Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I don't think those are good arguments.


    1. The manuscript evidence used by the KJV translators was very poor compared with what we know no. Indeed, the final verses of Revelation did not exist in the manuscript they used, so Erasmus had to back translate from the Latin Vulgate! This one point destroys the KJV Only argument.
      well it's true that the Dead Sea Scroll are discovered but the Westcott and Hort I believe is the base of most modern translations
    2. Utterly irrelevant.Isn't there a limit to the amount of verses you can quote in a book?
    3. That would be an advantage if people understood the details of the King's English. But they don't - modern folks are totally confused by the differences between thee and thou and ye and you. So rather than being a help, this is a great detriment to the KJV. See the difference it makes if ye, you thou, thy is replaced by you and your:
      Genesis 18:3 KJV - And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
      Genesis 18:4 KJV - Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
      Genesis 18:5 KJV - And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,851
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I don't think those are good arguments.


    1. The manuscript evidence used by the KJV translators was very poor compared with what we know no. Indeed, the final verses of Revelation did not exist in the manuscript they used, so Erasmus had to back translate from the Latin Vulgate! This one point destroys the KJV Only argument.
      well it's true that the Dead Sea Scroll are discovered but the Westcott and Hort I believe is the base of most modern translations
    2. Utterly irrelevant.Isn't there a limit to the amount of verses you can quote in a book?
    3. That would be an advantage if people understood the details of the King's English. But they don't - modern folks are totally confused by the differences between thee and thou and ye and you. So rather than being a help, this is a great detriment to the KJV. See the difference it makes if ye, you thou, thy is replaced by you and your:
      Genesis 18:3 KJV - And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
      Genesis 18:4 KJV - Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
      Genesis 18:5 KJV - And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

    1. Actually, the modern translations put an emphasis upon the "oldest and best" manuscripts as opposed to the "majority text." It has very little to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls (which only contain OT mss.).
    2. There is a limit to how many verses you can quote without permission from the owner of the copyright. But this gives absolutely no support to the KJV Only claim that the KJV is itself an "inspired translation" or that it is somehow "superior" to other translations.
    3. I don't see how that answers my point. I very much doubt that one in ten readers could explain the difference between "you" and "ye" in that passage. And besides, the word "ye" is used either as a plural or a singular depending on context. Did you know that? Given this degree of confusion, it seems absurd to argue that the KJV is superior on this point. And besides, this whole line of argument is really an argument for the KJV, it is an argument for Shakespearean Early Modern English over the modern English language which does not distinguish between the singular and plural in second person pronouns.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I don't see how that answers my point. I very much doubt that one in ten readers could explain the difference between "you" and "ye" in that passage. And besides, the word "ye" is used either as a plural or a singular depending on context. Did you know that?
    Like where? I know prophets often change their person which they're addressing to such as they speak as they, and then switch to ye and then to thou...

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,851
    Quote Originally Posted by gilgal View Post
    Like where? I know prophets often change their person which they're addressing to such as they speak as they, and then switch to ye and then to thou...
    I don't know where in the Bible - it's what I read on the wiki article on Early Modern English that I linked:
    In Early Modern English, there were two second-person personal pronouns: thou, the informal singular pronoun, and ye, which was both the plural pronoun and the formal singular pronoun.
    But I think this is very instructive - you are an advocate of the KJV on the basis of the difference between "ye" and "you" but you did not know about this fact about the language. And I must say that it seems pretty likely there are lots of other facts about Early Modern English that you don't know, such as when to use "est" vs. "eth" (as in speakest vs. speaketh). And I am pretty sure that you would not know the correct definitions of many of the words since they have changed so much since that time. All of these facts contradict the idea that the KJV is superior for modern readers.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    But I think this is very instructive - you are an advocate of the KJV on the basis of the difference between "ye" and "you" but you did not know about this fact about the language. And I must say that it seems pretty likely there are lots of other facts about Early Modern English that you don't know, such as when to use "est" vs. "eth" (as in speakest vs. speaketh). And I am pretty sure that you would not know the correct definitions of many of the words since they have changed so much since that time. All of these facts contradict the idea that the KJV is superior for modern readers.
    I don't think it matters what I know or don't know. It matters to realize how to use what you know. I told you that the modern English doesn't show any distinction of the the 2nd person in singular and plural. But the KJV does so it's more accurate. There's less confusion.

    Can you give me a few examples where you can credit the modern translations? I want to know.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,851
    Quote Originally Posted by gilgal View Post
    I don't think it matters what I know or don't know. It matters to realize how to use what you know. I told you that the modern English doesn't show any distinction of the the 2nd person in singular and plural. But the KJV does so it's more accurate. There's less confusion.

    Can you give me a few examples where you can credit the modern translations? I want to know.
    I find it absurd to suggest that there is "less confusion" in the KJV. If folks can't understand the language, how could it cause anything but more confusion?

    As for modern versions, here are a couple examples:
    KJV Acts 28:13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:
    What does "fetched a compass" mean? You don't think the modern translations are superior?

    And what about this one?

    KJV 1 Thess 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
    Shall not prevent them from what?

    And on and on it goes. Most 21st century folks would find the KJV very difficult to understand.

    So what really is driving you to argue that the KJV is superior? Do you think it is an "inspired translation?"
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I find it absurd to suggest that there is "less confusion" in the KJV. If folks can't understand the language, how could it cause anything but more confusion?

    As for modern versions, here are a couple examples:
    KJV Acts 28:13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:
    What does "fetched a compass" mean? You don't think the modern translations are superior?

    And what about this one?

    KJV 1 Thess 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
    Shall not prevent them from what?

    And on and on it goes. Most 21st century folks would find the KJV very difficult to understand.

    So what really is driving you to argue that the KJV is superior? Do you think it is an "inspired translation?"
    Yeah but how big of a deal is that? Am I going to lose my faith over that?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,851
    Quote Originally Posted by gilgal View Post
    Yeah but how big of a deal is that? Am I going to lose my faith over that?
    I don't understand why you changed the topic. We were not talking about you losing your faith because of a bad translation. We were talking about whether or not the KJV is a better translation. I gave evidence that it is not better because it is very hard for most modern people to understand the old style English. Do you now agree with me on this?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I don't understand why you changed the topic. We were not talking about you losing your faith because of a bad translation. We were talking about whether or not the KJV is a better translation. I gave evidence that it is not better because it is very hard for most modern people to understand the old style English. Do you now agree with me on this?
    Ok can you explain me this one because it's important:
    KJV 1 Thess 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,851
    Quote Originally Posted by gilgal View Post
    Ok can you explain me this one because it's important:
    KJV 1 Thess 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
    What is there to explain? What don't you understand about it?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •