Magdlyn

You're just lucky you don't live in the US. The KJVO "cult" is quite large and not to be brushed aside. Altho we'd be "exceedingly glad" to do so.

Clouseau= One True Christian TM

Doug Shaver

Oh, right. The Bible is SO much more believable when rendered in modern English.

Clouseau

Maybe it's not luck.

In the UK cults are completely ignored by the middle and educated classes, simply because they are regarded as credible only by the educationally backward, like the bottom end of the newspaper market, at best. If the same people in the USA take note of cults, they have only themselves to blame. Don't expect any sympathy from this side of the pond. No aspersion, but you guys really need to grow up, and cut out the Mickey Mouse pretence that does not stop at Orlando. Seriously.

Steven Avery

Hmm.. For those interested in substance, I will simply point out that while Closeau was trotting out a few tired insults he totally ignored the actual substance that contradicts and disproves his assertion that skeptics and atheists like to work with the King James Bible.

In fact they clearly prefer the duckshoot modern versions as it supplies them with a rich supply of errors and blunders. As we see here frequently.

And they feverishly seek to avoid working with the Received Texts, including the King James Bible in English, and emphasize strongly these many corruptions in Closeau's preferred text.

Shalom,
Steven

Doug Shaver

Oh, right. Like we can't find any errors or blunders in the KJV?

Steven Avery

Doug, it has been demonstrated time and again on errancy wiki and IIDB that the modern version blunders are a major skeptic duckshoot.

Of course skeptics here often consider this and that as being forgery and redacted and more, irregardless of version or text. And they will attack verses in sometimes the silliest ways. (example: Look how many posts in this forum were put in trying to attack the Gadarene (!) region as being on the Sea of Galilee, showing the obstinateness of the skeptics.)

So I am sure that you "think" you find such problems in the King James Bible.

However the simple fact of the matter is that again and again the skeptics insist on the modern versions, as in the errancy wiki supposed "smackdown" and many other verse examples. And they similarly use the supposed lack of a resurrection account in Mark as a base for skeptic theory upon mythicist presumption upon atheist unbelief, again relying on a faulty couple of corrupt texts against tons of contrary evidence. They of course can not do this with the King James Bible, and the Received Texts, as the Bible text.

Shalom,
Steven

Doug Shaver

Then it is illogical to suggest that we prefer the modern versions because we have a hard time finding mistakes in the KJV.

I mean, what difference could it make, considering that we're so pigheaded we can't tell the difference between a real mistake and a mistake that we only think is there?

Steven Avery

Doug, I will take this as a real question.

The blunders in the modern versions are often of the "hard" type, like the swine marathon from Gerash, or Jesus not going to the feast, or Joseph being the father of Jesus. Or the Matthew 1:7 errancy "smackdown". Really dumb stuff.

(And there are some that are in the underlying texts of the textcrits that are smoothed or hid in translation. This can vary from modern version to modern version. Also there are many "soft" and doctrinal errors in the modern versions, however generally the skeptics, understandably, will loudly trumpet the modern version hard errors, using them as their point of attack.)

So even the thick-headed skeptics can sniff out those hard errors and embrace them as their own. We continually see that they have this capability on IIDB. Take the modern version blunder and attack it ! (Generally either they don't know or they know and do not mention clearly the lack of any problem in the historic Bible.)

So, for this they need the modern versions.
They cannot use the King James Bible, based on the Received Texts, because these blunders are simply not there.

Hope that answers your question above.
Even hard-boiled skeptics are not necessarily dumb.

Shalom,
Steven

Magdlyn

I wasn't expecting sympathy. But, yes, US fundies are maddening, not least our president. I guess we were too busy killing Injuns to get much larnin.' Be that as it may, we've only been a country for a couple hundred yrs. We're still in our infancy. Britain has been a country for a thousand years and yet, still seems able to produce poodles for our president. So how about that? Seems there's Mickey Mouse everywhere.

Doug Shaver

Eppur si muove.