Regarding the King James Bible

Then how do you explain the nasb's readings in:Luke 1:25,21,31,18;1st Thess 1:6,3:3,2:13;Heb 1:13;Acts 13:47,13:39,10:16,10:13;Phil 1:8? Those readings are in NO Greek manuscript(early or late)known to man! "Poof!"
Is it OK for the "bible" of the month club to do the same thing you are condeming the A.V. translators for??? Why the double standard??

 

QuickeningSpirit,

These italicized words in KJV are for English clarity. The image of Baal refers to the idolatry. In the OT they worshipped the Baal. That means they worshipped their god(s). Nothing wrong with the KJV!

QuickeningSpirit quoted:

Those three words offer clarity to the text that others reading it might understand that Baal is only a false god having no form, no comeliness, no mouth to speak, no ears to hear ( all inclinations on the hearing part INTENTIONAL!).

I agree with you.

Archangel quoted:

"One way or the other, the KJV is guilty of violating Rev. 22:18-19."

No, because the italicized words in the KJV did not derive from the Greek texts, but are for English clarity only. . Modern versions did not use these italicized words that are not found in the Greek texts because they violated Rev. 22:18-19.

 

We're not condeming the KJV translators for it. We're saying it doesn't jive with KJV-onlyism's position of "word preservation".

 

We're not condeming the KJV translators for it. We're saying it doesn't jive with KJV-onlyism's position of "word preservation". </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly, I love the italics. We don't condemn the italics and KJVOs shouldn't condemn footnotes. They are also there to clarify the text.

 

I’ve got good news. The truth is that there is no such thing as a perfect translation. Sometime ask a Spanish speaking friend to translate Como estas and como esta. They will translate the same but there is a huge difference in the way they are used.

 

If, as you say, the italicized words "did not derive from the Greek texts, but are for English clarity only," then they are *commentary* and properly belong in a marginal note or a footnote. They have absolutely no business being in the English text, and to put them in the text would be a violation of Rev. 22:18. *That* is the reason why the majority of versions before and after the KJV don't have "the image of" in Rom. 11:4.

Would you have any problems with a new edition of the KJV that had "the image of" in 1 Kg. 19:18 "for English clarity only?"

"Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto the image of Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him." (1 Kg. 19:18, 2004 KJV)

 

Then how do you explain the nasb's readings in:Luke 1:25,21,31,18;1st Thess 1:6,3:3,2:13;Heb 1:13;Acts 13:47,13:39,10:16,10:13;Phil 1:8? Those readings are in NO Greek manuscript(early or late)known to man! "Poof!"
Is it OK for the "bible" of the month club to do the same thing you are condeming the A.V. translators for??? Why the double standard?? </font>[/QUOTE]We should use the same standard for *all* English Bible versions. If *any* English Bible translation adds words to the English text which are not clearly implied in the Greek text, then its translation is defective in those places.

I'm prepared to hold the NASB to that standard. Are you prepared to hold the KJV to the same standard?

 

I remember my first KJVO handout -- from
a KJV Bible Salesman

 

Amen! Which is why I very seldom post in this forum. I see nothing constructive or edifying in any of these version discussions. Just the same old rants and name calling and denigration of the Word. Atheists do that, too.

IMO, it's a very poor witness for brotherly love and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

I've tested the waters once again and now I'm outta here, my sword (KJB) in hand!

 

I have three KJB swords
on my computer desk:
KJV1611
KJV1769
KJV1873
And over a dozen MV dirks

 

Yawn. Same old rant and guilty-by-association. IMO, it's a very poor witness for brotherly love and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Personally, I find the discussions very interesting. The debate is a fantastic way to do lots of digging and learn so much more about scripture!

 

Amen Brian! (and the antagonism is much milder now than in the past).

HankD

 

I am sure there can be quite the serious attacks on here, but I have not found that to be true from my standpoint. You all have been very helpful in quest for truth!

Thanks

 

Amen! Which is why I very seldom post in this forum. I see nothing constructive or edifying in any of these version discussions. Just the same old rants and name calling and denigration of the Word. Atheists do that, too.

IMO, it's a very poor witness for brotherly love and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

I've tested the waters once again and now I'm outta here, my sword (KJB) in hand! </font>[/QUOTE]Actualy, Ma'am, the conversation should be quite informative!

We have some people who've made the theory that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation, and some others who deny the veracity of this theory due to total lack of proof. We who reject the theory have called upon its proponents to provide PROOF to sustain their theory & so far they've failed miserably.

This is NOT about "winning a debate"-it's far more serious than that, since the subject is the WORD OF GOD, the highest written authority we have. Are we, as Christians, doing right to simply ignore a proven false doctrine & allow it to be spread among our brethren who may be more gullible than we? NO! We should fight EVERY false doctrine tooth & nail to the extent of the limits Christian decency, and if this involves stepping on some toes sometimes, well, so be it.

Sorry if it got too intense for you, but that's REALITY.

 

Then how do you explain the nasb's readings in:Luke 1:25,21,31,18;1st Thess 1:6,3:3,2:13;Heb 1:13;Acts 13:47,13:39,10:16,10:13;Phil 1:8? Those readings are in NO Greek manuscript(early or late)known to man! "Poof!"
Is it OK for the "bible" of the month club to do the same thing you are condeming the A.V. translators for??? Why the double standard?? </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, Sir, you're completely wrong. All the verses you listed ARE foung in Greek mss, both those used by the AV & those used by the NASB. The NASB expresses the translation in modern English, and often surpasses the KJV with the best rendering. For instance, you cite Hebrews 1:13. At first glance it appears the NASB unnecessarily added the words "for your feet" at the end of the verse.(I mean, what else would a FOOTSTOOL be intended for?)but a look at the Greek shows otherwise. In Strong's, we have, for "footstool" in the AV,'hupopodion'(#5286)which literally means, "footstool", immediately followed by the word 'pous'(# 4228) which means, "foot". Asinine as the phrase "footstool for your feet" may at first appear to be, the NASB translators simply rendered the Greek words before them into English, while the AV translators left the translation of 'pous' out. Neither rendering is incorrect, as the message is exactly the same.

Once again, an Onlyist attempt to justify their myth fails as usual.

 

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

This discussion is become folly, gentlemen.

Why? Because you have no real answers?

Refreshed, if you went back about 3 or 4 pages ago,l you'd see I already said everything you just posted, friend. I've already given them light in this area and they refuse it by making insiduous demands for satisfying their desire.

Only seeking justification, Sir, by a simple answer to a simple question.

Gluttony might be a term well researched concerning this, or even the "wine of their fornication" could help.

Well, actually, "I am clueless" is more like to the KJVO side.

I know these are strong words, but none any stronger than what is said just in this one thread.

"Empty" is more like it.

There is no defense of KJVO as these who continue to rant and rave about it.

Please clarify.


They invented it as a way of labeling peiople and they are the ones who have to deal with it.

Actually, it's a polite term, an acronym for King James Version Onlyists, those who believe the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV. And THEY are the ones who must deal with it. THEY are the ones who've proposed a radical theory to the English-reading Christians of the world, most of whom reject it due to a total lack of evidence of its veracity. THIS is what the KJVOs must deal with-EVIDENCE. If they want to raise their theory from "myth" status, they MUST provide EVIDENCE. So far, they've failed completely, offering nothing but guesswork and opinion totally devoid of either empirical or circumstantial proof.


It causes a "schizm" in the body of Christ and it almost seems they are proud to do it. Why else can't they leave it alone knowing the consequences?

Why don't we leave it alone? It's a FALSE DOCTRINE, that's why! Every Christian has a D-U-T-Y to fight the false doctrines which have invaded Christendom, and Baptists should be at the forefront of this fight.

And this is SERIOUS! The subject is the very WORD OF GOD, the medium which God has chosen to tell us about Himself. The KJVO myth in effect tries to LIMIT GOD by dictating how He may present His word in English. However, GOD HIMSELF has shown this doctrine to be nothing but a man-made myth before it was even invented by presenting His word in various English versions for hundreds of years & by showing us in His word that JESUS HIMSELF and His apostles used at least one other version of the OT besides the "traditional" one translated into our Bibles now.

"KJVO" is an oxy-moron, it has it's values, but in turn contradicts itself, that's what an oxy-moron is. (for any who might think otherwise, it is not a slanderous statement or "jab" at anyone).

Again, you're not very clear.And what's so oxymoronic about that idea? We've clearly defined what a KJVO is, so if the shoe fits, wear it.

The KJB stance is rooted in the MSS being the reason, but the label attributed is slanderous and demeaning.

If a KJVO takes the term as slanderous & demeaning, then he/she must think deep inside that the KJVO doctrine is wrong. Otherwise, he/she'd be PROUD to wear the label.

It seems more that the ones "bothered" by those "italicized words" have a higher standard than God in the principle given in Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

But God ALSO said, "If anyone *adds* to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;"

Unless you can justify ADDING "the image of" to Romans 11:4, then it stands as an addition by men to God's word.

The KJB is the perfect rendering of the Originals,

No, it isn't. First, we've been discussing an unjustified addition to God's word that makes the "perfection" label incorrect, and the mss from which the KJV was made are NOT the "originals". They are simply the mss that were available to the AV translators, and none of them are nearly old enough to be "originals".


we "KJVO"'s understand that and we don't argue about it, we just keep on proclaiming the truth

But you're NOT proclaiming the truth when you advocate KJVO. It's a PROVEN FALSE DOCTRINE, whose origins are quite plain.


and let other fall where they may, we can't make you belive anything, but you certainly convince yourselves

You're right; you cannot make us believe a clear lie.

You guys label me as "KJVO", but it seems like a slanderous statement than a realization of what we who stand on the KJB really believe and know.

Y'all may BELIEVE plenty, but your "know" in this matter is quite limited as you gents have made it abundantly clear.

May I also suggest you "split hairs" with a finer knife? the one you're using is contaminated with obsession and not purified with rationality.

IS IT?

Then, why don't you have any clear answers to our clear questions??????

 

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:


The mistake yall are making is idolized worship of the wording of the text, when it's the principle, not the actual text.

No, that would be the KJVOs. You bear this out in your earlier post where you say, "The KJB is the perfect rendering of the Originals. It's this very insistence by the KJVOs of "perfection", when we KNOW better, that leads us to believe that some KJVOs think more of the book than of the Author.

And it seems that, by your words above, that the MESSAGE is more important than the actual words. In that case, you should have no objections to BVs written in the language we now use, as they express those messages better than do the older Bibles whose language is now archaic.

#End of discussion

Which means, "I lose".

 

Revelation 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.
Proverbs 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.
Proverbs 11:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
Proverbs 14:28 In the multitude of people is the king’s honour: but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince.
Proverbs 15:22 Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.
Proverbs 20:15 There is gold, and a multitude of rubies: but the lips of knowledge are a precious jewel.
Proverbs 24:6 For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety.
Ecclesiastes 5:3 For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice is known by multitude of words.
Ecclesiastes 5:7 For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.

From John Gill's Expositor:

to [the image] of Baal; Jezebel’s god, the god of the Zidonians; a name common to many of the "deities" of the Gentiles, and signifies "lord", or "master"; we read of "Baalim" in the plural number, for there were "lords many" of this name: in the Greek text the article is of the feminine gender, wherefore our translators have supplied the word image. This word has, in the Septuagint version, sometimes a feminine article as here; see #2Ki 21:3 Jer 2:8,23,28 7:9 11:13 #Jer 12:16 19:5 23:27 32:29,35 Ho 2:8 13:1; but in #1Ki 19:18, from whence this passage is taken, the article is masculine, as it is also in #Jud 2:11,13, and in other places. This deity being either of both sexes, or of no distinguished sex; or it may be, the reason it has so often a feminine article is, because it was a young heifer, or in the form of one; so in the history of Tobias 1:5, it is said, that "all the tribes which apostatized together sacrificed", th baal th damalei, "to Baal the heifer". The apostle’s view in mentioning this instance is to show, that when the church and cause of God are at the lowest, God has always some true worshippers of him; and that he never casts away his foreknown people, whose numbers are generally more than they are thought to be by the saints themselves; good men, as Elijah, may be mistaken in this matter; all which he accommodates to the then present state of God’s people, in #Ro 11:5.

 

Oh, I forgot this one:

II Chronicles 33:7 And he set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen before all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever

 

I want to thank everyone that posts on this board, even the ones I strongly disagree with. I have learned more in the last few months about the different versions, by being on this board, than I ever did in the past. I'm sorry some can't handle debate. I personally learn from it. Thank you!