ok, i was checking out this website, and i use my king james bible and understand it, but this guy posted this weird as can be article. it made no sense, it was supposed to be criticizing the king james wording, but even when translated into new words it didn't make any sense to me.. if anyone can make heads or tales out of this garbage or can explain what the author was trying to do, please feel free to enlighten me.
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvterms.htm

praise the Lord and pass the pepsi
- Chad :cool:

[Paladin54]

I read all those articles on that website, and they're pretty weak. They're just trying to show how because there are archaic words in the KJV, that it is somehow irrelevant. Unless a better answer comes along, I just keep telling them to look up I Samuel 9:1-9 and explain why the writer of I Samuel didn't change seer, even though it meant prophet.

However, I strongly encourage all my brethren here to look up this website and its short articles. They make some pretty arrogant claims about some of the arrogant claims that some of "us" KJO advocates use, like salvation is in danger to those who don't use the KJB. Ridiculous.

I do have some difficulty explaining
The "revisions" of the Textus Receptus.
That one of the main translators was an alchoholic and never kicked out.

[Paladin54]

But I see what you're saying, this article really doesn't make sense.
like:

"Another similar problem for the KJV Only camp, which exalts the TR, comes from a comparison between the KJV and Young's Literal, which were both based on the TR! Acts 16:17 reads:

"The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation" (KJV).

". . . who declare to us a way of salvation" (Young's Literal).

Comment: The KJV (and the NIV) are both wrong according to the actual Greek rendering! The Greek does not have the definite article which would yield "the way of salvation." Young's Literal translation is exactly as its name indicates -- a literal Greek to English rendering of this verse based on the TR -- "a way of salvation." This rendering is much more consistent with the immediate context where we see a demon speaking through a girl describing Paul's message to the people. Demons want us to believe that there are multiple ways to God, Jesus just being one of the many ways. John 14:6 shows how narrow the road is. See also Matt. 7:13,14."

Paladin54 again, really, they just defeated themselves!
????

well here is what confuzzled me, with all them words he posted, was he trying to actually make something, or was he just at some parts throwing in words to cause confusion. towards the end i was ableto read a few sentances, but at the beginning, it made no sense what so ever

[Paladin54]

He gave a list of archaic words that are used in the KJB in order to show his point of irrelevancy for today's world and language. He should have looked up his references because several of those words are in modern versions.

Originally Posted by Paladin54

He gave a list of archaic words that are used in the KJB in order to show his point of irrelevancy for today's world and language. He should have looked up his references because several of those words are in modern versions.

but i was wondering if he wasactually trying to form a statement, or ask aquestion using those words.. cause if so, he failed miserabley

Originally Posted by Paladin54

I do have some difficulty explaining
The "revisions" of the Textus Receptus.

This link may help.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/textof.htm

the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.

Originally Posted by Paladin54

That one of the main translators was an alchoholic and never kicked out.

I haven't heard this one yet, so I can't help you.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Paladin54

That one of the main translators was an alchoholic and never kicked out.

How quickly these things become gossip, even from history.

The Church of England did not necessarily have the same traditions as modern Baptist churches. It was not uncommon for people to consume moderate amounts of wine with their meals.

I'm not interested in another debate over the definition of "wine," which seems to change from verse to verse depending on one's traditions and involves lots of "gold digging" in "the Greek," but it is important not to get out of hand with these things. If there is any historical evidence that one of the translators was actually an alcoholic, I have not seen it.

Goes to show you: If you can't refute the truth, then attack the messenger. Since no one has been successful in making their criticisms of the AV1611 "stick", they are now going after King James himself and the translators.