1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The real reason I am KJVO

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by stilllearning, Dec 25, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 5 of 12
  1. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    IF you can live up to the teaching in any of the modern versions you are doing well.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
    #81 Jim1999, Dec 26, 2008
  2. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    That I will agree on, James also said if you can live up to the Royal Law, you do well also.
     
    #82 Samuel Owen, Dec 26, 2008
  3. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi Keith M

    You said......
    The Bible wasn’t written in English. It does not change.

    And as I have already said, since I don’t trust modern Scholarship, than I am going to stick with the KJV. (And if you were smart, you would join me.)
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said.......
    Sorry, my mistake. It wasn’t “young maiden” but “young woman”.

    But my point of a subtle attack upon the Deity of Christ, still stands.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said.......
    Note: This is how this line reads, in the majority Byzantine manuscripts.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said......
    It says, that the Father and the Word, are one.
    This is a Deity issue!
    --------------------------------------------------
    Finally you said......
    So now we see. Man is having to keep God’s Word “alive and fresh”.

    Those who want their ears tickled, will also tell their pastor, “give us something fresh”.
     
    #83 stilllearning, Dec 27, 2008
  4. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello again ktn4eg

    You asked......
    Well, our assumption, that the other English Bibles of that time, “were at least as accurate as the AV”, was not shared by some of the people that lived back then.

    The reason that they petitioned the King to get the ball rolling, for a new translation, was so that everyone could have an accurate Bible.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Now that was a little bit before my time, but from what I read, that was the reason.

    I have seen a list of the particular verses, that people were complaining about, but I don’t have it with me.
     
    #84 stilllearning, Dec 27, 2008
  5. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    There were several reasons for the KJV. Another being many did not agree with the notations of Calvin, and Knox in the Geneva Bible, and wanted a fresh Bible without notation. Of course most KJV's have notations from various sources today, but if you don't agree, it still does not change the translation.

    As for clandestine verses in the MV's, I have probably a hundred. But I don't wish! to take the time to post them all. Just take my word for it, they are there.

    Oh, I also read that the reason for the older english in the KJV, since the english language was already improved beyond that - was. That the translators found it actually was a closer match, to the Greek language of the manuscripts. How is that! for wanting to preserve accuracy.

    Now if I was a KJVO person, and did not have several other modern translations. It would be understandable! that I might be prodigious, for that translation. But why do I defend it so hard, since I do own several others. NIV, NSAB, RSV, NKJV, Amplified Bible, Living Bible, Philips New Testament in Modern English, Wust Expanded Translation of the New Testament. And have read portions of the others on line. Good question is it not??.

    Oh yes, I also have an interlinear with the Greek text that the NIV, and NASB were translated form, which compares both translations to the original. Want to know which is the closest of the two to their text?, the NASB. That has nothing to do with the text of the KJV, but I thought it was a good add in.
     
    #85 Samuel Owen, Dec 27, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2008
  6. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Martin

    Nice to hear from you.

    You quoted me........
    Then you said.......
    You make an interesting point. And it this has worked.
    I have read over the years, how some of the MV’s, have come out with some attempts to blatantly deny the Lord’s Deity, or change the gender of God, etc.

    And God’s people made it clear, that it just wasn’t acceptable, and “it was quickly changed”, in the next edition.

    Now this is your first argument: but it also proves my point:
    (1) Should I be dependant upon all of you, to keep my Bible accurate.
    (No I shouldn’t; So I will just stick with the one, that isn’t changed at all.)

    (2) Sure enough, the blatant attacks, are caught; But want about the subtle ones.
    (Sure, replacing Virgin in Isa.7:14, with young woman, may not be that bad, “as some say”:)
    -But it is a subtle start.-

    (3) And the whole idea, that a Bible publisher, can be pressured by anybody, to add or remove things from their Bible, is just not acceptable to me.
    (Sure, it is there Bible, and they can do what they want with it.)
    -But do we really want a Bible, that has been edited, to keep us happy?!?-

    (4) And then there is the other side of your argument: What about “the pew warmers” or the baby Christians.
    (Don’t we want them to be protected from these kinds of attacks?)
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you quoted me........
    Then you asked......
    Well, I don’t think that I am lazy. But I have also ran into some KJVO folks that were nuts.
    But I am not one of them.

    As I read this paragraph, these words(that you wrote), kept sticking out at me.
    “....many of the changes....”, “.....most of the changes.....”, “the differences between them are minimal.”

    How many words of “substance”, are considered “minimal”?
    And please, tell us where they are, so we can correct our Bibles.

    You and I seem to be almost on the same page.
    Why bother with having to be on the look out, for things of substance, that may lead us astray.
    When we can simply use our KJV(if we speak English), and be safe.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said.......
    I have already stated, that my confidence is not in the translators of the KJV, but in the Holy Spirit.
    When I say this, what I am talking about, is for all those hundreds of years, that God’s People, used the KJV exclusively, and were wonderfully blessed by it, and lacked for nothing.
    And then, in the last hundred years or so, a few trouble makers, have convened us that some how, our forefathers were all wrong, and that they can give us a better Bible.
    This is what it really comes down to. All those who are not KJVO(and I am not talking about those Hyper-KJVO folks), are saying that the MV’s are “Better Bibles”.

    My simple question to that is, if these are indeed “better Bibles”, why has the state of the Church, been on a decline(down grade), since they first appeared?
    Is this just a coincidence, or is there a connection?
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said.......
    Well, this is one of the reasons that I am here.
    I am still learning!
    --------------------------------------------------
    Finally you quoted me........
    Then you said.......
    This is a good point:
    First, as I have said, I would love to have a Bible that was updated with modern English.
    (But I do not trust modern scholars to simply update the words.)
    While they are in there, they will be compelled to make other changes.

    As for the changes the I make, as I am teaching:
    I will have to stand before the Lord and give an account, if I change things, to prove a point, or not offend somebody, etc.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Also you asked.......
    2 Timothy 3:1-5
    V.1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
    V.2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
    V.3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
    V.4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
    V.5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

    These are the last days, and even the best men, can not be trusted.
    This is why I start every message with these words, “Grab your Bibles and turn with me...”
     
    #86 stilllearning, Dec 27, 2008
  7. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi Deacon

    You sarcastically said........
    I won’t speak for the others, but please don’t put words in my mouth.
    You know, I think sarcasm, is only used, when you can’t defend your position.

    (Now, I sure hope, that I have never mistakenly been sarcastic!)
     
    #87 stilllearning, Dec 27, 2008
  8. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sometimes I wonder why I bother to correct false statements and show opinions for what they are - opinions!

    I dunno' - Maybe the reason I keep :BangHead: is because it feels so much better when I stop.


    {"SIGH!"}


    (That was a large, heavy sigh, in case someone was wondering.)
    This is 3/4 not true, to begin with, even if we went no further.

    About 3/4 of the (Protestant) Bible is the OT, no part of which, in any version that I am aware of, is translated from the Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus. That is ONLY for starters.

    Second, I am not aware of any version that is translated ONLY from those two codices, even. There may be a translation of one or both, ONLY from these two codices (How does that word "only" keep popping up, here??), but I am not aware of it. Please show me which one is, if there is one, as opposed to merely repeating someone else's mantra, here. (You did say (we) should "know" this, I believe.)

    The YLT, KJII, LitV, KJIII, KJ21, TMB, AKJV, MKJV, NCPB, AV7, HSV, UKJV, and despite your claim to the contrary, elsewhere, the NKJV are NOT translated from the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, at all. Even as we speak, BB member Nigel is involved, along with others in translating the NT from "the Textus Receptus" for an example of a translation that is currently ongoing that does not employ any of Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. I believe you will find that he has absolutely NO use for anything other than the Textus Receptus, based on exchanges I have had with him, which is something that could not even be said for the KJV translators. (Check out I Jn. 5:12 in the 1611 KJV and compare it with the other English versions of the Bible, up to that time. You'll find that it agrees with exactly one English Bible, there - the D-R. It does not agree with the TR or any other preceding English Bibles in that verse. Fortunately, IMO, Drs. Paris and Blaney corrected that one in the 1760s.) [Incidentally, neither are (at least most of) the rest, such as the ESV, NIV, HCSB, NASB, and TNIV translated from them, rather these are translated (in the NT) from the N/A or UBS texts, which are not the same thing, as these two codices. (But what's a little inaccuracy among friends, I guess, when one has an agenda to advocate? I'm just sorry when one buys a "bill of goods".) Do Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have some input and influence into the UBS text? Yes, a fair amount, actually! They have much more on the two "T"s and W/H, however. However that is not the ONLY basis for the UBS-4, by any stretch. (There's that word, again.)]
    This is an opinion, ONLY, although it is a debatable one. I am not a particular fan of these Codices, by any remote stretch, but that is my opinion.
    True, but this is misleading. Neither do any other MSS (as opposed to texts) of any significant length all agree in every detail, either, although that does not seem to get much shrift, in these discussions.
    Other manuscripts have "emendings" as well. This emending is certainly not limited to ONLY these MSS, but is also found in "Byzantine" manuscripts, as well, as all others.
    Have you considered getting some new material?? Just wonderin'. [Sigh!] Not true, at least in the sense you are intending. I have a copy of the Greek NT right in front of me that does not come from these codices. It's the Hodges/Farstad Greek MT. The Robinson/Pierpont NT does not come from these, either. I also have the UBS-2, which does have a lineage from these via the Tischendorf, Tregelles, W/H, Nestle, Aland/Black but that is still not the SOLE source for the texts. (Fooled you, didn't I?? You thought I was going to say that word. :D )

    Have you also considered that every one of the TRs is also a "Greek new testament" as well? Collated from Manuscripts and/or Codices?
    :rolleyes:
    I will assume that you do, in fact, probably know something about one's "own opinions".

    Now, it's :sleep: time about three hours late.

    Ed
     
    #88 EdSutton, Dec 27, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2008
  9. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,493
    Likes Received:
    1,240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My poor grandson got a cold, it's been a long night. sigh....

    No sacrcasm. I'm not picking on you.
    and no, I didn't quote you or put words in your mouth.
    I tried to find your reasons for being KJVO
    This was from your opening post on the thread.

    AS I SAID: "Correct me if I'm wrong."

    1. I don’t want to be deceived.

    stilllearning: "The fact is, that there are people out there, that are cunning and crafty, and are going about to try to deceive us."

    2. Other versions change God’s words when compared to the KJV.

    stilllearning: "Well the question is, “if” God’s Word is being changed in these MV’s, what does it matter..."

    3. The KJV is harder to understand (so it’s got to be good for you).

    stilllearning: "Some prefer these MV’s because they are easier to read; One stated, that he reads them, because he wants all the help that he can get, in understanding what God is saying in his word."

    Well the question is, “if” God’s Word is being changed in these MV’s, what does it matter if it is “easer to read” or if “it shows you something you haven’t seen before”.
    [SNIP]
    Sure, it has a lot of old words, that I have to explain, when I am teaching others.
    But I would much rather put up with these old words, than to take the chance that

    4. I don’t trust those people that say other versions are better.

    stilllearning: Sure, there are a lot of people here, that will assure me, that these changes are for the better; And that with every change, we are getting closer to the “Bible”, that God wants us to have.

    But what if these people are wrong? What if those cunning and crafty deceivers, have just sold them a bill of goods? What if all these MV’s are poisoned milk and dog food?

    5. I trust that the translators of the KJV picked the corrects texts.

    stilllearning: But what if these people are wrong? What if those cunning and crafty deceivers, have just sold them a bill of goods? What if all these MV’s are poisoned milk and dog food?

    You could say, “this could never happen”. Because we have learned to read Greek and Hebrew, and we have examined the documents ourselves, and have found them to be accurate.

    Well, what if you were shown the wrong documents? Or what if “you” have already been deceived?

    6. I’m afraid (“paranoid”) to change versions.

    stilllearning: I know, that I may sound paranoid, but from what I read in the New Testament, there is a lot to be paranoid about.

    7. I like a version that hasn’t changed for a long time.”

    stilllearning: I consider it an advantage, having a Bible, that has not been changed, for so long a time.

    If these aren't your reasons, please make it clearer for me.
    Please number your responses.

    Rob
     
    #89 Deacon, Dec 27, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2008
  10. 4His_glory

    4His_glory New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just 4 questions for you:

    Why do you not trust modern scholarship?
    When did scholarship become modern?
    Was not the scholarship in the 1600´s modern for that era?
    How do we determine what is modern scholarship and what is not?

    Looking forward to reading your responses.
     
    #90 4His_glory, Dec 27, 2008
  11. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    18,441
    Likes Received:
    259
    Faith:
    Baptist
    http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cach...mes+commission+bible&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=cz

    I believe it interesting to note that, according to this writer, King James was motivated as much if not more by political reasons as by religious reasons for commissioning a new translation ... that being to elimininate the "notes that undermined the King's authority".

    I have no idea if politics, that is keeping the king happy, played any parts in the choice of words by the KJ translators. Perhaps someone else has knowledge of this. I know many will have an opinion on this.
     
    #91 Crabtownboy, Dec 27, 2008
  12. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Samuel, if you honestly believe this then you've been sold a "bill of goods." I suggest you look into the 21st Century King James Version, the Third Millennium Bible and the Modern King James Version, then come back and tell us if you still believe your blanket (and quite errant) statement that "all the modern versions are translated from the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus" is true.

    With your statement "This is also, where the Greek new testament came from" you erroneously lump every edition of the Greek New Testament into one category. If you honestly believe this and you're not just trying to confuse the issue and to stir up strife, then you believe the texts behind the KJV are also corrupt. Come back when you make up your mind if the TR texts are reliable or if they're corrupt.

    Oh, "modern scholars" like Peter Ruckman? From some of the thing he says and the names he calls people as well as God's word he demonstrates quite ably he isn't a godly man.

    Strange you should mention those who believe their own opinions. That's one of the marks of the KJVOs we see on this board - you all believe your own opinions instead of the truth.
     
    #92 Keith M, Dec 27, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2008
  13. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, you finally got something right - or at least partly right. The Bible wasn't written in English. And the message God gave us doesn't change - that's why the words need to change sometimes so the message is kept the same.

    If you don't trust modern scholarship today then you shouldn't trust what was modern scholarship in the early part of the 17th century, either. You're being inconsistent, stilllearning. If you were smart you'd stop denigrating and denying God's word.

    Actually your BIG mistake was falling for the errant and extra-biblical KJVO position.

    If that's what you wish, then go right ahead. It's still WRONG. If you want to see a "bible" that attacks the deity of Christ, then look at the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But the mainstream modern Bible translations DO NOT subtly attack Christ's deity. In fact modern Bible translations proclaim Christ's deity rather than subtly attacking it.

    No denial of Christ's deity in the American Standard Version...

    ...the New American Standard Bible...

    ...the New International Version...

    ...the Christian Standard Bible...

    ...the English Standard Version...

    ...or the New King James Version. Stilllearning, your blanket accusation suddenly starts to fall apart in light of the truth, doesn't it?

    Yep, there's that denial of Christ's deity in the New World Translation. But then you'd expect as much from Jehovah'w Witnesses, wouldn't you?

    Only when you take the verse out of context and twist it into a deity issue does it become a deity issue. Otherwise we're told the three agree.

    The message in God's word has never changed. Yet the meanings of some words have changed during the course of time. Therefore, it's necessary at times to change the printed words that convey the message. Through the action of the Holy Spirit working through the minds and hands of men, the message of God's word has been kept as alive and fresh for today's readers as it was for early readers. Your error here, stilllearning, is that you're confusing "fresh" with "different" or "changed." I regret you're so confused, stilllearning, but we're trying to help you learn the truth. You really need to stop denying the truth and embrace it instead. I'm praying for you, stilllearning.
     
    #93 Keith M, Dec 27, 2008
  14. Martin Luther

    Martin Luther New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0

    Where does truth come from or should I say who gives truth? Most will agree that people can and are being saved by many other versions. For me Young’s is ten times the bible the KJV is. We have NOT been promised a perfect bible.

    It is only possible to receive truth from the Holy Spirit.

    "John 16:13

    Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."




    Not all men reading some perfect word will receive truth, however, all men reading a corrupt text lead of the Spirit will receive the full truth.
     
    #94 Martin Luther, Dec 27, 2008
  15. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then humor us and post just a few examples if they actually exist. If you can't produce evidence to support your claim, then we must assume your claim isn't true.

    You're arguing semantics, Samuel. It doesn't matter how many Bible translations one owns and uses for comparison. Whether one is KJVO or not depends on whether one recognizes the modern translations as the word of God. If one denies the modern translations are the word of God just as much as the KJVs, then one IS KJVO. Are the modern translations just as much the word of God as the KJVs, Samuel?
     
    #95 Keith M, Dec 27, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2008
  16. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,493
    Likes Received:
    1,240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Welcome to the BaptistBoard Martin!

    Rob
     
    #96 Deacon, Dec 27, 2008
  17. Martin Luther

    Martin Luther New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0

    Thank you!
     
    #97 Martin Luther, Dec 27, 2008
  18. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706

    So in other words, those of us who don't stick with the KJV are stupid?
    Next you said.......

    How can the true meaning of the word be an attack on the deity of Christ? The word means "young woman" which was pretty much synonymous with a virgin. Today it's not but at the time it was written it was not. No attack there.


    This verse, 1 John 5:7, is in just about none of the manuscripts and it was not originally in Erasmus' text - until someone gave him a highly suspect manuscript with it in it. It is in all of the modern versions but rightly questioned for it's heritage. How ever, not adding this verse doesn't mean that the modern versions question the Trinity since it is clearly taught all through the whole of Scripture.

    Ummm - no - it's putting God's Word in modern "vulgar" language JUST as the KJV translators insisted on in the Notes to the Reader in the beginning of the KJV.


    Yeah - humor me too - I'd love to see which verses are "clandestine".
     
    #98 annsni, Dec 27, 2008
  19. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    But then you said,

    Aren't you putting words in the mouths of MV readers, insinuating that they don't read the KJV because, to quote Jack Nicholson, they "can't handle the truth?"

    At least, that's how it came across...
     
    #99 rbell, Dec 27, 2008
  20. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe this came out right as to what you intended. You might want to re-read and edit the post, if possible.

    Did you not, here, mean to say that
    Think about it for a sec. As I believe you did not intend to really add the "not" above, in red. Thanks,

    Ed
     
    #100 EdSutton, Dec 27, 2008
Page 5 of 12
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...