1 2 3
#1240706
Dr. Shrinker
First of all, as there are no original manuscripts, or even direct copies of the original manuscripts, for ANY of the books of the bible, the whole issue of accuracy is fairly moot. To claim superior accuracy is to hold the KJV to a non-existent standard. The best you can say is, "The KJV looks like every other version I know of."
Second, if you think the KJV is the best version clearly you must think that your god is "awful." After all, that is how the original KJV describes him/her/it. In the time of King James, they used the term, "awful" to mean "awe-inspiring." If one did not know this, then a modern day reader would assume the KJV was expressing disgust for your god. Whether English was at its "best" at that time or not is a moot point. The point is how well the reader will understand what they have read.
1/3/2011 9:38:06 AM
#1240723
Let me guess. Since you don´t speak Hebrew, how do you know it´s the best translation?
1/3/2011 10:26:50 AM
#1240732
Joe Mama
If the KJV is so easy to understand, why to Christians always have bible study groups?
And frankly, if I were a Christian why wouldn't I want a clear English translation of the book I worship instead of one written in an archaic form of English which is difficult to understand?
I'll just never understand these "KJV-only" types.
1/3/2011 10:34:38 AM
#1240752
Murdin
"Finally, though lazy Christians claim it is hard to READ it has been scientifically proven to be the easiest version to UNDERSTAND."
"it has been scientifically proven to be the easiest version to UNDERSTAND"
"scientifically proven to be the easiest"
"scientifically proven"
*drools*
1/3/2011 11:02:29 AM
#1240804
@ louislois
Verily, tis as if a mangy cur hath chew'd the prose and left it in the dust half eaten. Would that we couldst knock a leeke about the pate of the foolish scribe.
1/3/2011 11:36:50 AM
#1240817
dionysus
The KJV has produced more fruit than all the other versions combined.
It's been around longer.
All your great revivals have ended in America since the new version came out. Except for Sunday and Graham who both used KJVs.
If the book was as perfect as you claim there wouldn't be a need for a revival.
The men behind the translation. Though the may have not all been straight doctrinally they were some of the holiest and God-fearing men. And they were very, very intelligent. Many of your new versions were had unsaved reprobates and perverts TRANSLATING the bible.
Some of these so-called 'unsaved reprobates and perverts' used the actual Hebrew texts to translate their Bibles. How the flying fuck is a translation of a translation of a translation more accurate than a direct translation straight from the source?
Finally, though lazy Christians claim it is hard to READ it has been scientifically proven to be the easiest version to UNDERSTAND.
Ah, then I assume you have the relevant citations for these studies? Pardon me if I don't hold my breath.
1/3/2011 12:05:56 PM
#1240831
DinosaurRidinJeebus
"Finally, though lazy Christians claim it is hard to READ it has been scientifically proven to be the easiest version to UNDERSTAND. There is something about the King's English that is very clear and to the point. The English launguage was at its best at this time in history."
You people really have no idea how science works. You just put "it's been scientifically proven" before every bogus claim you want people to believe. You should seriously stop with that.
1/3/2011 12:51:28 PM
#1240838
LAchlan
It's certainly produced plenty of nuts.....
1/3/2011 1:15:00 PM
#1240839
Mycoid Mike
Very nice, Wilchbla, you've created a perfect storm of ignorance, chauvinism and very bad writing. Now please never write anything again.
1/3/2011 1:20:47 PM
#1240847
GodotIsWaiting4U
Yes you will. And their claims will be just as wrong as yours.
1/3/2011 1:35:31 PM
#1240852
DarkfireTaimatsu
The "proof is in the pudding."
So unfortunately it's useless.
1/3/2011 2:17:39 PM
#1240858
Brianisha
heh, KJV is a modern translation, considerin the bible has been edited many many times.
I can claim that a week old corpse doesnt stink, but that doesnt make it so.
1/3/2011 2:28:17 PM
#1240860
Karana
"The KJV has produced more fruit than all the other versions combined"
Yes, it produces a lot of delusional and mentally unstable people. That's what you meant right?
1/3/2011 2:31:46 PM
#1240861
"The KJV is the only version that claims preservation and has supporters who claim it is pure and without error"
KJV and its supporters claim it's good, so it must be good!
Let's try that same exact "logic" with something else.
Jeffrey Dahmer and his supporters claim he was good, so he must have been good!
The rest of that is pure failure, too, but I don't feel like breaking it all down piece by piece.
1/3/2011 2:32:49 PM
#1240875
Old Viking
So the KJB is readily understood by people who move their lips at a Stop sign?
1/3/2011 2:52:43 PM
#1240882
Brendan Rizzo
The KJV is the only version that claims preservation...
No... it... DOESN'T! Did you ever read the translators' original introduction? They themselves acknowledged that their work was not inspired by God and that no translation is perfect. In fact, they themselves altered their translation several times. That is why I never understood the King James Only Movement.
1/3/2011 3:03:41 PM
#1240889
WWWWolf
> #1240687
> Swede
> I'm so thankful that no-one in Sweden today says we should use the Bible of King Gustav Vasa from 1540. It's barely readable; if I didn't recognize the Bible verses, I would probably not understand it at all.
Some hard-line movements in Finland still use the 1642 Bible translation due to the Vinyl Record Principle™ ("it conveys the original meaning better"). Of course, these people also shamelessly cheat and use the 1776 revised edition with much modernised spelling. The older version has too many xs. And were typeset in fraktur. Which they can't read, because that would imply some actual love for old texts.
1/3/2011 3:42:25 PM
#1240896
Amadaun
I agree that for quoting purposes the KJV sounds cooler. And that is why you like it, which is a good reason, and I don't see why you let the argument move onto any other turf.
It's all pretty and thundery, and 'yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil.' I would totally rather have that if I was trying to be all supernatural than 'even though I walk through the darkest valley I will fear no evil' (NIV).
But these other arguments are bull. It's like you people have got so used to coming up with lies to justify yourselves you've forgotten how to tell the truth.
1/3/2011 4:10:44 PM
#1240899
Panz
No, he just had it edited to serve his needs...no reason to doubt any of the credibility there at all, no siree
1/3/2011 4:14:59 PM
#1240903
Anon
>> Fun Fact: King James was gay.<<
Well, bisexual. Based on how many kids he had.
1/3/2011 4:29:52 PM
#1240965
Canadia
@Anon
Eh, that's hardly conclusive, plenty of gay men have had lots of children.
1/3/2011 6:15:50 PM
#1240968
Osiris
Actually because the KJV uses out of date language, many of it's passages have been misinterpreted. The NIV Bible is closer to what those passages originally meant, but that means they violate many of these idiot's preconceived notions on the Bible.
You don't really want to believe in God. You just want the moral authority to back up your prejudices, which the KJV does nicely.
1/3/2011 6:27:08 PM
#1240999
Steven Mading
" (Whatever may be said about King James, whether true or false, he DID NOT TRANSLATE the KJV). "
I didn't realize English was the same language as Hebrew.
1/3/2011 7:59:35 PM
#1241002
NonProphet
Would that be the unchanged, inerrant KJV with or without the Apocrypha?
Furthermore, how well do you know Elizabethan English? (hint: "help meet" is a noun and adjective, not a hyphenated noun).
For bonus points, explain the KJV's self-contradicting accounts of creation.
...Take your time, I'll wait.
1/3/2011 8:13:08 PM
#1241016
Alencon
How the hell has it been "scientifically proven" that the KJV is the easiest version to understand?
Trust me, the NIV is much easier to understand because it doesn't apply outdated meanings to words.
1/3/2011 9:51:06 PM
1 2 3