- Reason #1: Because a man of God challenged me on the issue when I spued my ignorant challenges against it.
- Reason #2: Because the KJV has all of the verses that are supposed to be in there.
- Reason #3: Because the Translators of the King James Bible treated the Scriptures as the word of God.
- Reason # 4: Because the KJV was translated from the Most and Best manuscripts
Reason # 5: Because I can depend on it being around for another 100 years and I won't need to replace it and learn a new version.
20 years from now, when the Even More Newly Revised-Again Update New Revised Standard Version is released, or the So-Far Most Recent For This New Day Today's New International Version (those are the EMNRAUNRSV and the SFMRFTNDTNIV for those of you that are interested, coming soon to an encyclopedia near you), I will be able to sit down with my AV and read it the same as I am reading it today.
I said that this reason is not conclusive in itself, because if history shows that another translation ends up lasting for 400 years and truly "replaces" the KJV in its popularity, that will not change the truth of some of the other reasons that I have been giving.
Now, I probably won't be so concerned about the KJV in 100 years, as I suspect that I will be able to see the Word of God in Person! But until then, it is reasonable to be KJV-Only.
5 comments:
So far you have yet to show even one convincing reason for your conviction. Let's consider this comparison:
KJV - 1611-present (about 400 years)
Latin Vulgate - (382-1516) - over 1100 years or nearly three times as long.
Like I said in my post - longevity of a translation does not prove it... However, giving the Roman Catholic version as the comparison is not the strongest argument.
The only point to be made is that this shows the inconsistency of the KJV Only position.
I assume you're aware that a Roman Catholic named Erasmus collated the Greek text that underlies the KJV. I also assume that you are aware that some of the readings are incorporated from the Vulgate.
But I somehow suspect that the perjorative use of the RCC will suddenly lose its appeal as you try to convince us that Erasmus was 'really' a Reformer.
I'll be interested in the argument.
The KJV is only inconsistent in the way that it is presented. It is not presented in a consistent manner because there are so many possible ways to go about it. And, I don't agree with many of the ways that some people go about trying to teach it. If you stick around, I may mention some of them as I go through different reasons why I am KJV-Only. And I hope you did read my original post defining what I mean by that phrase.
Erasmus was a Roman Catholic that collated the Greek text. Yes, I knew that. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest too - and Erasmus was friends with Luther. Erasmus was not always in good graces with the Roman Catholic Church - so in that sense, you could easily call him a Protestant (in that he protested some of the Catholic's teachings).
Much of the KJV agrees with the Vulgate - and perhaps there are some readings in the KJV that agree with the Vulgate only (in regards to extant stuff anyway).
I am just saying that because something survived in the Roman Catholic Church for 'over 1100 years' does not mean anything to me. At the same time the Vulgate was dominate in the Roman Church, the Greek text was dominant in other places. That's why we have so many Greek manuscripts still.
By the way, do you mind me asking, which version do you use?
The KJV is only inconsistent in the way that it is presented. It is not presented in a consistent manner because there are so many possible ways to go about it. And, I don't agree with many of the ways that some people go about trying to teach it. If you stick around, I may mention some of them as I go through different reasons why I am KJV-Only.
Fair enough
And I hope you did read my original post defining what I mean by that phrase.
Yes, I read all that you've posted on the issue.
Erasmus was a Roman Catholic that collated the Greek text. Yes, I knew that. Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest too - and Erasmus was friends with Luther.
A straw man, however, in light of the fact that Luther UNLIKE ERASMUS - left the RCC. So the comparison is hardly analogous.
Erasmus was not always in good graces with the Roman Catholic Church - so in that sense, you could easily call him a Protestant (in that he protested some of the Catholic's teachings).
No, he died in Rome's bosom still as a priest. I see, however, that the tension inherent in the earlier argument is problematic from the KJV Only perspective - I suspected as much.
Much of the KJV agrees with the Vulgate - and perhaps there are some readings in the KJV that agree with the Vulgate only (in regards to extant stuff anyway).
I am just saying that because something survived in the Roman Catholic Church for 'over 1100 years' does not mean anything to me. At the same time the Vulgate was dominate in the Roman Church, the Greek text was dominant in other places. That's why we have so many Greek manuscripts still.
Sir,
You are the one who proposed the argument based on age for the KJV; I simply pointed out such an argument is extremely poor. Perhaps you have better ones - but I suspect you have none different than what I've been hearing for the last nine years of study on the issue.
By the way, do you mind me asking, which version do you use?
Not at all. I use the NA-27 Greek edition with the NET diglott.
Post a Comment