The real reason I am KJVO

[Jim1999]

IF you can live up to the teaching in any of the modern versions you are doing well.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Samuel Owen]

That I will agree on, James also said if you can live up to the Royal Law, you do well also.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Keith M

You said......

“As for your question about God confusing with multiple Bible translations, that's a ridiculous thought. God has preserved His word in various Bible translations in order to avoid confusion. When a living language like English evolves over time and words are no longer used or their meanings change it's often necessary to update the words used to convey the message in order to avoid confusion. Using language that's over 400 years old often contributes to confusion.”

The Bible wasn’t written in English. It does not change.

And as I have already said, since I don’t trust modern Scholarship, than I am going to stick with the KJV. (And if you were smart, you would join me.)
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

“Using the various Bible translations found at http:www.studylight.org I didn't find a single Bible translation that uses "young maiden" in Is. 7:14. Several translations (GNT, RSV, NRSV, ERV, CJB, BBE and JPS) use "young woman." The Message uses "a girl who is presently a virgin." HNV uses "almah," the original Hebrew word. And the New Life Bible uses "young woman who has never had a man." Last time I checked a young woman who had never had a man was - guess what? - yep, a virgin! Still, in these various translations, the reference made in Mt. 1:23 refers to a virgin. The only exceptions are the NLB which duplicates the Isaiah terminology with "young woman who has never had a man" and the JPS which is a Jewish OT only.”

Sorry, my mistake. It wasn’t “young maiden” but “young woman”.

Isaiah 7:14 RSV
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.”

But my point of a subtle attack upon the Deity of Christ, still stands.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

“Before you make the accusation that words are removed check 1 John 5:8 to see if the words are actually removed or if they're still there even though they're not found in the previous verse. I believe that only when you take the verse out of context and the next verse isn't considered can it be said "words are removed." No doctrine is changed. Since we don't have the original autographs so that we can compare the texts, it's just as likely the later texts now called the textus receptus added words in v. 7 that duplicated words in v. 8. Scribal error is a definite possibility here since later texts have these words while earlier (and therefore more reliable) texts don't have the words.”

1 John 5:7 RSV
“And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.”

1 John 5:7 KJV
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Note: This is how this line reads, in the majority Byzantine manuscripts.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said......

“Actually, the word "one" in 1 John 5:7-8 is not a deity issue, but something else entirely. It means the three agree.”

It says, that the Father and the Word, are one.
This is a Deity issue!
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said......

“That's why God has graciously provided modern Bible translations for modern readers. The modern Bible translations keep the message alive and fresh just like when it was first written.”

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”.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again ktn4eg

You asked......

“If the pre-1611 English Bibles were at least as accurate as the AV 1611 (From which, as the "Translators to the Reader" preface states, most of their NT content was taken [and in many cases verbatim from William Tyndale's translation], and which [and I'm positive that you already knew] also included the 11-14 books of the Apocrytha] from other previous English translations), what, then, was so obviously wrong/missing from those earlier translations that necessitated a brand-new translation in 1611?”

Well, our assumption, that the other English Bibles of that time, “were at least as accurate as the AV”, was not shared by some of the people that lived back then.

The reason that they petitioned the King to get the ball rolling, for a new translation, was so that everyone could have an accurate Bible.
--------------------------------------------------
Now that was a little bit before my time, but from what I read, that was the reason.

I have seen a list of the particular verses, that people were complaining about, but I don’t have it with me.

 

[Samuel Owen]

There were several reasons for the KJV. Another being many did not agree with the notations of Calvin, and Knox in the Geneva Bible, and wanted a fresh Bible without notation. Of course most KJV's have notations from various sources today, but if you don't agree, it still does not change the translation.

As for clandestine verses in the MV's, I have probably a hundred. But I don't wish! to take the time to post them all. Just take my word for it, they are there.

Oh, I also read that the reason for the older english in the KJV, since the english language was already improved beyond that - was. That the translators found it actually was a closer match, to the Greek language of the manuscripts. How is that! for wanting to preserve accuracy.

Now if I was a KJVO person, and did not have several other modern translations. It would be understandable! that I might be prodigious, for that translation. But why do I defend it so hard, since I do own several others. NIV, NSAB, RSV, NKJV, Amplified Bible, Living Bible, Philips New Testament in Modern English, Wust Expanded Translation of the New Testament. And have read portions of the others on line. Good question is it not??.

Oh yes, I also have an interlinear with the Greek text that the NIV, and NASB were translated form, which compares both translations to the original. Want to know which is the closest of the two to their text?, the NASB. That has nothing to do with the text of the KJV, but I thought it was a good add in.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Martin

Nice to hear from you.

You quoted me........

“For me, being KJVO, has to do with God’s warnings in Scripture.”

Then you said.......

“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.”

You make an interesting point. And it this has worked.
I have read over the years, how some of the MV’s, have come out with some attempts to blatantly deny the Lord’s Deity, or change the gender of God, etc.

And God’s people made it clear, that it just wasn’t acceptable, and “it was quickly changed”, in the next edition.

Now this is your first argument: but it also proves my point:
(1) Should I be dependant upon all of you, to keep my Bible accurate.
(No I shouldn’t; So I will just stick with the one, that isn’t changed at all.)

(2) Sure enough, the blatant attacks, are caught; But want about the subtle ones.
(Sure, replacing Virgin in Isa.7:14, with young woman, may not be that bad, “as some say”
-But it is a subtle start.-

(3) And the whole idea, that a Bible publisher, can be pressured by anybody, to add or remove things from their Bible, is just not acceptable to me.
(Sure, it is there Bible, and they can do what they want with it.)
-But do we really want a Bible, that has been edited, to keep us happy?!?-

(4) And then there is the other side of your argument: What about “the pew warmers” or the baby Christians.
(Don’t we want them to be protected from these kinds of attacks?)
--------------------------------------------------
Next you quoted me........

“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”.

Then you asked......

“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.”

Well, I don’t think that I am lazy. But I have also ran into some KJVO folks that were nuts.
But I am not one of them.

As I read this paragraph, these words(that you wrote), kept sticking out at me.
“....many of the changes....”, “.....most of the changes.....”, “the differences between them are minimal.”

How many words of “substance”, are considered “minimal”?
And please, tell us where they are, so we can correct our Bibles.

You and I seem to be almost on the same page.
Why bother with having to be on the look out, for things of substance, that may lead us astray.
When we can simply use our KJV(if we speak English), and be safe.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

“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.....”

I have already stated, that my confidence is not in the translators of the KJV, but in the Holy Spirit.
When I say this, what I am talking about, is for all those hundreds of years, that God’s People, used the KJV exclusively, and were wonderfully blessed by it, and lacked for nothing.
And then, in the last hundred years or so, a few trouble makers, have convened us that some how, our forefathers were all wrong, and that they can give us a better Bible.
This is what it really comes down to. All those who are not KJVO(and I am not talking about those Hyper-KJVO folks), are saying that the MV’s are “Better Bibles”.

My simple question to that is, if these are indeed “better Bibles”, why has the state of the Church, been on a decline(down grade), since they first appeared?
Is this just a coincidence, or is there a connection?
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

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

Well, this is one of the reasons that I am here.
I am still learning!
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you quoted me........

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

Then you said.......

“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?”

This is a good point:
First, as I have said, I would love to have a Bible that was updated with modern English.
(But I do not trust modern scholars to simply update the words.)
While they are in there, they will be compelled to make other changes.

As for the changes the I make, as I am teaching:
I will have to stand before the Lord and give an account, if I change things, to prove a point, or not offend somebody, etc.
--------------------------------------------------
Also you asked.......

“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?”

2 Timothy 3:1-5
V.1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
V.2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
V.3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
V.4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
V.5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

These are the last days, and even the best men, can not be trusted.
This is why I start every message with these words, “Grab your Bibles and turn with me...”

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Deacon

You sarcastically said........

“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.”

I won’t speak for the others, but please don’t put words in my mouth.
You know, I think sarcasm, is only used, when you can’t defend your position.

(Now, I sure hope, that I have never mistakenly been sarcastic!)

 

[EdSutton]

Sometimes I wonder why I bother to correct false statements and show opinions for what they are - opinions!

I dunno' - Maybe the reason I keep :BangHead: is because it feels so much better when I stop.


{"SIGH!"}


(That was a large, heavy sigh, in case someone was wondering.)

Do you not know all the modern versions are translated from the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus,

This is 3/4 not true, to begin with, even if we went no further.

About 3/4 of the (Protestant) Bible is the OT, no part of which, in any version that I am aware of, is translated from the Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus. That is ONLY for starters.

Second, I am not aware of any version that is translated ONLY from those two codices, even. There may be a translation of one or both, ONLY from these two codices (How does that word "only" keep popping up, here??), but I am not aware of it. Please show me which one is, if there is one, as opposed to merely repeating someone else's mantra, here. (You did say (we) should "know" this, I believe.)

The YLT, KJII, LitV, KJIII, KJ21, TMB, AKJV, MKJV, NCPB, AV7, HSV, UKJV, and despite your claim to the contrary, elsewhere, the NKJV are NOT translated from the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, at all. Even as we speak, BB member Nigel is involved, along with others in translating the NT from "the Textus Receptus" for an example of a translation that is currently ongoing that does not employ any of Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. I believe you will find that he has absolutely NO use for anything other than the Textus Receptus, based on exchanges I have had with him, which is something that could not even be said for the KJV translators. (Check out I Jn. 5:12 in the 1611 KJV and compare it with the other English versions of the Bible, up to that time. You'll find that it agrees with exactly one English Bible, there - the D-R. It does not agree with the TR or any other preceding English Bibles in that verse. Fortunately, IMO, Drs. Paris and Blaney corrected that one in the 1760s.) [Incidentally, neither are (at least most of) the rest, such as the ESV, NIV, HCSB, NASB, and TNIV translated from them, rather these are translated (in the NT) from the N/A or UBS texts, which are not the same thing, as these two codices. (But what's a little inaccuracy among friends, I guess, when one has an agenda to advocate? I'm just sorry when one buys a "bill of goods".) Do Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have some input and influence into the UBS text? Yes, a fair amount, actually! They have much more on the two "T"s and W/H, however. However that is not the ONLY basis for the UBS-4, by any stretch. (There's that word, again.)]

horribly corrupted.

This is an opinion, ONLY, although it is a debatable one. I am not a particular fan of these Codices, by any remote stretch, but that is my opinion.

Neither agrees with the other,

True, but this is misleading. Neither do any other MSS (as opposed to texts) of any significant length all agree in every detail, either, although that does not seem to get much shrift, in these discussions.

and have been marked through in hundreds of places.

Other manuscripts have "emendings" as well. This emending is certainly not limited to ONLY these MSS, but is also found in "Byzantine" manuscripts, as well, as all others.

This is also, where the Greek new testament came from.

Have you considered getting some new material?? Just wonderin'. [Sigh!] Not true, at least in the sense you are intending. I have a copy of the Greek NT right in front of me that does not come from these codices. It's the Hodges/Farstad Greek MT. The Robinson/Pierpont NT does not come from these, either. I also have the UBS-2, which does have a lineage from these via the Tischendorf, Tregelles, W/H, Nestle, Aland/Black but that is still not the SOLE source for the texts. (Fooled you, didn't I?? You thought I was going to say that word. )

Have you also considered that every one of the TRs is also a "Greek new testament" as well? Collated from Manuscripts and/or Codices?

Form (sic) 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.

I will assume that you do, in fact, probably know something about one's "own opinions".

Now, it's :sleep: time about three hours late.

Ed

 

[Deacon]

My poor grandson got a cold, it's been a long night. sigh....

Hi Deacon

You sarcastically said........

No sacrcasm. I'm not picking on you.
and no, I didn't quote you or put words in your mouth.
I tried to find your reasons for being KJVO
This was from your opening post on the thread.

AS I SAID: "Correct me if I'm wrong."

1. I don’t want to be deceived.

stilllearning: "The fact is, that there are people out there, that are cunning and crafty, and are going about to try to deceive us."

2. Other versions change God’s words when compared to the KJV.

stilllearning: "Well the question is, “if” God’s Word is being changed in these MV’s, what does it matter..."

3. The KJV is harder to understand (so it’s got to be good for you).

stilllearning: "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."

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”.
[SNIP]
Sure, it has a lot of old words, that I have to explain, when I am teaching others.
But I would much rather put up with these old words, than to take the chance that

4. I don’t trust those people that say other versions are better.

stilllearning: 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?

5. I trust that the translators of the KJV picked the corrects texts.

stilllearning: 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?

You could say, “this could never happen”. Because we have learned to read Greek and Hebrew, and we have examined the documents ourselves, and have found them to be accurate.

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

6. I’m afraid (“paranoid”) to change versions.

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

7. I like a version that hasn’t changed for a long time.”

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

If these aren't your reasons, please make it clearer for me.
Please number your responses.

Rob

 

[4His_glory]

And as I have already said, since I don’t trust modern Scholarship, than I am going to stick with the KJV. (And if you were smart, you would join me.)

Just 4 questions for you:

Why do you not trust modern scholarship?
When did scholarship become modern?
Was not the scholarship in the 1600´s modern for that era?
How do we determine what is modern scholarship and what is not?

Looking forward to reading your responses.

 

[Crabtownboy]

When James I came to power in 1603, he found himself in the heart of religious conflict. England had been struggling to remain neutral while the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants escalated After meeting with a number of Church officials and Protestants, he decided to commission his own translation of the Bible. While he hoped his new translation would calm both sides, his main objective was to create a Bible that didn't contain the problematic marginal notes the Geneva Bible included - notes that undermined the King's authority. This translation was finally published in 1611, but didn't become the translation of choice until the Restoration of Charles II in 1660.

http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cach...mes+commission+bible&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=cz

I believe it interesting to note that, according to this writer, King James was motivated as much if not more by political reasons as by religious reasons for commissioning a new translation ... that being to elimininate the "notes that undermined the King's authority".

I have no idea if politics, that is keeping the king happy, played any parts in the choice of words by the KJ translators. Perhaps someone else has knowledge of this. I know many will have an opinion on this.

 

[Keith M]

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.

Samuel, if you honestly believe this then you've been sold a "bill of goods." I suggest you look into the 21st Century King James Version, the Third Millennium Bible and the Modern King James Version, then come back and tell us if you still believe your blanket (and quite errant) statement that "all the modern versions are translated from the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus" is true.

With your statement "This is also, where the Greek new testament came from" you erroneously lump every edition of the Greek New Testament into one category. If you honestly believe this and you're not just trying to confuse the issue and to stir up strife, then you believe the texts behind the KJV are also corrupt. Come back when you make up your mind if the TR texts are reliable or if they're corrupt.

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.

Oh, "modern scholars" like Peter Ruckman? From some of the thing he says and the names he calls people as well as God's word he demonstrates quite ably he isn't a godly man.

Strange you should mention those who believe their own opinions. That's one of the marks of the KJVOs we see on this board - you all believe your own opinions instead of the truth.

 

[Keith M]

The Bible wasn’t written in English. It does not change.

Well, you finally got something right - or at least partly right. The Bible wasn't written in English. And the message God gave us doesn't change - that's why the words need to change sometimes so the message is kept the same.

And as I have already said, since I don’t trust modern Scholarship, than I am going to stick with the KJV. (And if you were smart, you would join me.)

If you don't trust modern scholarship today then you shouldn't trust what was modern scholarship in the early part of the 17th century, either. You're being inconsistent, stilllearning. If you were smart you'd stop denigrating and denying God's word.

Sorry, my mistake. It wasn’t “young maiden” but “young woman”.

Actually your BIG mistake was falling for the errant and extra-biblical KJVO position.

But my point of a subtle attack upon the Deity of Christ, still stands.

If that's what you wish, then go right ahead. It's still WRONG. If you want to see a "bible" that attacks the deity of Christ, then look at the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But the mainstream modern Bible translations DO NOT subtly attack Christ's deity. In fact modern Bible translations proclaim Christ's deity rather than subtly attacking it.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 ASV

No denial of Christ's deity in the American Standard Version...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 NASB

...the New American Standard Bible...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 NIV

...the New International Version...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 CSB

...the Christian Standard Bible...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 ESV

...the English Standard Version...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 NKJV

...or the New King James Version. Stilllearning, your blanket accusation suddenly starts to fall apart in light of the truth, doesn't it?

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. John 1:1 NWT

Yep, there's that denial of Christ's deity in the New World Translation. But then you'd expect as much from Jehovah'w Witnesses, wouldn't you?

It says, that the Father and the Word, are one.
This is a Deity issue!

Only when you take the verse out of context and twist it into a deity issue does it become a deity issue. Otherwise we're told the three agree.

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”.

The message in God's word has never changed. Yet the meanings of some words have changed during the course of time. Therefore, it's necessary at times to change the printed words that convey the message. Through the action of the Holy Spirit working through the minds and hands of men, the message of God's word has been kept as alive and fresh for today's readers as it was for early readers. Your error here, stilllearning, is that you're confusing "fresh" with "different" or "changed." I regret you're so confused, stilllearning, but we're trying to help you learn the truth. You really need to stop denying the truth and embrace it instead. I'm praying for you, stilllearning.

 

[Martin Luther]

For me, being KJVO, has to do with God’s warnings in Scripture:
For example......

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.
(Like drinking poisoned milk.)
--------------------------------------------------
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 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.

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”.

It’s like feeding your cat, dog food.
Sure, dog food is a lot cheaper, but if we all fed our cats dog food, they would starve to death.
(Because dog food doesn’t have the protein in it, that Cats need.)
--------------------------------------------------
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?

You could say, “this could never happen”. Because we have learned to read Greek and Hebrew, and we have examined the documents ourselves, and have found them to be accurate.

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

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

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

Sure, it has a lot of old words, that I have to explain, when I am teaching others.
But I would much rather put up with these old words, than to take the chance that someone is pulling the wool over my eyes.


Merry Christmas

Where does truth come from or should I say who gives truth? Most will agree that people can and are being saved by many other versions. For me Young’s is ten times the bible the KJV is. We have NOT been promised a perfect bible.

It is only possible to receive truth from the Holy Spirit.

"John 16:13

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."




Not all men reading some perfect word will receive truth, however, all men reading a corrupt text lead of the Spirit will receive the full truth.

 

[Keith M]

As for clandestine verses in the MV's, I have probably a hundred. But I don't wish! to take the time to post them all. Just take my word for it, they are there.

Then humor us and post just a few examples if they actually exist. If you can't produce evidence to support your claim, then we must assume your claim isn't true.

Now if I was a KJVO person, and did not have several other modern translations. It would be understandable! that I might be prodigious, for that translation. But why do I defend it so hard, since I do own several others. NIV, NSAB, RSV, NKJV, Amplified Bible, Living Bible, Philips New Testament in Modern English, Wust Expanded Translation of the New Testament. And have read portions of the others on line. Good question is it not??.

Oh yes, I also have an interlinear with the Greek text that the NIV, and NASB were translated form, which compares both translations to the original. Want to know which is the closest of the two to their text?, the NASB. That has nothing to do with the text of the KJV, but I thought it was a good add in.

You're arguing semantics, Samuel. It doesn't matter how many Bible translations one owns and uses for comparison. Whether one is KJVO or not depends on whether one recognizes the modern translations as the word of God. If one denies the modern translations are the word of God just as much as the KJVs, then one IS KJVO. Are the modern translations just as much the word of God as the KJVs, Samuel?

 

[Deacon]

Welcome to the BaptistBoard Martin!

Rob

 

[Martin Luther]

Welcome to the BaptistBoard Martin!

Rob

Thank you!

 

[annsni]

Hi Keith M

You said......

The Bible wasn’t written in English. It does not change.

And as I have already said, since I don’t trust modern Scholarship, than I am going to stick with the KJV. (And if you were smart, you would join me.)

So in other words, those of us who don't stick with the KJV are stupid?
Next you said.......

Sorry, my mistake. It wasn’t “young maiden” but “young woman”.


But my point of a subtle attack upon the Deity of Christ, still stands.

How can the true meaning of the word be an attack on the deity of Christ? The word means "young woman" which was pretty much synonymous with a virgin. Today it's not but at the time it was written it was not. No attack there.

Note: This is how this line reads, in the majority Byzantine manuscripts.

This verse, 1 John 5:7, is in just about none of the manuscripts and it was not originally in Erasmus' text - until someone gave him a highly suspect manuscript with it in it. It is in all of the modern versions but rightly questioned for it's heritage. How ever, not adding this verse doesn't mean that the modern versions question the Trinity since it is clearly taught all through the whole of Scripture.

Finally you said......

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”.

Ummm - no - it's putting God's Word in modern "vulgar" language JUST as the KJV translators insisted on in the Notes to the Reader in the beginning of the KJV.

As for clandestine verses in the MV's, I have probably a hundred. But I don't wish! to take the time to post them all. Just take my word for it, they are there.

Yeah - humor me too - I'd love to see which verses are "clandestine".

 

[rbell]

I won’t speak for the others, but please don’t put words in my mouth.

But then you said,

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”.

Aren't you putting words in the mouths of MV readers, insinuating that they don't read the KJV because, to quote Jack Nicholson, they "can't handle the truth?"

At least, that's how it came across...

 

[EdSutton]

How can the true meaning of the word be an attack on the deity of Christ? The word means "young woman" which was pretty much synonymous with a virgin. Today it's not but at the time it was written it was not. No attack there.

I don't believe this came out right as to what you intended. You might want to re-read and edit the post, if possible.

Did you not, here, mean to say that

Today it is not, but at the time is was written it was.

Think about it for a sec. As I believe you did not intend to really add the "not" above, in red. Thanks,

Ed