[If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?]
41 comments
How else could you claim to know exactly what God wants if not for a "pure language, untainted by secular meanings?"
Sure, not a single one of those thousands of words has a secular meaning or can be taken more than one way.
So when the KJV mentions unicorns, this proves to everyone but fools and atheists that unicorns exist. (The bible doesn't mention the sparkly rainbow trail they leave behind, which is likely a pagan accretion).
"Shall thy louing kindneffe be declared in the graue: or thy faithfulneffe in deftruction?
Shall thy wonders be knowen in the darke: and thy righteoufneffe in the land of forgetfulneffe?
But unto thee I cried, O Lord, and in the morning fhall my prayer preuent thee."
Yeah - that looks like modern English. And I'm sure everybody knows "preuent" means "precede". And if you don't, you can always ask your "help meet" to explain it to you.
The KJV is actually a re-hash of the Wyclif translation of the Bible. The significant word is TRANSLATION. The original texts are the ones which were there from before and after the time of Christ. In fact, Christ himself would have used the Hebrew texts. So you still think that the KJV is divinely inspired when Jesus didn't use it?
So...
You're claiming that God used a language that is an exact duplicate of Elizabethan English, so speakers of Elizabethan English could understand it.
And somehow words in this holy duplicate had no secular meanings whatsoever.
Got to love that fundie logic.
The arrogance of it! To assume that only English is sufficiently advanced a language in which to couch divine thought!
And even if it is, that doesn't help everyone who doesn't speak it, which is what the original question was about.
It is a pure language, untainted by secular meanings
Verily, methinks thou hast not thought this through. Or, indeed, thought at all. Yea, failest thou greatly.
The KJB translators made no such claims of inspiration themselves. They said that ideally it would be nice if everyone could read the scripture in Hebrew and Greek; but lacking that, translations were necessary. In explaining why they were doing "yet another" English translation, they accused the Catholics of doing exactly what the KJB-only fundies of today do: rigidly insisting on one and only one translation (the Latin Vulgate, in the Catholics' case). They also admitted there could be errors, especially in the case of rare words for which the exact translation wasn't known (e.g., re'em = unicorn, or maybe "rhinocerot") - although they felt there weren't any religiously significant errors.
Jesus and the four evangelists certainly didn't have the KJB.
e.g. charity =/= giving money
charity = "undemanding un-encombered love"
i.e, language has changed since its jacobean usage.
You lose.
Mind-numbing, brain-damaging stupidity.
I am really trying to get my head round the thought process that could come up with this, but it just makes me dizzy.
Then Jesus did not come at just the right time. Poor guy spoke only Aramaic and perhaps Hebrew. His followers only wrote in heathen Greek. But God gave the world English by mixing a variant of German with Norman French and a bit of Latin, Danish and Celtic thrown in to make the perfect pure language with which to communicate to His chosen people. Yeah, right!
Maybe the flow of time is different for some of these fundies.
For most people, time flows from what will be, to now, to what was... But maybe, to quote Doctor Who, there is really just a ball of timey wimey...
Ekkman is still a complete retard though.
If the AV is so easy to understand why can fundies never get their heads around what 'help meet' means?
Come to that, why don't they post on teh interwebs in sixteenth century English? It's what Jesus would have done.
Heretic ! (yes its a Greek derivative) and you are one.
So God obviously speaks, like any educated person, Greek and Latin.
So the questioner mentions the King James Bible and the reply is "The question assumes that the A.V. was written in common or Elizabethan English."
Um . . . doesn't the fact that it's called the King James Bible give you a clue that it wasn't written during the reign of Queen Elizabeth?
James was Elizabeth's immediate successor and grew up speaking Elizabethan English.
His mother was Elizabeth's first cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, a Catholic. When Elizabeth had her beheaded, James was a child and Elizabeth took responsibility for his upbringing. He was, of course, raised and educated as a Protestant. On his mother's death, he became King James VI of Scotland and on Elizabeth's death he becamed King James I of England (which is why he is sometimes referred to as "King James I and VI"). Any bible written or translated into English in his lifetime would most assuredly use Elizabethan English.
But it was neither an accurate nor faithful translation, and several books were intentionally left out of the King's version (what the Catholics call "The Apocrypha").
If these guys actually knew the true history of the bible, they'd be mortified. It was put together by a Catholic pope, he picked the material that served his political purposes ignored the rest. It remained a CATHOLIC book until James, who intentionally removed certain books from the New Testament that did not suit him. Ironically, the largely homophobic religious right are passionately enamoured of a book commissioned by...and its development personally overseen by...a man who was known to take lovers of both genders.
Truth...she's a heartless bitch, eh?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
