"Turn thou right in two furlongs." "Stay thou on I-40 for thirteen leagues."If your GPS spoke in King James English? You would not get to your destination...
Indeed, but those holding to Kjvo do elevate the 1611 translators to be on par with Apostles of Christ!Translators are not in the same Divinely ordained position as the Apostles.
The apostles were specially appointed to be "pens" in God's hand, to write Scripture as it should be read.
Translators would have to be presumptuous to place themselves on the same level.
Many times the Kjv was good for what English use meant of its time, but not for today how its used!Or, to end the confusion...
KJV: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers." 1 Peter 1:18
Does that mean the vain words you speak with others has been put to an end?
I know a good number of Christians that that would not be the case.
So, how should it be translated today to relate to reality? Translated by someone understanding the idioms used back then?
Modern translation: For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors."
That was just one. The KJV suffers from containing too many misleading anachronisms. It turns well intended believers into silly people in how they wish to be obedient.
Which one is stabilizing for our edification today?
KJV: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers."Modern translation: For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors."Even the NKJV made this correction!
A;; kjv should have a good dictionary to show the changes in meanings form words now to today!The expression "vain conversation", when the KJV was translated, meant "futile conduct"; in other words, the translation was correct, but language has changed. This is one reason why I would not recommend using the KJV, unless the person knows about the changed meanings and obsolete words/expressions.
Yes, as I prefer the Nas 1977/1995, but main problem is with Kjvo itself!With all do respect, the problem is Onlyism, not the KJV it's self. It has a very good New Testament based on the earlier English Translations, beginning with William Tyndale, the Father of the English Bible.
he and others have elevated the Kjv to be above even the original languages scriptures!Here is the source of this nonsense.
It's the brain child of Peter Ruckman.
Here are some quotes.
“coincidences” which have slipped through the AV 1611 committees, unawares to them, and which give advanced light and advanced revelation… (Manuscript Evidence. 1997, p. 140)
Moral: Mistakes in the AV 1611 are advanced revelation! (Manuscript Evidence. 1997, p. 139)
Advanced revelation given by the Holy Spirit in the English text of 1611… (Ruckman, Peter. The Book of Exodus. 1976, p. 186)
“There is no more revelation, no new light since 1611.” That’s the truth. (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. July 1997, p. 8)
The revelation was given in 1611. It was in advance of all qualified scholars in 1900, 1910… (Bible Believers’ Bulletin Oct. 2008, p. 13)
You could always just look at the screen and still get there. Be reasonable."Turn thou right in two furlongs." "Stay thou on I-40 for thirteen leagues."
The company that produced such a monstrosity would quickly be out of business! People wouldn't have a feel for the distance. They know about how far a quarter mile - or 39 miles - is, but no feel for furlongs or firkins!
"Esse quam videri"
Why? I was just responding to Gene's comment. The difficulty lies in familiarity: knowest thou ought which useth firkins in their vulgar tongue? Mayhap other archaic quantities? An incomprehensible Bible may as well be written in Latin!You could always just look at the screen and still get there. Be reasonable.
I think you may be included in your discription. I'm glad you oppose onlyism . But in your enthusiasm don't go over board, as I used to.Here some are arguing for the King James... And, no one seems to care about what the Greek and Hebrew actually say... nor the historical background for passages that would require it to grasp why certain things were said. Instead, some by nature love the challenge of winning an argument (but losing the Truth in the process).