Regarding the King James Bible

It's called translating, brainchild, or didn't they teach you to think?
</font>[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure namecalling is against forum rules.

What you described was not simply "translating". You yourself called it "clarifying". They could have "translated" it without adding the "clarification" of "the image of", as Archangel7 has pointed out.

Really, it's OK to admit you made mistake. I do it all the time!

May God bless you bountifully.

 

It's called translating, brainchild, or didn't they teach you to think?
</font>[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure namecalling is against forum rules.

What you described was not simply "translating". You yourself called it "clarifying". They could have "translated" it without adding the "clarification" of "the image of", as Archangel7 has pointed out.

Really, it's OK to admit you made mistake. I do it all the time!

May God bless you bountifully. </font>[/QUOTE]"Brainchild" is NOT a derogatory term, it's a compliment, but I'm sure it will be twisted to be taken that way, you did.

It's clearly a waste of time trying to deal with you type, I'm sure the King of Glory is just so proud of you!

I tell you where I stand, and it's the same old "christian" motivation to straighten out somebody by straightening out the KJB

 

You *honestly* meant it as a compliment, and not as sarcasm? Then why did your very next sentence mention "idiotic tendencies", "the dumber you look" and "You embararss yourselves along with the worst of Greek students"? Come on.

God bless,
Brian

 

You *honestly* meant it as a compliment, and not as sarcasm? Then why did your very next sentence mention "idiotic tendencies", "the dumber you look" and "You embararss yourselves along with the worst of Greek students"? Come on.

God bless,
Brian </font>[/QUOTE]It sure looks like sarcasm to this KJVO.

MV supporters have some characteristic faults, but generally speaking stupidity isn't one of them.

 

It's called translating, brainchild, or didn't they teach you to think?

The more those try to discredit the KJB by idiotic tendencies as transcribed in here the dumber you look.You embararss yourselves along with the worst of Greek students </font>[/QUOTE]QS, please quit while you're ahead. Briant was obviously pointing out a double standard that you hold to. Name calling is against the rules. If you meant "brainchild" as a compliment, please never compliment me.

Briant, I for one, think you are extremely intelligent and you have shown that you are able to think for yourself. QS's attack is just another way the KJVO camp reacts to the truth. When up against the wall, they react personally.
You know, being persecuted for the truth is a good thing. At least we are in company with Christ.

QS's I was carefully reading this thread with curiosity to learn. Boy, did I. You just showed the KJVO true colors.
Christ said: (Mat 7:20) "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

One thing that drove me from the KJVO camp was the hatred and bitterness of that crowd. How can God's people call their brothers and sisters names and still say they love them. You may say that in another thread I called people names by saying that the KJVO is built on Ignorance. That was not a personal attack but an attack on heresy, which the KJVO stance is!

I was in a KJVO church one time that took pride in the fact that only "the remnant" beleived in KJVO. I ran fast, because that type of mentality leads to cults. ( can we say David Koresh?)

I came to this board looking for some answers about the KJVO question, (as it is about to split some churches here locally). I read a lot on the internet both for and against. I also read a bible history text book from the 1930's to get a perspective from a time that was pre-KJVO. I found that everything in the textbook from the 30's agrees with Briant, and the other Bible beleivers on this board, and goes against the KJVO crowd. BTW the textbook was from the true fundamentalist's approach. It loved the revised version and even uplifted Westcott and Hort. Imagine that, a fundamentalist loving W/H
I don't claim to know everything, but I do have enough common sense to inspect fruit!!!

 

QuickeningSpirit you said, "Are you the guy I heard about that stands in front of mirrors and tries to tell himself he's really somebody with an education?"
and
"It's like picking boogers from your twin brother's nose saying they are yours, you are experienced at that, I can tell. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I'll say, "very mature!"

 

It's called translating, brainchild, or didn't they teach you to think?

The more those try to discredit the KJB by idiotic tendencies as transcribed in here the dumber you look.You embararss yourselves along with the worst of Greek students </font>[/QUOTE]QS, please quit while you're ahead. Briant was obviously pointing out a double standard that you hold to. Name calling is against the rules. If you meant "brainchild" as a compliment, please never compliment me.

Briant, I for one, think you are extremely intelligent and you have shown that you are able to think for yourself. QS's attack is just another way the KJVO camp reacts to the truth. When up against the wall, they react personally.
You know, being persecuted for the truth is a good thing. At least we are in company with Christ.

QS's I was carefully reading this thread with curiosity to learn. Boy, did I. You just showed the KJVO true colors.
Christ said: (Mat 7:20) "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

One thing that drove me from the KJVO camp was the hatred and bitterness of that crowd. How can God's people call their brothers and sisters names and still say they love them. You may say that in another thread I called people names by saying that the KJVO is built on Ignorance. That was not a personal attack but an attack on heresy, which the KJVO stance is!

I was in a KJVO church one time that took pride in the fact that only "the remnant" beleived in KJVO. I ran fast, because that type of mentality leads to cults. ( can we say David Koresh?)

I came to this board looking for some answers about the KJVO question, (as it is about to split some churches here locally). I read a lot on the internet both for and against. I also read a bible history text book from the 1930's to get a perspective from a time that was pre-KJVO. I found that everything in the textbook from the 30's agrees with Briant, and the other Bible beleivers on this board, and goes against the KJVO crowd. BTW the textbook was from the true fundamentalist's approach. It loved the revised version and even uplifted Westcott and Hort. Imagine that, a fundamentalist loving W/H
I don't claim to know everything, but I do have enough common sense to inspect fruit!!! </font>[/QUOTE]It might be good advice to lay your KJVO cookie cutter aside and make rational judgements.

Please don't drag me into some dispute you're having with some one else.

Thank you

 

I'll say, "very mature!" [/QB][/QUOTE]

I wasn't trying to look mature, I was making light of the conversation. Obviously I can't do that with this type without being judged, but it's probably due to the preconceived notions your type is so famous.

Jesus said we would know them by their fruits, he was talking about the Pharisees and making sure your righteousness exceeeds theirs, not so you can remain on the same level by "fruit inspecting", seems many have some worms in their own fruit.

Each should always remember they open themselves up to the scrutiny of other "fruit inspectors", but then that is the practice of the Pharisees, always judging for fruit, no matter what the season; looking for fully ripened apples in the dead of winter is just like pruning the branches while bloom is on the tree. It's called the antics of the novice horticulturist, not quite sure when to do it, just knowing it needs to be done, but to the destruction of the tree, still failing to bring forth fruit.

If the bicycle has been painted red, it is just as true to say "That's a red bicycle.", because anyone should know the bike wasn't red naturally, it had to be painted.

Process of time reveals the outcome, then the master of construction sees the finished product at any stage of the endeavor, you'll find that in your King James Bible, but then you have the critics observation, only to criticize and tear down the product in any way they see fit. The only problem to their credit is they never are productive, only destructive.

It's wrong to tear down a man's stand, especially when no hurt results by his stand. Of course he might be considered to just be in the way, but then his stand might be the only thing that rescues them from certain peril just ahead.

Like I've said before, the more the King James is attacked with all these insignificant things, the more it confirms it is infallible, inerrant, inspired, or it wouldn't be under such scrutiny, for you all know too well, even your most favorite version has more "problems' than you could ever concoct about the KJB. That is why you have to bounce from "version" to version, you're not even sure what the Word of God is, I am.

I apologize for any KJVO's who have made "real" insults to your integrity, but don't be guilty of the same, considering yourselves to be something you're not, being deceived.

I can see it's not really a matter of versions, but a mere challenging of wit, but please remember when going to battle, be sure the ammunition you're carrying is up to date, because even if you feel the gratification of pointing out the ill of another, he is just liable to expose you for what you really are, that is usually not to your liking.

May this post help those to consider their motives and the root cause by which they act any further.

Divide and conquer? Or make peace with thy neighbor? Which do you consider the will of the Father?

 

Infallible? God's word is infallible in ANY valid version.

Inerrant? We've PROVEN there are booboos in the KJB.

Inspired? Every valid BV was inspired equally. There was no special inspiration for the KJV.

Why do we attack the KJVO doctrine so strongly? because it's been PROVEN to be a man-made false doctrine. Its origins are well-documented. It began with SDA big shot Ben Wilkinson's book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, & continued through the writings of J.J.Ray, D.O. Fuller, & a host of modern authors such as Riplinger, Ruckman, Moorman, Reagan, Marrs, & Cloud to name a few.

If you wish to personally use only the KJV, fine, no prob, but if you attempt to promote the false Onlyist propaganda that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation, then, you're gonna encounter plenty of fierce opposition from us who KNOW KJVO is a false, man-made doctrine.

If you really believe that hooey, I suggest you read the works of the KJVO authors, beginning with Wilkinson, and check out the veracity of most of their "facts" from other sources such as history books and top-notch encyclopediae.

As Christians, we have a D-U-T-Y to fight false doctrines which invade our religion. As a Christian, if you found a $100 bill in your wallet that you knew beyond a doubt was counterfeit, would you pass it, hoping the recipient didn't see it was bogus, or would you turn it in to the nearest authority & take the chance of losing a hundred dollars? Same with these false doctrines-Those who believe them often turn their faces from the FACTS that show them false, because they don't want to give up long-cherished practices or beliefs. However, that's not the case with KJVO. The person can abandon the false doctrine without giving up his/her KJV. The only thing the person must give up is the belief in the exclusivity of the KJV and the false arguments against other versions.

I will continue to war against religious doctrines I KNOW to be false because it's the DUTY of every Christian and Baptist to do so. If it involves stepping on some toes...well...let'em get some steel-toe boots.

 

"Regarding that blessed old Book"? Thanky, don't mind if I do!

 

While I take your words under full consideration and appreciate your expressing your thoughts, Elk, we must remember that we are remiss in our Christian duty if we simply ignore a public false doctrine & act as if it doesn't exist.

You wonder how many are reading these discussions? Well, so do I. I know that if one side only presents its views, and those views are incorrect, that many could become just-as-deceived as are the authors of those views.

KJVO ps PROVEN to be incorrect, and shame on us if we simply ignore the problem and allow its advocates to rave on unopposed. It's not as if we're discussing some minor point of theology-it's the VERY WORD OF GOD that's involved. We simply CANNOT sit back while someone slanders God's word written in a version he doesn't like. It's not a matter of like-dislike; it's a matter of how GOD has chosen to PRESENT HIS WORD. Can He not present it AS HE CHOOSES?

Again, I appreciate your expressing your opinion about the debate itself, Elk, but we MUST do what God shows us to be RIGHT-and that includes defending His word and fighting false doctrines about His word.

 

robycop, consider your remarks Biblically, now you might need anewer version to refute fitting the description, but that would indicate a refusal of the truth, by your own "noose"

2 Timothy 3:3 Without natural affection , trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce , despisers of those that are good,

James 3:4 Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds , yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth.

Your energies would be best redirected, Sir.

Regarding your other outlandish statements, I do hold to the King James with all conviction, mv's will never change that, though they certainly deaden the spiritual applications as evidenced in another thread,(5 stones) as well as the lack of spirituality on the behalf of some mv promoters. I've read some of the hogwash you suggest, but that doesn't apply to some one who knows nothing or very little of what you're talking about, you don't yourself. You try to include me in some "cult" known to you as KJVO, I can't be included in that, I have the King James Bible, not just another version, not really even a version, but a Bible.

You may have sources to back up your rant, but that's the problem, all you're doing is ranting and raving, doting about.There lies the problem, your sources, the root of your malignment, the reason for your malice, the fault which instigates your malicious behaviour/ your fury&gt;"fierce".


Sir, I would really hate to know that I am so misguided to be so relentless in my endeavor which proves to be senseless and detrimental to my character as yours. I know better than to rave on, dragging a dead horse and kicking a dead dog. I am really starting to pity you, Sir. All you are doing is falling deeper into the snare of satan, being taken captive by him at his will.

This mv "debate" is sin, I am not taking any part in, I am addressing your behaviour directly, it is sinful and full of the root of bitterness and thereby is defiling many. It is in direct contradiction to the doctrine outlined in Romans 16, which is most certainly awarding you a "mark of division" contrary to brotherly love, that doctrine which rests all thwe commandments.

Good-day, not Godspeed.

 

You mean like your false teaching that KJVOism "began with SDA big shot Ben Wilkinson's book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated?" It has been very well established historically that KJVOism predates Wilkinson's book, which was published in 1930, by at least 50 years. See "A History of Fundamentalism in America" by George W. Dollar, 1973, Bob Jones University Press, page 114. Also see "The Menace of Modernism" by W. B. Riley, New York, Christian Alliance, 1917, page 11.

 

There it is, you're obsessed with it, and your obsession is drivng you mad.

Cry out to God while you can still be heard, seek Him while He may be found, PLEASE? All I've seen is there are certain words which "trigger" your impulsive mind because of this obsession, it is to no avail. You might gain some followers, but you're causing more harm than good. I mean, I don't even see anyone debating you, you just keep ranting on and on, round and round. Eventually, you're gonna screw yourself into a hole.

 

Statements like that prove your lack of study. Maybe you should use different sources than the perverted ones to come up with such lunacies. </font>[/QUOTE]I just showed you two specific examples (Mk. 1:10 and Rom. 11:4) of places where the KJV disagrees with its underlying text. Check them out for yourself.

When the KJ Translators look at the manuscripts, it was the compilation of different groups that partook of the duty appointed and saw the meaning more clearly translated using the italicized words, to explain the Greek text.

The difference in O.T. was from Hebrew, not Greek, but still it does say the same EXACT thing, just translated from different languages. </font>[/QUOTE]Let me try to explain this again very carefully.

The Hebrew text of 1 Kg. 19:18 reads "the knees which have not bowed unto Baal." It says *nothing* about any "image of Baal." The Geneva Bible and the KJV both correctly translate the verse exactly as it is in the Hebrew text without adding to the word of God:

"Yet will I leave seven thousand in Israel, even all the knees that have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth that hath not kissed him." (1 Kg. 19:18, Geneva Bible)

"Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him." (1 Kg. 19:18, KJV)

Paul cites this OT verse in Rom. 11:4, where the Greek text reads "not bowed the knee to Baal." It also says *nothing* about any "image of Baal." The Geneva Bible correctly translates it exactly as it is in the Greek text without adding to the word of God:

"But what saith the answer of God to him? I have reserved unto my self seven thousand men, which have not bowed the knee to Baal." (Rom. 11:4, Geneva Bible)

However, the KJV goes *beyond* what the Greek text says and *adds* to the word of God:

"But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." (Rom. 11:4, KJV)

Why doesn't the Geneva Bible have "the image of" in Rom. 11:4? Because those words are not in the Greek text. Why does the KJV have "the image of" in italics in Rom. 11:4? Because the KJV translators have introduced their own interpretation, their own commentary, *their own words*, into the word of God.

It's that simple.

 

400th ANNIVERSARY OF HAMPTON COURT

Today (Jan. 12/04) marks the 400th anniversary of the Hampton Court conference convened by King James I to commission a new translation of the Bible for the Church of England. The story made the front page of the Toronto Star -- check out this LINK.

 

Statements like that prove your lack of study. Maybe you should use different sources than the perverted ones to come up with such lunacies. </font>[/QUOTE]I just showed you two specific examples (Mk. 1:10 and Rom. 11:4) of places where the KJV disagrees with its underlying text. Check them out for yourself.

When the KJ Translators look at the manuscripts, it was the compilation of different groups that partook of the duty appointed and saw the meaning more clearly translated using the italicized words, to explain the Greek text.

The difference in O.T. was from Hebrew, not Greek, but still it does say the same EXACT thing, just translated from different languages. </font>[/QUOTE]Let me try to explain this again very carefully.

The Hebrew text of 1 Kg. 19:18 reads "the knees which have not bowed unto Baal." It says *nothing* about any "image of Baal." The Geneva Bible and the KJV both correctly translate the verse exactly as it is in the Hebrew text without adding to the word of God:

"Yet will I leave seven thousand in Israel, even all the knees that have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth that hath not kissed him." (1 Kg. 19:18, Geneva Bible)

"Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him." (1 Kg. 19:18, KJV)

Paul cites this OT verse in Rom. 11:4, where the Greek text reads "not bowed the knee to Baal." It also says *nothing* about any "image of Baal." The Geneva Bible correctly translates it exactly as it is in the Greek text without adding to the word of God:

"But what saith the answer of God to him? I have reserved unto my self seven thousand men, which have not bowed the knee to Baal." (Rom. 11:4, Geneva Bible)

However, the KJV goes *beyond* what the Greek text says and *adds* to the word of God:

"But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." (Rom. 11:4, KJV)

Why doesn't the Geneva Bible have "the image of" in Rom. 11:4? Because those words are not in the Greek text. Why does the KJV have "the image of" in italics in Rom. 11:4? Because the KJV translators have introduced their own interpretation, their own commentary, *their own words*, into the word of God.

It's that simple. </font>[/QUOTE]I think I counted 7 revolutions to your twisted theology going counterclockwise.

You just can't get over the fact Paul wrote the Book of the Romans and whether you approve of the italicized words or not, the meaning isn't changed and there is NOTHING added "Baal" is an image, also a graven image that Israel bowed down on their knees before to worship. By oyur insistence the words in Romans 11:4 are adding to the Word, are you then attributing diety to a false god? You seem to deny "the image" portion by your rant, is that your intention? looks like it from here! I suppose everytime you quote scripture nothing is added, (no thought) nothing taken away (received)?

I know, I know Rev. 22 but that isn't what I said, now is it? Neither is that the case of Rom 11:4. So an adjective is there to describe that Baal's image is the only thing bowed down before, afterall, as a Christian we would both agree Baal has nothing more than an image. He has no power to speak, can't hear, he's a "dumb idol".

Since you reference the O.T. so much, Are there any other texts you have such a problem with as Rom 11:4? Are there others that are like a thorn in the flesh as this one? What about the differences in the spelling of names? Is that some BIG controversy too?

 

Statements like that prove your lack of study. Maybe you should use different sources than the perverted ones to come up with such lunacies. </font>[/QUOTE]I just showed you two specific examples (Mk. 1:10 and Rom. 11:4) of places where the KJV disagrees with its underlying text. Check them out for yourself.

When the KJ Translators look at the manuscripts, it was the compilation of different groups that partook of the duty appointed and saw the meaning more clearly translated using the italicized words, to explain the Greek text.

The difference in O.T. was from Hebrew, not Greek, but still it does say the same EXACT thing, just translated from different languages. </font>[/QUOTE]Let me try to explain this again very carefully.

The Hebrew text of 1 Kg. 19:18 reads "the knees which have not bowed unto Baal." It says *nothing* about any "image of Baal." The Geneva Bible and the KJV both correctly translate the verse exactly as it is in the Hebrew text without adding to the word of God:

"Yet will I leave seven thousand in Israel, even all the knees that have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth that hath not kissed him." (1 Kg. 19:18, Geneva Bible)

"Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him." (1 Kg. 19:18, KJV)

Paul cites this OT verse in Rom. 11:4, where the Greek text reads "not bowed the knee to Baal." It also says *nothing* about any "image of Baal." The Geneva Bible correctly translates it exactly as it is in the Greek text without adding to the word of God:

"But what saith the answer of God to him? I have reserved unto my self seven thousand men, which have not bowed the knee to Baal." (Rom. 11:4, Geneva Bible)

However, the KJV goes *beyond* what the Greek text says and *adds* to the word of God:

"But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." (Rom. 11:4, KJV)

Why doesn't the Geneva Bible have "the image of" in Rom. 11:4? Because those words are not in the Greek text. Why does the KJV have "the image of" in italics in Rom. 11:4? Because the KJV translators have introduced their own interpretation, their own commentary, *their own words*, into the word of God.

It's that simple. </font>[/QUOTE]I think I counted 7 revolutions to your twisted theology going counterclockwise.

Since they didn't bow to "the image of" Baal, as you insist, what was it they bowed before? What was it they "kissed"? Reckon "the image of" Baal? Duhhhh?

You just can't get over the fact Paul wrote the Book of the Romans and whether you approve of the italicized words or not, the meaning isn't changed and there is NOTHING added. "Baal" is an image, also a graven image that Israel bowed down on their knees before to worship. By your insistance the words in Romans 11:4 are adding to the Word, are you then attributing diety to a false god? You seem to deny "the image" portion by your rant, is that your intention? looks like it from here! I suppose everytime you quote scripture nothing is added, (no thought) nothing taken away (received)?

I know, I know Rev. 22 but that isn't what I said, now is it? Neither is that the case of Rom 11:4. So an adjective is there to describe that Baal's image is the only thing bowed down before, afterall, as a Christian we would both agree Baal has nothing more than an image. He has no power to speak, can't hear, he's a "dumb idol".

Since you reference the O.T. so much, Are there any other texts you have such a problem with as Rom 11:4? Are there others that are like a thorn in the flesh as this one? What about the differences in the spelling of names? Is that some BIG controversy too? </font>[/QUOTE]