Archaisms in the KJV.

[robycop3]

41 minutes ago, DaveW said:

You are right - there is not a person alive today who could rival the linguistic skills of many on the KJV translation panel.

There is indeed a VAST difference.....

  I would like to discuss this with you  in another topic, if you wish,  so as not to derail this one.

[DaveW]

I would rather discuss these questions anywhere you like - like maybe where I previously asked them.....

"So in your estimation, do we have a perfect Bible available to us today, or do we just have "the best we can do so far"?

Do you use only one of those Bibles you have listed as "better than KJV" (and which one if yes), or do you pick and choose according what suits you best today?"

As far as knowledge, how about you keep to relevant knowledge and stop trying to introduce irrelevant muck.

We also know a lot more about automotive repair than they did then......

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I have dealt with Roby on another board several times. I have already refuted him on Easter (Though I personally disagree that Easter in Acts 12 is a Pagan holiday, my position is the word Easter was a synonym for Passover when the KJV was translated)

Roby will continue to spout his same old talking points over and over and over again even after being refuted and so I refuse to engage him on this topic. 

My suggestion is that he should be banned because he is not willing to have an honest discussion on the KJV but has his own agenda that he wants to push. 

[robycop3]

  Mr. Kurecki,  you only "refuted" my Easter  info in your own mind. And of course you'd liketa ban me because you know I can present questions you cannot answer correctly  without  crushing your own doctrine.

15 hours ago, DaveW said:

I would rather discuss these questions anywhere you like - like maybe where I previously asked them.....[/quote]

Very well, Sir.

15 hours ago, DaveW said:

"So in your estimation, do we have a perfect Bible available to us today, or do we just have "the best we can do so far"?

 We have several Bible translations that are as perfect as their translators & editors could make them.

Do you use only one of those Bibles you have listed as "better than 

KJV" (and which one if yes), or do you pick and choose according what suits you best today?"

I use the one I believe is best for a particular occasion. And it DOES include the KJV, if my audience requests it.

As far as knowledge, how about you keep to relevant knowledge and stop trying to introduce irrelevant muck.

 "Irrelevant muck" is in the eye of the beholder, same as is beauty.

We also know a lot more about automotive repair than they did then......

Not to mention war.

15 hours ago, DaveW said:

 

 

[DaveW]

7 hours ago, robycop3 said:

We have several Bible translations that are as perfect as their translators & editors could make them.

So the answer to that question is "No, we don't have a perfect translation today".

7 hours ago, robycop3 said:

I use the one I believe is best for a particular occasion. And it DOES include the KJV, if my audience requests it.

And you use the version YOU BELIEVE is best.........

Since you don't believe we have a perfect Bible available to us how DO YOU determine what is actually God's Word and what is "not right yet"?

 

Edited March 10, 2019 by DaveW
Added the ? at the end...

[robycop3]

6 hours ago, DaveW said:

So the answer to that question is "No, we don't have a perfect translation today".

 Given the fact that most ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine greek words/phrases have multiple English phrases, one person's "perfect' might be another's "full of goofs."

And you use the version YOU BELIEVE is best.........

Since you don't believe we have a perfect Bible available to us how DO YOU determine what is actually God's Word and what is "not right yet"?

  God caused various versions to be perfect for their intended readerships and/or uses..

BTW, do YOU have a perfect BV? If you think you do, what's your proof?

 

 

[DaveW]

9 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

God caused various versions to be perfect for their intended readerships and/or uses..

How then do you decide which one is perfect for a particular use?

 

[No Nicolaitans]

On 3/9/2019 at 7:12 AM, robycop3 said:

Thanx

SIr, it's hard for me (personally) to take you seriously about your view of the importance of the translation of God's word...when you use text-message spelling such as this.

As to whether a translation is perfect to one person...or full of goofs (as you stated) to another person...I fear your concentration is on the wrong "person" to whom it's ultimately most important.

I've heard this "KJVO myth" used long before you said it here. So...though I'm not a moderator, I'm going to step out on a limb and ask you...

What proof do you have of this claim? Can you give us something like...your top three proofs? If so, please don't copy and paste from other sources. I want to know what you have learned and for it to be written in your own words (without using text-message spelling) which can show me that you're right about this. No need to go in-depth if you don't want to....just bullet-points and a sentence or two explaining why each point is valid. However, feel free to use more sentences if needed.

[robycop3]

2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

SIr, it's hard for me (personally) to take you seriously about your view of the importance of the translation of God's word...when you use text-message spelling such as this.

  Sir, first of all, while not trying to be smart-aleck or condescending when I say it, I'LL USE TEXTESE OR ANY OTHER NON-SCATOLOGICAL SLANG WHENEVER I JOLLY WELL PLEASE! If it offends someone, TUFF! I don't care! I don't tell anyone else how to type or spell, and I'm not gonna accept criticism for my own spelling or slang.

     That being said...

2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

As to whether a translation is perfect to one person...or full of goofs (as you stated) to another person...I fear your concentration is on the wrong "person" to whom it's ultimately most important.

  God causes all valid transletions made by Christians to come out as HE pleases. I believe He targets certain groups of people with certain translations. (Speaking only about English translations.) For instance, I believe He aimed the NKJV at those who favor the Textus Receptus and/or the Byzantine mss.

I've heard this "KJVO myth" used long before you said it here. So...though I'm not a moderator, I'm going to step out on a limb and ask you...

What proof do you have of this claim? Can you give us something like...your top three proofs? If so, please don't copy and paste from other sources. I want to know what you have learned and for it to be written in your own words (without using text-message spelling) which can show me that you're right about this. No need to go in-depth if you don't want to....just bullet-points and a sentence or two explaining why each point is valid. However, feel free to use more sentences if needed.

  Glad to answer!

   First, among the several definitions of "myth", the one that fits here is, "a widely-held, but false, belief or idea". Without going into a long explanation here, there's a fact that makes KJVO false and a myth, without figuring in the other factors: ITS TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in the KJV itself.  No doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture, either directly, or by clear implication, is true. Thus, there's simply NO AUTHORITY FROM GOD for KJVO!

  If one PREFERS the KJV, fine, no prob. But when one tells another that the KJV (or any other one Bible translation) is the ONLY valid Bible translation out there, then one is LYING.

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

 

[robycop3]

9 hours ago, DaveW said:

How then do you decide which one is perfect for a particular use?

Experience, common sense, & audience request.

  Several years ago, a Korean doctor neighbor who was still learning English, was newly-saved, & asked me to borrow a Bible til his Korean-language edition arrived. Without thinking, I handed him a KJV. Next day, he came over, quite-disturbed over "suffer little children". I explained to him what it meant & then gave him a NASV to use.

 

 

[Salyan]

Hey, RobyCop, I'm not sure why the nesting in your last two responses came out that way. I tried fixing it but can't.  Could you try deleting and redoing them? The way the nesting is coming out makes it look like your responses belong to those you are quoting - which I think is something neither of you would want.

P.S. NoNic was not being offended, he was giving you valuable feedback about how some people view textspeak. 

[No Nicolaitans]

20 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 there's a fact that makes KJVO false and a myth,without figuring in the other factors: ITSTOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT

there's simply NO AUTHORITY FROM GOD for KJVO!

Okay.

26 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

God causes all valid transletions made by Christians to come out as HE pleases.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

27 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I believe He targets certain groups of people with certain translations. (Speaking only about English translations.)

Where is the scriptural support for that?

28 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

For instance, I believe He aimed the NKJV at those who favor the Textus Receptus and/or the Byzantine mss.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

34 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

Well...It answered it, but all that I gathered from it was that you gave unconvincing answers as to what you believe. 

46 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I'LL USE TEXTESE OR ANY OTHER NON-SCATOLOGICAL SLANG WHENEVER I JOLLY WELL PLEASE! If it offends someone, TUFF! 

O Ok. I c. Talk 2 u l8rz.

[DaveW]

7 hours ago, robycop3 said:

Experience, common sense, & audience request.

  Several years ago, a Korean doctor neighbor who was still learning English, was newly-saved, & asked me to borrow a Bible til his Korean-language edition arrived. Without thinking, I handed him a KJV. Next day, he came over, quite-disturbed over "suffer little children". I explained to him what it meant & then gave him a NASV to use.

Two things:

First of all, you explained to him the meaning and his knowledge grew.

Secondly, and far more importantly, you are constantly saying that you decide what is God's Word based on your understanding, your "experience, common sense, and audience request".

If you are deciding what is God's Word, then you are placing yourself in authority over God. It is UP TO YOU which rendering is correct in any given setting.

This matter of authority is why any man should choose a single version and stick to it - they accept it as God's Word ONCE and then accept it in everything it says.

God's Word is then AND ONLY THEN truly the authority in your life.

If I choose which version I think is best in each different situation, then I DECIDE what God's Word looks like.

Who then gave you the right and ability to decide when the Bible is right and when it is wrong?

Which version you choose is actually irrelevant to this aspect, but the choice of a SINGLE VERSION to be your authority is of utmost importance. 

You see this all the time in books that use multiple versions - they don't like a particular rendering, not for any doctrinal reason, but because it suits their own argument better. They decide what God's Word means based on their own ideas, their own experience, their own "common sense".

If they used a single version, they would simply not be able to support all their arguments, for their "preferred version" doesn't support ALL their ideas.

Multiple versions makes it very easy to use the Bible to support what YOU want to say - a single version restricts you to what the text says.

Edited March 11, 2019 by DaveW
Phone spelling

[Pastor Matt]

I never put much weight into those who is against the KJV only when their only explanation is experience, common sense, & audience request. I'll put my faith and trust in God and His Word, not what man says. 

As to the original topic: While I believe the KJV is perfectly preserved for English speaking people, I do not have a problem with Archaic words being updated. Modern version failed because they have changed meaning of verses by re translating the verse.

[Jordan Kurecki]

5 minutes ago, Matt Souza said:

I never put much weight into those who is against the KJV only when their only explanation is experience, common sense, & audience request. I'll put my faith and trust in God and His Word, not what man says. 

As to the original topic: While I believe the KJV is perfectly preserved for English speaking people, I do not have a problem with Archaic words being updated. Modern version failed because they have changed meaning of verses by re translating the verse.

Agreed. I would love a modern english equivilent of the KJV. Sadly most attempts have done beyond that.