Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your analysis is as faulty as the TR, KJV, Tyndales, and Wycliffe. 1Tim 3:1 If anyone worthy of trust desires to be a guardian he wishes to work.I don't, although I can appreciate preferences when you adopt an "Only View" for a translation or even for the original language I think you have grossly missed the point.
this is correct and there are many translations out there that cater to individuals and if desired anyone can go deeper. The KJV can arguable be deemed a bible for the "religious elite" and it perpetuates values that the true word of God is in the King's English which no one actually speaks from the start puts itself in an elite position if we are to say it is the uncorrupted "Pure Word of God"
The scriptures to not elevate language to a place where they should not be. The OT is written in both Hebrew and Aramaic, two very concrete languages and the NT is written in Greek a very abstract and opposite language. And by opposite I mean quite literally as the Greek alphabet is largely formed by the mirror image of the Ancient Hebrew. Hebrew is written right to left where Greek is written left to right; during it's time you couldn't get to opposite cultures and languages. the NT quotes the OT from the a greek translation. When it boils down to it language is not valued here and if there is a value it is that languages are fluid but God Word is a constant. We must however use language to express God's Word and this is why the english translations started (more so the Geneva Bible, than the KJV) as they broke free from the elite Latin text used by clergy and allowed all to understand the scripture.
William Tyndale translated the first English NT from the TR and he is quoted with his motivation with "I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives the plough to know more of the scriptures than you do" (and yes this is an updated english version of this quote because simply english in the 16th century is too distracting to read)
There is no cause to cement a translation in for all time. Languages evolve and translation work will continue on. The non-elite will gravitate to translations they can understand.
the KJV shares in this glory but so do other translations. God Word is perfect, the words we use are not and constantly change this is why the KJV culturally speaking is no longer has any relevance except as a historical religious book. Christians should not proclaim the gospel that works for them but proclaim the gospel that works for our mission. This may mean casting off our religious robes to meet people where they are, the KJV is an example of such robes and if we want our mission (unbelievers) to desire to know God we should give them a message that can speak to their heart language. The KJV is estranged to the 21st century and using it can make the gospel estranged as well and promote counter-gospel values, not because it is a poor translation but because we don't live in the 17th century.
why am I not getting all the correct instructions or commands in modern translations? Because they differ in a few areas than the KJV? This is an argument you provide no substance to and inventively that battle is not between translations but between the base text (which I infer that you mean the critical greek text). Your argument is not between the KJV and modern translations but between the 1550 Textus Receptus and newly form critical greek texts. It's like comparing the strength of two buildings without considering the foundation and it is highly illogical. I cannot take you serious because you refuse to enter into serious discussion on this topic.
I don't speak 17th century english so is God also not capable of communicating in my language? What about those who don't speak english at all? Is God's also not capable of communicating his perfect Word these these languages? What Acts 2 shows us is God doesn't cement his perfect Word in one language.
Scripture does not say that words of scripture is magnified above God which would be a dangerous thing as it would promote worship to words or a book. The Word of God is an abstract and is an intangible not uniquely defined by our ability sense it such as touch, smell or see it. The KJV is the Word of God by inheritance like an apple is a fruit but a fruit is not only an apple nor is an apple the best example of a fruit. We may see many examples of the perfect Word of God outside of the KJV and even outside of written scripture.
this is a testament to preserving the Word of God not cementing it in a language 400 years ago.
This is the only point you make that is best related to the KJV but it actually only targets translations from the textus receptus, what about the 2016 KJV is it the Pure Word of God? all your other points agree with any critical translation in any language and do not single out the KJV, certainly not the 1611 KJV.
those doctrines do not hang on the perspective of the KJV either, if they did then they would be irresponsible. A solid doctrine is one with a continuous thread throughout scripture and if it rests on 1 line then we must reconcile why the rest of the scripture doesn't value these things. This of course is not the case with the trinity or eternal security as they are strong repeated themes throughout scripture.
not quite the fault lies in the faulty translations. 1 Tim 3:1 If anyone worthy of trust wishes to be a guardian, he desires to work.Well it might be because I'm not trying to promote that the KJV supports Anglican doctrine. One thing that KJV lacks is transparency and you might have a point in it favouring ecclesiastical titles but I'm not sure if this is to promote the anglican church. It is well known that King James I had a political agenda with creating a new translation that was less transparent than the Geneva bible, this is why it does not have marginal notes.
For example 1 Tim 3:1 KJV says
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
You could argue by using ecclesiastical titles it promotes the office of the bishop as demonstrated in the anglican church and lacks transparency to those who have no ability to know the source of these words but that is a stretch as everyone used these titles not just the Anglicans.
in the Geneva (1599) it says:
This is a true saying, If any man desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a worthy work.
the commentators notes say:
2 He setteth out Bishops, 8 and Christian deacons with their wives, 12 children and family, 15 he calleth the Church the house of God.
the marginal notes:
The Geneva Bible is a puritan bible made from protestant radicals and they wanted to be as transparent as possible which they saw as counter-Catholic culture yet they use the same ecclesiastical titles. I don't see a conspiracy here just a cultural trend of known and well accepted terms within the english speaking church. The dominate lack of transparency in the KJV is all those marginal notes and commentaries are omitted and ironically this is probably why the KJV became more popular because all those marginal notes consumed a good amount of real estate on the page and was quite distracting. People probably just liked the words "as is" although the typeface of the Geneva is far easier to read than the "Old English" font of the KJV. In the end I think the typeface acted as a power move over the Geneva and made it seem more authoritative (as well as it's name "King James") and more sure of itself without the marginal notes.
The information age has allowed more access and more knowledge then ever before liken to the printing press of the textus receptus age and people are more academic with what they read but less interested in overtly religious tonnes.
not quite the fault lies in the faulty translations. 1 Tim 3:1 If anyone worthy of trust wishes to be a guardian, he desires to work.
It uses "bishop" and Anglicans have bishops. That's one prominent example.
It seems like the translation hs been lost along with the facts: Tyndale translated the word you think is "devil" as Fiend. The Tyndale Bible was the Primary source for the KJV and Tyndale used the faulty Vulgate and TR by Erasumas as his sources.
The KJV is corrupted because it uses the faulty TR as a basis. Tyndayle also followed The TR but he translated the word devil as "FIEND"King James I, didn't like the Geneva bible because of the puritan marginal notes that may cause people to question the clergy thus could cause question to the hierarchy of the church which if followed to the top could question the purpose and authority of the King (for Anglicans). It's a little silly too look back at it now but the protestant movement detested the authority of the Pope and in a way the King of England could be liken to the Pope so he was afraid the movement could protest himself as King. The Geneva Bible was a protestant radical bible and it was all about pulling back the curtain by giving everyone the tools to study the bible themselves, King James I just didn't want it pulled back too far and sanctioned a new translation that was less radical and less transparent. The 1599 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV are remarkedly similar and use the same base texts but the KJV didn't have the radical ideas inside the margin and the King of England wanted it kept this way. I wouldn't say the KJV was corrupted by this political agenda as I don't think the King had any influence into the translation process itself but he just removed the marginal notes and left the text "as is" basically giving continued reason to support the clergy in interpretation which gave him cause to be King and head of the Church of England. The KJV is an good translation and so is the Geneva Bible but there are newer discoveries unknown to the 16/17th century that puts the base text closer than every before to the originals, this allows better translations and better resources today to aid our study of the Bible.
The NIV is based on the oldest text. Why does the KJV internally duplicate things?
Did the Ethiopian eunuch need to believe and confess in Jesus before being baptized? Not according to the NIV.And I note that one lie ("the NIV deleted stuff") having been proven false, we are now discussing a different allegation.
I don't expect it to go anywhere anytime soon. My church attracts a young crowd and we use the KJV for worship.The KJV, at least in American studies is the most widely read but it no longer is the best seller. Younger audiences are gravitating to modern translations and as generations give way to the next the KJV will be less and less valued.
100 years ago or even 40/30 years ago is different than today. The information age has allowed more access and more knowledge then ever before liken to the printing press of the textus receptus age and people are more academic with what they read but less interested in overtly religious tonnes.
Why would they be using or debating the KJV if they don't speak English? Nearly every language has the Bible.the KJV is linked to a very specific era of time and it would be irresponsible to suggest that it also is not laced in cultural and ethnic heritage. The name itself of "King James" locks in a time and geography and invokes inherent ethnic backgrounds. I know many ethnicities and cultures enjoy and even embrace the KJV but there is still a indirect message that has a colonial mindset. To cultures where English is not a first language and have a history in colonialism it can emphasises a counter-gospel message and one that may be offensive.
The majority of Greek manuscripts differs from the Textus Receptus {Hodges ans Farstad used an 1825 Oxford reprint of Stephanus' 1550 text for comparission purposes) in 1,838 places and in many of these places, the text of Wescottand Hort agrees with the majority of manuscripts against the Textus Receptus. The majority in excluding Lk 17:36; Acts 8:37; and 1 Jn 5:7 from the NT as well asconcuring in numerous other readings (such as "tree of life" in Rev 22:19). Except in rare cases writers well versed in textal criticism have abandoned the Textus Receptus as a standard text.[Bible-researcher.com] Tyndale used the faulty TR, Vulgate, and Erasumus' text and although he correctly translated the word devil as a "FIEND".He Man: Please stop screen capturing pages and speak for yourself once and while. It would be appreciated. Most folks (including myself) are not going to read through screen captured pages.
5,000 manuscripts support the Sinaicutus and Vaticanus. http//:www.csntm.orgWhy do you trust that one or two manuscripts, despite being the oldest found, are necessarily the most correct? When the majority of surviving manuscripts agree with the KJV/TR, then why do we assume that all those manuscripts must be wrong? Couldn't be possible that the manuscripts found in the monastery and in the Vatican were themselves wrong? Two bad apples out of a good bunch, so to speak.
Did the Ethiopian eunuch need to believe and confess in Jesus before being baptized? Not according to the NIV.
Why would they be using or debating the KJV if they don't speak English? Nearly every language has the Bible.
I've never heard anyone make that claim.the debate is when someone tells them that their translation in their language can't be called the pure Word of God
I don't expect it to go anywhere anytime soon. My church attracts a young crowd and we use the KJV for worship.
Which one(s) do you like, DamianWarS? I started out KJV for a 1/2 year, moved to the Good News and then Living Bible for another 1/2. I finally settled on the RSV about 1973, but unfortunately my RSV wore out and became hard to find as other versions dominated the scene. In 1979 I moved to the NIV for a few months but found too many paraphrases. I opted for the NASB for the next 28 years. I always regretted that the NASB was not good for memorization. I memorized a lot but forgot almost as much. Then in 2007 I was in a friends church and they were using the ESV of which I had been unaware. That day I read the preface and was instantly hooked. I intend to stay here until the end... for now.well either way the facts are the KJV is no longer the best selling bible. This inevitably means the KJV will begin to lose its market share among Christians to other versions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?