If This Forum Is Any Indicator....

[bgwilkinson]

Everyone knows that the main problem with the NKJV is the reinsertion of the ASV into the text.

By "everyone knows," we all know you mean "KJV-only fables say," right?

You don't think the other side is going to admit it, do you?

This is one of the reasons good men who supported it jumped off that ship.

I could care less if you believe it or not.

I confess I have not read all of the posts in this thread so this may sound silly to those who have.

For the record for most of my early years the ASV1901 was the Bible of choice in my family for English use so it was only natural for me to move to the NASB in 1963 when the NT was first released. I always found the ASV to be very accurate though somewhat stiff compared to the KJV when read out loud. KJV is great for public reading, of course that is stated, "appointed to be read in churches" on the title page.

Now I have used both the ASV and NASB for study, FBCH uses the KJV for public reading.

So what are your objections if you have any.

 

[Ransom]

You don't think the other side is going to admit it, do you?

Of course not. What kind of conspiracy theory would you have if the bad guys just gave away the whole thing?

 

[prophet]

If the NKJV just admitted that it was a bridge to the CT , I would have more respect for it.

earnestly contend

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Glad to see there is some fight left on the fff.  Although, it is a very cordial fight.

 

[Ransom]

If the NKJV just admitted that it was a bridge to the CT , I would have more respect for it.

If the KJV-onlyists just admitted they were in league with the lizard aliens to turn the human race into food, I would have more respect for them.

 

[prophet]

If the NKJV just admitted that it was a bridge to the CT , I would have more respect for it.

If the KJV-onlyists just admitted they were in league with the lizard aliens to turn the human race into food, I would have more respect for them.

I'm pretty sure Ruckman was an alien.
You may be onto something.

earnestly contend

 

[Walt]

I think translation is not as simple as "X always means A" and "Y always means B"... words aren't always this simple.  Yes, the word used in Heb 10:23 is everywhere else translated "hope". But I will still trust the extensive scholarship of the 47 men, all of when had a chance to object to the wording.  If they departed from the word "hope" in this context, they had, no doubt, excellent reasons.

Well... the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is where many find their comfort.

I'm confused.  This is the second time you've called the "appeal to authority" as a "logical fallacy" - I don't understand this.

If we are talking about the speed limit being 30 or 40, and I point to a speed limit sign that says "30", that's an appeal to authority. But I don't see how it is a logical fallacy.

Likewise, translation work in general is taking words in one language and determining the best words in another language to represent what the first language is saying.  I have studied NT Greek, but I'm nothing like an expert, and the KJV translators WERE foremost experts in Greek, Hebrew, and many, many other languages.  I don't have a problem appealing to their authority in matters of translation, and don't see how it is a "logical fallacy"

 

[biscuit1953]

I think translation is not as simple as "X always means A" and "Y always means B"... words aren't always this simple.  Yes, the word used in Heb 10:23 is everywhere else translated "hope". But I will still trust the extensive scholarship of the 47 men, all of when had a chance to object to the wording.  If they departed from the word "hope" in this context, they had, no doubt, excellent reasons.

Well... the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is where many find their comfort.

I'm confused.  This is the second time you've called the "appeal to authority" as a "logical fallacy" - I don't understand this.

If we are talking about the speed limit being 30 or 40, and I point to a speed limit sign that says "30", that's an appeal to authority. But I don't see how it is a logical fallacy.

Likewise, translation work in general is taking words in one language and determining the best words in another language to represent what the first language is saying.  I have studied NT Greek, but I'm nothing like an expert, and the KJV translators WERE foremost experts in Greek, Hebrew, and many, many other languages.  I don't have a problem appealing to their authority in matters of translation, and don't see how it is a "logical fallacy"

I don't think it is a "logical fallacy" appealing to scripture but "logic" falls completely apart when one believes that God isn't able to give us the scriptures in modern day English.  The "logical fallacy" is believing that only a translation that was produced 400 years ago is preserved without error while rejecting all modern translations that were also edited by godly men.  Is God so powerless he can't give the current generation His word in their own language?

 

[Ransom]

I'm confused.  This is the second time you've called the "appeal to authority" as a "logical fallacy" - I don't understand this.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy when it substitutes for an actual argument or evidence. Instead of arguing the case, the arguer simply says, "So-and-so says so." The appeal is not strictly fallacious: if the authority is, in fact, an authority on the subject, then his views would more likely count as supporting evidence. In and of itself, though, it's weak. On the other hand, an appeal to a prominent figure in support of a assertion, merely because that person is well-known or popular, would be a fallacy. Ronald Reagan's preference for the KJV is not an argument in its favour, for example, nor is Lena Dunham's endorsement of Hillary Clinton a reason to vote Democrat.

Your speed-limit argument doesn't work because a speed limit is a law, not an argument. The sign is not the authority; it's a statement of the law. Pointing to the sign is not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to the facts.