yes, that was the HS gift of an Elizabethen tongue!
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Yes,the KJV has mistakes too
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
yes, that was the HS gift of an Elizabethen tongue!
Neither is the rest of the human race.
Well,then,you agree that it has been educational. It's good to learn from history.
The Making Of The English new Testament...
...by Dr. Goodspeed back in 1925.
He said that the domination of the KJV for centuries has been "to submerge completely the styles of Matthew,John and Paul under 16th century diction,which covers them all so thickly that their distinctive qualities of style are almost invisible. Not only are the individual styles lost and blurred together,but the general colloquial tone of the Greek New Testament disappears. To crown it all,this literary disaster,which in exchange for the Greek New Testament has given us a literary curiosity of the 16th century,is defended in the name of English literature and liberal culture." (p.118)
...by Dr. Goodspeed back in 1925.
He said that the domination of the KJV for centuries has been "to submerge completely the styles of Matthew,John and Paul under 16th century diction,which covers them all so thickly that their distinctive qualities of style are almost invisible. Not only are the individual styles lost and blurred together,but the general colloquial tone of the Greek New Testament disappears. To crown it all,this literary disaster,which in exchange for the Greek New Testament has given us a literary curiosity of the 16th century,is defended in the name of English literature and liberal culture." (p.118)
"Bashing"? Seriously. I am documenting historical references regarding the KJV. It should be considered educational.I'm sure you were not familiar with much of what I have quoted.
If you goal is truly educational, then your documentation of "historial references" would be balanced.
Are you educating or just picking and choosing "references" to further bolster your campaign against the KJB?
How is what you're doing any different from someone supporting Darwin, posting countless "historial references" supporting his theories, under the guise of educating the ignorant? Expect me to take at face value that Doctor John Doe is correct and is above being questioned? Before I accept Dr Doe's opinion as truth, I want to know a whole lot more about him. Especially in view that Doctor Sam Smith wrote an equally impressive rebuttal to Darwin's view of evolution.
Debate Doe vs Smith is a draw. Neither has won the debate on Darwin.
True historical documentation for educational purposes would include both Doe and Smith's opinions.
IMO.
yes, that was the HS gift of an Elizabethen tongue!
Thanks, guys. I am a very goofy person.
The Bible In English by David Daniell (2003)
"By the end of the 1760's,another view was appearing,one that itself became a myth,supported by carefully manufactured other myths. This was the birth of 'Avolatry',the elevation of KJV to such heights of inspiration as to be virtually divine and untouchable. From 1769,effectively,there grew the notion that KJV was peculiarly,divinely,inspired. To bolster the supposition it was announced that this translation had been especially venerated from the moment in 1611 that it appeared." (p.619)
"By the end of the 1760's,another view was appearing,one that itself became a myth,supported by carefully manufactured other myths. This was the birth of 'Avolatry',the elevation of KJV to such heights of inspiration as to be virtually divine and untouchable. From 1769,effectively,there grew the notion that KJV was peculiarly,divinely,inspired. To bolster the supposition it was announced that this translation had been especially venerated from the moment in 1611 that it appeared." (p.619)
From the same book and author:
"...this version was not universally loved from the moment it appeared...For its first 150 years,the KJV received a barrage of criticism. In 1659,for example,a London clergyman and scholar,Dr. Robert Gell,published an 800-page treatise denouncing it,'discussing its faults in detail,counting among them a denial of Christ's authority.' (p.429)
"...this version was not universally loved from the moment it appeared...For its first 150 years,the KJV received a barrage of criticism. In 1659,for example,a London clergyman and scholar,Dr. Robert Gell,published an 800-page treatise denouncing it,'discussing its faults in detail,counting among them a denial of Christ's authority.' (p.429)
Danielly says :
"...the forcible replacement from 1611 of the remarkable,accurate,informative,forward-looking,very popular Geneva Bibles at the time of their greatest dissemination and power,with the backward-gazing,conservative KJv was one of the tragedies of western culture." (p.442)
"...the forcible replacement from 1611 of the remarkable,accurate,informative,forward-looking,very popular Geneva Bibles at the time of their greatest dissemination and power,with the backward-gazing,conservative KJv was one of the tragedies of western culture." (p.442)
saturneptune
New Member
Well,then,you agree that it has been educational. It's good to learn from history.
I have learned from the history of this board, eight years now, that you will strain a gnat to swallow a camel. Those who major on the minor, and minor on the major never make any meaningful contribution.
I have learned from the history of this board, eight years now, that you will strain a gnat to swallow a camel. Those who major on the minor, and minor on the major never make any meaningful contribution.
guess that the kjv was just bad, and NONE should ever buy and use it again?
is that the point of the thread?
I have learned from the history of this board, eight years now, that you will strain a gnat to swallow a camel. Those who major on the minor, and minor on the major never make any meaningful contribution.
Thanks for your inconsquential "contribution."
guess that the kjv was just bad, and NONE should ever buy and use it again?
is that the point of the thread?
Of course not and you know it;although I am tending to doubt that you understand plain English.
This thread is especially suited for KJVO types who believe that the King James Version is without error and is actually perfect. This thread is to disabuse them of that notion. I'm sure that they don't like the purpose of the thread but they are tempted to read it nontheless. :laugh:
Of course not and you know it;although I am tending to doubt that you understand plain English.
This thread is especially suited for KJVO types who believe that the King James Version is without error and is actually perfect. This thread is to disabuse them of that notion. I'm sure that they don't like the purpose of the thread but they are tempted to read it nontheless. :laugh:
I agree with you on that, but isn't it kind of mean spirited though?
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Thou Sayest....
That would appear to be our dear Bro.Rippon's actual carnal nature (and lest you think I'm being mean...we ALL have one!) on display for all to see! The reason I read his thread is just due to the preposterous nature of his accusation against the Word of God. Personally...I'm not as bold as he apparently is. I must admit that that kind of bravado makes me curious.
Bro.Greg:saint:
I agree with you on that, but isn't it kind of mean spirited though?
That would appear to be our dear Bro.Rippon's actual carnal nature (and lest you think I'm being mean...we ALL have one!) on display for all to see! The reason I read his thread is just due to the preposterous nature of his accusation against the Word of God. Personally...I'm not as bold as he apparently is. I must admit that that kind of bravado makes me curious.
Bro.Greg:saint:
The reason I read his thread is just due to the preposterous nature of his accusation against the Word of God.
What is your consistent definition of an "accusation against the word of God"?
Would you suggest that the KJV translators made an accusation against the word of God when they maintained that word translated was still the word of God even though some blemishes and imperfections may be noted in the setting forth of it?
Was saying that there were blemishes and imperfections in the word of God in print in their day be an accusation against it?
Would you suggest that the KJV translators made accusations against the existing word of God in English in their day when they made changes, revisions, and corrections to it in their attempts to improve it?
Are you suggesting that later editors of KJV editions in effect made an accusation against the word of God when they made changes, revisions, and corrections to the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV?
How would disagreeing with any errors introduced by men be an accusation against the word of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?
That would appear to be our dear Bro.Rippon's actual carnal nature (and lest you think I'm being mean...we ALL have one!) on display for all to see! The reason I read his thread is just due to the preposterous nature of his accusation against the Word of God. Personally...I'm not as bold as he apparently is. I must admit that that kind of bravado makes me curious.
Bro.Greg:saint:
NOT attacking though the word of God, just the belief by some who would see ANY version of the bible as being the same as the original penned by priophets and Apsotles inspired of the lord!
If you goal is truly educational, then your documentation of "historical references" would be balanced.
You really need to pay attention to the name of the thread.
Besides,I really am providing balance. KJVO folks have claimed time and time again of the supposed perfection of the KJV.
The reason I read his thread is just due to the preposterous nature of his accusation against the Word of God. Personally...I'm not as bold as he apparently is.
Too hot in the kitchen for ya'? Well,you know what to do.
The Word of God is not the exclusive domain of the KJV. How preposterous is citing knowedgeable sources who cite examples of the advanced knowlege scholars have now of the original languages against that of the KJV revisers? Is that preposterous in your book?
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
My Personal Perception....
Bro. Rick...My own personal perception of the purpose of Rippon's OP is that he posted it just to "needle" those of us here who do NOT believe the KJV contains errors or mistakes. Don't be coy....you know that we (KJVO's)would believe that anyone who believes there ARE mistakes in the AV would be making (in our eyes) an accusation against the Word of God that we hold dear. I would say this....I have seen the dedicatory words or statement of the translators THAT IS OFTEN USED to prove that even THEY didn't believe their work was perfect. I get that....I even believe that that believed that. However...those were NOT inspired and infallible words which THEY were speaking. These were their OPINIONS about the work they had completed. I contend that they didn't even realize the extent to which God had providentially protected and guided the work that they had performed in their work of translation. I respect the fact that they were humble men who made no assumptions of superiority about their work. They displayed the appropriate degree of humility that would be expected of men who realized their place before a Holy God and the higher God-given authority of the earthly king who had employed them to their task. We (KJVO's) believe that there are no mistakes or errors in the Word of God despite the opinions of the translators (or anybody else).
That said.....I believe that to say there ARE mistakes and errors in the KJV is an accusation against the Word of God and I will maintain that opinion. WE...as KJVO's have no problem pointing out the mistakes and errors in the CT/MV's because we do not believe they are completely accurate texts/translations. I would point out that the CT/MV adherents actually and obviously believe that the translations THEY have higher regard for are in some way ADVANCED REVELATION over the KJV and more accurate in their content....you know that is true but I never see any of them actually saying that or owning up to believing that! We believe they AT LEAST contain the words of God (in part)even though they may not be complete and accurate. Personally, I believe the MV's are substandard in comparison to the KJV. Please note that anything I say in reference to this subject is in reference to English language translations ONLY.
That's it though...I'm done. I know I'll never actually say anything that is ever likely to change your mind nor anybody elses. That is not my point or my goal. I'm simply declaring what I believe because this forum affords me the opportunity of defending or declaring the "hill" upon which I stand. Both of us believe we are right and the other wrong...that is the impasse that will probably continue to exist. I just hope we can disagree without becoming hateful towards one another. There are those on this forum who have descended into that. I do not wish to be one of them even though sometimes the declaration of truth sometimes requires one to be blunt. Have a nice weekend brother.
Bro.Greg:saint:
What is your consistent definition of an "accusation against the word of God"?
Would you suggest that the KJV translators made an accusation against the word of God when they maintained that word translated was still the word of God even though some blemishes and imperfections may be noted in the setting forth of it?
Was saying that there were blemishes and imperfections in the word of God in print in their day be an accusation against it?
Would you suggest that the KJV translators made accusations against the existing word of God in English in their day when they made changes, revisions, and corrections to it in their attempts to improve it?
Are you suggesting that later editors of KJV editions in effect made an accusation against the word of God when they made changes, revisions, and corrections to the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV?
How would disagreeing with any errors introduced by men be an accusation against the word of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?
Bro. Rick...My own personal perception of the purpose of Rippon's OP is that he posted it just to "needle" those of us here who do NOT believe the KJV contains errors or mistakes. Don't be coy....you know that we (KJVO's)would believe that anyone who believes there ARE mistakes in the AV would be making (in our eyes) an accusation against the Word of God that we hold dear. I would say this....I have seen the dedicatory words or statement of the translators THAT IS OFTEN USED to prove that even THEY didn't believe their work was perfect. I get that....I even believe that that believed that. However...those were NOT inspired and infallible words which THEY were speaking. These were their OPINIONS about the work they had completed. I contend that they didn't even realize the extent to which God had providentially protected and guided the work that they had performed in their work of translation. I respect the fact that they were humble men who made no assumptions of superiority about their work. They displayed the appropriate degree of humility that would be expected of men who realized their place before a Holy God and the higher God-given authority of the earthly king who had employed them to their task. We (KJVO's) believe that there are no mistakes or errors in the Word of God despite the opinions of the translators (or anybody else).
That said.....I believe that to say there ARE mistakes and errors in the KJV is an accusation against the Word of God and I will maintain that opinion. WE...as KJVO's have no problem pointing out the mistakes and errors in the CT/MV's because we do not believe they are completely accurate texts/translations. I would point out that the CT/MV adherents actually and obviously believe that the translations THEY have higher regard for are in some way ADVANCED REVELATION over the KJV and more accurate in their content....you know that is true but I never see any of them actually saying that or owning up to believing that! We believe they AT LEAST contain the words of God (in part)even though they may not be complete and accurate. Personally, I believe the MV's are substandard in comparison to the KJV. Please note that anything I say in reference to this subject is in reference to English language translations ONLY.
That's it though...I'm done. I know I'll never actually say anything that is ever likely to change your mind nor anybody elses. That is not my point or my goal. I'm simply declaring what I believe because this forum affords me the opportunity of defending or declaring the "hill" upon which I stand. Both of us believe we are right and the other wrong...that is the impasse that will probably continue to exist. I just hope we can disagree without becoming hateful towards one another. There are those on this forum who have descended into that. I do not wish to be one of them even though sometimes the declaration of truth sometimes requires one to be blunt. Have a nice weekend brother.
Bro.Greg:saint: