The ESV from a KJB Only perspective

There have been a plethora of holes found in the KJV Bible. You're just too ignorant (and I use this word intentionally) to be able to recognize it.

Stop blaming what is said by those who believe that modern versions are the will of God on hell. Hell is too big as it is to lump God-fearing believers with it. Let go of your security blanket and open your eyes, man.

 

Will Kenney-

Thanks for your cogent and faithful defense of the preserved scriptures.

Many of the folks who post to rebut your arguments, keep attacking your belief in the KJV instead of answering your arguments.

I enjoy your posts and also enjoy reading the pathetic assaults on the KJV by your detractors.

Some of them profess to believe God has preserved His infallible inspired words somewhere BUT they reserve to themselves the right to correct every manuscript and every version in any language...Go figure!

Thank You Brother Will !!!

P.S. - Back in the 70ies, I was Youth Pastor and Assistant High School Principal at Foothills Bible Baptist Church and Christian School in Montrose, CO

 

You have missed the point completely -- that the KJV does *exactly the same thing* you condemn the ESV for doing. This is called "using a double standard."

 

What is actually written in the Hebrew *text* of the MT (the kethib) is ha'ir, meaning "the city." What is written in the *margin* of the Hebrew MT (the qere) is hatser, meaning "court" or "village." The Greek LXX reads τη αυλη, meaning "court" or "courtyard." One of the reasons why both the KJV translators and the ESV translators chose "court" rather than "city" was precisely *because* it is the reading of *both* the LXX and the MT qere rather than the MT kethib. So both the KJV and the ESV depart from the actual Hebrew MT text and follow the LXX, yet only the ESV is condemned because it "departs from the Hebrew Masoretic texts and follows the Greek Septuagint (LXX)." Why is the KJV not condemned in the same way for doing exactly the same thing?

 

You know, Scott, I'm not KJVO (I'm maybe a 1 or a 2 on Dr. Bob's scale), but I don't know if I would be real comfortable with saying the KJV has a "plethora of holes." I thought we were only taking semantics when it came to the differences between the bible versions. Statements like "there is no major doctrinal differences between the versions," etc. I thought regardless of the version, we could be upwards of 95 percent sure of the text. Am I wrong?

Plethora - an oversupply, glut, or excess.

When I read the KJV, I'm not reading a swiss-cheese bible that is oversupplied and glutted with errors to the excess. I believe, sir, your post is a bonafide attack on the KJV itself, not to mention an attack on the intelligence (ignorance is a lack of knowledge, the same thing as stupidity) of another BaptistBoard member and fellow brother in Christ.

KJV-user/studier/preacher, KJVO-rejecter/exposer,

Jason

 

You know, Scott, I'm not KJVO (I'm maybe a 1 or a 2 on Dr. Bob's scale), but I don't know if I would be real comfortable with saying the KJV has a "plethora of holes." I thought we were only taking semantics when it came to the differences between the bible versions. Statements like "there is no major doctrinal differences between the versions," etc. I thought regardless of the version, we could be upwards of 95 percent sure of the text. Am I wrong?

Plethora - an oversupply, glut, or excess.

When I read the KJV, I'm not reading a swiss-cheese bible that is oversupplied and glutted with errors to the excess. I believe, sir, your post is a bonafide attack on the KJV itself, not to mention an attack on the intelligence (ignorance is a lack of knowledge, the same thing as stupidity) of another BaptistBoard member and fellow brother in Christ.

KJV-user/studier/preacher, KJVO-rejecter/exposer,

Jason </font>[/QUOTE]I in no way am saying that there is an excess of holes in the KJV - forgive me for poor word choice. There are several that have been pointed out which are enough to reject KJVO. It was late and I was quick to type - I apologize Jason. Thanks for keeping me straight!

 

Sometimes the debate gets frustrating! I'd like to at least give a nod to Will Kinney for his willingness to debate the issues - the scriptural issues that is! It seems that if I ask a question of most of the other "KJVOs" on this board I usually get a response which is 99% anger/emotion and 1% logic! Thanx Will - even if I don't agree with your positions!

 

"The UBS text is still basically the Westcott-Hort text. Get a clue, will you?"
Heavens no! There are miniscule but significant differences, sort of like between the KJV and the NIV.

Anyway, why should I (or in fact most born again Christians on earth) care about the whole KJV thing? English is not even my (their) first language.

 

Typical. Why am I not surprised that you don't even address your penchant for labelling those who disagree with you in cohoots with "hell"?

He's preserved His Words for thousands of years. We have Bibles in hundreds and hundreds of languages, not just English and Latin.

You say that either one is right and one is wrong later in the thread. If the Latin and KJV disagree in at least one verse, then will you admit that both of them cannot be inerrant and inspired?

 

And everybody in this discussion agrees with that. We who use God's word in modern translations believe those promises as much, if not more, than you do.

Actually, the first question is "how" has he done this. The second is "where." As to the first, he did it be a number of imperfect methods, that are modelled for us in Scripture where we see that copies of Scripture that differ from the original text are still considered Scripture. As to "where," he has preserved his word in every faithful manuscript and every faithful translation. We do believe that the KJV is the word of God. We simply do not share your unbiblical view of the KJV&gt;.

This is an admission on your part of what we have said all along. You hold a position that you cannot defend from Scripture. That is fine. Simply admit that it is what you are doing. You have asserted your own mind as the authority in this matter.

YOu are obviously mistaken. They don't differ radically. In fact, they differ no more radically than the KJV differs from the Waldensian and the Old Latin, or the 1611 differs from later editions of the KJV where things were changed to be more accurate.

So you think the very meaning of the originals does not exist??? Then what are you doing in this conversation????

 

Actually they do mean something and before you go driving your stake in the ground, you ought to be infomred about the issues so you don't keep embarrassing yourself with these kinds of remarks.

In the Hebrew "kethiv" is a word that means writing and is part of the HEbrew title for the OT. The Hebrew title of the OT is Torah, Nebehim, Cethubim. It means Law, Prophets, and Writings. In the Hebrew text itself, there is the kethib (what is written down) and the qere (what is read). Qere is the Hebew word for calling out. That is a short, simple discussion of it.

Someone who takes such a dogmatic stand should not be ignorant about the basics of the discussion. If you do not know what you are talking about, then stop talking. That way, you will save yourself from statements like "they mean nothing at all."

Again, a little learning prevents a lot of ridiculous statements. There are not a lot of Hebrew texts out there. There are less Hebrew texts than there are Greek texts. The most common is the BHS.

The point of the Hebrew you are discussing, as Archangel pointed out, is that you condemn MVs for doing the same thing that the KJV does. That means you are inconsistent. It means you do not think carefullyu about what you are saying.

The word of God deserves more honor and respect than you are giving it. We have encouraged you many times to back away from this unbiblical position you have and give your heart and mind to the text of Scripture. As it is, you insist that you can be the authority on what God's word really is, even though admit (as I quote above) that God didn't actually tell you which version is his word. It is simply more evidence that your own mind is your authority. That is a dangerous place to be.

Sit back and start to learn a little bit rather than pontificating and showing that you do not know as much as you should know to carry on the conversation you are having.

 

I was appreciative of your answer(s) till you resorted to this common KJVO tactic If it means anything to you, I have a Th.M. from a KJVO Baptist College who by conferring upon me this degree felt I had appropriate "reading and comprehension skills". Of course I know that you are biased toward your view, and I would think if anyone disagrees w/ you you would give a similar response. Frankly the KJVO's personal attacks it what helped draw me away from the movement.Why? "by their fruit you will know them" the fruit of all too many KJVO's (not all KJVO's) is arrogance, personally attack those who agree w/ the AV translators themselves, who said that a variety of translations are profitable. Wiil, I know you have good reading and comprehension skills from reading your posts, but when you say these types of things, it just solidifies those of us who are not KJVO's by thinking (fairly or unfairly) that KJVO=meanspiritedness/stubborn arrogance=KJVO. I can't speak for the others but those types of comments prejudice me about attempting to read your posts fairly. C U later.

 

Hi all..

Im definately no scholar on the issue.. In fact, im pretty new to the debate.

I learned about God mostly through the NASB, as that is what my first Pastor used, so I bought one so I could follow along in church easier..

but, in my first church, they also used several versions to make a point... Pastor would read out of his NASB, and often would try to find other members with NIV, KJV, NKJV, AMP, and he would have them read aloud as to get the full idea of what they were saying..

I found that never did it conflict.. Never did they stare in the face of eachother.. They were always complimentary and eye opening.

To this day, I still prefer the NASB, because it is the wording I am used to.. I've tried the KJV, and I struggle with it.. Its written in archaic english.. I would have to take a class in 1600 english to even be able to read it, and I think that that highly shows a respector of persons, which I believe God is not.

I personally believe that God's perfect word has been perfectly preserved in any translation that is faithful to the original manuscripts.. There is more than one way to say any given sentence, and I dont believe that the word of God is any different... I dont think God's promise has been lost because I chose to read the bible in my own everyday tongue.. It says the same thing as the KJV says to my sister-in-law (onlyist), plus or minus a few statements that have nothing to do with doctrine.. Our beliefs do not differ in anything else WITH AN EXCEPTION OF THE KJV, and to me, that says that God's promise has been fulfilled, and its only our idiotic human minds causing a problem.

Im satisfied with my NASB, and fully believe that it is Gods inerrant preserved word every bit as much as the KJV thank you very much


Emily