The real reason I am KJVO

[Askjo]

Not to but in...but, I would like to see evidences of this from Scripture. Making some hasty assertion with no evidence is akin to prosecuting without witnesses. You get no where fast with people.

So what is your basis for saying this...from Scripture, providing appropriate citations...so we can judge for ourselves.

Do you doubt what I said? They are found in the Gospel of John in modern versions.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Logos1560

You quoted me........

“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.”

And you responded with..........

“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."

Well, with your next statement, you seem to agree with me?
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said......

“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.”

So you do know, that it wasn’t his idea at all.
--------------------------------------------------
And then you give some quotes from those books.......

“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"

Was Michael Brown a mind reader. Who knows(especially after the fact), what was going on in someone’s mind.

In the same way, when you quote, Pastor Mincy, Williams, Allen, Robert Sargent, John Brown, Bradstreet, Steven Houck; (Were any of these men mind readers.)

This is like saying, “President Bush started the war to get there oil”.
(If these kinds of statements are being make, while he is still in office, how in the world, can anybody know fo sure what was going in King James’ mind.)

From what I have read, on this subject, John Rainolds needed the King’s support, because the vast majority of the religious leaders of that time, were firmly against, another Bible being translated.

But I have never said, that I use the KJV, because trusted in the King’s character.
(Just that attacks upon his character, are really underhanded attacks upon the KJV.)

 

[Askjo]

. Baloney.

You did not find the evidence in the Gospel of John in modern versions. Look at John 5:31 and 8:14.

 

[preachinjesus]

We know that it wasn’t broken, was because the Bibles translated during that time, were effective in changing people’s lives.

I wonder aloud if we will ever get to a place where we realize God changes people's lives and not the Bible. The Bible is merely a tool in the hands of an Almighty God through the influence of the Holy Spirit and example of Jesus Christ.

 

[annsni]

Your statement contradicts with modern versions.

Modern versions said:

Jesus’ testimony is true
Jesus’ testimony is not true.

Other modern versions said:

Jesus’ witness is true
Jesus’ witness is not true.

Modern versions affected the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Not to but in...but, I would like to see evidences of this from Scripture. Making some hasty assertion with no evidence is akin to prosecuting without witnesses. You get no where fast with people.

So what is your basis for saying this...from Scripture, providing appropriate citations...so we can judge for ourselves.

Do you doubt what I said? They are found in the Gospel of John.

Chapter and verse please?

 

[stilllearning]

Hello annsni

You started off, with several of my statements to Martin Luther, that I said in response to his statements(and his questions were not included here).......

“Truth comes from God’s Word, and yes I agree, that people are saved by other versions.”

and

“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.”

and

“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.”

and

“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.”

Then you said..........

“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!!”

Ann, I did not choose the words, "corrupt text", as you well know.

And I agree, “God is God and He has preserved His Word to us. Praise Him!!”

And I am glad to hear, that you believe your ESV, to be 100% true.

 

[preachinjesus]

Do you doubt what I said? They are found in the Gospel of John in modern versions.

what annsni said

please...:thumbs:

 

[annsni]

So you do know, that it wasn’t his idea at all.

King James decided to commission his own Bible IS true. He commissioned it. That is history. Doesn't matter if someone else suggested it. He followed through.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again Logos1560

You quoted me..........

“Simply get an English dictionary, and look up the old means of the words.”

Then you said.......

“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.”

And you are absolutely correct.

But what you don’t realize, is that I made this statement, to a baby Christian that was just starting out, in the faith.

When I was a baby Christian, I started out with a dictionary, and later I discovered the Strongs concordance.

With a good Greek and Hebrew dictionary, a Christian that is motivated, can dig as deeply, as ANYBODY.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi rbell

You quoted me........

“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.”

Then you said........

“And that is why you find no significant doctrinal differences between the KJV and modern faithful translations.

Well, as I said to someone else, who are you to decide what is “significant”.
We are talking about the Bible here.

Sure, if I were in prison and only had access to an NIV, or RSV, etc, than I would study them.
But I do have access to a KJV, and so therefore I can avoid the “insignificant doctrinal differences”, that can be found, in those other versions.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again Martin Luther

And let me add my welcome

You quoted me..........

“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.”

Then you said........

“Show me the verse.”

Here is my favorite.....

2 Peter 1:16-19
V.16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
V.17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
V.18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
V.19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Here Peter(under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), tells us that if we were to hear God’s voice from heaven speaking to us, that the words found in the Bible, are to be considered more accurate.

Yes God’s Word has to be 100% accurate: Because we are told to judge EVERYTHING else by it.
--------------------------------------------------
You can find some other passages, that I given to others here, in other threads.

 

[annsni]

You did not find the evidence in the Gospel of John in modern versions. Look at John 5:31 and 8:14.

Let's look at each of these:

John 5:31

KJV - If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

NASB - If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.

NIV - If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.

ESV - If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.


* I see no difference in any of these versions



John 8:14

KJV - Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

NASB - Jesus answered and said to them, "(A)Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know (B)where I came from and where I am going; but (C)you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

NIV - 14Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.

ESV - Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself,(A) my testimony is true, for I know(B) where I came from and(C) where I am going, but(D) you do not know where I come from or where I am going.



* I don't understand your point here. The Scriptures are consistent across the versions.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello rbell

First you quoted me..........

“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”.”

Then you said.......

“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.”

Rbell, I was not doing that here.

In my interacting with other Christians, I have learned that “some Christians”, with a knowledge of the original languages, are saying, that when they do a deep study of John 1:1, that “they find”, that the original Greek in this verse, in some small way, allows for the interpretation of this verse, to say the words, “a God”.

Just as Ann said, that some Christians who know Hebrew, have studied Isa.7:14, and found that(in their opinion), it doesn’t have to say “virgin”.

I was not saying that I agree with their findings, but just that this is what they are saying.
--------------------------------------------------
If there are Greek or Hebrew experts here, then they might be able to shed more light on this whole issue.

Regardless of what experts find out, I will continue to believe God's Word and the Deity of Christ.
As for these kinds of questions, I am still learning.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi annsni

You quoted me.......

“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.)

Then you said..........

“But if we don't join you, we're not smart. That's what that says.”

No matter how you put it, I am not going to call anybody stupid.
I am sorry, if that offended you.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you quoted me again........

“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.

Then you said.......

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

Oh, I fully agree with you.
But I do pay attention, to what people who are smarter than I, have to say.

And like I told rebel, some people who study Greek, say that it could be.
But I do disagree with them.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you quoted me(about 1John 5:7).......

“As for the “heritage” of this verse. You have your opinion, and I have mine.”

And you said........

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.

Well, that is an interesting statement.
I and ready and willing to jump into the issue of 1John 5:7, but that would derail this thread.

Maybe later.

 

[Askjo]

Let's look at each of these:

John 5:31

KJV - If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

NASB - If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.

NIV - If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.

ESV - If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.


* I see no difference in any of these versions



John 8:14

KJV - Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

NASB - Jesus answered and said to them, "(A)Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know (B)where I came from and where I am going; but (C)you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

NIV - 14Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.

ESV - Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself,(A) my testimony is true, for I know(B) where I came from and(C) where I am going, but(D) you do not know where I come from or where I am going.



* I don't understand your point here. The Scriptures are consistent across the versions.

Read them again and figure out.

 

[preachinjesus]

They all say the same thing. Seriously, you are going to decry the MV as "liberal" or something like that over the difference in "testimony" and "witness" and "record"?

Really?

Seems like more hair splitting. They all mean the same thing...

 

[Askjo]

They all say the same thing. Seriously, you are going to decry the MV as "liberal" or something like that over the difference in "testimony" and "witness" and "record"?

Really?

Seems like more hair splitting. They all mean the same thing...

You did not get the point.

Read CAREFULLY:

Jesus' testimony is true and NOT true.

Therefore these modern versions show that Christ contradicted Himself on these passages.

 

[annsni]

Read them again and figure out.

Ahhh - gotcha. You're hung up on the choice of words between the modern versions and the KJV. OK, well, maybe going to the Greek will help as well as the useage of the word by the KJV translators:

The word translated as "testimony" or "witness" is "martyria" which means:

1) a testifying

a) the office committed to the prophets of testifying concerning future events

2) what one testifies, testimony, i.e. before a judge

Interestingly enough, the KJV translators translate this word 15 times as "witness", 14 times as "testimony", 7 times as "record" and 1 time as "report".

So using "witness" or "testimony" is the same thing according to the translators. It was their choice to use both words to translate the ONE Greek word.

Yep - not a great argument against the MVs.

 

[preachinjesus]

In my interacting with other Christians, I have learned that “some Christians”, with a knowledge of the original languages, are saying, that when they do a deep study of John 1:1, that “they find”, that the original Greek in this verse, in some small way, allows for the interpretation of this verse, to say the words, “a God”.

I don't see any significant translation (other than the NWT which ISN'T a MV) using "a god." The Greek isn't explicit but should be rendered as most translations do.

The NWT goes against accepted Greek rules at many points and shouldn't be trusted. Every other acceptable MV follows the rules well. The NET Bible does a great job explaining the issues in a translator's note attached to the verse:

Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

Just as Ann said, that some Christians who know Hebrew, have studied Isa.7:14, and found that(in their opinion), it doesn’t have to say “virgin”.

The word used doesn't have to be translated "virgin" ('almah) but can mean a girl of youth. Of course in Jewish culture (which the verse emenates from) a young, Jewish girl was expected to be a virgin.

 

[Keith M]

This kind of mis-information, is the favorite took of those who hate the KJV.

Misinformation is the only tool of those who hate God's word in its modern translations.

People here don't hate the KJVs as has been shown over and over and over again, stilllearning. What people here hate is the KJVO position we believe to be a false teaching that questions God's ability and His wisdom in preserving His word in more than one English Bible translation.

There's a huge difference between hating the KJVs and hating what we believe is a false teaching about the KJVs. But in your confusion it's understandable you wouldn't see the difference. As a matter of fact, some of the very people you falsely accuse of hating the KJVs actually use one of the KJVs as their Bible translation of choice. Personally, it's one of the three translations I use most frequently.