Questions KJVOs Can't Answer.

[robycop3]

Jim, this is a modern continuation of a discussion which began hundreds of years ago whenever there was a new Bible version introduced in English.(It went on among the speakers of other languages also, but since the huge majority here speaks English, that's what we'll deal with.) It was the KJVO who got the modern KJVO myth started by telling those using other versions that "you don't got no Bible". Since the Christian has a duty to fight false doctrines, those of us who know by plain evidence that KJVO is a myth began expressing the proof that KJVO is wrong, and the KJVOs rushed to their local spin doctors looking for any "rx" to heal their ailing doctrine.

Just as the "denom wars" will go on till Jesus returns, so will the "versions war".

 

[HankD]

Do you have a conviction that there is only one pure Bible? Good. Keep it to yourself and go win souls with it.

Good thought Jim but it's not that simple. This issue has divided conservative Christianity and split many local churches.

HankD

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by HankD:
Good thought Jim but it's not that simple. This issue has divided conservative Christianity and split many local churches.

HankD

True! They divided themselves causing the reason between the MVs and KJV because they saw weaker Christianity due to the lack of Biblical separation.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
""""Jim gets off his soap box, picks it up, and walks away looking for a lost sinner"""""

Jim

Jim, you are absolutely right that winning souls is more important. But you have to understand that (as another poster said) there have been churches completely split over this issue.

This issue is based on what Is or IS NOT the Word of God. The Bible is the Word of God to His people and if people are saying that another Christian's Word of God is not acceptable, problems will occur.

This debate is carried on under several assumptions: First) We are assuming that the people who post are Christians who are trying to learn more about how we obtained the Word of God and what is the Word of God in today's world.
Second) We would be remiss if we did not study in a scholarly manner our beliefs to make certain that what we do study is the Word of God and that doctrines are not changed which could cause problems for other Christians.

The fact that non-Christians may come across this site and view it is a sad fact of the way the internet works and it would be impossible to do a background check on everybody allowed to chat. But, the up-side is that scholars and pastors from all over the United States (and world) can get together and have discussions like this and hash out their differences on an open forum where they have freedom of speech.

People may be hard-headed in debates, but often a lot can be learned by being proven wrong or researching with a competitive spirit to prove something right. In my opinion it is very important for us (as Christians) to make a determination at "What is the Bible" and "What is God's Word". If a KJVo is a fallacy then it should be shown as that. Otherwise, a typical KJVo will not keep quiet, they will make it a major issue in their church and as said before, can split a church right down the middle over such a ridiculous fallacy.

 

[HankD]

True! They divided themselves causing the reason between the MVs and KJV because they saw weaker Christianity due to the lack of Biblical separation.

???

HankD

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> True! They divided themselves causing the reason between the MVs and KJV because they saw weaker Christianity due to the lack of Biblical separation.

???

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]The lack of Biblical separation caused anyone to be "worldly" Christrians because of which Bible versions that they used in their Church.

Conservative Christians became naturalistic because of which Bible versions that they used. Edward F. Hills was right!

 

[HankD]

The lack of Biblical separation caused anyone to be "worldly" Christrians because of which Bible versions that they used in their Church.

According to this logic, the various cults which have arisen since 1611 were caused by the KJV (JW's Mormons, Christian Science, David Koresh, Jim Jones, The Radio Church of God, Heaven's Gate, etc, etc, etc...) because their primary Bible was the KJV.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Askjo:The lack of Biblical separation caused anyone to be "worldly" Christrians because of which Bible versions that they used in their Church.

Conservative Christians became naturalistic because of which Bible versions that they used. Edward F. Hills was right!

Which of Aesop's Fables did THIS one come from?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by HankD:

According to this logic, the various cults which have arisen since 1611 were caused by the KJV (JW's Mormons, Christian Science, David Koresh, Jim Jones, The Radio Church of God, Heaven's Gate, etc, etc, etc...) because their primary Bible was the KJV.

HankD

Are they "true" Christians? If not, you know what they did by using the KJV. Betray? Deceit? Insults? Destroyers? The Satan used God's Word to deceive Eve from the beginning. The Cultists used the KJV as same as the Satan used God's Word.

 

[Dr. Bob]

They used an English translation of the Word of God that allows them to insert their own doctrines into the vague or outdated wording.

I work with a lot of Mormons out here in Mormon Country, and they would NEVER use an English translation that was easily understood!

The NASB is not the friend of Mormonism.

 

[robycop3]

Askjo:Are they "true" Christians? If not, you know what they did by using the KJV. Betray? Deceit? Insults? Destroyers? The Satan used God's Word to deceive Eve from the beginning. The Cultists used the KJV as same as the Satan used God's Word.

I agree, Askjo. However, we must apply the same principles to other versions, I.E. the use of an MV does not mage a given church corrupt any more than the use of the KJV made Jungle Jimmy Jones what he was.

 

[Trotter]

Very true, Cranston.

Askjo, I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually believe that crock of hooey. The choice of BV caused them to become "worldly"? No, it is more to the tune of the truth of God's word not being taught as it should (regardless of what translation the church happens to use).

Anyone who cares to look into it can see that when the teaching of God's word is not going on, the church begins to merge into the mores of society.

But I am not talking about preaching. Pastors can stand and preach the truth of God, but if those truths are not being taught as well, he is shouting into the wind.

People need so much more than just hearing a man scream at them every Sunday. They need to be led into the depths of God's word, into the truths that are there. Sunday School fills this role for the most part, followed by discipleship training.

Without our people actually learning what the word of God has for them, they will become more and more "worldly".

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[GeneMBridges]

Question, Askjo:

The KJV is, of course, an English translation. It is based on Byzantine mss. Nobody denies this.

What about translations into non-English languages made directly from Alexandrian mss.? Are they also going to make non-English speaking Christians "worldly?"

 

[HankD]

The Cultists used the KJV as same as the Satan used God's Word.

You still have not addressed the point askjo.

The point you were trying to make is premised upon the implied alleged "fact" that modern “naturalism” and “worldliness” within Christianity is due to the use of MVs. Therefore, (satan's activities or not) according to your own logic the rise of the modern cults is due to the use of the KJV.

The lack of Biblical separation caused anyone to be "worldly" Christrians because of which Bible versions that they used in their Church.

Conservative Christians became naturalistic because of which Bible versions that they used. Edward F. Hills was right!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
What about translations into non-English languages made directly from Alexandrian mss.?

From "cup" to "pain" in Mexico; from "storehouse" to "basket" in Mexico; from "candlestick" to "grain bin" in India; more... Trust them???

Are they also going to make non-English speaking Christians "worldly?"

Not always -- lack of biblical separation and worldly Christianity usually go together.

 

[Trotter]

Askjo,

Those cultures are different than ours, and some of the things that we have always known they have never heard of.

I went on a mission trip to Mexico. We held a lay revival while we were there. While one of the guys was giving his testimony, he said that he was raised in the 'projects'. The interpreter asked him to stop while he spent three or four minutes explaining what the 'projects' were. Those people in Mexico had never heard of such, so it had to be brought to them in words and ideas that they could understand.

The same goes for your examples above. A tribe in Africa now has a Bible in their language. But in Isaiah 1:18 it says "as white as an egret." Why? Because they have never seen or heard tell of snow. But an egret is as sparkling white as snow is. So while the original text says "snow" their Bible says "egret" because they know and understand how white it is. Does this make their bible invalid? Or is it just because they haven't learned Olde English and taken up the King James void their salvation?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[robycop3]

As GOD allows/causes all changes and definitions in all languages, and since He offers salvation to all men, He obviously causes His word to be understood by His target audiences.

Someone most likely explained the "projects" to be somewhat like a poverty-stricken "barrio" I assume?

And someone prolly explained to the Africans what "snow" is, especially if someone had a freexer with frost in it. But the point was, the doctrine was unchanged, since the point was WHITENESS, and a comparison was needed to emphasize this whiteness.

Whether the KJVOs wanna believe it or not, God allows and causes updates to His word to keep it current with the changes He oversees and causes within the languages. Otherwise, all we'd have would be the Scriptures just as written originally.

 

[gb93433]

Anytime someone causes division they are in violation of 1 Cor. Those who have nothing better to do certainly are not winning people to Jesus. They may be proselytizing but not wining people to Christ.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Trotter:
Askjo,

Those cultures are different than ours, and some of the things that we have always known they have never heard of.

I went on a mission trip to Mexico. We held a lay revival while we were there. While one of the guys was giving his testimony, he said that he was raised in the 'projects'. The interpreter asked him to stop while he spent three or four minutes explaining what the 'projects' were. Those people in Mexico had never heard of such, so it had to be brought to them in words and ideas that they could understand.

In Christ,
Trotter

A good example of that in scripture is found in Luke 5:19 and Mark 2:4.

Luke 5:19, “But not finding any way to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down through the tiles with his stretcher, into the middle of the crowd, in front of Jesus."

Mark 2:4, “ Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying.”

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I will answer the questions that I know the answers to, and stay silent on that which I do not know. OK?

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
1. Where was the word of God prior to 1611?

I would guess in the Tyndale English Bible. Wasn't he, BTW, burned at the stake by King James for doing an English Translation?

2. What Hebrew word is translated "heaven" in Genesis 1:1 in the KJV and is the Hebrew singular, dual, or plural?[/QUOTE]

HaShamayim: heavens (plural), sky, heaven (singular). The actual Hebrew word has a dual meaning depending on its context with the rest of the passage. It can mean heavens (as in the expanse of the universe), or heaven (as in the abode of God and his angels). There are, I think, two clues that the word is plural and dealing specifically with the expanse of the universe. 1.) The "Hay" prefix, giving it the translation of "the heavens". and 2.) it has the plural pronomial suffix "Yim".

Joseph Botwinick