The ONE FACT that stops KJVO in its tracks...

[robycop3]

He's also not the author of confusion...which is what's been going on in the English-speaking world for over 150 years now.

And what confusion there is, is all man-made. The KJVO myth adds to it.

 

[robycop3]

They all are.

I'm surprised you would ask that.
It's all God's inspired word.

Yes, written by different men, who all worded things differently, same as different manuscript writers and Bible translators do.

Can I prove that the Textus Receptus is the superior text base?
No.

In fact, no KJVO can prove which of the over-30 revisions of the TR is the "perfect" one. Dean Burgon said the TR could stand yet another thorough revision.

Can I prove that most English translations today are based on an even smaller cross-section of mss than the AV?
I think that was done a long time ago.

Of course not.
Can you?

No need to, as I see GOD preserved ALL the ancient Scriptural mss. we have before us.

I feel in my spirit, that the TR is the correct one.

Just as Mormons feel "in their spirits" that Joey Smith & Brigand Young were actually prophets.

However, It cannot be proven in a court of law.
If you ask many "KJVO's" / "KJVP's", they would probably tell you the same thing.

Of course not, as it's FALSE.

However, I probably could make a very convincing case before a jury, of your apparent bias against the AV.

No need to, as I readily admit it. It's not such a great version, as compared to several newer ones.

Which leads me to a question...
What exactly is it that you hate about the AV?

First, what I HATE is the false, man-made KJVO MYTH, not the KJV itself.

But what I don't like about it is its obsolete language, which many people don't completely understand, and its goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4, its obvious goof in 1 Tim. 6:10, & many others.

Let's not forget that ALL Bible translations in whatever language are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.

**THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !**

 

[robycop3]

A better translation, just as the translators said in their preface.

Can you find a reason that the need for a better translation exists today?
If so, which one, and if God-sponsored, why isn't it finished yet?

New translations were made to both reflect the changes in the English language and improvements in translation.

That you know of.
What you may consider fact, another person may consider bears looking in to..

Respectfully,
There's are many reasons people may disagree with your evaluation, Roby.

But, are any of them CORRECT ?
None of them can replace the LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. Without it, no doctrine of faith/worship can be true.

Was that in 1881 with the advent of the Westcott and Hort Critical Text, or the English RSV in 1885?
I think you've missed the problem.

The big question I have for you is...are we there yet?
Again, if today's English translations were being made in order to get to a better translation, as the KJV was, then why are there so many, and being developed and released in such quick succession?

It's about money, Roby....not getting a better translation.

I readily admit there are some real bummers being published as "Bible versions" such as the cult-specific ones. As I said, I primarily muse the NKJV & NASV, but I certainly don't reject the ESV or HCSV. (I don't care for the NIV or "The Message", as I don't like paraphrased versions.)

If I were guessing, I'd say that what bothers you most about "KJVO", is that you don't want anyone to force you into using something that is 400 years old.
No one is trying to do that.

But apparently, YOU'RE in thrall to it. Why teach Scripture in a language style that's no longer in use outside of Shakespeare theaters?

The argument is, it's more accurate....not easier to read than many others.
The argument is, it's based on the TR, which is far more accurate with regard to the Majority Text than the CT is.

Therefore, it's even more accurate, overall, than the NASB, with respect to manuscript base.

Accuracy and faithfulness, Roby.
Not readability.

It's NOT more-accurate. That's just your guess. Plainly, "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a glaring booboo. And "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10 is simply not true. The CORRECT readings are "passover" in Acts & "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil" in 1 Tim.

I can point out poor renderings in the KJV all day, such as "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13 that are not found in modern translations. However, if YOU"RE happy with them, fine. You have a right to be wrong.

 

[Dave G]

Yes, written by different men, who all worded things differently, same as different manuscript writers and Bible translators do.

Whoa, horsey.

Are you saying that the men who God used to write His inspired words, didn't record them accurately and faithfully?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
To me, they were very careful to only write what God Himself gave them to write...it didn't rely on human invention, one bit.

Next question:
Do you believe that God is behind all of today's English translations?

I don't.

 

[Dave G]

Why teach Scripture in a language style that's no longer in use outside of Shakespeare theaters?

I'm not advocating teaching Late Middle English to anyone.

I'm advocating getting today's moneymakers off the translation train, and getting some real born-again believers behind a good one.
So far all I see are people who get contracted to use the same old 1-2% CT base for all of the new ones.

From where I'm sitting, it seems that this subject has you so angry, that you are unwilling to carefully consider the real problem...
We don't need more translations.
We, as believers, only need one good one.

So, why doesn't someone simply take the KJV and update the language and be done with it?

I'll tell you why...
Because the publishing houses see a fat cash cow to be milked, and they are stringing believers along by the nose, keeping them waiting on the next, "best version"...promising them a never-ending, never-complete "bible" in the process.

You're fully within your right to ride it, but I got off that train decades ago.

It's been an interesting discussion, Roby.
However, I don't see that you're looking for discussion...more like a fight, and you seem to enjoy beating people up who love the AV.
I do hope that I am wrong.



I wish you well, and I'll keep in mind that your "hot button" is anyone who even remotely tries to suggest that there are any problems with today's English translations.

 

[robycop3]

Whoa, horsey.

Are you saying that the men who God used to write His inspired words, didn't record them accurately and faithfully?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
To me, they were very careful to only write what God Himself gave them to write...it didn't rely on human invention, one bit.

God only CAUSED the apostles to write what became Scripture. The only actual words of God they had was what they'd heard from Jesus. And, apparently, they remembered them differently. Each "Gospel" differs from the others quite a bit.

As a cop, I sometimes had to take statements from 4 different witnesses of the same event. No two accounts would be even nearly exactly alike. Simply human differences in each other. Same for the apostles.

Next question:
Do you believe that God is behind all of today's English translations?

I don't.

I believe He is behind all VALID ones.

(Before ya ask, "valid" means it's an accurate translation of its sources.)

 

[robycop3]

I'm not advocating teaching Late Middle English to anyone.

Then, why teach them from the KJV ?

I'm advocating getting today's moneymakers off the translation train, and getting some real born-again believers behind a good one.
So far all I see are people who get contracted to use the same old 1-2% CT base for all of the new ones.

A translation should use an eclectic mix of as many available mss. as possible. After all, GOD preserved ALL of them.

From where I'm sitting, it seems that this subject has you so angry, that you are unwilling to carefully consider the real problem...
We don't need more translations.
We, as believers, only need one good one.

Seen me pushing for more translations? And we have several in English already, such as the NKJV , NASV, ESV, etc.

So, why doesn't someone simply take the KJV and update the language and be done with it?

They HAVE. One is the NKJV; another is the MEV.

I'll tell you why...
Because the publishing houses see a fat cash cow to be milked, and they are stringing believers along by the nose, keeping them waiting on the next, "best version"...promising them a never-ending, never-complete "bible" in the process.

You're fully within your right to ride it, but I got off that train decades ago.

It's been an interesting discussion, Roby.
However, I don't see that you're looking for discussion...more like a fight, and you seem to enjoy beating people up who love the AV.
I do hope that I am wrong.



I wish you well, and I'll keep in mind that your "hot button" is anyone who even remotely tries to suggest that there are any problems with today's English translations.[/QUOTE]

 

[MartyF]

I'm advocating getting today's moneymakers off the translation train, and getting some real born-again believers behind a good one.

Because the publishing houses see a fat cash cow to be milked, and they are stringing believers along by the nose, keeping them waiting on the next, "best version"...promising them a never-ending, never-complete "bible" in the process.

I really find that people blanket libeling others on this forum to be bad form.

Lockman Foundation is not a publishing house and they are also a nonprofit.

The Lockman Foundation - NASB, Amplified Bible, LBLA, and NBLH Bibles

The most offensive NIV is another one which was developed without a profit motive.

History - NIV Bible

Although their origin story is not interesting, Crossway of the ESV is also a nonprofit.

Crossway
Crossway

And of course the one you'all probably hate the most is also a non-profit which actually takes submissions for grants.

Tyndale House Foundation – Tyndale House Foundation

And despite their "fat cow", they aren't able to fund all the applications they would like to fund.

The exception would be the NKJV which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

I also find it interesting that the Bibles with the most Christian and interesting origin stories are bad-mouthed the most.

 

[Aaron]

One irrefutable fact that makes the KJVO myth false is its TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in the KJV itself. We baptists believe that no doctrine of faith/worship not derived from Scripture is true, and that included KJVO. No matter how many different pro-KJVO arguments are made, the supporters of KJVO simply cannot overcome the "no Scriptural support" fact, which makes all pro-KJVO arguments moot, void, & dead.

I believe the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" has been discussed ad nauseam['i] elsewhere, so there's no use bringing it up again. But I'd like to see how a KJVO can justify believing the KJVO myth when he/she has no Scriptural support for it & therefore no authority from GOD to believe it.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Not a KJO myself, but I find it hilarious that you are thinking a logical fallacy would prove a point.

 

[Yeshua1]

One irrefutable fact that makes the KJVO myth false is its TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in the KJV itself. We baptists believe that no doctrine of faith/worship not derived from Scripture is true, and that included KJVO. No matter how many different pro-KJVO arguments are made, the supporters of KJVO simply cannot overcome the "no Scriptural support" fact, which makes all pro-KJVO arguments moot, void, & dead.

I believe the "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" has been discussed ad nauseam['i] elsewhere, so there's no use bringing it up again. But I'd like to see how a KJVO can justify believing the KJVO myth when he/she has no Scriptural support for it & therefore no authority from GOD to believe it.

another would be that it means God has no translation to use until 1611, even though had a Vulgate way before that time.

 

[robycop3]

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Not a KJO myself, but I find it hilarious that you are thinking a logical fallacy would prove a point.

Can you prove my point wrong? OF COURSE NOT !

 

[Aaron]

Can you prove my point wrong? OF COURSE NOT !

I can prove it a logical fallacy, and that if the thing did exist, it would actually be the best evidence against KJO.

 

[Logos1560]

Typical KJV-only arguments or reasoning offered to support a KJV-only theory usually involves use of logical fallacies.

 

[robycop3]

HMMM....I see no KJVO will DARE reply to the fact that KJVO has no Scriptural support !

 

[robycop3]

STILL no KJVO response ! Guess they have none !

 

[Logos1560]

We don't need more translations.
We, as believers, only need one good one.

If the Church of England makers of the KJV had believed your opinion, the KJV would never have been made.

English-speaking believers already had a good English Bible translation [the 1560 Geneva Bible] before 1611.

The KJV translators did not agree with your opinion.

 

[robycop3]

Whoa, horsey.

Are you saying that the men who God used to write His inspired words, didn't record them accurately and faithfully?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
To me, they were very careful to only write what God Himself gave them to write...it didn't rely on human invention, one bit.

Next question:
Do you believe that God is behind all of today's English translations?

I don't.

Apparently you partially misunderstood me. The old Scriptural mss. are accurate, of course, but not every TRANSLATION of them is. We've pointed out some obvious goofs in the KJV, & we could do so with most other English translations, if that was the name of the game.

Now, as for your question, my answer is NO. There are evidently some very poor ones out there, which God certainly wasn't behind, such as the JWs' New World translation, & Blanco's Clear Word Bible (intended for SDAs)

There are some rather groddy but legitimate ones, such as "The Mesasage" or the NIV. But I don't care for any paraphrased or "dynamic equivalence" versions.

 

[robycop3]

I can prove it a logical fallacy, and that if the thing did exist, it would actually be the best evidence against KJO.

Not at all.

Can you please give us any true doctrine of faith/worship NOT found in Scripture? (Not "wording", such as "Holy Trinity".)

 

[robycop3]

Still, NO Scriptural support for KJVO !

 

[church mouse guy]

Still, NO Scriptural support for KJVO !

You are beating the dead horse of a fading movement. The KJV is fading, no?