KJV versus Modern Translations

[SovereignGrace]

Those who say "1611 only" - meaning the edition commonly used today - maybe don't realize that the 1611 edition, and most editions until the early 19th century, contained the Apocrypha.

Those who say “1611 only” read from a 1769 in all likelihood.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Those who say “1611 only” read from a 1769 in all likelihood.

You're fueling the beginnings of a new cult.

#1769KJVOnlyists

 

[bbyrd009]

"
...Eve was named so because she was "the mother of all life." The phrase "all life" occurs on six other occasions in Scriptures and never only mankind is meant but rather all life, just as it says (show me). Ergo, claiming that Eve was the mother of humans only is strongly at odds with the text.

The word "mother" comes from a root from which also the word for "people" or "nation" is derived, and we must conclude that Scripture demands Eve to be the entire bio-sphere.

Let's have a look at the text to see if theory matches data; Genesis 2:7:

We've tried an extensive array of translations, in English, German, Dutch and even Polish, but only the good old Dutch Statenvertaling (which is, surprisingly enough, not even a very high scoring translation) picked up on the very crucial particle numbered 13 here above: the Hebrew letter lamed, meaning for or to. But that's not all. There's no indication that God made Adam from the dust of the earth (a word that should have occurred between words 3 and 4). In stead it reads that He made Adam "dust of the earth," and for the life soul.

The phrase "dust of the earth" denotes a status rather than a fabric. Dust of the earth is the whole pallet of elementary building blocks, or Grundstoff (literally ground-stuff) in German. And the life-soul denotes the whole realm of life, much rather than a single, individual soul..."
Genesis 2:7 | The Making of Man | Commentary

 

[SovereignGrace]

You're fueling the beginnings of a new cult.

#1769KJVOnlyists

But? Oxford or Cambridge onlyist?

#Hmmmmm

 

[bbyrd009]

You're fueling the beginnings of a new cult.

#1769KJVOnlyists

Iow maybe contemplate how English is a pretty good Cult already

 

[bbyrd009]

lol, ya.

not all who wander are lost

"...One of the Torah's most fundamental themes is the insistence to learn; to observe, to conclude and to adjust. Abraham is the arch-father of both Arabs (- Moslems) and Jews (- Christians), and his journey began when he left his comfortable family home in Ur of the Chaldeans (=Babylon; Isaiah 13:19) and later Haran, to go 'to where the Lord would lead him'. Before Abraham knew what was right he knew what was wrong, and before he was able to designate a goal he departed from what he was familiar with. This brave deed seems to be the key to all learning. The celebrated thinker Socrates would be forever famous for exactly the same general virtue: to depart from what is certainly not correct, despite the cognitive vacuum this might produce..." Deuteronomy 23:10-13 | The Old Testamentary Latrine | Commentary

 

[Preacher4Truth]

But? Oxford or Cambridge onlyist?

#Hmmmmm

If you were of "the truth," you'd know.

 

[bbyrd009]

why not just proclaim yourself God and get it over with bro, yikes

 

[CoreIssue]

I do have a lot of problem with the NIV...

Preferably stick to the KJV.

Switching is hard.

I did not switch until I did extensive research which is more accurate. The NIV and NASB are more accurate.

I posted the videos for people to do legitimate research.

But there will always be some stay with the KJV claiming it is more accurate when only looking at KJV only sites.

Even the KJV people in the videos admitted it boiled down to faith.

 

[CoreIssue]

And, of course, refuse to explain how the writings of the ECFs that are older than the Alexandrian Text contain references to verses that are MISSING from the Alexandrian Text but present in the Traditional Text.

Better check the dates on those so-called UCF's. They postdate the oldest writings and predate the TR.

 

[CoreIssue]

And, of course, refuse to explain how the writings of the ECFs that are older than the Alexandrian Text contain references to verses that are MISSING from the Alexandrian Text but present in the Traditional Text.

What writings?

Nothings missing from the Bible. What you support added writings.

Watch the videos. Your answers are there.

 

[farouk]

Switching is hard.

I did not switch until I did extensive research which is more accurate. The NIV and NASB are more accurate.

I posted the videos for people to do legitimate research.

But there will always be some stay with the KJV claiming it is more accurate when only looking at KJV only sites.

Even the KJV people in the videos admitted it boiled down to faith.

Actually I don't even look at the KJV Only material; it's my definite conclusion that the KJV is more accurate. Mind you, my presuppositions are formal equivalence and Received/Byzantine majority text.

 

[farouk]

No not at all for me. I get it I had experience with early modern English . Where many don't . Never knew doing Shakespeare was going to come in handy .
I will say many people have problems with the language. For younger folks I recommend ESV or NKJ
I also like the poetic sense of the KJV .
I also have it among other translations for Bible study .
Blessings
Bill

I do appreciate using the King James.

 

[CoreIssue]

Actually I don't even look at the KJV Only material; it's my definite conclusion that the KJV is more accurate. Mind you, my presuppositions are formal equivalence and Received/Byzantine majority text.

Personal opinion but not fact based.

 

[farouk]

Personal opinion but not fact based.

The King James IS based on formal equivalence and on the Received Text, basically speaking.

 

[CoreIssue]

The King James IS based on formal equivalence and on the Received Text, basically speaking.

Remember there is no such thing as Word for Word. It is impossible.

The RT was written by a Catholic. One.

 

[Phoneman777]

What writings?

Nothings missing from the Bible. What you support added writings.

Watch the videos. Your answers are there.

Got it...

 

[farouk]

Correct that’s what the word means
Here is what Webster’s has to say .
Apocrypha
1: writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2capitalized
a: books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament
Blessings
Bill

The very word Deutercanonical means outside the canon (of Scripture).

 

[Laish]

The very word Deutercanonical means outside the canon (of Scripture).

Sorry that’s not correct .Deutercanonical Is Greek for second canon .
Blessings
Bill

 

[farouk]

Sorry that’s not correct .Deutercanonical Is Greek for second canon .
Blessings
Bill

Okay but it's not part of the primary - genuine - canon.