False Gospels & Spiritual Attack

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
'To each his own', as the saying goes! Many of us want the pure mind of God as given, and not modern ideas and modern reasoning of men today, so will hold to the venerable KJV. Go in peace!

The pure mind of God is the source of the King James translation? I give up!!

It's a translation based on the source documents available over 400 years ago, created by men acting on the order of a king who wanted a Bible that reinforced his idea of Christianity.

Today we have far better translations, based on much better sources and much better scholarship.

Give up the idea that God spoke/wrote in pompous Olde Englyshe and you'll be closer to understanding His truths. Remember, Jesus, being fully God, came as a poor carpenter, not as secular royalty.

The Olde Englyshe may seem to you to be God's language, or "the mind of God", or whatever other unfounded myth you believe, but it's not.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Sidon

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2021
2,073
320
62
Florida
✟17,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The pure mind of God is the source of the King James translation? I give up!!

It's a translation based on the source documents available over 400 years ago, created by men acting on the order of a king who wanted a Bible that reinforced his idea of Christianity.

Actually the reverse is true.
The reality is, the newer the version, the more distance you are from the original.
Also, the worst offenders of the "here is our version", "see our doctrine all over our version", is the newer versions.

Have you seen this one?
This is one of the latest "updated......in even easier to understand english".


This is the "Queen James Version".
Now who would have expected the DEVIL to attack the KJV.
Why would he do that...????
-
-
tumblr_nplmg7UVKG1qi713so1_500.jpg
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The pure mind of God is the source of the King James translation? I give up!!

It's a translation based on the source documents available over 400 years ago, created by men acting on the order of a king who wanted a Bible that reinforced his idea of Christianity.

Today we have far better translations, based on much better sources and much better scholarship.

Give up the idea that God spoke/wrote in pompous Olde Englyshe and you'll be closer to understanding His truths. Remember, Jesus, being fully God, came as a poor carpenter, not as secular royalty.

The Olde Englyshe may seem to you to be God's language, or "the mind of God", or whatever other unfounded myth you believe, but it's not.

On this we agree; my point is the KJV is a good translation, with elegant prose, and not as flawed as you make it out to be, but I reject as theologically without merit the KJV-only movement.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
'To each his own', as the saying goes! Many of us want the pure mind of God as given, and not modern ideas and modern reasoning of men today, so will hold to the venerable KJV. Go in peace!

Personally I want the pure mind of God as given in the earliest and best source documents. There are several excellent modern translations to choose from, based not only on extensive source documents but also on the understanding of the cultures of the Bible.

The KJV is 400+ years old, based on a limited number of source documents, and created to please a king who wanted his understanding of Christianity to be encoded in the Bible. I've got news for you: the KJV is not "the pure mind of God as given".

If you want to feel "holier than thou" by reading -- not speaking or writing -- in a dead form of Englyshe, that is nothing more than your own personal preference. It's not for those of us who seek the fullest understanding.

BTW, why don't you write (or even think!) in early 17th Century Englyshe? It must be really tough for you to exist in the modern world!
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Personally I want the pure mind of God as given in the earliest and best source documents. There are several excellent modern translations to choose from, based not only on extensive source documents but also on the understanding of the cultures of the Bible.

The KJV is 400+ years old, based on a limited number of source documents, and created to please a king who wanted his understanding of Christianity to be encoded in the Bible. I've got news for you: the KJV is not "the pure mind of God as given".

If you want to feel "holier than thou" by reading -- not speaking or writing -- in a dead form of Englyshe, that is nothing more than your own personal preference. It's not for those of us who seek the fullest understanding.

BTW, why don't you write (or even think!) in early 17th Century Englyshe? It must be really tough for you to exist in the modern world!

Well, to be fair the KJV was created to bridge the gap between the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva Bible, and it was also arguably one of the best sourced translations in history, given the broad range of ancient texts that were consulted for the time, even the Peshitta.

There is I think in your desire for textual purity a certain danger, because we know from the experience of Islam and their dogmatic preservation and insistence upon the use of the Classical Arabic, a language that is far from the vernacular dialects, let alone Farsi, Urdu, the Indonesian languages, etc., in Quranic recitation. Because if you don’t have the same language as the original text, you don’t have the original text.

So I would argue that in a sense, it looks like you’re making a similar mistake to the KJVonlyists. Why not adopt a relaxed approach and simply read as many versions as possible so you know the diversity of the texts?
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, to be fair the KJV was created to bridge the gap between the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva Bible, and it was also arguably one of the best sourced translations in history, given the broad range of ancient texts that were consulted for the time, even the Peshitta.

There is I think in your desire for textual purity a certain danger, because we know from the experience of Islam and their dogmatic preservation and insistence upon the use of the Classical Arabic, a language that is far from the vernacular dialects, let alone Farsi, Urdu, the Indonesian languages, etc., in Quranic recitation. Because if you don’t have the same language as the original text, you don’t have the original text.

So I would argue that in a sense, it looks like you’re making a similar mistake to the KJVonlyists. Why not adopt a relaxed approach and simply read as many versions as possible so you know the diversity of the texts?

I agree with you. I generally read 3-4 versions. Of the older translations I prefer the Geneva Bible over the KJV because of the excellent "footnotes" as well as its history vis-a-vis the United States.

What I object to is people claiming that the KJV is exclusively God's word and that all other translations somehow are not.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0