Effective evangelists?

[Evang.Benincasa]

http://www.kjvonly.org/james/may_reviews.htm

Sean, and VS, the writer of the above webpage deals with copyright of the KJV.

[votivesoul]

I realize the copyright exists with England only, but as the location of origin and site of first popularity, not to mention source of the English language, if the KJV is so anointed because there's not copyright on it except for in England, then I guess when the KJV is used in England where the copyright exists, the anointing disappears?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I realize the copyright exists with England only, but as the location of origin and site of first popularity, not to mention source of the English language, if the KJV is so anointed because there's not copyright on it except for in England, then I guess when the KJV is used in England where the copyright exists, the anointing disappears?

Yes, indeed that would be the case if we are to be consistent.

The below is the information from the website concerning Riplinger's thoughts on copy written material. http://www.kjvonly.org/james/may_reviews.htm

Copywritten?

NABV (Gail Riplinger's book New Age Bible Versions) contains a multitude of miscellaneous errors, many of which have little to do with basic argumentation, but the sheer number of which surely demonstrates the overall poor quality of research, knowledge, attention to detail, and accuracy of presentation. The inside front cover presents the following note:

Note to the reader: 1) All editions and printings of the NIV and NASB et al. are not the same. 2) The NIV and NASB do not have identical wording because each is copywritten [sic].

Note 1) perhaps is meant to suggest that new Bible versions are an unstable, tentative lot and not forever settled in heaven, as is the King James Version. The note could have stated just as truthfully that all editions and printings of the KJV are not the same. The KJV in common use today is the edition of 1769 and is different than either of the two non-identical 1611 printings.

In Note 2) it is my assumption that when Ms. Riplinger writes that “The NIV and NASB do not have identical wording because each is copywritten,” she actually means that each is “copyrighted.” Not that it matters -- the sentence is nonsense no matter which way it is read.

“Copywriting” refers to the preparation of documents by a copywriter for printing (usually for advertising). This process has nothing to do with editions failing to have identical wording. KJO people frequently criticize modern versions for being copyrighted while assuming that the King James is not.

The popularity of this oft-repeated error leads me to believe that “copywritten” should be “copyrighted.” But of course neither does such legal protection against unauthorized use result in the various editions failing to have identical wording. One can only puzzle over what Ms. Riplinger is trying to say here. Perhaps she actually means that the wording of the NIV is not identical to the wording of the NASB because each is copyrighted. One must hope that her knowledge of Bible versions is ever so much greater than such a comment would indicate. Unfortunately NABV is replete with such absurd statements, often making it almost impossible to analyze rationally what is being said. As to the criticism of modern translations for being copyrighted, so is the King James Version, the rights being vested in the Crown of England.[3]

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Burk, as long as you have known me, have I ever, ever, said anything bad about the King James Bible? Because I have NEVER heard you say anything against the KJV.

Nope. NEVER.

I have yet to see anyone speak against the KJV in this thread or the other thread Sean started.

And since my Website is filled with KJV quotes, no argument from me either.

Sean's claim that there are people speaking against the KJV or even hating the KJV is purely his imagination. Of course, his claim that it is sin to use the Textus Receptus for studying the KJV just shows the type imagination he has.

[TK Burk]

Sean, I had asked you before since you believe any version other than the KJV is sinful if you used the original 1611 KJV. You never answered.

Another issue I'd like to ask is if you use the Cambridge or Oxford KJV translation. There are differences between the two, so which is the "original" that YOU use?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Sean, I had asked you before since you believe any version other than the KJV is sinful if you used the original 1611 KJV. You never answered.

Another issue I'd like to ask is if you use the Cambridge or Oxford KJV translation. There are differences between the two, so which is the "original" that YOU use?

Oh valiant cousin! Worthy gentleman! So, f'r I be doubtful the timid nave will bring thee an answer f'r sooth. My eyes, be wanting f'r to glimpse, yet be I greatly doubt those answers to come f'r the morrow's last.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Nope. NEVER.

I have yet to see anyone speak against the KJV in this thread or the other thread Sean started.

And since my Website is filled with KJV quotes, no argument from me either.

Sean's claim that there are people speaking against the KJV or even hating the KJV is purely his imagination. Of course, his claim that it is sin to use the Textus Receptus for studying the KJV just shows the type imagination he has.

They find teachers to itch their ears.

[TK Burk]

This is an excerpt from the original preface to the King James Bible. Please, note what the KJV translators said about their openness to other translations of the Bible. They also advocated using the LXX.

I guess they wrote this without talking with Sean or watching the video from his Grand Poobah, Gail Riplinger.

Anyway, enjoy what they said back in 1611:

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand? The Romanistes therefore in refusing to heare, and daring to burne the Word translated, did no lesse then despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as mans weaknesse would enable, it did expresse. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch writeth, that after that Rome had beene burnt by the Galles, they fell soone to builde it againe: but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses in such comely fashion, as had bene most sightly and convenient; was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good Patriot, that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good Prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So, by the story of Ezrah, and the prophesie of Haggai it may be gathered, that the Temple build by Zerubbabel after the returne from Babylon, was by no meanes to bee compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembred the former, wept when they considered the latter) notwithstanding, might this later either have bene abhorred and forsaken by the Jewes, or prophaned by the Greekes? The like wee are to thinke of Translations. The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perspicuitie, gratvitie, majestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men doe confesse) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meete with, for that heretikes (forsooth) were the Authours of the translations, (heretikes they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholikes, both being wrong) wee marveile what divinitie taught them so. Wee are sure Tertullian was of another minde: Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Doe we trie mens faith by their persons? we should trie their persons by their faith. Also S. Augustine was of an other minde: for he lighting upon certaine rules made by Tychonius a Donatist, for the better understanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his owne booke, with giving commendation to them so farre foorth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seene in S. Augustines third booke De doctrinâ Christianâ. To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred yeeres, were of an other minde: for they were so farre from treading under foote, (much more from burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselite, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretikes, that they joyned them together with the Hebrew Originall, and the Translation of the Seventie (as hath bene before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.

[Evang.Benincasa]

You know what we have here is way worse than someone advocating a specific language (like the early Carthaginians getting upset with Jerome for translating Greek into Latin, the "Latin Vulgate", or the Catholics getting upset With Erasmus translating Latin into Greek, or John Wycliffe and Tyndale for translating Greek into English) this is about not only lack of research, but not wanting to do the research that will up end a belief system. Therefore a search for truth cannot be made, because if it was to be made they would wake up and find themselves face to face with the decision that they were wrong. While no one likes to be incorrect concerning what they believe, they tend to brush aside the inconsistencies with a cognitive dissonance. But when people are tied up by one certain language to do their research, they can be led captive into all sorts of myths concerning the Word of God. Yet, one needs to keep in mind that although the Bible has been translated into different languages, lexicons, and dictionaries have not.

Another thing which was sad is that Sean made fun of ministers calling them liars, and stupid when they clarified the Elizabethan English with the original Greek.

Now, this just doesn't smack the preacher in the teeth, but also sincere students who use lexicons, dictionaries, and concordances. Yet, for someone to put a beat down on the preacher who can barely pronounce the Greek, then turn around an offer Gail Riplinger as some bastion of truth concerning the Word of God, is embarrassing.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You know what we have here is way worse than someone advocating a specific language (like the early Carthaginians getting upset with Jerome for translating Greek into Latin, the "Latin Vulgate", or the Catholics getting upset With Erasmus translating Latin into Greek, or John Wycliffe and Tyndale for translating Greek into English) this is about not only lack of research, but not wanting to do the research that will up end a belief system. Therefore a search for truth cannot be made, because if it was to be made they would wake up and find themselves face to face with the decision that they were wrong. While no one likes to be incorrect concerning what they believe, they tend to brush aside the inconsistencies with a cognitive dissonance. But when people are tied up by one certain language to do their research, they can be led captive into all sorts of myths concerning the Word of God. Yet, one needs to keep in mind that although the Bible has been translated into different languages, lexicons, and dictionaries have not.

Another thing which was sad is that Sean made fun of ministers calling them liars, and stupid when they clarified the Elizabethan English with the original Greek.

Now, this just doesn't smack the preacher in the teeth, but also sincere students who use lexicons, dictionaries, and concordances. Yet, for someone to put a beat down on the preacher who can barely pronounce the Greek, then turn around an offer Gail Riplinger as some bastion of truth concerning the Word of God, is embarrassing.

Nullifying truth with traditions...