The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

[Logos1560]

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

You do not prove your term of accusation to be a good name and to be accurate at all.

You do not demonstrate that the KJV is being ignorantly attacked with fake scholarship as your question alleges.

What specific statement did I make concerning the KJV which you claim would be incorrect or fake and that you can prove to be so?

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense and in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense and in the same way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

KJV-only reasoning attempts to suggest that the KJV is the word of God in a different sense or in a different way than a post-1611 English Bible such as the NKJV are.

 

[Logos1560]

I think everyone can see that he has an axe to grind.

Do you actually assume and speak for everyone?

Perhaps readers can see that some posters may have an axe to grind against any believer who dares to disagree with human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

 

[Logos1560]

I assume that KJV-only advocates have good motives and good intentions even though they seem to allege that I supposedly have bad motives and bad intentions for attempting to present the truth.

 

[Logos1560]

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

You do not prove your opinion and allegation to be true.

Perhaps your own stated subjective opinion is not a scholarly view that you can back up with sound proof.

 

[Van]

(1) It is the same thing I point out. I have highlighted the Greek in blue. Again the difference is only one letter.

ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία
ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας

That is the same thing I posted above. Here it is again.

The TR has: ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία.
The CT has: ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

Note the sigma on the end. That bigger difference you of which you speak is because of only one letter.

The Net Bible also points out one is in the genitive case and the other is in the nominative case (highlighted in green). The two phrase are exactly alike except for that one letter and that accounts for the change in translation.


(2) The Net Bible cites A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition by Bruce M. Metzger. Metzger makes the same points.

"The difference between the AV, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men,”

and the RSV, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”

is not merely a matter of exegesis of the meaning of the Greek, but is first of all one of text criticism. Does the Angelic Hymn close with εὐδοκία or εὐδοκίας?

The genitive case, which is the more difficult reading, is supported by the oldest representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western groups of witnesses. The rise of the nominative reading can be explained either as an amelioration of the sense or as a palaeographical oversight (at the end of a line εὐδοκίας would differ from εὐδοκία only by the presence of the smallest possible lunar sigma, little more than a point, for which it might have been taken – thus ⲉⲩⲇⲟⲕⲓⲁⲥ)."


(3) In Mounce's grammar (3rd ed) at the beginning of each chapter there is a section called Exegetical Insight. At the start of chapter seven this text (i.e. Luke 2:14) is examined. It states:

"'Peace on earth, good will toward men' (Luke 2:14, KJV). You have probably all received Christmas cards containing this part of the angels’ song to the shepherds on the fields of Bethlehem. But most modern translations read differently: 'on earth peace to men on whom his [God’s] favor rests' (NIV); 'and on earth peace among those whom he [God] favors' (NRSV). The difference between the KJV and the others is the difference between the nominative and the genitive.

The Greek manuscripts used to translate the KJV contain εὐδοκία (nominative), whereas the older manuscripts used to translate the modern versions contain εὐδοκίας (genitive) —literally translated, 'of good will' or 'characterized by [God’s] good pleasure.' In other words, the peace that the angels sang that belonged to the earth as a result of the birth of Christ is not a generic, worldwide peace for all humankind, but a peace limited to those who obtain favor with God by believing in his Son Jesus (see Romans 5:1). What a difference a single letter can make in the meaning of the text!"

I see by your last paragraph, we almost agree.

 

[Van]

Literally "in men of goodwill"
εν ανθρωποις ευδοκιας 00.4% of the manuscript evidence. And there are two more variants. 00.2%

". . . goodwill . . . ." ευδοκια 99.4% of the manuscripts.

I am sure you had a point but you did not state it. "en" means "in" but also means "among."

 

[Baptist4life]

I assume that KJV-only advocates have good motives and good intentions even though they seem to allege that I supposedly have bad motives and bad intentions for attempting to present the truth.

First, I'm not KJVO. Nor am I an advocate.

Now, here is the "issue" I have with you and Roby.......... You especially. ........You are ALL OVER the internet on numerous sites CONSTANTLY posting about the KJVO issue.

You have been doing this for years. It seems like you are obsessed with the topic.......or......keeping this topic alive helps your book sales......... or your ego. You do realize how egotistical and condescending you come across to others, don't you?

Either way, people are getting tired of listening to you and Roby constantly beating a dead horse. Do you not realize this? Instead of informing people, you have become annoying. It's like if this topic went away, your lives would be over.

Have you NOTHING better to do than spend your life copy and pasting constantly on internet forums? Maybe you need some therapy? Seriously.

 

[Origen]

"en" means "in" but also means "among."

The word εν is a preposition and has many different usages\functions in Greek. Some of those usages are locative, agency, temporal, instrumental etc. It depends on the context.

The same is true of the English word "in." Note these English examples.

He is in the house.
He is in love.
He is in the chair.
He is in time for lunch.

 

[Logos1560]

First, I'm not KJVO.

You claim that you are not KJV-only, and yet you seem to have nothing better to do than to take time in effect defending KJV-only reasoning/teaching by making unproven allegations that attack any believer who points out sound objections to it.

You seem to have an issue with someone presenting verifiable facts and the truth.
Does the truth annoy you?

You fail to demonstrate that I make any assertions concerning the KJV that are not true so your subjective objections do not hold water.

 

[Van]

The word εν is a preposition and has many different usages\functions in Greek. Some of those usages are locative, agency, temporal, instrumental etc. It depends on the context.

The same is true of the English word "in." Note these English examples.

He is in the house.
He is in love.
He is in the chair.
He is in time for lunch.

I recently rewatched "All the Presidents Men" and heard again the phrase "non denial denial." I said sometimes the best translation of "en" is among. In our context, humans in Greek is plural. If something is in a group, it does not necessarily mean in every member of the group. Hence, "among" the group.

 

[Baptist4life]

You claim that you are not KJV-only, and yet you seem to have nothing better to do than to take time in effect defending KJV-only reasoning/teaching by making unproven allegations that attack any believer who points out sound objections to it.

I

^^^^^^That comes pretty close to calling me a liar.

I defend the KJV, because I find it a ridiculous topic, and an attack on a well loved version of the Bible.

You have been doing this for years. It seems like you are obsessed with the topic.......or......keeping this topic alive helps your book sales......... or your ego. You do realize how egotistical and condescending you come across to others, don't you?

Now, how about thinking about the rest of what I posted. Namely, your OBSESSION and your apparent EGO. An unhealthy and concerning one at that, imho.


I've stated my thoughts. No need to further respond to your nonsense. I think the proper way to deal with you is just IGNORE you, because responding to you is like giving drugs to a junkie.

 

[robycop3]

That would be William Tyndale.

He's dead.

 

[Logos1560]

I defend the KJV, because I find it a ridiculous topic, and an attack on a well loved version of the Bible.

You fail to demonstrate that I attack the KJV for what it actually is.

How do I supposedly attack the KJV by presenting the truth about it?

I defend the KJV as what it actually is so you demonstrate no sound reasons for your negative objecting to that.

You do not point out anything specific about the KJV or about the KJV-only theory that I post that you actually prove to be incorrect.

 

[church mouse guy]

He's dead.

He doesn't drive a Model A Ford, either. I have an idea that he translated more books of the Scripture than you did.

 

[Logos1560]

No need to further respond to your nonsense.

Do you consider the stating of the truth concerning the KJV to be nonsense?

Do you consider presenting scripturally-based objections to unproven KJV-only claims to be nonsense?

The truth does not become non-truth because some may choose to close their eyes to it or may choose to ignore it or avoid it.

 

[church mouse guy]

You do not prove your opinion and allegation to be true.

Perhaps your own stated subjective opinion is not a scholarly view that you can back up with sound proof.

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.

 

[church mouse guy]

You do not prove your term of accusation to be a good name and to be accurate at all.

You do not demonstrate that the KJV is being ignorantly attacked with fake scholarship as your question alleges.

What specific statement did I make concerning the KJV which you claim would be incorrect or fake and that you can prove to be so?

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense and in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense and in the same way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

KJV-only reasoning attempts to suggest that the KJV is the word of God in a different sense or in a different way than a post-1611 English Bible such as the NKJV are.

But that is not what this thread is about. What this thread is about is banning the KJV. The KJV is solid. Tyndale was genius. His work was accurate and good. You must be one of those Catholics who want to repress the Reformation.

 

[rlvaughn]

I challenge you and Roby to post your identities.

Since Logos has mentioned books he has written, I do not think it is a secret who he is.
Today's KJV and 1769 Compared
King James Only Information

 

[Logos1560]

What this thread is about is banning the KJV.

This thread was not at all about supposedly banning the KJV. You jump to a bogus, incorrect opinion.

 

[Logos1560]

Tyndale was genius. His work was accurate and good.

Yes, Tyndale's Bible translating was very good.

I made no charges against Tyndale as you incorrectly alleged.

According to his own writing, William Tyndale would have objected to some of the changes that the Church of England makers of the KJV made to his work.

In at least some places, Tyndale's translation was better, clearer, and more accurate than the KJV.