Archaisms in the KJV.

[robycop3]

12 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Funny, how you can’t see how a modern version making the exact same changes in many places as the two versions you listed is wrong too. Many cultists - such as JW’s - like some of these modern versions because they can teach their doctrines out of them if their audience won’t read their New World Translation.

I believe Satan is working through the use of the modern versions - by causing people to question the authenticity and final authority of their Bible. Yea, hath God said? Oh, maybe I can be like Robycop and think I am wiser than God and pick and choose my own preferred readings everytime I study from my current multiple choice Bible of the week (or is it day?).

  Well, actually, the KJV has its shares of goofs & booboos as well.  And I don't question the authenticity nor final authority of the translations I use. I believe GOD has supplied each of them, same as He supplied the older ones for the people of their times. And, unlike many KJVOs, I don't try to LIMIT GOD as to how He may choose to present His word to man.

[robycop3]

4 minutes ago, Rebecca said:

I'm not going to get involved in the debate, I just wanted to say a couple of things:

1. I read the KJV as a child, yes I asked questions - but those questions were answered and my vocabulary and understanding of scripture grew.

2. I teach bilingual Bible classes to ESL learners and when reading English scripture we use the KJV. My ESL learners are not only learning the Bible, they are also broadening their vocabulary, so using the KJV isn't a deterrent, it's an asset. 

  Many years ago, I learned how to drive a "standard" shift vehicle, use a wringer-type washing machine, use a manual can opener, etc. but I moved on to more-modern devices as they became available. We now have God's word in OUR English, so why use a "Model T" version any more?

25 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

NO!!!!! It is not!!! Rather, it is better to read Scripture in English that is ACCURATE to the VERY WORD OF GOD as perfectly inspired and preserved by the Lord our God.

 Several modern translations do JUST THAT. And, the KJV has its share of goofs & booboos.

[Jerry]

Funny, you do limit God. You think He can’t use a trusted version that has stood the test of time. You think anything goes except that one trusted, proven Bible.

3 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 We now have God's word in OUR English, so why use a "Model T" version any more?

Do we? Do we really have God’s Word in conflicting modern versions that contradict themselves as they remove and add to the preserved manuscripts underlying the King James Bible?

[robycop3]

31 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Actually there are sound TR and Masoretic text-based Bibles in other languages - so the wise believer would encourage the immigrant to get one of those Bibles and perhaps also a King James Bible - so they could learn from both their own language and the language they are now seeking to learn - and could compare passages in both to see how a passage they are learning in their original language comes across in English.

  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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yes, you see the process whereby the Lord our God maintained His Word in the English language since the time of Wycliffe.  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, 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?  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?  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?  As for myself, I do NOT intend to follow TWO DIFFERENT lines of textual and translational work; but to follow the FIRST line of textual and translational work that the LORD OUR GOD placed in English before His people, and to reject the later attempt to REPLACE that which Lord our God FIRST gave us.  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.

Throughout your various comments and responses in this discussion with me, you continually present faith in the Lord our God to preserve and provide His Word as He so pleases.  Such faith is certainly right and good.  However, throughout these comments and responses, I find a GLARING reality that you appear continually to disregard and neglect, even though I have referenced that reality a number of times.  It is the reality of the devil's work to corrupt God's perfect Word, and thereby to deceive.

1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

  Well, actually, I DO see Satan's work against God's word in creating the false KJVO myth, among other things. And also, he's caused bogus bible versions to be made, such as the cult-specific versions, Clear Word and New World Translation.

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.

[robycop3]

3 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Funny, you do limit God. You think He can’t use a trusted version that has stood the test of time. You think anything goes except that one trusted, proven Bible.

 Not at all. I believe that, as He caused/allowed the language to change, He's caused His word to be translated into the current language style.

[Rebecca]

Quote

 

 Many years ago, I learned how to drive a "standard" shift vehicle, use a wringer-type washing machine, use a manual can opener, etc. but I moved on to more-modern devices as they became available. We now have God's word in OUR English, so why use a "Model T" version any more?

 

Those objects weren't the Holy Word of God. God never promised to preserve cars or washing machines. The KJV is in "our" English, just because some words aren't used much anymore doesn't mean we don't/can't understand them. I learned Shakespeare in school. My ESL learners read unedited versions of Shakespeare in their English classes, he is not gospel so why do we not just learn only the versions edited into modern English? 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Rebecca
added quote I'm replying to

[Jerry]

Because not everything goes, as you so desperately want to believe. If they read exactly the same, there would not be a Bible version controversy! Why would I compromise my beliefs and my faith by giving a corrupted Bible version to someone whose faith I want to strengthen. Even you won’t give a New World Translation to a young believer - but you don’t have a problem giving them a modern version with the exact same errors and changes. Doesn’t make sense - but you are so willfully spiritually blind you cannot see how you contradict yourself.

[DaveW]

14 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

Well, actually, the KJV has its shares of goofs & booboos as well. 

 

9 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

And, the KJV has its share of goofs & booboos.

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.

 

[Jerry]

Dave, if you keep asking him to prove his claims, you might shatter his faith in his all-powerful mantra.

[DaveW]

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.

[robycop3]

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.

[DaveW]

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.......

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.)

[No Nicolaitans]

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.