Ah, now I understand. It matters WHERE in the Bible the apocryphal books are found! I never realized this...how ignorant of me!
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
-
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!
What Version of the Bible do you read
- Thread starter ILoveTheLord
- Start date
- Status
Ah, now I understand. It matters WHERE in the Bible the apocryphal books are found! I never realized this...how ignorant of me!
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
You're really trying hard to maintain your 0% accuracy level, Askjo. The KJVs DO NOT have the lowest grade reading level.
What is the source of your "information?"
According to Christianbook.com the KJV is rated at a 12th grade reading level while some other modern translations are rated much lower.
NIRV 3rd
NCV 3rd
Message 4th - 5th
NLT 6th
NKJV 7th
HCSB 7th - 8th
NIV 7th - 8th
ESV 10th
NRSV 11th
NASB 11th
RSV 12th
KJV 12th
Info taken from the web page http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=652502&sp=1003.
Believe an error if you want, Askjo. The FACT is the KJVs are NOT among the easiest Bible translations to understand. If "The lowest is the best on grade level" as you say, Askjo, then the NIRV and the NCV are the best translations - not the KJVs.
Uh, Dale, extremist KJVOs are already confused. You're going to confuse them even more with such questions.
And the Internet cannot, of course, be wrong
Amen, Bro. Ed! Preach it!
Ouch! I bit my tongue while I had it in my cheek!
This is yet another of your accusations you can't support, Askjo. Can you offer one shred of evidence to your claim that "Gnostics, Catholicized makers, unbelievers and lax Christians produced their modern versions and sent them to many Christian Bookstores?" We've been waiting for some time for you to produce one shred of evidence modern translations are Gnostic, yet your accusation remains totally unsupported.
Askjo, I'm not making this accusation in any way, but if I were to suggest that no one who accepts the KJVO position can be a Christian and is bound for eternal separation from God there would be no support, scriptural or otherwise, for the accusation. Likewise, your accusations have no support. By continuing to make unfounded accusations like these, Askjo, you severely damage your own credibility. You really need to think about these wild accusations before you make them, Askjo. I can understand your becoming agitated when you feel others are denigrating your favorite Bible translation. We "freedom readers" also feel the same way when KJVOs denigrate our favorite translations. The main diffference is that "freedom readers" do not denigrate and belittle the KJVs - we only point out the fact that they're not perfect. On the other hand, KJVOs constantly denigrate modern translations by constantly calling them inferior and wrong. And those who refer to God's word in modern translations as "devil's bibles" or "perversions" will have to answer to God for their attacks on His word.
The criticism about the AP in KJV is ridiculous. They separated them and distinguished from the Bible. If they included the map of Israel or calendar, does it mean that they considered them as the Bible?
We must upgrade the level of the criticism.
Say what????
Askjo, even though you're always wrong, you really need to work on posting clear, concise thoughts others can follow.
I went to 2 bookstores and found charts showing what grade level on Bible translations. Both of charts DISAGREE each other. One said 12 grade level and other one said 10 grade level. Not only 2 charts, but more information somewhere said 7 grade level. YOU selected HIGHEST grade level for the KJV because you want to embarrass the KJVO. You selected this link showing grade level. This chart disagree with other chart showing grade level where the KJV is 12 grade level. They messed up on grade level. I did not see how true they are. Any charts that you want are false. I found many children used the KJV for reading and memorizing.
What? Doesn't your local Family Christian Store have an idol set up in the back room? :laugh:
Askjo has a habit of making wild accusations and then ignoring requests for evidence they're true. Askjo's imagination works overtime.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
As we English speakers need to try and be understanding of folks for whom English is not their first language. Askjo's primary language is ASL.
When he types in ASL and we need clarification there is surely a better way to ask for clarification.
Probably for the same reason translators of modern Bible translations are denigrated.
I'm sure the translators of the original KJV were just as highly respected and brilliant as the translators of modern Bible translations. The translators of the KJV had a handicap - they didn't have as many manuscripts to work with as modern translators have.
Why is it okay for KJVOs to question the character of modern Bible translators but it's not okay to question the character of KJV translators?
FTR, were I a betting man, I would be willing to bet a week's wages that not one of these children is using any KJ-1611 or KJ-1612 spelling in memorizing, and another weeks wages that not 1 KJVO type out of 50, including yourself, could accurately write from memory Gen. 1:1; Jn. 1:1, Jn. 3:16, and Eph. 2:8-9 with the spelling as found in the 1611 or 1612 editions (I'm not sure how you can 'type' Gothic font on a regular PC, but no matter. Just make it the 1612 Roman font.).
Note I did NOT say 1769 spelling and editing. Wanna' try and show I'm wrong? I'll even put you on your honor, to simply type any two of the verses out, that I just listed above, trusting you to not to have to look it up.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
No criticism intended, Eliyahu. But your suggestion that the location in the Bible of apocryphal books isn't sound. If a book isn't the word of God, it isn't the word of God no matter where in the Bible it's found. Wasn't it Shalespeare who said "A rose is a rose by any other name?"
You're wrong as always, Askjo. I googled "Bible reading levels" and used the first listing that came up. I din't choose anything as you errantly claim. There's yet another strike you've made against your own credibility.
I checked it recently and found that many sites said 12, but I FOUND one site disagreeing with them.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is ok.
I don't defend the 17 century KJV either, but what I say is that KJV 1611 containing AP is understandable, for that situation.
So, are you happy with the current KJV now? or did you bring up that issue just for arguing?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I'm going to suggest that you look into the methodology behind these charts and I think you will find that they may be based on completely different tests or criteria. That is why there are different results posted in various places.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Then He would have spoken in Aramiac (& Greek) a lot; Hebrew very little (in the Temple maybe among the religious Jews).
But again, you reply with a non-sequitur answer! While it is generally true that 'speaking' could be from reading, this does NOT apply to your example. Here is your original statement --
Jesus was NOT reading in that passage; neither was Paul reading in Acts 22.
Are you intentionally avoiding directly answering my questions because you know that your assertion that the Ben Chayyim is a superior Hebrew text due to the order of the contents was false?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status