• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The flaws of the KVJ

Status
Not open for further replies.

JD731

Well-Known Member
Your opinion is incorrect. You jump to a wrong conclusion perhaps in order to try to rationalize your own human KJV-only reasoning. Because someone acknowledges the fact that in present English the pronoun you can be either singular or plural does not suggest that they do not admit any inaccurate renderings in new translations.

Give two examples of inaccurate renderings in new translations.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Why would a MV translating committee or a publisher knowingly put goofs in their translations?

They do not knowingly put errors in their Bible translations. There is more than one way to translate many original-language words, phrases, and clauses, and different original-language scholars have differences in which way that they consider to be the most accurate rendering for the different contexts.

Everyone does not agree on what is a mistake and what is not a mistake in a Bible translation, and everyone does not agree concerning which is the more accurate rendering.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Robycop3 knows and publishes every goof in the KJV on a regular basis so he has proven he is expert on goofs.

Incorrect assumption and reasoning on your part. He does not list or publisher every inaccurate rendering in the KJV. I do not recall that he claims to list every one of them. He gives a few examples, and not everyone agrees with his examples.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There is a way to have perfect translations if everyone agrees there are goofs, as robycop3 says, and if they agree with robycop3 on what the goofs are and if they all, including the publishers, agree together to fix them.

You fail to demonstrate that there is a way to have perfect Bible translations. Your reasoning is faulty and flawed. Not everyone agrees concerning how to translate most accurately original-language words of Scripture.

William Tyndale did not knowingly put goofs or errors in his 1526 edition of his New Testament. He learned more later and others may have pointed out some inaccurate renderings to him so that William Tyndale himself made hundreds and even thousands of revisions, corrections, or attempted improvements in his 1534 edition of his New Testament. Thus, even the same person may later disagree with how he earlier translated something as is clearly seen in the case of William Tyndale who is known as the father of our English Bible.

In their dedication to King James in the 1611, the KJV translators referred to the earlier English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible as "exact" translations, and yet they made hundreds and thousands of revisions and changes to the pre-1611 word of God in English. In their dedication, it is asserted that "out of the original sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The KJV was to be one more like the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible.

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators indicated that there was no way to have perfect Bible translations without a miracle of direct inspiration of God or unless they were made by the process of direct inspiration from God. You are contradicting the KJV translators who are supposedly wiser than you. The Scriptures do not teach that the process of giving of Scripture by direct divine inspiration continued after the giving of the New Testament by inspiration.
 
Last edited:

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Interesting that you identify this as a "goof". You do know that in current English usage "you" is both singular and plural, right? I am a fan of the distinguishing of the singular and plural second person as found in the KJV, but am surprised that you call these modern translations of Exodus 16:28 "goofs".
  • CSB Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
  • CEB The Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
  • CJB Adonai said to Moshe, “How long will you...
  • DRA And the Lord said to Moses: How long will you...
  • ESV And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
  • MEV Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
  • NOG Yahweh said to Moses, “How long will you...
  • NABRE Then the Lord said to Moses: How long will you...
  • NASB Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you...
  • NCB Therefore, the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
  • NCV Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
  • NET So the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you...
  • NIV Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you...
  • NLV Then the Lord said to Moses, “How much longer will you...
  • RSV And the Lord said to Moses, “How long do you...
  • TLV Adonai said to Moses, “How long will you...
Some newer translations have overcome the singular/plural problem in that verse by using "you people".
You hit the head on the nail. 'Tis a prob of poor rendering, as it appears God is addressing only Moses. We billhillies solve that prob by saying "Y'all" when referring to plural persons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top