Step up and support your assertion with evidence... chapter and verse included.
No major doctrines changed?
- Thread starter John146
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You missed the point. The KJV was translated from the "received text" (TR). There are MANY more texts available now, and newer translations take those into account. The KJV couldn't.
I would be curious to know what "doctrinal" differences you think there are.
How does that even compare to a person who speaks, reads, writes English and studies Shakespeare?
A rather poor comparison, anyone who studied Latin in school, did not use Latin as their native tongue.
The KJV is not "incomprehensible in parts" as you stated, if English is the persons native tongue. We aren't talking about 12 year olds are we?
SMH
Not "many more" but simply "the Minority Text" to be found in the corrupt Critical Texts (such as Nestle, Nestle-Aland, UBS, etc. which are all essentially the same). And you should do your own personal research to discover the truth.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
I read the Op and dont see a doctrinal change due to the wording differences.
What i have observed is that there are many kjvo who disagree doctrinally, and that under kjvo conditions and times many denominations have cropped up.
NIV was written (if i am not wrong) in 1973. And is the first critical text only English Bible. The ASB. NASB, AND RSV, are simply the KJV written in the "modern" English of the time. While the critical text is taken into concideration the differences between the the critical text and the recieved texts are simply italicized.
What i have observed is that there are many kjvo who disagree doctrinally, and that under kjvo conditions and times many denominations have cropped up.
NIV was written (if i am not wrong) in 1973. And is the first critical text only English Bible. The ASB. NASB, AND RSV, are simply the KJV written in the "modern" English of the time. While the critical text is taken into concideration the differences between the the critical text and the recieved texts are simply italicized.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
Shakespear invented many words, and phrases.
Also why should someone have to study a heathen inorder to be able to read the Bible?
Also contrary to popular opinion shakespear is aweful, the same ole rehashed stories in flambouyant wording to cover that they are the same tale yet again.
Also it would be much more useful to study Latin, and more useful still to study Greek. So why bother with something as useless a shakespearian plop.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
The RSV was a revision of the ASV, which followed Westcott-Hort and Tregelles for the New testament. The RSV used Nestle-Aland for the New Testament. The move away from the Textus Receptus started very early in the 20th century, though it wasn't widely known. They were advertised as revisions of the KJV but they weren't really. They may have compared and contrasted but their primary text was the critical text.
Provide proof that the "minority texts" are corrupt.
Also, you didn't answer the question: What are the doctrinal differences?
If a person does not like Shakespeare that is fine, but that is not my point.
The English of the the KJV is not incomprehensible for an English speaking person who has finished high school. The language of the KJV has been shown to be at a grade 11 to 12th grade level.
Seems like @Dino246 didn't really have a response except "boring."
Misquoting my words and harping about (your misrepresentation of) them is called a straw man fallacy. There are enough fallacious arguments around here that I do, indeed, find yours boring.
This is what you stated.
Let's put it this way there is no evidence to support this.
What makes text incomprehensible to someone is based on a lot of different factors not just how different it is from modern English.
So no not a logical fallacy, it is a broad sweeping claim with no evidence that is my main point.
No evidence except the KJB itself."He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure."
"He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers: Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks."
"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
"O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged."
" And Elisha came again to Gilgal: and there was a dearth in the land; and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him: and he said unto his servant, Set on the great pot, and seethe pottage for the sons of the prophets."
"girt about the paps with a golden girdle"
" ...he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot."
" the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,"
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
You can tell me what these words are:
Neesings,
Ague,
Besom,
Ossifrage,
Pygarg,
Almug,
Churl,
Hoarfrost,
Beeves,
Horseleach,
Helves,
And calves of lips.
"He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure."
"He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers: Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks."
"And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
"O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged."
" And Elisha came again to Gilgal: and there was a dearth in the land; and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him: and he said unto his servant, Set on the great pot, and seethe pottage for the sons of the prophets."
"girt about the paps with a golden girdle"
" ...he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot."
" the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,"
Any text is incomprehensible to some and comprehensible to others, it is not only about the text.
If a person wants to read a different translation that is fine, that is not my point.
You are not getting my point, its okay.
Have a good day, cold but the sun is shining here, so its all good.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
I think this very well fits the point.
These are the types of words, that make reading the KJV difficult for mkdern readers.
Words that no one knows what they actually mean.
Its not thees and thous, it actually words that are so far out of use that the meaning is actually lost.
Maybe so, but I doubt it. Since there is always other literature where these words are used so I am skeptic on the meaning being lost.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
Ok then you know what those words mean?
And you think that inorder for the average reader to read the Bible they need to have google ready at hand to define archaic words rather than just have a Bible that they can read without having a dictionary with them. I think thats the very definition of difficult to read, that you need other resources inorder to read.