Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Jordan Kurecki

Archaisms in the KJV.

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

it's a lot better to read Scripture  in the audience's everyday language.

I really hope you are NOT suggesting that you don't have to explain something to a child or a English second language person JUST BECAUSE IT IS MODERN ENGLISH!

That, apart from being a monumentally stupid position, is simply inaccurate.

After all THAT'S WHAT TEACHING IS!

You appear to be suggesting that giving someone a Bible in modern English means you don't have to explain anything -they can just understand it all..... because it is in "Modern English".

That is plain stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Interesting response, considering that it does NOT acknowledge the devil's work to create corruptions in the Scriptural TEXTS of God's Word.  Allow me to repeat my above comments in a more organized and emphasized manner, so that you might see more clearly the point:

1.  Yes, you see the process whereby the Lord our God maintained His Word in the English language since the time of Wycliffe. 

2.  But do you also see that the various translations which existed from the time of Wycliffe until the time of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s all originated from the SAME basic TEXTUAL tradition

3.  Whereas the line of newer translations that originated with the work of Wescott & Hort and the Revised Standard Version in the late 1800s are founded upon a completely DIFFERENT TEXTUAL tradition than those translational works that came before them

4.  Do you see that in their work Wescott & Hort purposefully intended to create something DIFFERENT than that which had come before, and thereby intended to REPLACE the TEXTUAL and translational tradition that had come before? 

5.  As such, do you see that starting with the work of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s, TWO completely DIFFERENT lines of translational work have progressed before us? (Specifically because those lines of translational work are founded upon TWO completely DIFFERENT TEXTUAL traditions) (parenthetical added by Pastor Scott Markle) 

6.  As for myself, I do NOT intend to follow TWO DIFFERENT lines of TEXTUAL and translational work.

7.  But to follow the FIRST line of TEXTUAL and translational work that the LORD OUR GOD placed in English before His people.

8.  And to reject the later attempt to REPLACE that which Lord our God FIRST gave us

9.  I would contend that what the Lord our God does FIRST in righteousness and edification, the devil seeks AFTER to corrupt with error and deception.

You see, until you acknowledge the TEXTUAL issue in this doctrinal debate, you will NOT have touched upon the foundational conflict of the debate and disagreement.

  Seems as if many scholars still differ among themselves over the textual issue, and KJVOs follow some of them. While KJVOs reject "older is always better", same as  do, they EMBRACE that idea when it comes to English translations. However, the textual issue is far-from-settled.

 

  And KJVOs still object to the NKJV & other translations that use the same sources the KJV used. They also gloss over the fact that the Textus Receptus has been revised over 30 times, with Koine Greek expert Dean John Burgon saying the TR could stand another thorough revision. So, if & until the textual question is FINALLY answered, we can't really place much stock in it.

3 minutes ago, DaveW said:

I really hope you are NOT suggesting that you don't have to explain something to a child or a English second language person JUST BECAUSE IT IS MODERN ENGLISH!

That, apart from being a monumentally stupid position, is simply inaccurate.

After all THAT'S WHAT TEACHING IS!

You appear to be suggesting that giving someone a Bible in modern English means you don't have to explain anything -they can just understand it all..... because it is in "Modern English".

That is plain stupidity.

 Not NEARLY as stupid as giving such a person a Bible in a language style he's NOT studying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't know what you are talking about do you. The NKJV used the wescott and hort to do their revisions - even though the ORIGINAL CHARTER for the work stated otherwise.

And have you ever studied their claims of "older"?

I seriously doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't make appeal to it. And you refuse to do any other sort of study suggested apparently.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  So, if they're seeking to learn English, why not give them a Bible in the English they're seeking to learn?  After all, English classes for non-English speakers teach MODERN English, not Elizabethan-Jacobean English.

Hmmmm. The English language is known to have existed in three forms, each of which are viewed as being different enough to classify as different languages:

1.  Classical English
2.  Middle English
3.  Elizabethan English (which is the very origin and foundation for the English that we speak today)

Now, the English language is indeed a living language, and thus every year it experiences changes in word creation and word nuances.  Thus it may be acknowledged that present day English has some variations from the origins of Elizabethan English (primarily in the creation of many new words and word nuances).  Yet the grammatical construction of the King James translation, which at present is that of the grammatical and spelling revision of 1769, is NOT contrary to the English of the modern day in wording or grammar.  The grammar rules are the same.  The word meanings, with very few exceptions, are the same.  (But you could try to present a list of all the grammatical or word-meaning differences, if you desire.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, robycop3 said:

 It's also a pretty big clue that they weren't destroyed.

Now wait a minute...

You reject the SDA's version and others because they're from false religions...BUT...you accept the Sinaiticus & Vaticanus even though they were discovered in the possession of false religions. Interesting...

You sir, are the epitome of doing what's right in your own eyes. Your whole and continuous argument has consisted of absolutely nothing more than what you believe and what your supposed "audience" wants.

Shame on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, DaveW said:

 

PROVE IT, PROVE IT, PROVE IT ,PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You keep making this claim and thus far you have shown one that has been disproved, and one that actually supports the accuracy of the KJV.

I DEMAND - YES DEMAND -that you stop making this false claim UNTIL you have backed it up with solid evidence.

 

Mods, can I ask you to have the discussion that, since we have a thread specifically for him to prove his false claims of "goofs and booboos" (which is in itself deliberately disrespectful phrasing), can I ask if the Mods would consider changing that phrasing with some sort of notice, similar to what is done for foul language?

I understand that it is work for the Mods, and would probably have to be done on a case by case basis, and therefore only when it is noticed by a Mod, but since it is deliberately inflammatory, and deliberately disrespectful, I think it is worth the discussion.

And I make this request publicly, because I want him to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Now wait a minute...

You reject the SDA's version and others because they're from false religions...BUT...you accept the Sinaiticus & Vaticanus even though they were discovered in the possession of false religions. Interesting...

You sir, are the epitome of doing what's right in your own eyes. Your whole and continuous argument has consisted of absolutely nothing more than what you believe and what your supposed "audience" wants.

Shame on you.

 Well, actually, it's against a doctrine that's been proven false - KJVO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 Well, actually, it's against a doctrine that's been proven false - KJVO.

Again I say, "Shame on you."

The only thing that you have proven is that you believe certain things and that you assert that you have an audience who wants those certain things...the latter; of which, remains unproven...however, such a claim is believable considering the days in which we live...and that sir, is nothing to boast of.

Shame on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I think we need a break from this subject for a bit. 

Robycop, you were told that it is rude to come in and attack others’ beliefs on their own forum. I personally gave you some leniency because I believe there is room for discussion on what it means to be KJVonly. Some think the KJV supersedes the original manuscripts, yet the manuscripts are how God has preserved His Word through history. You have, however, repeatedly shown that the only authority you will accept in this area is yourself, no matter how contradictory your position may be. 

I am hereby, in my capacity as moderator, issuing a cease and desist order. This topic is on hold for you; do not attempt to discuss it further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 36 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...