Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I’ve been doing some studying into the archaic features of the KJV.

i found that the difference between -eth and -est is that one is second person and another is third person. So it would seem that this would add detail to the Bible and therefore accuracy.

However, practically speaking it seems to me that this doesn’t really add information because of English Syntax, it would seem that the subject of the sentence will always supple that information and therefore these endings are unnecessary. Does anyone know of any places in the English bible where having these Archaic endings give the reader more clarity? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This argument is a "Straw Man" and meant to deflect answering a genuine opinion from someone else that views the subject differently.  I've studied the qualifications and credits of the original

The KJVO myth is man-made & false. Just as God caused the KJV to be made to present His word in the then-current English style, He has caused newer translations to be made to reflect the changes H

Actually, I find that much of a modern English use is dumbed down and oversimplified. We don’t use nearly the breadth of language available to us in classic English.  I have no desire to use a Bible w

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  The KJVO myth is man-made & false. Just as God caused the KJV to be made to present His word in the then-current English style, He has caused newer translations to be made to reflect the changes He has caused/allowed in English since 1611.

Show me another perfect, inerrant bible in the English.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
6 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  The KJVO myth is man-made & false. Just as God caused the KJV to be made to present His word in the then-current English style, He has caused newer translations to be made to reflect the changes He has caused/allowed in English since 1611.

If we start a new topic about this, would you be willing to actively discuss it with us? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Show me another perfect, inerrant bible in the English.

  The KJV is far-from-inerrant. A glaring goof in it is "Easter" in Acts 12:4. (Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts".) And a poor rendering that's caused a lotta controversy is "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13.  The NKJV is much-more error-free than the KJV is, as is the NASV.

17 hours ago, Matt Souza said:

If we start a new topic about this, would you be willing to actively discuss it with us? 

  If you choose to start a new topic on this, please let me know its title & which sub-forum it'll be in. I shall be more-than-happy to prove the KJVO myth false.

Edited by robycop3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you are suggesting that there was no pagan feast around that time that the translators later referred to as "Easter", then you are seriously mistaken.

4 hours ago, robycop3 said:

The NKJV is much-more error-free than the KJV is, as is the NASV.

Do you believe that there is a perfectly preserved Word of God today, or is there only "best we can do so far"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  OK, And, I'll answer the questions asked of me in this topic in the new one.

  As for Mr. Kurecki's OP in this topic,  I don't know of any of the KJV's archaisms that give more clarity to any of its verses today. We must remember the KJV was made for the British of the Elizabethan-Jacobean period 400 years ago. That's why it's important to have MODERN bible translations, in OUR English style.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  Well, actually,  I'm not a translator, but there's a VAST difference in the knowledge of 400 years ago & the knowledge of now, in the time where God said knowledge would greatly increase. And that knowledge necessarily includes that of God's word.

 

  And I came here to share knowledge with other Baptists, but I know for certain that the KJVO myth is not true. It has absolutely NO Scriptural support, even in the KJV itself, which, alone, makes it false.

 

  As for archaisms in the KJV, there are quite a few now, same as Wycliffe's 1384 translation contained archaisms to the British of the 17th century, let alone US.  God keeps His word in current vernacular in many languages, causing new translations to be made according to the changes HE causes/allows in the languages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  Well, actually,  I'm not a translator, but there's a VAST difference in the knowledge of 400 years ago & the knowledge of now, in the time where God said knowledge would greatly increase. And that knowledge necessarily includes that of God's word.

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.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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......

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  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:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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 by DaveW
Added the ? at the end...
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Salyan locked this topic
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, 23 Guests (See full list)


×
×
  • Create New...