Timeline for Counterarguments to "KJV-only"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2021 at 21:10 | comment | added | Adam | I am not a KJV only person however, one has to seriously question why Sinaticus had been placed on a pedestal when it was recovered from a waste paper basket in the depths of a monastery full of monks devoted to preserving the word of God? One cannot possibly argue Tishendorf saved an original codex of first rate translation, and then use it as a means of discrediting the KJV. My view is that Sinaiticus was in a waste paper basket for good reason...it wasn't up to standard! The question remains, if Sinaticus was discarded in St Catherine's, what happened to the codex that wasn't discarded? | |
| Apr 7, 2021 at 17:55 | comment | added | Neil Meyer | The fact that languages change should be evident to all Bible scholars. If they want proof of that try speaking ancient Hebrew to anyone in Israel today and see if anyone understands you. | |
| Nov 30, 2020 at 16:14 | comment | added | JBH | Even though I come from a tradition that uses KJV but does not believe it to be a perfect translation, your argument against perfect translation is sophistry no better nor worse than the premise. After all, it's God's world, so why not a single, perfect translation? Without some scripture to say otherwise, neither position is inherently supportable - and since we're dealing with an issue of faith, that means neither position will change the belief of one who holds the other. A better argument stems from your first note: KJV has changed... why is it the only perfect translation? | |
| Mar 31, 2016 at 14:50 | comment | added | Devsman | "The translators of the KJV must have been the holiest of men, and all other people who ever attempt to translate Greek and Hebrew into English today must somehow be sinful." Well that's debunked by Romans 3:10-18. | |
| S Sep 16, 2015 at 19:15 | history | edited | Lee Woofenden | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Kept typo fixes, but the "Absolutely not" is unnecessary. The OP clearly intended it as a rhetorical question.
|
| S Sep 16, 2015 at 19:15 | history | suggested | Justin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Emphasized that it doesn't follow that the first translation of scripture into a certain language is perfect and need not be changed or updated, fixed one typo in the very last sentence of the answer.
|
| Sep 16, 2015 at 18:30 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 16, 2015 at 19:15 | |||||
| Jun 18, 2012 at 15:00 | comment | added | Narnian | @Jas3.1 The "prophecy" may or may not be specific. Other Scriptures attest to divine authorship more explicitly. | |
| Jun 18, 2012 at 14:59 | comment | added | Narnian | @Jas3.1 The logic seems convincing until you start analyzing the assumptions and asking questions, like I have done here. The preservation of the Scriptures has been in the original manuscripts--not any particular translation of the text in any particular language. | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 21:11 | comment | added | Jas 3.1 | Thanks for your post. (+1) It sounds like your main counterargument is that it is difficult to understand how KJV-only could be rational. However, I've heard some compelling arguments from the KJV-only camp, and I'm not sure this answer would be effective in dismantling (countering) their arguments. (But I do think this is helpful.) Out of curiosity, does the first part of your answer imply that all Scripture is "prophecy"? | |
| Jun 17, 2012 at 20:47 | history | answered | Narnian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |