A must see. Argue with this...
- Thread starter Truther
- Start date
Diserner
Well-known member
Oh, woe unto thee, ye mortal souls so blind,
To the King James Bible, a riddle undefined,
With superfluity of naughtiness it does confound,
In concupiscence's snare, we're oft unbound.
Peradventure ye seek wisdom, therein to glean,
But wimples of obfuscation 'tis keen to convene,
In cryptic tongues of yore, its verses unfurl,
As victuals of confusion, a bitter, ancient swirl.
With phrases archaic, 'tis burdened and fraught,
Thou mayst find thyself lost in linguistic naught,
Thy understanding ensnared in its tangled vine,
As thou grapplest with words from another time.
"Thee" and "thou" and "thine" it doth decree,
In an antiquated tongue, obscure to thee,
A linguistic chasm vast, thy mind it traverses,
In the King James Bible's maze, it mercilessly disperses.
So, heed this caution, ye who dare embark,
On a journey through this enigmatic ark,
For though it may seem a spiritual source,
Its language, a labyrinth, veiled in remorse.
With superfluity of words, it doth oppress,
In the realm of archaic prose, we confess,
The King James Bible, a linguistic abyss,
Where comprehension's flame oft flickers amiss.
To the King James Bible, a riddle undefined,
With superfluity of naughtiness it does confound,
In concupiscence's snare, we're oft unbound.
Peradventure ye seek wisdom, therein to glean,
But wimples of obfuscation 'tis keen to convene,
In cryptic tongues of yore, its verses unfurl,
As victuals of confusion, a bitter, ancient swirl.
With phrases archaic, 'tis burdened and fraught,
Thou mayst find thyself lost in linguistic naught,
Thy understanding ensnared in its tangled vine,
As thou grapplest with words from another time.
"Thee" and "thou" and "thine" it doth decree,
In an antiquated tongue, obscure to thee,
A linguistic chasm vast, thy mind it traverses,
In the King James Bible's maze, it mercilessly disperses.
So, heed this caution, ye who dare embark,
On a journey through this enigmatic ark,
For though it may seem a spiritual source,
Its language, a labyrinth, veiled in remorse.
With superfluity of words, it doth oppress,
In the realm of archaic prose, we confess,
The King James Bible, a linguistic abyss,
Where comprehension's flame oft flickers amiss.
Truther
Well-known member
Most people use the king James, when I got converted in 1979. I was unofficially king James only and began to notice modern versions creeping in over the years. About 10 years ago I was exposed to some King James only divisions versus modern versions. Then I saw the conspiracy. This video is worth every second of your watching. You will learn so much of how we got our Bible. I’m watching it as we speak.
Diserner
Well-known member
Everybody knows that the KJV contains “dead words,” words we know we don’t know—like amerce*, *bestead*, and *blains*. But most English readers today don’t realize that there are words in the KJV they *don’t know they don’t know—simple words like *halt*, *commend*, and *remove*. These are what I call “false friends.”
See video>
See video>
Last edited by a moderator:
Truther
Well-known member
The fascinating thing in the OP video is the contrast between KJVO's and modern versions proponents.
All MV proponents are willing to completely change the Bible via archeological finds.
They are openly admitting the word of God is still in the ground on the video.
I never knew they believed that.
This is why on all forums not a single MV will say they have a pure word of God preserved.
What an amazing discovery in the video.
All MV proponents are willing to completely change the Bible via archeological finds.
They are openly admitting the word of God is still in the ground on the video.
I never knew they believed that.
This is why on all forums not a single MV will say they have a pure word of God preserved.
What an amazing discovery in the video.
Ray
Member
King James was great for that particular point in history but it's outdated today. Plus the fact unless you speak English it's totally worthless.
John Wycliffe was the earliest leader to realize that the whole Bible was applicable to all of life and should therefore be available to all men in their own languages.
He sponsored a work to translate the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate, some time in the early 1380s. The translation bears his name, though associates who were part of the movement that he led probably did the translating. Since the printing press did not exist in his time, the work had to be copied by hand. Because of his bold move, government officials confined Wycliffe to his rectory for the last one and a half years of his life.
John Wycliffe was the earliest leader to realize that the whole Bible was applicable to all of life and should therefore be available to all men in their own languages.
He sponsored a work to translate the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate, some time in the early 1380s. The translation bears his name, though associates who were part of the movement that he led probably did the translating. Since the printing press did not exist in his time, the work had to be copied by hand. Because of his bold move, government officials confined Wycliffe to his rectory for the last one and a half years of his life.
Ray
Member
Go for it.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
WELL HEY!! You can't go too far wrong with the KJV. Personally I'm a KJVP. It's my preferred version - has been for 75 years. I've learned a good many of the "Work-arounds" for the areas of BAD translation, and knowing the language used, makes finding things in a concordance a walk in the park.
But KJVO??? that's just another rabbit trail.
Last edited by a moderator:
Truther
Well-known member
Obviously, you did not watch the video. Oh well.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
No need to. I've been fully aware of all the "Theological arguments" for decades. ALL God's Chilluns gots "Theologies".
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
The simple FACT is that the KJV contains errors of FACT, and lousy translation areas that obscure, and sometimes completely obliterate the MEANING of passages. Lists of issues, both REAL, and interpretive, are easily found on Google. Consequently any claims that the KJV is "PERFECT", are easily discarded.
civic
Well-known member
yes kjo is a rabbit trail with many holes.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Agreed. The KJV is the greatest book ever written in the Enlgish language. It's time in the sun is over. Now it is the worst translation available in English today.
The manuscripts are older and more reliable with newer translations, making the FROM part of the translation inferior.
In addition, the TO part of the translation is in Middle English. We simply don't speak this way today in 21st century America. I consider it essentially unreadable.
KJO is IDOLATRY. Such folks kept me from reading the Bible for decades.
Well, but most modern translations are paraphrases, no? Surely literal translations are better to start with right from the bat
Wrangler
Well-known member
No sir.
The term is thought translation. "Paraphrase" is a pejorative expression.
Whereas, "literal" translations translate each word, "thought" translations translate the whole sentence or even parapgrahs. The reason no translation is truly literal is because of language rules are different.
In English, we put the adjective before the noun, Big House. In Spanish the adjective goes after. In Japanese, they switch the object and subject in the sentence compared to English. In English, if you say, "Mine, the book is." You sound like Yoda.
So, for readability I generally prefer the thought translations. But that is really all an aside. The KJV is the worst translation available in English today. It has many errors, perhaps most famously 1 John 5:7. Click here for a list of KJV errors.
