I think you are the one pretending to be knowledgeable. You google something and pull the top hit and then post it as knowledgeable?

"The study from IUPUI ... recording that 78 percent read their Bibles monthly, compared with the 41 percent found by Barna..."

solid stats bro. the Barna Poll u mentioned above has already been proven to be inaccurate which shows u dont know what u r talking about. halo effect has been know to have a large affect on religious surveys. America is so diverse how can you expect to get solid numbers off 1k survey when surveying all age groups? U didn't even link us to the survey u linked us to a an article about it from a somewhat uncred source. u vomited...admit it. How is the KJB at new high in popularity but church attendance and religious affiliation is at all time low in America? Even in the articles u linked it was older people who liked the "romantic" aspect of KJ the translation. I understand the Episciple Church still holds strong ties to the KJB as well as some other older congregations which make up a large portion of people who still attend church in america, but it has been widespread news for a long time that the KJB isn't the most accurate translation. So one would have to essentially believe that the KJ translation was superior to that which it was translated from which is a whole new ideology in itself.

How many people do you want them to interview for a survey?

In the link u sent the author says nothing about it being inerrant. he just says he believes all scripture is inspired by God bc of tim 2. If he believes all scripture is inspired then it is hardly a stance of translation errors. He just believes the message is whats important, which I would agree with. But he is hardly defending the KJ translation over others. U guys need to go back to school. I mean come on www.jesus-is-saviour.com is your support. do u think that just bc a website exists it is credible. another google vomit. I agree that a lot of older religious people like the KJB because of the beauty of the wording, but very few turn to it in relevance to accuracy towards original text which is what the thread was in reverence to.

So let's say that the truth is between 41 and 78 percent. How does this support your position?

I don't need to claim that these numbers are right to one part per hundred (or even one part per twenty) before having a reasonable perspective.

The halo effect has nothing to do with self-reporting surveys ("How often do you X?"). It has more to do with external perceptions ("How do you feel about X?")

Do you know anything about sampling methodology? Again, I don't need "solid" numbers, just approximate ones.

Most people are able to read articles and follow links on their own. Especially when the article had perhaps a dozen or so links in it. There's not a lot of interest in me re-linking all of that stuff.

No, I laughed when I read your response.

The fact that it's not the most accurate translation doesn't imply what you think it implies. The fact that you're admitting the KJV is still used in congregations that make up a large portion of those who still attend church in America is sufficient to make my point. So I have nothing further to prove.

Also, it's spelled Episcopal. That you can't even correctly identify one of the major denominations of Christianity speaks poorly of your credibility.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. I had linked to an article earlier which outlined the idea that KJV-onlyism is itself an entire sect within Christianity.

You *clearly* researched this website carefully...........

This thread is now popcorn-worthy thanks to your contributions.

damn u just did it again. vomit. I guess i am coming more from the academic background. Tell me about some of those KJV-Onlyism people u know.
Halo effect has a huge effect on religious surveys. Weird but its true. do some reading and vomit less.

The problem with your post, is that those who hold to Biblical inerrancy, hold that the original manuscripts were inerrant. There are obviously issues that can happen with translations.

Yes, there is a very very small group of fringe people that hold that the KJV is inerrant, but the numbers that hold that position is statistically insignificant.

So your comment about this discovery being potentially problematic for Biblical literalists is just not true in the least, not only that - it just doesn't make much sense.

said it better than i could

I may have missed it, but could someone give me one(1) passage/word which is considered in error as apposed to another Bible. Perhaps it would be seen just as to what people are talking about as apposed to some statistical malformations or whatever.

To answer my own question, somewhat, here is a short piece on the difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5414932_pr...lic-bible.html

Best to consider that older versions have truer literal value and that updates are usually well-meant revisionism.

Usually.

Hey, carlo. It's been awhile.

i'm not a christian but live science is a joke of a science site imo.

Been hangin' around, have a breakthrough every once in awhile.

How we do.

Heading out now. Have a good rollout, baby.

There are quite a few...
Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form". The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition.
others...
new testament KJB / new covenant NASB
great tribulation KJB / the great tribulation NASB
end of world KJB / end of the age NASB
easter KJB / passover NASB

the KJV has had multiple revisions since its inception in 1600's incorporating over 100,000 changes. so therefor which KJV is inspired?

Yes he does, in capital letters, I even cut and pasted it into a quote box for you to disprove, with virtually zero effort on my part, your 'nobody believes it is inerrant.' claim.

Seriously, dude, you need to up your game, people here don't make mistakes as basic as this. Making claims so easily disproved, failing to see something as obvious as the quote I used.... Your Acumen is not as ace as you think.



Between this and your comment about catholics not using a church of England bible, you're really not making yourself look good in this debate.

So, you agree that there could be problems with translation (sentence 1), and you agree that there are people that consider the KJB inerrant (sentence 2). So it follows then that those people might have a problem with evidence that the translators used for the KJB considered different versions of the translation and your sentence 3 makes no sense, i.e. it doesn't follow, where my OP could be both true and make perfect sense given that I was referring to those who consider the KJB inerrant.

You're making this too easy. Try again.

(Also, please provide the stats that you're using to support your claim that it is a statistically insignificant number, I'd like to see them.)

Boosh,

Sigh. You're really showing yourself to be ignorant and obtuse here.

Q: How many seminaries or denominations hold to the KJV-inerrant position?
A: ZERO

Q: How many respected theologians hold to the KJV-inerrant position?
A: ZERO

Q: How many seminaries and denominations (and respected theologians) consider the KJV-inerrant position to be fringe/kooky/whacked?
A: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM

Does that help?

No, you are. You accept that there are people who consider the KJB inerrant and that there are issues with translations, but then you argue that those people couldn't possibly have any issues with the translation used to write the KJB...

It's so stupid I'm actually wondering if it's an attempted troll.

Er no... not at all, you're contradicting yourself left right and center, arguing points without backing them up with any stats at all and then telling me I'm ignorant and obtuse.

Whatever FZ. Come back to me when you have an argument that makes sense and some facts to support it.

You haven't really made any sort of argument that they actually would have a problem that people thought about different word choices in their translations.

Trying to hide your position between some speculative "they might have a problem" is really demonstrating the weakness of your argumentation structure. You started with the "potentially problematic" assertion with no explanation, and you've continued to hold to that despite the overall emptiness of the position.

Even for the goofiest KJV-only inerrantist fundamentalists, there's not really anything in their view that entails the unacceptability of drafts of the KJV. They will just declare that only the final edition was truly inspired by God, and they will continue to make the kinds of arguments about the textual basis of the KJV (over against the NIV and other versions) that they've made for years. Those arguments are silly and their position is incoherent for any number of reasons, but it seems very unlikely that the existence of a KJV draft will have any effect on them.

Ace Acumen: given your academic background, could you cite a source to support the assertion that standard sample sizes in poll-based research methodologies are insufficient when asking respondents about religious views? Thanks

Believe me, it shows...

http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Onl.../dp/0979114705

I've already linked to the introduction of this book.

I like how none of your rebuttal statements actually address the statements I make. It enhances your credibility.

The non-academic reader would quickly realize that I have not parsed my words on the basis of religious/non-religious surveys, but rather by the types of information being reported on the survey.

Maybe your knowledge of the Halo Effect is as deep as your knowledge of statistics. It looks like you're doing an N=1 sort of thing.

I was at a social sciences conference a few weeks ago where someone presented a paper with N=8.

Jokes were made

Pretty much.

"The Inspired KJV Group" – This faction believes that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They view the translation to be an English preservation of the very words of God and that they are as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts found in its underlying texts. "

Oh yeah...come back Pletho they are attacking your King James.

lol