ok, this confuzzled me. please help
 

ok, i was checking out this website, and i use my king james bible and understand it, but this guy posted this weird as can be article. it made no sense, it was supposed to be criticizing the king james wording, but even when translated into new words it didn't make any sense to me.. if anyone can make heads or tales out of this garbage or can explain what the author was trying to do, please feel free to enlighten me.
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvterms.htm

praise the Lord and pass the pepsi
- Chad :cool:

I read all those articles on that website, and they're pretty weak. They're just trying to show how because there are archaic words in the KJV, that it is somehow irrelevant. Unless a better answer comes along, I just keep telling them to look up I Samuel 9:1-9 and explain why the writer of I Samuel didn't change seer, even though it meant prophet.

However, I strongly encourage all my brethren here to look up this website and its short articles. They make some pretty arrogant claims about some of the arrogant claims that some of "us" KJO advocates use, like salvation is in danger to those who don't use the KJB. Ridiculous.

I do have some difficulty explaining
The "revisions" of the Textus Receptus.
That one of the main translators was an alchoholic and never kicked out.

But I see what you're saying, this article really doesn't make sense.
like:

"Another similar problem for the KJV Only camp, which exalts the TR, comes from a comparison between the KJV and Young's Literal, which were both based on the TR! Acts 16:17 reads:

"The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation" (KJV).

". . . who declare to us a way of salvation" (Young's Literal).

Comment: The KJV (and the NIV) are both wrong according to the actual Greek rendering! The Greek does not have the definite article which would yield "the way of salvation." Young's Literal translation is exactly as its name indicates -- a literal Greek to English rendering of this verse based on the TR -- "a way of salvation." This rendering is much more consistent with the immediate context where we see a demon speaking through a girl describing Paul's message to the people. Demons want us to believe that there are multiple ways to God, Jesus just being one of the many ways. John 14:6 shows how narrow the road is. See also Matt. 7:13,14."

Paladin54 again, really, they just defeated themselves!
????

well here is what confuzzled me, with all them words he posted, was he trying to actually make something, or was he just at some parts throwing in words to cause confusion. towards the end i was ableto read a few sentances, but at the beginning, it made no sense what so ever

He gave a list of archaic words that are used in the KJB in order to show his point of irrelevancy for today's world and language. He should have looked up his references because several of those words are in modern versions.

but i was wondering if he wasactually trying to form a statement, or ask aquestion using those words.. cause if so, he failed miserabley

Brother, I don't know how else I can say it, even though there was no introduction, he gave a list of "archaic" words and their references in the KJB in an attempt to flood us with an armada of words that made the KJB difficult. It was poorly organized. True, it was a bad article, he just copies-and-pasted from another source without giving any introduction, making it difficult for his readers to understand.

WOW!
 

Wow! They could only find about 103 hard words in the KJB out of 791,328, depending on who's counting. I wonder how they are able to read Shakespeare. I wonder if they even study.;)

Ploughboy

The way they arranged the words they are trying to give the impression that the KJB is full of nonsense statements.

I was going to post the first "sentence" as an example, but I'll honor thiseven though if they believe that this "article" is "intellectual property" that needs protecting they have serious problems.

Just in case it's still not clear they're being purposely misleading; can any one find in the KJB where snuffdishes were eaten? Unless, of course, "ate" (along with words like "from" and "the") are just meant to be included in the list of words they find hard to be understood.

Just to save anyone from having to check out the site themselves if they don't want I think I will post the first "sentence" here. I really don't see how this tripe could be protected as intellectual property or anything.

ArChAiC wOrDs? Hmmmm....
 

Greetings in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Before I reply, I must admit that I've not (yet) seen the article in question (owing to time/work) but have encountered these same 'difficult/archaic' arguments on a number of occasions in an attempt to discredit the Bible. I suppose there's a couple of points to make:
1. The language has devolved since 1611- a real 'dumbing down' of the population at large. As a result, we should hold fast to the words in the Bible and encourage folks to learn these so-called 'archaic' words. Bring folks up to the Bible, rather than lower the Bible to a people whose language has been- and indeed is- devolving.
2. We are told to "Study" the Bible. This involves more than reading. I find that the language of the Bible encourages me to study deeper and find the 'treasure' within its pages.
3. God the Holy Spirit Himself enlightens the person who studies the Bible (If we know the Author- Acts 16:31).The great myth of 'Get a Good News/ N.I.V 'cos it's easier to read' is daft: my father-in-Law was bought a Good News 'bible' on this basis and has never opened its covers.
4. One Book has blessed the church since 1611 and why do we need another?
5. It would be interesting to find out where/if Evangelical Outreach can tell us where God's Word is today? Hmmmmm.....

God Bless (and sorry for going on so long!)

The best argument (and truly, the only argument I really have) is found right here on av1611.com, and it has yet to be defeated, simply because of how awe-inspiring the concept is.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/archaic.html

I would ignore everything on that page. It's a Dan Corner devotee page (or possible even his own ministries website), a heretic that believes in "conditional security", IE, Hyper Lordship Salvation (Saved if you DO, Lost if you DON'T).

There is a verse in Matthew which totally refutes Loss of Salvation

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The Loss of Salvationists say that many Christians will hear this on that day, thinking they have eternal security, but lost it, because they are workers of iniquity. Can they even read??

Is Jesus Christ a liar.

As Ruckman so eloquently put it "He ain't gonna say he never knew you, if he knew you".

If you are saved, then God will never say "I never knew you".

This link may help.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/textof.htm
I haven't heard this one yet, so I can't help you.

How quickly these things become gossip, even from history.

The Church of England did not necessarily have the same traditions as modern Baptist churches. It was not uncommon for people to consume moderate amounts of wine with their meals.

I'm not interested in another debate over the definition of "wine," which seems to change from verse to verse depending on one's traditions and involves lots of "gold digging" in "the Greek," but it is important not to get out of hand with these things. If there is any historical evidence that one of the translators was actually an alcoholic, I have not seen it.

Goes to show you: If you can't refute the truth, then attack the messenger. Since no one has been successful in making their criticisms of the AV1611 "stick", they are now going after King James himself and the translators.