The question KJVOs cannot seem to answer

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by try hard, Sep 14, 2002.

  1. try hard

    try hard
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have asked this question on two different boards and got no response.

    How can it be ok for a person to be against changes in newer versions, but have no problem with the changes that have been made over and over again to the 1611?
     
  2. Mrs KJV

    Mrs KJV
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/MrsKJV.gif>

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2002
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me know first what you mean, I know their was revisons but the text itself was not changed. Please be clearer on what you mean. [​IMG]
     
  3. try hard

    try hard
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    You asked, so here are some, of which there will be more to come tommorow. I am very tired!! [​IMG]

    KJV 1611: Deut.5:29 "My commandments"
    KJV 1629: "all my commandments"

    KJV 1611: Duet. 26:1 "the Lord"
    KJV 1629: "the Lord thy God"

    KJV 1611: I Kings 8:61 "the Lord your God"
    KJV 1629: "the Lord our God"

    KJV 1611: I John 5:12 "hath not the Son"
    KJV 1629: "hath not the Son of God"
     
  4. Mrs KJV

    Mrs KJV
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/MrsKJV.gif>

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2002
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm tired too, but it seems to me that nothing of importance in doctrine (teachings) was changed.

    example:
    My commandments and all my commandments means the same thing.Etc.

    See ya, in the morning. For example the NKJV changes Jesus from Joshua etc. We know that Jesus and Joshua are not the same person. TOO tired to think right now. [​IMG]
     
  5. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,071
    Likes Received:
    101
    Hmm. That's exactly what the MV folks say.
     
  6. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, actually, the Hebrew name "Joshua" and the Greek name "Jesus" are the same! Jesus is the Greek way of saying Joshua. And the verse in Hebrews is talking about Joshua, not Jesus. [​IMG]
     
  7. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tri Hard, when typographical errors were discovered do you think they should have been left in the text? Why not correct them?
     
  8. try hard

    try hard
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    DocCas:
    Yes, the typographical errors should be changed. However, not every change to the 1611, as I know you know, is to correct typographical errors. Over time, the language has changed therefore there have been needed revisions made to the 1611 specifically to update the language so the reader could understand.

    As far there being no doctrine changed, I agree. But by the same reason, there is no doctrine changed in the NIV or the NASB either.

    I will post more examples tonight around 11. I am in a hurry. [​IMG]
     
  9. dclark14

    dclark14
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very interesting comments. I cut my spiritual eye teeth on the KJV and was fortunate to have a pastor at the time that could translate the Shakespearian english into my english.The verbal/plenary dynamic was maintained. However,we need to realise that if Shakespear was alive today and in America especially,he would only understand correctly about 5-6 out of ten words.We also need to realise that many Americans only read at about a 7th grade level today.Quite a challenge for those that parse the word faithfully.Many in our pulpits today are not doing this.
     
  10. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...when typographical errors were discovered do you think they should have been left in the text? Why not correct them?

    By all means, correct them. What this circumstancve does show is that there was no special Spiritual oversight of the KJV, or there would not error of any kind contained therein.
     
  11. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    ChristianCynic, I suspect you are laboring under a misconception regarding inerrancy. Biblical inerrancy is not addressing typos, printer's errors, or even translational anomalies, etc. Inerrancy is addressing the reliability of scripture. Inerrant means, simply stated, that the bible is without error of fact. No factual errors regarding history, no factual errors regarding prophecy, no factual errors regarding God's promises to us. Having a wrong understanding of inerrancy will lead to many misunderstandings, and more than a little false doctrine. [​IMG]
     
  12. Mrs KJV

    Mrs KJV
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/MrsKJV.gif>

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2002
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doccas
    God doesn't expect me to know Greek or Hebrew to read the English Bible. You are correcting my english translation when you say this and this hurts the cause for the KJV'ers. As to shakepeare, My friend is a shakespeare scholar and will tell you that there is no greater piece of english work them the King James Bible. This is a fact in the Litature world. :D
     
  13. eric_b

    eric_b
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    And fortunately, God doesn't expect me to speak Elizabethan English to read the Bible either... thank goodness for NKJV, NASB, etc

    Eric
     
  14. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't say He did.
    Wrong again. I have not corrected the KJV. And by making foolish, and easily disproven statements, you do hurt the cause of the KJV and those who rationally and ably defend it!
    Well, it certainly is his opinion, and one held by many others as well. However, I see the KJV as more than a mere work of English Literature. I see it as the very word of God. That far surpasses any mere work of English Literature. [​IMG]
     
  15. Mrs KJV

    Mrs KJV
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/MrsKJV.gif>

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2002
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gentlemen,
    You cannot find in the NIV the word Sodomite, GodHead,and other important things. Also you need a ninth or tenth grade education to read the other parphrase's. My husband spent a very long time studying Inspiration and Presertvation of Gods Holy Word. To answer your question about Jesus instead of Joshua the KJV is correct,in Acts 7:45. In Joshua 3:4-6,tells of the priests to go before with the Ark of the covenant, And any Bible Believeing Christian should know the Ark represented Jesus Christ. Jesus went before because He is God who lead Israel into the promise land.NOT JOSHUA.
     
  16. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    You cannot find in the NIV the word Sodomite, GodHead,and other important things.

    Nor can you find "pisseth" or "teats." In the KJV you cannot find "homosexual."

    [ September 14, 2002, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]
     
  17. Maverick

    Maverick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    There differences in KJVOs. Most of what it sounds like you have been up against in the past are followers of Peter Ruckman, who do hold that the KJV translators were inspired (double inspiration) and that we no longer need the Greek or Hebrew texts since we have the English translation.

    Again, as Doc Cas has put it the real question is the texts that the MVs use. There were over 50,000 texts used for the KJV and these texts varied very little from each other. They are also called the majority texts. The MVs use,if I recall correctly, only 1500 texts that and the only thing consistent about theses texts are that they disagree on virtually everything. That is why some marginal notes in some versions will say the "ancient texts leave this out" while another might say that they leave this in. Depends on which one you use and hence brings about confusion of which God is not the author.

    The only reason that they are considered so special by the "scholars" is that they are older than the majority texts. Big deal. Older is not necessarily better.

    Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: (KJV)

    Folks were already twisting the Word and even John spoke of people going out from the Church. I John 2:18,19 They were called antiChrists. Paul spoke of folks saying the resurrection was already past or that there is no resurrection at all. Does it take a rocket scientist to think that these folks did not have copies of the Scripture that they would revise as they saw fit to strengthen their position? After all, one group came out of Alexandria where Origen, who had 7 plans of salvation,hung out and he is the great-granddaddy of the JWs, who by the way took the KJV and edited it to their own end as did the Joseph Smith. Another came out of the Vatican and they were not noted for their respect for Scripture not for their veracity then or now since we can hide the truth about child molesters and hold priest's reputation more value than the life of a child. Since the majority of the believers would have rejected these manuscripts and paid even closer attention to the copies they made and received is it any wonder that these minority texts survived since they were not used as much and had less wear and tear? The majority would speak to what the church has held not the minority texts.
    Indeed some of them might be just new scribe trainee errors that got thrown in the back of a pile and hence survived not because they were right but because someone forgot about them and did not dispose of them. One group was found on the trash heap fixin' to be burned. Duh, maybe because they were in error! One is so blantantly a tampered or revised version that it leaves space for all the so-called disputed versions. I would appear that a scribe with some honor copied it per the customer's wishes but left the spaces so that his name would not be besmirched as a poor copyist should someonesee it. These are far more logical scenarios than a contrived Lucian reclension that has no basis for fact but only a fantasy of a man that was most likely unsaved by his own writings. He and his cohort managed to bully a bunch of men who had already written that they had no qualifications to do "higher crticism", but were only there to fix typos and update some English like taking eth off of gieth and taketh. Therefore unqualified men exalted obviously bogus minority texts because of age worship and the fact that the whole time was an age of scepticism resulting in communism, evolution, a bad translatiion and later psychiatry.

    So, the MVs have a rotten root so the fruit cannot be any good.

    Now, take the KJV and take the eth off things and update licentious and you will have what the revision folks of 1881 were supposed to do and it would have been an acceptable translation. Besides Eric, that old bore about Elizabethean English is worn thin. Ever read Shakespeare. Try changing the English around a real Shakepearean actor and he might tell you to be out, out damn spot. If Africans can use the KJV just fine, a fine educated young American lad like you should do just fine.

    Sadly, I don't know if I trust anyone in this age (even fundamentalists) to do a complete retranslation of the KJV so just doing what I said before is all that should be done. Too many axes to grind and halos to shine to get a really good one. Admittedly, the KJV lads chose to keep their heads and transliterated baptizo, but at least they did not change the text to read sprinkle or pour. I am not sure anyone today would be that honest even though they had to sword to worry about. We are in an age of apostasy that started strangely enough in the late 1800s and every denomination that has switched to something other than the KJV has dwindled and became exceedingly Liberal. I see a nice correlation there. We see this happening in the SBC. Even the Conservatives are not as Conservative as they were in the 50's and they have started used the MVs as well. One lad I heard was having a MV marathon in his sermon as he used four or five. When the Independents switch to the MVs you will see the same thing. For supposedly not having anything signifcantly changed,it is odd how the MVs have helped bring about great doctrinal changes amongst their users.

    I am a TRO and the only relaible version from the TR I have seen and believe will ever see is the KJV and in that respect I am also KJVO.
     
  18. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. Mrs KJV

    Mrs KJV
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/MrsKJV.gif>

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2002
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just because we believe the King James Bible only doesn't mean we are followers of Peter Ruckman. Not all KJVO are in the pete ruckman camp. KJV is the only bible for the english speaking people. :rolleyes:
     
  20. eric_b

    eric_b
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not for this English speaker it isn't :)

    Use whichever version you want to, but please extend to me the same courtesy... there have been good English translations of the Bible before (Geneva) and after (NKJV, NASB) the 1611 King James (which is also a good translation). Thank goodness God is willing to allow His word to be transmitted in the current language of the day, or fewer and fewer people would actually read and understand it.

    Eric
     

Share This Page

Loading...