Obsolete and archaic words

[robycop3]

  The oft-discussed "Easter in the KJV's Acts 12:4 thingie" might well have been an attempt by the AV men to retain some parts of earlier translations, since Easter had FORMERLY often been used for passover or pascha. And Easter was one of the two holiest days of the year(along with Christmas) to those Anglicans.

  That also could include "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, and also for "kill" in Ex. 20:13.

 

[logos1560]

"I'd say it's not so much that they exceeded their mandate, as they ignored the order to stick to the Bishops'. "

Sticking to Bishop's was their mandate.

1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop

 

[biscuit1953]

English is still english. It's still our native tongue here in the states. Just because a word gets used in a manner opposite its meaning does not change does not change what it actually means.

LOL!!! It looks like you need to learn 2012 English first! Besides your gaff, your point does not make any coherent sense.

The difference is that you want people to learn what 1611 English means while you do not want them to learn what the Greek/Hebrew means.

The bottom line is KJV Onlyism believes God doesn't have the ability to preserve His word in modern day English.  They are saying that Satan is more powerful than God because he has corrupted the manuscripts to the point that no modern scholar can possibly translate Greek or Hebrew into our current usage without error.  They are caught up into so many conspiracy theories concerning a good line of manuscripts and a bad line of manuscripts which no one can prove any more than the man in the moon.

The King James translators had to use the same critical thinking any modern scholar uses in determining what variant to use in certain passages and many times they did not use the majority reading or even the Masoretic reading in the Hebrew.  That is simply a fact.  They had to add many words to even make the King James Version readable.  Look at all the italics.  Here is just one verse without the words the King James translators added to the text.

Romans 11:15 - "For if the casting away of them the reconciling of the world, what the receiving, but life from the dead."

Jesus didn't say "till every jot and tittle had been copied perfectly." He was saying man doesn't have the ability to frustrate the will of God.  He was referring to the fulfillment, not to precise copying.  Compare John 10:35.  The scriptures cannot be broken.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

English is still english. It's still our native tongue here in the states. Just because a word gets used in a manner opposite its meaning does not change does not change what it actually means.

LOL!!! It looks like you need to learn 2012 English first! Besides your gaff, your point does not make any coherent sense.

The difference is that you want people to learn what 1611 English means while you do not want them to learn what the Greek/Hebrew means.

The bottom line is KJV Onlyism believes God doesn't have the ability to preserve His word in modern day English.  They are saying that Satan is more powerful than God because he has corrupted the manuscripts to the point that no modern scholar can possibly translate Greek or Hebrew into our current usage without error.  They are caught up into so many conspiracy theories concerning a good line of manuscripts and a bad line of manuscripts which no one can prove any more than the man in the moon.

The King James translators had to use the same critical thinking any modern scholar uses in determining what variant to use in certain passages and many times they did not use the majority reading or even the Masoretic reading in the Hebrew.  That is simply a fact.  They had to add many words to even make the King James Version readable.  Look at all the italics.  Here is just one verse without the words the King James translators added to the text.

Romans 11:15 - "For if the casting away of them the reconciling of the world, what the receiving, but life from the dead."

Jesus didn't say "till every jot and tittle had been copied perfectly." He was saying man doesn't have the ability to frustrate the will of God.  He was referring to the fulfillment, not to precise copying.  Compare John 10:35.  The scriptures cannot be broken.

the bottom line has always been which manuscripts one trusts.  You can't prove one set over another either way, at least against the originals, which don't exist.  So, presuppositions do come into play sometimes, and you open up a big can of worms with all the arguments there.  But you have hit the nail on the head.  God is strong enough to carry out everything He said and His word can not be broken.  He has preserved His word in a lot of good English versions.  He will continue to do so.  In the meantime, we should find a version, read it, then heed it, for the glory of God, not to prove ourselves right. I love what Jesus said about how the Father loves Him because He always does those things that please Him.  That is our standard.  All the fundamentals of the faith can be found in most English versions today, and the gospel is very plain in them.  I challenge anyone to show me where a modern version (not just in one verse) routinely leaves out or denies a great doctrine of the faith.

 

[FSSL]

Great points.

Even though KJVOs claim modern versions leave out doctrines, I find it quite funny that nearly every KJVO on the original FFF will not stand against Avery who denies some of the most essential of all doctrines.

It just goes to show that their claims were shallow.