Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-29-2008, 01:47 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Since the KJB is exactly sense for sense conceptually correct, any change, so much as of "sith" to "since" now is an act of corruption and error.
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #12  
Old 04-29-2008, 10:41 PM
sophronismos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
Since the KJB is exactly sense for sense conceptually correct, any change, so much as of "sith" to "since" now is an act of corruption and error.
I love the KJV, but you have got to be kidding. I would not call updating the spelling of a word a corruption. Sith is just another spelling of since, and since since is the more widely known one, what would be wrong with updating sith to since? Sith only occurs in one passage anyhow (Ezek 35:6) unless perhaps my KJV is already "corrupt." Dude, why aren't you insisting on a KJV 1611 Fascimile, if out of date spellings are so integral to inspiration? Does your KJV in Ezekiel 35:6 read exactly letter for letter "Therefore, as I liue, saith the Lord God, I will prepare thee vnto blood, and blood shall pursue thee: sith thou hast not hated blood, euen blood shall pursue thee"? What's that, "bibleprotector," your KJV have replaced the "u" in "euen" and "liue" with a "v" and the "v" in "vnto" with a "u"? Shame shame! (sarcasm)

Personally I have a major beef with pronouncing words as spelled in the KJV when reading aloud at church, whether it be a 1611 or a 1769 or whatever. If you think that funky spellings are somehow sacred, then fine go ahead and leave "divers" (or euen "diuers") in there, but please for the love of God pronounce it as "diverse." Leave "instant" in there, but pronounce it "insistent." Fact is, I doubt that half the people (shoot 99.9% of the people) reading the KJV realize that "instant" means "insistent" in the KJV, as in Luke 23:23 "And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified." I'll bet most people (including THOU, oh "bibleprotector") think that this means "And they jumped on the bang-waggon really fast and got real loud requiring that he might be crucified" when it actually means "And they were insIStent with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified." And do you see how a thing like that could be solved by pronouncing the words correctly as they are pronounced today when you read the text out loud? (Also, don't read "haling" in Acts 8:3 as "haIling"--there ain't no "I" in there. It should be pronounced as "haughling.") The "instant" thing is even worse in Luke 7:4 because the adverb form is used "And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:" because I never realized for 25 years that "instantly" there means insistently" but it does! Thou probably thoughtest up to this very moment that this verse said "They besought him immediately" but it didn't. But if your way too over the top KJVO self is still not convinced that "instantly" means "insistently" in the KJV, then read Acts 26:7 "Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews." Were the 12 tribes of Israel immediately serving God or persistently, i.e. "instantly" in the modern sense or "instantly" in the Elizabethan sense of "insistently"? You will probably claim that this verse DOES mean the 12 tribes were immediately (rather than insistently) serving God, because that's the only thing that will let you keep your foolishness about the sacredness of spelling and pronouncing words in old spellings that even you don't understand anymore. Now, I do understand the old spellings! And yes, this is one of those internal dictionary things. If you read the KJV long enough you will figure out what these words mean even with the oddity of the spellings. You'll find that prevent means precede and all that via the internal dictionary capabilities. I'm not knocking the KJV at all, but only the ignorance of those who insist (even instantly! even euen instantly!) on mispronouncing these words (that is, on pronouncing them as they are written rather than in an understandable manner).

Now, bringing my rant to a close, here is my point. If there is a KJV out there (or if one can be made) that is exactly the same as the funky spellings KJV but that has proper modern spellings of words, if they are the same words but spelled to where modern people can understand them without having yet read the whole KJV a few times over, why is that bad and "corrupt"? You would rather them read an NIV, that's why! You have stock in Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, don't you? You're getting a kickback from the sales of the Holam CSB and the ESV, right? That's why you want to call a KJV with proper spellings corrupt, to turn away the kiddies from reading it so they'll read one of them other versions you are making your money off of. Say it ain't so "bibleprotector," say it ain't so!

Last edited by sophronismos; 04-29-2008 at 10:49 PM.
  #13  
Old 04-29-2008, 10:57 PM
sophronismos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The fact is, oh great and glorious "bibleprotector" (or should I call you biblecorrector? since you presume to reproach the KJV?) that you reproach the KJV, because the spellings have already been updated before, although they need it again.

Luke 23:23 KJV 1611 "And they were instant with loud voyces, requiring that he might be crucified: and the voyces of them, and of the chiefe Priests preuailed."

Luke 23:23 KJV modern "And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed."

So, is my modern KJV with "voices" corrupt because it doesn't say "voyces"? Should I read from a KJV that still spells voices with a "y" and seek to somehow pronounce the "y" as a "y" when I read aloud? And what about "prevailed," should it be spelled "preuailed" and should I pronounce it "prewailed" when I read aloud to the utter confusion of all who hear me?

Luke 23:28 KJV 1611 "But Iesus turning vnto them, said, Daughters of Hierusalem, weepe not for me, but weepe for your selues, and for your children."

Me oh my! Hierusalem? Should I take my magic marker to my modern KJV and change the "J" to an "Hi"? And should I try really hard to make an "H" sound when reading this verse? Since you are the great guardian of sacred crazy spellings, please help me out here.

Luke 23:35 KJV 1611 "And the people stood beholding, & the rulers also with them derided him, saying, Hee saued others, let him saue himselfe, if he be Christ, ye chosen of God. "

OH NO! An ampersand! Ampersand! But my modern KJV replaces that ampersand with the regular old word "and"!!! Whatever am I to do. There is something special about that ampersand, right biblecorrector? Isn't it some secret message that only you can interpret? Oh well, forget it, I'll just replace it with a regular "and": "And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God."

Luke 23:44 KJV 1611 "And it was about the sixt houre, and there was a darkenesse ouer all the earth, vntill the ninth houre."

Oh no! We've lost the secret uber secret message encoded in the missing "h" on "sixth"! Biblecorrector, quick to work, fix it!

Luke 24:30 KJV 1611 "And it came to passe, as hee sate at meate with them, hee tooke bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gaue to them."

Bibleprotector would say something like "Unless your KJV says 'sate' it is corrupt! Only the pure Cambridge this and that is the word of God. You may think that 'sate' is just an archaic spelling of 'sat' but you show that you are an ignorant moron when you think this. No, 'sate' and 'sat' are two completely different words and you can't know what magical secret coded message God is sending by the word 'sate' unless you have our super pure funky spellings original Cambridge text that we don't even have ourselves because nobody has it anymore just like the original autographs." Then "hee" rather "he" also must have some great significance.

What's my point? To bash the KJV? Certainly not. Only to bash mushminds who take the word of God away from people with stupid arguments. If your KJV spells the word "throughly" as "thoroughly" it isn't corrupt and you aren't going to hell for that.

Last edited by sophronismos; 04-29-2008 at 11:06 PM.
  #14  
Old 04-29-2008, 11:11 PM
sophronismos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You will notice a pattern here: The ultra KJVOs who insist on some non-existent Cambridge perfect text that is undefinable essentially run into the "only the original autographs were inspired" sort of thinking and speaking, but they are talking about the original autographs from the hands of the KJV translators not the apostles. What's the difference between the MVer who says we haven't found the original Greek autographs yet and the crazy over-the-top KJVO who is constantly looking for the original perfect Cambridge KJV original autographs? I say, do you have a KJV? Is the text of your KJV basically the same as all other KJVs, with some spelling variation that's to be expected from 400 years of changes in spelling in the English language and printing the text for all that time? You do? Good, so you've got the word of God then. The end.
  #15  
Old 04-30-2008, 03:20 AM
George's Avatar
George George is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 891
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophronismos View Post
You will notice a pattern here: The ultra KJVOs who insist on some non-existent Cambridge perfect text that is undefinable essentially run into the "only the original autographs were inspired" sort of thinking and speaking, but they are talking about the original autographs from the hands of the KJV translators not the apostles. What's the difference between the MVer who says we haven't found the original Greek autographs yet and the crazy over-the-top KJVO who is constantly looking for the original perfect Cambridge KJV original autographs? I say, do you have a KJV? Is the text of your KJV basically the same as all other KJVs, with some spelling variation that's to be expected from 400 years of changes in spelling in the English language and printing the text for all that time? You do? Good, so you've got the word of God then. The end.
Quote:
The fact is, oh great and glorious "bibleprotector" (or should I call you biblecorrector? since you presume to reproach the KJV?) that you reproach the KJV, because the spellings have already been updated before, although they need it again.
Quote:
What's my point? To bash the KJV? Certainly not. Only to bash mushminds who take the word of God away from people with stupid arguments. If your KJV spells the word "throughly" as "thoroughly" it isn't corrupt and you aren't going to hell for that.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

You join this Forum for just one day (5 posts) and already you insult brothers in Christ with your Humanistic "claptrap"!

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.


Here is the one and only answer you will get from me: We have had other "SOPHISTS" come on this Forum and "spout off" and display their vast "Bible knowledge", and try to "bait" the brethren with specious arguments; fallacious logic; rhetorical reasoning; and ambiguous rationalizations (All Humanists & Sophists think the same!) and also with the same lousy attitude to boot (All Humanists & Sophists not only "think" the same - they also "act" the same!).

Blather on - you'll not get an argument from me, because I've dealt with enough "smart mouths" to know that:

Proverbs 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.

Proverbs 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

You can't change a "know-it-all" and you cannot reason with a Sophist! I wouldn't waste my breath on your kind!

Last edited by George; 04-30-2008 at 03:29 AM.
  #16  
Old 04-30-2008, 03:26 AM
Renee Renee is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
Posts: 152
Default

sophronismos

Quote:
QUOTE=sophronismos;3768]The fact is, oh great and glorious "bibleprotector" (or should I call you biblecorrector? since you presume to reproach the KJV?) that you reproach the KJV, because the spellings have already been updated before, although they need it again

What's my point? To bash the KJV? Certainly not. Only to bash mushminds who take the word of God away from people with stupid arguments. If your KJV spells the word "throughly" as "thoroughly" it isn't corrupt and you aren't going to hell for that.
Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.E]

If not for the above verse I would call you "Thou Fool". But you know what, I am not in danger of hell fire. Thou fool!!! And I do have a cause to be angry.

In defense of God's Word,
Renee
  #17  
Old 04-30-2008, 07:59 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Well, I was glad to catch those words “The end” by Sophro... Yet, I might use this opportunity to explain a few things to those who wish to be drawn from the milk.

I would call the so-called updating of a word in the KJB a corruption now. Notice the word “now”. I said, “any change, so much as of 'sith' to 'since' now is an act of corruption and error.”

Sith is not just another spelling of since. In fact, they are two different words with two different meanings. While the meanings are similar, they are not identical.

We of course recognise that the King James Bible was not made by inspiration, and have no problem in seeing that various words appear to have changed since 1611, as there has been a standardisation of the language after all. The problem is in any unauthorised, untraditional, unbelieving, neo-modern, departing-from-truth style changes which could (and do) occur.

Actually, “divers” and “diverse” are two different word forms. Both appear in the KJB. The same with “throughly” and “thoroughly”.

As for the pretend (even if factual) knowledge at some word pronunciations, knowing a few obscure facts (and I know numerous obscure facts, which I could lay out if I were into pride) does not amount to anything if it is but to be a ranter and railer against the truth.

Then I find I am the falsely called the champion (or was that champaign?) of 1611 orthography. Even though I emphasise the purification of the King James Bible, such as correction of typographical errors, standardisation of the language and the regularisation, somehow I am supposed to be standing for the impurities from 1611? (The changes in the King James Bible from 1769 were long before I was born, and even those from around 1900.)

I read the accusation that we “insist on some non-existent Cambridge perfect text that is undefinable...”

That is complete ignorance. Not only was the Pure Cambridge Edition printed millions of times in the twentieth century, but I have listed its contents in detail, and provided exact electronic copies of it. How could that be “non existent”?

Of course "only the original autographs were inspired". What kind of accusation is that? That’s like saying, “You believe the Bible!”

Again, there is a false accusation about “the crazy over-the-top KJVO who is constantly looking for the original perfect Cambridge KJV original autographs?”

That is complete foolishness which doesn’t make any sense. We have fair and easy the pure Word in front of us.

“Is the text of your KJV basically the same as all other KJVs, with some spelling variation that's to be expected from 400 years of changes in spelling in the English language and printing the text for all that time? You do? Good, so you've got the word of God then. The end.”

I could have concluded that we had the Word in a much gentler spirit. (And with accurate statements.)

“And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:12).
  #18  
Old 04-30-2008, 08:14 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
you show that you are an ignorant moron when you think this
What vain and foolish person thinks that he understands all the Bible at once? Who instantly knows all the King James Bible words and their meanings? What man thinks he knows the thoughts of another man, but is lying? And what error is it to judge contrary to the Spirit!

The greater parts of the body of Christ were told told not to reject the rest. If any think he have his own knowledge, he has just rejected the Holy Ghost. If a man has understanding, let him instruct in meekness, not exalt himself as having Nicolaitan power with the Scripture.

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts." (Isaiah 28:9).
  #19  
Old 04-30-2008, 08:24 AM
Connie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yeah, Diligent, I already noted that my personal choice has nothing to do with it in my final note to George. I guess I'm going to have to use objective language here all the time then because all I meant by that was that I think it would be RIGHT to keep the thees and thous but that there is no Biblical reason to keep the "eth" endings. I'm KJV-only but I disagree with what I consider to be a superstitious attitude about the English language here. I believe God inspires translations as well as the original languages, but that doesn't mean every single word has to be retained as they used it in 1611. A Godly and cautious updating of the Bible is quite possible and necessary to reflect the fact that the English language has changed over time. I think such updating should be done by mutually recognized Godly men appointed by various churches who are in agreement with each other, rather than by self-appointed or publisher-appointed men.
  #20  
Old 04-30-2008, 08:26 AM
MDOC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
I read the accusation that we “insist on some non-existent Cambridge perfect text that is undefinable...”

That is complete ignorance. Not only was the Pure Cambridge Edition printed millions of times in the twentieth century, but I have listed its contents in detail, and provided exact electronic copies of it. How could that be “non existent”?
Nah, he's saying "insist on some non-existant Cambridge perfect text that is definable..." He's saying there's no perfect Cambridge.

Quote:
“And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:12).
And I find this exchange amusing. Both of you have a point, but neither of you appear to understand what you're doing to yourselves. That's OK, both of you eventually learn from it. Sometimes the very things that need looking at (or, consideration) are the very words that come out of your mouths.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com