1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Your KJVO myth is false.

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by robycop3, Feb 27, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    8,698
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since you can't post in the "Baptists Only" forum, I have started this thread as you suggested. Here, you & other non-Baptists who believe the false, man-made KJVO myth can attempt to defend it.

    I shall start this by saying there's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY for KJVO or any other "one-version-only" ism. They're all phony as a Ford Corvette.

    And, as for you SDA cult members here, one of your boys, Dr. Ben Wilkinson, wrote the "foundation book" of the current edition of the KJVO myth, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. One Baptism

    One Baptism Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,597
    Likes Received:
    20
    I believe [therefore it is ultimately a statement and position based in scriptural faith, Hebrews 11:6; Romans 14:23 KJB, though I do have foundational evidences historically and prophetically that strenghthen that faith] that the King James BIble, that I hold in my hand presently, is the [not 'a'] inspired and the preserved word of God in the English language, and is the final authority in all matters of Faith and Practice. I believe it is without error in its words, according to Psalms 12:6-7; John 10:35; Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33 KJB, etc, even as Christ Jesus Himself, is the word without error, Hebrews 4:15, etc KJB.

    The OT is primarily in the singular common Hebrew language [a minor section in the Hebrew offshoot, Syriac/Chaldean of Daniel 2:4b-7:28, and in a few other minor places]. If others wanted to know what JEHOVAH Elohiym had to say they had to learn this language or have it extempore translated to them.

    The NT is primarily in the singular Koine or common Greek language [some minor spoken words in syriac/ some call Aramaic, etc].

    That the Bible, in its preserved state, on the whole should be in a singular, common and primary language, such as the global English [of England, since it is in Canada, Australia, England, Africa, China and Americas, as in other places also] is actually scriptural, following God's pre-establish pattern of working and dealings with men. It does not mean that God cannot translate His word into other languages [such as the Spanish Purifcada, or even certain edition of the Gomez, etc], as in the books of Acts, etc.

    The Bible, whether OT or NT or in toto, has always been in the hands of God's people, though in certain instances, the numbers grew very few indeed, even a remnant.

    I do quote, and have quoted on numerous occasions, even in this very forum, from other translations. such as the so-called LXX, the Bishop's, Tyndale, Geneva, Wycliffe, and from the GNT TR and the HOT, and other language texts, such as the German Luther Bibel, the Italian Diodati, and the French Olivetan, etc. and from the Stephanus, Elzivir, etc, and even from the catholic texts, of the Jerome's vulgate, the Douay Rheims, etc and from the eclectic and other text types [alexandrian, such as the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrius, etc], Westcott and Horts, and from the USB [United Bibles Society] and the NA [also called NU] [Nestle Alands, and Eberhard Nestles texts] and from the more recent texts of the RV, ASV, ESV, CEV, NIV, NKJV, Holman's and from the others such as the KIT [Kingdom Interlinear] and NWT [New World 'Translation'] of the WTS [JW; when necessary when dialoguing with them or for others information,citation], etc., etc.. However, I do believe, that there are issues with each of these in its words, examples upon request.

    As stated previously, to you, in charity [1 Corinthians 13 KJB], I have read Benjamin G. Wilkinson's works, both on the common Bible, aka the King James Bible,

    I pray that this thread is not about Benjamin G. Wilkinson personally, but we can look at evidence and facts in textual matters?

    I will recommend to all, the following helpful sources, which contains many sources, and if any would like to add to my sources, let me know, by posting them, and I will consider them for addition if worthy - KJV Bible Vindicated

    As I stated before on several occasions, I believe you have a misunderstanding about my present position, but since you seem to be itching on this subject and desire most vehemently on having this discussion, so be it.

    I apologize, but my responses may not always be swift in this, as recently my internet connection seems to be getting worse, I am piggybacking a signal about 1/2 mile away, without a router, through a borrowed connection, and therefore, please forgive me, if I am not always able to respond right away, as there are times when this will not work for several days, and currently I am re-routing through a limited phone data connectionm, which will shortly run out on its limit.

    You call me a 'cult', fine I accept the label:

    Acts 24:14 KJB - But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

    Acts 24:5 KJB - For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:​

    My first question to you brother robycop3 is, since I have already provided mine own answer above:

    What text or translation [in any language], if any in your position, is the perfect words of God, being without error in its words, being perfectly inspired and preserved by JEHOVAH Elohiym?

    My second question to you brother robycop3 is, since I have already provided mine own answer above:

    What is your final authority in all matters of faith and practice?, if you have such final authority/ies, please list the singular or multiple source/s.
    I do pray that you treat me with the same respect, and answer my questions, even as I answer yours in kind.

    May God help us all, here, that His truth may be known, His word be magnified [Psalms 138:2 KJB], and that we submit humbly to His will. In Jesus', my Saviour's, name, Amen.
     
    #2 One Baptism, Feb 27, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2018
  3. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    24,860
    Likes Received:
    530
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But where does Scripture say the KJV is the only authorized version?
    If the KJV was - than why was it hit for 1600 years.
    Does that mean anyone before 1600 AD was reading a false Bible?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. loDebar

    loDebar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,190
    Likes Received:
    27
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All translations are man's opinion. The KJV is a very bad translation, First of all it is English., a fery flexible language. Second the translators tried to use that English to express original ideas and expressions instead of a plain word for word or original meaning translation. Third , the original languages did not have punctuation but is used to the opinion of the translators, We then rely on the punctuation to pronounce a meaning and doctrine.

    Consult Young's Literal Translation Preface notes for further explanation
     
  5. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    97
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is a straw man. While there are some KJV defenders who hold to the belief that the KJV is the only pure bible period. I do not know personally any KJV defenders in my circles that believe that,I know many who believe that in ENGLISH the KJV is the only "pure" bible. Personally I believe the KJV is an accurate and faithful translation of the preserved Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek received text. In theory I am open to a revision of the KJV to update some of the archaic language, however I am not for dumbing down the translation by removing thees, thous, ye's etc. I am disappointed in the NKJV and the MEV in their attempts update the KJV.

    I know most KJV believers do not believe the whole world did not have God's word until 1611, I mean there was the Hebrew text, Greek text, and other ancient translations.
     
  6. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    97
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Was King "James Onlyism" Invented by a Seventh-Day Adventist?

    Defending the KJV predates Ben Wilkinson. Can you please stop using this argument?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    97
    Faith:
    Baptist
  8. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    21,704
    Likes Received:
    1,514
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here we go again.

    There were two editions of the King James Bible - The Cambridge and the Oxford.

    http://www.havenfwbchurch.org/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/KJV400.pdf

    KJVO proponents are a divided camp as to which one is the "pure" text.

    http://www.bibleprotector.com/THERE_IS_ONLY_ONE_PURE_KING_JAMES_BIBLE.pdf

    Others claim the Cambridge edition is a counterfeit King James Bible

    Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles

    So the first order of business is to determine the "pure" text of the 1611 King James Bible.

    Cambridge, Oxford or perhaps even the Nelson Edition.

    What is the criteria of determination?
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,479
    Likes Received:
    532
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You've got to be kidding.Do you ever read Bible commentaries or even scholarly works of any nature? You won't find dumbed-down language. When a Bible translation does not use thee, thine, thou and ye it is not a sign of weakening the language. You don't speak using all of the afore-mentioned --why make that a standard?
    Do you think that Bible translations in English before 1611 were all superior to modern translations?

    How about English translations before 1511?
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,721
    Likes Received:
    3,344
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I beg to differ. The KJV is a pretty good translation, even though to an early 21st century reader it is quite archaic. The KJV uses a verbal and formal equivalence translation technique that helps to maintain the grammatical forms of the original language when translated into English. The KJV is also based on an (admittedly flawed) representative of the Byzantine textform which I believe to best represent the New Testament scriptures as originally given.

    Sorry, but there is no such thing as a "word for word" translation. We may, quite often, find a word in English that is the verbal equivalent of the Hebrew or Greek word being translated, but also quite often we see a phrase in the original language that can be translated as a single word, or a single word in the original language that must be translated as a phrase in order to maintain meaning.

    But how do we ascertain the "original meaning?" When dealing with a hapax legomena or even a relative hapax legomena, what is the basis for our understanding of "original meaning?" And even words used in secular writings will often have a meaning different from the theological usage of the word. How do we ascertain the theological meaning of those words?

    What has that to do with the KJV? It would be equally true of all translations.

    The KJV is a venerable old translation that has earned its place of respect in the long list of English translations. However, now, in the early 21st century there are some few new translations or revisions of older translations which are superior for an early 21st century reader.

    Some of those would be new translations such as the NKJV, or revisions of older translations such as the WEB which is a revision of the old ASV using the Byzantine/Majority text to accomplish the revision/corrections.

    The ESV is a modern revision of the old RSV, which would have been far better had the revisers used the Byzantine text rather than the NU text for their revision/corrections.

    The whole bible translation issue is far more complicated than just pronouncing "Such and such a translation is a bad translation" or vice versa. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. And it is those strengths and weaknesses that we should be discussing.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,721
    Likes Received:
    3,344
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, there are four presently available.

    The original 1611 first edition, first printing (limited availability).

    The 1762 revision of Dr. F. S. Parris, published by Cambridge University Press (limited availability).

    The 1769 revision of Dr. Benjamin Blayney, published by Oxford University Press. This edition has updated spelling and grammar and is the edition most widely used today.

    Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener produced a meticulous standardization of the KJV from 1866 to 1873, resulting in the 1873 Cambridge edition which I believe to be the most accurate KJV available today.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    21,704
    Likes Received:
    1,514
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, It was a mighty work done upon a mighty book!

    I like Scrivener's Greek text of 1894-5. A TR as close to perfection as possible (IMO).

    Still, the KJVO folks must choose a King James Bible Edition and offer their evidence of it's perfect text.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. loDebar

    loDebar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,190
    Likes Received:
    27
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are word for word translations.or commentaries. They are online.

    The punctuation is supposed to determine the meaning. As an example JW's use Jesus statement :,Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. To add a comma after Today to change the meaning that Jesus is only saying to the thief today.
    The original languages or the closest we can get, from whatever text, It should not be translated , them translated again to English. We do not need to determine the theological meanings, it should only be translated as close as possible to original language
    The KJC translators ignored the Hebrew readily available from the current Jewish Rabbi's.

    This is part of the criticism from Young

    If a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verb for a noun, or a noun for a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.

    Lax renderings change meanings "to give" nathan has 84 different rendering

    Young's Translation: Publisher's Note & Preface (1898 )http://www.ccel.org/bible/ylt/ylt.htm

    TCassidy, I believe read Hebrew, Please examine the Preface of the Youngs Literal Translation for a complete statement
     
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,721
    Likes Received:
    3,344
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The use of archaic pronouns, brought to the KJV by the translation committees from Late Middle English (they were no longer being used in early Modern English of the early 17th century) were valuable to help the reader discern between singular and plural pronouns as well as being nominative or objective.

    A singular pronoun would be thou or thee and the plural would be ye or you.

    The singular word for “you” is thou when used as the subject of the sentence or or thee when used as the object.

    The possessive form corresponding to “your” is thy or thine. Thy is used before a word beginning with a consonant, and thine before a word beginning with a vowel. Either form is acceptable for words beginning with the letter “h”; thine is generally more common for h-words in the Bible, but both forms are used, sometimes even in the same verse (for example, Numbers 5:20 includes both “thy husband” and “thine husband”). Thine also serves as the possessive pronoun corresponding to “yours.”

    However, most contemporary readers of the KJV are no longer aware of these differences, which is understandable as late Middle English as been out of common use such 1500. Over 500 years.

    It would be nice if we could find some way to convey that information in modern English, but so far none of the methods suggested have proven effective.

    The NKJV was a good effort but failed to correct some of the anomalies found in the eclectic "TR" which underlies the KJV, and was edited by Scrivener to indicate the source of variant readings. It is now published as "The" TR. I have to give the NKJV credit for its extensive textual notes which allows the serious student of the bible to research the variants and their source manuscripts.

    The MEV was another such attempt completed in 2014 using the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text and the TR. They don't identify what they mean by "TR" so it is assumed they are referring to Scriveners TR, which never existed as a single text until around the 1880s. Also the MEV is missing any textual notes so no further study is possible using this version.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    70
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I am not KJVO -- but reading that OP ..

    my.. what vitriol... what acrimony... what a "spirit"
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    70
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Much more reasonable IMHO than the extreme "The KJV is unbiblical" or "KJVO is unbiblical" --- just how many different "Septuagints" were in use in Paul's day? Would it be "unbiblical" to have "just one"??
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,721
    Likes Received:
    3,344
    Faith:
    Baptist
    At least six.
     
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    32,155
    Likes Received:
    746
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which TR Greek text, and which Kjv version would be the perfect one?
    And Erasmus used some of the Vulgate in his greek text, is that also a reliable version?
    God had no written word from him to us untill 1611 than?
     
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    32,155
    Likes Received:
    746
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is NO credible reason to support the KJVO position!
     
  20. Reynolds

    Reynolds Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2014
    Messages:
    4,952
    Likes Received:
    704
    Faith:
    Baptist
    One of the preachers here in town told me "Jesus used the 1611 and if it was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me." To that I responded "Sir, for that I have no answer that will satisfy you." He grinned. I laughed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...