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!

KJV-Onlyism Commentary

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Jason Gastrich, Aug 17, 2004.

  1. michelle

    michelle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------
    No, there are many attitudes on the KJV. Understanding its history and the method of composition used by the translators and pointing out substantiated facts is not "attacking." It is seeking the truth rather than blindly following an assertion that it is somehow "inspired" despite its own authors' claims and the evidence of the internal text.

    --------------------------------------------------

    The above in bold, speak loudly how many today look at the Bible as being the words of, and creation by men, rather than God. My Holy Bible, the KJB has only ONE AUTHOR and that is GOD ALMIGHTY. The translators of the KJB did not write the KJB. God had his words written and preserved, to which they only translated into our English language. God is the AUTHOR of my Holy Bible. Not any translator or man.


    Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
    michelle
     
  2. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle said "The translators of the KJB did not write the KJB."

    That is correct. They copy and pasted from the Bishop's and Geneva Bibles, making "corrections" here and there as they went.
     
  3. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I stand corrected. "Translators'" is the correct term in the bolded sentence fragment of Michelle's post.

    For what it's worth, Michelle, here is what the translators had to say about their work:

    http://www.bibleword.org/kjvlet.html
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I see that both Michelle and Will are not willing to face Biblical arguments for the inspiration of the KJV, as presented in 2Peter 1:21 and in 2Tim.3:16. Both of these verses clearly teach that no translation could ever be inspired. Why the silence??
    DHK
     
  5. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Michelle, you missed the point. First of all, you say "our language" as though everyone who posts on the BB is a native speaker of English. This is not true. Why do you assume this?

    Secondly, I was pointing out the irony of you saying that we should not have to learn Hebrew and Greek to read the Bible (because you believe the KJV is a perfect inspired translation, I assume) but you seem to have no trouble believing that people who do not speak English do not have not have God's "pure words." So to have God's "pure words," according to you, they would have to learn another language.

    Michelle&gt;Does not have to learn another language because the KJV is God's "pure words."

    Non-English believers&gt;Must learn another language (English) to have God's "pure words."

    So God lets Michelle have His words but keeps them from Chinese, German, Italian, Polish, etc. believers.

    Isn't that what you believe?
     
  6. steaver

    steaver Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,405
    Likes Received:
    179
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Clint, doesn't it bother you that all these versions have many totally opposite meanings in many places?

    Will must have listed no less than a dozen very troubling passages and I think you commented on three. And then with remarks like...

    What about all of these conflicting versions? Will listed factual example after example and you simply ignore them. Why? Is it because Will is right, that all of these other versions are really bad!

    Why don't you address the passages which Will has raised? You can leave out the "big fish" one since you believe it was covered, but as a challenger to Will's post, why don't you give your explanation for these opposite renderings he has posted? Tell us which one's are right and why.

    How can you possibly teach from a bible which states one thing while your student may be sitting there reading a different version which states an exact opposite? I don't see how you put trust in just any old error riddled version.

    God Bless! [​IMG]
     
  7. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hello Steaver -
    No, they do not affect the message of the stories in which they are found.

    Steaver, researching these issues takes a great deal of time. Many of his assertions I do check, such as the "obscure words" stuff or the assertion of spelling errors. Whether it shows in my posts or not, I do not know, but I am in constant study of the Scriptures and quite honestly, I do not have the time to track Mr. Kinney's assertions point by point as he is posting primarily from previously written essays and I am having to respond off the cuff.
    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html

    His use of cutting and pasting his essays (in the last couple posts in a mosaic fashion) is why there is a statistics conflict as pointed out by Michael52. It is why I couldn't resist the urge to point out that his reference to "magazines" was also somewhat contradictory. He uses whatever is at his disposal to defame the MVs, exhonerate the KJV, and his inconsistency is beginning to show because his position is based in opinion, not fact, and certainly not Scripture.

    However, for the sake of your enlightenment, I hope, I will point out the fallacy of Mr. Kinney's Biblical references and how they really don't prove that the cited MVs are trying to change or hide anything.

    Wow! Big dilemna, huh? Let's look at the HCSB and see what they say about this verse:

    Job 42
    6 Therefore I take back my words and repent in dust and ashes.[1]

    Footnotes

    h 42:6 LXX reads I despise myself and melt; I consider myself dust and ashes


    http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Job+42%3A6&HCSB_version=yes&language=english&x=11&y=9

    Hey, lookee there! A footnote that points to the LXX (that's the Septuagint) reading upon which, evidently, the KJV translators' rendering was based. Well, so much for the statement that using the Alexandrian text is wrong, huh? That's why I warned him about approaching Job. The actual texts that exist for Job are ancient, even by Biblical standards. NO ONE can translate it perfectly, word for word. The language was archaic even by the time of the exile! He probably knew that but is so used to his "facts" being buried in his avalanche of text that no one takes the time to check behind him.

    Let's try another, shall we?

    Here's the link to the three versions he is criticizing: NIV - HCSB - ESV
    Hey, more footnotes! Except for the "evil" ESV. Obviously they are trying to lead people astray by confusing goats and badgers. Let's look at the lexicon real quick, though. The word in question is "badger" or "goat", right? That's Strong's #8476. tachash:

    Definition
    a kind of leather, skin, or animal hide
    perhaps the animal yielding the skin
    perhaps the badger or dugong, dolphin, or sheep

    http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08476

    Hey, all those animals are listed and seeing as how the Israelites were herders, maybe goat ain't a bad guess, huh?

    "Guess!" says Steaver. "Why guess when the KJB(V) has it already figured out!"

    Here's news for you. They guessed too! A direct quote from the translator's preface:

    There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

    http://www.bibleword.org/kjvlet2.html#words

    Please don't tell me that the paragraph is too hard to follow. It was written by the same men who translated the KJV when they finished their work.

    Removing the preface and margin notes of the KJV was one of the most deceitful things ever done to any Bible. It left the reader with a false confidence in a group of mens' scholarship that eventually led to this nonsense we face today.

    Some folks who speak against the KJVO camp try to deface the character of the men involved in the translating or even James I who commissioned them (ad hominem). I do not do that. I do not have to do that. I think that faithfully translating the Bible into modern English, whether it was 1611 or 2004, is a noble and blessed effort. It is how God preserves His word just like He promised He would. It has for 2 millenia made people "wise unto salvation." It is the "inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you."

    Multiple versions AID in study. The Translators said so! Now if you want to herald Mr. Kinney's "research" because it supports your own human tradition, there is little more I can do. However, the Bible says, in every translation, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21 It does not say, "accept it if it supports your own bias."

    Honestly, this is all I have time for tonight but I have shown you how to do it. You don't even have to leave your computer chair. How blessed we are to live in a time that we can point and click to help us "study to show [ourselves] approved."

    [ September 05, 2004, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]
     
  8. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

    Romans 6:2 mh genoito oitineV apeqanomen th amartia pwV eti zhsomen en auth

    (LITV) Let it not be! We who died to sin, how shall we still live in it?

    (MKJV) Let it not be! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

    The word God (theos), or forbid, is not found anywhere in Romans 6:2, and yet it comes out in the KJV translation. Amazingly enough it is not translated that way in the MKJV, and for good reason. The KJV translators were just plain wrong. It was a mistranslation, an error on their part. What they used was dynamic equivalency. They didn't translate, but interpreted the text for us. They gave us an equivalent sense that they thought the passage should say. It was their interpretation of the passage, not their translation. This is very dangerous ground to stand on, knowing full well that words change meaning. It is the duty of the reader, the student of the Scriptures to interpret. It is the duty of the translator to translate. The KJV translator were just plain wrong. This is an error that shows that the KJV is not inspired and thus not infallible.
    Only the originals were inspired. Only they were without any error whatsoever.
    DHK
     
  9. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    “GOD FORBID!”

    Doug Kutilek is a virulent critic of the King James Bible. He has written this short article criticizing the rendering of “God forbid” as is found in the Holy Bible. Here is his opinion and then I will post the refutation.

    Doug Kutilek writes: The phrase “God forbid” occurs some 24 times in the King James Version of the Bible. Nine of these occurrences are in the OT (and thrice the similar “the LORD forbid”), while fifteen are found in the NT. Of the NT occurrences, all but one are found in the writings of Paul.

    As has been pointed out countless times with regard to the use of the phrase “God forbid” to render the words of the original Hebrew and Greek, it is a close English equivalent except for two facts: 1. the word “God” is not found in the original text; and 2. neither is the word “forbid.” Other than that, it is a fine representation of the original!

    It is obvious, of course, that here at least, the KJV is not a literal translation of the original, but is at best a paraphrase, a “dynamic equivalent.” (Do I hear some rigid KJV adherent mutter under his breath, “God forbid!”?)

    The NT passages, gleaned from Strong’s concordance, are Luke 20:16;Romans 3:4; 3:6; 3:31; 6:2; 6:15; 7:7; 7:13; 9:14; 11:1; 11:11; I Corinthians 6:15; Galatians 2:17; 3:21; 6:14. In every case but the last, the phrase is a self-standing grammatical unit, expressing strong opposition or rejection of a just mentioned opinion, point of view, or implied answer to a question. In Galatians 6:14, it is incorporated into a sentence.

    In all 15 references, the Greek phrase is identical: ME GENOITO. ME is a negative particle usually used with verbs in the subjunctive, optative or imperative moods. GENOITO is a rare NT occurrence of a verb in the optative mood (just 56 cases in all). It is from the verb GINOMAI, “to be, become, happen,” etc. Taken together, the phrase may be literally rendered, “may it not be,” a phrase weaker in force in English than the Greek original.

    Modern English equivalents would be “not at all!” or “absolutely not!” or “certainly not!” or “by no means” or “under no circumstances” or “perish the thought!” or even the colloquial, “no way, Jose!” (see the New King James Bible, New American Standard Bible, and New International Version in the passages involved).

    While all of these modern renderings are other than strictly literal renderings of ME GENOITO, they at least have the advantage over the KJV rendering of not introducing the name of God where it is not found in the original.

    Frankly, I am at a loss to explain how it came to pass that “God forbid,” came to be considered by Wycliffe and other early English translators from Tyndale to the KJV as a suitable and correct translation of the Greek ME GENOITO. It was strictly a phenomenon that arose in the then-very small English-speaking world, as far as I can tell. It cannot be defended as “the closest possible English equivalent.” The renderings of the NKJB, NASB, and NIV are very much to be preferred to it.

    ---Doug Kutilek "AS I SEE IT" Volume 4, Number 4, April, 2001

    And now for my rebuttal.

    All previous English versions use this same expression, God forbid, including Wycliffe 1395; Tyndale 1525; Coverdale 1535; Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley's translation 1755.

    So also does the Douay version of 1950 in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Corinthians and Galatians, as do the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901(in all the same New Testament verses as the KJB), The World English Bible in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14, the Revised Standard Version in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, and the New Living Translation 1996 in Luke 20:16, and Galatians 6:14.

    The New RSV has "heaven forbid" in Luke 20:16 (likewise no heaven nor forbid-according to Kutilek). By the way the NRSV also has "God forbid" in Mat. 16:22 where likewise it is not "in the Greek" as the scholars like to say.

    The modern Hebrew Names Version contains "God forbid" in Gal. 2:17, Wesleys Bible Translation has it in Mat. 16:22; Luke 20:16, and Gal. 6:14; Todays English Version has it in Mt.16:22, as well as the Good News Translation.

    The New Century Version has "heaven forbid" in all the same verses where the KJB has "God forbid"; The Living Bible has God forbid in Romans 3:6, Gal 2:17, and 6:14, the Jerusalem Bible has it in Luke 20:16.

    Mr Kutilek apparently is totally unaware that the NASB has 'God forbid" in Mat. 16:22 where his own scholarly standards would condemn this version he recommends. It is a different Greek construction, but again neither the words “God” nor “forbid” are found there. Both the NASB and the NIV frequently add the words God or Lord when they are not “in the original text”.

    Surpise! Even the New KJV, which he told us to consult, has rendered the exact same “me genoito” as God forbid in Galatians 6:14 !

    In fact this is the definition that the Oxford Greek Dictionary gives. Also Constantine Tsirpanlis, former Instructor in Modern Greek Language and Literature at New York University, Former Consultant for the Program in Modern Greek Studies at Hunter College, Professor of Church History and Greek Studies at Unification Theological Seminary, gives the definition of "me genoito" on page 72 of his book, "Modern Greek Idiom And Phrase Book," Barron's Educational Services, Inc., 1978, ISBN 0-8120-0476-0. The ONLY definition Tsirpanlis (a native Greek) gives for "me genoito" is "God forbid!" There is NO reference to"may it never be", "by no means" or "certainly not"!

    Mr. Kutilek chides our AV because "God" is not literally found in the text. In spite of all his learning he has little understanding of how languages work and exalts his opinion above any bible version out there today.

    Another example using the verb kreematizo and the noun kreematismos is found in Romans 11:4 “But what saith the answer of God unto him?”. The NIV reads, “And what was God's answer to him?” It is interesting to note that there is no word in ANY Greek text for the word “God”. Despite this fact the NIV reads "God's answer". Now I wonder what Mr. Kutilek would say to that?

    Literally the Greek of Rom. 11:4 reads, “alla ti legei autoo ho kreematismos”. The last word in the previous phrase is ‘kreematismos’ and it carries the idea of 1) an answer from God or 2) a divine response or revelation. So, in order to accurately preserve the Greek in this sentence the word “God” or “Divine” must be "added" (even though NOTHING has been added) to the English text. In fact if "God" were not 'added' then the sense of the verse would be lost.

    The verb form is found in Matthew 2:12, 22: Acts 10:22; and Hebrews 8:5 and 11:7. In Matthew 2:12 and 22 the KJB reads, “And being warned of God”. The NASB likewise reads in both, “And having been warned by God”, and so does the NKJV in 2:22. The NASB also renders this verb as "warned by God" twice in Hebrews 8:5 and 11:7. The NKJV reads "divinely instructed", though strictly speaking the words God or Divinely are not "literally" there. Once again we see that the NASB, NKJV and NIV have commited the unpardonable sin, according to Mr. Kutilek, of saying "by God" when God is not in the Greek text.

    The brand new 2001 English Standard Version also "adds" the word God in the expressions "warned of God", "God's reply", and "instructed by God" in Romans 11:4; Hebrews 8:5 and Hebrews 11:7. It also adds the word God to other passages when not literally found in the Greek.

    Another example of “God not being in the text” is found in the NASB three times in Acts 13:43; and Acts 17:4 and 17. In Acts 13:43 the KJB, as well as the NKJV, RV, ASV, and even the NIV read: “many of the Jews and RELIGIOUS (or devout) proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas”. The word is sebomai and there is nothing literally found about God in the word at all. Even the NASB in this same chapter verse 50 the word is simply translated as “devout” However in Acts 13:43, 17:4 and 17 the NASB reads “GOD-fearing”, with no literal “God” in any Greek text. The NIV too switches gears and in both Acts 17:4 and 17 likewise “adds” the word God just like the NASB, but not so the KJB, NKJV, RV or ASV.

    The NASB often adds the words Jesus, God and Lord to their translation, when these words are not found in the Hebrew and Greek texts. The NASB adds the word Jesus in Mark 1:45; Luke 22:63, and Acts 3:16; Acts 9:22. It also adds the word God in 1 Samuel 16:7, Isaiah 37:20 (from Dead Sea Scrolls, but not from Hebrew Masoretic text), Matthew 15:5, 16:22, Acts 3:19, Acts 13:43, Acts 19:26, Romans 11:28, 1 Peter 2:9; and Lord in Exodus 33:9, Exodus 34:10, 2 Kings 23:19, Job 21:17, 19, 2 Chronicles 32:24, Hosea 1:6, 9, and 10:2.

    Likewise in Mark 7:11 we read in all texts: "But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, A GIFT (dooron), by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free."

    However instead of the simple word "gift", the NASB, NIV, ESV all add the word GOD to the text by saying: "given TO GOD", while the NKJV paraphrases and adds these words: "dedicated TO THE TEMPLE", none of which are found in any Greek text.

    The NIV likewise mistranslates the word hagios, which means saints, as "God's people" a total of ten times in the New Testament. Neither the words God nor people are there in any text

    Apparently the scholarly views of Mr. Kutilek are not shared by others members of the Bible of the Month Club. Perhaps Mr. Kutilek should write his own bible version to give us the true light we benighted souls have so long pined for.

    Mr. Kutilek, and fellow Bible critics are like those described in I Timothy 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers...understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."

    By the rigid standard he sets up, he condemns most bible versions in print. He criticizes the KJB for translating me genoito as God forbid, yet the lexicons, including Thayer, Liddel & Scott, and Baer, Arndt & Gingrich all tell us this is a perfectly acceptable way of rendering this expression. There are a whole host of Bible versions both before and after the King James Bible that do the very same thing, including some that Mr. Kutilek himself recommends!

    Words of advice from Proverbs for those who think Mr. Kutilek has a handle on the truth. “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.” Proverbs 14:7

    Will Kinney
     
  10. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;This is the most biblically ignorant generation of Americans ever, in spite of, or perhaps, BECAUSE OF the modern versions.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clint&gt;&gt;&gt;Really? Would you mind citing a source on that statistic?


    Hi Clint, I will give you a couple of recent surveys on what Christians believe today.


    With the flood of modern Bible versions it seems there is less and less believed about the pillars of the Christian faith. These versions were translated from different manuscripts than the KING JAMES BIBLE. For their New Testaments their translators used questionable Greek texts from which to translate, two of which were SINAITICUS and VATICANUS.

    These same modern Greek texts, often referred to as the Critical Text, are used in most seminaries and Christian institutions of higher learning in courses of higher textual criticism. Whether the text is Nestle‚s 26th or 27th edition, Nestle-Aland's, or that of the United Bible Societies, this appears true even if the institution is liberal or conservative. Each of these texts relies upon the Westcott-Hort text. Bible textual criticism does not mean the Bible is criticized but that readings from other manuscripts or Greek texts are examined, whether they are credible or not.

    It is somewhat like being in a Bible study where someone says my NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION says. . . and someone else remarks but my LIVING BIBLE says this. . .and one ventures that the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD has this reading. . while yet another says the NEW KING JAMES has a slight variation.

    The result is, What does the Bible really say? Which one is right? All the readings cannot be correct because that would be inconsistent and if there is one thing God IS NOT - is inconsistent.

    This undermines the faith of seminary students and they cannot say with absolute certainty, I hold here in my hands, beyond a shadow of a doubt, God‚s infallible, inerrant Word. The situation may fit with 2 Timothy 3: 7 „Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. This is definitely one of the characteristics of the present day apostasy in which we live.

    Is it then a coincidence that at one leading Baptist Theological Seminary in the mid 1970's, a survey presented the following information in a thesis? A group of statements regarding the Christian faith were presented to (1) Diploma, (2) lst year Divinity, (3) Final year Divinity, and (4) Ph.D./Th.D. Students. Findings on the answers to some of the statements given by each group were:

    # I know God really exists and I have no doubt about it.
    (1) Diploma- 100% Final Year Divinity (2) Ist year Divinity - 74%
    (3) Final Year Divinity - 65% (4) Ph.D./Th.D. - 63%

    # Jesus is the Divine Son of God and I have no doubts about it.
    (1) 100% (2) 87% (3) 63% (4) 63%

    # The Devil actually exists. (1) 96% (2) 96% (3) 42% (4) 37%

    # I believe the miracles happened just as the Bible says they did. (1) 96% (2) 61% (3) 40% (4) 37%

    # There is life beyond death: Completely true.
    (1) 100% (2)89% (3) 67% (4) 53%

    # Jesus was born of a Virgin: Completely true.
    (1) 96% (2) 66% (3) 33% (4) 32%

    # Jesus walked on water: Completely true.
    (1) 96% (2) 59% (3) 44% (4) 22%

    # I definitely believe Jesus will return to the earth some day.
    (1) 100% (2) 87% (3) 63% (4} 63%

    HOW NECESSARY FOR SALVATION DO YOU BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING TO BE?

    # Belief in Jesus Christ as Saviour: Absolutely necessary.
    (1} 100% (2) 85% (3) 60% (4) 59%

    # Loving thy neighbor: Absolutely necessary.
    (1) 43% (2) 54% (3) 65% (4) 53%

    Is it true that the more and more Bible versions we have, and the more and more Seminary education one receives, the less and less one believes about the Bible?


    Sad Statistics

    A previous issue of Christianity Today published the results of a poll of Protestant clergymen conducted by sociologist Jeffrey Hadden. He contacted 10,000 clergymen of whom 7,441 replied.

    They were asked if they accepted Jesus' physical resurrection as a fact.

    51% of Methodists said "No"
    35% of United Presbyterians said "No"
    30% of Episcopalians said "No"
    33% of American Baptists said "No"
    13% of American Lutherans said "No"
    7% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

    They were asked if they believed in the virgin birth of Jesus.

    60% of Methodists said "No"
    44% of Episcopalians said "No"
    49% of Presbyterians said "No"
    34% of Baptists said "No"
    19% of American Lutherans said "No"
    5% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

    They were asked if they believed in evil demon power in the world today.

    62% of Methodists said "No''
    37% of Episcopalians said "No"
    47% of Presbyterians said ''No"
    33% of Baptists said "No''
    14% of American Lutherans said "No"
    9% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

    They were asked if they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters.

    87% of Methodists said "No"
    95% of Episcopalians said "No"
    82% of Presbyterians said "No"
    67% of American Baptists said "No"
    77% of American Lutherans said "No"
    24% of Mo. Synod Lutherans said "No"

    Each of these questions concern a basic belief in Christianity. These ministers, by their own confession, are denying the faith they proclaim from the pulpit and are using their churches to destroy Christianity; many of them are acting in innocent ignorance because of their denominational teaching, but many are Satan's emissaries being transformed as angels of light (2 Cor. 11:14) and are operating in the pulpit.

    --Copied from a tract, as published in FGB July-August 1979.
     
  11. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    No absolute truth

    The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.


    Sam Kobia, Secretary, World Council of Churches, ENI 1-23-04:

    "Having a variety of translations available encourages the Bible to be read in a plural and ecumenical way. Having a variety of translations available is a precious tool in the struggle against religious fundamentalism."


    http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005335

    From the Wall Street Journal, editorial page.
    HOUSES OF WORSHIP

    Christian Teens? Not Very.
    Many hold mushy beliefs antithetical to the creed.
    BY DALE BUSS
    Friday, July 9, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

    When I'm teaching Sunday school, I'm encouraged by what I hear from the teenagers at my evangelical Christian church in suburban Detroit. They seem to understand--and, more important, to believe--the bedrock tenets that will help them hew to orthodoxy throughout their lives and make them salt and light in the world.

    But the hard numbers say otherwise. It turns out that, while they may profess the faith and indeed love Jesus, the vast majority of Christian teenagers in this country actually hold beliefs fundamentally antithetical to the creed. The forces of moral relativism and "tolerance" have gotten to them in a big way. In fact, some leaders believe that mushy doctrine among the younger generation ranks as the No. 1 crisis facing American Christendom today.

    About one-third of American teenagers claim they're "born again" believers, according to data gathered over the past few years by Barna Research Group, the gold standard in data about the U.S. Protestant church, and 88% of teens say they are Christians. About 60% believe that "the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings." And 56% feel that their religious faith is very important in their life.

    Yet, Barna says, slightly more than half of all U.S. teens also believe that Jesus committed sins while he was on earth. About 60% agree that enough good works will earn them a place in heaven, in part reflecting a Catholic view, but also flouting Protestantism's central theme of salvation only by grace. About two-thirds say that Satan is just a symbol of evil, not really a living being. Only 6% of all teens believe that there are moral absolutes--and, most troubling to evangelical leaders, only 9% of self-described born-again teens believe that moral truth is absolute.

    "When you ask even Christian kids, 'How can you say A is true as well as B, which is the antithesis of A?,' their typical response is, 'I'm not sure how it works, but it works for me,'" says George Barna, president of the Ventura, Calif.-based research company. "It's personal, pragmatic and fairly superficial."


    Some commentators produce even more startling statistics on the doctrinal drift of America's youth. Ninety-one percent of born-again teenagers surveyed a few years ago proclaimed that there is no such thing as absolute truth, says the Rev. Josh McDowell, a Dallas-based evangelist and author. More alarmingly, that number had risen quickly and steadily from just 52% of committed Christian kids in 1992 who denied the existence of absolute truth. A slight majority of professing Christian kids, Mr. McDowell says, also now say that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ never occurred.

    "There's a greater disconnect now than ever in the history of the church in America between what a Christian young person says they are and what they actually believe," says Mr. McDowell, who has ministered mainly to youth for more than 30 years. "Christianity is based on truth; Jesus said, 'I am the truth.' But you have an overwhelming majority even of Christian kids saying there is no absolute truth."

    Catholics have noticed the trend as well. A few weeks ago, in fact, Pope John Paul II specifically warned several U.S. bishops about the "soulless vision of life" that seemed to be overtaking America, urging them to "confront directly the widespread spirit of agnosticism and relativism which has cast doubt on reason's ability to know the truth," especially among youth.

    Indeed, the consequences of this theological implosion now pervade the thoughts and actions of believing teenagers, following the moral breakdown of the broader American culture. Here's one practical example: Only 10% of Christian teens believe that music piracy is morally wrong, according to a recent Barna survey, not all that different from the 6% of their non-Christian peers who feel the same way.

    Then extrapolate the situation to other possible big-picture results. Nearly 60% of evangelical Christian teenagers now say that all religious faiths teach equally valid truths, according to Mr. McDowell. It's bad enough that they seem to have been co-opted by relativism from within our culture and even from within the church and family. But it's even more disconcerting to realize that we're relying on this generation for the future defense of Judeo-Christian civilization against the highly motivated forces of militant Islam.

    Perhaps it's counterintuitive to believe this problem is as severe as that outlined by Messrs. Barna and McDowell. After all, we're told that spirituality is de rigueur among youths these days and that Christianity is right up there. But this zeitgeist largely reflects a pseudo-faith that is fed by a steady diet of pop-culture feints, from the allegorical "Lord of the Rings" movies to the T-shirt that recently adorned Pamela Anderson saying, "Jesus is my homeboy."

    The kids in my Sunday School class really do understand that. It's their peers I'm worried about.

    Mr. Buss is a journalist and author in Rochester Hills, Mich.
     
  12. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jack Lewis of the NiV, and James White of the NASB show their pseudo-scholarship.

    Would you trust these guys to sell you a used car?

    In James White's book, The KJV Only Controversy, in the ninth chapter, titled "Problems in the KJV", on page 231 Mr. White states: "Jack Lewis notes that the KJV is also well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word. Now certainly there are many times when one will wish to use synonyms to translate particular terms, and context is vitally important in determining the actual meaning of a word, but the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times. For example, the Hebrew term for "word" or "thing" is rendered by EIGHTY FOUR different English words in the KJV! Another term, "to turn back" is rendered in one particular grammatical form by SIXTY different English words! Those who have attempted to follow the usage of a particular Hebrew or Greek term through the AV know how difficult such a task can be, and the inconsistency of the KJV in translating terms only makes the job that much harder." - End of quote.

    Most people who read this in Mr. White's book would think something like: "Oh, that nasty KJV. What a lousy translation it is and how unscholarly. Why would anybody want to use that?"

    Most people would never take the time to verify if there is any validity to what Mr. White says here; they would just accept his "scholarly" statements as facts. The word for "word" or "thing" is # 1697 Dabar. I only counted 78 different meanings found in the KJB, but I'll give Mr. White the benefit of the doubt and let him have his 84.

    James White now works for the New American Standard Bible organization. He knows both Hebrew and Greek and professes to be an expert in textual matters. He either didn't check the validity of the claims of Jack Lewis, or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts to bolster his attacks on God's preserved words in the King James Bible. In either case, his word count example is inexcusable.

    A simple look at the complete NASB concordance shows that the NASB has translated this single word Dabar in at least NINETY THREE very different ways while the NIV has over 200 different English meanings for this single Hebrew word.

    Among the 94 different English words the NASB uses to translate this single Hebrew word are: account, act, advice, affair, agreement, amount, annals, answer, anything, asked, because, business, case, cause, charge, Chronicles, claims, commandment, compliments, concerned, conclusion, conditions, conduct, conferred, consultation, conversation, counsel, custom, dealings, decree, deed, defect, desires, dispute, doings, duty, edict, eloquent, event, fulfillment, harm, idea, instructed, manner, matter, message, nothing, oath, obligations, one, order, parts, pertains, plan, plot, portion, promise, proposal, proven, purpose, question, ration, reason, records, regard, reports, request, required, rule, said, same thing, saying, so much, some, something, songs, speaks, speech, talk, task, theme, thing, this, thoughts, threats, thus, told, trouble, verdict, way, what, whatever, word and work.

    As I said, the NIV has over twice this amount of different meanings - well over 200 - as compared to the KJB's 84.

    The second word mentioned by Mr. White is "to turn back" and it is # 7725 Shub, and in this case Mr. White is correct in that the KJB does translate it some 60 different ways. However what James forgot to mention is that his favorite NASB has translated this same single Hebrew word at least 104 different ways while the NIV again has over 200 different meanings!

    This is the type of baseless, pseudo-scholarship that both sides should avoid. What makes this even more amazing is the fact that Jack Lewis, who is quoted by James White and brings us the two examples of "word" and "turn" is one of the NIV translators!
     
  13. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Your arguments are weak and shallow.
    #1. I couldn't care less what the MV's say. If they are right or wrong it doesn't matter to me. For the record I believe that the KJV is a very good translation, and is probably the most accurate translation that we have today. It is the one that I use almost exclusively. I defend the KJV and do not agree with the MV's so you are not scoring any points with me on those grounds.

    #2. If the KJV is wrong in Romans 6:2, you just gave a whole plethora of references in which it was also translated wrongly. You are digging yourself into a bigger hole. Remember I don't care what the MV's say. Right is right and wrong is wrong. "God forbid" is an expression not found in the Greek, no matter which way you cut it. And if the expression or like expressions are "paraphrased" in other places in the KJV, then "God forbid" we have even more errors in the KJV. How big is this pit that you are digging?

    Again, the standard of translation is not to paraphrase, but to translate. If you are able to bring out all the places in the KJV where the errant KJV tranlators paraphrased, and used dynamic equivalency instead of simply translating the text, the more power to you. But you are simply destroying your own position by showing that the KJV is an errant fallible translation, translated by fallible, sinful men and thus prone to error, just like any other translation.

    Yes, I agree that it is a good translation of the Bible--perhaps even the best. But it is not inspired, and could never be. No translation of the Bible is inspired, and indeed could not be.
    You have shown by your own posts how they could not be inspired--they aren't perfect.
    The only perfect writing was the one that was God-breathed (i.e., "inspired"), or the original autographs.

    I see that you are unwilling to answer my other post.
    DHK
     
  14. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    quote:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Job 42:6 the KJB along with the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, and ESV says: “Wherefore I ABHOR MYSELF and repent in dust and ashes”. The NASB says, “Therefore I RETRACT, and I repent in dust and ashes.” The Holman CSB says: "Therefore I TAKE BACK MY WORDS, and repent..." There is a big difference between abhoring myself and "taking back what I said".
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clint&gt;&gt;&gt;Wow! Big dilemna, huh? Let's look at the HCSB and see what they say about this verse:
    Job 42
    6 Therefore I take back my words and repent in dust and ashes.[1]
    Footnotes
    h 42:6 LXX reads I despise myself and melt; I consider myself dust and ashes


    Hey, lookee there! A footnote that points to the LXX (that's the Septuagint) reading upon which, evidently, the KJV translators' rendering was based. Well, so much for the statement that using the Alexandrian text is wrong, huh?&lt;&lt;&lt;


    Clint, this is so bogus. The word "I abhor myself" comes from the Hebrew. The Jewish translations render the phrase the same way as the King James Bible. The reading did not come from the LXX. So maybe the post-Christian LXX got it right in this place, but the reading in the KJB did not come from the LXX as the Holman and you slyly try to assert.


    This supposed scholarship of yours is just plain silly.

    You are also wrong about Matthew 12:40 where the KJB and many others correctly have "whale" instead of "big fish" or "sea monster".

    Tell us, which kind of a fish swallowed Jonah if it wasn't a whale? A dolphin perhaps? Maybe a big lake trout. What do you think?

    Will K
     
  15. Michael52

    Michael52 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would be hesitant to call it an error. It would be an error, of course, to say that "God forbid" is the one and only correct translation possible.

    Our English MV's, particularly the ones leaning more toward paraphrase, are probably more "guilty" of using current idiomatic paraphrasing. It would not be surprizing to learn that 400 years from now (if the Lord tarries) that even some of our current formal translations may be found to have some "unfortunate" idiomatic expressions that bewilder future readers. Obviously, the only texts that can avoid this are those in the original languages. unfortunately, not everyone is "blessed" with the ability to read these.

    As one who "loves" the KJV, yes and sometimes bewildered by it, I prefer to think that "God forbid" is just a quaint or poetic way of saying "Let it not be". As long as we take advantage of our God-given discernment and seek understanding, "its all good". Hey, I wonder how that phrase will play in 400 years? ;)
     
  16. Clint Kritzer

    Clint Kritzer Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, I certainly wouldn't want to look "silly"!

    One other point: How do modern (1917), Jewish, English speaking translators view Job 42:6?

    Wherefore I abhor my words, and repent, seeing I am dust and ashes.
    http://www.breslov.com/bible/Job42.htm#6

    The word "myself" is italicized in the KJV.

    I think that "sea creature" or "sea monster" coincide much more easily with "great fish".

    Didn't take much of a tap dance to explain it either, did it?

    You're too hung up on trying to prove "whale" and "fish" are synonyms, which they are not, and that God would call a whale a fish or a fish a whale because He classifies animals differently than we do (1Corinthians 15:39 does NOT say that even if you want it to, BTW. The context is the resurrection body) that you miss the importance of the event: God commissioned an animal in the then-calmed, stormy water to swallow Jonah to bring about repentance, whom God also commissioned to preach to Ninevah to bring about repentance. Despite the act of being ingested Jonah survived which was a miracle.

    I'm with DHK, though. What about 2Peter 1:21? Why will you not address the actual Scripture explaining inspiration?
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clint Kritzer: "Removing the preface and margin notes of the KJV
    was one of the most deceitful things ever done to any Bible.
    It left the reader with a false confidence in a group of mens'
    scholarship that eventually led to this nonsense we face today."

    Amen, Brother Clint Kritzer -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    Not only that, but it is often the tendancy of KJVOs to justify
    the removal because it "causes doubt". In fact, it increases
    certainty while being more aboveboard and honest.
    It is honest to note via the translator footnotes that the
    source manuscripts vary.

    James 4:8 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible)
    Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands,
    sinners, and purify your hearts, double-minded people!


    [​IMG] Praise Iesus! [​IMG]
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doug Kutilek: "In all 15 references, the Greek phrase is identical:
    ME GENOITO. ... Taken together, the phrase may be literally rendered,
    “may it not be,” a phrase weaker in force in English than the Greek original."

    Interesting, making translation decisions on the basin of "weaker"
    and/or "stronger". I wonder if a 1611 translation termonology
    might not weaken or strengthen by 2004?

    My HSCB2003 uses the phrase in Romans 6:2 "Absolutely not".
    The "God forbid" of the 17th century borders on blasphemy in
    2004. Sorry folks, I live in the 21st century (2001-2100), not the
    17th century (1601-1700). I witness to people living
    in the 21st century, not in the 17th century.

    [​IMG] Praise Iesus! [​IMG]
     
  19. artbook1611

    artbook1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "God forbid" of the 17th century borders on blasphemy in
    2004. Sorry folks, I live in the 21st century (2001-2100), not the
    17th century (1601-1700). I witness to people living
    in the 21st century, not in the 17th century.
    end quote


    Once again, who made you the final authority in this matter? The only thing that borders on blasphemy are the folks who continuously attack the KJB, the Bible that has proven itself faithful for several hundred years and produced such a vast revival in the 1800.s
    Look at the sad state of the church now, and you don't think the multi version issue has played a part?
    This last generation has been inundated with versions and what a coincidence that we are the most spiritually malnutritioned people in all the church age.
    3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

    3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

    3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

    3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

    3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

    "Let God be true,but every man a liar..."
     
  20. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
    ...
    There is an book called, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version”, by Laurence M. Vance. In it Mr. Vance shows how most of the so-called archaic words in the KJB are not archaic at all but are found in modern magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries. There are only about 200 words usually picked out by critics of the KJB, yet of the approximately 800,000 words in the Bible this is only .004 % of the total.
    ...
    The King James Bible contains a total vocabulary of just over 6,000 words. In 2003 approximately 8 of those words are "obsolete".
    ...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Hi Michael, you ask: "If we assumed, for the sake of argument, that your statistics are valid, then what are we to assume when different sets of your statistics don't match and don't make much sense mathematically (that last quote above seems a stretch). Are there 800,000 or 6,000 words in the KJV?"


    Michael, I'm sorry you are having such a hard time understanding this. The 800,000 refers to the total number of words found in the KJB. The 6,000 refers to the total number of DIFFERENT words found in the KJB. This would be like 1. God, 2. Satan, 3. book, 4. holy, 5. etc.....


    Michael&gt;&gt; Depending on which it is, your figure of .004 % is not valid. Are there 200 archaic words or are there 8? Does archaic and obselete mean the same thing? Maybe I'm the only one confused."


    Yes, you are a bit confused. The statistics I quoted are not mine but come from two different sources. Mr. Vance lists 200 words that are usually brought up as being "archaic". He then goes on to demonstrate that most of these "archaic" words are in common use today.

    The 8 obsolete words is the number given by the Oxford University article. Obsolete and archaic do not mean the same thing when applied to words. Look it up in the dictionary. This may help clear up your confusion.

    Will K
     
Loading...