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!

The KJB VS the usual suspects

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by George Antonios, Oct 1, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. George Antonios

    George Antonios Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let me rest your mind from now: no, I don't have a verse telling me specifically that the King James Bible is the word of God.
    This video begins with a brief intro of the usual suspects: NIV, ESV, NASV and builds on the premise that those versions change the KJB in the same way that the New World Translation does (the version of Jehovah's false witnesses).
    It compares verses and I declare why I, as a native Arabic speaker, believe the King James Bible over all others.
    Love it or hate it:

     
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    51,482
    Likes Received:
    2,662
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are any of those others the word of the Lord to us also in English?
     
  3. George Antonios

    George Antonios Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Lord employed ravens to feed Elijah, and he can use corrupt versions to nourish his people.
    Does that mean I'll be looking to ravens for my nourishment? No.
     
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    51,482
    Likes Received:
    2,662
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Corrupted as in perverted and not teaching the doctrines of God? You can find EVERY doctrine the KJV teaches in those other versions!
     
  5. George Antonios

    George Antonios Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That point was addressed twice in the video.
    Also, I don't know if you've ever taught in a public setting, but I've more than once encountered a problem because the versions the people had didn't match what the KJB was saying.
     
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    51,482
    Likes Received:
    2,662
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What about churches that used for years the 1984 Niv as common bible?
     
  7. George Antonios

    George Antonios Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What about them?
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Perhaps the problem was created by someone teaching those people erroneous human KJV-only reasoning or the problem was because of your own acceptance of human, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching.

    English-speaking believers did not seem to have considered it a problem when there were many actual differences in meaning in the pre-1611 English Bibles and when the pre-1611 English Bibles did not always match each other.
     
    #8 Logos1560, Oct 1, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2020
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Church of England makers of the KJV evidently did not consider it a problem when the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from an edition of the Latin Vulgate did not match the non-Catholic pre-1611 English Bibles since they still choose to borrow many renderings from the Rheims.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. graciecat

    graciecat Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2020
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Find every doctrine to help you replenish yourself
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Church of England makers of the KJV changed the loved and accepted 1560 Geneva Bible in a good number of the same places as the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament did since they borrowed those renderings from the 1582 Rheims and put them in the 1611.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When the KJV translators are given the interpretive leeway of not having to give an English word for each and every original language word found in a verse, why are other Bible translators not given the same freedom?

    When the Church of England makers of the KJV are sometimes allowed to interpret what God meant instead of translating literally and word-for-word what God said, why should other Bible translators not be given the same latitude?

    If the KJV translators are permitted to omit providing a rendering for one original-language word based on their understanding of the literal meaning of the entire sentence instead of the literal meaning of each individual word, will other Bible translators be given the same allowable discretion or leeway?

    At times, does KJV-only reasoning suggest a non-preservationist view that this or that word can be arbitrarily omitted based upon a consensus of Church of England scholars in 1611?

    If the same amount of leeway is granted to the NKJV translators that is in effect granted to the KJV translators, many of the KJV-only allegations against the NKJV would be eliminated or discredited.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Should your video be assumed by fallacies to be suspect because of your subjective KJV-only bias just as you may assume by fallacies and as you may make unrighteous judgments based on use of unjust divers measures/standards?

    Does your premise involve use of the guilt by association fallacy as you do not prove that other English Bible translators consulted or followed the Jehovah Witnesses' translation?

    While the 1611 KJV's association with the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, which is on the KJV-only view's line of corrupt Bibles, is known to be a fact because of the first-hand testimony of one of the KJV translators, can you provide any first-hand testimony from the English Bible translators that they consulted or made use of the Jehovah Witnesses' translation?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. George Antonios

    George Antonios Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A) The differences had nothing to do with teaching KJV-only. That was an assumption.
    B) You have no idea whether the people then had a problem or not.

    I'm teaching that the resurrection is physical: Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
    But some versions were saying "without my body".

    I'm teaching that God had increased Israel in numbers but not their joy:
    Isa_9:3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
    But some versions were saying that he had increased their joy

    I'm teaching that God's mercy is great towards his fearers:
    Psa_103:11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
    But some versions (like one Arabic version) were saying that his mercy "overpowered" us.

    I was quoting Matthew 17:21 but some versions didn't have the verse

    I was teaching baptism only for believers and cited Acts 8:37 but some versions didn't have the verse
    Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

    I was saying that Christ told Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world only for now
    Joh_18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

    but some versions did have "now"

    I was in a metro witnessing to 3 Muslim young men and quoting 1John 5:7 when an "enlightened" Christian showed up, cracked open his Bible and showed them that 1John 5:7 wasn't in his...

    Those are the ones I recall off the top of my head for the moment, and they are a problem to Bible teachers and preachers and soul-winners.
     
    #14 George Antonios, Oct 2, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 2
  15. George Antonios

    George Antonios Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Every change I showed matched the NWT in devaluating Christ, his word, and his salvation.
    The rest is obfuscation.
    If you don't have a problem with those wicked changes and omissions, fine.
    But they are wicked.
     
  16. George Antonios

    George Antonios Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's incredible that you guys can see those changes from "child" to "servant", erasing Acts 8:37, changing "are saved" to "being saved", making Joseph Christ's father, chaging "firstborn" to "son", taking away the "blood", etc. and actually sit there and defend those changes.
    The only reason is that bitter conceit is greater for many than the glory of God and purity of his words.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you suggesting that the doctrine of baptism only for believers depends upon only one verse?

    Do you prove that the verse belongs in the Greek NT text since according to Scripture it is just as wrong to add to the text as it is to omit from the text?

    Do you ignore and avoid the fact that many of the over 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts which KJV-only advocates claim as support do not have Acts 8:37 in their text?

    Would you attack and accuse many of the Greek NT manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus is supposedly based? Are you suggesting that all the Greek NT manuscripts that do not have Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7, or any other verse should not be claimed as support for other Textus Receptus readings?

    Erasmus himself indicated that he added the verse to his Greek NT text from the margin of one Greek manuscript. Jan Krans asserted: “In the case of Acts Erasmus initially supposed that the Greek manuscripts he consulted suffered from omissions, while later, having consulted more sources, he came to doubt the Vulgate additions (Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 14:7; 23:25; 24:6-7)” (Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, p. 61, footnote 36).

    After including Acts 8:37 in his list of Latin Vulgate readings followed by Erasmus, KJV defender Edward F. Hills maintained that “in his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading [Acts 8:37] from the margin of [manuscript] 4ap” (KJV Defended, pp. 200-201).
     
    #17 Logos1560, Oct 2, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2020
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To accuse the NKJV of copying the Jehovah Witnesses' Version as some KJV-only advocates do when the NKJV translators did not copy it or even consult it would be slanderous. To accuse the NKJV translators of taking away the Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ is ridiculous. The Greek word pais in these verses was used for both child or servant with the meaning determined by the context. Greek has a different word for "son"--huios. The KJV itself translated this Greek word pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times.

    James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25). This first-hand statement from a NKJV translator refutes Riplinger’s false accusation that the reason for the NKJV’s rendering was a lexicon. Does love for the KJV justify such false and seemingly malicious attacks on other translations?

    This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18? Would a consistent application of inconsistent, unjust KJV-only reasoning attack the KJV for referring to the Messiah as a servant in the book of Isaiah?

    The Companion Bible [KJV] has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27: "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585). The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27: "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25." Concerning Acts 3:13, A. T. Robertson noted: "This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1; 52:13 about the Messiah except the name 'Jesus' which Peter adds" (Word Pictures, III, p. 43). Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote: "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1). The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60). Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted: "Unless the word should rather be rendered servant, as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).

    It is incredible that KJV-only advocates cannot see their use of double standards or unjust divers measures.
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you disobey Scripture as your unproven and false accusation would bear false witness?
     
  20. George Antonios

    George Antonios Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    240
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you would listed carefully to the things that were said, all your points were already addressed.
    This thread is about the video and its framework.
    You wish to debate manuscript evidence, open a thread.
    Also there are many assumptions in your argument that I reject.
    At the end of the day, it's all obfuscation.
    You're giving us a watered-down Bible.
    That's the end point, and that's all that matters.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...