When Did KJVO come Into Church?

The thing to note is not the translation of "young woman" but the fact that liberals used this verse to defend their liberal viewpoint that Mary was not a virgin. This is why fundamentalists took such a strong stand for the KJV. You had to be there, kids.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Shows they didn't know what they were talking about in that case. If an "almah" wasn't married, it's a gimme that she was a virgin. And it was nothing a bit unusual for a "young woman" to have a son, so that wouldn't be muchuva sign, would it?

 

Assumption not actually in the text of Isaiah 7.

"a woman ceases to be an 'almah' when se becomes a mother - not when she becomes a wife or sexual partner" - John Walton in the NIDOTTE (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis)

Matthew used "parthenos" which is practically the same thing, but with an emphasis on not having had a child but also not having a sexual experience, a virgin.

It is pretty typical of the New Testament writers to use the Old Testament in ways that bring out a greater meaning for the New Testament reader then originally understood by the original Old Testament hearers/readers.

Now I've already taken this far enough for the original point

 

Galatians 5:13-15 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
I appreciate the kind heartedness of the discussion on this forum! So much different than what I'm accustomed to.....I like to think there is another group which should be classified in the KJVO groupings, they are the KJVOK's [King James Version Only Knuckleheads] The ones who make the translation itself infallible and inerrant, and they are the ones who defy the verses above--they fight amongst themselves as to who is the most KJVO!! That cold, angry, dogmatic "orthodoxy" drove me away from that group....I am a KJV preferred 40 something old minister who struggles at times with the translation debate, simply because of the many different Greek texts available to read from, some of which omit huge portions of textual content, leaving one to ask "which one is correct? " But I trust true believers will always desire the sincere milk of the Word and if the version you are reading is not strengthening you, then you'll find one that will! Yes the KJV has archaic words--that's what a dictionary is for! When people tell me they can't understand the KJV [I'm NOT advocating KJVO btw!] I quote John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
then I like to ask "Is there any word in there you don't understand?" and they will say no, then I say, well explain it to me then---and I draw a puzzled look every time! The problem is not in translation, its in interpretation--this is why its important to choose a Bible that is literal in its approach--the Word needs to be sovereign, not the translator or the reader....I just close by saying the KJV is a time tested wonderful translation and will always be #1 in my heart, but I'm not willing to fight over this issue! God's blessings

 

Just about all modern translations use the CT which from your perspective "leaves out textual content" but from my view the TR has added etra-biblical content which neds to be pruned away.

Yes,but not a modern dictionary.one would have to acquire an 1828 webster's for that purpose.

Why jump through the hoops of trying to master archaic expressions when modern versions use more contemporary and natural language?

Actually you may be surprised that most modern versions retain the same wording as the above.

Translation = interpretation.

I don't think you laid down a premise to support your conjectures.

 

The MESSAGE is what's important, more so than are the exact words. For example, the use of "Easter" in Acts 12:4 has been cussed and discussed ad nauseam on just about every Bible versions forum out there.

Now, whether Acts 12:4 reads 'Easter" in one translation, 'passover' in another, or simply 'pascha' in yet another, the MESSAGE is that Herod saw that whacking James had pleased the Jewish religious leadership, so he busted Peter, intending to hold him for those Jews until they were ready to take him. It doesn't matter if the Jews were observing Easter, passover, or Sadie Hawkins day; what matters is Herod intended to keep Peter until those Jews were ready for him.

However, the use of "Easter", an observance ther DID NOT EXIST when Luke wrote the letter that became the Book of Acts, puts a serious crimp in the KJVOs' claim that the KJV is absolutely simon-pure perfect.

I believe that's what JESUS meant when He said His words shall not pass away. Assuming He spoke mostly Aramaic, just how many people TODAY understand ancient Aramaic, and of those, how many understand it enough to know all its subtleties and nuances?

And JESUS knows full well that no one language will translate 100% into another, and retain all those subtleties and nuances. yes, he spoke mostly Aramaic, but that's cuz those to whom He was speaking understood Aramaic perfectly well. Had He spoken English or Japanese, no one woulda understood Him, nor could anyone have accurately quoted Him in writing.

I believe the KJVOs had forgotten this when they first invaded the Baptist faith.

 

Well I'll start here with I'm a lover not a fighter! :love2: I begin with where you ended in your critique of my post--I don't think you laid out any premise to support your conjecture [and you won't because no one can lay their hands on the "originals"] :smilewinkgrin: BTW I didn't have any conjectures, I was just stating my opinion

Herein lies a great point which you are helping me make--if you have time to read this, here is the Websters 1828 definition of soul:
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
soul
SOUL, n.

1. The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason, and which renders him a subject of moral government. The immortality of the soul is a fundamental article of the christian system. Such is the nature of the human soul that it must have a God, an object of supreme affection.

2. The understanding; the intellectual principle. The eyes of our soul then only begin to see, when our bodily eye are closing.

3. Vital principle. Thou son, of this great world both eye and soul.

4. Spirit; essence; chief part; as charity, the soul of all the virtues. Emotion is the soul of eloquence.

5. Life; animation principle or part; as, an able commander is the soul of an army.

6. Internal power. There is some soul of goodness in things evil.

7. A human being; a person. There was no a soul present. In Paris there are more than seven hundred thousand souls. London, Westminster, Southwark and the suburbs, are said to contain twelve hundred thousand souls.

8. Animal life. To deliver their soil from death, and to keep them alive in famine. Ps. 33. 7.

9. Active power. And heaven would fly before the driving soul.

10. Spirit; courage; fire; grandeur of mind. That he wants caution he must needs confess, but not a soul to give our arms success.

11. Generosity; nobleness of mind; a colloquial use.

12. An intelligent being. Every soul in heav'n shall bend the knee.

13. Heart; affection. The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David. I Sam. 18.

14. In Scripture, appetite; as the full soul; the hungry soul. Prov. 27. Job 33.

15. A familiar compellation of a person, but often expressing some qualities of the mind; as alas, poor soul; he was a good soul.


Now here is the Modern Websters Dictionary's definition: [See if its watered down any]
Definition of SOUL

1
: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2
a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe
b capitalized Christian Science : god 1b
3
: a person's total self
4
a : an active or essential part
b : a moving spirit : leader
5
a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings
b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment
c : spiritual or moral force : fervor
6
: person <not a soul in sight>
7
: personification <she is the soul of integrity>
8
a : a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performers

Now, do you read anything there in the modern dictionary concerning immortality? Question, who hijacked the dictionary? Which also bids the question, can you trust a Modern dictionary? I often wonder whose idea it was to change the definition of this word...did he/she just walk in the office one day and say, well I thinks its time we change the meaning of the word soul--it might offend some of our dear readers..[does this analogy work for Bible translations? Have you ever read about the lifestyle of the woman in a leadership position translating the NIV?]...makes you wonder [or at least it makes me wonder] --the contemporary and modern dictionary? --I'm glad they got the part about the Black American performers in there ? My point is that you hit the nail on the head exactly--we need the KJV and the 1828 Websters Dictionary which does a great job of bridging 1611 to today. Then you must also consider the KJV is keyed to the Strongs Concordance and I think we have a powerful trio of tools with no real need of modern translations--just study to show yourself approved! BTW, if I hadn't mentioned it, I read other translations I just prefer the KJV.....

Really?
Definition of TRANSLATION

1
: an act, process, or instance of translating: as
a : a rendering from one language into another; also : the product of such a rendering

Definition of INTERPRETATION

1
: the act or the result of interpreting : explanation
2
: a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style
3
: a teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory information <natural history interpretation program>

Which is my point! The rendering of the verse is much the same no matter what version you read out of but explaining the verse is a different story--Bible study isn't easy and we shouldn't expect it to be--I have people in my Church that have the Living Bible [3rd grade reading equivalency] who tell me they don't understand the Bible! Translation is not the problem!

No one in their right mind read all I just posted [sorry]--summation: I love Jesus and the KJV and all born again believers--my original thought was just to state that there are groups of KJVO's that give the KJV and some Baptist Churches a bad name....Peace

 

Virginia M.was not in a leadership capacity when hired as an English stylist. When it was discovered that she was a lesbian she was dismissed. Please refrain from using that as an attack on the NIV in the future. Honesty is good.

But why should someone have to go to the trouble of acquiring the 1828 Webster's? Why not use a modern version which uses contemporary speech (an KJVO preachers in their sermons explain the KJV in NIV-like language anyway.)

I'm curious --do you approve of the 1833 Webster's Bible?

 

I am pleased to know that I am still in my right mind. Thank you for that affirmation. I truly needed it.

 

I prefer the Oxford Dictionary. It is English. Interestingly, many talk about the Old English being hard to understand. I have a book on the American Civil War, From Manassas to Appomattox, written by Gen. James Longstreet, CSA. It is a difficult read as well.

Cor, think I am out-of-line again. Sorry.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Amen--honesty would compel me to ask how she and Dr. Woudstra were ever hired in the first place. I'm not going to copy and paste a bunch of stuff, but there is no end to strange circumstances surrounding the NIV --
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14776044/Bible-Translations-The-NIV-Corruption is just one of those places which goes over several of them. [begins on Page 4] [Again I want to reiterate I'm not against other versions of the Bible, I have 2 ESV Study Bibles I read often] [I also must confess I can't stomach reading or listening to the NIV being read for whatever reason I can't explain][Just doesn't sound like the Bible][Ok I'm using these dumb brackets too much]

My point would be why wouldn't I want to take the Geneva or KJV knowing they were word for word translations [yes there are "archaic" words and phrases and questionable renderings] along with the 1828 Websters and the Strongs and study to show thyself approved! I have a software program which has all those tools and many more and its easy to use.

I confess my ignorance, I've never looked at it....Peace man Peace

 

Anything I can do to help! :laugh:

 

Sadie Hawkins Day? You're bringing back some bad memories man! Well put though.

Ok you lost me there--not sure what you are implying--Ishtar was a pagan festival and are you saying it wasn't around then? I always assumed the translators didn't want us to be confused with the Jewish passover but I'm not a mind reader

I think the Baptist faith used to be KJVO because KJV was the Only One [Authorized Version]! So you might say the Baptist faith was invaded by the Non KJVO's ----
I'm kidding around, I know what you mean by KJVO--the cold angry "orthodoxy" who have to establish themselves as being the "most KJVO" --can't understand it.....

 

The primary 'sign' was for timing to the king, the length of which was to be indicated by the age of this child; and this boy could be identified by his name. Did you think that the Spirit supernaturally concieved a child on Earth hundreds of years before Jesus?

 

Virginia M. was a Bob Jones grad and married at the time.

 

Long before page 4 there were lies about the KJV and NKJ. Your site is not honest. It is disreputable.

You have explained it. The NIV doesn't sound like the KJV.

Not as word-for-word as you imagine. You'll have to get an interlinear for that purpose --and even then,you would come away with even more confusion.

 

I don't know whether it is dishonest, but it certainly seems to be mistaken on many things. This is some of what it says about King James (the monarch, not the bible translation):

King James was a great monarch and unified Scotland, then formed a foundation of England and Scotland into what is known today as the British Empire.
​

Well, if what the site says about bible translations is on a par with what it informs us about the king, we would do well to avoid it!

He didn't "unify Scotland". He was already King James VI of Scotland when he became King James I of England in 1603, and in the sense of having the same king, England and Scotland became united in 1603. This was known as "The Union of the Crowns". Politically, they did not become united until 1707, after the Act of Union. And when England and Scotland joined together, they didn't form a foundation "into what is known today as the British Empire."

 

I just finished reading Ray's short book God Only Wrote One Bible (from a library). I did not notice any resemblance to Fuller's book (which I had also looked at some time ago). It is true that Ray does not referrence Fuller in his Bibliography (only a few brief notes, really). Frankly, Ray's book is so poorly presented that it is actually a disgrace to literature of 'Christian' effort (nevermind his wrongheaded conclusions). There are some interesting quotables, though.

 

I beg everyones pardon for picking one random site which I mentioned had some strange circumstances surrounding the NIV translation--I also mentioned that portion started on page 4--I also said I didn't want to copy and paste so I just gave the link--I know nothing about the site or its "owners". (I could have picked many) Having said that, can the portion about the NIV be repudiated? I will mention again I'm not a KJVOK, but there are probably 99.5% of sodomites that aren't male shrine prostitutes or whatever their rendering is. We know what a sodomite is, but I think male shrine prostitutes went out before high button shoes. I mean no disrespect but truth is truth. Peace