King James Version Only...?

[Ancient]

NKJ 2 Timothy 2:23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.

Blessings and Shalom

 

[Wrangler]

I don’t think less copied means more reliable. There are other reasons like less handling and better climate conditions that would make texts survive longer.

Well, introducing more variables certainly helps mitigate the inherent drawback of the KJV manuscripts. However, on point of repeated copies or generation loss, I'd say it is a fact of less reliability, not an opinion. Generation loss - Wikipedia

 

[RLT63]

NKJ 2 Timothy 2:23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.

Blessings and Shalom

But then what would we talk about on the forum?

 

[RLT63]

Well, introducing more variables certainly helps mitigate the inherent drawback of the KJV manuscripts. However, on point of repeated copies or generation loss, I'd say it is a fact of less reliability, not an opinion. Generation loss - Wikipedia

I respect your opinion and I apologize for saying you had your head in the sand. No need for personal attacks

 

[Adam]

I prefer KJV by far because it is the most powerful and poetic.

 

[Aunty Jane]

How about all the versions that exclude verse 4? Not all modern versions do. It makes a difference to me if these people were just sitting around a pool or if miracles were happening because of Angelic activity. If there was no verse 4 and no angel why did the man want to get in the pool? Verse 7 makes no sense without verse 4 so it’s my opinion verse 4 shouldn’t be omitted

Isn't this akin to what happens at Lourdes? Can anyone actually prove that genuine miracles have happened there, that are not merely the placebo effect?
When people "believe" in something....amazing things can happen and because they happen to unbelievers in double blind placebo drug trials, science knows that these are not miracles, but a very human phenomena that they cannot explain.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I prefer KJV by far because it is the most powerful and poetic.

If one is not schooled in archaic English, the poetry is not terribly useful if the meaning is obscure.

1 Cor 14:8-9...
"For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air."

We have to appreciate that the KJV is a translation.....the words have to convey what the original language did, and if it doesn't speak to the current generation in a clear and concise way, but uses old terminology....what use is it? Paul is correct...it will just cause confusion.

 

[Keturah]

IMO too many folks look @ the bible as just reading material but it is oh so much more.

The word is alive and quickening and powerful and is to be STUDIED rightly dividing content by the Holy Spirit, otherwise I guess it's the same as reading any old book!

A disciple will ingest and receive the words of the Master and follow in his commands.
The Lord used the word  against the devil, and  against the highly religious folk but he used it to give comfort to the weary, strength to the weak, hope to the forlorn, light to those in shadows and darkness and peace to those in chaos.

The word is alive with God's Truth if you are led through it with God's Spirit.

 

[Wrangler]

Isn't this akin to what happens at Lourdes? Can anyone actually prove that genuine miracles have happened there

JW aren’t big into accepting modern day miracles, are they?

 

[RLT63]

Isn't this akin to what happens at Lourdes? Can anyone actually prove that genuine miracles have happened there, that are not merely the placebo effect?
When people "believe" in something....amazing things can happen and because they happen to unbelievers in double blind placebo drug trials, science knows that these are not miracles, but a very human phenomena that they cannot explain.

I prefer the versions that leave verse 4 in on this particular passage. This is just one example. See Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2) and. Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (2/2)

 

[Adam]

If one is not schooled in archaic English, the poetry is not terribly useful if the meaning is obscure.

1 Cor 14:8-9...
"For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air."

We have to appreciate that the KJV is a translation.....the words have to convey what the original language did, and if it doesn't speak to the current generation in a clear and concise way, but uses old terminology....what use is it? Paul is correct...it will just cause confusion.

People still read Shakespeare, don't they?

 

[Wrangler]

I prefer the versions that leave verse 4 in on this particular passage. This is just one example. See Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2) and. Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (2/2)

This may not have to do with the current discussion but I understand there are some verses missing. I understand from the NLT that there are manuscripts with 3 different ending verses.

You might find this interesting. List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

 

[Jim B]

People still read Shakespeare, don't they?

And Chaucer and Milton and others. What is your point? There is no doubt that the KJV is an easily misunderstood translation, written in a form of English that is no longer in use for a society that no longer exists. Say hello to your unicorn while beating your sword into a plowshare.

 

[Jim B]

Let me give you an example, John 5:4. Modern versions omit verse 4- But the story makes no sense without verse 4: Read verse 7:

Jhn 5:2 - Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
Tools

Jhn 5:3 - In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered,waiting for the moving of the water.

Jhn 5:4 - For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubledthe water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was madewhole of whatsoever disease he had.

Jhn 5:5 - And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eightyears.

Jhn 5:6 - When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?

Jhn 5:7 - The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth downbefore me. / What was troubling the water? Why did the impotent man want to get in the water while it was troubled? Without verse 4 we don’t know. This.is just one example, There are many more.

The rebuttal to your statement that "modern versions omit verse 4" is that the KJV added verse 4. It has very little basis for being included and is irrelevant to the theme of that section.

 

[Wrangler]

I never said the KJV was the best translation.

That's kind of funny.

46 paragraphs! It reminds me of that episode in Friends, where Rachel wrote Ross a 14-page letter, both sides.

Can you give us the 1-paragraph cliff notes version?

You didn't say it was the best translation. You only took the time to write 46 paragraphs that it was the best translation. LOL

 

[RLT63]

This may not have to do with the current discussion but I understand there are some verses missing. I understand from the NLT that there are manuscripts with 3 different ending verses.

You might find this interesting. List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

Yes I’ve read the Wikipedia article before. They make a good case for excluding the verses but there are KJV supporters who make a good case for their inclusion. If you wanted to send a message to North Korea or another hostile country by radio that would reach the people you wouldn’t send one powerful signal, that would be easy to block. You send thousands of normal signals knowing they can’t block all of them. Some will get through. That is the way I think God preserved his message. Even if part of it is missing the message still gets through. You can’t block all of it. The Bible teaches the same message over and over so if something gets added or removed in copying if you look at the Bible as a whole you will still get the message. God anticipated hostile jamming.

 

[Adam]

And Chaucer and Milton and others. What is your point? There is no doubt that the KJV is an easily misunderstood translation, written in a form of English that is no longer in use for a society that no longer exists. Say hello to your unicorn while beating your sword into a plowshare.

How is it easily misunderstood? I was able to read much of it without any serious problems when I was a little boy, and I was able to intuit what a plowshare was too, by thinking about what a plow was. I think KJV's alleged difficulty is quite overstated. Sometimes you find a word that you need a dictionary for, but is that so bad? Once you learn the word, you don't have to look it up again, and you'll impress all your friends at parties by knowing what 'froward' means.

The contemporary author, Gene Wolfe, has a very wide vocabulary too, and likes to make use of it, commonly sprinkling in such obscure words as 'carnifex' and 'thaumaturg'. He's probably harder to read than the KJV, I suppose nobody should ever read him? What society were his books written for? He's an award winning author with a bestselling series, so apparently his vocabulary isn't that big of an obstacle to finding an audience.

 

[RLT63]

That's kind of funny.

You didn't say it was the best translation. You only took the time to write 46 paragraphs that it was the best translation. LOL

You misunderstand. I think the NKJV is a better translation than the KJV. The 46 paragraphs are about the corrupt Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus that Westcott and Hort favored in their translation. Despite all the documents that have been discovered since their time the Critical Text has changed little and mostly agrees with Westcott and Hort’s translation. I’m not against modern translations I just don’t agree that the Alexandrian texts are so superior to the majority of texts. Modern scholars have a disdain for the Byzantine texts and it may not be warranted. But I’m not telling anyone to quit reading the NIV or whatever their favorite translation is. Just pay attention to footnotes and note when something has been omitted. That’s why I like the NET Full Notes Edition. Again I think the best Bible is the one you read.

 

[RLT63]

The rebuttal to your statement that "modern versions omit verse 4" is that the KJV added verse 4. It has very little basis for being included and is irrelevant to the theme of that section.

Verse 7 is the basis for the inclusion of verse 4. I can read it for myself and don’t need some scholar to tell me why it should be excluded. The plain reading of the passage begs for the inclusion of part of verse 3 and all of verse 4 that many translations omit.

 

[Jim B]

How is it easily misunderstood? I was able to read much of it without any serious problems when I was a little boy, and I was able to intuit what a plowshare was too, by thinking about what a plow was. I think KJV's alleged difficulty is quite overstated. Sometimes you find a word that you need a dictionary for, but is that so bad? Once you learn the word, you don't have to look it up again, and you'll impress all your friends at parties by knowing what 'froward' means.

The contemporary author, Gene Wolfe, has a very wide vocabulary too, and likes to make use of it, commonly sprinkling in such obscure words as 'carnifex' and 'thaumaturg'. He's probably harder to read than the KJV, I suppose nobody should ever read him? What society were his books written for? He's an award winning author with a bestselling series, so apparently his vocabulary isn't that big of an obstacle to finding an audience.

So you admit that the KJV is hard to read! You're making progress! And I don't believe you when you write that you were able to read much of it (with comprehension) when you were "a little boy".

And why do you prefer a flawed translation that is centuries old when there is such a plethora of translations written in the language that you and I and many, many others use every single day?

May I ask why you don't communicate in 17th Century Englyshe? I'll answer for you: you want to communicate your thoughts clearly so that you will be clearly understood. That is the purpose of every modern translation.