Satan’s lie, of King James Onlyism

Confusion

Study has indicated that as recently as 1998 there was a record of 293 English translations of the complete NT plus twenty three more abridged New Testaments.Furthermore this same study noted at least 135 English translations of the complete Bible with an additional 99 abridged Bibles not included.


There undoubtedly have been more translations added since then.Some of these translations are quite obscure.Some are out of print.However some are quite popular such as the NIV-NASB-NKJV etc.

Most laymen are unaware that the several well-known versions mentioned above are not from the same Greek Text.Modern Bible publishing companies often gloss over the fact that there is more than one Greek text.Others use creative advertising to market their Bibles.

For example some publishers at times advertise their particular version as being basedupon the earliest and best Greek manuscripts.Others advertise their version as being based upon the text that scholars recommend.

FTR Most Christian laymen have no idea what the best Greek texts are.Moreover many are influenced by the claims of the earliest and the best of what scholars recommend.Sincere Christians often are either unaware that there is more than one Greek text confused about the matter.

The vast majority of modern Bible translations are based upon the critical text.Only a handful are based upon the Received Text that has towered above all others almost 400 years.

Ye shall know them by their fruit.


Steven.

 

Answer not a fool according to his folly is what the Bible says, are you saying I should not follow God's word and from what version do you get your answer?

If you want to carry on a future conversation about my personal preferences, may I suggest you simply pm me and not hijack the thread?

Maybe you should study Job 40?

 

really? How can anyone ever take you serious again when they were reading the KJV when the Holy Ghost brought conviction in their heart and they got saved!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you saying that anyone who has a KJV and got saved while either reading it or heard preaching from it isn't even saved????????


You mean everyone I preached to from my KJV and said they got saved could only have made a false profession????????

You have made probably the most ignorant and outlandis statement I have ever read in the debate!

 

Amazing how some discredit the KJV by accusations against the translators and then turn around and justify their claims for modern versions by the very words of the same translators they had just made derogatory remarks about.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Actually, Ed, "KJVO" is a lie and satan is the father of all lies.

No one who holds to the KJV as the final authority makes the claim their is no word of God before 1611.

The label is fallacious and of fiction attempting to become fact.

 

That line is sooo stupid. The rest of your source is also of the same caliber.

Anyone who cites Ruckman as an authority is delusional.

 

Now that you placed that nail in place may I hit it with my hammer!

What you just pointed out is what satan wants people to keep doing: searching for the words of God or to say that God spoke in many different words which do not always hold the same meaning in every use.

 

Not just in different times, but in different places. here's an example:

I was talking to a couple of friends from england online the other day. I said something about having biscuits and gravy for breakfast. At this both of them burst into laughter. To them, biscuits are cookies and gravy is brown and made from roast beef drippings. To me (an old Southern boy) biscuits are, well, biscuits... bread made from flour, buttermilk, and shortening, and gravy is white and made from sausage or bacon grease, flour, and milk.

The same words but with two completely different meanings due to our cultures and locations. This same difference is even more exaggerated when there is a huge expanse of time between the original words and the present. Even if you ony went back to the last major revision of the KJV (as Ann was referring to above) the differences in usage can be astounding. Not only have some meanings died out and new ones arose, but entire words have dropped from the English language (or at least out of anything resembling common usage).

As for translations, how many ways can you say something? Or describe something? The English language now has over a million words in it and a great many of them are adjectives (or can be used as such). I can call something red, or scarlet, or crimson, or any other name of a shade of red, and still be correct. Now compound this with words and phrases that have no direct English counterpart, or words that could have multiple meanings (Hebrew and Greek are chocked full of them) and you can see why one translation may say something one way and a different say it another.

Just because someone, or some group, decides that the KJV is to be their measuring stick does not mean it is mine... or God's for that matter. Had God wanted the KJV to be the measuring stick He would have had the bible authors to pen it in 1611 English. Funny thing, though, is that He didn't. God had those men write it in their own languages and in their own words.

The KJV is no different than any other honest translation... it is man's attempt to move those words of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the language of the people of that time and place.

 

Because they may not directly state it is not evidence that it could not be a logical implication of their claims or reasoning. Are you considering an accurate definition of "the final authority?" The final authority is the ultimate authority beyond which there is no other. Do you claim that there can be two final authorites, especially two final authorities that differ or even conflict in some places?

If the KJV is supposedly "the final authority," it could be understand to imply that the final authority did not exist before 1611. According to a consistent understanding and application of the term "final authority," the claim that the KJV is the "final authority" implies that the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, and the 1568 Bishops' Bible could not have been "final authority" in their day since they disagree with and conflict with the KJV in at least some renderings.

Are you ignoring the known facts, valid definitions of terms, and the logical consequences and applications of the claim that the KJV is the final authority?

The fact that "the final authority" did exist before 1611 is a good reason for rejecting the KJV-only claim. How can it be claimed that a translation in 1611 is "the final authority" that is in effect superior to the original language texts from which it was translated and to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision?

 

Amazing how irony so often seems to get lost on the Baptist Board.

Ed

 

I'll just make this quick point. Whatever translation you use, I think that ought to be your exclusive bible. Why? Hopping back and forth between versions is nothing short of confusing. When I've seen preachers use verses from various versions it is simply confusing, and I often wonder how anyone can keep up. For one thing, if you use many different versions how can you possibly memorize a section of scripture? For another, how can you remember the consistency in translating certain words? And on top of that, do you not trust the translation? That's what one essentially says when he looks to see how this other bible has this text rendered.

 

The only confusion is in thinking there should only be ONE WAY to render any translation. I have no problem studying a multitude of translations. Some are better (more accurate) than others in certain places.

 

How do you know which ones are more accurate? How does one with no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew make that distinction?

 

These figures are about as close to my own research as any I've seen. Could you please tell me where I could find this study? I am interested in this subject. Thank you.

It is to Christians shame that they are not informed of the facts of the transmission of the scriptures through discovered ancient manuscripts, and their subsequent textual criticism, collation, and compilation into printed texts.