The Mountain Retreat

Biblical Discussions => Apologetics => Topic started by: John B. on September 18, 2003, 08:27:13 PM

Title: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: John B. on September 18, 2003, 08:27:13 PM
Hello everyone!

I am quite distrurbed with how the Bible translation debate has been framed. First, I want to state for the record that I believe that any translation of the Bible that is based on the texts discovered by Westcott and Hort are based on corrupt and unbiblical manuscripts. I believe that the KJV is the only translation that is based on trustworthy manuscripts.

Now, the question arises: is the KJV a translation without error? I believe that it is not. Clearly, many more manuscripts that make up the majority text have been discovered after the KJV was translated. The KJV translators had far fewer texts to draw from than do translators have today. But they did a wonderful job of translating the Bible into the English language. But there are a few things that they probably had done differently if they were translating today. But, I am confident that they would not give consideration to the Westcott and Hort manuscripts!

What is distrurbing to me are those who elevate the KJV to same level as the original autographs. It is to these folks that the KJV-onlyism label has been given. Unfortunately this label is often given to those who reject modern translations based wholely, or in part, on the Westcott and Hort manuscripts, but also recognize that the KJV had a few minor translation errors.

Your thoughts....

John B.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Layla on September 18, 2003, 10:18:14 PM
Greetings John B

I thought your post was well written in that it conveyed your thoughts very well without condembing the KJV which imo is the best translation available.  I have some very good studies on the reliability or validity of the KJV text as opposed to other versions, if you would care to view them.

Peace,
Layla
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: iGreg on September 19, 2003, 02:20:47 AM
I agree, that the KJV (Authorized Version) is the best English translation. The original languages are, of course, closer to the original penned manuscripts, however, the KJV does the job well in the English language.

Personally, I believe this enormous growth in various so-called modern English translations does nothing but create confusion. Where there is some question about the accuracy of part of the KJV, it is best to go to the original language, rather than rely on so-called modern English Bibles.

In addition to the issue of literalness, there is the issue of literary beauty. The old English of the KJV is poetic in sound and structure, so Biblical quotations from the KJV are set apart from modern English. Therefore, when someone quotes the KJV it is usually easy to know that they are probably quoting scripture.

When I first was drawn to the Bible in the early 90's I compared the various translations (in order to pick one to read), mainly by comparing some Psalms. The Psalms in the KJV have no equal in the other, I think inferior, English translations. It was no contest, I picked the KJV. I use no other English Bible.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Jen on September 19, 2003, 01:15:27 PM
I believe that the reason for the KJV onlyism error lies on the side of an "extreme desire" to have the Word fo God without error. I had a friend who fit the mold about the "onlyist position." I agree that the KJV is the best english translation . Jay Green also used the Textus Receptus or Recieved Text in both his Modern KJV and the Literal Translation of the Bible. Both of those translations are worth studying. The Literal can be particularly helpful. I have also gained some light from reading Young's Literal Translation, also based upon the Received Text. The issue will continue to be debated until people understand that God's Word is preserved in the Hebrew and the Greek. The KJV has no real competition in my opinion. You can study it with a Strong's Concordance or other helpful study tools. There are scriptures or specifc words which can be better translated in the KJV which is why it is so important to study God's Word alone and in it's entirety. I have learned the lesson the hard way by reading many... many of the newer translations, more so out of curiosity. NONE of them compare to the KJV. I either became angry reading what I felt was a deliberate mistranslation of a text, or confusion arose due to reading badly translated scriptures. Just reading the original preface written by the scribes about the KJV translation causes one to respect it as a excellent translation of the Bible they had a fear of God and His Word that you do not find in today's so called scholarship. My 2 cents.
May the LORD richly Bless the reading and the hearing of His Word.
In His Mercy and Grace,
Jen
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: John B. on September 22, 2003, 08:14:04 PM
Layla,

I did an intense study on the Biblical tranlations issue for six months and was stunned to learn how Biblically divergent the different translations can be, even on basics of "essential" doctrine. I would love to read more, so point me in the the direction of more literature on this topic. Thanks.

John B.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on October 26, 2003, 01:47:06 AM
Hi all, I am a convinced King James Bible only for a whole lot of very good reasons.  I have not always been of this conviction until a few years ago.

I also have a website a fellow believer helped me set up.  I personally wrote most of the articles and I try to deal with the common objections that are brought up against the KJB.

If God hasn't preserved His inspired, complete, infallible words somewhere here on this earth in a recognizable form, then He lied.  The KJB is by far and away the best candidate on the scene.

In His grace,

Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: inspector on December 23, 2003, 09:24:25 PM
Layla,

I did an intense study on the Biblical tranlations issue for six months and was stunned to learn how Biblically divergent the different translations can be, even on basics of "essential" doctrine. I would love to read more, so point me in the the direction of more literature on this topic. Thanks.

John B.

If you studied the issue over 6 months then I am sure you already know of this book, but just in case, since you asked, I would recommend "The Text of the New Testament" by Aland/Aland.

I read it from cover to cover back in 92' and learned much about the transmission of the Bible text. I really still to this day do not see how anybody could be a KJV onlyist.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: iGreg on December 23, 2003, 09:43:25 PM
Layla,

I did an intense study on the Biblical tranlations issue for six months and was stunned to learn how Biblically divergent the different translations can be, even on basics of "essential" doctrine. I would love to read more, so point me in the the direction of more literature on this topic. Thanks.

John B.

If you studied the issue over 6 months then I am sure you already know of this book, but just in case, since you asked, I would recommend "The Text of the New Testament" by Aland/Aland.

I read it from cover to cover back in 92' and learned much about the transmission of the Bible text. I really still to this day do not see how anybody could be a KJV onlyist.
Interesting. I don't understand why anyone would bother with any English translation, other than the beautiful King James Version.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Peng Bao on December 24, 2003, 05:38:26 AM
Interesting. I don't understand why anyone would bother with any English translation, other than the beautiful King James Version.


I agree. I find it sad that most people say that the King James Version is an excellent Bible, but then follow up with the comment that they don't see anything wrong with society now coming up with all these other versions. Why would a christian want to have so many different versions of the bible when they're trying to convince people it's the word of God? It makes no logical sense, and just makes for a tougher battle and a cause for mockery by the reprobates.  :'(

The King James version is the most accurate translation, and there was never a need for a new English translation. Especially since the NIV, one of the worst, is the replacement of choice. You figure it out. At least the KJO Christians have respect for God's word. In my book, that makes them better than those who don't seem to have a clue about preserving God's word faithfully.

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: inspector on December 24, 2003, 06:32:44 AM
Interesting. I don't understand why anyone would bother with any English translation, other than the beautiful King James Version.


I agree. I find it sad that most people say that the King James Version is an excellent Bible, but then follow up with the comment that they don't see anything wrong with society now coming up with all these other versions. Why would a christian want to have so many different versions of the bible when they're trying to convince people it's the word of God? It makes no logical sense, and just makes for a tougher battle and a cause for mockery by the reprobates. :'(

The King James version is the most accurate translation, and there was never a need for a new english translation. Especially since the NIV, one of the worst, is the replacement of choice? You figure it out. At least the KJO christians have respect for God's Word. In my book, that makes them better than those who don't seem to have a clue about preserving God's Word faithfully.



I agree that the NIV is a paraphrase. I agree we do not need another translation. I agree the KJV is the most accurate translation from the Byzentine text. The NASB is of  the the Alexanderian text. When I do a word for word study from the Greek, I understand the differences between the texts and go from there. There is no essential doctrine at stake. We all believe the same thing.

• The Bible, Old and New Testaments, are inerrant, infallible, God breathed, complete and final.

• Belief in the one true God of the Bible.
a. God is one true God revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

• The Deity of Christ
a. Jesus was virgin born.
b. Jesus is God incarnate.
c. Jesus’ literal physical bodily resurrection.
d. Jesus died for our sins.

• The Deity Holy Spirit
a. The Holy Spirit is God.
b. The Holy Spirit indwells the true believer.

• Salvation is a free gift of God and is said to be by grace, by believing, or by faith.

I use both the NKJV and the NASB, they neither one hurt my feelings.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Peng Bao on December 24, 2003, 07:05:28 AM

• Salvation is a free gift of God and is said to be by grace, by believing, or by faith.

I use both the NKJV and the NASB, they neither one hurt my feelings.


As is common in these type forums, you missed the point entirely. We didn't disagree that salvation is a free gift of God and is by grace, or with any of the other things you've listed. That wasn't my point. But you seem to have no understanding of what I actually said. You should go back and read my post again. It had nothing to do with how we are saved, the deity of Christ, or Grace. I am at a loss why you don't understand that.

These other things are an entirely different topic and thread.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: inspector on December 24, 2003, 07:11:53 AM
As is common in these type forums, you missed the point entirely. We didn't disagree that salvation is a free gift of God and is by grace, or with any of the other things you've listed. That wasn't my point. But you seem to have no understanding of what I actually said. You should go back and read my post again. It had nothing to do with how we are saved, the deity of Christ, or Grace. I am at a loss why you don't understand that.

These other things are an entirely different topic and thread.

"At least the KJO christians have respect for God's Word. In my book, that makes them better than those who don't seem to have a clue about preserving God's Word faithfully."

I understand just fine.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Kenneth White on December 24, 2003, 07:55:44 AM
I agree. I find it sad that most people say that the King James Version is an excellent Bible, but then follow up with the comment that they don't see anything wrong with society now coming up with all these other versions. Why would a christian want to have so many different versions of the bible when they're trying to convince people it's the word of God? It makes no logical sense, and just makes for a tougher battle and a cause for mockery by the reprobates.  :'(

Excellent point. I know that the web sites that specialize in online bibles take great pride in the number of different versions they have available online, and go to great lengths to get licenses to have a large variety to choose from. As if a variety of ways to understand what's written was a virtue.


Quote
The King James version is the most accurate translation, and there was never a need for a new english translation. Especially since the NIV, one of the worst, is the replacement of choice? You figure it out.

The NIV is most popular by far because it has so changed God's word to conform to modern norms. The new version NIV is now even worse, as it has gone gender neutral. And even with that, many conservative and reformed Christians swear by it. Just look at the number of reformed articles that quote from the NIV. Don't anyone tell me attitudes are not changing. As you say--you figure it out!


Quote
At least the KJO christians have respect for God's Word. In my book, that makes them better than those who don't seem to have a clue about preserving God's word faithfully.

I hate to take sides, but I have to agree with you here. But is it a loss of respect for God's word, or loss of love for God's word? I've been reading a theme about love in connection with God's word in one of Tony's articles, and it struck a cord with a lot of posts I read here. What does love waxing cold really mean? Does it show itself in how we treat God's word?

Matthew 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Tony says yes, and from what I see taking place today, I agree. I definitely see a falling away from biblical principles today. One of the greatest being the way Christians don't seem to understand how precious God's word is anymore, or understand how diligent we should be in preserving it as accurately as possible. It's an attitude change. Love waxing cold. Very few seem to care about how supporting all these new versions is contributing to the confusion of the Church.

 1Corinthians 10:23  All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Just because we can do something, doesn't always mean that we should do it.

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Kenneth White on December 24, 2003, 08:02:06 AM
"At least the KJO christians have respect for God's Word. In my book, that makes them better than those who don't seem to have a clue about preserving God's Word faithfully."

I understand just fine.


Maybe not. The point is, preserving God's word as faithfully as possible should be a priority, not a option available but unnecessary. I think most Christians who love God's word would have more respect for those who tended to preserve God's word. Since that person would generally tend to be more faithful than one who didn't think that sort of thing was important.

See my signature line below.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on December 25, 2003, 12:59:50 AM
The King James version is the most accurate translation, and there was never a need for a new english translation. Especially since the NIV, one of the worst, is the replacement of choice? You figure it out. At least the KJO christians have respect for God's Word. In my book, that makes them better than those who don't seem to have a clue about preserving God's Word faithfully.


Hi brother Peng Bao, excellent points.  Thank God for your faith.

Regarding this statement by Inspector who said: "There is no essential doctrine at stake. We all believe the same thing.
• The Bible, Old and New Testaments, are inerrant, infallible, God breathed, complete and final.

I have a question for you then, Inspector.  What are you referring to here?  You say the Old and New Testaments ARE inerrant, infallible etc.  Exactly to what are you referring when you say this?  Did you know there are several different Hebrew texts and that the nasb, rsv, niv, esv, etc. all frequently depart from all Hebrew texts?  I can prove this to you if you like.  Did you also know there are at least 30 different Greek texts out there?  So, when you talk about an inspired, complete, infallible Bible, exactly what do you have in mind? Something you can hold in your hands, read, and believe every word, or some kind of mystical, non-existent fabrication that nobody has ever seen and doesn't have?

A little clarity of your position would be appreciated.  Maybe you haven't yet thought through the ramifications of your present understanding.  Thanks.

Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: harald on January 03, 2004, 02:16:10 PM
I will give some thoughts on the KJV and related things.

It is not true that the KJV is the only Bible translation that is based on the right text(s). There are past as well as modern day versions based on quite the same texts, i.e. the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text and the Antiochian Greek text, later known as the Textus Receptus. I will list a few versions whose New Testament is based on basically the same text as the KJV's NT. Also I shall add that the KJV is not purely a new translation of the Greek, but a revision-translation. Some of my own favourites I will underline.

Here are some readily available and a few harder to get TR based NT's irrespective of quality, I give years if known, and translator or reviser if known, and specific TR ed. if known. I will mark English ones in red or blue colour.

Luther Bible 1545 ed. (based on some later TR of Erasmus)
Erasmus Latin NT 1522 (based on his 1522 TR)
Tyndale NT  1525  (based on Erasmus TR)
Coverdale Bible 1535
Matthew's Bible  1541  (John Rogers)
Beza's Latin NT 1556
Geneva NT 1557  (William Whittingham & Co)
Bishop's Bible 1568de Reina 1569 (Cassiodoro de Reina)
Reina Valera 1602 (Cypriano de Valera)
Olivetan Revision 1588 (Beza)
Diodati 1607 (Giovanni Diodati)
KJV 1611/1769  
Dutch Statenvertaling  1637
Martin Bible 1744 (revision of Olivetan)
Biblia 1776 (Finnish)
Carl XII Bibel 1703 (Swedish)
Alexander Campbell's Living Oracles NT  (1820's)
NT 1878 (Swedish)
Russian Synodal Bible 1876
Norwegian Bible 1866
Danish Bible 1886
Toivo Koilo NT (Finnish, 1970's, have not been able to get hold of)
Novum Finnish-Greek Interlinear NT (1980's, out of print, very rare)
Studiebibeln Swedish-Greek Interlinear NT (1980's)
Reformationsbibeln (Swedish NT, spring 2003, based on Estienne 1550 Royal Edition TR)
Green's Interlinear 1976  (Jay P Green Sr., w. Scrivener 1894 TR)
YLT  (Robert Young, based on Estienne 1550 I believe, 1860's)
Ricker Berry's Interlinear 1897  (w. Estienne 1550 TR)
Delitzsch Hebrew NT (Franz Delitzsch, 1880's)
Gabe-Salkinson-Ginsburg 2001 Hebrew NT (updated w. Scrivener 1894 by Eric Gabe)
Bengel 1974 NT
Frossard Bible (French, 1872, revision of Ostervald Bible)
Version D'Ostervald 1996 revisee (French revision of the old Ostervald Bible)
MKJV  (Green Sr., 1990, Scrivener 1894)
LITV (Green Sr., 1985, Scrivener 1894)
NKJV 1982
Lawrie NT  (David Lawrie, 1998, Scrivener 1894)
VW-Bible 2003  (Paul Becker)
Exegeses Bible  (Herb Jahn, 1999)
Hungarian Karoly
Romanian 2003 TBS UK version
Romanian Cornilescu
Icelandic Bible
Smith & Van Dyke Arabic
Kralicka Czech Bible
Afrikaans Ou Vertaling
Svensk 1854 NT w. Psalms (Swedish)



I counted 16 English versions based on the TR type Greek text, 14 if interlinears are not counted in. 10 out of 16 are "modern versions" in the sense that they have come after the KJV, chronologically. But inasmuch as they are TR based versions it is dishonest to say "all modern versions are based on the wrong text". Most are based on the wrong text, but not all. Not all English and not all non-English.

I have 4 TR editions, Erasmus 1522, Estienne 1550, Elzevier 1624, and Scrivener 1894, and my favourite of these is the last, Scrivener's.

I do not believe the KJV is the qualitatively best TR based English version. Nor is it the best TR based version of all, all languages counted in. I believe it is a richness to have access to several literal TR based versions in many languages. Sometimes if a version does not succeed in giving the true sense of the original author another one gives it. While I count MT and W-H text based versions to be generally inferior because of the inferior textual basis I know some such versions are even more literal and faithful to the original than many TR based versions. Such are profitable when their base text agrees with the TR in its reading in a given passage and when it accurately renders the Greek.


Harald
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: iGreg on January 03, 2004, 02:44:12 PM
Harald, I am aware that there were English translations prior to the KJV. Speaking for myself, the KJV is not 100% perfect. However, it is, in my opinion, the best English translation readily available in readable English today & superior to the newer translations commonly availiable (such as the NIV, the NKJV,  etc.). The KJV is extremely close to the original languages.

I believe the Pilgrims bible was actually the Geneva Bible, a superb English Bible as well. I am sure the translators of the KJV looked at and studied the earlier English translations. So in a sense the KJV is a translation meant for the common man in a readable form. Even so, it is very very close to the original languages. So the alleged goal of modern day Bible translators to have a Bible in a readable modern English was already achieved by the KJV translators. Remember the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Rather than go through the middle-men of the earlier English translations, I would prefer to go directly to the original languages on the rare ocassions that the KJV might not be quite as good as it can be with a word or phrase. One classic example is the word "angel" in KJV. The more exact English translation would be "messenger".  Fine, so long as the reader knows this, I see no reason not to keep using the more poetic "angel." Angel means messenger. There are a few places where this understanding is significant, such as when it is referring to the angelic beings as opposed to messengers who are NOT the angelic beings.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on January 03, 2004, 03:42:52 PM


Proverbs 26:10 Say what!

King James Holy Bible 1611: "The great God that formed all things, both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors." This is the reading of Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Geneva Bible 1599: "The Excellent that formed all things both rewardeth the foole, and rewardeth the transgressours."

Young's "literal" translation: "Great is the Former of all, And He is rewarding a fool, And is rewarding transgressors."

NKJV 1982: "The Great God who formed all things gives the fool his hire and the transgressor his wages."

Spanish Reina Valera 1909: "El grande cría todas las cosas, y da paga al insensato, y la da a los transgressores." (The Great creates all things, and gives a recompense to the fool and gives it to the transgressors.)

The translations above generally teach the same idea, (except the NKJV gives it a different slant), but from here on, it is anybody's guess.

Spanish Reina Valera 1960: "Como arquero que a todos hiere, es el que toma a sueldo insensatos y vagabundos." (As an archer who wounds all, is he who hires fools and vagabonds.) Notice how different the two Spanish versions are.

Darby's Translation 1890: "A master roughly worketh everyone; he both hireth a fool and hireth passers-by."

Jewish Publication Society translation 1917: "A master performeth all things; but he that stoppeth a fool is as one that stoppeth a flood."

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta: "The body of a fool is greatly afflicted, and a drunkard thinks that he can cross a sea."

Greek Septuagint Version (date disputed): "All the flesh of fools endures much hardship, for their fury is brought to nought."

Catholic Douay Version 1950: "Judgment determineth causes; and he that putteth a fool to silence, appeaseth anger."

Catholic Jerusalem Bible 1968: "An archer wounding all who pass: such is the man who employs a fool."

RSV 1952, ESV 2003: "Like an archer who wounds everybody is he who hires a passing fool or drunkard."

NASB 1972, 95: "Like an archer who wounds everyone, So is he who hires a fool or who hires those who pass by." (The NASB complete concordance shows they have translated this word as "great" 84 times, and only once as "archer")

NIV 1984: "Like an archer who wounds at random is he who hires a fool or any passerby."

The Good News Translation 1992: "An employer who hires any fool that comes along is only hurting everybody concerned."

The Living Bible 1981: "The master may get better work from an untrained apprentice than from a skilled rebel."

The New Living Bible 1998: "An employer who hires a fool or a bystander is like an archer who shoots recklessly."

God's Word Translation 1995: "Like many people who destroy everything, so is one who hires fools or drifters."

The Message 2002: "Hire a fool or a drunk and you shoot yourself in the foot."

As noted scholar James White likes to say, reading a variety of translations gives us a better understanding of the Scriptures.  ::)
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on January 04, 2004, 07:18:57 AM
Harald writes: "I have 4 TR editions, Erasmus 1522, Estienne 1550, Elzevier 1624, and Scrivener 1894, and my favourite of these is the last, Scrivener's.
I do not believe the KJV is the qualitatively best TR based English version. Nor is it the best TR based version of all, all languages counted in. I believe it is a richness to have access to several literal TR based versions in many languages. Sometimes if a version does not succeed in giving the true sense of the original author another one gives it. While I count MT and W-H text based versions to be generally inferior because of the inferior textual basis I know some such versions are even more literal and faithful to the original than many TR based versions. Such are profitable when their base text agrees with the TR in its reading in a given passage and when it accurately renders the Greek.
Harald

Harald, you have no inerrant, inspired, complete, pure words of God that you supposedly believe in.  It is that simple.  You are in the general ballpark, but don't have a clue yet as to where home base is.

I don't give a fig what your "favorite TR"is.  There is no THE Textus Receptus, and which variants you pick and choose among all the differences in them and how you decide personally to translate them is your final authority, - not any printed Bible out there.

So why don't you just write your own bible version and be done with it?  I'm sure it will sell like hotcakes and be warmly received by your adoring public.  

You sound very pious as a staunch defender of the faith, but in reality you still are trying to steal our Holy Bible from us and are no better than guys like James White, Doug Kutilek and Gary Hudson.

Maybe you should go soak your head in some Epson Salts.  It will reduce some of the swelling.

Have a good day,

Will Kinney - a King James Bible believer who would not change a single word in the true Holy Bible providentially given to the world by God Himself.  Gee, I sure hope you will not feel offended by my harsh language.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on January 04, 2004, 07:28:34 AM
Greg says:

The KJV is extremely close to the original languages.
I believe the Pilgrims bible was actually the Geneva Bible, a superb English Bible as well."

Two points Greg.  Do you have a copy of the "original languages" by which you sit in judgment on the KJB?  Try giving us an honest answer.  If you do, then what are they called and where can we get a copy too.

Secondly, is the Geneva Bible "superb" in Job 13:16?

The KJB says: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him."

The Geneva reads: "Though he slay me yet will I trust in him, and I will REPROOVE my ways in his sight."

So, which is it?  Was Job at this time maintaining his ways and continuing to think he was righteous, or was he reproving and blaming himself at this time?

This is just one of many examples I could provide.  God has bypassed the Geneva bible and put it on the shelf of history.  It was pretty good and a whole lot better than the modern versions, but not "superb" and not God's infallible words.

Will K
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: iGreg on January 04, 2004, 01:50:49 PM
"Superb" is a subjective word I am using to express my opiniion. It certainly does not mean perfect. Likewise the KJV is superb and the best English translation commonly available today. However, if anyone is claiming the KJV is 100% perfect, then they are off-base. I am not a Biblical scholar, but I know the original languages of the Bible were Hebrew, Greek, & I believe Aramaic.

As far as "sitting in judgment," that is a loaded phrase meant to intimidate. I sit in judgment of nothing, I am expressing an opinion on which is the most reliable English Bible today, & I say it is the King James Bible. It is God's infallible word in every part that agrees with the original God-breathed texts, which appears to be in almost all parts of it. The KJV is the best starting point (or home-base if you like) in learning God's word.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: inspector on January 05, 2004, 03:02:19 AM

Regarding this statement by Inspector who said: "There is no essential doctrine at stake. We all believe the same thing.
• The Bible, Old and New Testaments, are inerrant, infallible, God breathed, complete and final.

I have a question for you then, Inspector.  What are you referring to here?  You say the Old and New Testaments ARE inerrant, infallible etc.  Exactly to what are you referring when you say this?  Did you know there are several different Hebrew texts and that the nasb, rsv, niv, esv, etc. all frequently depart from all Hebrew texts?  I can prove this to you if you like.  Did you also know there are at least 30 different Greek texts out there?  So, when you talk about an inspired, complete, infallible Bible, exactly what do you have in mind? Something you can hold in your hands, read, and believe every word, or some kind of mystical, non-existent fabrication that nobody has ever seen and doesn't have?

A little clarity of your position would be appreciated.  Maybe you haven't yet thought through the ramifications of your present understanding.  Thanks.

Will Kinney

All I can say is that I know the original autographs are not with us. I believe God has providentially preserved His Word. I believe the same doctrines of grace as others here on the forum and have never used the KJV.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: harald on January 06, 2004, 01:59:57 PM
 Mr. Kinney. You said

"Harald, you have no inerrant, inspired, complete, pure words of God that you supposedly believe in. It is that simple. You are in the general ballpark, but don't have a clue yet as to where home base is."


It appears to me you say the above, or something of similar import, to each and every person who does not embrace your King James Bible Only heresy. So, if I would say to you, "Mr. Kinney, if I do not have what you say, what should I do?"  I guess you would answer me something like, "Harald believe the pure words of God, the King James Bible. Period.".  Then I would answer you. The King James Bible version is profitable insofar as it accurately translates the original language words it is claimedly derived from, the Ben Chayyim Rabbinic Bible of 1524-5 and the  traditional Antiochian text. Where it misrepresents the divinely inspired and providentially preserved words of God in those texts it is not profitable, but rather unprofitable. In such instances I am not in the least bound to the words of the Anglican version. The authority of the KJV breaks down in each and every instance where its translators crucially mistranslated the original they had in possession. I would be a most foolish person to side with the KJV as over against the Hebrew and the Greek when the KJV lawlessly deviates from these. My position is exactly the same as that of the old Particular Baptists who signed the 1689 confession. They neither imputed ultimate authority to a version, but to the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Received Text.

And no verse or passage whatsoever in the KJV or any version imaginable commands me to adopt your English versions as my one ultimate authority. Man, I am a Swedish thinking and Swedish speaking person who lives in Finland, and who also speaks Finnish. Do you have the guts to demand I ought to become a KJBO "believer", which heresy, KJBO, is a heresy peculiar to the English speaking countries, especially USA. Thank God for that, there are more than enough of sects and heresies in Finland without KJBO making its satanic inroads. And if this heresy of letter knowledge religionists does make it to my country I will expose it for the devilry it is with all my might.

I don't give a fig what your "favorite TR"is. There is no THE Textus Receptus, and which variants you pick and choose among all the differences in them and how you decide personally to translate them is your final authority, - not any printed Bible out there.

R: Don't you think I am aware there is no THE Textus Receptus. But there are many editions of the New Testament in Greek which have been called "Textus Receptus". Only a nitpicking knave would deny this fact. And the differences between the editions of the TR type of GNT are very minor. I have no need for "picking and choosing". Usually I only look into Estienne's 1550 and Scrivener's 1894, and so far when some crucial differences have come up I have sided with Scrivener. And I will say it again, it is my "favourite" of all TR editions I have access to, only 4 editions as I said. Which means it is the one I favour, and which readings I favour if I find other TR's have "variant readings" so-called. If you have a problem with this then I cannot help it. And my very final authority is not the KJV, but the old Masoretic text and the aforementioned TR edition. But the KJV is just as much my final authority in those places where it accurately, faithfully, exactly, and precisely renders the inspired and preserved words and wording of the Greek text. The same goes for the Geneva or Tyndale or YLT etc. When the KJV renders accurately I take no issue with it. When it errs I hate it in that instance with a perfect hatred, and impute something less than wisdom and prudence to its  unregenerate high-churchian pedobaptist Anglican translators.

But you Mr. Kinney, appear to have adopted for your very final authority a version revised & translated by uninspired men, fallible men, manifestly and evidently unregenerate men, pedobaptist heretics, high-churchian Anglican semi-papists and what more they were I will not go into now. You blindly trust all renditions of such wicked men, as over against the traditional original tongue texts of the Bible, and make those renditions your final authority, making those renditions, which make up the KJB, your final authority. Your trust is in the judgment and alleged wisdom of those unregenerate KJV translators. What then makes your position any more honourable than mine or that of someone else who does not wish to adopt or countenance your KJBO heresy?

So why don't you just write your own bible version and be done with it? I'm sure it will sell like hotcakes and be warmly received by your adoring public.  

R: I have no adoring public, and do not want any such, because it does me none good whatsoever to have some men-reverencers around. And if so be I came up with a new version it would not sell like "hotcakes", because it would be free. I have no need of money, and even if I had I would not charge anything for God's truth and word translated. And if I came up with a version it would not be warmly received, because I am not of those who are in the business of pleasing men, like the KJV translators were. They were men-pleasers who sought to please that wicked King James and wicked Bishop Bancroft. Had they been God-pleasers they would have never translated for Bancroft or James or any other self-exalting patron. Nor would they have submitted to the wicked translation rules, which for example forbade them to render EKKLESIA as "congregation". Tyndale was his own man and was free to render it accurately as "congregation". His conscience was bound to something higher than some wicked king or some wicked high-churchian "Bishop" and his arbitrary rules. Neither could they render "baptizô"  as "immerse" but were bound to anglicize it as "baptize". And then come some KJB Only knaves claiming this translation project was of God. What utter stupidity!


You sound very pious as a staunch defender of the faith, but in reality you still are trying to steal our Holy Bible from us and are no better than guys like James White, Doug Kutilek and Gary Hudson.



R: No, I am no better than messieurs White, Kutilek, and Hudson, and have never claimed to be. I am familiar with their names and have read some of their writings, but that is all, and I often disagree with them. I do not think they try to steal the Bible from any man. I am neither trying to do that. I just hope to influence someone for the better who the Lord may will to influence for the better. And that by attempting at being truthful as to this thing called KJB Onlyism. And I will not impute absolute perfection to the KJV just for the sake of pleasing men, when the KJV does contain some renderings which ought to be corrected to match the text it derives from. The words of the KJB are not inviolable where they do not optimally translate the underlying words of the Hebrew and Greek. You are of those who settle for the mediocre and stop there. I trust to be of those who by divine grace press toward full knowledge in all things pertaining to what God has revealed in the Scriptures. In spiritual things mediocrity is sin when perfection is attainable. To each his own. And in case you begin to carp I shall say I do not refer to some Wesleyan perfectionism figment.

As to your language it was no more harsher than that of the average KJBO religionist. By the way. It appears to me that some of you King James Onlyites equal all those who are KJBO with being "believers". Some of you also talk about "King James Bible believers". Should one interpret that as that adherence to only the KJB translation is what evidences you as "believers" or as that you believe in the KJB versions as opposed to believing in the Christ? Whichever way King James Onlyism is a heresy, and most KJVO adherents fellowship around a Bible version and its exaltation and promotion and defense, and not around Christ and His doctrine, 2John 9-11. Theirs is no better than the damnable ecumenism of such who are called "liberals" and "modernists" by such who boastingly call themselves "Bible believers" and "fundamentalists".
In the world of King James Onlyism it is no rare thing to see "Arminians" so-called and "Calvinists" so-called or "Reformed" call each others "brothers" and "believers", at the same time evilly and hypocritically despising non KJBO people. Just showing to the seeing person that both parties are brothers in KJBOnlyism and not in Christ, partakers in the same evil deeds.

I have come to think that one of the reasons why KJB Onlyites are so dogmatic in their KJB Onlyism is because they believe in gospel or Bible regeneration, as well as Bible salvation, just like the Pharisees, as opposed to salvation by the grace of Christ alone. I do not say all KJBO's are gospel or Bible regenerationists, but many betray they are from their own words.
The Bible, the written revelation of God, was never given for the purpose of being a means of regeneration. Nor was it given for the purpose of securing entrance into God's eternal presence, as the Pharisees apparently believed, and were sternly rebuked by Christ. And some KJBO's are manifestly caught in the same delusion as them. And some KJBO's evidently have all their assurance of their claimed salvation bound up in this KJB Onlyism thing. As if something shaking their confidence in the KJB and its claimed to-the-word -perfection would be a threat to their religious identity and assurance of a claimed salvation. As to such people I say they are yet unconverted people, who know nothing about the nature of the "faith of God's elect", and their assurance is false and not of God the Holy Spirit. Such people do not understand the WHY of the giving of the Scriptures and the WHY and WHAT and the intricacies of true faith which is of the operation of God. And the world of KJB Onlyism is filled with such presumptuous boasters.


Harald
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Anne on January 06, 2004, 03:39:50 PM
Quote
I don't give a fig what your "favorite TR"is. There is no THE Textus Receptus,
Will Kenny

Will,

What kind of language is this to be using in a Christian forum? If you don't have any respect for your own witness, try and respect others here by not using this offensive language. This isn't a bar.

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: John on January 10, 2004, 02:32:03 PM
Harald,

Much of what you wrote rings true. Some people find peace and assurance in the thought that God has given one True translation and all others are uninspired works of men. They build their life and their websites devoted to protecting this safe harbor in a sea of confusion. To be wrong on KJBOism is to be cast out into a raging sea -- their world-view crashes down and with it their belief that they are God's special protectors of the faith. What are they then? Simply confused, ignorant men who believed a lie -- now they will, like everyone else, have to work to understand God's word -- searching God's word, comparing, struggling, learning ... perhaps too much for some who lazily say, "the KJB is the inerrant, perfected, God-ordained, inspired, specially-protected Word of God".

The way to become entrapped in such erroneous thinking is to NOT bother to do careful scriptural study. Let's say the KJB is perfect, only possessing copying errors but nothing more. Then we'd have some explaining to do with this:

Mar 16:2  And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.  

If God inspired the translators to write this, then God has erred. The word translated "week" is the word Sabbath, not week. "Day" has been added and is not in the translator's Greek text. This word mistranslated "week" is the same word used in the previous verse and correctly translated as Sabbath, "Mar 16:1  And when the sabbath was past ..." , that is, the old Sabbath was past and it was the first of the Sabbath(s) of the new Sabbath that they came to the sepulcher.

Mar 16:2  And very early in the morning on the first of the Sabbaths, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.  

We find the same construct erroneously translated in the KJB in Mat 28:1.

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week ... "

Again we have the "last" or "end" of the "Sabbaths", not sabbath (singular), as it began to dawn toward the first of the "Sabbaths", not week.  The KJB translators erred in translating the Greek Sabbath by using "week", and by making a plural word singular. It should be:

 "In the end of Sabbaths [plural], at the dawning on toward the first of the Sabbaths"


What's the point of all this? How is it some can make a statement that the King James Bible is "inerrant, inspired, complete", and the "pure words of God", and they would not "change a single word in the true Holy Bible providentially given to the world by God Himself"?  If you do not change a word then, in this case, you ignorantly follow error and will not come to truth concerning the new Sabbath that began on Sunday with Christ's resurrection. To keep your safety blanket in a world where there is no completely faithful translation provides you only a false sense of security -- as anyone with eyes to see can acknowledge.

The KJB is a good translation based on good Greek texts. The next step is error -- it is not a perfect, God-breathed translation given by inspired men who did not err. They did err and on many occasions (I've shown only a few). It is infantile, silly, and futile to cling to a false hope in perfection that does not exist.

It is ignorant to think otherwise and prideful to hold on to a lie, even if you've built your entire identity into that thing. Repenting of the KJB-only error does not require you to agree or accept the errors of modern versions; the two are not mutually exclusive. You only can no longer say that the modern versions are wrong because they do not follow the KJB, as is often done.

Did the translators follow the Greek text accurately, if not then they are in error (as the example above). This is true for the KJB as it is for the NIV ... when the translators err then we must be willing to accept this and learn from it.

john
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: harald on January 10, 2004, 04:00:41 PM
John. Thank you for your post. I copypasted it to my files as there were many worthwhile things in it. It was kind of encouraging to read your judicious comments. Also, the examples of error in KJV you gave were new to me. In the light of all this it is hard to grasp how some have hardened their consciences so as to go so abysmally deep in KJB Onlyism error.


Harald
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: iGreg on January 11, 2004, 01:54:43 AM
John. Thank you for your post. I copypasted it to my files as there were many worthwhile things in it. It was kind of encouraging to read your judicious comments. Also, the examples of error in KJV you gave were new to me. In the light of all this it is hard to grasp how some have hardened their consciences so as to go so abysmally deep in KJB Onlyism error.


Harald

Even though there are some errors (though not many) in the King James, I have no problem in saying that the King James Bible is the only English translation I use & recommend. Therefore, it is fair to say I am for the "KJB Only" as far as English translations go.

If someone uses the King James Bible alone, even without the texts of the original languages, they are getting a superb English translation of God's word. The few translation errors that are significant can be easily pointed out by others. The Sabbath-Week error and the Angels vs Messenger issue pointed out above are good examples of this.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: harald on January 11, 2004, 06:44:20 AM
As for myself I have no problem with a position which may be referred to as KJV-preferred. What I do oppose is the modern heresy of KJV Onlyism, which resorts to lies and falsehoods and falsifying of facts as pertains to the KJV and its translators and related matters. I think e.g. Mr. Kinney's position is most unwise, to say all and any who do not exclusively use the KJV have no Bible or no absolute authority but are their own authority. Kinney has also said in some instance that the Geneva Bible was not God's inerrant words but then he says KJV is so. I wonder by what standard of judgment. KJB Onlyism is a misguided zeal for God's word. The cause of the truth is not benefited from obvious lies and exaggerations.

Comparatively speaking the KJV is among the most profitable of English versions. One of its greatest benefits is that it has all the essential readings, i.e. is based on the superior text(s). But a drawback of it is that while it has the readings intact it does not always accurately render the exact inspired and preserved wording of those readings as found in the Received Text underlying its NT part. An example among others would be John 6:20, where KJV has it that Christ says "It is I..." The Greek has "egô eimi" - "I AM" , which is the formula Christ used to maintain His being Almighty Jehovah God. KJV gets "egô eimi" right in several other instances.


While KJB Only liars are heretics not all things about them are bad. Most of them rightly maintain that the TR is superior to Alexandrian editions of the Greek Testament. Most if not all rightly maintain that dynamic equivalence is not the right method in Bible translating. And they are right that modern versions in general are weak versions. But they err when they impute absolute translational perfection to KJB. And discard the original language texts on which it is based. And discard previous English versions, and what other stupid things I will not now go into.


Harald
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Dave Taylor on April 14, 2004, 10:39:50 AM
From my studies of textual criticism, I don't find any major or troubling variation between the two text bases.

Sure there are differences, but in the teaching, presentation, and fuindamental theme of scripture; they present the same story.

What I would like to see; and I can't see why some Bible Publisher doesn't take this route; is to publish an English Bible that contains both the Critical Minority Text, and the TR/MSS Majority Text both.  Not in footnotes.  Not in parenthesis, but just full out in the text. 

When the two differ, then use the fuller textual variation that is available; then use footnotes to describe how the lesser textbase varies.

I have an 8-parallel NT which has two TR versions (KJV & NKJV) and six critical text version; and it does a fair job in showing the variations in the parallel format....much better than any single English Bible Version I have read.

This to me, anyway, would give us, as an English Speaking people, the fullest, complete heritage of what has been accepted and passed down through the ages as 'the Bible'....and it would squelch the critics who cry, "blah blah blah version is leaving out parts of the Bible".

BTW, as far as KJV Onlyism is concerned; I have yet to meet a KJV Onlyer who claims the 1611 version is the only true and accurate version of the English Bible who actually quotes from and has ever even seen an original 1611 version.  It has become an emotional attatchment that is not grounded on careful study; but rather unfounded emotional and tradition-based loyalty.

(BTW, I typically use the KJV most of the time, and it is my English translation of first choice.....until someone decides to publish a combined CR/TR/MSS English Bible)



Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: jd@ on April 14, 2004, 10:54:51 AM
My study bible (the Reformation Study Bible, originally marketed as the New Geneva Study Bible) puts both the critical text and the majority text in the margins - I find that quite helpful. 

Quote
When the two differ, then use the fuller textual variation that is available;

Did you have a particular reason for picking the longer variant, Dave?
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: iGreg on April 14, 2004, 01:35:58 PM
I never said the 1611 version is the version I use. Mine is the 1769 edition. I have seen the 1611 version. The differences are primarily spelling. I believe Nelson or Zondervan publish a copy of the 1611 for sale.

The KJV in common use today is just fine, God's word comes through. That it is written in a flowing and beautifully poetic English is just icing on the cake & helps to differentiate it from the mere writings of men. Even biblically illiterate folks can often tell a quotation comes from the bible when a verse from the KJV is quoted, which is another added benefit.

P.S. It is my understanding that the KJV was often in use in schools before recent so-called modern times, and is there any doubt that folks spoke better English in the earlier days of this nation.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Kenneth White on April 15, 2004, 02:15:45 PM
I think we all agree (besides brandplucked) that King James Onlyism is fatally flawed. What we seem to have the most disagreement with here  is if the King James bible is the best translation, or if these inferior translations like the NIV are useful?

 It's troubling to me that so many seem to think that every word in the bible is not divinely inspired and so it's completely proper to rework words or even remove them entirely in order to get to what the author of the text really meant. This is a problem for me. And frankly, I'd rather have King James Onlyism than this dry rot in the church with regards to inerrancy.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Dave Taylor on April 15, 2004, 04:37:21 PM
JD@ wrote:
Quote
Did you have a particular reason for picking the longer variant, Dave?

Simple,
Give me all that is available, from both textual families, (footnoting differences is OK) and allow me to study the full effect of the passage and to study it in light of other passages and come to a conclusion on it; rather than omitting part of it all together as the Critical text family often (but not always) does in comparison to the Majority Text and TR.

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: iGreg on April 15, 2004, 07:43:11 PM
I think we all agree (besides brandplucked) that King James Onlyism is fatally flawed. ...

Not exactly, I have no problem in saying that the King James version is the "only" English version I use or recommend.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Beechwood on April 16, 2004, 05:46:10 AM
I think we all agree (besides brandplucked) that King James Onlyism is fatally flawed. What we seem to have the most disagreement with here  is if the King James bible is the best translation, or if these inferior translations like the NIV are useful?

I agree Kenneth. There is no question but that this idea that the King James Bible only is a perfect translation is without merit. There is no perfect translation, but all things considered the KJV is the best. With people like Brandplucked making these unjustifiable claims, it's difficult to ingage in a meaningful discussion about the KJB without being linked with his KJ-onlyism. Personally I don't think that the NIV is either biblical or useful, but many of Christians do. You just can't talk to them about its flaws and errors because they are so use to using it and have it in their mind that the KJV is antiquated.


Quote
It's troubling to me that so many seem to think that every word in the bible is not divinely inspired and so it's completely proper to rework words or even remove them entirely in order to get to what the author of the text really meant. This is a problem for me. And frankly, I'd rather have King James Onlyism than this dry rot in the Church with regards to inerrancy.

I don't know about that, but I do understand what you are saying. There is a different breed of translator on the scene today, and he's not really good for the church. I think that we should all work individually to fight against this trend of attacks upon the KJB and get out the information that it is the best version available. Without the tag of KJ-onlyism to dirty the waters. Because there is no perfect translation.


Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 05, 2004, 09:15:11 PM
Beechwood posts: "Quote from: Kenneth White on April 15, 2004, 02:15:45 PM

I think we all agree (besides brandplucked) that King James Onlyism is fatally flawed. What we seem to have the most disagreement with here  is if the King James bible is the best translation, or if these inferior translations like the NIV are useful?
I agree Kenneth. There is no question but that this idea that the King James Bible only is a perfect translation is without merit. There is no perfect translation, but all things considered the KJV is the best. With people like Brandplucked making these unjustifiable claims, it's difficult to ingage in a meaningful discussion about the KJB without being linked with his KJ-onlyism. Personally I don't think that the NIV is either biblical or useful, but many of christians do. You just can't talk to them about it's flaws and errors because they are so use to using it and have it in their mind that the KJV is antiquated.

I don't know about that, but I do understand what you are saying. There is a different breed of translator on the scene today, and he's not really good for the church. I think that we should all work individually to fight against this trend of attacks upon the KJB and get out the information that it is the best version available. Without the tag of KJ-onlyism to dirty the waters. Because there is no perfect translation."


Hi B and others, its seems none of you believe that any Bible is the perfect word of God. "there is not perfect translation",  "KJV Onlyism is fatally flawed" yada, yada.

Yet you all here seem to profess a faith in the Sovereignty of God.  Did God lie when He said He would preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away or not?  If the King James Bible is not your final authority for the words of God, then it is your own minds and each of your resultant "bibles" will be different from everybody else's.  You are no better off than the Whateverists.

God didn't promise to give us an almost perfect Bible or to almost preserve His words.  Do any of you KJV preferred types really stop to think about what the Bible says about itself regarding the true words of God?  Do you believe the Book?  It is obvious that you are fence-sitters who ultimately place your own minds above the written words of God.

Will Kinney



Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Kenneth White on November 06, 2004, 03:36:37 AM
I think we all agree (besides brandplucked) that King James Onlyism is fatally flawed. What we seem to have the most disagreement with here  is if the King James bible is the best translation, or if these inferior translations like the NIV are useful?
I agree Kenneth. There is no question but that this idea that the King James Bible only is a perfect translation is without merit.

Very true. This is the real crux of the matter. It's philosophers like Brandplucked that do more to harm the KJV than it's detractors. Because their unsound and often cultish ideas give bulletin board material to KJV detractors.So when rational people like us try to tell people the KJV is the best translation, they immediately assume KJVOnlism. There are good, rational intelligent reasons why the KJV should be the Bible of choice for serious Christians, but being a perfect translation is not one of them.

The KJV is a great translation, but it's not the original language where every word was God breathed and inspired. It is a "translation" of the inspired text, and thus the words are not always perfect. Just as when the Bible is translated into the spanish language. The translation is not always going to be perfect. those who claim they are following scripture of a kept word of God are actually using scripture out of context. The reason that we know the KJV is not perfect is because we can compare it's words to the Greek and Hebrew words from which it is translated. Then it is obvious to any intelligent person that it is not always perfectly translated.

Quote
Hi B and others, its seems none of you believe that any Bible is the perfect word of God. "there is not perfect translation",  "KJV Onlyism is fatally flawed" yada, yada.

Yet you all here seem to profess a faith in the Sovereignty of God.  Did God lie when He said He would preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away or not?

Brand, that kind of philosophy will not work with intelligent God fearing people. God in fact did preserve His Word. And that is how we know that the KJV is not a perfect translation. It is the best translation without question, but not a perfect one.


Quote
God didn't promise to give us an almost perfect Bible or to almost preserve His words.

As I said, this tactic doesn't work with intelligent people. And I've found that most of those here are wise in the Spirit. God gave us the perfect scriptures, and the KJV was "translated" from those perfect scriptures. I wonder if you would think that Spanish Bibles are not perfect, because it wasn't translated by King James Translators? That logic makes no sense.

Having said that, I do disagree with those who tout the side by side versions as useful. I would never have side by side Bible versions to help me, because it is confusion both to myself and others. To say other versions are unfaithful, and yet support other versions by use of them as reference, is hypocritical in my view. I believe that if we are unsure of what any word in the KJV means, we should buy a good concordance, not a side by side bible to compare different versions. especially any Bible with the NIV in it.

But to call a translation perfect is overstepping what God says.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Kenneth White on November 06, 2004, 03:45:26 AM
Which brings me to this point. Everywhere we look today pastors and church goers alike are now using the NIV. It's almost the standard bible for reformed theologians it seems. If that is not a sign of the creeping apostasy in the church, I don't know what is.

I believe that any really knowledgeable person can understand that the NIV is a horrible translation, and no self respecting and conscientious Christian should use it. Yet it is used routinely, and not just by liberal theologians anymore but by otherwise intelligent Reformed ministers. It is now firmly placed in what use to be solid biblical Churches. In my view, this is a far greater horror than KJV Onlyism. And far more sinister. That's my view.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: judykanova on November 06, 2004, 07:47:08 AM
Quote
Having said that, I do disagree with those who tout the side by side versions as useful. I would never have side by side Bible versions to help me, because it is confusion both to myself and others. To say other versions are unfaithful, and yet support other versions by use of them as reference, is hypocritical in my view. I believe that if we are unsure of what any word in the KJV means, we should buy a good concordance, not a side by side bible to compare different versions. especially any Bible with the NIV in it.

Kenneth, I find this view to be both arrogant and presumptuous.  As you yourself have noted, most here use their brain, and aren't easily swayed by this type of high-minded, judgmental attitude.   Since I'm the only one here to my knowledge who posted the fact that I prefer the KJV, yet also have a parallel Bible that I have on occasion found helpful,  I take exception to such statements.  So...  you find this to be confusing?  Well that's you; another is hardly a 'hypocrite' because they have the unmittigated gall to make comparison of various translations.

I would rather that you quote me word-for-word rather than 'translate' what I've said in my posts, for I did not 'tout' parallel Bibles, nor did I say "other versions are unfaithful".  We're talking degrees here, not absolutes with respect to the various English translations.

I also have and use a Strongs concordance -- contrary to your implications.

Let me ask you this...  Snce most don't know Greek/Hebrew nor have access to the oldest manuscripts -- upon what basis can we say the KJV is the most accurate?  Do we simply accept that any particular translation is the 'best' on the basis of the popular view?  Consider for a moment the ignorance and 'hypocrisy' of that, and of whatever personal agenda you may have for making such statements as those quoted above.

Pro 25:2 
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Mat 7:2 
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


judy
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: John on November 06, 2004, 02:46:23 PM
Quote
Yet you all here seem to profess a faith in the Sovereignty of God.  Did God lie when He said He would preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away or not?


Please list all the perfect Bibles preceding the KJV of 1611. If God will preserve His words through a perfect Bible, then what are they?


Quote
If the King James Bible is not your final authority for the words of God, then it is your own minds and each of your resultant "bibles" will be different from everybody else's.  You are no better off than the Whateverists.

It is not a matter of "if" the KJB contains flaws -- it does -- and you've been shown the flaws, but you choose to pass them by as it destroys your theological view. Thus your personal view on the inerrancy of the KJB is rejected because most people accept the facts rather than ignore them.

Further, you do harm to the real issue: the inferiority of the Alexandrian text types over against the Byzantine, the manuscripts that underlie our modern versions. This is where the focus should be, not on a wild unfounded claim. The reason the KJV is superior is not that it is perfect but that it has better Greek attestation than other modern versions.

Another issue:

Quote
Having said that, I do disagree with those who tout the side by side versions as useful. I would never have side by side Bible versions to help me, because it is confusion both to myself and others. To say other versions are unfaithful, and yet support other versions by use of them as reference, is hypocritical in my view. I believe that if we are unsure of what any word in the KJV means, we should buy a good concordance, not a side by side bible to compare different versions. especially any Bible with the NIV in it.


I think you are saying that having four different versions of the same verse can be more confusing than helpful, since one cannot know which is correct. Of course we can take the simpleminded viewpoint that only the KJB is the correct one and anything that varies from it is ipso facto wrong. Ah, if life were only that easy.

God preserved His Word in over 5,300 manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts. That is the reality. Every person who sought to put together a Bible in their language had to make critical decision concerning the best Greek text. That means that Desiderius Erasmus's, Robert Estienne, and Theodore Beza each looked at the Greek text they had available to them and decided based on the evidence and their opinion how and into what word(s) to translate the Greek into English. They had to create a "Critical" Greek text to work from -- each Greek N.T. text is created based on the authors rules, rules that may or may not be entirely correct.

Having the studied the matter I reject the Alexandrian Greek texts and the critical texts derived from them. Therefore I reject the modern versions (most all) that translate English from them -- bad data in means bad data out.

Yet, there are differences (many minor variants) between the 1550 version of the Greek text called the Received Text (Robert Stephanus's third edition). Today we refer to the F.H.A Scrivener’s 1894 edition of the Received Text rather than the earlier 1550 version.

The RT is a critical text: meaning many decisions were made to produce it. The whole mass of manuscripts of the Byzantine family is called the Majority Greek texts. There are differences between the Majority and RT and therefore a Bible made from the Majority text (ALT) will differ from the RT (KJV) and both will vary GREATLY from the Critical Text (all texts are critical texts but it was meant to degrade the TR which where textual decisions were supposedly made only on choosing the word with the greatest attestation -- that is, it appears most often in the Greek manuscripts. Thus "critical" means "thought out" by some while the RT was just non-critical bean counting -- this however is not true.

The Critical Text (Alexandrian family) is based on a few supposed older Greek texts that are significantly different (shorter) than the Byzantine family of texts. Because these texts are missing so many verses and words and disagree between themselves and have no parentage nor were they descended down by copying -- it is probably true to say that these Greek texts were radically chopped by editors (with an axe to grind) from a more complete Byzantine type text. There is evidence that the Byzantine is earlier than the Alexandrian texts and are distortions of it. But, Wescott and Hort sold its superiority (they hated the TR) and we now we have our damaged modern versions based on it, thank you very much.

So what to do?  I am creating a parallel Bible for my own use. It has the MKJV, YLT, KJV+, and the Greek TR (with strong's numbering) side-by-side. When you can't find a study Bible on the market sometimes you have to design your own. I hope to get permission from the copyright holders -- but first I'll make it then I'll ask permission (it's not for sale).

Since I'm learning Greek, having the KJV with Strong's numbering beside the Greek will help in recognizing the meaning of the Greek words. I'll probably put a Greek concordance in the back. I have no problem with parallel Bibles, it is even better if we can go back to the underlying Greek (either MT or TR) and see some of the textual decisions made by the authors. Sometimes the English word or phrase used is not as accurate as it should be when we look at the Greek. It is interesting to see how different scholars attempted to render English from Greek (no easy task).

Isn't this far more complicated than just pretending the KJV is correct and that's that. God wants us to study and study you must.

john
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 06, 2004, 07:30:24 PM
Please forgive me for jumping in here, but I don't understand. 

We are constantly being told to stick with the Scriptures, to use no man's opinion or commentaries, or secular history, etc., and to compare Scripture with Scripture...all of which I agree.

But then so many only believe that the King James Bible is the best translation, but that there are errors in it.

So how can this be?  If there are errors, how do we know what part of Scripture we can trust as being the Word of God, and what parts have errors in them?  What good would it do us to compare Scripture with Scripture if part of that Scripture has errors in it?  How can we search out a matter if in the back of our minds we feel that there may be errors?

I just don't get it.  Didn't God promise to preserve His Word?  Do we not have the Word of God now?  If not, what is to be our Final Authority?


Luke 21:33

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


(Please don't be angry at me for posting this.  It is not aimed at any individual, but rather at the issue.  Thanks.)

Blessings,
Minna
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Sandy on November 06, 2004, 08:02:36 PM
John,

I was recently told that part of the difficulty in translating of Greek into English is the Greek itself.  I'm told that Greek is a language that has definately evolved.  We have the Modern Greek, the Ancient Greek, and Biblical Greek.  I was told that often times the nuances of Modern, or Ancient Greek are being forced into Biblical Greek.  The NT writers would not have known anything about the nuances of tenses derived from Modern Greek.  And we/they cannot know whether a genitive is objective or subjective without considering the context.  This is why most of the modern translations have reduced 'faith of' Christ, to 'faith in' Christ.  Can you tell me if this is so?  I would say what I know about Greek you could put in a thimble, but truth is I don't even know that much.  Your help would be greatly appreciated. 

I am in the process of attempting to show other members of our church that saving faith can never originate from us.  It would be much simpler if I can only tell them why virtually everyone of their translations of Scripture are inferior, if for no other reason then on this one issue, those modern translations have actually changed doctrine.

Sandy         
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: judykanova on November 06, 2004, 09:12:16 PM
I'm re-posting this here, as recent posts under this related topic of "What Happens if you are Not a KJB only?" thread seem to have gotten buried under the flurry of other posts today.  Minna, this will hopefully help address some of your concerns. ...


Hi Judy, there is much that you said I agree with. However, you also closed with this:
"Lastly and in conclusion,  when it comes to translations, the issue is not one of perfection (which can only be said of the original texts),  but one of relative faithfulness.  Like Christ_Alone, my preference is the KJV for reasons of overall faithfulness.   However, I am not going to lie and say I have never found other translations helpful.  I have invested in a parallel Bible which has about 6 translations (with KJV being the first) side-by-side for comparison.  As someone else mentioned in one of these 2 related threads,  such comparisons can be useful in our understanding of Scripture."

Judy, there is no such thing as "the originals", so how do you know what "relative faithfulness" is? God's true words are perfect - "the law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul" Ps. 19.

The bogus bibles like the nasb, nkjv, niv, rsv, esv etc. all have proveable errors and are each one translated from different texts in both the O.T. and the N. T. Not one of them agrees with the others 100%. I have a multitude of examples of the Bible Babel that exists if you think all these versions are equally the words of God.

Are you admitting that you do not believe any Bible or any single text is the preserved, inerrant words of God? I think this is what you really believe, so why don't you just come out and say it?

Don't be afraid to admit what you really believe. More and more Christians are now openly taking this view - "There is no inspired, inerrant, complete, totally accurate Bible on the earth today, nor has there ever been one." At least in this way we will know where the other person is coming from.

Will Kinney,

I think you undersood perfectly what I referred to, when I said 'original manuscripts', even though I more accurately should have said the oldest available manuscripts.  So don't waste everyone's time playing this type of game.

So then, using a bit of common sense, ALL of our English Bibles -- including the KJV -- are translations.  And even the translators of the KJV made a few errors (although you choose to ignore this fact).  I'm sure God had a hand it their endeavor, to the extent that the KJ translators approached this monumental task in the manner of the honorable Bereans of old.  But they were not the men God is referring to when He said...

2Pe 1:20-21
20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

A translation is itself an interpretation of sorts … interpreting the Hebrew or Greek word or phrase, to the most accurate, comparable English word or phrase.  Furthermore, even though I prefer the KJV for its overall accuracy, I also recognize that most of God's truths are spiritual in nature, and that it's GOD who opens the eyes of the blind to His truths.  Therefore, even if one were to agree with you... that the KJV is totally, 100% devoid of errors in translation, that would not bring anyone any closer to understanding or being transformed by God’s Word unless GOD prepares the 'soil' of their hearts to receive it.

Mat 13:13-16
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14  And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16  But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Eze 36:26-27
26  A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27  And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Consider this…  how did God save His elect BEFORE the Bible was completed?

As to your attempt to twist this around with the ridiculous question of...
     "Are you admitting that you do not believe any Bible or any single text
     is the preserved, inerrant words of God? I think this is what you really
     believe, so why don't you just come out and say it?”
Let me just say that I have said exactly what I mean, and don’t appreciate your trying to put words in my mouth, which reflect your own distortions and biases.  You don’t need to concern yourself with others’ Bible preferences; that’s not your job!
And as you appear to be so preoccupied with a particular version of the Bible, you would do well to ask yourself these questions…
Who do you worship--  the Lord God our Creator, or a particular version of the Bible? 
Upon whom/what does your faith rest?  Does your faith rest upon the faith of Christ, or upon the accuracy of Bible translators?

1Co 4:20  
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

1Th 1:5 
For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power[/u], and in the Holy Ghost[/b][/u], and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.


judy
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 06, 2004, 10:31:15 PM
Hi sister Minna, thanks for your comments.  I agree with you totally.  You ask simple questions that would arise in anybody's mind if they actually believed the Bible and what it says about itself.

John, you post: "So what to do?  I am creating a parallel Bible for my own use. It has the MKJV, YLT, KJV+, and the Greek TR (with strong's numbering) side-by-side.
Since I'm learning Greek, having the KJV with Strong's numbering beside the Greek will help in recognizing the meaning of the Greek words. I'll probably put a Greek concordance in the back.,,, Sometimes the English word or phrase used is not as accurate as it should be when we look at the Greek. It is interesting to see how different scholars attempted to render English from Greek (no easy task).
Isn't this far more complicated than just pretending the KJV is correct and that's that. God wants us to study and study you must."

John, what a funny guy you are.  So, you are just now learning Greek as you say, and yet you are ready to correct the translations made by others who knew far more than you will ever know.  You are now in the process of a Do It Yourself bible version.  I congratulate you.  At least you are following your thinking process to its logical conclusions.

By the way, which texts will you employ in making up your peculiar bible version?

See, all you "KJV preferred but not perfect" people really don't believe any Bible is the complete, inerrant, preserved words of God.  God apparently is out of the picture and all you focus on is the Elizabethan, Episcopal, Catholic tainted translators of 1611.  How pathetic.

The true Bible believer first looks to God Almighty who promised to preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away.  He either did this or He lied and failed.  You pick which one you prefer to believe.

As for where was the word of God before 1611, I will go ahead a post a separate thread on this one.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Blessings,

Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Kenneth White on November 07, 2004, 04:11:35 AM
Kenneth, I find this view to be both arrogant and presumptuous.

Not surprising. Of everyone here, you seem the one most easily and most often personally offended by one thing or another. I certainly don't mean to be arrogant. But having the good sense to understand that one excellent bible translation is both good and sufficient for the church, is not arrogant. And being wise enough to know that many different bible versions within one language is confusing and unwise for the church is not presumptuous. I do believe that even Tony Warren said that this proliferation of Bible versions has led people to wonder what is the word of God, and which one is the bible. Because they can't all be God's word when they are so different. This is not arrogant and presumption, it's just plain common sense. Do you think God wants 100 different English versions of his word? No, I sure don't. That's not presumptuous, that's using my head.


Quote
I prefer the KJV, yet also have a parallel Bible that I have on occasion found helpful,

I have on occasion found tragedy to be helpful in some way, but that doesn't mean that I would go out and support that tragedies be encouraged. The greater point here is parallel Bible versions and if God is happy about them, not if you are happy about them.


Quote
I would rather that you quote me word-for-word rather than 'translate' what I've said in my posts, for I did not 'tout' parallel Bibles,

Touting means to publicize or praise, and it is my view that your witness for your use of parallel bibles and how helpful they are, is touting them. Perhaps you should work on not being offended by every little thing someone says. It's my view your comments fell into the category of touting parallel bibles. You may disagree. But that hardly makes you arrogant. Or me.


Quote
nor did I say "other versions are unfaithful".

Well maybe that's the "real" problem. Because they are! Perhaps you are unaware of the unfaithfulness of the modern versions, or perhaps you like the modern versions so do not care. I do not know. But I do know that these modern versions are a stain on the fabric of the church, and no matter what you say, it is neither helpful or healthy for the church to have all these different versions.

That you didn't say "other versions are unfaithful" is probably the true cause of your animosity. Because they obviously are, and it "seems" you are in denial of that fact.


Quote
Let me ask you this...  Snce most don't know Greek/Hebrew nor have access to the oldest manuscripts -- upon what basis can we say the KJV is the most accurate?

By studying the issue. You don't have to know Hebrew and Greek to understand how the modern versions were put together from the inferior texts. Tony Warren has numerous articles on the subject of versions in his search, I would suggest at least a summary examination of the issue. It's not even close. An honest examination shows the unfaithfulness of the modern versions stems from the corrupted copies that they used, as compared to the authoritative text the KJV and a few other versions used.


Quote
I think you are saying that having four different versions of the same verse can be more confusing than helpful, since one cannot know which is correct.

No, I'm looking at the bigger picture. This idea that many different versions means better understanding is without merit. And more importantly, it is this philosophy that has led to all the different versions in the first place. That if we don't understand a word in one translation, we simply write a whole new version, instead of simply picking up a concordance and comparing scripture with scripture.


Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Tony Warren on November 07, 2004, 05:07:13 AM
>>>
No, I'm looking at the bigger picture. This idea that many different versions means better understanding is without merit. And more importantly, it is this philosophy that has led to all the different versions in the first place. That if we don't understand a word in one translation, we simply write a whole new version, instead of simply picking up a concordance and comparing scripture with scripture.
<<<

Kenneth, on this point, I couldn't agree any more with what you've said here if I had written it myself. This is indeed the real problem today with all these different English versions. This false idea that many different versions means a better understanding of Scripture.

Number one, it can in no way be glorifying to God to have a hundred different variations of God's divine, inerrant word. I look at that as a fact. The whole idea is indefensible as far as I'm concerned. Nor to have a variety of 50, nor 25, nor 10 different versions or of God's word. There is nothing whatsoever scientific, honorable, Christian, virtuous, scholastic, Biblically rational, good, helpful, or healthy for the church to have each Christian select what he likes and doesn't like from 20 variations, every one purporting to be God's accurate word. I look at it the same way that you do. It is confusion. History confirms that the church was much better off when it had a couple versions, most using the KJV, and virtually no "Versions Controversy." I would take the knowledge and understanding of scripture of those people "every time" over today's modern theologians feigning to understand so much more because of diverse versions. No matter how it is rationalized or justified in our day, there is really no good that has come from taking the KJV, the staple good enough for the church proper for hundreds of years, and replacing it with fifty other "diverse" versions on biblical text. So, I'm with you, it is both a cause for division of the body, word, and I believe inherently confusing.

Philippians 1:27

Today's church is not striving together with one mind for the faith of the gospel. Because of pride it is striving independently against that virtue. They have been chipping away at the authority of the word ever since these new versions broke onto the scene. This steady chipping away, hidden by the chorus of professing Christian proponents of these new versions has been relentless. To not see the relationship between modern versions and corruption of doctrines is to blind ourselves to the truth. It seems that Christians today no longer seek the joy in communion in the mind of Christ, rather they joy in their own minds, in their own private opinions, in their own selfish desires and personal interpretations. They joy in selecting their own versions that they can "feel" more comfortable with. And this seems to out-weigh the better good of the church as a whole. Many times this tendency is under the guise of the KJV being archaic or inferior. It' sad, but they deem us as simply judgmental, legalists with a old fashioned sense of superiority and nostalgia. At least that's the presupposition and line most often heard.

Moreover, I might go out on a limb here and declare that I personally think that the new proliferation of modern versions of the Bible are all part and parcel of the growing apostasy that has been a creeping plague in the church for years. Christians in great numbers have lost respect for the word of God, and it shows in their region-wide acceptance of the NIV as the bible of choice, despite its obvious unfaithfulness, flaws and inaccuracies. If I had a dime for every christian who told me they use the NIV because it's easier to understand, I'd be a rich man.

I'm not saying there is a law no one should use a parallel Bible, I'm saying I wouldn't. For example, if I want to know what [musterion] means, I don't go to Greek experts (who can't even agree themselves), or Websters Dictionary, or the Catholic Encyclopedia, or trust the different translators, but to all the scriptures where the actual word is found. I'd compare each word with word, each Scripture with Scripture, in context, and in that way discern the meaning God intended. Rather than arguing over whether it should have been translated "hidden," "Secret," "Unrevealed," or "Mystery" based upon a vaunted expert is foolishness "to me." Something unrevealed is a mystery, is it not? Why do I need a new version to re-translate mystery to unrevealed? I don't.  It's not going to bring anyone one step closer to understanding scripture. It is our diligence in the scriptures that shows us wise and Spirit filled, not the lazy path of leaning towards the translators personal opinions or private interpretations of each word.

Proverbs 12:23-24

We needed faithful students who studied the scriptures rather than those who expertly twist and re-translate scripture according to their own biases and views. Wisdom is in those comparing those Scriptures with the Scriptures, not with the variations or diverse versions that "this" translator, or that "that" translator has written. That's the biggest difference I see today in the church. More of a desire to read what other authors, translations, theologians and so-called experts have said about the what the Bible means, than a desire for what the bible actually says about itself. Again, for example you can really learn more about the word translated "angel," by comparing every place it is found with every other place, than you can by listening to a thousand Greek or Hebrew scholars explaining secular history, visions, Hebrew tenses and nuances. We don't have to buy into the, "we need to know Greek" mentality of understanding scripture. It is a con-job and a narcissistic farce of the highest order. In my youth I argued with Greek and Hebrew "experts" about these things all night until the cows would come home--to no profit. There were those who could put together a string of verbs and pronouns with such skill that you would think they spewed gold saliva from their mouths. But in the end they always stumbled over God's "authoritative word" and were defeated by the hollow immanency of their postulations, tripping all over their own factitious theories.

You don't "need" to know Greek, you don't "need" parallel bibles, you don't "need" the NIV, what you "need" is the mind of Christ which produces the wisdom to understand that all these different English versions are harmful to the body of Christ, and thus (IMHO) Christians should not support it. Men, women, teachers, authors, flesh and blood, will not reveal these things to Christians, only the Spirit of Christ can.

Matthew 16:17

I have no "need nor use" for parallel translations, and honestly, neither does anyone else. Sure, many may indeed have a "desire" for different variations of God's word, but let us be clear that desire, is not need. Nor are our desires (no matter how well meaning) always helpful in the long run. They are seldom prudent, insightful, or wise. Witness the man who had a desire to put forth his hand and steady the ark when the oxen that was pulling it stumbled. I mean really, he "thought" his action would help, but his actions were not insightful, prudent or wise. And God killed him on the spot for what he did. The moral of the story being, all things that "seem" helpful, are not "really" helpful at all when we consider them in the light of God's word. And God's word was not to touch it.

1st Chronicles 13:9-11

Of course this action by God displeased David. Why? Because David (in his humanistic understanding), thinks this man was only trying to be helpful. But this man was not simply slain for himself, but for those who would come after and read of this episode. In other words, He's an example that there are no situation ethics in play with God. God says don't touch the Ark and you touch it, you die. And you die justly! Likewise, like Uzza, people who see nothing wrong with all these different variations of God's word think that they can be helpful, but they deceive themselves. In fact, all these diverse versions are a hindrance to the church. And those who support acceptance of them are part of the problem, rather than the solution.

It's my view that the minute that the church accepted the idea of there being great benefit in having many different versions of God's word, they began to sow a bad seed in the field, and we are reaping what they have sowed. And when giving assent to the diverse (and perverse) versions, we lose our right to exclude any of the hundreds of new translations that follow in that same mentality that more "opinions" (translations) of the Bible are also good for the church. No it's not better, and "GOD FORBID" that Christians cannot see the inherent dangers in this careless philosophy.

1st Corinthians 14:8

When I wanted to know if the scriptures teach the "faith of Christ," or our "faith in Christ," it wasn't translators, different versions, Hebrew, or Greek that I went to for Biblical proof, it was the Bible itself. It was the rest of the Bible, compared with itself, which confirmed by itself. And it did so in a hundred different ways. Not by comparing other Bibles, but confirmed in one Bible version by carefully comparing scripture (the Hebrew and Greek words) with scripture. God's word is true and He indeed does preserve it. But not in a perfect an authored translation nor in diverse English translations, but in the faithful copies that the KJV and others were translated from.

Nevertheless, the "Version Wars" will go on as long as there is an earth, man and will of man. And I think you can expect it to become worse as more and more professed Christians accept both these modern versions and perversions. And those accepting them as helpful to the church I don't think can hold themselves blameless for the place that it takes them.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: judykanova on November 07, 2004, 08:50:57 AM
Quote
Quote - I think you are saying that having four different versions of the same verse can be more confusing than helpful, since one cannot know which is correct.

No, I'm looking at the bigger picture. This idea that many different versions means better understanding is without merit. And more importantly, it is this philosophy that has led to all the different versions in the first place. That if we don't understand a word in one translation, we simply write a whole new version, instead of simply picking up a concordance and comparing scripture with scripture.

Kenneth,

Where did this quote come from?  Not from my post.
It appears you and others have found someone to channel your frustrations towards.  Your 'twists' and distortions of what I actually said, attributing to me things I have not said, overall misrepresentation of the intent of my posts,  and your thiinking I should not come to my own defense (which is your definition of being 'offended'), makes it clear to me that any response I make, will receive more of the same.  So this will be my last post.

judy
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Kenneth White on November 07, 2004, 11:56:04 AM
Quote
Quote - I think you are saying that having four different versions of the same verse can be more confusing than helpful, since one cannot know which is correct.

.

Kenneth,

Where did this quote come from?  Not from my post.

It is a quote from John's post to me. Since you two seem to always speak as one, rather than write two posts, I answered both questions with one post. And clearly, your touting of the parallel versions means that you think that different bible versions of the bible are helpful. Denying that is useless, since that is the very point of our contention.

As I said, I'm looking at the bigger picture. This idea that many different versions means better understanding (parallel bibles) is without merit. And more importantly, it is this philosophy that has led to all the different versions in the first place. That if we don't understand a word in one translation, we simply write a whole new version, instead of simply picking up a concordance and comparing scripture with scripture. I stand by my comments.

As for John saying that he thinks I don't like parallel versions because I think no one can know which one is correct, that is clearly not my reasons. Since I do know which one is correct, how could it be? I think that both Tony Warren's, as well as my own post expressed our reasons. It comes down to obedience and knowing that God doesn't want 20 different versions of his bible. Why can't you all understand that?  So if He doesn't want it, why do we want it? And so to support such practices is unbiblical and not prudent for the church in my view.

Judy, whether you respond to my posts or not is not the issue. The issue is what is pleasing to God and what is not. And you cannot show how having multiple versions of the word of God (parallel versions) is pleasing to him. And I'm sure that in your heart you know that. And that is why you attempt to change the subject and not deal with the multiple versions issue. I can't imagine the Apostles saying that they need another version of the old testament scriptures because it's good to know modern translators opinions of the text. It's a shame that you make things much more complicated than they are. God is not pleased by parallel bibles. It's confusion. It's as simple as that.


Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Kenneth White on November 07, 2004, 12:06:08 PM

Kenneth, on this point, I couldn't agree any more with what you've said here if I had written it myself. This is indeed the real problem today with all these different English versions. This false idea that many different versions means a better understanding of Scripture. Number one, it can in no way be Glorifying to God to have a hundred different versions of His divine inerrant word.

All I can say is  )amen( Tony.

It seems that some choose to confuse the issue because they support the church having and using multiple Bible versions, but I think once you go down that slippery slope there is no coming back. Just listen to this statement. "The church having and using multiple Bibles is good." Now does that sound God glorifying to anyone?

As for those who don't think the modern versions are unfaithful, there's no talking to them. One minute they're saying they don't believe in different versions of the bible, and the next minute they're saying they didn't say that these other versions are unfaithful at all. They're saying so much, and yet saying nothing in order not to take a stand. You are right, it's "what came first, the chicken or the egg." Apostasy in the church, or corruption of the Bible. Or maybe they go hand in hand.

God bless your faithfulness brother.
Kenneth


Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 07, 2004, 02:35:27 PM
Hi Kenneth and Tony, just a note here.  I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on this vital subject and I agree with you both.

As for "the faith of Christ" and many other doctrines of  sovereign grace that have been perverted in all the modern versions, I have written an article that fellow Calvinists may find of interest.

It is titled Calvinism and the King James Bible.  It is plain for those who have eyes to see.

Here is the site

https://www.scionofzion.com/calvinism_kjb.htm

In His Grace,

Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Pilgrim on November 07, 2004, 02:53:41 PM

Kenneth, on this point, I couldn't agree any more with what you've said here if I had written it myself. This is indeed the real problem today with all these different versions written produced in the same language.  Number one, it can in no way be Glorifying to God to have a hundred different versions of His divine inerrant word.

All I can say is  )amen( Tony.

It seems that some choose to confuse the issue because they support the church having and using multiple Bible versions, but I think once you go down that slippery slope there is no coming back. Just listen to this statement. "The church having and using multiple Bibles is good." Now does that sound God glorifying to anyone?

God bless your faithfulness brother.
Kenneth


No Kenneth, that doesn't sound right to me either. It sounds horrible!

I think that you pick a bible and you stick with it. You don't treat the word of God as if it is a salad bar where you pick what you like from each different dish.

I respect Judy and John but they are wrong on this issue. You simply can't have a collection of different bibles. And Judy, yes the modern versions are unfaithful to God's word. This particular issue has nothing to do with KJ Only advocates. It's just a matter of fact.
 
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: John on November 07, 2004, 11:59:45 PM
Quote
I respect Judy and John but they are wrong on this issue. You simply can't have a collection of different bibles. And Judy, the modern versions are unfaithful to God's word. This particular issue has nothing to do with KJ -only advocates. It's just a matter of fact.

I think there is an allowable difference in the manner that Christians approach this subject. I am not passionate about parallel Bibles, I find it a useful tool, some do not -- so be it. Am I wrong for checking the Greek, am I wrong for looking at Strong's, Young's or Green's work? Am I insulting someone by highlighting the better translation or even making pen-and-ink changes that better reflect the underlying Greek? Am I endorsing the proliferation of versions by assembling the best text? I don't think so.

OK, let's look at an example:

Mark 16:1-2
1  And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2  And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.


Here is the acclaimed 'inerrant' King James Version quoting of Mark 16 above. Mary came to the tomb on Sunday morning the first day of the week. The KJV-only folks are content and move on to other things. The person who refuses to address the underlying Greek or check other version based on it is content also is happpy and moves on to other things. But someone who looks at Young's translation notices something different:

Mark 16:1-2
1  And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
2  and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,


We soon find that the King James Version is wrong and Young's is correct, especially if we refer back to the TR and check the Greek to be sure. That morning at the tomb was the first of the New Testament Sabbaths!

Now if we trusted only the KJV we would have missed an important truth (as we would also sadly with the NKJV).

Quote
I respect Judy and John but they are wrong on this issue. You simply can't have a collection of different bibles.

If I carry a parallel bible how has that offended you? Does my eye hurt your elblow? Why am I wrong and you right? Why is it a zero sum game? As far as I can see it is a matter of personal choice for personal study. I am not promoting modern versions or sabotaging churches. Do you see a mole hill ahead or is that a mountain on the horizon? We can also learn Greek without arguing nuances and becoming embroiled in endless debate. It is all a matter of intent.

I am against red letter editions -- do you own a red-letter KJV?  I'd ask you why? Are the words of Christ is red because they are more important or significant than the rest of the Bible? I find that to be more of an issue than comparing multiple versions.

I am against commentaries in Bibles -- do you own a Bible with Macarthur’s commentary or notes from reformers -- do you think it wise to mix the words of men with the words of God? I don't. But I will not rail against you if you do -- it's your choice. Welcome to America!

I do not like paragraph headings that summarize the paragraph -- they are written by men and can be quite misleading. But if the Bible you use has this "feature" you can still be my friend.

These things are minor and a matter of personal needs based on what works for you. However, I will not support the use of modern versions based on Alexandrian texts -- ideally they should all be collected and burned. Please do not confuse something like Robert Young's or Jay Green's attempt to make a more literal and accurate Bible based on the TR text with these modern monstrosities based on corrupted Greek texts.

Honest people have been trying to make a better English translation since Jon Wycliff in the 1300's, the KJV is another is a long list of attempts to be more accurate (present modern versions based on the CT excepted). In fact, the KJV was not initially accepted. The people enjoyed the Geneva Bible and it was supremely popular. It was a revision of Tyndale's version done by William Whittingham, the brother-in-law of John Calvin of all people. The Geneva Bible went through 144 editions between 1560 and 1644. Even forty years after the publication of the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible continued to be the Bible of choice. The Pilgrim's came to American carrying the Geneva Bible. The Bishop's Bible was used mainly within the church. Can you believe that? Two Bibles -- one for home and one for church -- does that give glory to God?  Well, the reformers didn't consider the situation to be unmanageable.   

The King James version was born out of King James' dislike for the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible and its Calvinistic commentary. King James is quoted as saying, "I profess, I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst." He went on to make ownership of the Geneva Bible a felonyin England. The King James Bible was authorized by him with the intent of supplanting a bible that was odious to James. Eventually it did, but not for a long while. This does not diminish the KJB, it is an excellent translation.

The point here is that Bibles based on the TR Greek did not stop with the KJV -- we are not more noble because of our determined effort to use the KJV and only the KJV. If I choose to reference several of these excellent versions and a Greek TR and you find me in grave error, then so be it, let God be the judge.

john
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 08, 2004, 12:38:20 AM

OK, let's look at an example:

Mark 16:1-2
1  And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2  And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.


Here is the acclaimed 'inerrant' King James Version quoting of Mark 16 above. Mary came to the tomb on Sunday morning the first day of the week. The KJV-only folks are content and move on to other things. The person who refuses to address the underlying Greek or check other version based on it is content also is happpy and moves on to other things. But someone who looks at Young's translation notices something different:

Mark 16:1-2
1  And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
2  and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,


We soon find that the King James Version is wrong and Young's is correct, especially if we refer back to the TR and check the Greek to be sure. That morning at the tomb was the first of the New Testament Sabbaths!

Now if we trusted only the KJV we would have missed an important truth (as we would also sadly with the NKJV).


Dear John,

I don't know a thing about Greek, but to me, the use of the word "sabbaths" in Mark 16:2 would make these verses very confusing because we are told in the verse right before it (verse 1) that "the sabbath was past."

If the sabbath was past, how could they come "early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths"?


Here is the Young's translation that you gave and said was correct.  Please read it again and see that it is confusing:


Mark 16:1-2
1  And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
2  and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,


Do you see what I mean?


Also, I don't know what Young's Literal Translation says in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2, but according to Strong's, the word used for "week" in Mark 16:2 is # 4521, and is also used in other verses, including the the verses below. 

Would the word "sabbaths" instead of "week" make any sense in the verses?   


Acts 20

6  And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.

7  And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.


1 Corinthians 16

1  Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

2  Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

3  And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.


There is no error here. The King James Bible is correct.

Blessings,
Minna
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Pearson on November 08, 2004, 03:26:11 AM
No Kenneth, that doesn't sound right to me either. It sounds horrible!

I think that you pick a bible and you stick with it. You don't treat the word of God as if it is a salid bar where you pick what you like from each different dish.

I repect Judy and John but they are wrong on this issue. You simply can't have a collection of different bibles. And Judy, the modern versions are unfaithful to God's word. This particular issue has nothing to do with KJ Conly advocates. It's just a matter of fact.
 


[Soapbox mode on]

This is an interesting thread so I thought I'd just add my two cents worth. I started out on one side of the fense, and now end up on the other. We all need to do a little soul searching on the issue.

Tony, you are so right. Before the 1900's you could read any Bible version you wanted, just as long as it was the King James Version. That's oversimplified, but basically true. But since 1881, there has been a shift to a more liberal, practical and social Church, and scores of new translations have since been printed. I don't see this as progress either, I see it as the Church in degradation. Especially since we all know that there are literally hundreds of textual changes between the King James Version of the bible and these modern translations. All you have to do is ask these Christians what stories the KJV has that the modern translations don't have, do they believe don't belong there. Then do a bible study of it and see how fast their beliefs are proven absurd. Do you know that there are scholars who claim that Christians who believe that a faithful translation of the Bible means a word-for-word translation, are to be considered laymen and ignorant? That alone shows you were their heads are. They believe that a "phrase-for-phrase" translation, or a dynamic equivalence translation is actually the faithful translation. That people like us should not be so concerned about the grammatical form of the original language, but about the meaning of the original. Just how they are supposed to get into the head of the author and know the original meaning, only they can say. the truth is, the dynamic equivalence translations that are in the modern versions are interpretation, not translation. We know that in some instances a word-for-word translation is not possible in some words, but that does not change anything as far as faithful translation goes.

John, you're correct, KJV-onlyism as an absolute is not valid. In other words, it's not a perfect translation. Neither is any other translation. However, I do believe that it is the best translation, and has been for hundreds of years. Therefore it is the one I use, recommend and quote from exclusively. And Tony makes a good point that I think you skim over. That the real issue we should be concerned with is the proliferation of modern versions, which I'm sure you know that most, if not all parallel bibles include as standard. So when we say we have no problem with parallel bibles, what are we saying. I realize you are creating your own, but I'm speaking in general terms. People will assume getting parallel bibles is a good thing to do because John has one and sees nothing wrong with it. Yours may be fine, but what about mine? We are our brothers keeper. It's like I don't smoke or drink anymore, not because I can't, but because I don't want to be a stumbling block to my weaker brother.


Kenneth, you make a good point. There really is three differences in the  modern Christian that has been the parents of this new generation of Bible translations. Textual differences, informational differences, philosophical differences. I think what we see in this forum is mainly the philosophical influences at work. Modern Christians don't so much believe in a word for word rendering of the Word of God, as a phrase for phrase rendering. That's why they have no problem with the modern versions. Are these translations any better than the King James? No, they are a far inferior translation, and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone.


Judy, if you knew anything about Dynamic Equivalence Vs. Formal Equivalence, you certainly wouldn't imply that the modern translations were faithful to the word of God. the modern versions like the New International Version  and the New English Bible follow this Dynamic Equivalence philosophy. You should know that in 1881 there was published Greek New Testament based not on the superior texts, but on the oldest found manuscripts. This text, by Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort was an unorthodox and massive departure from the Greek texts that the King James Bible was translated from. This text from Westcott-Hort is corrupted text. Many quick-scholars think the oldest manuscripts make it the best for translating, but the truth is that the very reason many old texts survived was because they were corrupted, and no one used them. So they didn't wear out like many of the faithful texts did. The Westcott-Hort text is shorter because of this corruption and as a result does not contain many passages. Passages such as the story of the angel of the Lord stirring the waters at the pool of Bethesda (John chapter 5 verse 4), or nearly all of the second half of Mark chapter 16 of the signs following believers, or even Christ's gospel of the women caught in adultery (John chapter 8 ). Do you think any of these passages don't belong in the bible? If not, then obviously these oldest texts the modern versions are using are the inferior and corrupted text.

Moreover, although many christians are quick to tell you that the Byzantine texts from which the KJV is translated is dated as more recent, what they don't tell you is that these texts comprise at least 80 percent of the 5000+ MSS of the New Testament that we presently have. It's clear to me that to say these passages left out of the modern versions  were never part of the original scripture is absurd. Just read them. To make a long story short, these corrupted Westcott-Hort texts are what almost all of the modern versions are translated from. But the Greek texts behind the King James Version of the bible comes from the faithful Byzantine text.

Many versions don't interpret scripture, they distort it. And some are notorious for leaving out references to the blood of Christ, for using language to deny Christ's deity, or support a more free will philosophy.

Pearson

(http://www.trettel.com/ccrc/images/two_cents.gif)
Just My two cents

[Soapbox mode off]
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 08, 2004, 03:46:54 AM


John, you're correct, KJV-onlyism as an absolute is not valid. In other words, it's not a perfect translation.


Dear Pearson,

Then if the King James Bible isn't a perfect translation, where is the word of God? 


Remember that God has promised to preserve His words:

Psalms 12

6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


And He has promised that His words shall not pass away. 


Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.


Mark 13:31

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


Luke 21:33

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


So where are God's words now? 

How can we compare Scripture with Scripture if we believe that there are errors in the Scripture or if we are in doubt that we have the complete and correct word of God?  We can't.  It would be useless and futile.  And if we believed that there were errors in the Scriptures, then we would put in jeopardy every post quoting Scripture and every Bible study ever done on Mountain Retreat (not to mention every Bible study ever done anywhere), because we wouldn't be able to know for sure if the Scriptures used in them contained errors or not...thus making them all null and void because there would be no Final Authority...no word of God!  Please think about that.

So if what you are saying is correct, then what's the use in studying the Scriptures in the first place if we believe that there are errors in them?  In that case, we might as well compare comic books with comic books and movies with movies, etc., anything besides studying the Scriptures, if we can't know for sure if there are errors or not...which is what the world does...totally doubting and ignoring the word of God.

Blessings,
Minna
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 08, 2004, 06:34:07 AM
John, I agree with what Minna said about your point of Young translating the word as "sabbaths".  It makes no sense at all.  Truth is the word for sabbath is always in the plural, just like the word "heaven" is frequently in the plural but it should be translated as a singular.

What Young ignorantly did was to always make sabbath a plural and he ends up with nonsense.

Notice for example (and there are many in Youngs) Matthew 12:1 in Youngs - "At that time did Jesus go on the SABBATHS through the corn, and his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck ears, and to eat..."

Come on, John.  How is this the "sabbaths" (plural).?

Look at every other time Young translates this as a plural.  Young was wrong.

Do you consider Young's to be the inerrant word of God?  I'll bet not.

In case you want an example or two I have several real blunders by Young.

Can God be deceived?  Try Young in Psalm 78:36.

There is nothing wrong with the KJB and almost every other version I know of correcting translating sabbaths as a singular most of the time when it clearly is a singular sabbath day being referred to.

And God certainly cannot be deceived by man. 

Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: judykanova on November 08, 2004, 06:49:43 AM
I know I said I wouldn't say anything further, but since this topic continues to go on, with others making all kinds of assumptions and assertions which go far beyond the nature of the comments made on 1/6/04 in the "What Happpens If You Are Not a KJB Only?" thread, please allow me to remind everyone what those comments were, as demonstration of how this issue has been blown way out of proportion, and has become something else entirely.

What I said then and say now:

"This post pertains to both 'KJV' threads that are in progress...  an issue that will no doubt be debated till Jesus comes.  But while we’re at it,  there are certain things that should never be lost sight of, which based on some of the comments I've read,  seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Of most importance, it is through the Word of God, that He elects to save.  So the faithfulness of a translation does matter.
(...Rom 10:17, John 15:3, 1 Thess 2:13, Eph 1:13, 1 Peter 1:23)

Secondly,  Jesus Himself is referred to as The Word (John 1:1,14) and we are forewarned about false prophets & teachers who distort and pervert the Word of Truth.  So the stance that a translation or interpretation is not important, is both foolish and dangerous.
(... Titus 1:9-11, 2 Cor 4:2, Gal 1:9, Ezek 22:28)

Thirdly, we understand that without the leading of the Holy Spirit who provide us with eyes to ‘see’ and ears to 'hear', no translation is of value.  That’s what the parable of the sower is all about (Mark 4), and what many other Scriptures teach:
(...John 16:14, Acts 10:44, Matt 18:15-19)

So,  there is no question but that the faithful rendering of God’s Holy Word is of all importance, and Christ – as The Word, is central to the ‘true’ gospel, and to our very salvation.  Moreover, and fourthly, The Word is also central to God’s wrath and judgment on the unsaved world:
(...Rev 19:11, 13, John 12:48)

Lastly and in conclusion,  when it comes to translations, the issue is not one of perfection (which can only be said of the original texts),  but one of relative faithfulness.  Like Christ_Alone, my preference is the KJV for reasons of overall faithfulness.   However, I am not going to lie and say I have never found other translations helpful.  I have invested in a parallel Bible which has about 6 translations (with KJV being the first) side-by-side for comparison.  As someone else mentioned in one of these 2 related threads,  such comparisons can be useful in our understanding of Scripture.

So while poor/unfaithful translations should not be deemed or overlooked as harmless, and while the KJV (though overall superior in it’s faithfulness)  is not perfect,  a bit of common sense can be used in utilizing other versions when warranted and beneficial to our study of God’s Word.   It’s the study of God’s Word which, in part, constitutes our ‘labor’ – but that’s a somewhat different topic.
(...2 Tim 2:15-18, Acts 17:11, 1 Tim 5:17)

Words are powerful, even in the earthly sense; how much more powerful is the Word of God, rightly divided!"  

So, Kenneth, having made no comment back then, why did you wait 9 months later to voice criticism, saying that having a parallel Bible is hypocritical, and putting me in the wrong for even responding in defense?. Talk about underhanded, that takes the cake!  

I understand what many are saying about the dangers of poor translations , and said as much in my post of 1/6/04.  But that's isn't the topic of this thread and was never under contention.  The points that have been entirely and conveniently overlooked, are these...

- One has every right to check out the claim that the KJV is the most faithful rendition of Scripture, and reach their own conclusion.
  This can only be done by looking at the other translations, and with the use of a Strongs concordence and related tools, make a comparison.  This is exactly what
  I did, and had every right to do.  
 
- One has every right to use whatever personal study tools they find helpful.  There is nothing sinful about this despite self-righteous claims to the contrary.
  There is also no basis for the charge of 'confusion' since no one else is involved in this endeavor.  I would not presume to dictate to anyone how they must
  study, nor what tools they are allowed to study with.  I know perfectly well that other translations are inferior to the KJ, and have said as much many times.
  But it's still a matter of degree, as some of the modern translations were undertaken in good faith, and are based on the same manuscripts.
  How many of you listen to the wonderful Bible readings on Family Radio --  which is from the NKJV?

 
- ALL of my posts have used Scripture from the KJV.  However, while studying, I sometimes run across difficult Old English idioms that another version may help  
  clarify.  I expect some will get on their high-horse about even admitting that.

- According to Kenneth, who seems to have a fondness for the term 'always', I'm supposedly always 'offended' whenever
  I come to my own defense, yet it's he and others who for some strange reason are 'offended' by the tools I use for Bible study. 

- According to Kenneth,  my comments may be used interchangeably with john's since we 'always' agree.  Even if this were true (which it isn't),
  to do such a thing is both disrespectful and deceitful.  If I happen to agree with someone, well I just happen to agree with someone and may choose to say so,
  ... no different than anyone else here.  And I would be interested in hearing a response to john's comments regarding commentaries, footnotes, red letters,
  and things of that nature.  Are these materials in one's home, used judiciously for personal study, also generally viewed as 'horrible', leading to mass confusion and the
  decline of churches -- whether you attend one or not?

judy
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 08, 2004, 07:17:40 AM
Hi Preston, in part you said: "John, you're correct, KJV-onlyism as an absolute is not valid. In other words, it's not a perfect translation. Neither is any other translation. However, I do believe that it is the best translation, and has been for hundreds of years."

Preston, you and John talk about the TR and translations made from it.  Are you aware that there is no "THE TR"?  The King James text is a variety of the Textus Receptus.  Young's doesn't always follow the same Greek text as the KJB, nor does the NKJV, nor does Green.  In fact Green thinks several readings in the KJB are spurious.

Then we have the little problem of how to translate the Greek and Hebrew into English.  What you fellas end up with is each of you disagreeing about different parts of your various, conflicting, multiple-choice bible versions, and then each of you follows your own understanding and pieces together a unique and peculiar bible version that exists nowhere in print on this earth.  You have a mystical bible that is different in varying degrees from anybody else's.  And of course, it can and often does change with every "new light" you might think you have found.

You still do not have any single Book you can confidently call the inspired, inerrant, complete and final word of God.  You are no different than the Whateverists who promote a multitude of conflicting comic book bibles.  It is just a question of degree and personal preference.


My view and belief is based on the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God who promised to preserve His words somewhere on this earth.  I believe He has done this and it is only in the King James Bible.  See, I can point you to a real, tangible Book in print that any of you can pick up and read and you don't need to change a single thing in it.  It is just the way God wanted it to be.  The text of the KJB has never changed.  Sure, some minor printing errors have occured from time to time in various printings, but the text itself has never changed in almost 400 years.  God has clearly set His seal of divine approval on this particular Bible far, far more than on any other.  Just look at how He has used it all over the world.

If it were not for the King James Bible there would be no bible version issue today.  There is only one Bible that thousands of people all over the world actually believe to be the inerrant, inspired word of God.  Just one.  And we let other people know that the others are inferiour at best and devilish at worst.  We really believe this.

There are NO errors in the King James Bible. Nada, zip, zero.  If you can find one proveable error, then my whole position falls to the ground.  I don't mean your personal preference on how a word should be translated, but a real error.  Not something like that silly sabbathS thingy, but a real textual or translational error.

The NKJV is supposedly based on the same underlying TR text, and yet this version is certainly not the true words of God.  It has real and not just apparent errors.  I can show you several of them if you like.

Youngs "literal" translation is another bogus bible, yet he supposedly adopted the same underlying texts (he didn't always do this, and he has some really messed up translations)  God never set His seal of divine approval on this mess and He never will.

So, you either have a perfect Bible or you don't.  Apparently you are satisfied with using inferiour bibles.    You are free to do so.  Like you said, this is America.  But keep in mind the fact that God does not run a democratic form of government.  He is a sovereign King.  I suggest we submit to the Bible He chose to give us as His inerrant and accurate words of truth and life.

Will Kinney

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 08, 2004, 07:27:06 AM
Hi Judy, I found your post to be very interesting.  I noticed you were trying to equate the word of God (it should be a small w in word) with the Word of God, being Christ incarnate.  I agree with your analogy.  However your analogy falls apart at the seams when we examine it more closely with what you really believe.

You have told us that no translation is perfect and that only the originals were.  We all know the originals no longer exist and in fact they never were all together in one Book to begin with.  So to follow the logic of your analogy, we would then have to conclude that the Word of God (the Lord Jesus Christ) either 1. no longer exists; or 2. is not perfect.

So, which is it?

Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 08, 2004, 07:42:24 AM

  I noticed you were trying to equate the word of God (it should be a small w in word) with the Word of God, being Christ incarnate. 


Dear Will,

Thank-you for pointing out that the "word of God" should not be capitalized, whereas the "Word of God"...Christ incarnate should be.  I, too, made the same mistake and have gone back and corrected it in my last post.  (I have probably made it many times over on the forum and elsewhere, but now, thanks to your correction, I will be more careful of it.)  I know this wasn't the main point of your post, but I did want to thank you for straightening this out for me.

Blessings,
Minna
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: judykanova on November 08, 2004, 08:15:39 AM
brainplucked, I have acknowledged already that instead of saying 'original texts ', I should have said early manuscripts.
That is a non-issue.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Lieberman on November 08, 2004, 09:15:59 AM
From an outsider's perspective, it seems to me that KJV-onlyism is better than the alternative. Is that what I am hearing?
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 08, 2004, 09:20:21 AM
Dear Judy,

Please pardon me for asking, but why are you taking this so personally?  We are talking about the word of God here.  Our personal feelings and opinions don't matter one iota.  We shouldn't be trying to defend ourselves.  We should be witnessing for Jesus, and for the word of God.

Revelation 20:4

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


You said:
<<<- One has every right to check out the claim that the KJV is the most faithful rendention of Scripture, and reach their own conclusion.>>>

Judy, if we reach our own conclusion, aren't we doing what is right in our own eyes, thus making ourselves our final authority instead of the word of God being our final authority?


Please look at your tag line on all of your posts, Judy:


Psalms 119:89

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.


Don't you believe this? 


Please remember how our Lord told us to pray in Matthew 6:


Matthew 6

9  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10  Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11  Give us this day our daily bread.

12  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.


In earth, as it is in heaven...forever.

And our Lord told us to pray to our Father that He will give us this day our daily bread.  Many false Bible versions claim that that means literal food...in fact, I believe that I read that one of them translates it as "Give me my three square meals a day."  But you and I know that "our daily bread" is the word of God.  So let me ask you, would our Lord tell us to pray for our daily bread if there wasn't any perfect daily bread to be given?  I don't think so, and I don't think you do either.

So I ask you to please take these things into consideration, to not take this personally, to realize that God hasn't forsaken us and gone back on His word because He cannot lie...and to realize that we do have the inerrant word of God...in the King James Bible. 

Now old yacky Minna will hush for today.  (Sigh of relief from everybody?)  ;D

Many Blessings,
Minna
P.S. Will Kinney's user name is "brandplucked"  not "brainplucked," as you called him.  ::)
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: judykanova on November 08, 2004, 01:48:37 PM
Quote
Judy, if we reach our own conclusion, aren't we doing what is right in our own eyes, thus making ourselves our final authority instead of the word of God being our final authority?

Minna, we're talking about two different things here.  I'm talking about reaching one's own conclusion about which Bible version is best; you're talking about reaching conclusions about what Scriptures themselves say.  See the difference?

Yes, I am taking this personally.  I imagine you would feel much the same way if something you said 9 months ago, was taken out of context, overblown to mean things it was never intended to mean, called names like hypocritical, and attempts made to box you in, such that if you came to our own defense, you're also labeled as being always 'offended'

brandplucked, my apologies for mistyping your name.

I've said all I wanted to say at this point, and if some choose to misunderstand, so be it. 

judy
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 08, 2004, 04:52:29 PM
Hi Lieberman, you ask: "From an outsider's perspective, it seems to me that KJV-onlyism is better than the alternative. Is that what I am hearing?"

Well, that definitely is my position.   

My position on the Holy Bible - also known as the King James Version.

The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself.

The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:
Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name
for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his
truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of
his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words
which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out
of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith
the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto
you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God has promised to preserve His wordS here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.

I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:

#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins.  "What advantage then hath the Jew?  or what profit is there of circumcision?  Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)  The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.
 
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.

#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.

#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English version that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.

"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5

#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV and Holman)

#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16


In and by His grace alone,
Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Dave Taylor on November 08, 2004, 05:44:46 PM
Will Kinney wrote:
Quote
#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

You make some pretty bold and staggering statements with this claim above Will.

I thought I would search out a few scriptures from modern translations; to see if they do, as you claim, 'debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.'

I chose the following verses, of which magnify and uplift Jesus Christ to the highest of glory; to see if they render Him debase and lower in any way from the KJV.


John 10:30
KJV
"I and my Father are one."
NKJV
"I and My Father are one."
NASB
"I and the Father are one."
NIV
"I and the Father are one."
Holman
"The Father and I are one."

I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being declared to be one with the Father?






John 14:6
KJV
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
NKJV
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
NASB
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. "
NIV
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "
Holman
"Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being declared the only way to the Father?






Acts 4:10-12
KJV
"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. "
NKJV
"let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the "stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.'Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." "
NASB
"let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health. "He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.""
NIV
"then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. 'Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." 
Holman
"let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified and whom God raised from the deadby Him this man is standing here before you healthy. This Jesus is The stone despised by you builders, who has become the cornerstone. There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved."

I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being the only name under heaven for salvation?







Philippians 2:9-11
KJV
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth"
NKJV
"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "
NASB
"For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "
NIV
"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "
Holman
"For this reason God also highly exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being the one whom all people will bow and confess to be Lord?




Colossians 1:14-17
KJV
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:   And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. "
NKJV
"in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."
NASB
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.  For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.  He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. "
NIV
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. "
Holman
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation; because by Him everything was created, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.
"

I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being the creator and sustainer of all things, having dominion over all creation?







Colossians 2:9-10
KJV
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power"
NKJV
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. "
NASB
"For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority"
NIV
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority."
Holman
"For in Him the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily, and you have been filled by Him, who is the head over every ruler and authority."

I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being Deity, head over every power and authority?






If the modern Bible versions are making Christ be debase and lowered, they sure did miss these verses. 

Why do you believe these particular verses did not debase, dilute, or lower the Person of Christ?

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 08, 2004, 11:23:19 PM
Quote
Judy, if we reach our own conclusion, aren't we doing what is right in our own eyes, thus making ourselves our final authority instead of the word of God being our final authority?

Minna, we're talking about two different things here.  I'm talking about reaching one's own conclusion about which Bible version is best; you're talking about reaching conclusions about what Scriptures themselves say.  See the difference?


Dear Judy,

No, I don't believe we are talking about two different things.  If we reach our own conclusion about which Bible version is best, then we are being our own final authority.   

I don't know what else to say to you except that I pray that you will see what I am talking about.

Blessings,
Minna
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: John on November 09, 2004, 12:40:12 AM
Psalms 12
6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


The word preserve means to keep, and is used in Psalm 119 in a similar manner. The idea is that the person keeps the law by hearing and obeying.

Ps 119:69 
The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart.

Ps 119:115  
Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.


When Psalm 12 says "...thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" it means that we shall keep the words of the LORD (to do them). It is not speaking about writing down the words of the LORD and perserving them in a mason jar. It is not secretly hinting that someday there will come a generation that gets to perserve the words of the LORD -- that being 1611. We perserve or keep the words of the LORD within us and then we obey it. Do you see the difference?

OK, let's look at it differently. If it were talking about perserving God's word in some perfect written form, where is this perfect form?  Do you say "the KJB". But read the verse again, "from this generation for ever". There must be a whole series of "perfect" translations in every language throughout history, all prior to the KJV, to preserve it from that generation (during the psalmists day) unto our day.  What are these perfect translations?  The Septuagent? A Greek translation of the Hebrew, is that perfect?  We can easily show that it is not. Which version then and in what language. Or is God unconcerned with perfection until the KJB was created?  Bibles such as Tyndale's, Bishops, Wycliff's, Geneva and on and on ... they were not perfect English translations to be certain -- but the King James Version is?  Do you see how rediculous this is?  There was no 'perfect' translation until it was done in 1611 and in English?  How euro-centric of us to think so.  How did Jesus suffice to use the Septuagent (indeed He did) and the disciples too when it wasn't a perfect translation? Yet, Jesus used the imperfect Greek translation of the Hebrew.

The reason the KJV-only position gets itself into a connundrum, is because it is a fallacy. If God preserved His word in a perfect written form He would not have waited until 1611 to do it. He would not have written that it would be preserved in all generations and let 2000 years pass before allowing English scholars to get the job done. I know that the KJV-only reply is that there were perfect texts floating around "out there" somewhere in every generation. Forget it -- it is utter nonsense.


Now we have Mark 13:

Mark 13:31
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

We correctly understand this to mean that God's decrees, all the things writtenin the Bible, will all come to fruition -- nothing and no one will escape the things God has decreed to occur. Heaven and earth will be destroyed with fire on that last day -- including all the KJV Bibles -- all burned up. But God's words will be fulfilled and stand forever. Now, the KJV-Only position is that when God destroys the world with fire the "words shall not pass away", meaning, we will have millions of copies of the KJB in heaven with us forever. Since the KJV will never pass away -- being perfect. Of course they will deny this but still insist that God's written word will not pass away in this world because we have the KJV. But it doesn't say "in this world" -- it means essentially the word of God will never ever pass away!  Either the KJB will never pass away of the word of God spoken of in Mark 13 is NOT speaking of a written Bible. Anymore than Psalm 12 is speaking of preserving a written Bible.

Do you see now -- there is NO PERFECT BIBLE!  There never has been a perfect translation -- no one has ever seen such a thing. It is ignorance and folly to believe God inspired the KJV translators to create a pefect Bible. You will not find support in the Bible and it is logically indefensible. But if you are illogical and desire it to be so .... then you can fantasize that it is true. Children do the same with Santa and the easter bunny. But mature Christians should put on the mind of Christ and leave these fairy tales behind.

__________________________
Quote
God has promised to preserve His wordS here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.


No! God did not promise to preserve His words on earth. Such subtle trickery. God promised that though the earth shall pass away His words will not pass away. God has not promised to leave us with a perfect written testament to His words. God is saying that His words will not pass away -- they will be DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. Everything God has said will come to be, not one portion of God's word will fail - not one!  It is deceiptful to twist Scripture into making it say "heaven and earth will pass away but the KJB will continue forever". Yet, here we are, arguing against precisely such a deceiptful and utterly rediculous belief as this.

__________________________

Quote
People will assume getting parallel bibles is a good thing to do because John has one and sees nothing wrong with it. Yours may be fine, but what about mine? We are our brothers keeper.

People can do as they like, but what I said was a clear denoncing of modern versions based on the W&H critrical text. The very reason I am creating my own parallel study bible is because all the open market parallel editions are contain the corrupted versions. I think it was plain enough when I said that these modern version should be collected and burned. I wasn't mincing words.

____________________________ _

Quote
You have told us that no translation is perfect and that only the originals were.  We all know the originals no longer exist and in fact they never were all together in one Book to begin with.  So to follow the logic of your analogy, we would then have to conclude that the Word of God (the Lord Jesus Christ) either 1. no longer exists; or 2. is not perfect.


Here is another example of the KJV-only fallacy and prezel logic. If the perfect written word of God does not exist (original autographs) then God does not exist or is imperfect?  Insanity. Well, the original manuscripts do not exist anymore, only many, many copies of varying quality. Though the KJV-only belief system will not allow it, we have unprecedented attestation to the originals in 5300+ Greek manuscripts and though not perfect we can reassemble the text with great accuracy. No, not perfect accuracy, but that is the reality and no wishful thinking can change it.   

____________________________ _________


Quote
You still do not have any single Book you can confidently call the inspired, inerrant, complete and final word of God.  You are no different than the Whateverists who promote a multitude of conflicting comic book bibles.  It is just a question of degree and personal preference.

By these statements I have to conclude the owner of them is either massively ignorant or retarded, or both. So you believe, if we reject your thinking we are left in utter dispair because we don't have the complete word of God. The KJV is not inspired, inerrant or the final word of God -- despite your boasting -- and no sane person is in despair because of it. Those of us who live in the world of reality know that we don't need prefection in order to use the Bible and come to truth. The small number of verses that are in question between the TR and Majority texts is mostly minor and do not affect doctrinal positions.  The errors in the KJV and other translations are normally identified by the good Bible student in day-to-day studies. It is only the KJV-only positon that is left stuck unable to correct the errors -- for in the world of Mother Goose -- everything is perfect.


____________________________ _-

Quote

John, I agree with what Minna said about your point of Young translating the word as "sabbaths".  It makes no sense at all.  Truth is the word for sabbath is always in the plural, just like the word "heaven" is frequently in the plural but it should be translated as a singular.

What Young ignorantly did was to always make sabbath a plural and he ends up with nonsense.

Notice for example (and there are many in Youngs) Matthew 12:1 in Youngs - "At that time did Jesus go on the SABBATHS through the corn, and his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck ears, and to eat..."

Come on, John.  How is this the "sabbaths" (plural).?


Well, let's take a look.

Mark 16:1-2
1  And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
2  and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,



Young's Literal version has it correct. The King James Version has it quite wrong (that means it is not infallable for you in fantasy world). The Greek word used for Sabbath is the same sabbaton, it is plural in verse 2 where it is mistranslated as day of the week in most bibles. The words "day of" is added by the translator and does not appear in the Greek. To understand this verse (and others like it: Matthew 28, Mark 16:9, Luke 24, and John 20:1) we must understand that God knows what He is talking about, even if the translators failed to trust Him. The KJV translators could not understand the literal translation and removed Sabbaths (plural) in verse 2 for week (singular) and added "day of" to try and make sense of it. They should have trusted God (they were fallable men, you should know by now).

The Old Testament Sabbath system (Saturday) that had pointed to the rest we have in Christ had PASSED AWAY on that morning Christ arose. The rest was fulfilled in Christ, therefore the Sabbath type was fulfilled in Christ. But there was yet a Sabbath (because God says so that's why) and it was to be Sunday. Christ arose early in the morning of the first of the SABBATHS. It was the first Sabbath of many more to come, the word of God telling us that he arose on the first of the sabbaths. The teaching of this verse is identical to that of Matthew 28:1. The last Old Testament Sabbath is past because it is Sunday, the day Christ rises from the dead. This Sunday is the first of a new era of Sabbaths.

You can read more about this here: http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/frame/ or on this site.

The point is clear. If the King James version purposefully mis-translated these verses (and others) to smooth out the reading. Just as you couldn't make sense of it (hopefully you are beginning to see it now) so too the men doing the translation felt it necessary to "fix" God's word. They neednt have bothered, they were the one's in error not God. Now, a KJV-only position will never dwelve deeply to understand the truth being presented here. They will make excuses and continue the "no known errors" chant even in the face of the evidence. Believe me, this is hardly the only error in the KJV. But you only need one to ruin the KJV-only position -- if their world-view were capable of allowing reality in. But, alas, there minds are sealed tight as a drum lest they see their error. They believe they are defending God's honor. They think God has actually said He would make a perfect translation -- therefore, they can never give in, lest God be made a liar. Unfortunately, they don't understand what God did say and needlessly embarrass themselves defending a statement or idea that is not found in God's word. It is sad and ironic, but nonetheless it is where we are left.


Quote
Youngs "literal" translation is another bogus bible, yet he supposedly adopted the same underlying texts (he didn't always do this, and he has some really messed up translations)  God never set His seal of divine approval on this mess and He never will.

Actually, if Young's is "bogus" then there is no hope for the KJV. Young's is more literal and more exact in verb tenses and shades of meaning -- that was the reason it was created. If being more accurate is "bogus" then what do we say of the less accurate KJV? He used the same Greek (Received Text) as the KJV but adhered to better rules for translating tenses. Here's an example from the preface to show how shades of meaning can be improved:


For example, in Mat. 2.4, Herod is represented as enquiring "where Christ ' should be born. But "Christ" is the surname of the man Jesus, who was quite unknown to Herod, who could not consequently ask for a person of whose existence he was ignorant. The true explanation is, that King James' Translators omitted the definite article which occurs in the original. The correct translation is, where "the Christ" should be born. Herod knew of "the Christ," the Messiah, the long promised Saviour and King of the Jews, and his enquiry was, where He was to be born, whose kingdom was to be over all. The simple article clears up the whole. There are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say any thing of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original.


Now you say, "God never set His seal of Divine approval on this mess". Are you on speaking terms with the Almighty? Did He reveal to you personally that the KJV is the divine Bible but Young's is a "mess" and "bogus"?  Are you sure that God didn't set His divine seal upon the Geneva Bible?  Perhaps God's divine seal was on Tyndale's Bible? No you say? Oh, I see ... the KJV is divine and inspired because YOU SAY SO. Of course, how silly of me to think otherwise.

When we turn to the KJV translators, we find they did not find there version inspired or prefect. They replied to those who found fault with their work siting that it had merit though it contained imperfections. No, they weren't talking about type setting errors -- they meant their sinful state would produce errors as natural men do. Read it for yourself:

As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. Horace. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) James 3:2 also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it....

The King James translators did not think that other translations that preceeded theirs to be inferior. They wanted to make a good one (Geneva and Bishops Bibles) better -- one that would unite everyone to one principal good one.

But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but {we intended} to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.


These same men said also that they looked upon other translation works created before theirs was finished as the word of God also. They did not think for one moment that they had THEE one true and inspired Bible perfect in all its ways. Read it for yourself:

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.


So, these men made what they hoped was a better, more accurate Bible. One that would join everyone together in one good well-done version. And they succeeded. Then along came Wescott and Hort and a variety of corrupt Bibles were produced. In reaction to this was born the KJV-only position -- kind of an extreme over reaction to the destruction that was occurring to the word of God. The thinking is easy to fall into. If the modern versions are corrupt then (by comparison) the KJV is much more pefect, well, nay, it is near perfect ... even, inspired, perhaps God-breathed and immutable -- ah, it is perfect. In wishing to defend the better translation they fell into their own prideful snare. And here we are today debating this very thing as if it had legs to stand on.

Can you see that the KJV-only movement is a snare to understanding Scripture and a distortion of what God really says about keeping or preserving His word? Do you see how men have felt compelled to claim inerrancy in the face of attacks that the KJV is based on poor scholarship and erroneous Greek texts. Rather than arguing their case they made their case unassailable -- it is perfect -- now go away.  Well, it is not perfect. We don't have to act like children claiming our daddy can out do and out perform another kid's dad. The KJV is better than any Bible based on the W&H Greek text -- it is about as good, in most respects, to those based on the TR. It stands or falls on its own merits. The KJV-only position is for scared children frightened and confused -- it's time to come out from under the bed and stop hiding in a fantasy world of perfection. Though imperfect, you can defend its underlying Greek as superior overagainst those modern version without resorting to outlandish claims of divinity. Don't be scared to face the truth -- it won't hurt -- you just have to start to examine and compare verses and check the Greek like every other mortal.

Picture Buzz Lightyear pointing his wristband laser at the enemy and you have the mental picture of KJV-onlyists. The KJV can't fly, it isn't from a galaxy far away, it does not have superpowers -- it's just a good translation made by men from the better Greek. End of story (I mean, "to infinity and beyond").

Play time is over.

john
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 09, 2004, 01:33:09 AM

The errors in the KJV and other translations are normally identified by the good Bible student in day-to-day studies. It is only the KJV-only positon that is left stuck unable to correct the errors -- for in the world of Mother Goose -- everything is perfect.


Dear John,

Rather you realized it or not, your entire post was of a very hateful attitude.  Why are you making King James Only people out to be your enemy?

Many of your comments struck a bad note with me, but the one quoted above was really off tune.  So you are saying that anyone who is a King James Only person is not a good Bible student, and that we are unable to correct the errors?   Right?  And you are saying that all non-King James Only people can normally locate and correct ALL of the errors?  Right?

Then I'll ask once again, would you or someone else in this forum who does not believe in being a King James Only person (and that seems to be about everyone else here except for Will Kinney and me, since no one else has spoken from the King James Only position), please share with us a list of ALL of the errors in the King James Bible that you have found in your day-to-day studies or post a website of ALL of the errors others have found in the King James Bible in their day-to-day studies, since you say that we are unable to correct the errors in our Mother Goose world, and so that we all might know what they are and where they are located in the Bible?

Thank-you.

Blessings,
Minna
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Tony Warren on November 09, 2004, 04:09:49 AM
>>>
John, I agree with what Minna said about your point of Young translating the word as "Sabbaths".  It makes no sense at all.
<<<

On the contrary. With a diligent study, it makes "PERFECT" sense. It may make no sense to some people who haven't studied the issue, but it makes perfect sense to God who authored it penned. The fact is, interpretations belong to God, so we can make perfect sense of it by faithfully following the divinely inspired text (Sabbaths).


Quote
>>>
Truth is the word for Sabbath is always in the plural,
<<<

That is untrue. Sabbath is written in both singular and plural form. And those "experts" who claim that nevertheless, it doesn't make a difference, are experts in egregious effusion only. e.g.,


Matthew 12:5

In this verse of Matthew we have both the plural and singular used. Why? Because in the first instance it speaks of many Sabbaths (KJV translated Sabbath days), and in the second instance it is referring to the Sabbath of rest itself.

And really, to believe that God inspired singular and plural words to be written in scripture "for no reason at all" is an example of man's careless truculence in dealing with their own opinions of the Bible. God inspires plural and singular for a reason. Just as when God inspired written Seed, not seeds:

Galatians 3:16

Would you take this scripture and say the plural and singular differences are really not important and mean nothing? Plural forms of words are there for a reason, not by coincidence. The same with singular. The "Seed" Was Christ. What we need is careful study of the words, not emasculating them by taking and merging them into one, weakening their meaning with these modern translations.

Matthew 12:2

Here again, the word Sabbath (translated Sabbath day) is singular because they are talking about what the disciples did on this "particular" Sabbath day. Thus God inspired it to have the correct gender and number singular.

Again:

Mark 16:1

Here the word Sabbath is singular, and the reason is because it is speaking of a single day (Saturday, the Sabbath after Christ's death) that had past. These were just a few examples. While on the other hand:

Matthew 28:1

Here the Sabbaths are plural to indicate the end of one era of Sabbaths (Old Testament) and the beginning of another era of Sabbaths (New testament) with Christ's resurrection on "Sunday." Sunday, the day of Resurrection, is the beginning of the New Testament Sabbaths.

So in conclusion, just because someone, be it translator, author, so-called Greek "experts," or laymen doesn't understand why God inspired His particular words, doesn't mean that they should be changed. That is precisely what I like about the KJV, because the translators "strived" for a "word for word" translation, rather than a idea for idea as the NIV. How would man even know what the idea of God had in His mind in authoring something? The fact that it's not translated "Sabbaths" as it is in the Greek only proves that the KJV is not a perfect translation as some suppose. But God's word, from which the KJV was taken, is a perfect word. We don't need to make the KJV into something that it's not, in order to have a pure word. It is an excellent translation of the word of God which doesn't, and didn't need replacing, nor did we need parallel Bibles for corrective measures, but it's not a perfect translation. What it needs is faithful students to recognize that Bible study is more than leaning unto the various interpretations, ideas and translations of men.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 09, 2004, 04:28:25 AM
The fact that it's not translated "Sabbaths" as it is in the Greek only proves that the KJV is not a perfect translation as some suppose. But God's word, from which the KJV was taken, is a perfect word. We don't need to make the KJV into something that it's not, in order to have a pure word.

You, too, Mr. Warren?

Minna
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Tony Warren on November 09, 2004, 04:29:58 AM
>>>
Mark 16:1-2
1  And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
2  and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,

We soon find that the King James Version is wrong and Young's is correct, especially if we refer back to the TR and check the Greek to be sure. That morning at the tomb was the first of the New Testament Sabbaths!
<<<

Again, the point (at least the one I am making) is completely missed here. My point is that the church doesn't need several other versions of the Bible in order to know that the Greek word there is [sabbaton], meaning Sabbaths. I certainly didn't go to Young's Literal Translation (a good translation, by the way) to find this out. I (and I'm sure many others) learned this from comparing scripture with scripture, and with some study comparing words in the Greek. Something which should be done in any serious Bible study. Not by comparing Bible versions with other Bible versions. In other words, we didn't "need" a new version of the Bible for "ANYONE" to know that this word is "sabbaton," meaning Sabbaths. It's superfluous! What the church "really"  needs is Christians with a heart not to be so indolent in studying the bible.

And I reiterate (because I don't think that it can be said too often), I am one hundred percent sure that God is not pleased by a multitude of different English Bibles all with different words purporting to mean the same (or different) things. And the fact is, when there was "virtually" only the KJV of the bible, I dare say that the authors, preachers, and teachers I have read of that time were "infinitely" more faithful to scripture, and had more knowledge of the Bible than most Christians today with their computer searches, parallel Bibles and modern versions. That is because they had a heart to study and were more faithful and diligent. For all our new versions and modern translations and Parallel comparisons, the church today is in the worst condition that its ever been in. Does that say something about the "helpfulness" of Parallel bibles and Modern versions in understanding Scripture? ..Yes, I think so. It says they are "not" necessary and that they (generally) "haven't" helped the church in understanding. All they've done is serve to divide and convolute the whole issue.


Quote
>>>
Now if we trusted only the KJV we would have missed an important truth (as we would also sadly with the NKJV).
<<<

It's not a question with me of trusting the KJV, it is a question of the KJV being the overall most faithful version of the Bible. And no, using it I did not miss an important truth about the word Sabbaths. Not at all.  As the faithful fathers also didn't before these new versions came along. Without any help from parallel bibles or modern versions I learned relatively early on, that the word was "Sabbaths."

...and I'm not that smart.

I didn't have to go to other translations, see what YLT said, or buy a parallel Bible for this enlightenment. ..and neither does anyone else. All they have to do is study scripture like the Apostles did. ..earnestly! The fact is, if you have a parallel Bible, and are involved in a sound exegesis of scripture, you would "still" have to go to a concordance (at the very least) to make sure we understand "the word." Comparing scripture with scripture. We certainly wouldn't simply trust the translators of the YLT anymore than we would the KJV or the RSV. So then, what's the point of having all these versions except to confuse and misrepresent that God's word can be legitimately translated 30 different ways. Something we both know is not true.


Quote
>>>
If I carry a parallel bible how has that offended you?
<<<

I can only speak for myself. It doesn't offend me, I'm just a man putting his pants on one leg at a time just like you. I believe supporting 50, 40 or 30 variations of God's word is an offense to God. Selah. i.e., the NIV says there is no mark 16:17-20, while the KJV says there is. So then can I glorify God by supporting both? No, not at all. I can only bring distortion to an already confusing issue.

I understand every man has to answer for his own actions. I'm certainly not going to judge anyone, as that's not my job. My job is to bear witness to what I see as the truth of Scripture, faith and practice. Whether anyone likes it or not, I can't worry about that. I don't say what I do to please men or women, but rather to do the will of God.

Ephesians 6:6-7

I simply do not believe that multiple Bibles or variations of the word (parallel if you will) are a God glorifying act for anyone. I believe that having these multiple and different Bibles is not the wisest thing for conscientious Christians to do. I believe that it's very short sighted at best. Often we have our eyes so much on ourselves, that we can't see the forest for the trees. I've learned long ago that the minute that a Christian says he believes the word of God is against any practice that men use, he's immediately accused of being judgmental, legalistic, or worse. I can't let that bother me, I call it like I see it.

We all will do what we think is best, and my view is this modern day phenomenon of multiplying Bible versions is not a prudent thing. Nor is tacit support of their creation by using them. If one is using Youngs Literal Translation and feels it is the most faithful translation, then I see no reason to "also" use the NIV (just an example) to have something to allegedly test it against. Test it against the Greek and Hebrew, comparing scripture with scripture, not against another translation. Why have a KJV, an NEB, an NASB, an NIV, and a RSV? It just doesn't make sense Biblically, and only opens up a pandora's box which can never be shut. As a testimony to this truth, the NIV, which is one of the most unfaithful Bibles around, is today thee most popular Bible of the church. And the reason it is "BECAUSE" Christians one day decided that it would be a big help to them in understanding scripture to also have and use this version. So what started out as thinking it might help, has now become the unfaithful word of choice for the church. The thing is, all sorts of bad ideas are spread by men with the "best of intentions." Happens all the time.

All I'm saying is that faithful Christians should also be wise Christians and conscientious Christians guarding against degradation. We never miss the water until the well runs dry. This world is of "cause and effect," and if we are not diligent, we find ourselves seeing the effect and realizing we are part of the cause of things we would have never thought important.


Quote
>>>
These things are minor and a matter of personal needs based on what works for you.
<<<

   "..Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!" (James 3:5b)

Yes, but that is also what is said about "EVERY BAD" thing that has/is happening to the church. It's always a minor disagreement. It's always a matter of "personal needs" based on what works. It's always a little thing--until it isn't. Like I said, "personally," I don't believe Christians "NEED" modern versions or parallel versions and I believe they are not a help but are a hindrance to the Christian community. That's what I believe. But I also believe that it's everyone's own call. On that point, I think we can agree.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Tony Warren on November 09, 2004, 04:48:24 AM
>>>
Genrev ,
I went to the site you gave above, and now I see where all of this is coming from and why the folks on this forum believe as they do...Harold Camping!!!
<<<

What a wild and unsubstantiated presumption! People in this forum believe the way they do because of their belief in the "authority" of the inerrant word of God, not because of any man, any church, any group, parallel bibles, the Pope, tea leaves or any misguided belief that the KJV of the Bible is a perfect translation. The issue here is what does the word of God "actually" say, not a link someone shares or how I can justify my unjustifiable belief of a perfect KJV translation.

When we deal with the facts rather than rhetoric, "sabbaths" is the correct translation, the actual word inspired written by God! Anything else is not a actual word for word translation but is rendered by extension or implication.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 09, 2004, 05:46:32 AM
What a wild and unsubstantiated presumption! People in this forum believe the way they do because of their belief in the "authority" of the inerrant word of God, not because of any man, any church, any group, parallel bibles, the Pope, tea leaves or any misguided belief that the KJV of the Bible is a perfect translation. The issue here is what does the word of God "actually" say, not a link someone shares or how I can justify my unjustifiable belief of a perfect KJV translation.

But how can we believe in the "authority" of the inerrant Word of God and how can we know what the word of God actually says if we don't believe it exists anywhere now? 

And were the scholars who translated the Hebrew and Greek meanings into English in the concordances (Strong, Young, etc.) any more knowledgeable than the King James translators?  How are we to know which of these translations to believe when there are so many different opinions?  Why are they used as the final authority in Bible study?   

I just don't get the reasoning behind this belief.   How can one reverence the King James as the best translation, say that they believe in the "authority" of the inerrant Word of God, but at the same time say we don't have it anywhere, and thus shed doubt upon it?


Minna
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 09, 2004, 06:13:26 AM
Hi Dave, thanks for the few verses you provided where the modern versions do teach the correct doctrine. 

However there are many places where they clearly do not.

I will post a separate topic called Are Any Doctrines Changed in the Modern Versions?  I hope you read it carefully and I think you will see that they all lower the Person of Christ and God the Father.

For right now, here is something to consider about Philippians 2.

 
Philippians 2:6-7 Not Robbery to be Equal With God, of No Reputation

The Similarity of Modern Versions with the Jehovah Witness Version

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD: but MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."

The phrase "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", as found in the King James Bible, clearly teaches that Jesus Christ was in fact God.

Notice the comments of a couple of orthodox commentators.

John Gill

"thought it not robbery to be equal with God" the Father; for if he was in the same form, nature, and essence, he must be equal to him, as he is; for he has the same perfections, as eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immutability, and self-existence: hence he has the same glorious names, as God, the mighty God, the true God, the living God, God over all, Jehovah, the Lord of glory… the same works of creation and providence are ascribed to him, and the same worship, homage, and honour given him: to be "in the form of God", and to be "equal with God", signify the same thing, the one is explanative of the other: and this divine form and equality, or true and proper deity, he did not obtain by force and rapine, by robbery and usurpation, as Satan attempted to do, and as Adam by his instigation also affected;

Matthew Henry

" He thought it not robbery to be equal with God; did not think himself guilty of any invasion of what did not belong to him, or assuming another’s right. He said, I and my Father are one, Jn. 10:30. It is the highest degree of robbery for any mere man or mere creature to pretend to be equal with God, or profess himself one with the Father. This is for a man to rob God, not in tithes and offerings, but of the rights of his Godhead."

"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is not only the reading of the King James Bible but also of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Young's, Hebrew Names Version, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Third Millenium Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, Wycliffe, and the NKJV 1982 edition (but not the 1979 NKJV).

By being equal to God, Jesus Christ was not stealing or taking something that did not belong to Him. He was and is equal to God the Father.

However many modern versions give us a rendering that means the exact opposite. I am presently in a discussion with a Jehovah Witness who, of course, denies that Jesus Christ is God. He says: "As for Philippians 2:6, the ambiguity is simply one that is shared by many translators and exegetes. The Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV states that some of the key words used here "had puzzled interpeters" and are "problematic."

The New World Translation, which the JW's use, says: "although he was existing in the form of God, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God."

Then he proceeds to show the readings found in many modern versions.

NASB " did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"

Revised Standard Version "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"

New Jerusalem Bible "did not count equality with God something to be grasped"

Emphatic Diaglott "yet did not meditate a Usurpation to be like God"

21st Century Free " he never even considered the chance to be equal with God."

Revised Version "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God."

Goodspeed "he did not grasp at equality with God."

NKJV 1979 edition "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."

NIV "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped".

Keep in mind that this is a Jehovah Witness who is using these modern version to support his view that Jesus Christ was not God!

To get a clearer idea of just how different in meaning the phrase is, "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" from "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" compare the following statements.

"The black man thought it not robbery to be equal with the white man." In other words, he was not stealing something that did not belong to him; he is equal to the white man.

"The black man did not regard equality with the white man a thing to be grasped." He didn't even try and thought it way beyond him.

The meaning found in the NASB, NIV, NKJV 1979 edition, ESV, RSV is totally different from the one found in the King James Bible and others which reveal the full deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Another change in meaning is found in verse 7 where we are told that Christ "MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION". This is one of those "ambiguous, problematic" passages that the JW guy says has puzzled interpreters. The verb used here has variously been translated as "to be made void", "to be made of none effect", "to be in vain" and "made of no reputation". The King James translators got it right and many other versions give us a nonsensical reading.

Other Bibles that exhort us to follow the example of Christ, who "MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION" are Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', the Geneva Bible, NKJV 1982 edition (but not the 1979 NKJV), Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. The Wycliffe Bible of 1395 says: "He lowered Himself,taking the form of a servant".

However instead of "made himself of no reputation", the NIV, NASB, RSV, and NKJV 1979 edition again match the New World Translation of the JWs. They say Christ "emptied himself" (NASB, NKJV 79, RSV, NWT) or "made himself nothing" (NIV). Now if Christ made himself nothing or emptied himself, there was NOTHING THERE. If I empty a box, what remains? Nothing.

The Lord Jesus Christ was not empty or nothing when He came to earth. He was full of grace and truth. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. But He did make Himself of no reputation. He was born in a stable, from a common and poor family; He came not to seek His own glory but that of His Father, and He often told others He had healed to tell no one. When the multitudes wanted to make Him king, He departed into a mountain alone. How different from our sinful tendency to want to be recognized, make a name for ourselves, and have others look up to us as some great one.

Not all bibles teach the same thing. Many modern versions continually downgrade the glory and deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The King James Bible exalts the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as "God manifest in the flesh" 1 Timothy 3:16. Compare the NASB, NIV and NWT here for such an example. See also Romans 14:10, 1 John 5:7, 1 Cor. 15:47 and Luke 23:42.

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow...and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 09, 2004, 06:31:06 AM
Hi John, I started reading your post and only got part way to where I had to address something.

You said:"Psalms 12
6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The word preserve means to keep, and is used in Psalm 119 in a similar manner. The idea is that the person keeps the law by hearing and obeying.
Ps 119:69 
The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart.
Ps 119:115  
Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.
When Psalm 12 says "...thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" it means that we shall keep the words of the LORD (to do them). It is not speaking about writing down the words of the LORD and perserving them in a mason jar.  ... We perserve or keep the words of the LORD within us and then we obey it. Do you see the difference?"

Sorry John, but I disagree entirely.  The word to keep means to hold onto something, to not let it go, or to preserve something.  Ps. 12 is not talking about US obeying God, but it speaks of God preserving His words.

You go on to say: "OK, let's look at it differently. If it were talking about perserving God's word in some perfect written form, where is this perfect form?  Do you say "the KJB". But read the verse again, "from this generation for ever". There must be a whole series of "perfect" translations in every language throughout history, all prior to the KJV, to preserve it from that generation (during the psalmists day) unto our day.  What are these perfect translations?"

John, there is nothing at all in this verse or any other Bible verse that says God promised to give every nation a perfect Bible.  The O.T. was committed to the Jews.  I think a good possibility of where God kept the New Testament was in the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and among the Waldensians in their Latinized language until the time of the Reformation.  Then God words passed over into the English of the King James Bible.

First of all, you misunderstand what the word "preserve" means, and then you assume God had to give every nation a perfect Bible.  Not true.  He promised to preserve His words here on this earth somewhere.  I believe He did.  Your view is that God's true words are "out there somewhere" but we don't know which ones are His and which ones are not.

This is like saying God's words are in Webster's dictionary.  Well, true, but which ones and in what order?


Will Kinney 
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 09, 2004, 07:04:52 AM
Hi Tony, part of what I said before was incorrect.  The word Sabbath is not always plural, and you are correct in this.  However, what I was mainly pointing out is that Young translates Matthew 12:1 as a plural -sabbaths- and this is wrong.  It clearly is a one day event when the disciples picked the ears of corn.  Just read it and see.

Young often translated the plural as sabbaths when the context is clearly only one day and not many.  See also Mark 1:21 and following.  This event happened only one time on one particular day,  Christ went into the synagougue on the sabbath and there was a man with an unclean spirit, which Christ proceeded to cast out.  This was not an event that occured every Sabbath day week after week.

It seems that your Greek grammar has derailed your common sense.  Most Bible versions translate it the same way as in the KJB.  So, are all these other guys who know far more about Greek than you ever will just stupid and only you and Young are right?  The same Young who wrote in Ps. 78 that God was deceived.


See the same thing with a plural that can only mean a singular sabbath day in Luke 4:16.

At least you have come out and admitted you don't think there is any perfect Bible on the face of this earth, except of course that mystical one that exists in your own mind, and is I'm quite sure even different from Youngs in many instances.


"In those days there was no king in Israel:  every man did that which was right in his own eyes."  Judges 21:25

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 09, 2004, 07:19:23 AM
Tony (I think) has made a big deal out of the singular and plurals in Greek.  Usually they do have importance, but often they do not.  Check the following examples.

Look at the context.  Even good ol' Young translated many of these as singulars, even though they are plural in the Greek.   The same thing happens in Hebrew with great frequency.  Sometimes we just have to use some common sense.


There are many Greek words that are plural in form yet are correctly rendered as a singular in English.  In fact, right here in Matthew 14:6 the word "birthday" is in the plural, yet all the versions render it as a singular - even Youngs.

Other examples of plural nouns being translated as a singular are: heaven - Mat. 6:11; Sabbath day - Mat.12:1, 11; water - Mat. 14:29; bread - Mat. 16:7; a marriage - Mat. 22:2; heart - Mat. 18:35 (NKJV, NIV, NASB); fruit - (NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV);  a fever - Acts 28:8; my will - Acts 13:22; blood - John 1:13; time - 1 Tim. 2:6; door - James5:9; conversation (conduct); godliness - 2 Peter 3:11;  and incense - Rev. 8:3, just to name a very few of the many examples that could be given.

Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Candle on November 09, 2004, 07:52:42 AM
Hi every one,When I was new in the Lord I got carried about by every whim of doctrine and every Bible version was at my disposal.Igot so confused and didn't know which way to turn.It got really bad. We were going to a pentecostal church at the time and most people there used all these other versions . It seemed that when they wanted to make a certain point that met their need they went to these other versions. I started to question these versions  because they were worded differently and at times seemed to mean something else other than what the kjv was saying.During the last week that we were in this church , I prayed every day to God I said, God theres something wrong and I cried out for wisdom. One day I was on the computer and by accident this site came up The mountain retreat, it changed my life dramatically; God had answered my pray.From then on I've been studying the word of God .I ended up getting rid of all these other versions and other doctrines of men and use just the kjv and I find that God has led me into alot of truthes.Although I don't seem to be that smart or know as much as some on this forum . I thank God every day for his grace, mercy and salvation.For he is the most holy God. I find theres more bickering on this forum than should be. We should find what god says in his word about this and listen to him.  Your friend in Christ, Muriel
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 09, 2004, 08:13:55 AM

Although I don't seem to be that smart or know as much as some on this forum . I thank God every day for his grace, mercy and salvation.For he is the most holy God. I find theres more bickering on this forum than should be. We should find what god says in his word about this and listen to him.  Your friend in Christ, Muriel


Dear Muriel,

Smartness has nothing to do with it.  We all know I'm not very smart, especially about Hebrew and Greek words.

But so what?  Understanding the Bible has nothing to do with how smart one is, or how well they can go look up Greek words in concordances to see if the King James Bible has been properly translated.  Yes, we need to study the word of God, but our understanding of it comes by the grace of God through the word of God by the Holy Spirit.  It is a gift of God.


You are right about the bickering.  We do need to see what the word of God tells us about that.  The trouble is, most people on this forum don't seem to know where the word of God is. Therefore, if they looked it up in what they say is the best translation, the King James Bible, they wouldn't know whether to believe it or not because there might be an error in translation.

What to do?


Thanks, Muriel.


Blessings,
Minna
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Sue Landow on November 09, 2004, 08:38:39 AM

What a wild and unsubstantiated presumption! People in this forum believe the way they do because of their belief in the "authority" of the inerrant word of God, not because of any man, any church, any group, parallel bibles, the Pope, tea leaves or any misguided belief that the KJV of the Bible is a perfect translation. The issue here is what does the word of God "actually" say

Tony,
  It seems that you are catching flack from every point on the compass. From the faithful, and from the unfaithful. From the KJ Only crowd, and from the anti KJOnly crowd. From the pro Parallel bible Christians, and from the anti Parallel bible Christians.  From the pro Reformed, and from the anti Reformed. Probably that's a pretty good sign that you're on the right track when you tell the truth to all groups. God bless you, I don't know that I could hold up under the constant barrage of criticism and distortion of your views.

As for the question at hand. I don't have a problem with KJ Only people until they wander into the field of claiming perfection of this one translation. That's when I part ways with them. As you said, if it was the only perfect translation, then those people who have the bible text translated into Egyptian, Spanish, Chinese, Russian would all be out of luck in having a perfect translation. It amazes me that so many people cannot understand this simple fact. Namely, that the KJV cannot be the only perfect translation. So that's my little addition to this subject.


Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: John on November 09, 2004, 03:27:24 PM
Quote
Sorry John, but I disagree entirely.  The word to keep means to hold onto something, to not let it go, or to preserve something.  Ps. 12 is not talking about US obeying God, but it speaks of God preserving His words.

You say the Hebrew word translated as 'preserve' mean to "hold onto something, to not let it go" but it doesn't mean to keep it?  If the word of God is kept then it is remembered and obeyed. When we "hold onto something" we remember it and do it. See Strong's:

naw-tsar'
A primitive root; to guard, in a good sense (to protect, maintain, obey, etc.)

We protect the words of God in our heart, we obey the words of God when we "keep" God's commandments, we preserve them by remembering to do them. You cannot take these verses out of context and force God to say "The words of the LORD are pure words ...Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shat preserve them in a book from this generation for ever".

Psalms 12:6-7
6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

God's words are preserved or kept by people who obey them, from the generation then to the generation today. God's words will not pass away -- but the KJV will. Whatever God has said to do He will do, the Psalmist says correctly: "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD...". God will keep His words ... in a book? .... no, He keeps them by doing what He says He will do.

We already saw that if God preserved His word in a perfect book it would not be "from this generation for ever" -- there was no perfect book then nor is there today. Nor would verse 7 allow a perfect book, if it did exist, to survive for ever -- however, the word of God (not in a book) does survive forever.


Quote
It seems that your Greek grammar has derailed your common sense.  Most Bible versions translate it the same way as in the KJB.   


That is because most Bible versions, including the KJB, translate Sabbaths as week and are in error. The KJB is not correct because it agrees with most other wrong renderings of these verses under discussion.

Quote
So, are all these other guys who know far more about Greek than you ever will just stupid and only you and Young are right?


Young's Literal Version is correct. The King James Bible is wrong. Most other version are wrong. So what are you going to do now? Game over for your KJV-Only position. Like I said, time to leave the fantasy world and join us in reality.


Quote
But how can we believe in the "authority" of the inerrant Word of God and how can we know what the word of God actually says if we don't believe it exists anywhere now? 

I just don't get the reasoning behind this belief.   How can one reverence the King James as the best translation, say that they believe in the "authority" of the inerrant Word of God, but at the same time say we don't have it anywhere, and thus shed doubt upon it?


Here's a story: A child's fantasy is that they can fly. The child desires it to be so. He eventually comes to believe that it is true. One day someone forces the child to prove it, and lo and behold, he falls flat on his face -- he can't fly. Now what do you do? Joining the rest of us earth-bound mortals would be my suggestion.

The KJV can't fly, it is not the perfect, inspired, inerrant, revealed will of God on earth (neither is the Pope by the way). If we one day discover this truth we may be shocked, but, the truth is always preferable to fantasy. Now what do you do? Join the rest of us who use translations with care. As you study you will discover certain errors, such as week should be translated Sabbaths   or that "so" in John 3:16 doesn't mean "so much" but "in this manner" God loved the world. Bit by bit we weed through the major errors and bit by bit we correct them. You will never eliminate all errors -- but the more we learn the more we are sure to find and the more confident we are at handling the word of God.

Do these errors mean we cannot trust the KJV? Well, you cannot trust with complete blind confidence any translation. Usually someone doing a word study or Bible study will bring to light poorly translated words -- they probably discovered the problem through the work of others -- you know, we learn about them as we explore, study, read, and compare. I don't know an easier way. However, it is rewarding to discover truths -- even those accidentally or purposefully hidden by a poor translation.

Quote
And were the scholars who translated the Hebrew and Greek meanings into English in the concordances (Strong, Young, etc.) any more knowledgeable than the King James translators?  How are we to know which of these translations to believe when there are so many different opinions?  Why are they used as the final authority in Bible study? 


Recall that an English translation is based on the Greek. If the Greek is wrong the translation will be wrong. This is why there is so much heated debate about which NT Greek text is best. In my opinion, and you can study as well as I, the Textus Receptus is the superior Greek (no not perfect).

Here's an example of what I mean by learning as we study the text. In the KJV we have these verses:


1Jo 5:7  For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
1Jo 5:8  And there are three that bear witness on the earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are into the one.


Now, they appear in the KJV and most modern Bibles. The problem is these verses are corrupted and wrong. 1 John 5:8 should read:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are into the one.


Is it confusing that the KJV and other translations have this verse?  Yes, it is. But we are, with study, able to slice through the confusion and resolve it. Just as we do when we harmonize Scripture to come to truth -- it takes work and study and time ... but we have no choice if we want to be faithful to what God has said.

Erasmus translated the first edition his English translation (1516) with the shorter rendering that is attested in nearly all Greek manuscripts. However, the Catholic church, of which Erasmus was a member, was distressed that 1John 5:7 did not agree with the Latin Vulgate, which contained the longer reading. Since up to that time the Roman Church used the Latin Vulgate, they were upset when Erasmus' version did not agree. Of course Erasmus knew that the longer reading was not trustworthy and not found in the Greek. A summary of what happened is given here:

About 1520, Erasmus was being attacked by critics for not including the spurious words of 1 John 5:7. His reply to the critics came in the form of a challenge. He stated that if he could find just one Greek manuscript with the words in question in it then he would include it in his translation. So a Franciscan friar, Froy, produced a contrived Greek Testament with the spurious words inserted into it. Erasmus, due to Trinitarian pressure at the time, kept his word and inserted the words into his translation. However he added a long footnote, indicating he knew that the source document in question had been produced to confound him in his work

In other words, the Roman Catholic church 'created' a manuscript copy with the longer reading of 1John 5:7-8 translated into Greek from Latin. It was a forgery and Erasmus knew it. Now Erasmus was forced by his own words to include it, which he did in his third edition of the New Testament. The KJV translators relied on the Greek NT of Theodore Beza (1598) which was based on Erasmus' third and subsequent editions. You will probably find the longer version of 1John 5:7 in you KJV Bible without comment: But it doesn't belong there. Young's literal, Green's Literal and a few others either remove it or put the erroneous word in italics.

Hopefully that was not too confusing. The point I'm making is that we have to do our homework. We must be students of the Book.


Quote
I think a good possibility of where God kept the New Testament was in the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and among the Waldensians in their Latinized language until the time of the Reformation.  Then God words passed over into the English of the King James Bible.

The Old Latin (pre Vulgate) translations were a mass of confusion. Here's a commentary on the Old Latin:

But which Latin version? That is indeed the problem -- for, in the period before the Vulgate, there were dozens, perhaps hundreds. Jerome, in his preface to the Vulgate gospels, commented that there were "as many [translations] as there are manuscripts." Augustine complained that anyone who had the slightest hint of Greek and Latin might undertake a translation. They seem to have been right; of our dozens of non-Vulgate Latin manuscripts, no two seem to represent exactly the same translation.

...number of Old Latin translations was very large. And the quality was very low. What is more, they were a diverse lot; it must have been hard to preach when one didn't even know what the week's scripture said!

What more need be said? The Old Latin translations were an inferior mess. The KJV was not based on these works, though Erasmus used the Vulgate (Latin) to translate back into the Greek (in the last portions of Revelation).

There is no legacy of unadulterated pure Bibles spanning through the New Testament -- therefore the idea that God preserved His word in various perfectly written texts throughout history is unfounded and self-serving to the KJV-Only position. But further, as we stated about Psalm 12 -- no Bible meets the requirements of being preserved from "this generation for ever", if Bibles were preserved "for ever" we should have quite a large assembly of perfect Bibles in every language. Of course, there is no such collection of Bibles.

And we should know by now that the errors in the KJV declare it to be a work of fallible men, despite the assertions to the contrary.

2Ti 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


john
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 09, 2004, 04:42:04 PM
Hi Sue, you posted: "As for the question at hand. I don't have a problem with KJOnly people until they wander into the field of claiming perfection of this one translation. That's when I part ways with them. As you said, if it was the only perfect translation, then those people who have the bible text translated into Egyptian, Spanish, Chinese, Russian would all be out of luck in having a perfect translation. It amazes me that so many people cannot understand this simple fact. Namely, that the KJV cannot be the only perfect translation. So that's my little addition to this subject."

Sue, God never promised to give every nation His word.  If He did, then He lied.  There are many of what you Christians call "reliable versions" (whatever that means).  God can and does use them to bring His people to faith in Christ.  We do not deny this.

If you hold to what the Bible says about itself, then God must have preserved His wordS somewhere.  The question is where did He do this.

It seems obvious to me and others that most of the Christians here do not believe that any Book or any Bible version or any single Hebrew or single Greek text anywhere on this earth is today the complete, inerrant, inspired words of the living God.

Some like Tony try to redefine words to fit their agenda.  "words" doesn't really mean individual words, but rather "decrees" or "purposes".  See how this works?

If any of you stand up and say "The Bible is the inspired words of God", then what on earth are you referring to?  Which bible?  Which texts?  Which meanings? 

Each of you ends up creating your own mystical bible version which in turn differs from everybody else's.

I don't know how exactly God has preserved His words throughout history.  I have some pretty good educated guesses, but I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else.  So we either take the view that God did not lie and He has given us His inspired words (not just the general ideas or the overall message), or we adopt the views of many here who claim there is no such thing as an inspired, inerrant Bible on this earth and that we are then free to each follow his own preferences and opinions which differ from everybody else.

Each individual then become the Final Authority and all bets are off as to what God really said.

Will Kinney


Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 09, 2004, 05:08:19 PM
John, reading through your post it is obvious that you do not have nor believe in any Bible as the complete, inerrant, inspired words of God.  Simply put, you have no Bible that can truely be called The word of God.

You didn't even use the context of Young's blunders regarding sabbathS to defend your ideas, which in the context of the Scriptures I pointed out, are absurd in the extreme.

You don't believe the TR is perfect.  No translation is perfect and no Bible is perfect.  The only final authority you have is that individual, peculiar, mystical bible version that exists in your own mind.  Just so people are aware of where you are coming from.


You are gosssly misinformed about 1 John 5:7 and are repeating lies that even men like Metzger later retracted.  By the way, this verse is in the TR you refer to, but again, according to your own understanding you reject this reading as being spurious.   Well, thanks for settling this matter for us which has puzzled and divided Christians for so long.

Now, here is some explanation on the meaning of the word "keep".

John>>>>You say the Hebrew word translated as 'preserve' mean to "hold onto something, to not let it go" but it doesn't mean to keep it?  If the word of God is kept then it is remembered and obeyed. When we "hold onto something" we remember it and do it. See Strong's:
naw-tsar'
A primitive root; to guard, in a good sense (to protect, maintain, obey, etc.)
We protect the words of God in our heart, we obey the words of God when we "keep" God's commandments, we preserve them by remembering to do them. You cannot take these verses out of context and force God to say "The words of the LORD are pure words ...Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shat preserve them in a book from this generation for ever".
Psalms 12:6-7
6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

---------------------------

John, you are very mistaken.  The word "preserve" NEVER meand "to obey", at least not in the true Holy Bible.  The word used in Psalms 12 is a different word, but it means "to preserve" and to keep, but it never means "to obey".  By the way, Psalms 12:7 is totally different in the NASB and the NiV is different than them both.  "Thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever."  If you are defending the KJB reading, then you have another example of a singular being translated as a plural.  Are you going to "correct" this too?

"To Keep" vs "to Obey"

King James Bible - "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we KEEP his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and KEEPETH NOT his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but WHOSO KEEPETH HIS WORD, in him verily is the love of God perfected." 1 John 2:3-5

NIV - "We know that we have come to know him if we OBEY his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does NOT DO what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone OBEYS his word, God's love is truly made complete in him."

What do the phrases "keep my commandments" and "keepeth His word" mean? I am convinced that many Christians misunderstand the meaning, and some modern versions, like the NIV, NRSV, TNIV, perpetuate the error.

This may come as a shock to many but the word TO KEEP in both Hebrew and Greek does NOT mean "to obey" or "to do"!!!. The Hebrew word Shamar # 8104 is translated in the KJB, ASV, NKJV, NASB as "to keep, to observe, to take heed to, to preserve, to be a watchman, and to regard." The Greek word teereo # 5083 likewise in these versions is translated as "to keep, to guard, to watch, to preserve, to reserve, and to hold fast." If you are playing basketball in the park and take out your wallet and keys and ask a friend to keep them for you, obviously you want him to hang on to them and not lose them.

The NIV was the first "bible" to give these words new meanings. The NIV translates the O.T. word Shamar as "to obey" 29 times and as "to do" 5 times. It also translates the N.T. word tereeo as "to obey" 21 times and "to do" 3 times. I believe this is due, not only to Satan's hand at work to promote a works oriented religion, but also to much careless preaching. Legalism is natural to the human heart. Few Bible students take the time to actually look up a word in the Bible itself, not a commentary, to see exactly how the Holy Ghost uses this particular word.

Here are a few examples of how the word Shamar is used. Try to fit "to do" or "to obey" into the text and see if they fit. "Am I my brother's KEEPER?" (Gen.2:15). "The Lord bless thee and KEEP thee" (Num. 6:24). "KEEP me as the apple of the eye" (Ps. 17:8). "O KEEP my soul and deliver me" (Ps. 25:20). "PRESERVE me, O God." (Ps. 16:1). "I have set WATCHMEN upon thy walls, O Jerusalem." (Isa. 62:6)

Try to fit "to do" or "to obey" into these New Testament examples. "thou hast KEPT the good wine until now" (John 2:10). "Holy Father, KEEP through thine own name those whom thou hast given me...I have KEPT them in thy name...KEEP them from evil" (John 17:11-12,15) "Peter therefore was KEPT in prison." (Acts 12:5)

A good way to get the sense of a word is to compare it with the contrasting or opposite words used with it. "a time TO KEEP and a time TO CAST AWAY" (Ecc. 3:6). "They that FORSAKE the law praise the wicked, but such as KEEP the law contend with them" (Pro. 28:4). Speaking of wisdom God says: "FORSAKE her not and she will PRESERVE thee" (Pro. 4:6 - same word as "to keep"). "My son, ATTEND TO my words, INCLINE THINE EAR unto my sayings; Let them NOT DEPART from thine eyes; KEEP them in the midst of thine heart" (Pro. 4:20-21). "Only TAKE HEED TO (same word) thyself, and KEEP thy soul diligently, lest thou FORGET the things which thine eyes have seen and lest they DEPART from thy heart all the days of thy life..." (Deut. 4:9)

Notice too the distinction drawn between TO DO and TO KEEP in Deuteronomy 4:6. This passage contains four separate things the Israelites were to do. "And Moses called all Israel and said unto them, HEAR, of Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day that ye may LEARN them, and KEEP, and DO them." They were to hear, to learn, to keep, and to do. The same concept is seen in may passages but one more may help to illustrate. "Ye shall therefore KEEP my statutes and my judgements which I speak in your ears this day that ye may LEARN them, and KEEP, and DO them."

When the Bible speaks of us KEEPING the commandments of the word of the Lord, God is telling us not to forsake, let go of, forget or turn away from them, but rather to guard, preserve, hold on to and cling to them. By God's grace we hopefully will not only keep them but also do and obey them; but, to KEEP and to OBEY are two distinct and separate concepts.

This difference between to keep and to obey is often illustrated for us in God's true words. Let's look for a moment at the life of king David. In 1 Kings 11 we are told: "And it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods...for Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammorites...Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and THOU HAST NOT KEPT My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend thy kingdom from thee and will give it to thy servant" (1 Kings 11:4,5,11) Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, BECAUSE HE KEPT my commandments and my statutes." (1 Kings 11:34)

In 1 Kings 14:8 God, through His prophet Ahijah, rebukes king Jeroboam. "...and thou hast not been as my servant David, WHO KEPT MY COMMANDMENTS, and who followed me with all his heart, to do right in mine eyes; but hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back."

The principal sin of Solomon and Jeroboam was turning to other gods - apostasy and idolatry. God says David KEPT His commandments, yet David certainly disobeyed the commandments of God by comitting adultery and murder. But king David never turned away from Jehovah as being the only true God of his life. He held onto God's revelation of Himself in His word and never forsook Him to follow another religion or other gods.

Now, let's look again at 1 John 2:3-5. "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we KEEP his commandmants. He that saith, I know him, and KEEPETH NOT his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but WHOSO KEEPETH HIS WORD, in him verily is the love of God perfected."

The NIV has changed the sense entirely. "We know that we have come to know him if we OBEY his commands. The man who says, 'I know him' but DOES NOT DO what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if any man OBEYS his word, God's love is truly made complete in him." If the NIV is the correct interpretation, then I do not know of anyone that is a Christian. Don't give me that old line about "a pattern of obedience". Do you sin in thought, word or deed at least once a day? Or how about once an hour? Is this not then a pattern of sinning?

The commandments, or the Biblical teachings, are the words of God. In 1 John 3:23 we are told: "And this is the commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." This same chapter tells us "Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists...they went out from us, but they were not of us...who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son...Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning..." (the original teaching concerning the Person and the work of Christ; don't leave that truth for a new or false religion) "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you."

The epistle of First John speaks of two different kinds of sin. "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he shall pray for it." 1 John 5:16.

Here is a BROTHER who is sinning a sin not unto death. He is a brother in Christ who continues in some kind of sin, (it is a present continuous tense), a garden variety sin to which we are all prone. But 5:16 also mentions a sin that is unto death, for which he is not to pray. I believe this sin is that of forsaking the doctrine that Jesus is the Christ, denying it, and following the false religion of antichrist. The prophet Jeremiah was likewise told not to pray for those who, having been warned repeatedly, turned to other gods. See Jeremiah 7:16 and 11:14.

New Age teaching and Eastern Religions such as Hinduism are very similar to each other. They teach that Christ is a divine spirit or consciousness within us all. They teach that soon we will all become this Christ Consciousness. No! This is not true at all. The Bible tells us that JESUS IS THE CHRIST; there is no other. He died and shed His blood for the sins of His people. There is no other Saviour. If anyone denies this truth, the apostle John does not say that they should pray for this sin unto death.

The true Christian can never sin in this way of continuing to deny that Jesus is the Christ. "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" 1 John 3:9. The seed mentioned here is most likely the word of God - "the seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11); "being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God..." 1 Peter 1:23.

Notice too how the word TO KEEP is used in 1 John 5:18: "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God KEEPETH himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." When it says that he that is born of God sinneth not, it cannot be consistent with the rest of Scripture and our own experience to say that this refers to ANY SIN AT ALL. This would contradict 1 John 1:8 where it says: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." This verse then, in the context of the whole epistle, refers to the sin unto death - that is, to deny that Jesus is the Christ.

To sum up the argument: He that KEEPETH His commandments, and KEEPETH His word is the Christian who holds onto, guards, preserves and retains the doctrine of Christ and does not forsake it to follow the antichrist religion. "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." 1 John 2:24.

In light of what the phrase "keepeth my commandments" really means, it adds a new dimension to the Bible version controversy. Most of the modern versions are based on a very different Greek text that omits some 5000 words, including many entire verses, from the New Testament and they often depart from the Hebrew texts in the Old Testament. With this in mind, consider the words of our Lord Jesus Christ when He says: "He that hath my COMMANDMENTS and KEEPETH them, he it is that loveth me...He that loveth me not KEEPETH NOT MY SAYINGS: and THE WORD which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's that sent me." John 14:21,24. Commandments = my sayings = the Father's word. "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me; AND THEY HAVE KEPT THY WORD...For I have given unto them THE WORDS which thou gavest me; and they have received them" John 17:6-8 - Keep them, preserve them, hold them fast, and do not let them go, depart or disappear. If we love our Lord and Saviour, we will have a high regard for His words and not treat them lightly or allow them to be taken from us.

I firmly believe the King James Holy Bible is always correct. We may not understand all that is revealed in its pages, but I firmly believe that God has providentially guided in such a way as to preserve His pure, complete, inspired and infallible words in the English language of the Authorized King James Bible.

Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Tony Warren on November 10, 2004, 03:13:06 AM
>>>
Tony,
  It seems that you are catching flack from every point on the compass.
<<<

Well, if you dance to the music, you have to pay the piper. ;)

If you're willing to stand up for the truth, then you are going to take flack for it. That's a given. And it's why so many churches today never stand up for the truth. Their philosophy, "who needs the aggravation." Of course, this was not the way of the Apostles and Prophets who died because they dared to stand for truth. My philosophy is, "take up your cross and follow Me," is not a suggestion. Considering what the martyrs paid, a little animosity is a small price to pay for truth.


Quote
>>>
As for the question at hand. I don't have a problem with KJOnly people until they wander into the field of claiming perfection of this one translation. That's when I part ways with them.
<<<

In my view, that's when everyone should part ways with them. Because what they have effectively denied is that the KJV is a Translation "of the Bible." Thus they have made it the only perfect Bible itself, not the "translation" of it. They have made the translation that which is perfectly authoritative, infallible and inerrant in every jot and tittle. And that is "obviously" wrong to any Bible student who is honest with themselves.

But don't worry about me, worry about those who don't accept truth. They are the ones who need our prayers.

God Bless,

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Tony Warren on November 10, 2004, 03:15:33 AM
>>>
Sue, God never promised to give every nation His word.  If He did, then He lied.  There are many of what you Christians call "reliable versions" (whatever that means).  God can and does use them to bring His people to faith in Christ.  We do not deny this.
<<<

 That's the most ridiculous statement that you've made to date. You're effectively claiming that only English speaking people can have the inerrant word of God in their KJV. That's just unbelievable. Moreover, this idea is ludicrous because it means that all other Bibles before the KJV were not the perfect word of God. i.e., the word didn't get perfect until 1611. That's also ridiculous. The King James version of the bible made its debut in 1611. So what about the Bible before then? Was it perfect to? If (as you so boldly claim) the Lord preserved His Bible (in the manner you claim), then where was it preserved before the KJV? Answer please! OK, I'll answer for you. It was preserved in the same copies that are here today for us to examine. The same copies from which the KJV was translated.

2nd Timothy 3:16

Would that be the "scriptures" from which the KJV and others was taken? Indeed it is.  John Wycliffe did the first English translation of the New Testament around 1380. Then William Tyndale in 1530, and revised in 1534 made another English translation. The point being, where was your "Preserved" Bible during all these years before the KJ Version? What you are saying is completely without any logical or Biblical validation. For "IF" the KJV was not in existence, then to any "rational thinking" Christian person, the Holy Bible existed (was preserved of God) in the manuscripts from which the KJ Bible was derived! That is an undeniable fact, which if you deny, you are dabbling in absurdity.


Quote
>>>
If you hold to what the Bible says about itself, then God must have preserved His wordS somewhere.  The question is where did He do this.
<<<

I just told you (as have many others), but unfortunately, you're not listening to anything but the sound of your own voice. You are weighed and found wanting.

Proverbs 16:11


Quote
>>>
It seems obvious to me and others that most of the Christians here do not believe that any Book or any Bible version or any single Hebrew or single Greek text anywhere on this earth is today the complete, inerrant, inspired words of the living God.
<<<

As far as I can tell, out of all the Christians here, you're really the only one here espousing this nonsense (I submit to any correction). Where are all these "others" you speak of? Even if there were a great groundswell of support for your position (which there is not), that wouldn't make it right or justified. I mean practically the whole nation of Israel, with the entire Old Testament at their disposal, and scholars working around the clock, still don't believe in Christ. The point is, truth is not by committee and a just balance is not by consensus.

Proverbs 12:17

So do not falsely accuse the Christians here. For most of the Christians here DO believe that the Hebrew and Greek text is the complete, inerrant, and divinely inspired words of the living God. As do I. Your distortions only show how desperate you have become. Try and stick to the truth, shall we?


Quote
>>>
Some like Tony try to redefine words to fit their agenda.
<<<

Ahhhhhh. You mean like redefining the word [sabbaton] as Sabbath? ...Oops, that's is the word Sabbath, isn't it. That's the way it's usually defined isn't it? How silly of me to define it "exactly" as it is inspired written of God. You did say you believe in the complete, inerrant, and divinely inspired words of the living God, didn't you? Perhaps you "meant" to say, not until 1611, when the KJV came into being. 

2nd Timothy 3:16-17


Long before the KJV came about, men were reading the perfect word of God for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Which means it was preserved outside of the KJV.


Quote
>>>
 "words" doesn't really mean individual words, but rather "decrees" or "purposes".  See how this works?
<<<

Unfortunately, I think many see how you work. There are few people here that are going to buy into your dog and pony show. It takes more than smoke and mirrors to deceive the faithful or elect. Here, the word Sabbath "is" the word Sabbath, the word Chosen "is" the word chosen, and the word of God, "has been" preserved faithfully, and long before the KJ Version was just a gleam in king James eye.


Quote
>>>
we either take the view that God did not lie and He has given us His inspired words (not just the general ideas or the overall message), or we adopt the views of many here who claim there is no such thing as an inspired, inerrant Bible on this earth and that we are then free to each follow his own preferences and opinions which differ from everybody else.
<<<

Oh we know that God did not lie. It's man who is vain, sly, fraudulent, deceitful, and dishonest in his pretentiousness and self will. He's been that way almost from the beginning. That's why he won't receive truth. There is no real fear of God before his eyes, because he keeps his eyes on himself.

Psalms 36:2-4

No, God did not lie. It is man that is full of himself and refuses to receive the truth in love. It is man that distorts reality in the deceitfulness of his own heart. God has given us His inspired words, and His words are not our words. His ways are not your ways, nor are they my ways. No one here claims there is no such thing as an inspired, inerrant Bible on this earth. That's your witness and rhetoric, not the "truth."


Quote
>>>
Each individual then become the Final Authority and all bets are off as to what God really said.
<<<

Well now you're written your own epilogue. For it is in "truth," you, who has made himself the final authority on who were the perfect translators. It is you who have irrationally put forth the thesis that the KJ "translation" is actually more authoritative than it's seminal manuscripts. But a summary "test" of that idea proves it to be baseless. The idea of "a copy" (KJV)  being perfect, so that Christians need not go to the source manuscript to determine what is inerrant, is ridiculous.

1st Thessalonians 5:21

So that instead faithful Christians going to the "source" manuscripts for absolute truth, in your belief system we are not to accept the source [sabbaton], but go to the "copy of the source" (KJV) as that which is really the perfect?  I'm sorry, but in a word, that is, Ludicrous! And it doesn't take a Ph.D. to see that it is either. It is a completely "convoluted" rationale that not only has no foundation in reality, but is not hermeneutically sound, and isn't even logical on a (as you say) common sense level or basis. So you lose out on all counts. The truth is not customizable to your specifications, it is out there for anyone who takes the time to receive it.

3rd John 1:3-4

Truth inspires change. We already know that by reason of many, the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. But this is summed up in an example. If I were to write a book in German, and it's "translated" from my written copy into a French "version," which one is the more perfect from the author?

..Case Closed!

It's not even debatable. It's silly to even have to discuss a copy being made into a different language being the perfect, and the words from the actual source (like [sabbaton] Sabbaths for week, or [katecho] restraineth for letteth) should not be considered because of a misplaced idea that a KJV translation is "perfect."  God is the author, not King James.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Tony Warren on November 10, 2004, 03:22:38 AM
>>>
I find theres more bickering on this forum than should be. We should find what god says in his word about this and listen to him.  Your friend in Christ, Muriel
<<<

Well, man/woman are prideful beings. Therefore, he/she doesn't take correction very well. That's to be expected, though not condoned. We can only hope that in the end, people will take it in the Spirit that it is given. In a "perfect" world, all Christians accept the truth when they hear it. But like the KJV of the Bible, this is not a perfect world.

But I couldn't agree with you more when you say, "We should find what God says in his word about this, and listen to him." On that I say, Amen!

nosce te ipsum"
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Tony Warren on November 10, 2004, 03:41:43 AM
>>>
Hi Tony, part of what I said before was incorrect.  The word Sabbath is not always plural, and you are correct in this.  However, what I was mainly pointing out is that Young translates Matthew 12:1 as a plural -sabbaths- and this is wrong.  It clearly is a one day event when the disciples picked the ears of corn.  Just read it and see.
<<<

Matthew 12:1

I disagree. I think (correction, I Know) that it clearly "says" in the original manuscripts that Jesus went on the "Sabbaths" through the corn. i.e., that was his normal routine that was done on the Sabbaths. To walk through the corn fields. There is no reason from the original text to translate this word [sabbaton](plural sabbaths) to "mean" (though it doesn't say) "a day." It LITERALLY reads, "Jesus went on the Sabbaths through the corn." Perfectly understandable and consistent with other uses of the word in scripture.


Quote
>>>
Young often translated the plural as sabbaths when the context is clearly only one day and not many. 
<<<

But that's merely your opinion, "based" on the fact that you "think" the KJ Version of the Bible is the one and only perfect Bible. It's not based on the actual original text inspired written by God.. Every jot and tittle is perfect. The context is "not" clearly only one day if the word is plural. That is your (and the translators) assumption. And as I've said before, assumptions are the mother of errors.


Quote
>>>
Mark 1:21 and following.  This event happened only one time on one particular day,
<<<

That may be how it "appears" to one unskilled, or more likely unwilling, to accept the actual Biblical Greek, however the text Literally reads:

"And they went into Capernaum, and straightway on the Sabbaths (plural) he entered into the synagogue, and taught."

In other words, again, it was His habit to enter the synagogues on the Sabbaths and to teach. Just as it was clearly also Paul's habit of doing. There is "nothing unusual" about that. That was their normal routine. And there in the synagogue he met a man with an unclean spirit. Simple. It doesn't need interpretation, it just needs to be read the way it is written. The point here is, translators are not justified by anything in this context, to take this plural word, and because they might not understand how it fits, "change" it into a singular word, and "add" the word Day, totally changing how it was inspired to read.


Quote
>>>
it seems that your Greek grammar has derailed your common sense.  Most Bible versions translate it the same way as in the KJB. 
<<<

Greek Grammar? What does that even mean? While you rely on your so-called common sense, I will rely on the authority of the Word of God in faithfully following what God has stated. Did common sense tell you the KJV is a perfect translation? You're sure it was "common," but was there any sense it it? We should have the "uncommon" sense that comes when we lean not unto our own understanding, but to the authority and inerrancy of scripture. It's biblical sense that is proof to us that the KJV is not a perfect translation, and that God says Sabbath and Sabbaths for the same reason he says seeds and seed, which is Christ.

"Common" sense in the worldly sense, would tell people that when God says "heart" he's talking about an endocrine gland. "Biblical" sense would tell the Christian that God isn't talking about a gland at all. So we have to be wary of man's common sense, and define terms by our faith in the authority of the inerrant word of God, using uncommon sense.

As far as most Bible versions translating it the same way as in the KJV, you've spent weeks telling us how unfaithful these other Versions are. Now you're holding them up as proof of correctness?  )Say_what(

Inconsistency is the hallmark of error. Frankly, as I've been saying here all along, the whole point is that translations are not the final authority of what is correct or incorrect. The unadulterated divinely inspired biblical copies that they come from are. i.e., the KJ "Version" isn't perfect, the Holy Scriptures from which the KJV came is. That is what you do not seem to understand.


Quote
>>>
So, are all these other guys who know far more about Greek than you ever will just stupid and only you and Young are right? 
<<<

..ahhhh, do you mean all these Greek experts that almost unanimously agree the KJV is not a perfect translation? I'm sure you'd also think they are stupid when they declare that your ideas about the perfect KJV are "Totally Ridiculous!"  So, what does that say about them? It either says that you are wrong, and they are not stupid. Or you are right, and they are stupid in not realizing that the KJV is perfect.

The Scribes and the Pharisees were all very learned men, great scholars, "experts" as well, having great knowledge and "common" sense, but no Biblical or uncommon sense. As saith the prophet, "There is nothing new under the sun." I guess I am not as enamored by "experts" as you are. That is, "when it suits your purpose." How enamored of them are you when they say KJ Onlyism is ridiculous?


Quote
>>>
At least you have come out and admitted you don't think there is any perfect Bible on the face of this earth, except of course that mystical one that exists in your own mind, and is I'm quite sure even different from Youngs in many instances.
<<<

I have admitted no such thing. What I have tried to do is explain that there is no perfect "Translation" of the Bible. That's why faithful Christians, when doing serious studies of the scriptures, will always check the "translation" against the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn. IF the KJV were truly a perfect translation, there would be no need to ever do that. We'd just compare it with itself and be done with it. But then how would we know that angel and messenger are the exact same word in Scripture, etc., etc.? We know better because we have Un-common sense. For the world is full of non-evangelistic, lazy, content, professing Christians.

nosce te ipsum"
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Tony Warren on November 10, 2004, 03:48:14 AM
>>>
Tony (I think) has made a big deal out of the singular and plurals in Greek. 
<<<

No, actually "tony" has "corrected" your inaccurate statement that the Sabbath is always plural. The big deal was made by you as you continue to try to deny the undeniable. When God inspired Sabbths to be written both as singular and plural, depending upon what He was talking about, He made a big deal of it. For the record, "Tony" didn't write the Holy canon and make Sabbaths in one place plural and in another singular. God inspired it written that way. Surely God is not capricious in moving men to write this way, even authoring both ways in the very same verse to show difference. To say "this makes no difference to the word" is foolish.


Quote
>>>
Usually they do have importance, but often they do not. 
<<<

Usually they have importance? ..but not when they contradict your man-made idea of a "Perfect" Translation? Would that fall into the category of "common" sense.


Quote
>>>
Even good ol' Young translated many of these as singulars, even though they are plural in the Greek.   
<<<

And who here said Youngs was a perfect translation? Not one soul. To my knowledge, You (perhaps one other) are the only persons posting who make such untenable claims as there being a perfect translation of the Bible. Note I said translation "of" the Bible.


Quote
>>>
Sometimes we just have to use some common sense.
<<<

Jude 1:3

Common sense is contending for the faith, not fables about a certain translation being more accurate than the scriptures from which it was translated. That is "blatantly" absurd! But it is exactly what you are contending when you call the "translation" the perfect which cannot be in error, and the original variation unimportant.


Quote
>>>
Other examples
<<<

Your examples are self-serving. And as you've already admitted yourself:

Your Quote:
"Usually they do have importance, but often they do not"

Thus, even you yourself RELUCTANTLY admit that God was not acting capriciously in assigning plural and singular to words. Thus you testify against yourself.

nosce te ipsum"
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 10, 2004, 04:44:34 AM


I have admitted no such thing. What I have tried to do is explain that there is no perfect "Translation" of the Bible. That's why faithful Christians, when doing serious studies of the scriptures, will always check the "translation" against the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn. IF the KJV were truly a perfect translation, there would be no need to ever do that. We'd just compare it with itself and be done with it. We know better because we have Un-common sense. For the world is full of non-evangelistic, lazy, content, professing Christians.


You (and mostly everybody else here) believe that we need to check the "translation" against  "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn" before accepting it as being correct.  Am I understanding this right?  If so, then how did believers check their "translation" before Strong and Young compiled their concordances and before other scholars published their works regarding "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn,"  being that "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn" wasn't in the hands of the common people? 

Was there some way that they had to check everything before then, or did they simply accept by faith that they had the word of God in their hands?   If they had no way to check their "translation," does this mean that they never had "Un-common sense" and never came to the knowledge of the truth, as apparently those who believe this way on this forum think that they have?

Also, why do Strong's, Youngs, and others not always agree with one another if they are all supposed to be based on "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn"?   How is one to know which of these, if any, is correctly rendered from "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn"?   And are being capable of deciding which one is correct, and having "Un-common sense," as you call it,  prerequisites for being a faithful Christian?

And also, where exactly can one go nowadays to obtain a copy of "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn," being that these concordances and things do not agree with one another, (and, of course we all know that they are interpretations of meanings of Hebrew and Greek words written by men in the first place of "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn")?

And you said, "IF the KJV were truly a perfect translation, there would be no need to ever do that. We'd just compare it with itself and be done with it." 

My, Oh My...how many times have I read where you wrote that we should compare Scripture with Scripture?   But now I guess that since you say the King James isn't perfect that what you meant is that we should compare "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn" to ""the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn."  OK...show me where "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn" is, and I'll do that.

And lastly, are you saying that anyone who has ever lived that has claimed to be a Christian, but who has not gone back to check their "translation" against "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn,"  wherever it is, has no "Un-common sense" and is actually a "non-evangelistic, lazy, content, professing Christian"?

Minna
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Genrev on November 10, 2004, 05:04:56 AM


Here's a story: A child's fantasy is that they can fly. The child desires it to be so. He eventually comes to believe that it is true. One day someone forces the child to prove it, and lo and behold, he falls flat on his face -- he can't fly. Now what do you do? Joining the rest of us earth-bound mortals would be my suggestion.


John,

I'm sorry to hear that you are earth-bound.  Thanks, but, no thanks, for the invitation.


Hebrews 11

13  These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

14  For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

15  And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

16  But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


Hebrews 13:14 

For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.


Minna
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 10, 2004, 07:24:13 AM
Quote from: brandplucked on November 09, 2004, 04:42:04 PM

>>>
Sue, God never promised to give every nation His word.  If He did, then He lied.  There are many of what you Christians call "reliable versions" (whatever that means).  God can and does use them to bring His people to faith in Christ.  We do not deny this.
<<<
Tony posts:   That's the most ridiculous statement that you've made to date. You're effectively claiming that only English speaking people can have the inerrant word of God in their KJV. That's just unbelievable. Moreover, this idea is ludicrous and means that all other Bibles before the KJV were not the perfect Word of God. i.e., the Word didn't get perfect until 1611. That's also ridiculous. The King James "version" of the bible made its debut in 1611. What about the Bible before then?"

Tony, first of all you don't believe ANY Bible is inerrant.  So, whose position is worse?  I believe God has given us an inerrant Bible in the closest thing to a world wide language there is - English.

Look at Psalms 147:19-20  "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.  He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them.  Praise ye the LORD."

For a few thousand years God gave His words ONLY to one nation and not the others.  If you wanted to know God's words, you had to get them from Israel in Hebrew.    Waw, this is sooo unfair :-(

God does use inferior and imperfect bible versions.  The big difference between your view and mine is that I believe God has given us a perfect Bible and you don't believe such a thing exists.


As for where the perfect words of God were before 1611, have you read my article on this?

Your view is that they were and still are mixed up or lost "out there somewhere", but even with all your modern day scholars they haven't been able to put a perfect Bible together that you would not "correct" according to your own understanding.

Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 10, 2004, 07:38:02 AM
Tony posts: "So do not falsely accuse the Christians here. For most of the Christians here DO believe that the Hebrew and Greek text is the complete, inerrant, and divinely inspired words of the living God. As do I. Your distortions only show how desperate you have become. Try and stick to the truth, shall we?"

Tony, your pious words (or is it "decrees"?) mean nothing of substance.  Which "THE Greek" are you talking about?  There are at least 25 different Greek texts out there some of which differ from others by more than 3000 words.

You really have no final authority in any language, do you?
Aren't you the one who thinks 1 John 5:7 is not part of Scripture?  I doubt everyone else here agrees with you on this.  And then there is that silly sabbaths thingy from Young's that you never addressed.  Would everyone here who also believes in your "The Greek" agree with you that Young's is right?  Doubtful. 

You see, you are your own authority and you make up your peculiar version as you go along.  There is no book in print that you totally agree with.  You have a mystical bible peculiar to yourself alone.

Can you give me the name of this "the Greek" that you say you hold to as the final authority?  Where can I get a copy of it?  Is it a text that you do not  correct or amend in any way?


Will Kinney

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 10, 2004, 07:56:49 AM
Tony posts: "Frankly, as I've been saying here all along, the whole point is that translations are not the final authority of what is correct or incorrect. The unadulterated divinely inspired biblical copies that they come from are. i.e., the KJ "Version" isn't perfect, the Holy Scriptures from which the KJV came is. And that is what you cannot seem to understand."

So Tony, are you saying that only the Greek text that is the underlying basis of the King James Bible New Testament is the correct, inerrant text and that all the others are sometimes wrong and contain errors at some points?

I would appreciate a clear answer on this one, please.

Will K
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 10, 2004, 08:17:24 AM
I had previously said:

And then there is that silly sabbaths thingy from Young's that you never addressed.  Would everyone here who also believes in your "The Greek" agree with you that Young's is right?  Doubtful. 

Tony, excuse me.  As I continued with your posts I now see that you did attempt to address this sabbathS thing by Young.  I think your explanation is absurd, but if you think Young's translation makes sense, then I can better understand your thinking process and why we do not see eye to eye on this issue.

Here is the KJB rendering of Mark 1:21-28 followed by Youngs.  Now which one makes the most sense?  By the way, not even Young translated all Greek plurals as plural, but some of them as singular.  He is inconsistent.

Mark 1:21-28 in the true Bible

And they went into Capernaum; and straightway ON THE SABBATH DAY he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
 

1:22 -
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
 

1:23 -
And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
 

1:24 -
Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
 

1:25 -
And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
 

1:26 -
And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.
 

1:27 -
And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
 

1:28 -
And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.



Young's "literal" -   Did this exact same thing happen immediately every sabbath or even on two consecutive sabbaths as Young's says?

Mark 1:21-28

And they go on to Capernaum, and immediately, ON THE SABBATHS, having gone into the synagogue, he was teaching,
 

1:22
and they were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as having authority, and not as the scribes.
 

1:23 - 
And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out,
 

1:24 -
saying, `Away! what -- to us and to thee, Jesus the Nazarene? thou didst come to destroy us; I have known thee who thou art -- the Holy One of God.'
 

1:25 -
And Jesus rebuked him, saying, `Be silenced, and come forth out of him,'
 

1:26 -
and the unclean spirit having torn him, and having cried with a great voice, came forth out of him,
 

1:27 -
and they were all amazed, so as to reason among themselves, saying, `What is this? what new teaching [is] this? that with authority also the unclean spirits he commandeth, and they obey him!'
 

1:28 -
And the fame of him went forth immediately to all the region, round about, of Galilee.



Are there any other "KJV preferred but not perfect" people here who agree with Tony that Young's got it right and the King James Bible is wrong for rendering this "on the sabbath" (singular) rather than "immediately on the sabbathS" as Young has it?

Thanks,

Will K
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Dave Taylor on November 10, 2004, 10:23:04 AM
Matthew 12:1, 1611 and earlier versions

(Tyndale and Bishop rendered it plural; Wycliffe, Coverdale, Geneva, and 1611KJV rendered it singular.)

Will K., since Tyndale and Bishop rendered it plural in contrast to the 1611KJV, does this rule them out as candidates for being 'valid Bibles' prior to 1611?

Which of these pre-1611 Bibles were the perfect, inerrant Word of God (or if it was another different version than these, please share with us which one we should refer to when examining scripture prior to 1611)



Pre KJV Versions online at:  http://www.studylight.org/par/
1611 KJ Version online at:  http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1231



1395 Wycliffe Bible
"In that tyme Jhesus wente bi cornes in the sabot day; and hise disciplis hungriden, and bigunnen to plucke the eris of corn, and to ete."


1525 Tyndale Bible
"In that tyme went Iesus on the Sabot dayes thorow the corne and his disciples were anhogred and begane to plucke the eares of coorne and to eate."


1535 Coverdale BIble
"At the same tyme wete Iesus thorow the corne vpon the Sabbath, and his disciples were hongrie, and beganne to plucke of the eares of the corne, and to eate."


1568 Bishop's Bible
"At that tyme Iesus went on the Sabbath dayes through the corne, and his disciples were an hungred, and began to plucke the eares of corne, & to eate."


1587 Geneva Bible
"At that time Iesus went on a Sabbath day through ye corne, & his disciples were an hungred, & bega to plucke ye eares of corne & to eate."


1611 King James Bible
"At that time, Iesus went on the Sabbath day thorow the corne, & his Disciples were an hungred, and beganne to pluck eares of corne, and to eate."





p.s.  Also Will K., one other question. 

When the modern 1769 version of the KJV conflicts with the 1611 version of the KJV; which version should we hold as the 'perfect' inerrant version?  (Or do you believe they both can disagree and still both be perfect?)
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Tony Warren on November 10, 2004, 11:49:11 AM
This will probably be my last post on this subject, because this is growing a life of its own, and like Alice in wonderland, it just keeps getting curious-er and Curious-er.  I'm getting questions "as answers" to my questions and constantly having to address "Straw Man" arguments. Not to mention the deliberate distortions by some people, the views of faithful Christians. We're going round in circles with people who seem to have no ability to debate honorably or speak rationally on the subject at hand, which is the alleged one and only "perfect translation" called the KJV of the Bible.


>>>
You (and mostly everybody else here) believe that we need to check a translation against "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn" before accepting it as being correct. Am I understanding this right?
<<<

"Serious" (emphasis on serious) word for word studies of the scriptures requires we check the Hebrew and Greek from which it is drawn as a matter of being thorough. i.e., if I go to see a French movie remake, in English, there are parts where translation is not exactly the same as the original. Thus it would behoove me to check the French language "if" I really want to know what is actually said "WORD FOR WORD." Now I don't need to do that to enjoy the movie, or if every word being totally accurate doesn't matter. But for me to claim it is a perfect translation from French to English would be foolish.

Not to be confused with the Bible as a means of Salvation, for didactic purposes, for instruction, or reproof. That can be had by the KJV, The NKJV, the NVS, or YLT to name a few. But to check "points or words of contention" we have to go to the source Hebrew/Greek. Else we are living in a fantasy-land.

Which is all beside the point of the KJV being better than the source, a perfect translation, which is of course, logically, scientifically, Biblically, and rationally, ludicrous!


>>>
If so, then how did believers check their translations before Strong and Young compiled their concordances and before other scholars published their works regarding "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn,"  being that "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn" wasn't in the hands of the common people?
<<<

Who said that it had to be in the hands of the common people? Israel went for thousands of years without the scriptures being in the hands of the laymen. Most of them couldn't even read, and were taught from the scriptures by faithful men of old. That has "nothing whatsoever" to do with whether or not the scriptures were preserved by God. They were. So the conclusions that the KJ Only advocates come to are based on wild assumptions, not on any facts whatsoever.

You ask me what did believers do before Strong and Young compiled their concordances, I previously asked what did Christians do when they had the other English versions of the Bible hundreds of years before the KJV was even dreamed of. All I received was silence as an answer because there obviously was a Bible, the scriptures, long before the KJ "version." That is what the English speaking world read, if they could read the language. You see, I can answer the question. I am not afraid to do so because "truth" doesn't contradict itself.

In fact, for Strongs and Young to even have compiled their concordances, makes your (or/and Kenny's) contention that there is no source, absolutely silly. It's down right irrational, which is why this is my last post concerning this issue. When there is no "honest" debate, there is no debate.

"Most" laymen believers didn't check their translations before Strong and Young compiled their concordances. I don't know where you went to school, but that fact certainly doesn't make the KJV perfect, or the source manuscripts less reliable than the copy. So you're arguing from a position of weakness, and without any logic or validation.

I'm sorry to say.


>>>
Was there some way that they had to check everything before then, or did they simply accept by faith that they had the word of God in their hands?
<<<

The accepted by faith that they had the Word of God in their hands. Just as the layman believers who used the Wycliffe Bible from 1380, to the Tyndale Bible in 1530. Where was your so-called only perfect translation from 1380 to 1611 when the KJ version was made? Don't you understand how ridiculous that sounds? If as you say God preserved his perfect translation in English, then it was preserved in 1380 to 1611 in some other bible, because the KJV didn't exist. Gosh, where then was it preserved if not in these first English bibles? Ohhhhh, in the Greek and Hebrews that we have been saying it has all along? So we're confirmed right after all, aren't we. The same Greek and Hebrew that you two have with such disdain denied is profitable for Christians who consult it today? How insane is that? I say again, it is completely irrational!

When you answer, "where was your God preserved Bible during all these years before the KJ Version," then you will have answered why we all here go to consult those Greek and Hebrew copies. For "IF" the KJV was not in existence, then to any "rational thinking" Christian person, the Holy Bible existed (was preserved of God) in the manuscripts from which the KJ Bible was derived! The copies of which we still have today. That is an undeniable fact, which if you deny, you are dabbling in absurdity.


>>>
If they had no way to check their "translation," does this mean that they never had "Un-common sense" and never came to the knowledge of the truth, <<<

No, it means that they accepted the "translations" of the Bible (whatever one they used) by faith. They never looked at it as a perfect translation, not the translators themselves, as you do. ...which try as you may to distort the issue, that is the issue here. The false claim of a "one perfect Translation," starting in 1611.


>>>
And you said, "IF the KJV were truly a perfect translation, there would be no need to ever do that. We'd just compare it with itself and be done with it." 

My, Oh My...how many times have I read where you wrote that we should compare Scripture with Scripture? But now I guess that since you say the King James isn't perfect that what you meant is that we should compare "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn..."
<<<


When I compare scripture with scripture do you think I just check the KJ Translation? That would be missing a whole lot of truth, and it would not be studying "carefully" and not being thorough. And this can be proven quite easily to most open minded and noble people. For example, the KJVersion may have a translation that says Lord in one place, but the Hebrew word it is referencing is Jehovah, meaning God almighty. In another the KJVersion has translated a word Lord and it means someone's ruler. In the New Testament there is Lord [kurios] meaning ruler, Lord [despotes], from which we get the word "despot" meaning one with total and absolute control, and Lord [rhabboni], a word of chaldee origin meaning rabbi or master. We would have no knowledge that these are three very different words "unless" we checked the source. ..you know, the one you guys keep claiming no one can know, or that it doesn't exist? Same with the word Hell, we would not know that there are three vastly different words "translated" hell. And we could go through the Bible in word after word and see this same thing repeated again and again and again. A thorough, careful, sound study, requires that we know this when trying to "faithfully" compare scripture with scripture. Do you know the seven candlesticks of Revelation are seven lampstands, not candlesticks, and lamps, not candles? If you want to compare with the seven lamps of the Old Testament, that's something that you should know. How else can you really compare scripture with scripture if you don't know that?

But you're right about one thing. discernment has nothing to do with intelligence or how smart one is. Receiving truth takes "UN-common" sense born of the Spirit. An inherent honesty or nobility to finally surrender to truth that comes only from the Spirit of God working within us.

When Christ said, "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word," He was telling us that the truth just will not be accepted by all people. Truth is "foolishness" to those who cannot hear it, but it is made manifest or revealed to those who are Spirit filled to receive it. i.e., it is truth that God inspired three different words the KJV translates Hell in the New Testament. That's not something that I made up so that the KJV would not be perfect, it's an undeniable fact. Honest people receive the truth "as" truth. They don't attempt to deny it in the face of all the "Biblical" facts. We know there is [hades], [tartaroo], and [geenna] not because the KJV is a perfect translation, but because we went to the "source" which is infallible and inerrant.


Quote
>>>
And lastly, are you saying that anyone who has ever lived that has claimed to be a Christian, but who has not gone back to check their "translation" against "the infallible Word of God from which it is drawn,"  wherever it is, has no "Un-common sense" and is actually a "non-evangelistic, lazy, content, professing Christian"?
<<<

No, I've consistently stated that the issue here is not that the KHV, the NKJV, YLT, or RSV is not the Bible, but that the KJV is not a perfect translation! I don't know in how many ways I have to say it. That's the issue here. It's a blatantly false teaching, no matter how allegedly well intentioned it is, or may appear to be.

Those who have no "UN-common sense," or more Biblically put, "The Spirit of Truth," RECEIVE the love of truth. the common sense KJOnly proponents talk about is worldly sense, and indeed "common." It rejects the truth at every turn, rationalizes away every rational conclusion, distorts every honest statement, clokes every noble fact, ignores every Biblical word from the source in order to hold onto a tradition of perfection,


Ephesians 5:8-10
The Bereans of Acts were more noble or honest, and that is why they received the truth rather than rationalized it away as the majority of the Jews did. They not only talked as children of light, they walked as children of light. In other words, the Jews would say it made no sense for them to forsake congregation, Priests and scholars for the truth that Paul brought, but these had  "UN-common Sense," so they did just that.

As for the "non-evangelistic, lazy, content, professing Christians," of which are myriad, they are those content to think their obligations are complete if they go to Church on Sunday. Anything to make their life easier is fine with them. Whether it is the NIV, Entertainment in Church, Universalism, Parallel Bibles, TV Preachers, whatever makes their lives run more smoothly. This is the "me" generation.  Forgetting the precept of, "Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord," they rather follow what is acceptable to them. Because they have common sense and want to be more "practical."

Everyone does not have to go back to check their KJ Translation in order to be Christians. That would be heretical. As I said, most early Christians couldn't even read, much less do a careful study of scriptures. For all are not called to teach or to preach. There are many gifts of the Spirit. But those who are teaching, must be diligent in their study of the Word of God, comparing scripture with scripture. Not KJV with KJV.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Reformer on November 10, 2004, 12:52:30 PM
This will probably be my last post on this subject, because this is growing a life of it's own and like Alice in wonderland, it just keeps getting curious-er and Curious-er.  I'm getting questions "as answers" to my questions, constantly having to address "Straw Man" arguments. Not to mention the deliberate distortions by some people,

Good decision I think. Because honeastly, I'm sick of reading the same lame arguments by these people post after post. Enough already. I think we all know where the truth is, and where we stand, and we're not going to change any minds. So what's the point of rehashing the same thing with Brandplucked post after post? Please!
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 10, 2004, 07:37:02 PM
Hi Dave, thanks for the comparisons.

You ask: "Will K., since Tyndale and Bishop rendered it plural in contrast to the 1611KJV, does this rule them out as candidates for being 'valid Bibles' prior to 1611?"


Dave, I believe they were generally reliable versions, but they were not perfect nor 100% correct. 
These previous English versions have passed into the dustbin of history.  God is sovereign and He did not use Tyndale nor Bishops' to carry the gospel in the great missionary outreach and translate 100s of foreign language Bibles.


Will K
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 10, 2004, 07:43:35 PM
Dave asks: "p.s.  Also Will K., one other question. 
When the modern 1769 version of the KJV conflicts with the 1611 version of the KJV; which version should we hold as the 'perfect' inerrant version?  (Or do you believe they both can disagree and still both be perfect?)

Dave, the only differences I know of are the changes from Gothic print to Roman print, the correction of printing errors, and the updated spelling of words like Sonne to Son, sinne to sin, and burnt to burned.  The text itself has never changed.

In contrast to this the NKJV, NIV, NASB have all changed their English texts from one edition to the next, and these are not the correction of printing errors.

I suspect you ask this question because you are trying to discredit the idea that any Bible or any single text is the inerrant and complete words of God.  Am I right?

Do you personally believe any Bible is the complete, inerrant word of God?  If so, what is it called and where can I get a copy?

Thanks,

Will K
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: John on November 11, 2004, 12:19:00 AM
An example of an incorrect translation from the Greek into the English in the KJV:

Act 19:20  So mightily grew the word of God (kuriou) and prevailed. (KJV)
Act 19:20  So with might, the Word of the Lord (kuriou) increased and was strong. (LITV)

In Acts 19:20 the KJV has ‘God’ (‘So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed’). The Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament has ‘Lord’ (kuriou). Now either the KJV is in error or the TR is in error. Kuriou should be translated Lord, as it is in Green's Literal Version. The KJV has God (Theos) where it should translate the Greek kuriou as Lord. Thus, the KJV, based on the TR Greek, has mistranslated a Greek word. This is another error made by the KJV translators.

While the 1611 edition had, "Then cometh Judas" at Matthew 26:36, today's KJV has it correctly as "Then cometh Jesus". This was an unintentional error made by the translators, not the printers.

Poorly worded sentences are also found in the KJV. See if you can understand these:

For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I? Eccl.2:25
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing. Ps.5:6
Nevertheless even him [Solomon] did outlandish women cause to sin. Neh. 13:26
Solomon loved many strange women. 1Kings 11:1
Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof. Job 26:5
The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour. Job 36:33
Woe to them that...stay on horses. Is. 31:1; 10:20; 30:12; 50:12
The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market. Ez. 27:25
I trow not. Luke 17:9
He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. John 15:2
We do you to wit of the grace of God. 2Cor. 8:1
I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified. 1Cor.4:4
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. 2Cor.6:12
Not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand. 2Cor.10:16
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. Eccl.12:11
For some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol. 2Cor.8:7

The KJV translators, when examining the Hebrew, were not sure how to define some animals. They chose to make up imaginary animals to translate the Hebrew words:

Cockatrice
Isaiah 14:29
Isaiah 11:8
Isaiah 59:5 

Unicorn
Deut. 33:17   
Psalms 22:21   
Isaiah 34:7   

Satyr
Isaiah 13:21   
Isaiah 34:14   

The KJV translates a slew of different Greek words all as "hell", obscuring the differences in meaning.

Matthew 5:22 "hellfire"    Should be "gehenna"

Psalms 16:10 "hell"   Should be "sheol"

Acts 2:27 "hell" Should be "hades"

2Peter 2:4 "hell" Should be "tartarus"


Easter" is the english translation of the TR Greek pascha found in Acts 12:4. The word pascha appears 29 times in the Greek text. Twenty-eight of those times it is correctly rendered as "passover" by the KJV translators and just once, in Acts 12:4, is it rendered Easter. This is a translation error. It doesn't matter what kind of festival pascha was, the Greek should have been translated uniformly as Passover.


Genesis 36:24 And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.

The Hebrew word translated mules in Genesis 36:24 only occurs once, but it is better translated "hot springs", mule is an incorrect translation.


The KJV translates two Hebrew words as "God save the king" and "God save king [king's name]" in 1 Samuel 10:24; 2 Samuel 16:16; 1 Kings 1:25,1 Kings 1:34, 1 Kings 1:39, 2 Kings 11:12; and 2 Chronicles 23:11.

The translated word "God" does not exist in these passages in the original Hebrew. The Hebrew words behind the KJV's "God save the king" are chayah melek. The verb chayah means "to let live," "to keep alive," "to preserve alive." The noun melek means "king."

So chayah melek literally means "may the king live" or "let the king live." Thus, a literal translation of 1 Samuel 10:24b is  "And all the people shouted and said, May the king live," in contrast to the KJV's dynamic equivalence: "And all the people shouted, and said, God save the king."


The phrase "God forbid" occurs 24 times in the King James Version. It is found nine times in the Old Testament: Genesis 44:7, Genesis 44:17, Joshua 22:29, Joshua 24:16, 1 Samuel 12:23, 1 Samuel 14:45, 1 Samuel 20:2, 1 Chronicles 11:19, and Job 27:5. It is found fifteen times in the New Testament: Luke 20:16, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:6, Romans 3:31, Romans 6:2, Romans 6:15, Romans 7:7, Romans 7:13, Romans 9:14, Romans 11:1, Romans 11:11; 1 Corinthians 6:15; Galatians 2:17, Galatians 3:21, and Galatians 6:14.

The word "God" is not in the original Hebrew or Greek text, it was added by the KJV translators. The Hebrew word behind the KJV's "God forbid" is chaliylah, which literally means "far be it from." Thus, for example, a literal translation of Genesis 44:7b is "Far be it from your servants to do according to this word," in contrast to the KJV's dynamic equivalence: "God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing." The KJV has made a translation mistake by adding "God" to the text.

Another inconsistency in the KJV is its use of the personal pronoun that refers to the Holy Spirit. In four passages (John 1:32, Romans 8:16, Romans 8:26, 1 Peter 1:11), the Holy Spirit is referred to as "itself" or "it" rather than "himself" or "him." The Holy Spirit is a "He" not an "it". Romans 8:16 should be translated "but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us" not as the KJV has it " but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us".


 The KJV translates the Hebrew Elohim as "the judge" instead of "God" in 1 Samuel 2:25. It should be "If a man sin against a man, then hath God judged him" Vs. the KJV " the judge shall judge him".

The KJV translates Song of Solomon 2:12; as the "voice of the turtle" instead of "voice of the turtledove". The KJV has "And the voice of the turtle was heard in our land", while it should be "and the voice of the turtle-dove is heard in our land". A turtledove is a bird ... the KJV mistakenly put turtle.

The KJV translates Isaiah 65:11 incorrectly as: "that prepare a table for that troop and furnish the drink offering unto that number" instead of "who array a table for Fortune, and who fill mixed wine for Fate".

The KJV translates Amos 4:4 as "years" (a dynamic translation) instead of "days" . It should be "And bring your sacrifices for the morning, your tithes for three days", not "three years". The Hebrew word is "yom" meaning days.

The KJV translates Matthew 1:18 as "she was found with child" (a dynamic translation) instead of "she was found pregnant in womb". The KJV translators ignored the Greek words and gave a paraphrased rendering.

The KJV translates in Matthew 27:44; "cast the same in his teeth" (a dynamic translation) instead of "defamed him, saying the same". The LITV has: And also the plunderers crucified with Him defamed Him, saying the same. This is the correct translation based on the TR Greek. The KJV is a paraphrase.


We could go on but I'm tired of typing. The KJV is not perfect ... the translators, being men, mistranslated many words from the Greek. The also paraphrased. They also made up Hebrew words for the names of animals (they could have transliterated the words from Hebrew into English if they were unsure).

All this means nothing to the KJV-onlyist, they will not "see" an error because they have chosen to remain blind. They could look up the Greek and find Sabbaths instead of "day of the week" but they will not. If they did, they would find the Greek word  Sabbaton, which is translated into English as Sabbath. But they choose to blame Young's Literal Version for having it right and insist the KJV is error-free, even in the face of the error. How hard and stiff-necked is the spirit of man!

(Matthew 28:1) In the end(3796) of the sabbath,4521 as it began to dawn2020 toward1519 the first3391 day of the week,4521

You'll notice that Strong's numbering is 4521 for Sabbaton. It is the same word (Sabbaton) numbered as 4521 at the end of the same sentence. In the same sentence the KJV translators have translated the same Greek word differently, once as Sabbath (correct) and a few words later as "day of the week". Mind you, it is the same exact Greek word Sabbaton (Sabbath). Plus, they have added the word "day" that does not exist in the Greek (notice there is no Strong's numbering for it because it doesn't exist). They also have failed to recognize that Sabbaton is plural not singular and must be translated "Sabbaths".

This is the more correct Greek rendering:

  But late in the sabbaths, at the dawning into the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary came to gaze upon the grave.

The KJV is wrong. No matter how you slice it they have erred in this verse. It was the passing of the OT Sabbaths and the dawning of the NT Sabbaths. While they pretend not to understand and claim this to be a unintelligible translation of this verse, the fact is, it makes perfect sense. And further, only God would make such a differentiation between the passing OT Sabbaths and the dawning NT Sabbaths -- what man would think of this?  The KJV translators stumbled on this verse because they didn't understand what God was saying, so they "helped" God by rewriting the verse. Shame on them -- God knows what He is saying. The KJV-Onlyist need to acknowledge this error and stop pretending it doesn't exist (along with many of the other errors).

I agree with Tony and others, this debate is pointless and more like arguing with a madman. If the valid points (actually indisputable points) are ignored out-of-hand, as they consistently have been, and the reply is unreasoned, we are just talking to a brick wall.  When the reply concerning the TR Greek is: "Would everyone here who also believes in your "The Greek" agree with you that Young's is right?  Doubtful." what does that say about an interest in uncovering the truth? The TR Greek is the basis for the KJV -- yet rather than seeing a bad translation into English we have a plea for a show of hands. If everyone in the world said they like the KJV translation of Matthew 28:1, the whole world would be just as wrong as you are. The Greek is not in dispute ... it says exactly what it says. The English translation from it, however, was translated incorrectly -- it is wrong, and therefore -- YOU are wrong. Because you refuse to see the matter set before you doesn't invalidate or change the facts. You can believe the KJV is the true, prefect word of God, and you can say it over and over until the cows come home. But that is to your SHAME. You have been instructed otherwise.

Pro 4:13 Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life.

Pro 10:17  He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth.
God bless,

Pro 13:16  Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.

Pro 26:3  A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.



john
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Bunyan on November 11, 2004, 09:37:23 AM
I've been reading this thread today and you should know it has been a long standing fact that King James Onlyism is a cult. Talking to the "King James Only" cultists is like talking to the "Christians Never Sin" after they are saved cultists. There is this same fanatical feel to their stubborn insistence that they're the only ones right. There is just no getting through to them with reason. I'm convinced it's a cult mentality based on their faddish devotion to something so obviously proven in error. It is singly the greatest danger in our day to the acceptance of the King James Bible. No one wants to be associated with a cult. But I implore Christians, don't blame the King James Version for the King James Only cult member views. That would be like blaming those who witness for Jehovah for Jehovah's Witnesses. I know these cultists do damage to the King James Version, but please don't confuse the two.

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Anne on November 12, 2004, 04:18:27 AM
 
 WHAT... is "KING  JAMES ONLYISM ?"

 Does "KJV-Onlyism" REALLY have any Relevance with the K.J.V. Bible?

   by  BOB  L.  ROSS
 
          When I first heard of "King James-Onlyism" a few years ago, I thought it really involved the King James Version of the Bible issued in 1611, later being known as the "Authorized Version" since it was the "official" version "appointed" by the Church of England "to be read in the churches" of that denomination, and it was the version commissioned by King James, "Defender of the Faith" and Head of the English "Church." However, the more I have studied the issue and read from the "KJV-Onlyites," the more I am convinced that "King James-Onlyism" has very little, if anything, to do with the King James Bible.

          The fact is, the more "militant" advocates of "King James-Onlyism" are veritable HERETICS when measured by the teachings of the King James Bible, the views held by its Translators, and the views of Bible doctrine set forth by the Confessions of Faith of Baptist and the Protestant Denominations.

          Note the following heresies of "KJV-Onlyism," as set forth by most members of this cultic philosophy:

(1)  Only ONE English translation ["A.V. 1611"] is the preserved Word of God. BUT — the  KJV  edition  being  used  today  is  actually  the  6th  revision  since  1611 !
          This bias is contrary to the views of the King James Translators themselves and ALL professing Christian denominations, including all Baptist Confessions of Faith, and is plainly a modern innovation — except, of course, for old-line Roman Catholicism which taught that the Latin Vulgate was the "one-and-only" Bible. Thus, this "one-&-only" theory is Romanism under another garb — so-called "Bible-believing" (KJV-Only) churches, papers and preachers.

(2)  No one has any "right" to do any further study of the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts and to make any new translations, not even any "improvements."
          We are told that "God closed the book" on any more translation from Hebrew and Greek into English as of 1611. Any further translation since 1611 is "of the Devil." [Peter Ruckman] Such an idea is even contrary to what the KJV Translators themselves stated in their "Translators to the Readers" preface printed in the older KJV editions, not to mention the fact that there is no "authority" for such an idea other than the "KJV-Onlyite" cultists themselves — kinkos like "Possel" Peter Ruckman who claims he "corrected 1600 years of scholarship" and "restored the missing link" of "Final Authority."


[Below, more Spurgeon Views on God's Word — Holy Scripture — & the Translations of it, from  "Spurgeon & Bible Translations: the Abuse Continues" — and in booklet form as An Answer to David Otis Fuller, by Pilgrim Publications]

"Believers in verbal inspiration should be studiously careful to be verbally correct. The gentlemen who see errors in Scripture may think themselves competent to amend the language of the Lord of hosts; but we who believe God, and accept the very words He uses, may not make so presumptuous an attempt. Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it will be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense." [Greatest Fight in the World  book  pg. 23]
"Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability." [ Commenting and Commentaries pg. 31]

"It is to me a matter of congratulation that we shall succeed in building in this city a Grecian place of worship. My notions of architecture are not worth much, because I look at a building from a theological point of view, not from an architectural one. It seems to me that there are two sacred tongues in the world. There was the Hebrew of the old, and I doubt not that Solomon adopted Jewish architecture for the Temple — a Hebrew form and fashion of putting stone together in harmony with the Hebrew faith. There is but one other sacred language — not Rome's mongrel tongue, the Latin — glorious as that may be for battlecry, it is of no use for preaching the gospel. The other sacred language is Greek, and that is dear to every Christian's heart. Our fullest revelation of God's will is in that tongue; and so are our noblest names for Jesus. The standard of our faith is Greek — and this place is to be Grecian. I care not that many an idol temple has been built after the same fashion. Greek is the sacred tongue, and Greek is the Baptist's tongue; we may be beaten in our own version, sometimes — but in Greek, never. Every Baptist place should be Grecian — never Gothic.  We owe nothing to the Goths as religionists. We have a great part of our Scriptures in the Grecian language, and this shall be a Grecian place of worship — and God give use the power, and life of that master of the Grecian tongue, the apostle Paul, that here like wonders may be done by the preaching of the Word as wrought by his ministry!" [ Autobiography  Vol 2, pgs. 327-328.]

"That was a grand action of old Jerome, when he laid all his pressing engagements aside to achieve a purpose to which he felt a call from heaven... Away he went with his manuscripts, and prayed and labored, and produced a work — the Latin Vulgate — which will last as long as the world stands; on the whole a most wonderful translation of Holy Scripture." [ Lectures to My Students  Series I, pg. 51]

"I feel vexed with the fellow who chopped the Bible up into chapters; I forget his name just now**, and I am sure it is not worth recollecting. I have heard that he did the most of his carving of the New Testament, between London and Paris, and rough work he made of it. Surely he was chaptering the Gospel of Matthew while he was crossing the Channel, for he has divided it in such queer [unusual] places." [from Harvest Men Wanted MTP Vol 19, Year 1873, pg. 466, Matt. 9:37-38, 10:1]

[** actually it was Sir Robert Stephens; he was the first to divide any part of the Bible into verses, in 1551. Stephens did it just 300 years after the Greek New Testament was divided into verses in 1560 at the appearance of the Geneva Bible.]

"Dear friends, the most of my text will be found in our Old Version [KJV]; but for once I shall ask you to look elsewhere for a part of it. A genuine fragment of inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators, and it is too precious to be lost... The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. Never did a translation of the New Testament fail more completely than this Revised Version has done as a book for general reading; but as an assistant to the student it deserves honorable mention, despite its faults. It exhibits here and there special beauties, and has, no doubt, in certain places brought into notice words of sacred Scripture which had fallen out...

 ...We have a notable instance in my present text [to the KJV, the RV adds the words to 1 John 3:1, "And such we are"]. The word "such" is not in the original. We therefore leave it out, and we get the words, "and we are." There are only two words in the Greek — "and we are." That the addition is correct I have not the slightest doubt. Those authorities upon which we depend — those manuscripts which are best worth of notice — have these words; and they are to be found in the Vulgate, the Alexandrian, and several other versions. They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned, and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of inspiration. So far as doctrine is concerned, it does not matter whether they are or are not in the original text, because we get the same words farther on." [from And We Are, A Jewel from the Revised Version MTP Vol 32, Year 1886, pgs. 673-674, 1 John 3:1]

When the English Revised Version New Testament appeared in 1881, Spurgeon did not heap scorn upon it as some did then and as some do today. In fact, from 1881 on, Spurgeon not infrequently expressly referred to the Revised English translation, commending it either in text or translation or both. In 1881, the very year the revision appeared, Spurgeon preached a sermon in which he expressly refers to the new Revised Version, noting its difference in text from the KJV and acknowledging the RV as here correct; he then lays down some principles regarding the questions of the text and translation of Scripture to which all Baptist ought to give hearty assent.  His sermon text is part of Isaiah 61:1, "He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted..." —

"I intended to have preached from these words in Luke 4:18, but when I looked at the Revised Version and found that the words were not there at all I was somewhat startled. I began to ask whether the omission was a correct one or not — and without making pretence to scholarship — I feel convinced that the revisers are acting honestly in leaving it out. It was not in the original manuscript of Luke, but probably some pious person added it with the intention of making the quotation more complete. Whatever the intention may have been, and however natural the added words may appear, it is a pity that the unknown brother ventured to improve that which was perfect from the beginning...

 ...Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, & an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would comfirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them. All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit, as far as we can get it. Beyond all other Christians we are concerned in this, seeing we have not other sacred book; we have no prayer book or binding creek, or authoritative minutes of conference — we have nothing but the Bible — and we would have that as pure as ever we can get it. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, that so the Word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand." [from Heart-Disease Curable MTP Vol 27, Year 1881, pgs. 341, 342-3, Isaiah 61:1]

[Spurgeon comparing John Bunyan with the KJV]  "It is idle merely to let the eye glance over the words, or to recollect the poetical expressions, or the historic facts; but it is blessed to eat into the very soul of the Bible until, at last, you come to talk in Scriptural language, and your very style is fashioned upon Scripture models, and, what is better still, your spirit is flavoured with the words of the Lord.   

I would quote John Bunyan as an instance of what I mean. Read anything of his, and you will see that it is almost like reading the Bible itself. He had studied our Authorized Version, which will never be bettered, as I judge, till Christ shall come; he had read it till his very soul was saturated with Scripture; and, though his writings are charmingly full of poetry, yet he cannot give us his Pilgrim's Progress — that sweetest of all prose poems — without continually making us feel and say, 'Why, this man is a living Bible!' Prick him anywhere — his blood is Bibline, the very essence of the Bible flows from him.  He cannot speak without quoting a text, for his very soul is full of the Word of God. I commend his example to you, beloved, and, still more, the example of our Lord Jesus. If the Spirit of God be in you, he will make you love the Word of God; and if any of you imagine that the Spirit of God will lead you to dispense with the Bible, you are under the influence of another spirit which is not the Spirit of God at all. I trust that the Holy Spirit will endear to you every page of this Divine Record, so that you will feed upon it yourselves, and afterwards speak it out to others. I think it is well worthy of your constant remembrance that, even in death, our blessed Master showed the ruling passion of his spirit, so that his last words were a quotation from Scripture — "It is finished. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." [from The Last Words  of Christ on the Cross MTP Vol 45, Year 1899, pg. 495, Luke 23:46, Psalms 31:5, Acts 7:59]

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Anne on November 12, 2004, 04:26:18 AM
Quote
But I implore Christians, don't blame the King James Version for the King James Only cult member views. That would be like blaming those who witness for Jehovah for Jehovah's Witnesses. I know these cultists do damage to the King James Version, but please don't confuse the two.


Bunyan, Read my previous post.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: brandplucked on November 12, 2004, 05:15:08 AM
Hi John, I see you have posted a very impressive list of alleged errors in the King James Bible.  Gee, I have never seen any of these before.  Did God show them to you or did you paste them from some "There is no inspired Bible" site?

Since none of you believe there exists any Holy Bible on this earth that is the complete, inerrant, inspired word of God, you are left with the only recourse of trying to pick holes in the King James Bible to prove to everyone that no Bible is perfect and none can be trusted 100%.

But each of you thinks you can correct all the errors and come up with a perfect bible.  But when your version comes out, then it will be "corrected" by others who differ from what you think it should say.

So, instead of posting 20 articles showing how the King James Bible is correct in all of these examples, or at least, that it is not wrong, why don't you pick just one of your many examples.  Give us your best shot.  Then if I can defend the King James Bible as being correct and show that your examples are either based on ignorance, or only on your personal preference, would you be willing to admit to us all that you really do not have nor know where to obtain the inerrant, infallible, complete and preserved words of God today?

Will Kinney
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Baerchild on December 31, 2004, 10:52:54 PM

Usually I read from the KJV however at times when I have trouble understanding a verse, I read and study from other versions ... 

Midas,
 
Don't do it...the KJV is the very best translation -- by far -- that mankind has ever produced...but it is not perfect. Using  a Strong's Concordance, to check the various meanings of a single word, will not disturb the sentence structure and the absolute beauty of The Word of God, as translated into the English language of that day. 

Jim
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Jeff on March 07, 2005, 06:37:39 AM
The problem with a large part of the church is that they have to like the way something reads, rather than going for what is accurate and faithful. That is the single reason why the NIV is the most popular bible ever. Because people don't care a thing about it's inaccuracies, but they like the way it sounds and it's modern sounding words and phrases. I think it is a sign of the times. How about you?
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Daniel on March 07, 2005, 09:44:52 AM
That is the single reason why the NIV is the most popular bible ever. Because people don't care a thing about it's iniccuracies, but they like the way it sounds and it's modern sounding words and phrases. I think it is a sign of the times. How about you?

     I agree. They like to have their ears tickled. You said it "people don't care". The church is in a sad state.
I truely beleive we are witnessing the falling away as mentioned in 2nd Thess. chapter 2.
                                                                             Dan
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Jeff on March 09, 2005, 04:36:06 AM

     I agree. They like to have their ears tickled. You said it "people don't care". The church is in a sad state.
I truely beleive we are witnessing the falling away as mentioned in 2nd Thess. chapter 2.
                                                                             Dan

 Absolutely. There is just too much of it happening today, and it just keeps getting worse and worse while the churches allow more and more unfaithfulness. And not only in 2nd thessalonians, it's also in Timothy.

 2nd Ti 4:2-4
  "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

 If you try and tell people the truth, they don't want to hear it. You try and tell them something is wrong, they say you're judgmental. You try and say the KJV is the most accurate version, and they have a fit digging up some obscure passage to try and prove that it's archaic and unreadable. People are just not teachable anymore. At least, not the majority of christians. Personally, I think that the end is so close, you can smell it. I don't think God is going to put up with much more of church apostasy. Compare today's church to Israel when God judged her. Today's Church is twice as bad, with all it's abominations to numerous to mention.

Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: caseydbell on August 18, 2006, 03:07:55 PM
The NKJV: A Deadly Translation 

By James L. Melton





We will now give some special attention to one of the deadliest translations on the market--the New King James Version, first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because its editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points: (1) That it's a King James Bible (which is a lie), and (2) that it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth). The following information should be helpful when dealing with Christians who have been swindled by the Laodicean lovers of filthy lucre:
1. The text of the NKJV is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not.

2. There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock albums (like Led Zepplin's), or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy. (See Riplinger's tract on the NKJV.)

3. It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.

4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

5. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted.

6. The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45.

7. The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "are being sanctified", and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV.

8. In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads "casting down arguments". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse.

9. The KJV tells us to reject a "heretick" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a "divisive man". How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men".

10. According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "peddle" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

11. Since the NKJV has "changed the truth of God into a lie", it has also changed Romans 1:25 to read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie". This reading matches the readings of the new perversions, so how say ye it's a King James Bible?

12. The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.

13. The word "science" is replaced with "knowledge" in I Timothy 6:20, although "science" has occurred in every edition of the KJV since 1611! How say ye it's a King James Bible?

14. The Jews "require" a sign, according to I Corinthians 1:22 (and according to Jesus Christ - John 4:48), but the NKJV says they only "request" a sign. They didn't "request" one when signs first appeared in Exodus 4, and there are numerous places throughout the Bible where God gives Israel signs when they haven't requested anything (Exo. 4, Exo. 31:13, Num. 26:10, I Sam. 2:34, Isa. 7:10-14, Luke 2:12, etc). They "require" a sign, because signs are a part of their national heritage.

15. The King James reading in II Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man is in Christ he is a new "creature", which matches the words of Christ in Mark 16:15. The cross reference is destroyed in the NKJV, which uses the word "creation."

16. As a final note, we'd like to point out how the NKJV is very inconsistent in it's attempt to update the language of the KJV. The preface to the NKJV states that previous "revisions" of the KJV have "sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech", and also that they too are taking a "further step toward this objective". However, when taking a closer look at the language of the NKJV, we find that oftentimes they are stepping BACKWARDS! Please note a few examples of how well the NKJV has "kept abreast of the changes in the English language":



SCRIPTURE KJV NKJV

Ezra 31:4 little rivers rivulets
Psalms 43:1  Judge Vindicate
Psalms 139:23  thoughts anxieties
Isaiah 28:1  fat verdant 
Amos 5:21 smell savor 
Matthew 26:7  box flask 
Luke 8:31 the deep the abyss 
John 10:41 did performed 
Luke 19:11-27  pounds minas
John 19:9 judgement hall Praetorium
Acts 1:18 bowels entrails 
Acts 18:12 deputy proconsul 
Acts 21:38 uproar insurrection 
Acts 27:30 boat skiff 
Hebrews 12:8  bastard illegitimate
____________________________ ____________________________ ___

by Terry Watkins

coun ter feit \'kaunt-er-fit\: to imitate or copy closely
especially with intent to deceive.


The greatest method of deception is to counterfeit.
And the master of counterfeit and deception is Satan.

The Bible in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 warns of Satan's counterfeit: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;. . ." Isaiah 14: 14 tells of Satan's ultimate counterfeit: ". . . I will BE LIKE the most High."

And among his greatest counterfeit's is the New King James Bible (NKJV). Christians that would never touch a New International Version (NIV), New American Standard (NASV), Revised Standard (RSV), the New Revised Standard (NRSV) or other per-versions are being "seduced" by the subtil NKJV.

And though the New King James does indeed bear a "likeness" to the 1611 King James Bible, as you'll soon see, there's something else coiled (see Genesis 3:1) "underneath the cover" of the NKJV.


WHAT ABOUT THAT MYSTERIOUS MARK?


Symbols are used throughout the occult. Harpers' Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience (p.594) says, "Symbols are important to all esoteric teachings, for they contain secret wisdom accessible only to the initiated."
Many people have asked about the mysterious symbol on the NKJV.

Thomas Nelson Publishers (publishers of the NKJV) claim, on the inside-cover, the symbol, ". . .is an ancient symbol for the Trinity." But Acts 17:29, clearly FORBIDS such symbology: ". . . we ought NOT to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, GRAVEN BY ART and man's device."

And why does The Aquarian Conspiracy, a key New Age "handbook", bear a similar symbol? New Agers freely admit it represents three inter-woven "6"s or "666".

Constance Cumbey, author of The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow and a notable authority on the New Age Movement, said, "On the cover of the Aquarian Conspiracy is a Mobius, it is really used by them as triple six (666). The emblem on the cover of the New King James Bible is said to be an ancient symbol of the Trinity. The old symbol had gnostic origins. It was more gnostic than Christian. I was rather alarmed when I noticed the emblem..." (The New Age Movement, Southwest Radio Church, 1982 p.11)

The three esoteric "6"'s separated.
Plainly displaying the interlocked "666".

 

The Triqueta is used as the centerpiece for the logo for The Institute of Transpersonal Psychology (ITP). The ITP is a new age school following the Jungian Psychology [occultist Carl Jung]. One of their stated goals is ". . . to reach the recognition of divinity within"(www.itp.edu/about/tp.html) (see Genesis 3:5, "...ye shall be as gods...")
The same symbol (with a circle) is displayed by the rock group Led Zeppelin. Members of Led Zeppelin are deeply involved in satanism and the occult. Guitarist Jimmy Page, so consumed with satanism, actually purchased satanist Aleister Crowley's mansion. Most believe the symbol is from the teachings of Aleister Crowley and represents 666.

 The following picture is "The Hierophant" taken from the Tarot card set designed by satanist Aliester Crowley. The "Hierophant" is a priest in the occult and Eleusinian. Notice the "three circles" at the top of the wand or rod in the Hierphant's hand. Inside the the three intertwined circles is the "NKJV symbol".

To the right is the top of the wand enlarged. Notice the "NKJV symbol" (upside down) inside the three circles.

One of the most occultic television shows ever aired is "Charmed". "Charmed" details the spells and occultic practices of three witches. The "NKJV symbol" is the show's primary symbol of witchcraft and is splattered throughout the series. Notice the "NKJV symbol" displayed on "The Book of Shadows". The Book of Shadows is commonly used in withcraft and satanism:

Book of Shadows: Also called a grimoire, this journal kept either by individual witches or satanists or by a coven or group, records the activities of the group and the incantations used. (Jerry Johnston, The Edge of Evil: The Rise of Satanism on North America, p. 269)

  THE NKJV & WITCHCRAFT?
The Craft: A Witch's Book of Shadows
The Witch's Book of Shadows or Grimoire is a book of spells, enchantments, and rituals. Includes Rituals, Spells, and Wicca Ethics


The Craft Companion: A Witch's Journal


By Dorothy Morrison, a high priest of Witchcraft.

NOTE: We circled (in YELLOW and RED), and also enlarged to the side The NKJV symbol.
 


  Here's some examples of Satanic and Pagan Jewelry which includes the NKJV logo.
LEFT BOX: Notice the satanic pentagram ring in the top right corner. The ring with the NKJV logo is the fourth down on the left, we highlighted it with a yellow circle.
BOTTOM BOX: Notice the very satanic Baphomet Goat.
We broke out and colored the NKJV symbol found in the other two satanic pieces of jewelry.
 

LEFT: The image on the left is from the rock group Deicide's album "Once Upon the Cross". It is a triquetra (the NKJV logo) with pentagrams and upside down crosses. The group Deicide members are very serious Satanists. Lead Singer Glen Benton has an upside down cross branded on his forehead. The inside cover of the album "Once Upon the Cross" has the Lord Jesus Christ, sliced up the middle, with his insides removed. The name Deicide means the death of God.

RIGHT: The triquetra (the NKJV logo) is also the logo for the Rap / Metal band P.O.D.

The book "Blood on the Doorposts" by former Satanists, Bill and Sharon Schnoebelen, also documents the "trio of sixes (666)" in the "NKJV symbol" and goes so far as claim it is "symbolic of the anti-christ":

"A disguised interlocked trio of sixes, symbolic of the anti-christ. Also symbolizes the triple goddess of Wicca (three interlocked vesica pisces together). Commonly used in Catholic liturgical iconography, and has recently found its way into the logo of the New King James Bible." (Bill and Sharon Schnoebelen, Blood on the Doorposts, p. 150)
Dr. Cathy Burns writes in her book, Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, concerning the "NKJV symbol":

"Marilyn Ferguson, a New Ager, used the symbol of the triquetra (another name for the triskele) on her book The Aquarian Conspiracy. This is a variation for the number 666. Other books and material have a similar design printed on them, such as books from David Spangler, the person who lauds Lucifer, and The Witch's Grimoire. As most people know, the number 666 is the number of the beast (see Revelation 13:18) and is evil, yet the occultists and New Agers love this number and consider it to be sacred.
As stated earlier, many organizations, such as the World Future Society and the Trilateral Commission, incorporate this symbol into their logo. I think it is quite interesting to see that this same symbol appears on the cover of the New King James Bible as well!"(Dr. Cathy Burns, Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, pp. 242-243)


For more info on the NKJV "mark"
 
Would God "mark" His word with a symbol in the occult?

The Preface to the New King James Version (NKJV) reads, "A special feature of the New King James Version is ITS CONFORMITY to the thought flow of the 1611 Bible. . . the new edition, while much clearer ARE SO CLOSE to the traditional. . ."

Among the first changes that greets the reader of the NKJV is the removal of the much maligned "thee, thou and ye". The Preface to the NKJV states, ". . .thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you,. . .These pronouns are no longer part of our language." But "thee, thou and ye" were "NO LONGER part of the language" during 1611 either. (just read the intro to the 1611 King James, there are no "thee", "thou" and "ye"). In fact, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, says of ye: "used from the earliest of times to the late 13th century. . ." (p.2648) And yet the 1611 King James was published 400 years later in the 17th century!



So why are they there?

The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. Today we use the one-word "you" for both the singular and plural. But because the translators of the 1611 King James Bible desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text - they could NOT use the one-word "you" throughout! If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine) it's SINGULAR, but if it begins with "y" (ye) it's PLURAL. Ads for the NKJV call it "the Accurate One", and yet the 1611 King James, by using "thee", "thou", "ye", is far more accurate!

By the way, if the "thee's" and "thou's" are ". . .no longer part of our language" - why aren't the NKJV translators rushing to make our hymnbooks "much clearer"? "How Great Thou Art" to "How Great You Are", or "Come Thou Fount" to "Come You Fount" Doesn't sound right, does it? Isn't it amazing that they wouldn't dare "correct" our hymns - and yet, without the slightest hesitation, they'll "correct" the word of God!

The NKJV claims to make the "old" KJV "much clearer" by "updating obsolete words" (New King James Version, 1982e. p. 1235)

How about that "obsolete word" - "hell". The NKJV removes the word "hell" 23 times! And how do they make it "much clearer"? By replacing "hell" with "Hades" and "Sheol"! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines Hades: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". By making it "much clearer" - they turn your Bible into MYTHOLOGY! Not only that, Hades is not always a place of torment or terror! The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification!

Who in their right mind would think "Hades" or "Sheol" is "up-to-date" and "much clearer" than "hell"?

Matthew 16:18
KJV: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
NKJV: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Luke 16:23
KJV: "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
NKJV: "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
Hell is removed in 2 Sam. 22:6, Job 11:8, 26:6, Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 86:13, 116:3, Isaiah 5:14, 14:15, 28:15,18, 57:9, Jonah 2:2, Matt. 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27, 31, Rev. 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14.

Then the NKJV decides that maybe "Hades" should be "grave"! So the NKJV makes 1 Corinthians 15:55 "much clearer" by changing "grave" to "Hades"! ". . . O Hades, where is your victory?" Clear as mud. . .

Another one of those "obsolete words" is "repent". They take it out 44 times! And how does the NKJV make it "much clearer"? In Matthew 21:32 they use "relent". Matthew 27:3 it's "remorseful" Or Romans 11:29 they change "repentance" to "irrevocable".

The term "new testament" is NOT in the NKJV! (see Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 9:15,) The NKJV replaces "new testament" with "new covenant" (ditto NIV, NRSV, RSV, NASV). An obvious assault at the written word!

The word "damned", "damnation" is NOT in the NKJV! They make it "much clearer" by replacing it with "condemn" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). "Condemned" is NO WHERE NEAR AS SERIOUS as "damned"! Damned is eternal! One can be "condemned" and not "damned". Romans 14:22 says, ". . . Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Webster defines "condemned": to declare to be wrong, but the much more serious and eternal "damn": "to condemn to hell".

The word "devils" (the singular, person called the "devil" is) is NOT in the NKJV! Replaced with the "transliterated" Greek word "demon" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). The Theosophical Dictionary describes demon as: ". . . it has a meaning identical with that of 'god', 'angel' or 'genius'". Even Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (p.157) defines "demon" as: "an inferior deity, WHETHER GOOD OR BAD". Webster defines "demon" as: "divinity, spirit, an attendant power or spirit", but "devil" as: "the personal supreme spirit of EVIL. . ."

In 2 Timothy 2:15, the NKJV (like the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) remove that "obsolete" word - "study"! The only time you're told to "study" your Bible. AND THEY ZAP IT! Why don't they want you to "study" your Bible? Maybe they don't want you to look too close - you might find out what they've ACTUALLY done to your Bible! The "real" KJV is the only English Bible in the world that instructs you to "study" your Bible!

That "obsolete" word "virtue" is replaced with "power" in Mark 5:30, Luke 6:19, 8:46! How does anybody confuse "virtue" with "power"? Simple - by being "bosom-buddies" with the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV! That's what they did!

One of the most absurd changes ever made is changing the word "servant" to "slave"! The NKJV in Romans 6:22, reads: "But now having been set FREE from sin, and having become SLAVES OF GOD. . ." The NKJV, in 1 Corinthians 7:22, calls the Christian, "Christ's slave". Talk about a contradiction! John 8:36 says, "If the Son therefore shall make you FREE, YE SHALL BE FREE INDEED." But isn't a Christian supposed to serve? Yes, in love. Not as a slave! Galatians 5:13 explains it, perfectly: "For, brethren, ye have been called unto LIBERTY;(not slavery!) only use not LIBERTY for an occasion to the flesh, but BY LOVE SERVE one another."

In order to "harmonize" with the satanic New Age Movement (and of course the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!), the NKJV changes "end of the WORLD" to "end of the AGE"! And in it's no longer the "WORLD to come" but "AGE to come". The New Age Movement teaches a series of ages (hence the name: New AGE). See Matthew 12:32, 13:39, 13:40, 13:49, 24:3, 28:20, Mark 10:30, Luke 13:30, 20:34,35, 1 Cor 1:21.

The New Age Movement and the occult are longing for one called the Maitreya. The Bible calls him the Anti-Christ. New Ager's refer to him as the "the Coming One" - AND SO DOES THE NKJV! In Luke 7:19, 20 (see also Matt 11:3) John told his disciples to ask Jesus: "Are You THE COMING ONE. . ." In the "The Great Invocation", a "prayer" highly reverenced among New Agers and chanted to "invoke" the Maitreya, says, "Let Light and Love and Power and Death, Fulfil the purpose of the Coming One."

And to REALLY show their sympathy with the satanic New Age Movement - BELIEVE IT OR NOT - in Acts 17:29 the New Age NKJV changes "Godhead" to "Divine Nature"! ( ditto NIV, NASV)

And if you think the NKJV just "innocently" updated the "obsolete words", removed the "thee's and thou's" - here's what the translators proudly admit: "IT IS CLEAR that this revision REQUIRED more than the dropping of "-eth" endings, removing, "thee's" and "thou's," and updating obsolete words." (The New King James Version, 1982e. p. 1235)


AND THEY AIN'T JUST A KIDDIN'!


Here's a sampling of the required changes: 


Genesis 2:18: The NKJV ought to make Hillary Clinton proud: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM"

Genesis 22:8: One of the greatest verses in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh: "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for": "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise! Where'd they get their little "for"? From the NASV!

Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word!

Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).

Matthew 7:14: change "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way". There's nothing "difficult" about the salvation of Jesus Christ! Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, "For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light." THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Boy, you talk about a contradiction!

Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) I don't guess it matters (what's the truth got to do with it?), the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale!

Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes "worshipped him" (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8: removes "Christ" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

John 1:3: change "All things were made BY him;" to "All things were made THROUGH Him" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

John 4:24: change "God is a spirit" to the impersonal, New Age pantheistic,"God is spirit" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

John 14:2: (NKJV 1979 edition) change "mansions" to "dwelling places" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

John 14:16: change "comforter" to "helper"(refers to Holy Spirit) (NASV)

Acts 4:27, 30: change "holy child" to "holy servant" (refers to Jesus) (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Acts 12:4: change "Easter" to "Passover" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Acts 17:22: changes "superstitious" to "religious" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Acts 24:14: change "heresy" to "sect" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 1:18: change "hold the truth" to "suppress the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 1:25: change "changed the truth" to "exchanged the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 5:8: change "commendeth" to "demonstrates" (NIV, NASV)

Romans 16:18: change "good words and fair speeches" to "smooth words and flattering speech" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

1 Cor. 1:21: change "foolishness of preaching" to "foolishness of the message preached" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) There's nothing foolish about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Unless you're not saved! 1 Cor. 1:18 says: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS. . ." I wonder where that leaves the translators of the NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV?

1 Cor. 1:22: change "require" to "request" (NASV)

1 Cor. 6:9: removes "effeminate" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

1 Cor. 9:27: change "castaway" to "disqualified" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 2:10: change "person of Christ" to "presence of Christ" (NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 2:17: With all the "corruptions" in the NKJV, you'd expect 2 Cor. 2:17 to change. IT DOES! They change, "For we not as many which CORRUPT the word of God" to "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 5:17: change "new creature" to "new creation" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 10:5: change "imaginations" to "arguments". Considering New Age "imaging" and "visualization" is now entering the church, this verse in the "old" KJV just won't do. (NIV, RSV)

2 Cor. 11:6: change "rude in speech" to "untrained in speech" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Gal. 2:20: omit "nevertheless I live" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Phil. 2:6: (NKJV 1979e.) change "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" to "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped". (robs Jesus Christ of deity) (NIV, NASV, RSV)

Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

1 Thess. 5:22 change "all appearance of evil" to "every form of evil" (NASV, RSV, NSRV)

1 Timothy 6:5: The NKJV changes "gain is godliness" to "godliness is a MEANS OF gain". There are NO Greek texts with "means of" in them! Where, oh where, did they come from? Care to take a wild guess? YOU GOT IT! The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

1 Timothy 6:10: The NKJV changes "For the love of money is the root of all evil:" to "For the love of money is a root of all KINDS OF evil". The words "KINDS OF" are found in NO Greek text in the world! Where did they get them? Straight from the NIV, NASV, NRSV!

1 Tim. 6:20: change "science" to "knowledge" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Titus 3:10: change "heretic" to "divisive man" (NIV)

Hebrews 4:8 & Acts 7:45: "Jesus" is changed to "Joshua". (NIV, NASV, RSV)

2 Pet. 2:1: change "damnable heresies" to "destructive heresies" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

1 John 3:16: remove "love of God"; (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

1 John 5:13: The NKJV reads: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may CONTINUE TO believe in the name of the Son of God." They add "CONTINUE TO" without any Greek text whatsoever! Not even the perverted NIV, NASV, NRSV and RSV go that far! A cruel, subtil (see Genesis 3:1) attack on the believer's eternal security!

Rev. 2:13: change "Satan's seat" to "Satan's throne" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Rev. 6:14: "Heaven" is changed to "sky" in (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)


AND THAT DOESN'T SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF ALL THE CHANGES!

The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times!

The NKJV removes the word God 51 times!

The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times!

In just the New Testament alone the NKJV removes 2.289 words from the KJV!

The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes!

And most will match the NIV, NASV, RSV, or RSV!

And Thomas Nelson Publishers have the audacity to claim in an ad for the NKJV (Moody Monthly, June 1982, back cover), "NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED except to make the original meaning clearer."


The New King James is a COUNTERFEIT!


It's NOT NEW! The changes are already in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, or RSV!


And it's certainly NOT true to the 1611 King James Bible!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Friend, I want to ask you the most important question anyone will ever ask you:


HAVE YOU EVER BEEN SAVED?

It's simple to be saved ...
Know you're a sinner.


"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10

"... for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23
That Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for your sins.


"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, ..." 1 Peter 2:24

"... Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"Revelation 1:5
And the best way you know how, simply trust Him, and Him alone as your personal Savior.


"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE SAVED?

Pray this prayer, and mean it with all your heart.

Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and unless you save me I am lost forever. I thank you for dying for me at Calvary. I come to you now, Lord the best way I know how, and ask you to save me. I now receive you as my Savior. In Jesus Christ Name, Amen.

 




Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Puritan Heart on April 29, 2015, 10:35:04 AM
Greetings all,

For those who like myself, enjoy History, I decided to post these 2 videos... rather lengthy, but loaded with great research material for the enquiring mind.  There is much information herein that I have not yet had time to verify, however, if anyone has viewed either of these videos or has any wisdom to add, I await your reply, eagerly  :)

/ A Lamp in the Dark

Tares Among the Wheat

I might add however, that my overall conclusion is absolute gratitude and deep humility to and before God for giving to us those who clung to and appreciated the King James Bible, men and woman who clung to its infallibility, most times at the hand of unspeakable cruel death.

Quote "If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this."
C. S. Lewis



Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Susan on April 30, 2015, 06:15:14 PM
Thanks Puritan Heart
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: SavedByGrace on May 04, 2015, 01:56:32 PM
Welcome back Puritan Heart after a long break.  I have really missed your comments.

I have watched the long videos and learned much, especially about the Jesuits.  I also watched the debate by James White on the King James Only in an attempt to balance my thoughts. 


“Tares Among the Wheat” had so many facts so fast.  It was like standing under a water fall, trying to get a drink.  I was so overwhelmed with statements that it was hard to establish the truth. 

I use the NKJV Bible and this study really challenged me.  I have read the critiques of the NKJB and KJB and find a very few errors in both. I will continue to use the NKJB as I can understand the English much better.  Any comments will be welcome.

Bill
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Puritan Heart on May 07, 2015, 02:39:43 AM
Hello again,
and thank you for the replies, Susan and Bill.

Bill, thank you also for the welcoming words.... most kind of you....Having not been in the best of health for some time now, and having been somewhat confined to a resting position, I try to use my time wisely  ;)  I was greatly encouraged in reading that you took the time to watch this video and moreso, that you found it informative.  I have now watched several times, taking copious notes and doing some research in between. PS.  I loooove my KJV.   :)

When one looks at the world and discovers the insidious and nefarious manner in which the removal of all things Scriptural from our educational institutions, higher and basic has developed, yet with replacement of the evolutionary theories, which carry the full endorsement of almost every ruling government, one simply cannot help but question why or how did this come about. Yes, we know with certainty God allows this, 2 Thessalonians 2 v 11, Galatians 6 v 7 and many more....yet, methinks, or rather, I am convinced, it is our duty to be aware of the whys and hows. Yes? No?

From a Historical and research perspective, I found the series to be informative.  It immediately brought to mind the following scripture...

Psalm 2 King James Version (KJV)

2 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

There is yet another that you might find interesting.... I certainly did.
HIDDEN FAITH OF THE FATHERS

Please be warned, you or anyone else might find it disturbing, for it challenges most everything the American people oft times base their sincere patriotism on.  Bill, should you or anyone else take the time to view this second video, I would again appreciate any comments.

Since my new found Reformed salvation in September of 2012, and having a natural curiosity and questioning disposition, I immediately became overwhelmingly convinced of this simple but to me, profound fact...Everything in and of this world is designed to distract us from our Eternal Hope and Goal.  Pardon me if I am incorrect, but until now, I remain evermore convinced.

Thanking you in advance and Thank YOU once again, Dear Tony Warren, and all the MR Family of Christ,  for this Sweet Haven of Heavenly Comfort and Truth.  The days are indeed DARK.......... but WE SOLDIER ON.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Dana Pescator on May 07, 2015, 11:14:44 AM

Since my new found Reformed salvation in September of 2012, and having a natural curiosity and questioning disposition, I immediately became overwhelmingly convinced of this simple but to me, profound fact...Everything in and of this world is designed to distract us from our Eternal Hope and Goal.  Pardon me if I am incorrect, but until now, I remain evermore convinced.

Thanking you in advance and Thank YOU once again, Dear Tony Warren, and all the MR Family of Christ,  for this Sweet Haven of Heavenly Comfort and Truth.  The days are indeed DARK.......... but WE SOLDIER ON.

 :amen:  :God:Bl-U:

PS I love my KJV also!
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: SavedByGrace on May 07, 2015, 08:00:31 PM
There is yet another that you might find interesting.... I certainly did.
HIDDEN FAITH OF THE FATHERS

Please be warned, you or anyone else might find it disturbing, for it challenges most everything the American people oft times base their sincere patriotism on.  Bill, should you or anyone else take the time to view this second video, I would again appreciate any comments.


I really did not find this last video interesting at all.  It had nothing at all to do with the history of the Bible. I am not interested in the sins of unsaved men. 

Bill
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Puritan Heart on May 08, 2015, 03:11:26 AM
Hello Bill,
and thank you for your response.

[/quote]

I really did not find this last video interesting at all.  It had nothing at all to do with the history of the Bible. I am not interested in the sins of unsaved men. 

Bill
[/quote]

Whilst I too care not at all for the sins of unsaved men, all of History most certainly does not involve the Bible directly, however, everything in life, in my humble opinion, is as a direct result of the adherence to it, or lack thereof.  I did feel it certainly does bring unknown information to the attention of the viewer... especially exposing the lie that the Founding Fathers were all Godly, Bible believing men, supposedly great men on whom the christian nation of America was founded.

I found a strong correlation between the first 2 videos and the third, the latter being a modern example of how the distortion of Gods Holy word leads masses into blindly believing and worse, accepting as a truth, that which never was truth from the outset.

I personally found it rather interesting and, here I wish to add, that the more one studies the Word, the clearer becomes that Scarlet Thread of Salvation..... in all of History......
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Puritan Heart on May 08, 2015, 05:04:49 AM
....and Dear Dana, thank you for the blessing.... in all truth, despite that which we all must at some time endure, we are ALL so truly Blessed.... to be called, children of The Most High God. What a privilege.  May Our Father Bless you too, you and your Beloved ones.  :)
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Melanie on May 08, 2018, 03:31:59 AM
Tony,
  I read your replies and this guy agrees with your position about one of the problem you have with KJV Onlyism.

https://runningawayfrommychurch.com/kjv-only-king-james-bible-controversy/

It doesn't really make sense, and this man says he's a former King James Only Advocate.
Title: Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
Post by: Tra Millwood on May 08, 2018, 12:16:37 PM
I love the KJV, I only use the KJV, I would never use the modern versions like the NIV, but having said that, to say it is a perfect Bible translation is absurd. To say it is the best I would agree with, but I recognize it's debatable. But to say it's perfect is near cultish.