The real reason I am KJVO

[Martin]

For me, being KJVO, has to do with God’s warnings in Scripture: For example......Ephesians 4:14...The fact is, that there are people out there, that are cunning and crafty, and are going about to try to deceive us. Now logic dictates, that if these wicked people, wanted to deceive as many Christians as possible, the place that they would start, would be with our Bible.

==If we are talking about the average pew warmer that is something to be concerned about. However you must realize that there are thousands, if not millions, of good Christian folks out there who have taken Greek/Hebrew and who have old copies of the texts (etc). So if a modern translation came out that tried to make some major, unjustified change it would be caught and, thanks to the internet, the noise would be loud. So I don't think that is a really big worry for me.

I have been reading the responses in some of the other threads here, and have read how most people here, read every MV that they can get their hands on.

==Some people read so many translations I really don't know how they keep from being confused. I know I would be . Personally I stick with the NASB (#1) and the NKJV (#2). I go with the NASB because of its accurate translation of the text. This makes it a bit wooden but I like the less fancy wording. I like the NKJV for much the same reason, though its wording is a bit more cleaned up.

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.

==Ease of reading is important in any book. In fact, if I recall my 17th century Bible history correctly, that was one purpose behind the KJV translation. I'm not sure why some KJVO folks oppose having a translation that reads in the modern tongue. That seems to violate the principle behind many of the early english and german translationing work by men such as Luther.

Well the question is, “if” God’s Word is being changed in these MV’s, what does it matter if it is “easer to read” or if “it shows you something you haven’t seen before”.

==I have seen no solid evidence to suggest that any of the mainstream "modern translations" are changing the Bible. Of course there are going to be differences from translation to translation but none of those are major changes. Also many of the changes reflect textual issues and not doctrinal issues. That is, most of the changes reflect grammar not substance. Are there some really bad translations out there today? You bet. However the major translations are all fine and the differences between them are minimal. Many KJVO teachers try to compare the NIV to the KJV (etc) and everytime the NIV differs from the KJV they accuse the NIV of changing the Word of God. The problem with that type of argument, of course, is that they are comparing two translations. We have to go back to the original Greek/Hebrew. That means we have to take the time to engage in textual studies (etc) and learning the languages. In my experience, many KJVO folks are not willing to do that. KJVO for them is a defense of spiritual and academic laziness.

Sure, there are a lot of people here, that will assure me, that these changes are for the better; And that with every change, we are getting closer to the “Bible”, that God wants us to have. But what if these people are wrong? What if those cunning and crafty deceivers, have just sold them a bill of goods? What if all these MV’s are poisoned milk and dog food?

==Well then we are all in trouble because you have no factual reason to believe the group of men brought together by King James I of England in the 17th century were faithful to their task. You assume they were, you give them the benefit of the doubt, and I join you in that. Many of the modern translators (editors, etc) are good men of God. I am familiar with their work outside of their text work. They would not try to change something. If a change is made it is made because they, having studied the language carefully, have made a decision that the best way to translate that particular greek/hebrew term is.....

Well, what if you were shown the wrong documents? Or what if “you” have already been deceived?

==We are seeing the same documents used by the KJV translators. So if these documents are wrong, so is the KJV.

I know, that I may sound paranoid, but from what I read in the New Testament, there is a lot to be paranoid about.

==Do you sound paranoid? Maybe a little, but you certainly sound like someone who has not considered all the problems with his own position.

I consider it an advantage, having a Bible, that has not been changed, for so long a time.

==I'm not sure how accurate that statement is.

Sure, it has a lot of old words, that I have to explain, when I am teaching others.

==Then it is out of date and needs updating. Constantly having to explain words takes away from your lesson and distracts your listeners. Beyond that if you have to constantly explain words, are you not daily doing the same type of thing modern translators are doing?

Can you give me Biblical proof that the KJV is the best translation? If not, what Biblical reason do you have to believe it is?

 

[ray Marshall]

You can look up the 1828 online and get definitions that way too. I'm too lazy to get up and get our hard copy but here's what the Webster says from online:

OK - there's no entry. Here's the closest that I could find:

humanity

HUMAN'ITY, n. [L. humanitas.]

1. The peculiar nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings. Thus Christ, by his incarnation, was invested

with humanity.

2. Mankind collectively; the human race.

If he is able to untie those knots,he is able to teach all humanity.

It is a debt we owe to humanity.

3. The kind feelings, dispositions and sympathies of man,by which he is distinguished from the lower orders of animals; kindness; benevolence; especially, a disposition to relieve persons in distress, and to treat with tenderness those who are helpless and defenseless; opposed to cruelty.

4. A disposition to treat the lower orders of animals with tenderness, or at least to give them no unnecessary pain.

5. The exercise of kindness; acts of tenderness.

6. Philology; grammatical studies.

Humanities, in the plural, signifies grammar, rhetoric and poetry; for teaching which there are professors in the universities of Scotland.

Well I had to go out to the barn storage building and find this old dictionary :
American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster, L.L.d.
By Chancey A. Goodrich, D.D.
and Noah Porter, D.D. L.L.D.
Published for the trade
1909
This dictionary must be about 5" thick.
The dictionary meaning for Humanitarian only has one meaning.
HUMANITARIAN: (Lat. humanitas,, humanus: Fr. humanitaire) One who denies the divinity of CHRIST, and believes him to be a mere man.
I just wanted to print what a humanitarian meant at the 1909 dictionary. This dictionary must be 5" thick and is now in bad condition.
it is a Noah Webster dictionary.

 

[ray Marshall]

You can look up the 1828 online and get definitions that way too. I'm too lazy to get up and get our hard copy but here's what the Webster says from online:

OK - there's no entry. Here's the closest that I could find:

humanity

HUMAN'ITY, n. [L. humanitas.]

1. The peculiar nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings. Thus Christ, by his incarnation, was invested

with humanity.

2. Mankind collectively; the human race.

If he is able to untie those knots,he is able to teach all humanity.

It is a debt we owe to humanity.

3. The kind feelings, dispositions and sympathies of man,by which he is distinguished from the lower orders of animals; kindness; benevolence; especially, a disposition to relieve persons in distress, and to treat with tenderness those who are helpless and defenseless; opposed to cruelty.

4. A disposition to treat the lower orders of animals with tenderness, or at least to give them no unnecessary pain.

5. The exercise of kindness; acts of tenderness.

6. Philology; grammatical studies.

Humanities, in the plural, signifies grammar, rhetoric and poetry; for teaching which there are professors in the universities of Scotland.

Well I had to go out to the barn storage building and find this old dictionary :
American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster, L.L.d.
By Chancey A. Goodrich, D.D.
and Noah Porter, D.D. L.L.D.
Published for the trade
1909
This dictionary must be about 5" thick.
The dictionary meaning for Humanitarian only has one meaning.
HUMANITARIAN: (Lat. humanitas,, humanus: Fr. humanitaire) One who denies the divinity of CHRIST, and believes him to be a mere man.
I just wanted to print what a humanitarian meant in the 1909 dictionary. This dictionary must be 5" thick and is now in bad condition.
it is a Noah Webster dictionary.

 

[Rippon]

==Then it is out of date and needs updating. Constantly having to explain words takes away from your lesson and distracts your listeners. Beyond that if you have to constantly explain words, are you not daily doing the same type of thing modern translators are doing?

That's a big problem -- translating translations.You have to go through multiple hoops when it comes to the KJV (even the ESV to a lesser degree).And it's not a matter of finding meaning to ancient words (in 180 year old dictionaries) -- many phrases and sentences are obscure.That's the case even when going through what should be straight-forward narratives like the book of Acts.

Can you give me Biblical proof that the KJV is the best translation? If not, what Biblical reason do you have to believe it is?

The KJV has "warts, freckles and scars" as Miles Smith said in his preface to the 1611 KJV.All translations are subject to various imperfections.

I sometimes wish the KJV team would come back via a time machine and give these KJVO folks a good shaking.

 

[EdSutton]

You know, it gets REALLY old feeling like you're being ridiculed everytime you post something on here. I told myself I wasn't going to post anymore, found myself doing it, and now I see I need to get out of this "you're a newbie, and we stick up for our REGULAR posters no matter what they say" forum. I'll continue to read the threads because frankly the bias and un-Christlike attacks are very interesting, but you've "driven" me away with your "warm welcome".:tear: I'm sure this will probably get deleted because it's off topic, but I needed to say it, so I apologize. God bless.......and good bye................please try not to be so "critical" of new posters, or you'll find yourselves arguing with each other because you'll be the only ones here.

Every single poster who has posted on this thread was a 'newbie" at some time or another with the possible exception of robycop3 who does date back to the first year the BB went on-line, if I am not mistaken.

Second, why do you consider it ridicule for C4K to ask how these four relatively "main line" modern versions of the last 50 years rendered Isa. 7:14? It is a legitimate observation and question.

BTW, Keith M was responding to a blanket statement (and I consider it to be both an incorrect one and a disparaging one, FTR) made by stilllearning, about the rendering of Isa. 7:14, being that I have not found it to be correct, and I did look for a while for any version that rendered Isa. 7:14 as "young maiden", which I did not find. There may be one or more that render it, in this manner, but I have checked at least 30 versions, myself, including some in 'hard copy', the rest on-line, and not found one.

[Incidentally, I here recommend against anyone trying to read The Jerusalem Bible on-line (not the same as The New Jerusalem Bible revision, BTW), as I had to twice "get away" and close my internet search engine, from trying to do so, because a 'spyware' "anti- spyware" sales window was opening, and would not let me get away from it, regardless of how I tried. Even when I 'closed' it, it still opened to the site. Am I 'afraid' of the Jerusalem Bible? Hardly. Am I 'afraid' of getting even more problems deep into my computer than we already have? You bet! I may not always be able to avoid a punch thrown at me, but I sure don't have to "lead with my chin" and "lean into it"!]

I will "stick up" for something that is factual, no matter who says it, nor how long they've been around. In fact, today, I believe for the first time, I actually looked at every poster to see how long they had been here (and saw the number of posts posted, because the two were together on the screen) just in order to see if any posters on this thread dated back to the earliest days of the BB coming on line, in 2000. Only robycop3 goes back to 2000, on this thread.

I will not defend something said, just because one poster has been here longer than another. If you think that is incorrect, show me an example of where I have said otherwise. I believe the shortest time any poster on this thread has been around is 6 mos. Since we do deal in "dog years" here (Posts # 41, 43, 52 ), that is not exactly being a "newbie", frankly, at least IMO. And at 1 yr. 9 mo., a 'newbie" definitely would be getting really "long in the tooth."

The one thing that I do find strange is that for whatever reason, for some reason most every post I have seen of yours (and I have read them all) that touches on the subject seems to land you with the "KJVO crowd" whatever that means, even when some assumptions are posted as facts or something is posted that is factually inaccurate by some KJV advocate. Why is that??

I choose to oppose misinformation, regardless of who posts it, from whatever position it comes from.

And BTW, I just checked the title page of my Bible again. My Bible still has King James in the "sub-title" after the title of Holy Bible, just as it did both two weeks, and a month ago, the last two times I checked it, just to make sure.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Good Idea!!

I just had an idea.

(Alright!! Pipe down up there in the "Peanut Gallery" now!) :laugh:

It is a whimsical question.

Why do I seem to find those who seem to think I should use the Webster dictionary, but not the Webster Bible?

It looks to me like I oughtta' be able to just use the Webster Bible.

At least, that way I don't have to carry around two books, right??

Ed

 

[Rippon]

I just had an idea.

(Alright!! Pipe down up there in the "Peanut Gallery" now!) :laugh:

It is a whimsical question.

Why do I seem to find those who seem to think I should use the Webster dictionary, but not the Webster Bible?

It looks to me like I oughtta' be able to just use the Webster Bible.

At least, that way I don't have to carry around two books, right??

Ed

That's a good idea.Even Salamander respects Noah Webster as a fine scholar.So he should have no problem with the Webster Bible.It sure beats lugging around two volumes.

 

[Jim1999]

quote: I actually looked at every poster to see how long they had been here (and saw the number of posts posted, because the two were together on the screen) just in order to see if any posters on this thread dated back to the earliest days of the BB coming on line, in 2000. Only robycop3 goes back to 2000, on this thread.
----------------------------------------

Ed, just as a point of interest. Don't go by the joining date under each name. I actually joined near the very beginning of the BB. There was, however, a computer breakdown at one point...I forget the date...and many of us lost the original join date an had to re-sign up and this gave us a later date. Dr. Bob, if he peeks in here, might remember when that happened.

Cheers,

Jim

PS. My name 1999 lines up when I first came online. I joined the BB when we only had about 100 or so members.

 

[Rippon]

My name 1999 lines up when I first came online. I joined the BB when we only had about 100 or so members.

Now,nearly 8 years later, we have only 417 active members.And of those a fraction actually post in a 30 day period of time.

 

[Jim1999]

Rippon, There was a huge cleansing a few yeas back when quite a few theologically liberal members were disrupting the system and they were ejected \enmass.......Also quite a few Roman Catholics at the same time.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rippon]

Rippon, There was a huge cleansing a few yeas back when quite a few theologically liberal members were disrupting the system and they were ejected \enmass.......Also quite a few Roman Catholics at the same time.

Cheers,

Jim

We need a purge now and then.

 

[Jim1999]

different owner!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[ray Marshall]

That's a big problem -- translating translations.You have to go through multiple hoops when it comes to the KJV (even the ESV to a lesser degree).And it's not a matter of finding meaning to ancient words (in 180 year old dictionaries) -- many phrases and sentences are obscure.That's the case even when going through what should be straight-forward narratives like the book of Acts.



The KJV has "warts, freckles and scars" as Miles Smith said in his preface to the 1611 KJV.All translations are subject to various imperfections.

I sometimes wish the KJV team would come back via a time machine and give these KJVO folks a good shaking.

What you are saying is: a new Bible for the same old sin. Ain't that smart!!

 

[Deacon]

So I was picking through this thread and tried to list the reasons for being KJVO

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Reason why I am KJVO

Stilllearning

1. I don’t want to be deceived.
2. Other versions change God’s words when compared to the KJV.
3. The KJV is harder to understand (so it’s got to be good for you).
4. I don’t trust those people that say other versions are better.
5. I trust that the translators of the KJV picked the corrects texts.
6. I’m afraid (“paranoid”) to change versions.
7. I like a version that hasn’t changed for a long time.

Goldie

1. Why switch? What other version is perfect?
2. The writers of the bible never used the phrases "the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?
3. The Holy Spirit hasn’t taught us that the KJV isn’t infallible.
4. If man is de-evolving we shouldn’t be getting smarter (therefore since the KJV is older, it’s better).
5. There’s one God, there’s one church, there should be only one Bible.
6. Since the original manuscripts of the Bible are lost you can’t claim a perfect text unless you say God preserved them in the KJV.
7. There are many Greeks texts, so claiming you use “the Greek text” is deceitful.
8. God saved millions through the use of KJV until 1881 when the first new version (the RV) was introduced; since then very few are saved.

Samuel Owens

1. Acts 12:4 in the KJV is correct.
2. The inclusion of words in the MV's change the entire meaning of certain verses.
3. In the past years the confusion in doctrines and general understanding is due to version issues.
4. Anyone with spiritual discernment knows that using many different versions is not wise.

Are there any other reasons to be KJVO?

Rob

 

[ray Marshall]

That's a big problem -- translating translations.You have to go through multiple hoops when it comes to the KJV (even the ESV to a lesser degree).And it's not a matter of finding meaning to ancient words (in 180 year old dictionaries) -- many phrases and sentences are obscure.That's the case even when going through what should be straight-forward narratives like the book of Acts.



The KJV has "warts, freckles and scars" as Miles Smith said in his preface to the 1611 KJV.All translations are subject to various imperfections.

I sometimes wish the KJV team would come back via a time machine and give these KJVO folks a good shaking.

Not only a brand old Bible, but also a brand new look at the same old SIN, Huh!!
sorta "nuts" to me.

 

[robycop3]

Samuel Owen:Well I am not intending to add to the argument; But. I have mentioned it before, Acts 12:4 in the KJV is correct; from King Herods point of view. I wont bother to explain it, but will let you find out as I did.

No, it's NOT correct; as I said earlier this booboo has been discussed ad nauseam here, but lemme just say that Easter did NOT exist when Luke wrote Acts, herod did NOT worship "Ishtar", which in herod's/ Luke's time was known as "Aphrodite" in Greek, "Venus" in Latin. And Luke used the word for PASSOVER in his writings.

Also I have an 18 page document, where it shows how the inclusion of words in the MV's, change the entire meaning of certian verses.

We could write one of equal length for the KJV if it was necessary.

I have most of the MV's also, and it took me several years to convince myself that they were incorrect. So I really no longer use them, except for comparison.

Anything less than becoming an expert in written Hebrew & Koine Greek would be convincing you incorrectly, & I doubt if too many such experts are really thus convinced. . Just saying"It aint the KJV" won't cut it.

I have been around on several Christian boards for years, and have never seen the confusion in doctrines, and general understanding as it is today. There must be a reason, and I'll give you three guesses where it comes from.

The KJVO doctrine
The KJVO doctrine
The KJVO doctrine

When you consult several doctors, you will find they will have a different opinion on how to treat you. If you follow them all, you will never get better, but probably will DIE
Now it doesn't matter to me what version you choose, read what you want. But I would use just a tad of spiritual discernment if I were you, that is - if indeed you have any.

Part of spiritual discernment is not believing any doctrine of worship not written in Scripture. And there's not ONE QUARK of Scripture supporting the KJVO doctrine, not even in the KJV itself. But its MAN-MADE ORIGIN is easy to trace.

There's only ONE valid reason to be KJVO-PERSONAL PREFERENCE. None other "holds any watwer".

 

[EdSutton]

Should be an embarassing number

Now,nearly 8 years later, we have only 417 active members.And of those a fraction actually post in a 30 day period of time.

Rippon, There was a huge cleansing a few yeas back when quite a few theologically liberal members were disrupting the system and they were ejected \enmass.......Also quite a few Roman Catholics at the same time.

Cheers,

Jim

How about this?

Members: 9,559,

Let's see - even after the "cleansing", there are still over 9500 "on the roll", though. That makes it fewer than 5% who are active members.

Hmmm - unfortunately that 5% figure sounds about right for Baptists.

No wonder the Holy Spirit is indeed :tear:

Ed

 

[Samuel Owen]

Again for about the fourth time, I am not KJVO. Show me another Bible that is translated from the received text, and I will accept it. But unfortunately the MV's are not, but from known corrupt text.

Do not say the NKJV, it also follows the Alexandrian text in a lot of passages. Furthermore I do not trust Modern Textual Criticism. Just because you are smart, don't mean you are right, or tell the truth.

 

[annsni]

Again for about the fourth time, I am not KJVO. Show me another Bible that is translated from the received text, and I will accept it. But unfortunately the MV's are not, but from known corrupt text.

Do not say the NKJV, it also follows the Alexandrian text in a lot of passages. Furthermore I do not trust Modern Textual Criticism. Just because you are smart, don't mean you are right, or tell the truth.

This is where we disagree. The texts that have been discovered and studied and provedsince 1611 have not been corrupted. Yes, not all are perfect - nor were the texts that the TR is based on.

You do not trust ANY of the modern textual criticism? So there is no godly man around anymore who can study the texts that God has allowed to be discovered and find the truth? EVERY text that has been found since 1611 is wrong? That is sad that God cannot help us to grow and prove what we have in our hands is truly the Word of God. The differences between the texts are honestly quite small and what differences there are make no difference in any doctrine whatsoever. If there was a project to corrupt God's Word, it failed miserably because my ESV says the same thing as your KJV and my friends NIV. God's Word is here and teaches, sharpens and challenges men and women in any of the valid versions.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Do you not know all the modern versions are translated from the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, horribly corrupted. Neither agrees with the other, and have been marked through in hundreds of places. This is also, where the Greek new testament came from.

Form the mouth of most of the modern scholars I have listened to, you would have to prove them to be Godly men to me. Maybe there are some, but a very few, I would suggest. Most don't even know what they believe in, other than their own opinions.