Why so down on Peaceful KJVO?

[Thinkingstuff]

What a bunch of hogwash.

Try studying it. I can give you good authors. There is no line "immaculate" autographs text that had perfectly copied "immaculate" texts that lead up to the time of Erasmus. Erasmus did use other text like the 12 century documents to fill in the gaps of the Byzantine text which by his time was copied into the miniscule from the Major form previously. Finally to complete his NT greek text Erasmus translated verses of the book of Revelation that was in the Latin Vulgate back into greek to complete the text called the TR which was named that after the 1611 commission based on the publisher saying he had printed a complete text of that greek text with out holding anything back. Basically it was Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir printers in Leiden that said "Therefore you have the text now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted." Changed or corrupted since when? Stephanus. Not even back to Erasmus. The "immaculate" TR is a myth to support a strange agenda. I find it no better than the catholic view of the "immaculate conception".

 

[thegospelgeek]

I joined this site about 7 months ago, but made my first posts today. I've a great love for the KJV and I'm what many would call a KJVO, I don't think you have to read the KJV to be saved, but believe it to be 100% without error the true Word of God.

I not looking for an agruement here, but if one comes, it comes. Just curious why most Christians sites seem to attack anyone with view like mine. Yes I understand some people bring it upon themselves, but seen many get attacked for no apparent reasons.

Based on this I don't think you qualify as KJVO according to the definitions on this site. Sound more like what I call myself KJVSP (King James Version Strongly Preferred). I almost exclusively read the KJ. I have a few other electronic versions that I occasionally read just so that will know what other are speaking of when they reference them. I own an old NIV (first bible I bought when I got saved),and have ESV loaded on my ESword and Kindle.

I was also raised heaten and never saw a KJ until after I was saved, but understand it very well in my opinion, although I have never been accused of being the smartest guy in the world.

Back to the OP. I have never been treated poorly on the BB, although I lurk much more than I post. If there is anyone who should be treated poorly here it would probably be me. Not only do I prefer KJ but I am also a Classical Arminian, Pre-trib, Free Will Baptist:laugh:

I do enjoy reading the debates although I feel sometimes people forget that Jesus said you will be known by your love!

 

[RAdam]

Try studying it. I can give you good authors. There is no line "immaculate" autographs text that had perfectly copied "immaculate" texts that lead up to the time of Erasmus. Erasmus did use other text like the 12 century documents to fill in the gaps of the Byzantine text which by his time was copied into the miniscule from the Major form previously. Finally to complete his NT greek text Erasmus translated verses of the book of Revelation that was in the Latin Vulgate back into greek to complete the text called the TR which was named that after the 1611 commission based on the publisher saying he had printed a complete text of that greek text with out holding anything back. Basically it was Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir printers in Leiden that said "Therefore you have the text now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted." Changed or corrupted since when? Stephanus. Not even back to Erasmus. The "immaculate" TR is a myth to support a strange agenda. I find it no better than the catholic view of the "immaculate conception".

And that's all a bunch of nonsense.

 

[annsni]

And that's all a bunch of nonsense.

Actually it's not. It's history.

 

[steaver]

Should we conclude that the KJ bible translators were incorrectly thinking of the unicorn we have learned of in our fairytale books of mythology?

Or would it be more reasonable to believe that these men had something else in mind and simply calling this beast an ox or bull simply would not convey to the English reader the magnificence of this beast?

Extinct since about 1627, aurochs, Bos primigenius, were huge bovine creatures.10 Julius Caesar described them in his Gallic Wars as:

“a little below the elephant in size, and of the appearance, color, and shape of a bull. Their strength and speed are extraordinary; they spare neither man nor wild beast which they have espied . . . . Not even when taken very young can they be rendered familiar to men and tamed. The size, shape, and appearance of their horns differ much from the horns of our oxen. These they anxiously seek after, and bind at the tips with silver, and use as cups at their most sumptuous entertainments.”11​

The aurochs’ highly prized horns would have been a symbol of great strength to the ancient Bible reader....

....... The importance of the biblical unicorn is not so much its specific identity—much as we would like to know—but its reality. The Bible is clearly describing a real animal. The unicorn mentioned in the Bible was a powerful animal possessing one or two strong horns—not the fantasy animal that has been popularized in movies and books. Whatever it was, it is now likely extinct like many other animals. To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God’s Word, which is true in every detail.

Read the full article here... http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible

 

[Rippon]

Try studying it. I can give you good authors. There is no line "immaculate" autographs text that had perfectly copied "immaculate" texts that lead up to the time of Erasmus. Erasmus did use other text like the 12 century documents to fill in the gaps of the Byzantine text which by his time was copied into the miniscule from the Major form previously. Finally to complete his NT greek text Erasmus translated verses of the book of Revelation that was in the Latin Vulgate back into greek to complete the text called the TR which was named that after the 1611 commission based on the publisher saying he had printed a complete text of that greek text with out holding anything back. Basically it was Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir printers in Leiden that said "Therefore you have the text now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted." Changed or corrupted since when? Stephanus. Not even back to Erasmus. The "immaculate" TR is a myth to support a strange agenda. I find it no better than the catholic view of the "immaculate conception".

What a bunch of truth!

 

[DHK]

Should we conclude that the KJ bible translators were incorrectly thinking of the unicorn we have learned of in our fairytale books of mythology?

Or would it be more reasonable to believe that these men had something else in mind and simply calling this beast an ox or bull simply would not convey to the English reader the magnificence of this beast?



Read the full article here... http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible

Thus the name or translation "unicorn" was in error, when they could have translated it more accurately as "wild ox". A "unicorn" it was not.

 

[steaver]

Thus the name or translation "unicorn" was in error, when they could have translated it more accurately as "wild ox". A "unicorn" it was not.

By your standards of "more accurately" the translation as "wild ox" is also an error because it is not perfectly describing the creature for what it actually is.

We do not have the previledge of viewing this creature today, however wild oxen are still with us this day. One would not get a good understanding of this scripture by comparing what it is saying to the wild ox we all can see.

Secondly the translators of the KJV translated Duet 14:5 as "wild ox" so they seen that there was a huge difference between "taah" and "raam, rem or reym" and needed to express the latter in a magnificent way that the discription of the beast called for.

Unicorn may not be the perfect English word but that does not make it an error. Wild ox isn't any closer and probably does more to confuse the reader who would read these passages and think of the oxen that farmers use to pull their wagons.

We have no idea what was in the minds of the KJV translators when they decided on unicorn. But a mistake it was not, they seen a difference between an ox and this creature being discribed. Just because we do not know their reasoning behind the word unicorn does not make this term an error. It is obvious that these men were not thinking of a horse with a horn in a fairytale.

 

[steaver]

The only reason you call unicorn an error brother is because you have only one thought of a unicorn and that is the fairytale one. We have no idea why the translators chose unicorn but we know for certain it was not this mythical one.

They had a reason, we don't know what it was. Maybe I can dig deeper and find something. We cannot call it an error simply because we only ever heard unicorn used in fairytales. Who knows what was being called a unicorn 500 years ago.

 

[steaver]

Webster's 1828 dictionary gives the term "unicorn" a definition closer to the KJV translators era. We can see why the KJV translators had no reservations about using the word to describe this magnificent creature described in the word of God.



U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]
1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
Find the full definitions here... http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/string,unicorn

Unicorn is a closer "more accurate" translation than "wild ox".

This is a good example of how modern thinking erroniously judges the translating of 400 years ago.

 

[Rippon]

Enough of the unicorn stuff already! This is silly. Move on.

 

[DHK]

Webster's 1828 dictionary gives the term "unicorn" a definition closer to the KJV translators era. We can see why the KJV translators had no reservations about using the word to describe this magnificent creature described in the word of God.



U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]
1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
Find the full definitions here... http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/string,unicorn

Unicorn is a closer "more accurate" translation than "wild ox".

This is a good example of how modern thinking erroniously judges the translating of 400 years ago.

1. It was not an animal with just one horn. Hence "unicorn" is misleading.
2. It was not the mythological unicorn.
3. It was not the rhinoceros as those animals are not indigenous to that part of the world.

It was a "wild" bull or ox, with the emphasis on the "wild."
Wild animals grow to a much larger size and have much more strength than domesticated ones.
It is good to face the fact that all translations, even the KJV can have error in them (however so small), because they are translated by humans. The KJV translators were mere men. They were no more inspired by God then I am when I translate Scripture from one language to another. People are not perfect. They make mistakes. It is good for us to recognize that once in a while.

 

[dcorbett]

I use the NASB in almost all of my posts - but lately I am beginning to find errors between NASB and KJV - and more and more I am thinking that the KJVO guys with their arguments about the textus receptus vs sinaticus and vaticanus - have some good points when it comes to manuscripts.


in Christ,

Bob

Amen, Bob....our Pastor is doing a unit on this very topic. But this thread is about attitude, and us KJVO people really do get bad treatment in here - some nasty mud-slinging at times. The fact that the Received Text was determined from over 500 texts and the MAJORITY were used, and the other versions came from a 50/50 choice between the sinaticus and the vaticanus only...is the crux of the issue of accuracy. Hence the Textus receptus is the MAJORITY text and the most accurate preserved word of God. It is not perfect, but it is the best and most accurate.

 

[steaver]

1. It was not an animal with just one horn. Hence "unicorn" is misleading.
.

No scripture states this beast has multiple horns. When horn(s) are spoken of it is when unicorn(s) are spoken of. Two unicorns equals two horns, etc. However....

......the linguistics of the text cannot conclusively prove how many horns the biblical unicorn had. While modern translations typically translate re’em as “wild ox,” the King James Version (1611), Luther’s German Bible (1534), the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate translated this Hebrew word with words meaning “one-horned animal.” 13 (answers in genesis)

2. It was not the mythological unicorn.

As I pointed out.

3. It was not the rhinoceros as those animals are not indigenous to that part of the world.

Agreed.

It was a "wild" bull or ox, with the emphasis on the "wild."

Oxen have two horns. Scripture states this beast had one horn. Therefore wild ox is definitely an error.

Wild animals grow to a much larger size and have much more strength than domesticated ones.

I can think of a few off the top of my head and their domestic counterpart is basically the same size. Horses, oxen, wolfs, cats, bears. In fact usually the wild ones are smaller because of their food sources and irregular eating habits.

It is good to face the fact that all translations, even the KJV can have error in them (however so small), because they are translated by humans.

Again, "error" needs defined. Error to me means absolutely wrong, cannot in no way shape or form be even considered "ok".

I am open to investigate so called "errors". I am just saying so far I have not found any in the KJV. Could they exist? I suppose, I just haven't seen a good argument for one yet.

The KJV translators were mere men. They were no more inspired by God then I am when I translate Scripture from one language to another. People are not perfect. They make mistakes. It is good for us to recognize that once in a while.

Agreed! :thumbs:

This is why we use translating "teams". So we can reduce the possibility of mistakes. But they indeed could still happen.

However, unicorn is not a proven mistake. Webster's 1828 definitions, and scripture's descriptions of the beast more than allow for the possibility of this beast being a unicorn animal. Far more than allowing it to be a wild ox.

Let's remember here, unicorn is not a full description of this beast. Unicorn simply means a one horn animal, which is what the bible says it was. Oxen have two horns.