Bible John

Shuff your pride man.

You know you could not address the arguments from the Mind of God to the Mind of man book, for it defeated you.

Tell me oh great one, if the KJV is supposed to be the only translation to be used for the english speaking world, can you tell me why the original KJV authors encouraged constant revision?

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/E...es_onlyism.htm

1611 KJV preface

http://www.piney.com/DocKJVPref1611.html

Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand?

But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?

Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with;

Not even the KJV Translators were KJVO! Here the KJV translators encourage a translation into the tongue of the commoner. In other areas of the preface they encourage constant revision of the Bible to make it more readable. Hence a reason why we have the NKJV today.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, James Williams, pp. 153.

The scriptures must be in the vulgar language of the people… God's Word should be in the language of the people so they can understand its commands, savor its promises, relive the Bible stories, and carefully study its truth. This is extremely difficult when over four thousand words in the King James Bible are not found in even the best of our one volume English dictionaries today. In their day, the KJV translators were opposed by many for making a new translation of the Scriptures. The Geneva Bible was good enough! Yet, many obsolete expressions were already making that copy of the written word very difficult to understand.

Its sad that many KJVO do not understand the history of their translation, nor realize that the originators never believed that their work would remain the only infallible translation that is to be used by Christians. Their originators encouraged new translations that would help the vulgar tongue understand God's Holy Word.

Bible John

Notapadwan will find a way to sneak bye the clearly defined motives of the KJV authors and scholars.

KJVO have a cult like mentality and only the Holy Spirit can convince them.

Try convincing a OneNess Pentecostal of the trinity, it wont happen...

Try convincing a Seventh day Adventist that its okay to worship on Sunday and to eat meat. It wont happen...

<edit inflammatory comment>

John

notapadawan

Nothing pideful in my previous post. I said over and over you were harping on a non-issue.

I didn't see you present an argument from the mentioned book. Perhaps you should present the quotation and then present a pertinent argument from it.

Could you cite the spot where the translators said such.

I don't have to search your article and the subsequent article for any verification. I suggest you learn how to cite a webpage.

I don't see anything in there referencing subsequent revisions and new translations.

You've asserted that twice, but haven't ponied up the reference. Not only that but if thats the case then explain why you have been arguing for the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and several other modern versions. If the NKJV is good enough, then why not advocate its exclusive usage?

Let's break down this quote. I see the author makes a valid point at the start. However, then he makes an unfounded assertion in the 4,000 words. What words are these that can't be found in a one volume dictionary?

Second illogical argument is he presents is that the KJV translators were opposed. Who opposed them? Who argued that the Geneva Bible was good enough? What obsolete expressions are these that made the Geneva "difficult to understand"?

Whats even sadder is that you swallowed James Williams "scholarship" and arguments without thinking them through. But then what does one expect when one agree's with an atheist/agnostics argument blindly.

notapadawan

What motives are these? Have you ever read a book by a "KJVO" author? If not, then how can you rightly say they have a faulty argument?

And what mentality is that?

What is a OneNess Pentecostal? I know what a Oneness Pentecostal is but have never heard of the other...

That's nice...

What a very nice thing to say... And then you have the gall to criticize where I post?

gagster

Hey! That was the smartest thing he did all day, even if he did it for the wrong reason.


Greg

Bible John

[/QUOTE]

I misread that atheists post.

notapadawan

Of course you misread his post. And then you ignore the thrust of my post...

Toto

This thread is deteriorating into name calling. Is it time to close it?

notapadawan

Please allow Bible John to answer my post questions. As long as he refrains from his derogatory comments and focuses on the issue at hand I would like to continue.

Bible John

Its time to dust off my feet and leave.



John