KJV Only

[DonP]

thee and thou

I think the only reason to be KJVO is because it is the only one that preserve the Royal Thee and Thou and plural thee and thou.

Of course that is a pretty poor reason and born of ignorance of the English language. "Thee" and its derivatives are the informal forms of the second person. They are the words spoken between lovers, family members, and close friends. (Think of the difference between Usted and Tu in Spanish or Sie and Du in German.)

A formal address would use "you," etc.

I think I said because of its plural clarity also which we do not have in English, sept fur those who speak suthern, Y'aawwll. Which I personally like. I just say you all.

So yes it is like Tu vous which are used to designates formal and plural

Other than that I see no reason to be an exclusive KJV. I can understand why one would want to be an exclusive TR, but languages change over time and from country to country, like Australia, Canada, UK and USA, the english is dif and if you go to third world countries their English is definately dif. I see no reason to keep an antiquated language version that is difficult for new converts to read, and adds a burden on them.

I wish the English had a plural so you would know if one or several were being addressed, if would help clarify some passages.

So when I am studying I do reference the ESV and ASV and NASB, but I memorized much of the KJV so I like it for Strong's use and I like the NKJV for my wife and I to read even though I church has switched to ESV because a lot of people have said it is good. But in writing a systematic theology course for high school, patterned after the Larger Catechism and Berkof's Summary of Christian Doctrine, full of tons of scripture quotes in the ESV, I found many words I did not like and the sentence structure hard for me and the upper grade students.

I need to study more of the criticism against the NKJV> I saw some threads on this so I will have to see what I have been missing the last 30 years in it.

 

[ThomasCartwright]

If Rob were to be convinced that no Byzantine tradition exists for using the word Lord in Rev. 16:5 like the underlying text for the KJV and would be willing to change Lord to Holy One as per Byzantine tradition, would that constitute the violation spoken of in Rev. 22:18,19?

I really don't get a straight answer. So I suspect some sort of internal inconsistency in their theory. After all, they SHOULD say "Of course Rob should change those words!!! We would be inconsistent otherwise!!! Go to it Rob!!

Tim,

This reason you do not get a straight answer is because you don't ask proper questions. In all of your exchanges you immaturely seek the nuclear option of trying to goad brethren to damn each other in pejorative language when they disagree with one another. When we refuse to play your game you come on pretending that everyone is afraid of your questions.

Secondly, you have the same problem that you are not willing to apply to yourself. I am assuming in our exchanges you have not embraced Hegelian logic as your presuppositional framework for interpreting doctrine. Do you accept the TT, TR or CT reading for Rev 16:5? Clearly, whichever ones you reject must logically be "adding" or "subtracting" from the original Words of God. I will leave you to let us all know which reading does so you can then issue a statement damning Rob, myself or the CT advocates on this Board.

I would argue that Rob is being inconsistent in his approach to Rev 16:5 in that he is not applying the doctrine of providential preservation but reverting to a naturalistic statistical explanation when confronted by the apparent textual deficiences of the TR reading. He would argue that his position is consistent that he believes God preserved His Words in the TT of the Church and made them available in all ages in the TT in the original languages as He promised. He would also argue that the fact that the KJV translators in a few minor instances such as Rev 16:5 overlooked this does not undermine the logical consistency of his position. I think both Rob and I can see both our views and respect each other.

With respect, no one has yet heard a Biblical presuppositional framework or indeed anything logically consistent from your good self as to how we can actually determine all of the Words of God for us today. However, please go ahead and surprise us all by doing so..........

 

[TimV]

Dr. McFadden, years ago I came to the position that being either a CT man or a TR man or whatever man were flip sides of the same coin. Calling either text God's pure Word, or even a strong attachment based on anything except the sort of systematic reasoning that would allow elements of all of them to be used if honestly examined is extremism in my book.

Tim,

This reason you do not get a straight answer is because you don't ask proper questions. In all of your exchanges you immaturely seek the nuclear option of trying to goad brethren to damn each other in pejorative language when they disagree with one another. When we refuse to play your game you come on pretending that everyone is afraid of your questions.

I had this same argument with a Federal Vision proponent this Monday and got the same kind of answer. "Why can't you be open minded and accept our view that you and the OPC hate your kids by not allowing paedocommunion".

Do you accept the TT, TR or CT reading for Rev 16:5? Clearly, whichever ones you reject must logically be "adding" or "subtracting" from the original Words of God. I will leave you to let us all know which reading does so you can then issue a statement damning Rob, myself or the CT advocates on this Board.

Here are two versions of Rev 16:5

(ESV) And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say, "Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments.

(Geneva) And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art iust, Which art, and Which wast: and Holy, because thou hast iudged these things.

Since I reject your premise, I have no logical problem with saying these two versions say the same thing. The only people who have hang ups on that score are people who interpret verses like

Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

as meaning that God promised to keep His Word perfectly preserved in the form of it being in one place and without any spelling mistakes or scribal errors over the last 6000 years.

I would argue that Rob is being inconsistent in his approach to Rev 16:5 in that he is not applying the doctrine of providential preservation but reverting to a naturalistic statistical explanation when confronted by the apparent textual deficiences of the TR reading.

What you're demanding of Rob is that even though the TR in places doesn't follow the Byzantine text tradition he has to accept by faith the TR follows the Byzantine text tradition. And that sort of reasoning is frustrating.

He would argue that his position is consistent that he believes God preserved His Words in the TT of the Church and made them available in all ages in the TT in the original languages as He promised. He would also argue that the fact that the KJV translators in a few minor instances such as Rev 16:5 overlooked this does not undermine the logical consistency of his position. I think both Rob and I can see both our views and respect each other.

Rob said that he would be willing to change the TR, not just the KJV. And the his reasoning was that the TR may not have accurately expressed the true Byzantine tradition in some minor areas. And as I say, he's being consistent to his presuppositions. He is saying that the TR may not be God's perfectly preserved Word without spelling mistakes or scribal errors, although it comes closest to that of any text in the world.

 

[kevin.carroll]

You should acknowledge that there is such a thing as Biblical English.

Anyway read old Dr. Young and see what you think.

The problem with this argument is that the KJV uses 'Thees' and 'Thous' to address both God and Man, so the argument actually collapses.

My point exactly. Contextualizing the principle of using biblical language in prayer (something I am for!) would require us to use "you" and not "thou," since *today* the former is considered familiar and the latter, formal!

 

[Marrow Man]

One of the first Bibles I ever owned, the pre-1995 New American Standard Bible, also used "Thees" and "Thous" when addressing God (these were dropped in the 1995 edition). The KJV does not have the only monopoly on this.