Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?

[Jim1999]

The KJV is my basic biblical text. All my theology and biblical knowledge was achieved through this copy of the Bible. Why should I change now?

This does not mean I don't compare other versions of scripture, or ignore the Greek and Hebrew texts. We would be foolish if we did not take advantage of every available tool to make God's word clear to us.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Harold Garvey]

Oh, let's just keep this simple; I'll just display three verses from one of the Gospels --

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in* the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(Matthew 28:19, NIV)

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.
And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. (Matthew 3:16-17, NIV)​

That should do it. But if ya' need more the NIV has got 'em.

Good "try" but none of these actually prove the Trinity without already having the knowledge of who each one that makes up the Godhead is.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Based on your frequent improper use of English in numerous threads, that's obviously incorrect.

I should begin only to suppose you to be somewhat an authority on proper and improper grammar if I were to be afforded the chance to view your credentials for your claim to be substanciate and upholding the truth, yet I see none, to that effect.

Like i have asked, define "agape'" without the term "love" and be comprehensive without your dogmatism of limiting the definition, please.

Tell you what, define "charity" in the Divine sense!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Thanks, JohnV. Being a college graduate and having perfect scores in English, literature, and composition must not have done me a bit of good. My mother will be so disappointed in me...

If you had been in my English class Mr Edwards would have deducted points for your use of slang in the above sentence.:smilewinkgrin:

I seriously doubt you'll even know which portion is considerd to be slang.:sleep:

I must be a little less careless in my speech to be articulate, and without room for criticisms within a room full of critics.:1_grouphug:

 

[Harold Garvey]

My point was that Harold Garvey's use of the rules of English grammar and is often poor, yet he claims that the only the KJV renders the source texts into today's English perfectly (citing the claim that he paid close attention to his English teachers).

:laugh:

And when refuation of that claim is posted, he simply dismisses it on the notion that however it appears in the KJV is how English is used today.

No. You have simply made that up to fit your dogmatism.

The KJV is written in a prose and poetic form unmatched by any other version and is the epitomy of "high" English.

Literary excellence is not aimed for in today's realm of "thinkers". This is due to their laziness and is best described as they're also being sluggards when it comes to literature.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.
:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Johnv]

I must be a little less careless in my speech to be articulate, and without room for criticisms within a room full of critics.

Or you could just stop posting hypicrisy.

I should begin only to suppose you to be somewhat an authority on proper and improper grammar...

Not sure how that excuses your hypocisy of making claims about ENglish superiority, and then using poor English.

Like i have asked, define "agape'" without the term "love" and be comprehensive without your dogmatism of limiting the definition, please.

Like I said, there is no exact word in English that can be translated from "agape".

Tell you what, define "charity" in the Divine sense!:smilewinkgrin:

I figured you'd try "charity", based on the KJV translating "agape" in 1Cor13 as "charity". Yet it translates "Agape" in John 21 as "love". It also translates "phileo" as "love". It also translates "agape" in John 3:16 as "love".

The reasons the KJV uses "love" and "charity" is because Elizabethan English used "love" as a verb and "charity" as a noun. Today, "charity" strictly means "as an act of generosity".

 

[Harold Garvey]

I started with the NKJV, then NASB, now the KJV. I am not KJVonly, but..

1. I like it because of the language..helps me read other older works such as John Owen, et.

2. I like it because it makes people mad.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Or you could just stop posting hypicrisy.

What was that word? "Hypicrisy"?:tongue3:

 

[Johnv]

You have simply made that up to fit your dogmatism.

Yes, it's true that you often make things up to fit your dogmatism.

The KJV is written in a prose and poetic form unmatched by any other version and is the epitomy of "high" English.

You're wrong on two counts. It was not written in poetic form. It was also not written in prose. Prose is the ordinary form of written language. The KJV was written in a form of English that was not the ordinary form of English of the day. In fact, it was heavily criticized when it was published, for NOT adhering to prose.

Oh, and in yet another example of your hypocrisy, you correct my misspelling of the word "hypocrisy", and then you go on to misspell "epitome".

 

[Harold Garvey]

Like i've said, you hold to only a limited vocabulary and should consider doing a little more research before you attack the KJV as you repeatedly do:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose

http://www.gobible.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=9

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bb...esult&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/King-James-Version-KJV-Bible/

You ever use a search engine?:sleep:

 

[Johnv]

Like i've said, you hold to only a limited vocabulary and should consider doing a little more research before you attack the KJV as you repeatedly do

Yet more hypocrisy on your part. You advocate the use of prose for 17th century translators, but you condemn the use of prose for 21st century translators.

And again, you regularly attack non KJV's while accusing others of attackign the KJV. [Snipped at poster's request]

 

[Rippon]

I should begin only to suppose you to be somewhat an authority on proper and improper grammar if I were to be afforded the chance to view your credentials for your claim to be substanciate [sic]and upholding the truth, yet I see none, to that effect.

That's 46 words in an awkwardly-worded run-on sentence. With all your vaunted talk of valuing high literature, you fare rather poorly in basic English skills.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Off topic, going downhill, closed.