Is KJV superior to all other translations?

Amazing statement - scary!

You and others can say this because...
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;

The time has come - it is now.

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
Prov 8:8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
Prov 8:9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

 

Why are you scared of the truth? Do you realize that no one has ever been able to show a doctrinal change in modern versions? All the doctrines are right there, easily seen and preached.

Because we love the truth and are guided by the Bible. We have no other master, nor do we seek to please the itching ears of those who desire to be their own master about the word of God. We simply take what he says and preach it with conviction.

And this is perhaps why you are so easily guided into false teaching. You seem to have no real knowledge of the word. You use verses out of context such as here to try to prove a false doctrine. You are one who seems to be twisting the word to tickle your own ears.

The Bible never teaches the KJVO position. It simply isn't there. Those who love God's word refuse to teach it. When someone teaches KJVO, it is a sure sign that they have no respect nor love for God or his Word. If they did, they would not use it so wrongly.

 

I wouldn't say a KJVO supporter has a lack of respect or love for God or His word, at least not on purpose. It's more of a misunderstanding than anything else. KJVO is a very convenient position for English speaking believers, which is one reason why I think it has had so much success- One legitimate, inerrant translation that just happens to be in the language they speak. When it turns into disrespect or hate of Gods word is when one judges all translations as "perversions"- not based on their actual merit, but just because they aren't the KJV.

It's a good reason not to use a particular translation because of its shortcomings. But it's a very bad reason to not use a translation (and to forbid others from using it) simply because it's not the KJV. KJVO is a very illogical, ascriptural belief- but it's fueled by faith, faith in man-made doctrine.

I choose KJV by preference. :thumbsup:

 

I think for some it is misunderstanding to be sure. For others, it is stubbornness and rebellion against what they know. It is not always easy to tell. But I do make a difference between supporters and teachers. Teachers are held to a higher standard (James 3:1ff). When someone stands up and teaches KJVO, claiming to be teaching from God, they cannot have a true love and respect for his word.

Think of how your wife would respond if you claimed to love her and then went out and bought her something she had expressly told you she was allergic to. Your claims of love would be undermined by your actions. So with Scripture, when we claim to love God's word, but then use it (and God's name) to support things that God has expressly declared differently, then our claim to love God and his word is undermined.

I agree.

Which is a completely different issue than what I am addressing here.

 

This appears to be an attack on those who do not use the KJV as people who "will not endure sound doctrine."

Is this your contention?

 

I'd say it applies to those that try and JUSTFY the Arian rendering found in the Alexandrian MSS and "bibles"...........

 

Yes.
This has been shown, is being shown, will be shown.
Read this Forum.
Thank you.

I've generated a series of some 15 writings that show
MISUNDERATANDING of the antique langague of the
KJVs have been used to make error doctrines.
I din't say 'mistranslation' said 'misunderstanding'.

And I just got started good :tonofbricks:

 

Modern Versions do not call Jesus God. I have never seen any readers except you saying that GOd in that sentence is God the Son, but all the people have thought that God in that sentence mean the God the Father.
Have you ever defended against JW, by quoting this verse as a proof that Jesus is God because God in verse 1:18 is Jesus?

Nobody will hear you and no one will accept your logic if they deny deity of Jesus Christ, and even among the people who trust the deity of Jesus.

Repeat, Could you prove that God in v 1:18 means God the Son?

Don't you expound your own belief or do you pass the belief of others? When I said my own opinion it means my own belief including all the revelation that I had from the Holy Spirit.

So, do you ignore what Paul said in 1 Cor 7:25- because he said his own opinion?

1 Cor 7:
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, F21 I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

For your Info, I don't judge what others are saying just by simple words.

Can you prove Deity of Jesus by quoting 1 Tim 3:16 of Modern Versions when you talk to JW's?

JW's will never win over you as long as they accept KJV on this verse.

Nope! However, do you know why so many texts do not support MV's? In such case don't you think that you have to find out the reasons?

Do you trust Bible persecutors? Do you trust Roman Catholic who prohibited the people from reading Bible and the texts preserved by such Roman Catholic who worship idols and "goddess" Mary?

Yes, we must distinguish between minor errors like printer's error and the intentional and doctrinal errors or perversions.
If you do not distinguish such degree, you are on the wrong path!

 

Originally Posted by AVBunyan
//Amazing statement - scary!
You and others can say this because...
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they
will not endure sound doctrine; //

Originally Posted by C4K: //This appears to be an attack on those
who do not use the KJV as people who "will not endure sound doctrine."
Is this your contention?//

The Holman Christian Standard Bible
2 Timothy4:3 ;(HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/
For the time will come when they
will not tolerate sound doctrine,
but according to their own desires,
will accumulate teachers for themselves
because they have an itch to hear something new.

something new?.
I can't find any evidence of KJV Onlyism before 1936.
KJVO is new, NEW NEW!

BTW, I'm the only person in this discussion claiming to
use the KJV1611 Edition and KJV1769 Edition on a DAILY basis.
I use the KJV more than anybody else. I am a KJVs user.

 

Eliyahu: //Modern Versions do not call Jesus God.//

Your statement isn't allowed in this discussion.
Nobody here can figure out what you are talking about.

Does this mean you can find a Modern Version (MV) that
doesn't call Jesus 'God'?
Does this mean you can show EVERY MV does not not call
Jesus 'God'?
What does it really mean.

What is a Modern Version?

I define Modern Version means a Bible translated or modified
after the year 1600. So the KJVs are modern versions.
So in my books you are condemning the KJVs
with your statement //Modern Versions do not call Jesus God.//

 

No more than what was said to me.

"And this is perhaps why you are so easily guided into false teaching. You seem to have no real knowledge of the word."

I ws saying what the scriptures say. I believe this age is not enduring sound doctrine and I believe it is evident by folks not being able to see the subtle doctrinal errors in the modern erros.

 

It's called PRIDE, AVBunyan..Pride....

 

I guess every sees it differently Larry. Maybe some haven’t seen it but the men below and a lot of others over the years spent a lot of time showing it. Do you take their research below lightly? Below are just 8 sites I found in 10 minutes by googling “doctrinal errors in modern versions” or something similar. No, I do not expect you to read them all.

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/doctrine.htm
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/doctrine.htm
http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/DD2.htm
http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/versions.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Floyd_Jones/Jones_Ripped_index.html
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/doccindx.htm
http://www.gospelcenterchurch.org/NKJV.html

We are just different I guess – My conscience won’t allow me to read versions that take such liberties as shown in the above sites. After reading just the above sites I just can’t see how saints can say these newer versions are superior to the AV in any way.

I guess you wouldn’t agree that the below is a doctrinal error then would you?
1 Corinthians 1:18 'are being saved' (NKJV) 'are saved' (KJV)
2 Corinthians 2:15 'are being saved' (NKJV) 'are saved' (KJV)

Will you just make application and say we are “being saved presently from sin” and that is how the passage is being used? Spiritualizing the passage won’t work.

I guess the NIV and the rest saying Isaiah spoke Mark 1:3 is ok also?

I guess the NASV making Jesus a “begotten God” in John 1:18 ok? Well the Jehovah Witnesses sure like it.

I guess many don’t have a problem with Mic 5:2 making Jesus come from ancient of days as opposed to “from everlasting”. Is it possible many “doctrinal consciences” have become seared with a hot iron by reading all these modern versions?

God bless :wavey:

 

Surely you jest. Have you even read the verse? It very clearly teaches that the “God who is in the bosom of the Father has explained him.” Therefore we see that this God is distinct from the Father, and that he explains, or reveals the Father. In John 1, that can only be the Son.

John 1:18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Yes, they have no answer for anything in John 1.

Paul was inspired (2 Tim 3:16).

Yes, again, just read the verse in its context.

They will never win you over if you accept the MVs on this verse.

Yes, because many of them were miscopied, and then copied many times wrongly.

You trust Bible persecutors in the Anglicans and Catholics too. This always has been a silly argument. Surely you don’t believe that God can’t preserve his word do you? I do.

I agree … But I don’t see how you can. Once you admit that there are errors of any kind, you no longer have an “inerrant Bible” by your definition. With the historic doctrine of inspiration that I hold, printer’s errors, copyist errors, and intentional errors are all accounted for.

I think you probably just haven’t thought through this very much.

 

The NASb has the same rendering.It and it's twin sister,the nwt, BOTH translate the article from their Greek foundation(Alexandrian) correctly....


Too simple for you?

 

No, not everyone. Historica orthodoxy has agreed with me on this point, not you.

Their research is so flawed it is embarrassing. In some cases, it is outright dishonest.

That because you don't believe the truth. When you believe the dishonesties, or misleading "proofs" offered by these groups, it is indeed difficult to accept the word of God. Fortunately, I don't have that issue.

Nope, not at all. That is a translation issue about how the present passive participle should be translated, if memory serves me correctly. All Greek texts read the same here. There are a number of good commentaries that will explain this issue. BTW, the NKJV is translated from teh same text as the KJV is.

Yes, that appears to be what Mark wrote.

No they don't. I have JW's absolutely speechless in my house over that one. They had no answer at all.

Nope, a translation issue. Study the Hebrew text and you will see why that is a legitimate translation. A virtually identical phrase, except for the preposition, is used in 7:14 where it clearly does not mean eternity.

Nope. You have simply been mistaught. You have failed on all counts to show any doctrinal errors.

So the challenge still stands for someone on your side to show an actual doctrinal error.

 

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The NASB and the NWT are not "twin sisters." Nor does an article have anythign to do with the issue here.

The NWT does accurately translate the Greek in many places, and agrees with the KJV.

This is the kind of nonsense that shows how wrong your position is. The argument doesn't even make sense.

 

Is 'Isaiah' or 'prophets' correct in Mark 1:2

The earlier witnesses say:
'hesaias', that is 'Isaiah'
the latter more numerous witnesses say:
'prophetes', that is 'prophets'.

Looks to me like some gung-ho Bible copier
wanted to CORRECT Mark.
--------------
AVBunyan: // I guess the NIV and the rest saying Isaiah spoke Mark 1:3 is ok also?//

Actually, it is quite ok.
Here is where most of Mark 1:3 comes from:

Isa 40:3 (KJV1611 Edition):
The voyce of him that cryeth in the wildernesse,
Prepare yee the way of the Lord,
make straight in the desert a high way for our God

(Mar 1:3 KJV1611 Edition):
The voice of one crying in the wildernesse,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight. )

Maybe you wanted to talk about the last part of Mark 1:2?

Uh, BTW, what doctrine do you have that
really gets bent by various readings of Mark 1:2-3?
Does your doctrine of Salvation really get zapped by
'did Isaiah really write/speak Mark 1:2'?

BTW, about 20 years ago I liked to say this:

- Ed,
the voice of one crying in the cyberwilderness:
"ease-modify the way to the Lord".

 

Ok, modern versions did not call Jesus "God." Let's take modern versions and compare this verse with OTHER verse concerning only begotten GOD.

Modern Versions on John 1:18

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

These verses contradicted each other because they disagree each other: Son or God???

Son out of John 3:16 and God in 3:16 -- is that OK????

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten God, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

What do you think of this?

 

Pure nonsense.

The question is "What did John write in 1:18?" It has nothing to do with being interchangeable somewhere else. In John 1:18, it appears that John wrote "theos" not "hiuos." It is clear that the "theos" in view is 1) not the Father, but 2) the one who explains or reveals the Father. That is clearly Jesus and therefore, John 1:18 calls Jesus God. That is one of hte most explicit references in all of Scripture to the deity of Christ and the KJV does not have it.

Your point with John 3:16 is unintelligible. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, you have to realize that textual criticism is not about what makes the best doctrine, but about what the author actually wrote.