1611?

Thatwe have many more discovered manuscripts, and have much better understanding of the culture and have much better information regarding lexicon meanings of words now?

Do you hold that say thayers just as good to use as BGAD is for greek?
same way Greek/hebrew grammars of 1611 equal to those used today?
That their henrew lexicons equal to modern ones used?
Seems that you are stuck in a time warp, that God somehow inspired the 1611 translators SAME way as Apostles?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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.

The only reason those manuscripts are older is because they are unreliable... I garantee you that the NWT (Jehovas Witness translation) will last longer on my shelves than my King James bibles because I view the NWT as horribly corrupt. Older does not always mean better, not to mention that the early church fathers quote readings from the recieved text/ Byzantine text at a 3:2 ratio.

Older does not mean better, and you are completely ignoring the fact that God can providentially preserve his word THROUGH copying.

 

[annsni]

The only reason those manuscripts are older is because they are unreliable... I garantee you that the NWT (Jehovas Witness translation) will last longer on my shelves than my King James bibles because I view the NWT as horribly corrupt. Older does not always mean better, not to mention that the early church fathers quote readings from the recieved text/ Byzantine text at a 3:2 ratio.

Older does not mean better, and you are completely ignoring the fact that God can providentially preserve his word THROUGH copying.

I'd love to know where you get your information. LOL

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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.

The main problem is the texts behind translation, that is the major problem that modern version promoters are ignoring, it is straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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.

When you say Majority text what text are you referring to? because if you are referring to the MT put out by Hodges-Farstad than yes what you said is correct, but that is not the textus receptus behind the King James bible, oftentimes the Textus receptus is confused with the "majority text" that really isn't a majority text.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

let's try to stay on topic please. I am not interested in linguistic arguments because those are just gnats, im concerned with the textual issue.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I'd love to know where you get your information. LOL

The Revision Revised by Dean Burgon. Dean Burgon did a lot of research into the early church father's quotations.

 

[Logos1560]

When you say Majority text what text are you referring to? because if you are referring to the MT put out by Hodges-Farstad than yes what you said is correct, but that is not the textus receptus behind the King James bible, oftentimes the Textus receptus is confused with the "majority text" that really isn't a majority text.

The twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus really are not a majority text with all of their readings found in an acutal majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts.

The varying Textus Receptus editions actually have some minority readings and even some readings found in no known Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts.

The NT editions such as the Majority Text of Hodges-Farstand and the New Testament in the Original Greek--Byzantine Textform edited by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont are more of a majority text than the Textus Receptus editions are.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus really are not a majority text with all of their readings found in an acutal majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts.

The varying Textus Receptus editions actually have some minority readings and even some readings found in no known Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts.

The NT editions such as the Majority Text of Hodges-Farstand and the New Testament in the Original Greek--Byzantine Textform edited by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont are more of a majority text than the Textus Receptus editions are.

The So-Called "Majority Greek Text of Hodges-Farstad"

1. Papyrus Fragments-- 8 out of 81 = 10% of the evidence

2. Uncials-= 4 out of 267 = 1% of the evidence

3. Cursives- 414 out of 2764 = 15% of the evidence

4. Lectionaries-- 0 out of 2143 = 0% of the evidence

Total MSS: 426 out of 5,255 = 8% of the MSS evidence

5. Ancient Versions-- 0 out of 20 = 0% of the evidence

6. Church Fathers-- 0 out of 300 = 0% of the evidence

Total Non-MSS: 0 out of 320 = 0% of the non-MSS evidence*

Grand Total: **426 out of 5,575 = 7% of ALL evidence**