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 real reason I am KJVO

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by stilllearning, Dec 25, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi Deacon

    Sorry to hear about your grandson. Hope he gets to feeling better.

    And I am also sorry for my last response to you. Later I realized that it, in itself, was kind of sarcastic.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Your right, I do not want to be deceived.
    --------------------------------------------------
    This IS NOT exactly what I have been saying:

    The point that I have been making is, that the MV’s have gotten away from the “texts” that were being used by Bible translators, back in the 1600's.

    You might ask, “what was so special about these texts”? (That is a good question.)
    Today scholars use questionable manuscripts, that should not be used.
    --------------------------------------------------
    This is ridicules. You quoted me saying.......
    "Some prefer these MV’s because they are easier to read; One stated, that he reads them, because he wants all the help that he can get, in understanding what God is saying in his word."

    Try putting this paragraph in context.
    --------------------------------------------------
    No, I did not single them out at all. What I have been CLEARLY saying, is that I do not trust ANYONE, to correct my Bible!
    --------------------------------------------------
    This is almost correct. I trust the texts, that were trusted back then.
    And the reason I do, is because the Bible that these texts created, truly changes people’s lives.
    --------------------------------------------------
    No. I am not afraid. As you can CLEARLY see, I said.......
    “I may sound paranoid, but from what I read in the New Testament, there is a lot to be paranoid about.”
    --------------------------------------------------
    This is true.
    --------------------------------------------------


    Once again, please forgive me, for my sarcasm last time.
     
  2. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi 4His_glory

    You can get these answers from my previous posts, but here they are again.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Because it is a product of a “broken system”.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Back in the late 1800's
    A few “respected scholars”, broke away from established parameters, and literally got away from God’s Word.
    --------------------------------------------------
    I guess so.
    --------------------------------------------------
    If it follows the flawed conclusions of BB Warfield, et.al, than it is modern scholarship.
     
  3. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Welcome to the Baptist Board! :wavey:

    Heard a lot about you over the years. And I really would like to personally meet you, sometime.

    Hey, BTW, Didn't I just hear something about you having a birthday, recently?

    Let's see - I think you were born in 1483, so that means you are what - 525, now? 525?? :eek:

    WOW! That's getting to be REALLY ol...! :laugh:

    Ed
     
    #103 EdSutton, Dec 27, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2008
  4. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi Crabtownboy

    You quoted someone saying........
    I have heard this before and this person’s attempt to rewrite history.

    The statement that.......
    “James the 1st, decided to commission his own translation of the Bible”

    Is totally false.
    We need to be careful, and check the actual history of the KJV, before posting stuff like this.
    --------------------------------------------------
    This kind of mis-information, is the favorite took of those who hate the KJV.
     
  5. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello again Keith M

    You said.......
    As I have said; Simply get an English dictionary, and look up the old means of the words.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said........
    I have already explained this statement to you, several times.
    --------------------------------------------------
    From this point, you last post got more and more ridiculous.

    Until you final point.
    --------------------------------------------------
    You quoted me........
    “So now we see. Man is having to keep God’s Word “alive and fresh”.
    Those who want their ears tickled, will also tell their pastor, “give us something fresh”.

    Then you said.......
    If I am confused about something, than please share it with me.

    And thanks for your prayes.
     
  6. 4His_glory

    4His_glory New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your replies SL you said:
    So why was the system not broken in 1611? Who determines when the system broke? When did it break?

    So then all the scholars who were involved in textual and translational work before the 1800s were orthodox? And here all this time I believed the historical record that someone like Erasmus was a Roman Catholic humanist.

    OK. So using your logic because it was modern it must be wrong. I guess we can´t trust the KJV.

    Says who? Sounds more like a matter of opinion than anything else.
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How is that statement "totally false"?

    I have read several books about the KJV translators and several histories of the KJV and the earlier English Bibles, and I do not see the basis for your claim that the statement is "totally false."

    It is usually claimed that John Rainolds first suggested the idea of the making of a new translation at the Hampton Court Conference. The statement above did not claim that King James first suggested the idea of making of a new translation. After Rainolds suggested it, it is then reported that King James agreed with and approved the making of a new translation. Therefore, it would not seem to be "totally false" to say that King James commissioned the making of a new translation.

    King James' objections to or complaints about the marginal notes of the popular Geneva Bible seem to have been the main reason for his agreeing to the idea of the making of a new translation.

    McGrath observed: "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141). In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out: "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i). Gustavus Paine also noted: "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne. Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes!" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10). Vance maintained that “it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that bothered the king--it was the notes” (King James, His Bible, p. 21).

    Pastor Mincy affirmed: "King James saw in this new translation an opportunity to get rid of the influence of the Puritan Bible, the Geneva" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 131). Allen maintained that King James "hoped to supplant the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the Puritan translation whose accuracy and readability made it a vast favorite with the people" (Coming of King James Gospels, p. 3). KJV-only advocate Robert Sargent acknowledged that King James "despised the Geneva Bible" (English Bible, p. 206). In his Dictionary of the Bible, John Brown (1722-1787) maintained that “King James heartily hated the Geneva translation” (p. 97). Bradstreet confirmed that James “hated the Geneva Bible” (KJV in History, p. 87). KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3). McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147).
     
  8. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Martin Luther

    Nice to hear from you.

    You said.......
    Truth comes from God’s Word, and yes I agree, that people are saved by other versions.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said.......
    I must disagree with you here. God has promised to preserve His Word for us.
    I believe that it is Satan’s lie, that we should not expect our Bibles to be perfect.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said.........
    He you are partly right here.
    The Holy Spirit gave us the Bible, and we are to use the Bible, to make sure, that the voice that we are hearing, is actually the Holy Spirit’s voice.

    Some people may say, “The Holy Spirit told me to have more than one wife”.
    The only way, that we can know for sure, that this person is wrong, is by checking it out in our Bible.
    This is why, Satan hates it, when people trust their Bible’s to be 100% correct.
    --------------------------------------------------
    You also said.........
    I think that I know what you are saying, and if I do, than I agree with you.

    But this doesn’t mean, that we should use “a corrupt text”, simply because it my be mostly true.
     
  9. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    However, the "corrupt text" is an opinion - not fact. I'm sorry but my ESV is God's Word, no question. I can read it and know that all I learn about my Lord God is true 100%. My ESV says the same as your KJV and the same as someone else's NIV, NASB, YLT, or whatever. God is God and He has preserved His Word to us. Praise Him!!
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The common, average, one-volume edition of an English dictionary today does not list all the words used in the 1611 KJV. Even for those words that it does include, it does not always give the definition or meaning that matches the way the word was actually used by the KJV translators.
     
  11. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    And that is why you find no significant doctrinal differences between the KJV and modern faithful translations.
     
  12. Martin Luther

    Martin Luther New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0

    Show me the verse.
     
  13. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi annsni

    You asked........
    No, I have never said that. And that is not what I meant, when I said........
    (And if you were smart, you would join me.)
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said......
    You make an interesting point. This point, reminds me of the other opinions people have about John 1:1, and how some people can translate it to say “a God”.

    I am not quite sure, what God was trying to do, with things like this, but I am still searching.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said......
    As for the “heritage” of this verse. You have your opinion, and I have mine.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you quoted me........
    These were not my words: This was my response to someone elses words.
     
  14. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Seriously - some words have changed meaning SO much from the 1600s.
     
  15. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi rbell

    I will be glad to set this straight.......

    If you will look closely, Keith M said...........
    And I responded......
    --------------------------------------------------
    This was the context of this statement.
     
  16. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have always found it disturbing how KJVO folk will lump MV's, and their readers, in with Jehovah's Witnesses and their heretical NWT. That is a patently unfair comparison. Let's be intellectually honest and pull that one off the table.
     
  17. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    But if we don't join you, we're not smart. That's what that says.

    "A God" is not in the text - it is "God".

    Yep - but did you know that it's not in any of the MSS?? Not one of the Greek manuscripts? That's enough evidence for me.
     
  18. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well; I see I have to do this again.

    First of all I am sure there are some modern scholars, who are legitimate. But just from my personal observation, many more are not. Since modern Bible texts are the work of groups of many, stands to reason some of the not so good get in there. And effect their influence.

    Then there is the KJV, the language is not all that difficult. But a lot of people have been told it is, so they believe it.

    Really I don't care what version you use, use what you want. I am not telling you what version to use, I am just stating reasons for the one I use, and why.

    Most people have been conditioned from Tv advertising as to; what to buy, what to wear, what to listen to, what you need to see, is there any wonder sensible discrimination like Elvis, has left the building.

    But put the shoe on the other foot, you bite and scratch at the KJV users. But why is this, don't you feel people are free to use the version they want?. Who slings the most mud, the KJVO's or the MV users. Its probably an even heat.

    I don't think your MV's are going to send you to Hell, but your lifestyle might?.

    But like the so called reformation, which started the many different denominations we have today, and the confusion they present. So do dozens of Bible translations. Now its pretty obvious to me, who had their hand in the reformation, to create so much confusion. And I think he just might have a hand, in this modern Bible reformation also.

    Not only do we have a bunch of different MV's, but each scholar/pastor - Bible teacher; has a version of their own. All with footnotes, the problem with this is most of the time, They do not agree on things. Confusion, on confusion add nauseam.

    It will end when the Lord returns, and says YOU were all wrong, aren't you very happy, I have grace for you. In the mean time we just continue :tonofbricks: each other.
     
  19. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't believe that King Ahaz (and any others present at the time) understood the true prophet Isaiah's words to mean that an Israelite female would bear a child without the natural participation of a human male. The consequence of insisting that Isaiah must have meant "virgin" (in the sense of no sexual relations) in his prophecy is to demand that a supernatural conception already took place hundreds of years before Jesus (or to deny that Isaiah was speaking contemporarily at all). Have you considered this?

    I know of no historical record that indicates the Jews ever believed that such a miraculous pregnancy took place then (or ever in their history); nor does it seem from the NT accounts that they were even anticipating such a Messianic 'virgin birth' during the days of Christ (see John 6:42, John 7:42, and John 8:41).

    I accept that Matthew is correct when he appeals to Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy. However, it is only looking back under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that he was able to show us. I do not think our translations should anachronistically reflect the progressive revelation from God. I think that ordinary interpretation and proper translation ought not be 'doctrinally' motivated.
     
  20. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    So you are a greater authority than the scholars of today? You know more than them or enough to say that they don't know what they're talking about?

    This is untrue. The language is extremely difficult. We have a group of students who are here in the States from China. They're graduate students and they cannot understand the KJV but the NIV was much easier for them to understand. What do you say to them? It's tough enough to learn the "lingo" of Christianity - no less 1600s Christianity.

    That would be fine if that's what you were really doing. However, undermining the basis of every other version than the KJV, you are attacking the other versions AND telling us that what we use as our Bibles really aren't valid.

    Hate to tell you but I don't choose my Bible from TV advertising. I choose by doing my own research and looking at the text myself. I now use the ESV and many men that I highly respect in the Christian world also use it. I'm quite comfortable with my choice. Is it right for everyone? Probably not but it's right for me.

    I have not seen one attack of the KJV anywhere near like the attacks on the modern versions. It's not even close. No one says that those who use the KJV are wrong to use it. No one says that the textual basis is wrong (even though it was extremely limited at the time of the translation). What we are saying is that the idea that the KJV is the ONLY valid version of God's Word is wrong. That's not attacking the KJV at all - in fact I'm sure 99% of us highly respect and use the KJV as God's Word. But we are attacking the false beliefs of KJVOlyism.

    Because we have a wrong lifestyle due to our MVs? I know many men who are KJVO who will be going to hell based on their lifestyle. Bible versions have nothing to do with it.

    I've never been confused by the different Bible versions nor has anyone I know. Maybe that's the Spirit in us? Maybe because there's no difference in the different versions when it comes to doctrine or teachings?

    I know who has His hand in the Bible controversy and it's not in influencing the different versions. It's in making people worship a translation rather than the God who wrote it.

    Yeah - difference in opinions on theology is nothing new - it's even spoken of in Scripture. I think most people know that the footnotes and such are not inspired. They're NOTES - just as if I took notes in a class. Mine are not going to match my classmates but that doesn't mean my professor didn't say what he said. That would just be stupid.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...