How would Jesus feel?

It's worse than "the King James Bible is the Only Bible for the English speaking people" if one traces Onlyism to its current living "prophet" and his doctrine.

True KJVOism teaches that the King James Bible is the Only Bible for any peoples anywhere in the inhabited earth.

He teaches that God did not close the canon of Scripture until 1611 in Elizabethan-Jacobean period English which corrects the copies of the original writings of the prophets and apostles.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the date of 1611 is somehow miraculously moved up to 2000 and something when the KJVO high-priest (and priestess) is through discovering and publishing the hundreds of "advanced revelations" he has revealed for us.

In other words absolutely no one has had the "pure words" of God including the prophets and apostles until 1611. Even at that the hidden "advanced revelations" of the 1611 AV awaited the 20th-21st century to be unearthed by this latter day "apostle".

A strange and bizzare error IMO.

And as his teachings become even more bizzare, most of his adherants now distance themselves from him (or at least his name) but they all follow the party-line using his exact words and arguments.

I don't think folks understand the seriousness of this error and the effect is has had and will have on the church at large.

BTW
A litmus test inquiry to determine KJVO: "If you are not KJVO please give me the name of another version other than the King james version of the Bible for folks to read".

Devoted KJVO will either not answer at all or will not give a direct answer but will turn this back to you with something like the following: "I don't put labels on the Bible".


HankD

 

If you believe that God's Word is added to with "advanced revelations," like the Mormons do, is that orthodox Christianity? That is the teaching that God's Word did not exist in its entirety until 1611 at the earliest.

 

How does Jesus feel about it? I'm sure He's not pleased about it, given that He Himself had read aloud from another version of Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21.

Before any Onlyist accuses me of trying to read Jesus' mind, I'm going by the FACTS as recorded in Scripture.When He sent His disciples to travel the world & spread His Gospel, there's no indication they took any written Scriptures with them. And given the fact there were many different languages as there are today, the words they'd originally heard had to have been changed to make sense in other languages.

No, I don't think jesus is pleased at all by the lame attempts to confine His word in English to just one version, despite the numerous changes in English since that version was published.

 

The French and Germans, etc. must think the English speaking KJVO's to be quite arrogant to think God only wrote English and theitr language unimportant. Good thing we have mission organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators who think differently and care enough about people and God's word to translate it.

 

Bob,

How would Jesus Christ feel about his example prayer in the new versions being perverted by the new agers? I guess the Codices render the perversion below, and copyright derivative laws have nothing to do with it either?

The Message Bible
Matthew 6
9With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this: Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are. 10Set the world right; Do what's best-- as above, so below. 11Keep us alive with three square meals.

AS ABOVE, SO BELOW
by G R S Mead
The Theosophical Review, Vol XXXIV, 1904

—Kircher, Prodrom. Copt., pp 193 and 275.

“As above, so below" -- a "great word,” a sacramental phrase, a saying of wisdom, an aphorism, a mystic formula, a fundamental law - or a two-edged sword of word-fence, that will probably do the wielder serious damage if he is not previously put through careful training in its handling?

Ron

 

He would probably feel as he did in scripture: "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".

 

He would probably feel as he did in scripture: "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do". </font>[/QUOTE]Only in your wildest imagination!

 

You're dealing with an issue of being used to a specific translational rendering of a scriptural passage. While it may be to you as nails on a chalkboard, we should refrain from making "sounding attractive to the ears" a law of translating. You're simply used to the Lord's prayer flowing in accordance with a certain text and meter. You liek that. That's fine. But let's not start worshipping the translation, or, for that matter, the text from which it came.

 

Scripture does not support the doctrine of single-translation-onlyism, and there is no scrputral support for Jesus condoning an unscriptural doctrine. Since KJVOists typically don't realize that their doctrine of single-translation-onlyism is false, Jesus likely would respond in such a manner.

 

You're dealing with an issue of being used to a specific translational rendering of a scriptural passage. While it may be to you as nails on a chalkboard, we should refrain from making "sounding attractive to the ears" a law of translating. You're simply used to the Lord's prayer flowing in accordance with a certain text and meter. You liek that. That's fine. But let's not start worshipping the translation, or, for that matter, the text from which it came. </font>[/QUOTE]That makes no sense whatsoever! I'm not worshipping the translation, but the translation or the text for that matter is the foundation for sound doctrine and the ordinances of the LORD inwhich we follow. And if he did not say it that way then do not call it scripture. That prayer does not even come close to what the codices say. Or do they? Has God audibley spoken with you later to tell you that is so?

Ron.

 

Do you believe it is honest to condemn all "new versions" because of one? You didn't say some "new versions". You said that the Lord's prayer was "perverted" in "the new versions".

Please show that the translators of the NASB or NKJV are new agers.... or else recant your false accusation made against sound Christian scholars.

 

Sure it does. When one disregards the source texts in favor of a translation, then one is quite possibly staring the climb of translational worship.

Yes. The texts is the foundation for sound doctrine. So long as the translation faithfully adheres to the source texts, then the doctrine is capable of remaining intact. However, what your'e doing is comparing two translations and making the determination that one doesn't adhere to its source texts, based not on examination of the source texts, but on its verbage and meter.

Perhaps you need to look at the source texts yourself and tell us what exactly differs from the source texts. Lacking that, all I see here is your personal preference. You're entitled to your preference, but yu're not entitled to make a doctrine out of preference.

 

Do you believe it is honest to condemn all "new versions" because of one? You didn't say some "new versions". You said that the Lord's prayer was "perverted" in "the new versions".

Please show that the translators of the NASB or NKJV are new agers.... or else recant your false accusation made against sound Christian scholars. </font>[/QUOTE]Scott you are correct, I will recant what I said about "all" versions inreference to that scripture, but, please tell me what is the purpose of the some 200 new versions of the bible.

 

I cannot speak for the possible translators for 200 possible translations. However the purpose of the most common, faithful translations was to put the Bible into the language of the people... just like it was when God inspired it. Which by the way was the primary purpose for the Geneva Bible when it was translated. The motivations behind the KJV seem to be somewhat mixed... and were at least partly political.

I use the KJV, NKJV, and NASB. Pretty much in that order. Occasionally, I references Young's for slavish literalism or the WEB Bible that I have on CD to help me get a full understanding of a passage or to determine if a variant in the KJV/NKJV is only with the Critical Text or with the Majority Text also. The WEB is based on the MT.

 

Oh, to answer your question a little differently, I don't think there is a good reason for 200 Bible versions. I am opposed to paraphrases, have only slightly more use for translations using heavy dynamic equivalency, and loath "designer" Bibles.

There are legitimate scholarly questions to be raised and answered on matters of best text/translation... but there is no excuse for modifying the Bible to make it "gender neutral" or culturally sensitive.

 

HankD

 

Hank,

Keep posting the truth from the KJV translators. It's undeniable that KJVOism is not consistent with the Bible or reality, but the fact that it's not even internally consistent is devastating.