The King James Only Debate

[KJV1611]

Let us put their perfection to the test:

2S 10:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew seven hundred chariots of
the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host,
who died there.

1 Chr 19:18
But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousandchariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain
of the host.


Ups, KJV failed the test of perfect preservation again

What's the error here?

 

[John146]

Let us put their perfection to the test:

2S 10:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew seven hundred chariots of
the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host,
who died there.

1 Chr 19:18
But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousandchariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain
of the host.


Ups, KJV failed the test of perfect preservation again

Nice try once again. The KJV remains innocent.

The two verses do not contradict. 2 Samuel 10:18 describes the deaths of an unspecified number of men who rode in "seven hundred chariots".

1 Chronicles 19:18 describes the deaths of "seven thousand men" who rode in an unspecified number of chariots. In other words, 2 Samuel 10:18 gives the number of chariots and 1 Chronicles 19:18 gives the number of men.

Continue searching your websites that claim errors. You may want to visit James White's website where he tries just as hard to find fault with the word of God. His every attempt has failed.

 

[Agricola]

So after nearly 1000 posts in I still see nothing to convince me that King James is perfect English version we should only be reading. Just the same merry-go-round and delusions. I also see ridiculous answer of King James being refined 7 times, when clearly it can not be as Tyndale did not write a complete Old testament, therefore the old testament words are refined only 6...... oOOPS.

King James is a brilliant translation yes, but its just one translation in a continual line and nothing more than that.

 

[Dino246]

Nice try once again. The KJV remains innocent. The two verses do not contradict. ...

It's so easy to find a way to make parts of the verses harmonize, ignore the rest, and think you've resolved the issue. So, I will quote you directly: "Nice try once again." Was it forty thousand footmen or forty thousand horsemen? Was Shophach the captain of the host or was Shobach the captain of the host?

Good luck. Perfection is such a harsh taskmaster.

 

[trofimus]

Nice try once again. The KJV remains innocent.

The two verses do not contradict. 2 Samuel 10:18 describes the deaths of an unspecified number of men who rode in "seven hundred chariots".

1 Chronicles 19:18 describes the deaths of "seven thousand men" who rode in an unspecified number of chariots. In other words, 2 Samuel 10:18 gives the number of chariots and 1 Chronicles 19:18 gives the number of men.

Continue searching your websites that claim errors. You may want to visit James White's website where he tries just as hard to find fault with the word of God. His every attempt has failed.

If you will look at the verses more carefully,you will find more differences

I am not sure what you mean by "trying hard". To find errors in KJV takes about 15 seconds of googling, when you know what to look for

Google for example "LXX vs masoretic", "masoretic text errors" etc and you will get sources for tuns of KJV errors in one minute. (Because KJV uses masoretic text mostly, for the OT)

 

[trofimus]

What's the error here?

Really?

 

[GaryA]

KJV English has never been a contemporary language to any one including the people of the that time period when it was written.

I have read Shakespeare, and know that the "language" he spoke was very close to the language in which the KJV is written.

Exactly. What you haven't realized yet, however, is that Shakespearean English was not contemporary, either...

Shakespeare "spruced up" the English language that he used in his writings in order to "expound" and "embody" the thought-provoking aspect of the intent of his writings. He added certain words and phrases ( that were not contemporary ) to more particularly and precisely define the specific detail of what he was trying to get across - [ and which is ] the central component of the "beauty" of Shakespearean writings - the "clarity of definition" that he was able to impart in his writings.

Keep in mind that - for someone to "get the most" out of Shakespearean writings -- they have to "learn the language" - the 'Shakespearean Middle English' language. The same is true for the KJV.

If that is true (which I doubt) then why on earth did the translators translate it into that type of speaking? They may as well have translated it into Swahili.

The KJV was translated into 'Shakespearean Middle English' in order to loose the least possible "nuance" of the Greek and Hebrew languages that it was being translated from -- i.e. - so that the "inferior" English language could include more of the "detail" of the Greek and Hebrew that would be totally lost in the contemporary English language ( even of that day and time ).

And, because of this, the KJV contains "detail" that the modern translations do not.

Also - the 'Shakespearean Middle English' was considered to be the most beautifully expressed [ English ] language of the day ( in fact, even more so than the contemporary language ) -- and, because - "this is the Word of God we are talking about" - well, "there you go"...

Can you blame anyone for wanting to translate the Word of God into the "most beautiful and expressive" language available?

Well -- I contend that - when it comes to the Word of God - the KJV is still the "most beautiful and expressive" version available. Only, you have to "learn the language" in order to "get the most" out of it...

 

[trofimus]

Also - the 'Shakespearean Middle English' was considered to be the most beautifully expressed [ English ] language of the day ( in fact, even more so than the contemporary language ) -- and, because - "this is the Word of God we are talking about" - well, "there you go"...

Can you blame anyone for wanting to translate the Word of God into the "most beautiful and expressive" language available?

Well -- I contend that - when it comes to the Word of God - the KJV is still the "most beautiful and expressive" version available. Only, you have to "learn the language" in order to "get the most" out of it...

What a pity that God let the original inspired text to be written in that vulgar koiné Greek, the language of the stupid masses so the stupid masses can read and understand easily.
And not in the beautiful Greek of intellectuals like Aristoteles.

It could be so beautiful... only if... well, no problem. Luckily we have the KJV and thats how the vulgarity of the New Testament is fixed. Now it is finally not easy to read the Bible. Goal achieved.

 

[GaryA]

What a pity that God let the original inspired text to be written in that vulgar koiné Greek, the language of the stupid masses so the stupid masses can read and understand easily.
And not in the beautiful Greek of intellectuals like Aristoteles.

It could be so beautiful... only if... well, no problem. Luckily we have the KJV and thats how the vulgarity of the New Testament is fixed. Now it is finally not easy to read the Bible. Goal achieved.

You will never hear *me* say that the KJV is "above" the original Greek and Hebrew. *I* do not believe that the KJV [ itself ] is "inspired" in the same sense that the original Greek and Hebrew were and are.

But -- for people who speak / read English -- the KVJ is the most accurate English-translated Bible available...

I understand what you are saying - and, can even agree with it - based on your intent ( as I understand it ) for saying it. However, what you must understand is - each case had / has its purpose.

The reason for the Koine Greek is obvious. That was the "common" language of people to speak / read / write. Being Greek - the "full" language that it was - it contained the complete measure - "every nuance" - of meaning that the Greek language was capable of containing. Nothing was lost in the Greek language. And, this is why the [ original ] NT was written in the Koine Greek.

"God knew what He was doing..."

With English, it is different. The English language cannot contain all of the "nuance" that is in the Greek language. And, the 'Shakespearean Middle English' was the best 'language' to use to "contain the most" of the "nuance" of the scriptures in Greek.

"God knew what He was doing..."

 

[trofimus]

You will never hear *me* say that the KJV is "above" the original Greek and Hebrew. *I* do not believe that the KJV [ itself ] is "inspired" in the same sense that the original Greek and Hebrew were and are.

But -- for people who speak / read English -- the KVJ is the most accurate English-translated Bible available...

I understand what you are saying - and, can even agree with it - based on your intent ( as I understand it ) for saying it. However, what you must understand is - each case had / has its purpose.

The reason for the Koine Greek is obvious. That was the "common" language of people to speak / read / write. Being Greek - the "full" language that it was - it contained the complete measure - "every nuance" - of meaning that the Greek language was capable of containing. Nothing was lost in the Greek language. And, this is why the [ original ] NT was written in the Koine Greek.

"God knew what He was doing..."

With English, it is different. The English language cannot contain all of the "nuance" that is in the Greek language. And, the 'Shakespearean Middle English' was the best 'language' to use to "contain the most" of the "nuance" of the scriptures in Greek.

"God knew what He was doing..."

Well, if we agree that the Word of God should be in the common, understandable form, we cannot agree that the KJV should be the preferred text today. Nobody uses the middle ages English today.

So when we really really want to read the traditional KJV today, why not to use NKJV?

 

[GaryA]

What a pity that God let the original inspired text to be written in that vulgar koiné Greek, the language of the stupid masses so the stupid masses can read and understand easily.
And not in the beautiful Greek of intellectuals like Aristoteles.

Exactly. This is akin to comparing the 'Alexandrian' manuscripts to the 'Antiochian' manuscripts.

Alexandria was an "intellectual playground" of 'modern' thinking. ( The modern equivalent is called 'new age' thinking... ) It is the birthplace of all of the replace-the-Word-of-God-with-the-opinions-of-man 'movement' that is 'Anti-KJV' today.

 

[GaryA]

Well, if we agree that the Word of God should be in the common, understandable form, we cannot agree that the KJV should be the preferred text today.

"You just aren't listening very well, are you...?"

I just tried to explain why it is preferable.

I am not saying that a modern-English-language translation cannot be done. I am saying that nobody is doing it. Nor would they likely be able to do it compared to the standard-and-quality that the KJV was translated.

Moreover -- the modern translations are using corrupt manuscripts. This does not - and can not - and will not - yield a good accurate translation.

If you care so much about the Koine Greek --- why would you be interested in 'Alexandrian'-based translations that did not come from the Koine Greek???

Nobody uses the middle ages English today.

People who understand the importance of accuracy over ease-of-reading do...

So when we really really want to read the traditional KJV today, why not to use NKJV?

Because it is corrupted by modern-thinking methods of translation.

 

[GaryA]

Now it is finally not easy to read the Bible.

The KJV is amazingly easy to read --- * after * you * learn * the * language.

( It is truly worth it. )

So:

~ Don't be lazy.

~ Get a KJV Bible.

~ Learn the language.

~ Get the greater benefit.

 

[Tintin]

Gary, you are sadly misinformed. As are all of your KJV-Onlyist friends. But then again you also believe in a flat earth. So I guess if you believe one conspiracy theory, you're likely to believe them all.

 

[John146]

If you will look at the verses more carefully,you will find more differences

I am not sure what you mean by "trying hard". To find errors in KJV takes about 15 seconds of googling, when you know what to look for

Google for example "LXX vs masoretic", "masoretic text errors" etc and you will get sources for tuns of KJV errors in one minute. (Because KJV uses masoretic text mostly, for the OT)

From biased sources that are only opinionated...

This debate could go on and on and probably will. But it comes down to Alexandria vs Antioch. Which do you trust?

Also, which side are you on. One side says they believe they have the word of God that can be trusted in every word and the other side who says they do not have the word of God that can be trusted every word?

Trust the word of God?

Do not trust the word of God?

 

[trofimus]

Exactly. This is akin to comparing the 'Alexandrian' manuscripts to the 'Antiochian' manuscripts.

Alexandria was an "intellectual playground" of 'modern' thinking. ( The modern equivalent is called 'new age' thinking... ) It is the birthplace of all of the replace-the-Word-of-God-with-the-opinions-of-man 'movement' that is 'Anti-KJV' today.

Well, in that case you must use some African Bible, not any European or American one, because its too intelectual

We are talking about the style of the translation, not about the places of translations

 

[trofimus]

The KJV is amazingly easy to read --- * after * you * learn * the * language.

( It is truly worth it. )

So:

~ Don't be lazy.

~ Get a KJV Bible.

~ Learn the language.

~ Get the greater benefit.

I am from the Czech republic so I do not know why should I learn the middle ages English to read the Bible?

Nobody uses the middle ages English in a real life.

 

[trofimus]

"You just aren't listening very well, are you...?"

I just tried to explain why it is preferable.

I am not saying that a modern-English-language translation cannot be done. I am saying that nobody is doing it. Nor would they likely be able to do it compared to the standard-and-quality that the KJV was translated.

Moreover -- the modern translations are using corrupt manuscripts. This does not - and can not - and will not - yield a good accurate translation.

If you care so much about the Koine Greek --- why would you be interested in 'Alexandrian'-based translations that did not come from the Koine Greek???



People who understand the importance of accuracy over ease-of-reading do...



Because it is corrupted by modern-thinking methods of translation.

Can you prove that the Alexandrian manuscripts are corrupt?

It seems that whole your view depends on it. Do you have any proofs?

 

[trofimus]

From biased sources that are only opinionated...

This debate could go on and on and probably will. But it comes down to Alexandria vs Antioch. Which do you trust?

Also, which side are you on. One side says they believe they have the word of God that can be trusted in every word and the other side who says they do not have the word of God that can be trusted every word?

Trust the word of God?

Do not trust the word of God?

Facts are not biased. Only opinions can be biased. Differences between NT and OT are facts. So there is nothing to be biased about. Just compare them.

Its not "Alexandria vs Antioch, London vs Paris or New York vs Moscow".

Its "3rd century" vs "11th century" (New Testament) and "3rd century Christian vs 9th century Jewish" (Old Testament).

 

[John146]

I am from the Czech republic so I do not know why should I learn the middle ages English to read the Bible?

Nobody uses the middle ages English in a real life.

Amen to that! That's what makes the KJV unique, unlike no other. Did you also know that the English you are referring to is way more accurate in its' usage than any modern day English?