KJV/Greek

I would also like to see if Mr. Anderson would be willing to have an honest debate.

 

This place has more closed threads than a knitting convention.

Lacy

 

knit one, pearl two

 

I wish that Mr. Anderson would jump in here and allow some discussion. But it seems he is not willing to debate his article.

 

It may be that the sheep knows there's a pack of wolves waiting for him, and he's consulting with the Shepherd.

 

Didn't God promise that not one word would pass away? If the King James Bible is in fact a perfect copy of God's Word, then why would we need to go back to a Greek text which we are not sure is God's word (there are many different versions even of the Textus Receptus).

I do not wish to debate with anyone who does not believe the King James Bible is the perfect word of God because that is not the purpose of the article. The purpose of the article is to examine the question of why a person who believes that the KJV is God's word would feel the need to go back to the Greek and augment it.

God transfers OT scriptures into Greek in NT quotations and still calls it God's word. God is obviously capable of transferring his word from one language to another.

I speak several languages fluently, and my other contention was that the VAST majority of those who quote the Greek are not fluent in the language and are therefore unqualified to do so.

That which is perfect is come, and that which is in part has been done away.

I don't exactly which Bibles were used throughout the world pre-1611 because I wasn't alive and neither were you. I base what I believe on the word of God. I'll guarantee you that the perfect word of God was out there pre-1611.

Sincerely,

Pastor Steven L Anderson
Faithful Word Baptist Church
www.faithfulwordbaptist.org
Sincerely,

Pastor Steven L Anderson

 

It seems to make sense to me that the KJV is the most accurate full Bible out there. But that is not to say that other versions are of absolutly no use. We have to remember that the original scriptures and even the copies which were translated into bibles back in the day didn't have verses or punctuation. A lot of times they were meant to be read as a whole instead of a verse or two a piece. That's why there are a lot of disagreements about certain issues (OSAS, atonement, eternal security,etc...). Personally I read and trust the KJV, although I do have a NKJV that I read if I can't totally understand something in the other. The reason we would go back to the Greek text is just to gain a better understanding of what's written, not to change the Word of God.

 

Originally posted by sanderson1769:
Didn't God promise that not one word would pass away?

And didn't I say to apply some common sense to the verse...that Jesus said MILLIONS of words which DID pass away? But none of what he wanted preserved passed away.

If the King James Bible is in fact a perfect copy of God's Word, then why would we need to go back to a Greek text which we are not sure is God's word (there are many different versions even of the Textus Receptus).

Howdya know it's perfect, especially, with no SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for such an idea? Howdya know the GENEVA BIBLE isn't perfect? Or the NASB? Or the NKJV? Or the NIV? And WHICH EDITION of the Textus receptus is perfect? Howdya KNOW it is?

I do not wish to debate with anyone who does not believe the King James Bible is the perfect word of God because

...You'll lose.


that is not the purpose of the article. The purpose of the article is to examine the question of why a person who believes that the KJV is God's word would feel the need to go back to the Greek and augment it.

Because the KJV isn't as perfect as you think. It renders the Greek 'me ginomai'as "God forbid", for example.

God transfers OT scriptures into Greek in NT quotations and still calls it God's word. God is obviously capable of transferring his word from one language to another.

And God is obviously capable of presenting it in multiple versions, regardless of those who think otherwise.

I speak several languages fluently, and my other contention was that the VAST majority of those who quote the Greek are not fluent in the language and are therefore unqualified to do so.

OK, then explain the above example.

That which is perfect is come, and that which is in part has been done away.

...This refers to our being in Jesus' physical presence in the future; it has nothing whatsoever to do with Bible versions.

I don't exactly which Bibles were used throughout the world pre-1611 because I wasn't alive and neither were you. I base what I believe on the word of God. I'll guarantee you that the perfect word of God was out there pre-1611.

But the KJV is different from any of the pre-1611 Bibles. There can be only ONE PERFECT VERSION. Any deviation from it in the slightest is IMperfect. By your own admission, the KJV is NOT perfect because you say the perfect version was already out there.

BTW...........

"WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURE SUPPORTING THE KJVO DOCTRINE?" No Scripture=false doctrine.

 

This exactly what I said the purpose of the article was not: to discuss KJV only-ism.

The discussion was meant to be with those who believe the Bible, not with confused people whose authority is several different Bibles and texts. You are your own authority - you may as well be God since you decide what the truth is after looking at all your assortments of translations and texts.

I have one God - the King James Bible - not 10 different Gods who all say things a little differently.

Anyone who uses multiple Bibles (e.g. a KJV and an NIV) is polytheistic because they believe in more than one God (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God!)

Do you actually believe that the apostle Paul used 2 different versions of the OT? That is nonsense.

Sincerely,

Pastor Steven L Anderson
Faithful Word Baptist Church
www.faithfulwordbaptist.org

No edit- button hit in error
C4K

[ March 22, 2006, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Yes he did. But what has that got to do with the Kjv? There are more Sanskrit speaking people in the world than English speaking people. Where does the Bible say that God will preserve his Word in the KJV? That is an arrogant presumption. Since the KJV is only a translation all kinds of words have been "lost." Meaning is lost in translation. That is why it is necessary to have some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. The proverbial "God forbid!" of Rom.6:2, where neither "God" nor "forbid" are found in the Greek is a good example. Perhaps the meaning isn't entirely lost, but the words certainly are. There is no God neither forbid in the Greek. Were the words lost? Actually they were added by the KJV translators, and all those words more accurately translated "May it not be," were deleted, "lost" by the KJV translators. The translators of the KJV "lost" the very words you said could not be lost.
So either Christ is lying, or your view of Scripture is wrong.

This may be true of the Greek and Hebrew, but it certainly isn't true of the KJV. Have you ever thought why all those italicized words are in the KJV? Are they not the additions to the word of God, which are not in the original Greek. If the KJV translators had not put in the italicized "unknown" buefore tongues in 1Cor.14 there may have been less confusion about the tongues issue. But they added to the Word of God instead. They didn't preserve what God wanted to preserve.

OTOH, which edition of the KJV is the so-called inspired version: 1611 (which virtually no one can read and easily understand), 1729,? Which of the five or so editions is the correct one. God is perfect. His word is perfect. That which he inspired is infallible has no mistakes for God is perfect. Of course that position leads us to the conclusion that the only manuscripts that were perfect were the original ones which we don't have today. We have copies in which the Word is preserved, but that which is inspired was inspired through the holy prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New Testament by the Holy Spirit.

No translation is perfect. All translations lose meaning. No translation is either inspired or even preserved. The Word of God is preserved for us in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, not in any translation.

Then you don't want to debate.
And, you are closed minded before you even start.
And you will have absolutely no answer for the rest of the 90% of the world who doesn't speak English. You just condemn them to Hell right away because they don't speak English.

Even the KJV translators felt that obligation after they made their translation; why shouldn't we?
2. Because God is a God of order and not of confusion. We do things progressively. Every translation has errors in it. That is why the Greek and Hebrew, the languages which our Lord spoke are necessary. Christ did not speak in English. He spoke in Greek and in Hebrew or Aramaic. Meaning is lost in translation. If you don't know that then you don't have much knowledge of languages. I am a missionary fluent in a number of languages. I must also use a translator in some. I know well the pitfalls of translations, and how it is impossible to translate from one language to another. Thus, while the KJV may be a very accurate translation, even the most accurate translation, it is not perfect. No translation is perfect.

A good example.

God doesn't simply translate. God inspires. God never inspired the KJV. God inspired the original manuscripts. Those words that Peter, John, James, Moses, Samuel, etc. wrote, God inspired. He did not inspire what the KJV translators wrote. The KJV translators of their own admission said that their translation was not perfect and yet you say it is. Every translation can be improved upon. No translation is perfect. The reason that we have the Greek and Hebrew is that we have a standard from which we can translate the Bible into all languages.

Not all versions may be good versions. But all nations are entitled to have a Bible in their language, and it won't be the KJV.

There are enough resources out there today that one does not have to be a Greek scholar to study the Bible. But it is necessary to go back to the Greek to find out the meanings of different words and phrases if one is going to do any serious bible study.

The verse has nothing to do with versions.
I believe it has to do with the close of the canon which took place at the end of the first century. But it certainly has nothing to do with the KJV. To read that into it is fraught with ridiculous twisting of Scripture.

There is not PERFECT

BTW...........

"WHERE IS THE SCRIPTURE SUPPORTING THE KJVO DOCTRINE?" No Scripture=false doctrine. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Yes he did. But what has that got to do with the Kjv? There are more Sanskrit speaking people in the world than English speaking people. Where does the Bible say that God will preserve his Word in the KJV? That is an arrogant presumption. Since the KJV is only a translation all kinds of words have been "lost." Meaning is lost in translation. That is why it is necessary to have some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. The proverbial "God forbid!" of Rom.6:2, where neither "God" nor "forbid" are found in the Greek is a good example. Perhaps the meaning isn't entirely lost, but the words certainly are. There is no God neither forbid in the Greek. Were the words lost? Actually they were added by the KJV translators, and all those words more accurately translated "May it not be," were deleted, "lost" by the KJV translators. The translators of the KJV "lost" the very words you said could not be lost.
So either Christ is lying, or your view of Scripture is wrong.

This may be true of the Greek and Hebrew, but it certainly isn't true of the KJV. Have you ever thought why all those italicized words are in the KJV? Are they not the additions to the word of God, which are not in the original Greek. If the KJV translators had not put in the italicized "unknown" buefore tongues in 1Cor.14 there may have been less confusion about the tongues issue. But they added to the Word of God instead. They didn't preserve what God wanted to preserve.

OTOH, which edition of the KJV is the so-called inspired version: 1611 (which virtually no one can read and easily understand), 1729,? Which of the five or so editions is the correct one. God is perfect. His word is perfect. That which he inspired is infallible has no mistakes for God is perfect. Of course that position leads us to the conclusion that the only manuscripts that were perfect were the original ones which we don't have today. We have copies in which the Word is preserved, but that which is inspired was inspired through the holy prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New Testament by the Holy Spirit.

No translation is perfect. All translations lose meaning. No translation is either inspired or even preserved. The Word of God is preserved for us in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, not in any translation.

Then you don't want to debate.
And, you are closed minded before you even start.
And you will have absolutely no answer for the rest of the 90% of the world who doesn't speak English. You just condemn them to Hell right away because they don't speak English.

Even the KJV translators felt that obligation after they made their translation; why shouldn't we?
2. Because God is a God of order and not of confusion. We do things progressively. Every translation has errors in it. That is why the Greek and Hebrew, the languages which our Lord spoke are necessary. Christ did not speak in English. He spoke in Greek and in Hebrew or Aramaic. Meaning is lost in translation. If you don't know that then you don't have much knowledge of languages. I am a missionary fluent in a number of languages. I must also use a translator in some. I know well the pitfalls of translations, and how it is impossible to translate from one language to another. Thus, while the KJV may be a very accurate translation, even the most accurate translation, it is not perfect. No translation is perfect.

A good example.

God doesn't simply translate. God inspires. God never inspired the KJV. God inspired the original manuscripts. Those words that Peter, John, James, Moses, Samuel, etc. wrote, God inspired. He did not inspire what the KJV translators wrote. The KJV translators of their own admission said that their translation was not perfect and yet you say it is. Every translation can be improved upon. No translation is perfect. The reason that we have the Greek and Hebrew is that we have a standard from which we can translate the Bible into all languages.

Not all versions may be good versions. But all nations are entitled to have a Bible in their language, and it won't be the KJV.

There are enough resources out there today that one does not have to be a Greek scholar to study the Bible. But it is necessary to go back to the Greek to find out the meanings of different words and phrases if one is going to do any serious bible study.

The verse has nothing to do with versions.
I believe it has to do with the close of the canon which took place at the end of the first century. But it certainly has nothing to do with the KJV. To read that into it is fraught with ridiculous twisting of Scripture.

There is not PERFECT translation! The KJV is only a translation. God promised preserved His Word, not a translation of His Word. Please understand that very important difference. The Greek and the Hebrew have been around since the time of Christ, and the Old Testament from before that time. The KJV came along over one and a half centuries later. God inspired the former not the latter. He never inspired an English translation. We don't join in with those that chime the chorus "If the KJV was good enough for Paul, it is good enough for me!
DHK

 

Well that's something I always thought about...back in Paul's day, there was no calvinism or arminism or KJV's or NIV's. I wonder honestly what Christ or Paul think of us typing away on computers arguing these things back and forth. Mr. Anderson, I believe in one Almighty God. Just because I happen to have two different versions of the bible doesn't mean I worship two gods. It just means that me being rather new to things and getting used to the Word, I need to reference a version I can understand a little easier. I'm not completely dumb, nor am I a theological Bible master. I admire your steadfastness on your veiws but I can't help but wonder if it tends to be a bit legalistic. God Bless.

Dustin

 

Um hate to burst your bubble but that's the doctrine your paper is proclaiming.

After reading your articles I have no doubt knowing who is confused and who is not. Excuse me but you are the one proclaiming the KJV inerrant God never did that.

I'm really praying you'll meet my God His name is Christ and He died on the Cross to forgive all our sins. Making an idol of the KJV is not only wrong but it is blasphemy.

I just honestly do not even know where to begin with this one. You're whole idea that your KJV is God in your hands not only gives you a god you can burn or destroy but also a god who others can destroy.

Yes he used the Hebrew texts and probably used the Greek LXX to. Might I suggest you actually read the 'god' (KJV) you lift up and worship maybe then you will see the truth. That the KJV is not God but rather it's the road map to find God.

 

Amen. you read my mind and said some things I wanted to say.

 

This is exactly what you have done. The article was all about KJVOism and some leniency is being permitted because you are new here. Any future references to those who use multipile versions as being polytheists will be deleted as attacks on their salvation.

This is why I closed the previous thread - this is what happens every time this issue comes up.


This thread is being watched very closely for rules violations.