tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post1968707728432017252..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Revising the King James Version and Pleasing Absolutely No OneKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-22528009529675422232016-10-11T09:37:36.411-07:002016-10-11T09:37:36.411-07:00Mark wrote, "And how am I supposed to know to...<b>Mark</b> wrote, "And how am I supposed to know to look up "prevent" in the first place when the sense we now give it works, more or less, in many contexts?"<br /><br />Perhaps Mark, part of studying the Bible is studying the Bible? <br /><br /><i>1 Timothy 4:15–16 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.<br /><br />Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.<br /><br />Psalm 119:97 MEM. O how love I thy law! It is my meditation all the day.<br /><br />Proverbs 27:23 Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, And look well to thy herds.<br /><br />John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.<br /><br />Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.<br /><br />Deuteronomy 6:6–7 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.</i>Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-16308665306056229912016-10-10T11:50:28.059-07:002016-10-10T11:50:28.059-07:00kddlporter, you write,
"Moving to 'moder...kddlporter, you write,<br /><br />"Moving to 'modern English' is precisely why we have such a dumbed down populace as not to understand what 'prevented' means & has meant, as well as one too proud to use the Webster's 1828, and too lazy to search the word, comparing spiritual with spiritual ----------even with all the lightning speed search engines available."<br /><br />Then why do you write in the kind of modern English that, in general, I'm recommending for English Bible translations? Why don't you write in the early modern English used by the KJV translators?<br /><br />And what's the point of translating the Greek and Hebrew texts (whichever ones you prefer) if they are translated into words no one uses, or words no on uses in the same way anymore?<br /><br />And why should I trust Webster's 1828 dictionary? It was describing English as it was more than 200 years after the KJV was translated.<br /><br />And how am I supposed to know to look up "prevent" in the first place when the sense we now give it works, more or less, in many contexts?<br /><br />How, indeed, do you determine which changes in English are good, which are bad, and which are indifferent?<br /><br />John McWhorter, my favorite linguist and someone I know Kent has read, said, "The very idea that grammatical 'mistakes' eternally tempt the unwary is the spawn of three illusions.… The second was that when a grammar changes, it must be decaying rather than just, say, changing. So we were taught to lasso and hold on to *whom*, though at the time it was fading from English just like all the other words and constructions that differentiated Modern English from Old English — a foreign tongue to us that none of us feel deprived not speaking." (15–16)<br /><br />If "modern English" is a bastardization of King James English, isn't King James English a bastardization of what came before it? How do you know which state of the language is the "true" or "correct" one?Mark Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398684168648924493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-88175458406181894282016-10-05T04:23:33.059-07:002016-10-05T04:23:33.059-07:00Moving to 'modern English' is precisely wh...Moving to 'modern English' is precisely why we have such a dumbed down populace as not to understand what 'prevented' means & has meant, as well as one too proud to use the Webster's 1828, and too lazy to search the word, comparing spiritual with spiritual ----------even with all the lightning speed search engines available. <br /><br />'Updating' the KJV isn't about making the Gospel and salvation available to people. It's of craft & subversion, indirect attack as 1 Cor 11. It's about usurping it to men's idolatrous antichrist advantage & purposes as written, building the wrong kingdom, trusting the god of forces, the love of money and such. Daniel. Psalm 2 & 82. 1 Timothy 6. James 4. All the warnings & prophecies of the Gospels, Epistles and Revelation....backed up by Moses, the Psalms and the Prophets as Romans 9-11 warn. <br /><br /> There is a definite pattern of confusing & confounding the distinctions & particulars of Christ, the gospel & salvation, and antichrist in all the 'updates' regardless of the texts men claim to be following. Harmony & the full counsel context is always lost & men turning from faith and the Spirit to trust in flesh, human 'wisdom', and seducing spirits without certainty of the scriptures, and slyly taking authority over it. 1 Corinthians 1-4. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, Revelation 13-19. So much more. Are you gentlemen familiar with the research and work of David W. Daniels on the texts and scriptures? It bears examination & consideration given the word, and the continued attack now narrowing its focus because the rest of the visible church has already bought in to the compromise, and already works for it in the spirit and power of New Rome and Babylon. <br /><br />And then there is the wisdom of Jerald Finney pointing out to the churches once again what Bunyan did at such great cost to himself in his day. When we miss the full counsel of Romans 13, we are indeed on the road to deception in the matter of Revelation 13. <br /><br />God bless gentlemen....do not grow weary of well-doing & separation. I rue every day that we gave in to the little foxes. We watched two churches go over, our children are leavened, and the sorcerers of psych would have us give up & give in rather than stand to fight and warn in true repentance & belief in the blessed scriptures ordained of God as the means and power of the Spirit and the Word, Jesus Christ by the Father. But they MUST see the difference, and have the unblunted weaponry and armor of the King James Bible. We see it now & warn. Hold the fort as faithful ambassadors and shepherds. and thank you for the lonely years when we did not understand and served the wrong side...using the blunted sword, influenced by corrupted salt and not well-served by shaded light. kddlporterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14705731481571730774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-74829147900170305072016-10-02T14:30:34.881-07:002016-10-02T14:30:34.881-07:00I know I have more to respond to here, but I wante...I know I have more to respond to here, but I wanted to post what the Defined KJV says in a footnote on "halt" in 1 Kings 18: "Arc walk with a crippled gait; limp; hobble."<br /><br />I hope Dr. Ward will be promoting the Defined KJV with the fervor he has devoted to various modern versions.KJB1611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-1593325927891202032016-10-02T07:02:50.213-07:002016-10-02T07:02:50.213-07:00A couple thoughts on the updated chart.
Mark'...A couple thoughts on the updated chart.<br /><br />Mark's not looking for a KJV update, but for a new TR translation for us. <br /><br />I'm not sure Mark's "Point #2" should appear on the chart at all, because his point was not argued, and he expressly refused to discuss that, saying, "I will not talk about preservation or textual criticism in this forum." Since the NKJV preface speaks to its use of the recently-discovered Dead Sea scrolls, and other recent finds, its acceptance of textual criticism and its "state of flux," I reject the NKJV for Bibliology reasons. #2 cannot be argued here because of Mark's refusal to deal with Bibliology. <br /><br />Mark's "#3" is a problem, because not all CT scholars agree with his definition of "the vernacular." Michael Marlowe has an article on this (<a href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/language-koine.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>). Because Mark presents a moving target, it affects "#5" as well. Mark wants the "poorest bus kid" to never stumble over the smallest definition in the Bible, while stopping short of using the bus kid's language. <br /><br />I'm not sure that Mark's "#6" can be called an argument as much as an unproven assertion. There was a hypothetical anecdote put forward by him, but since he's making a Bibliology argument here ("Multiple versions...one Word") while refusing to discuss Bibliology, this argument really has no place in the chart.<br /><br />Mark's "#8" also has some issues. Mark's answer to the "Show how the Hebrew of Genesis was updated over a 4,000 year period" involves Neh. 8:8 as a proof text, he equivocates preaching with translating Scripture (<a href="http://byfaithweunderstand.com/2016/08/29/a-vow-regarding-the-kjv/" rel="nofollow">Here</a>).<br /><br />I've learned a few things in this discussion. Mark, you want this debate about what we believe to be framed according to your terms. We say "this is a Bibliology issue." You say, "I want to talk about what you believe, but don't bring up Bibliology." Although Bro. Brandenburg brought up the left's "white privilege-racism” strategy, that thought entered my head prior to seeing him express it. You want us to represent your arguments fairly, while you refuse to engage ours.<br /><br />Mark, I know you have had a lot to reply to, so I will extend some grace regarding your utter failure to address the repeatedly mentioned contradiction between your CT Bibliology and your claim to want to know the meanings of even the smallest words and details in Scripture. I sincerely hope that the latter claim is true, because I would rejoice to see you come to a consistent Biblical theology related to the preservation of small words, even letters, of Scripture.<br /><br />I've spent some time with my 6-, 5-, and 3-year-olds at family devotions over the past week, carefully examining whether they are missing out because of the language in the KJV. Thank you, Mark, for bringing this to the forefront of my focus this past week, so that I could see in practical life how overblown your arguments are about outdated language. I mean that. When I finish preaching, my 6-year-old daughter comes to me with a list of "qushtns" she has written about words and phrases she heard during the sermon: words like "counterfeit," and "consecrated," and phrases like "drink into the Spirit." I explain them to her, and her vocabulary and understanding of the Scriptures is increased. Nothing will ever replace the careful study of the words of Scripture by the Bible teacher at home, at church, or witnessing in the marketplace. Mark, if you're writing a book, I would hope that you do not use the lack of diligent study by certain segments of Fundamentalism as your argument for forcing a new translation on those who do not accept your CT Bibliology.James Bronsveldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330385638322033748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-88286243696911455012016-09-30T19:40:18.132-07:002016-09-30T19:40:18.132-07:00Derek,
I'll answer your questions: 1- yes, 2-...Derek,<br /><br />I'll answer your questions: 1- yes, 2- no, 3- We still have that freedom. After several posts and articles written, and then a book, attempting to humiliate us, we we will still have the freedom. I think it's protected in the U.S. Constitution.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-65292944068474065712016-09-30T19:32:46.803-07:002016-09-30T19:32:46.803-07:00Farmer Brown,
I get your metaphor, and I agree. ...Farmer Brown,<br /><br />I get your metaphor, and I agree. They don't believe scripture has been preserved, so we're talking about something in doubt or uncertain being made "clearer." Doubt and uncertain don't parallel with clearer.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-27238021691101695252016-09-30T19:26:56.696-07:002016-09-30T19:26:56.696-07:00Jon Gleason,
I think you're right about Mark ...Jon Gleason,<br /><br />I think you're right about Mark Ward's goal. It's a head-wagging goal to me. He's explained it as his love for bus kids. We don't have buses. If we don't take the translation level down to the nearly illiterate, we don't care like he does for these hypothetical kids. The other motive, and I think I'm representing him correctly, is that we are liars if we don't use an update, even if we don't like it. We say that it's a textual basis for the KJV, but it really isn't, as folks like us have been flushed out by him in this ingenious trick of exposure. He asked me to change my chart as a good Christian brother would, and then he ended his time here so far (hasn't been back) by plainly implying we were liars if we didn't pick up something like the MEV.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-58442416221374467402016-09-30T19:22:49.400-07:002016-09-30T19:22:49.400-07:00Dear Dr. Ward,
Thank you for dealing with my arti...Dear Dr. Ward,<br /><br />Thank you for dealing with my article on “God forbid.” I genuinely appreciate it. If God allows, I will have time to respond.<br /><br />My questions here:<br /><br />2.) In Israel, if bus kids can understand a narrative in Genesis but cannot understand exalted Hebrew poetry in the prophets, should a revised version of the OT be created?<br /><br />3.) In Greece, if bus kids can understand John's Gospel but not understand Paul's language in Hebrews, should an easier version of Hebrews be made?<br /><br />referred to the times in the OT period and in the 1st century when Hebrew and Koine Greek were the vernacular, not today, and I would be interested in a response to them, since nobody ever spoke in, say, Hebrew poetry regularly, but I rather think you would say it was vernacular when it was inspired.<br /><br />Thanks.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-83846488055412714082016-09-30T18:10:58.111-07:002016-09-30T18:10:58.111-07:00Is it okay to be wondering at what point in time D...Is it okay to be wondering at what point in time Dr. Ward's reasoning would have supported updating the Greek NT for native Greek speakers?<br /><br />Isn't he using a rather contrived definition of 'vernacular' by adding in 'totally current? There was a time when the word didn't mean this. Does it now?<br /><br />When did we lose the freedom to say "great textual basis here, but the faulty translation principles in this new work mean I must stick with the AV"?<br /><br />Derek LinnellDerek Linnellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-29876257325966137752016-09-30T14:11:37.860-07:002016-09-30T14:11:37.860-07:00Mark wrote, "Farmer Brown, I'd love to se...<b>Mark</b> wrote, "<i>Farmer Brown, I'd love to see any of you guys pick up the MEV because I have seen enough to be confident that it it much closer to the vernacular than is the KJV. That's my concern. I want people to have God's word in their own languages, including modern English.</i>"<br /><br />So many problems with this. So much has already been broken down, so I will not put forth arguments.<br /><br />The real problem here is we are arguing about the best meatloaf recipe with someone who does not even believe cows exist.Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59995820195328488832016-09-30T02:40:30.635-07:002016-09-30T02:40:30.635-07:00Tyler, thanks for the reply. I'll have to let...Tyler, thanks for the reply. I'll have to let others respond on the NKJV if they are able or willing. If not, I'll let your response stand. I am overtaken by other responsibilities and must withdraw from this thread.<br /><br />Kent, re: "averse to change", yes we are generally agreed on the substance, it was just a wording question. Still not sure I love your wording. We could either settle it with pistols at dawn or I could shrug, and say, "It's Kent's blog and he did the work to make the table, he can say what he wants." Since I don't have a pistol and geography would be a problem, I'll choose the latter. :)<br /><br />Also Kent, I do not think Dr. Ward merely wants a new translation of the TR. Those exist. He wants those who use the KJV to CHANGE to a new translation of it. I'm willing to take his word for it that such would satisfy him, but it would satisfy few CT advocates, they'd still be going on about the "oldest and best manuscripts". <br /><br />I doubt I have much more of value to contribute to this discussion, anyway, at this point. Thank you all for an interesting (and at points profitable) discussion.Jon Gleasonhttp://www.mindrenewers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-60842778447337073422016-09-29T14:17:28.801-07:002016-09-29T14:17:28.801-07:00Regarding the MEV,
I went to the MEV site and the...Regarding the MEV,<br /><br />I went to the MEV site and they have a page with comparisons between various translations to show what they've done. The first example is Genesis 4:1. They have changed Genesis 4:1, but I'm going to park instead on the next example, and the first NT example, 1 Peter 1:1-2. I'm cutting and pasting what they have done.<br /><br />KJV 1 Peter 1:1-2<br /><br />1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.<br /><br />MEV 1 Peter 1:1-2<br /><br />1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the refugees scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification by the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.<br /><br />OK, what do they change? 6 changes. Let's look at all of them.<br /><br />"strangers" to "refugees" -- The assumption here, I guess, is that readers won't know that strangers are foreigners. BDAG says it is someone staying for awhile in a strange place. My opinion is that refugee misses something that stranger gets.<br /><br />"of the Spirit" to "by the Spirit" -- "of the Spirit" translates Pneumatos, which is genitive. Can the genitive be translated "by"? Sure, but that isn't the normal case for "by." It's an exceptional translation. This is a classic case of a subjective genitive, that is, the Spirit is sanctifying. This is communicated very nicely by "of the Spirit." I don't know how that helps. It is not a modernization of the genitive case.<br /><br />"unto obedience" to "for obedience" -- the KJV translates it both ways, and I guess they thought "for" was more modern. I like "unto" better. "For" is more ambiguous. "Unto" is more literal. You get the movement from sanctification to obedience, which the accusative helps express.<br /><br />"sprinkling of the blood" to "sprinkling with the blood" -- again this is a genitive and in this case an objective genitive. It isn't instrumental.<br /><br />"Grace unto you" to "Grace to you" -- this isn't a big deal. I'm sure "to" is considered more modern.<br /><br />", Peace, be multiplied" to "peace be multiplied" -- "be multiplied" is aorist optative. It's expressing a wish. The difference here is the addition of two commas by the KJV translators, excluded by the MEV people. Be multiplied is passive. I would think the KJV translators put commas in because of awkward English in a formal translation of that Greek. We don't talk that way today. The MEV leaves out the commas.<br /><br />The MEV translators changed several words that didn't need to be changed, and I wouldn't want changed. This isn't merely changing difficult to understand words here.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80894996602356975482016-09-29T12:58:55.344-07:002016-09-29T12:58:55.344-07:00Jonathan,
I've learned from this discussion. ...Jonathan,<br /><br />I've learned from this discussion. Beza and Stephanus exclusively used the TR from which came all the English translations of the 16th and 17th centuries. The story about them is that they didn't have anything else. They would be critical text today, this speculation based on the modern CT thinking, I guess, that they are their true descendants (for what reason?). On the other hand, they separate themselves from Beza and Stephanus, that they were in the garbage business of conjectural emendation. This is having it both ways. Actually, you read the men of that time and their textual basis was on the doctrine of preservation.<br /><br />The story is that these men used the limited they possessed, so they were "King James" because that's all they had. We are King James because we really, really (and they know us better than we know ourselves, some kind of psychological omniscience) believe double inspiration. It's like a latent racism, where someone is a racist and he doesn't know it. They know it, like Democrats know all Republics are either racists or self-loathing African Americans. We are too pudding headed ignorant to even know ourselves. They know us. And we're latent double inspirationists.<br /><br />I don't know. Really. It's just what I am reading. If you don't believe Mark Ward's arguments, they are so dominant, just monumental, that if you don't believe them, you just got caught being a double inspirationist or English preservationist, because there's no way you could prefer the King James Version (1769) to the MEV or even that you just think there are better reasons to sticking with the KJV over the MEV, done by the outstanding Charisma group, of which I don't recognize one name among them as being in even "evangelical scholarship." I'm guessing it's a group that comes from Charismatic scholarship, probably because certain divisions of the Charismatic movement are fond of the KJV.<br /><br />It doesn't surprise me to be called a liar. It's normal fare coming from evangelicals and fundamentalists. I can give you many, many examples of this behavior. It's probably not intended to be name calling. It's just what they think. They really think we are liars.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-89805599629569693462016-09-29T12:30:19.532-07:002016-09-29T12:30:19.532-07:00I'm just going to share an observation regardi...I'm just going to share an observation regarding the "trap" term Kent is using and how I see it being laid out, especially earlier in the conversation over at SI.<br /><br />A decade or more ago, those who are CT would not even have given assent to the idea that anyone who was KJVO had a reason for using it exclusively that was distinct from the ideas articulated by the likes of Ruckman or Riplinger. Maybe it is the advent of the internet and broader knowledge and interaction on such topics, but it is fairly new (past 8-10 years) to me to see CT folks give any assent to the textual arguments of folks who are also KJVO. Now that they are giving assent to this argument, they are speculating that it must be a only a smokescreen that KJVO types use to legitimize their otherwise Ruckmanite position. Now we <b>have</b> to use a different translation, apparently without proper vetting, to prove we aren't basically just Ruckmanites who've wrapped ourselves in doctrinal and textual arguments to seem more credible. I see the end game possibly being the revelation that the vernacular translation wasn't really TR (NKJV deja vu?) but actually reliant on the CT and no one died so it must be okay, right?<br /><br />Kind of like E.T. mentioned above, this is pretty rough treatment considering all of the other "doctrines" men seem to be able to overlook in order to maintain regular happy fellowship.Jonathan Speerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948005615737546620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90284122401564355042016-09-29T11:58:16.582-07:002016-09-29T11:58:16.582-07:00Hi,
I'm not going to write a long comment, de...Hi,<br /><br />I'm not going to write a long comment, dealing with the bullet points of the chart, because I'm going to write another post dealing with those points. I mentioned before taking the trap that it was a trap and then it is admitted that it is a trap. If you don't use the MEV, you don't believe in original language preservation. CT don't believe in biblical or historical preservation. They reject the doctrine. So their allegiance is to human reasoning, which is what modern textual criticism is. Pleasing someone who takes that position by using the MEV? Where does that go for someone who has his translational reasons for using the KJV. I'm going to discuss the reasons in my next post, Lord-willing, but again the trap comes back.<br /><br />The trap is calling people a liar. Unless they use an MEV, they are lying about their belief in preservation in the original language text. This is how CT people insult those who continue a biblical and historical point of view. It's normal. They insult as argument. Name-call. At least it's out in the open.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-72071123801681208922016-09-29T11:54:46.594-07:002016-09-29T11:54:46.594-07:00I find it strange the latitude allowed for "d...I find it strange the latitude allowed for "differences of opinion" (i.e. doctrine) among many or most pro-CT people, while they seem to have a united voice against the KJV (and the superiority of the TR on which it's based). There <b>must</b> be a reason (or more than one).<br /><br />E. T. ChapmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-67853395778423407592016-09-29T08:30:34.593-07:002016-09-29T08:30:34.593-07:00Farmer Brown, I'd love to see any of you guys ...Farmer Brown, I'd love to see any of you guys pick up the MEV because I have seen enough to be confident that it it much closer to the vernacular than is the KJV. That's my concern. I want people to have God's word in their own languages, including modern English.Mark Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398684168648924493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-83867566970184762952016-09-29T08:10:56.119-07:002016-09-29T08:10:56.119-07:00Thomas, I read through some of your information on...<b>Thomas</b>, I read through some of your information on Bibliology. Sorry if this is a stupid question, but for the record, do you believe the KJV is an inerrant translation?<br /><br /><b>Mark L. Ward, Jr.</b> you said, "<i>And regarding the MEV, I haven't read it in great detail, but from what I've seen I'd love to see some TR-only guys pick up on it and use it the way a few are now using the NKJV</i>"<br /><br />Why would you love this? Why does someone picking up another translation inspire this level of passion? Especially something (MEV) with which you only have a passing familiarity?Farmer Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09637851494862726991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-52573069722794077792016-09-28T21:13:17.341-07:002016-09-28T21:13:17.341-07:00Thanks for posting the image, Kent.
And regarding...Thanks for posting the image, Kent.<br /><br />And regarding the MEV, I haven't read it in great detail, but from what I've seen I'd love to see some TR-only guys pick up on it and use it the way a few are now using the NKJV. The MKJV I've been less impressed with, but if a lot more TR-only guys were using it (and the MEV and NKJV and KJ21, etc.) I admit I would have to stop questioning that their allegiance is truly to the TR rather than to the KJV.Mark Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398684168648924493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-47347399344562976252016-09-28T21:04:36.125-07:002016-09-28T21:04:36.125-07:00Mark,
The doctrinal and historical and logical po...Mark,<br /><br />The doctrinal and historical and logical position is that there is only one Bible, just like there is only one God. TR Only is the old, standard position that modern guys forked off, diverted off. I've been treated like garbage by CT guys, lied about in print with no retraction. If you watch James White's dealing with me -- he's a monster. I'd love to debate him with a moderator. The Ruckmanite, double inspiration, or English preservation position is a huge group with some revivalist or less than sufficient gospel in their midst. We are not them.<br /><br />I put in your chart.<br /><br />I don't believe in every one of your arguments that you have dealt or dealt sufficiently with what we have written in our arguments. I'll come back later to write about each point. Anyone else is welcome to do so.<br /><br />Anyone else reading that takes our position,<br /><br />Add to the arguments if you think there needs to be one.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-15558425204186041432016-09-28T19:55:02.843-07:002016-09-28T19:55:02.843-07:00Kent, more than fair, thank you. It is hard to rea...Kent, more than fair, thank you. It is hard to read comments from someone who firmly disagrees with you without seeing snark, as I'm sure you know; but I will honestly and with Christian love take you at your word. I have certainly gotten further in this discussion than I ever have with any KJV-Only brothers I've ever met. You can't not know (I imagine it grieves you) that KJVOs do not have a good reputation for respectful, productive dialogue.<br /><br />Here's my amended image: http://drops.forwarddesigner.net/l2RbMark Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398684168648924493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-17137837333956394262016-09-28T18:54:55.316-07:002016-09-28T18:54:55.316-07:00Hello Mark,
I am not saying that I don't have...Hello Mark,<br /><br />I am not saying that I don't have the ability or have taken the opportunity to be snarky, even often, in my life, but I don't remember being snarky in this thread. I haven't intended to be. Could you show me an example?<br /><br />Related to the chart, the comments are not numbered, but at the same time I made and posted the chart to make life simpler, I wrote this comment:<br /><br />https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2016/09/revising-king-james-version-and.html?showComment=1474845164982#c462442509916135727<br /><br />I said in that comment that I would be glad to change it, which doesn't sound too snarky or unhelpful.<br /><br />I asked for help. Perhaps you could put your arguments to our arguments in a bullet point like I have done. You are asking me to read everything you've written and find the answers. It would be easy for you, it would seem, to write those out and then I would represent you in the way you would like.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-55355171087344534192016-09-28T18:13:45.432-07:002016-09-28T18:13:45.432-07:00Kent, with regard to your chart, within this threa...Kent, with regard to your chart, within this thread I have answered every point on the right side, and yet my answers were not represented at all. I'm curious, Kent, if you could at least represent my arguments on the left side in such a way that I would say, "Yes, that's what I said." Then if people want to value your values more than mine, at least they can make an informed decision.<br /><br />I ask you as a Christian brother to remake your chart, and I challenge you as an educated person who knows the ground rules for debate to represent my position in a way I'd agree with, no snark.Mark Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398684168648924493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-82861424876251011602016-09-28T16:13:03.849-07:002016-09-28T16:13:03.849-07:00Jon,
Readability is the ease with which a reader ...Jon,<br /><br />Readability is the ease with which a reader can understand a written text -- by dictionary definition. It is uniquely applied to something you read versus understandability being a bigger term that might apply to an accounting graph. This is as I understand it.<br /><br />On immutability, I was thinking of thinking about the Bible as God's Word. Can we change God's Word? No. Some would argue, "but you're just changing the translation." I said averse to change, because it is a translation, but when we say, "Open your Bibles," people look at the translation as the Bible. I know you agree we shouldn't be so quick to change that. I could write more about this, but I think we agree anyway.<br /><br />I think the NKJV story is interesting. I would like to read it as a journal article, someone do research, maybe as a chapter in a larger book. They called in the NKJV and then proceeded to use the critical text until editors came along, who missed a bunch of places. Now when you show them they did it, they become angry. I've seen this across the board. There is a complex to some of these people that would have me not wanting them on the translation committee.<br /><br />Everyone else (Mark too),<br /><br />Here's something I didn't know about:<br /><br />https://www.olivetree.com/store/product.php?productid=16625<br /><br />It's the Modern King James Version. Jay Green. Then after looking at that, I noticed there is the http://modernenglishversion.com/. This is also a modernization of the KJV.<br /><br />Mark, you have what you want. Something tells me you're not satisfied with that.<br /><br />I might come back for some more comments, but there have been some excellent stuff here coming from everyone else, especially about four of you.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.com