Homosexuality as sin... clearer in the modern versions than in the KJV

[prophet]

Although it's basically the Vulgate  in Middle Anglish, for sake of Etymology, I recommend Wycliffe's translation.  I keep a copy of Tyndale's handy, as well.

You're kidding, right?

Wyclilffe's versions (which include Purvey's) from the Vulgate are of genuine historical interest, but are certainly no more accurate than other Vulgate-derived Bibles, and of course only those already comfortable with Chaucer, Caedmon or Piers Plowman will have an easy time with Wycliffe.

Tyndale's versions are definitely to be cherished (I've owned multiple facsimile editions myself), and are innately valuable, not to mention being the source for some 75-80% of the KJV, but c'mon; they're based on the TR!

Do you actually believe that the TR is a more accurate representation of the NT than either the Byzantine Textform or the Critical Text?

I love Chaucer.  I have never seen the whole body of document that was translated into the AV, sadly the translators' notes  and some of the mss were lost in a fire shortly after 1611.  Many of the translators later testified of Syrian manuscripts which held the reading from which the kjv is derived.
  The TR's  which came before the kjv, are useful insight, but not complete.  The ones that came after are useless.  Either way, I judge the AV by it's affect on the English speaking peoples. I believe it is God's Word.  For many years, the US Bible Societies used it as the basis for translation, and those  brought light in their respective tongues.
  I believe the critical text to be stained by the self admitted intents of those who 'handled it'.

Anishinabe

 

[SAWBONES]

While it's mostly pretty readily understood in Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Isaiah in the OT, and in the Gospels, Acts and Revelation in the NT, there is much in the Epistles that is obscured to one degree or another  by the often poor KJV translation.

[Double uggh!!!! Sorry Sawbones!! The modify button is right next to the quote and I deleted your great post!!! So very sorry! FSSL]

 

[FSSL]

While it's mostly pretty readily understood in Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Isaiah in the OT, and in the Gospels, Acts and Revelation in the NT, there is much in the Epistles that is obscured to one degree or another  by the often poor KJV translation.

This thread is all about how a KJVO does not understand the KJV. Isn't it quite a farce that the KJVO does not understand his KJV? Why expect the exclusive use of one version when it is obscure to the modern reader?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]The TR's  which came before the kjv, are useful insight, but not complete.  The ones that came after are useless. [/quote]

So all the manuscripts before the KJV were bad and all the ones after it were bad, so we have "know" the KJV is the only correct version? Talk about circular reasoning...

[quote author=prophet]Either way, I judge the AV by it's affect on the English speaking peoples.[/quote]

So do you likewise give the Qur'an and Quotations from Chairman Mao high marks based on their effect on speakers of their written language?

[quote author=prophet]I believe it is God's Word.[/quote]

Great! So do I...along with the NIV, ESV, NLT, NASB, JB...

[quote author=prophet]For many years, the US Bible Societies used it as the basis for translation, and those  brought light in their respective tongues. [/quote]

So?

[quote author=prophet]I believe the critical text to be stained by the self admitted intents of those who 'handled it'.

Anishinabe[/quote]

...and ignore the preface written by the translators of the KJV, the preface where "those who handled it" "self admitted" their own views that explicitly rejects the superiority of the KJV over other translations.

 

[prophet]

[quote author=prophet]The TR's  which came before the kjv, are useful insight, but not complete.  The ones that came after are useless.

So all the manuscripts before the KJV were bad and all the ones after it were bad, so we have "know" the KJV is the only correct version? Talk about circular reasoning...

[quote author=prophet]Either way, I judge the AV by it's affect on the English speaking peoples.[/quote]

So do you likewise give the Qur'an and Quotations from Chairman Mao high marks based on their effect on speakers of their written language?

[quote author=prophet]I believe it is God's Word.[/quote]

Great! So do I...along with the NIV, ESV, NLT, NASB, JB...

[quote author=prophet]For many years, the US Bible Societies used it as the basis for translation, and those  brought light in their respective tongues. [/quote]

So?

[quote author=prophet]I believe the critical text to be stained by the self admitted intents of those who 'handled it'.

Anishinabe[/quote]

...and ignore the preface written by the translators of the KJV, the preface where "those who handled it" "self admitted" their own views that explicitly rejects the superiority of the KJV over other translations.
[/quote]You are making assumptions about what you think I believe, based on what?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]You are making assumptions about what you think I believe, based on what?
[/quote]

...what you write...

 

[prophet]

[quote author=prophet]You are making assumptions about what you think I believe, based on what?

...what you write...
[/quote]Show me where I said or implied 'all the mss before the AV, were bad'.  I specifically listed, Erasmus' TR, prior to the English translation, as being useful, just not complete.  Is this somehow inaccurate?  I also listed 2 of the previous English translations, which the translators 'diligently compared', Wycliffe, Tynsdale. 
They are helpful in Etymology, so I still study them both. 
So you don't understand these words, or you ignore them, or you only have room in your head for your stereotype?

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]You are making assumptions about what you think I believe, based on what?

...what you write...

Show me where I said or implied 'all the mss before the AV, were bad'.  I specifically listed, Erasmus' TR, prior to the English translation, as being useful, just not complete.  Is this somehow inaccurate?  I also listed 2 of the previous English translations, which the translators 'diligently compared', Wycliffe, Tynsdale. 
They are helpful in Etymology, so I still study them both. 
So you don't understand these words, or you ignore them, or you only have room in your head for your stereotype?

Anishinabe[/quote]

I cited it before...I'll even cite it again...

[quote author=prophet]The TR's  which came before the kjv, are useful insight, but not complete.  The ones that came after are useless.[/quote]

Your claim is a textbook example of circular reasoning. "The KJV is perfect because all the manuscripts prior to it were incomplete and the ones after it were trash. They are either incomplete or trash because they aren't the basis of the KJV."

 

[prophet]

[quote author=prophet]You are making assumptions about what you think I believe, based on what?

...what you write...

Show me where I said or implied 'all the mss before the AV, were bad'.  I specifically listed, Erasmus' TR, prior to the English translation, as being useful, just not complete.  Is this somehow inaccurate?  I also listed 2 of the previous English translations, which the translators 'diligently compared', Wycliffe, Tynsdale. 
They are helpful in Etymology, so I still study them both. 
So you don't understand these words, or you ignore them, or you only have room in your head for your stereotype?

Anishinabe

I cited it before...I'll even cite it again...

[quote author=prophet]The TR's  which came before the kjv, are useful insight, but not complete.  The ones that came after are useless.[/quote]

Your claim is a textbook example of circular reasoning. "The KJV is perfect because all the manuscripts prior to it were incomplete and the ones after it were trash. They are either incomplete or trash because they aren't the basis of the KJV."
[/quote]Again you use the word 'all' to misconstrue what I have said. 
  You are either horribly biased, or historically ignorant of AV's translation process.  Either way, you are projecting an anti mss bias onto me. 
  The mss that were present, at translation, were in many languages.  They were only assembled into English. The work of Erasmus was PART of these mss.
Why does historical fact bother you so much?

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]Why does historical fact bother you so much?[/quote]

Historical fact doesn't bother me. However, I'm not persuaded by people whose entire reasoning is based on logical fallacies...but then, that is the only reasoning a KJVO person really has to offer for that particular position.

 

[OZZY]

KJVOs make a big deal out of modern versions like the NIV exchanging the term "Sodomite" with "male temple prostitutes." See this and this. They want us to believe that the modern versions soften the sin.

On this forum, we have a KJVO refusing to see the sin of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the KJV. Why doesn't he see it? Because the KJV is less clear than the modern versions.

Here is the KJV:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

Here is the NIV with footnote that explains it further:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men. fn. The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

Amen!!! No one knew it was a sin till the NIV was printed!

 

[prophet]

Amen!!! No one knew it was a sin till the NIV was printed!

Well then... thank you! Now that you see homosexuality in 1Cor 6, perhaps you could convince prophet otherwise.

Everything I think I see, becomes a tootsie roll to me.

Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

Everything I think I see, becomes a tootsie roll to me.
Anishinabe

I will not debate that statement.

 

[prophet]

Everything I think I see, becomes a tootsie roll to me.
Anishinabe

I will not debate that statement.

Are you an original flavor only, or do you allow for the newer fruit flavors?

Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

Are you an original flavor only, or do you allow for the newer fruit flavors?
Anishinabe

I have not banned you. So, I must allow for the newer fruit flavors...  ;D

There is no better way to end your own trainwreck than to highlight your insanity with stupid quips.