The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

[Yeshua1]

They really have.
I used to be a "KJVO" advocate.
Well, I'm not anymore...
I've done some study of Textual criticism, Original language study, I know some Greek and Hebrew, (I don't claim to have mastered either one).

I can't claim the KJB is perfect.
But, I still find that it was absolutely MASTERFULLY done.

I have spent the last two years studying the history of the English language too.Roby has no idea what he's talking about.
Languages do evolve.....in many ways.
In many ways, they remain amazingly constant. I only know enough to know that he has no clue what he's talking about.

I don't mind if people use other translations....but, denigrating the most venerable translation of the Bible into English for the last 500 years does NOT serve the cause of Christ, and helps no one.
Even Godless pagans know how brilliant the KJV is.
Oscar Wilde called the KJV the best example of English prose in the history of the language, and Wilde wasn't a fan of all it taught, but he understood how good it was.

Denzel Washington starred in the brilliant film:
The Book of Eli
A post-Apocolyptic setting where a blind man memorizes the King James Bible in order to preserve it for mankind....
Even the Godless like Oscar Wilde and the writer of The Book of Eli know how brilliantly crafted that translation was.

I've found fault with it, sure....
I know a few places where I would have translated somewhat differently.
But, no more so than any other translation which I can also find fault with.

The KJV is, and will remain (like Shakespeare) the height of prose in the English language.
It will not be replicated again. To despise it, or denigrate it is ignorance of the first degree.

Roby and Logos denigrate the text itself.
I can handle critique of translational choices (sometimes I think the ESV for instance does a better job for the modern speaker)
But, their critiques have gone far beyond mis-guided KJV-Onlyism….they denigrate what is arguably the most brilliantly crafted work of prose in ANY language of all time.
That is insanity on many levels, and I hate that.

The Kjv is a good translation, can be used by Christians, but is not perfect, nor only valid English translation, and versions such as Nkjv and Nas better than it now!

 

[Yeshua1]

So why not the comma when Cyprian quoted it in the 2nd century from a "non-existant" source....supposedly.

not in the scripture....

 

[37818]

Bad based on what?

It is my understanding that the oldest Greek texts reportadly have higher number of textual issues. And typically are the bases of the "bad" textual readings.

 

[Yeshua1]

The No-KJV-Ever people are nuts on that point. It is not a scholarly viewpoint by any stretch of the imagination.

No one posting on this thread as stated no kjv period, just that there are now better versions if one chooses to us them!

 

[Yeshua1]

Don't you think that No-KJV-Ever is a good name for people who ignorantly attack the KJV with their fake scholarship?

you mean those here like Origen and Logos 1560 who know textual criticism, as against vast majority of KJVO who do not?

 

[1689Dave]

We base doctrines and theology upon Scriptures alone, not upon ANY Creed!

What makes you think the creeds are not based on scripture? Ever time you say what you believe you write a creed, so to speak.

 

[1689Dave]

not in the scripture....

Can you prove that?

 

[church mouse guy]

you mean those here like Origen and Logos 1560 who know textual criticism, as against vast majority of KJVO who do not?

How do you know?

 

[Yeshua1]

Don't be silly. I have no subjective view. All of your charges against the KJV are immaterial. It is still a solid translation. It is the work of Tyndale plus a committee of the leading scholars of the English Reformation. You can chose to ride around in a Model A if you like but your charges against Tyndale fall flat. The No-KJV-Ever crowd is just post-modernism applied to theology.

he is saying that the Kjv is a good translation, but was not inspired, nor perfect!

 

[church mouse guy]

No one posting on this thread as stated no kjv period, just that there are now better versions if one chooses to us them!

Do you agree that KJV Only is a cult?

 

[church mouse guy]

he is saying that the Kjv is a good translation, but was not inspired, nor perfect!

So what is the point of the thread? Actually it is just a pointless thread debated numerous times by Roby who has a Model A.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No one posting on this thread as stated no kjv period, just that there are now better versions if one chooses to us them!

No, that's not what was said.
That wasn't the thrust of the thread.
The thread was a grotesque insult on the translation.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

he is saying that the Kjv is a good translation, but was not inspired, nor perfect!

No, he was comparing it to a car that would be woefully inadequate and FAR superceded by essentially anything crafted in the last 100 years.

You are putting words into his mouth.
He wasn't making some benign and meaningless statement that no one would respond to like you just posted.
He unnecessarily and grotesquely insulted it.
That's what he does.
He always does that.

It's disgusting.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

you mean those here like Origen and Logos 1560 who know textual criticism, as against vast majority of KJVO who do not?

I don't think Logos would consider himself any kind of authority on textual criticism. I don't know about Origen.
I'm sure he has a decent working and cursory knowledge of its main ideas....and enough for a few educated opinions, but not much more....so do I. So do a lot of people.
I have just enough to know he is absolutely no expert on the topic. He doesn't pretend to be either. Nor does he have to be to argue this topic intelligently. He tends to cite other people he considers to be trustworthy experts....which is fine.
My guess he has about that much expertise; possibly a little more.
Certainly, he doesn't seem to understand it on anything like an expert level, and I doubt he'd claim to.

You seem to post as though anyone who asserts everything you already think to be true and can do it polysyllabically is some kind of expert.
How easily impressed are you?

 

[Reformed1689]

It is my understanding that the oldest Greek texts reportadly have higher number of textual issues. And typically are the bases of the "bad" textual readings.

Based on what? I know what your understanding is, but what do you base it on?

 

[Reformed1689]

We base doctrines and theology upon Scriptures alone, not upon ANY Creed!

That depends on what you mean by that.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you agree that KJV Only is a cult?

I would say that they make the Kjv out to be something that not even the translators themselves ever did, as they saw the need to revise and better their efforts in the future, as not a finished and perfect work!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think Logos would consider himself any kind of authority on textual criticism. I don't know about Origen.
I'm sure he has a decent working and cursory knowledge of its main ideas....and enough for a few educated opinions, but not much more....so do I. So do a lot of people.
I have just enough to know he is absolutely no expert on the topic. He doesn't pretend to be either. Nor does he have to be to argue this topic intelligently. He tends to cite other people he considers to be trustworthy experts....which is fine.
My guess he has about that much expertise; possibly a little more.
Certainly, he doesn't seem to understand it on anything like an expert level, and I doubt he'd claim to.

You seem to post as though anyone who asserts everything you already think to be true and can do it polysyllabically is some kind of expert.
How easily impressed are you?

Based upon their posted knowledge, would see those 2, along with john of japan as the textual critics here on Board!

 

[Yeshua1]

That depends on what you mean by that.

Can use Creeds and confessions, but the Bible alone was inspired by God!

 

[Reformed1689]

Can use Creeds and confessions, but the Bible alone was inspired by God!

Yes, and I don't think @1689Dave was arguing that they were inspired.