Featured The flaws of the KVJ

Everyone knows those whose pride prohibits admitting error. Perhaps they do not have deep flaws in their character, but only their outward expressions are deeply flawed as indicated by posts too numerous to count.

 

1John 5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (TR)

1John 5:7 (NKJV) For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (TR)

1 John 5:7 (WEB) For there are three who testify: (MT)

1 John 5:7 (NASB) For there are three that testify: (CT)

How many flaws does it take to constitute deeply flawed? A dozen? Two dozen? I think over two dozen obvious flaws, i.e. less than the best choices available, such as using outdated words, qualifies as deeply flawed. And yes, I am pretty sure some posters would deny even three dozen flaws constitutes deeply flawed. No matter the number, these posters would claim "not enough."

 

Who made you the judge?
MB

 

When a person changes "deeply flawed" to "deep flaws" and then does not fess up, they are wrong. And I should not have to explain the obvious to anyone who is committed to truth. Someone said, even a dog knows the difference from being accidentally stepped on and being kicked.

 

So everyone is wrong but you
MB

 

Once again you make up flaws and attribute them to others. Your behavior reveals your heart according to scripture...

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

 

Do you know what the expression "You're full of baloney" means? You haven't shown any "deep flaws" in the KJV, and I don't believe you nor anyone else here will mistake me for a KJVO. Every Bible translation has a few goofs in it, and while the KJV is an outdated "Model T" version, it's still a valid version, same as the outdated Model T is still a street-legal car.

 

The KJV is deeply flawed. Better texts are now available such as the MT and CT. Due to the passage of time, more up to date words are now available to translate God's word. The NKJV improves the KJV translation, correcting numerous flaws.

 

Yet another denial of the obvious and a pathetic effort to hide your false witness. You again claim I claimed the KJV had deep flaws. Did I say the KJV does not have "a few goofs?" Nope It has dozens of them. So if you take the original goofs then add the outdated word choices, you get a deeply flawed translation. Anyone who denies the obvious is "full of baloney."

 

How does Acts 3:16 read in the deeply flawed KJV?
"And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all."

And how should it read?
Based on faith in His name, the man,
whom you see and know, has been strengthened.
Faith in His name, through Him, gave him
unimpairment in the presence of all of you.

Note in this KJV blunder, the idea is changed from "through Him" to through faith. Not how it reads...

 

Van, your 'translation' is deeply flawed. First of all there is no such word as unimpairment. That's just silly of you. It's as absurd as saying "He gave him uncrippledness." You could have put it plainly as "restored him to complete health" or "gave him complete health" or "gave him perfect health."

And it's not "the man" --it is "this man." It makes more grammatical sense.

"In the presence of all of you" is the way several translations render the verse at the end.. Why not simply say "right in front of you" or "right before you." or "before your very eyes."

You got caught up in the weeds with your inelegant wording " Faith in His name, through Him, gave him..." The personal pronoun of 'him' got all tangled up in your 'translation.'

May I suggest a much better wording of the verse, that is as uncluttered and clear as yours is filled with blunders?

"This man whom you see and know was made strong because of faith in Jesus' name. Faith in Jesus healed him completely. You can see it with your own eyes." (NIrV)

 

Prove it. I doubt you can show 3 goofs in each of your 5 favorite translations. You are just saying what you have heard someone else say and now you enjoy hearing yourself say it. You have no clue what you are talking about.

If you can identify the goofs you can fix them and you can have a goof free translation. That is simple logic and sound reasoning.

 

Perhaps you may be describing many KJV-only advocates who repeat what they have heard someone else say or what they read in some KJV-only book or on some KJV-only website.

KJV-only advocates show that they believe assertions that are not true, some concerning the KJV and some concerning other English Bible translations.

Blindly believing assertions that are not true would not suggest that KJV-only advocates know what they are talking about in repeating those unproven claims.

 

Incorrect. The Latin Vulgate included both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament was translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate's New Testament as printed in the 1500's.

 

Irrelevant.

If you can identify the goofs you can fix them and they will not be goofs any longer. You and RC3 are just saying there are goofs in your favorite translations but you cannot show us two or more. You claim you have already done it to the KJV by creating the NKJV and if you are still complaining about goofs in it you have no one to blame but yourselves.

You know what I think. I think you are blowing smoke. You don’t really know there are goofs in any bible but the KJV. And, if you were brave enough to post two, most of the other new agers would not agree they were goofs.

 

It's easy to make statements it's hard to prove them. I admit that I don't know everything. I can be wrong. I've never been perfect. I do know the KJV is the most accurate and this is stated by most experts who claim to know. Anything that man touches is not perfect. Man just doesn't have perfection in him So excuse me for not being perfect in your eyes.
MB.

 

You don't know what you are talking about when you claim the KJV is flawed. I should ask in what and where. I think most people realize that anything man touches is not perfect. You're not perfect either and the NKJV is just an imitation of the Word of God and has just as many flaws as does the KJV.. You haven't shown any errors that make any theological difference. Your just looking to argue about nothing.
MB

 

I wouldn't go that far Van. Look at your self. You certainly aren't perfect. You have no peace we can all see that with your insulting everyone .
MB

 

I agree. When someone makes a charge that a translation, in this case the KJV, is 'deeply flawed' there has to be a doctrinal or theological deviation. There is no doctrinal or theological aberration within the text of the KJV. So he can rattle on all he wants about inconsequential things, but his vaunted claims amount to hot air.

 

You do not know that to be a fact. You may assume or suppose it by use of the fallacy of begging the question or by blind trust in the subjective opinions of men. Those whom you claim to be "experts" are probably biased KJV-only advocates whose subjective opinions you may blind trust.

Most experts do not claim that the KJV is the most accurate.