To the question, "what happens if you are not KJB only" ?
You become KJB Preferred ?
You become KJB Preferred ?
-
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!
What Happens if you are Not KJB only?
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
Pastor KevinR
New Member
Bro Will, thank you for pointing out my error about revising the Originals, I actually meant translate the Originals. The former translations were diligently compared and revised, I think it's a double standard to think their opinion (AV translators) is flawed about revision i.e. "Why can't we?" and then some (I'm not accusing you), revere the translators, when it suits them. I just think that's inconsistent, sorry! But your belief in KJV only is a man- made tradition, your arguments are similar to those who used to say, the LXX corrected the Originals, the Latin Vg corrected the Originals. I acknowledge that I haven't read every word of your post, nor did I open the links, so let me know if I have misrepresented your views, thanx.
I am a former KJVO that was liberated by the grace of God, and I thank Him that I no longer limit Him to having a speech impediment, i.e. the belief that if He speaks in the common tongue, MV's that I am somehow questioning God, that I think I'm too smart for my own good, etc (these are some of the things I have experienced personally, not accusing you or the KJVO's here).
Take care!
But your belief in KJV only is a man- made tradition, your arguments are similar to those who used to say, the LXX corrected the Originals, the Latin Vg corrected the Originals. I acknowledge that I haven't read every word of your post, nor did I open the links, so let me know if I have misrepresented your views, thanx.I am a former KJVO that was liberated by the grace of God, and I thank Him that I no longer limit Him to having a speech impediment, i.e. the belief that if He speaks in the common tongue, MV's that I am somehow questioning God, that I think I'm too smart for my own good, etc (these are some of the things I have experienced personally, not accusing you or the KJVO's here).
Take care!
Pastor KevinR
New Member
Will, let me add, that you seem to make the English of the AV, the standard, and I think MV's can use the same standard as the AV translators, the former translations, diligently compared and revised, MSS, Originals, etc. Whatever it's worth, I am not a fan of W/H, I prefer the Majority Text in the NT and Masoretic Text of the OT. This translates that I am a NKJVp
Archangel7
New Member
Would it also disqualify the KJV because it fails to preserve the Hebrew "jots and tittles" in the other acrostic Psalms (25, 34, 37, 111, 112, and 145) the way it does in Psa. 119?
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
I love the NKJV as well, and prefer it to the 1769 Revision as it notes the differences in the manuscripts in the marginal notes.Originally posted by Pastor KevinR:
Will, let me add, that you seem to make the English of the AV, the standard, and I think MV's can use the same standard as the AV translators, the former translations, diligently compared and revised, MSS, Originals, etc. Whatever it's worth, I am not a fan of W/H, I prefer the Majority Text in the NT and Masoretic Text of the OT. This translates that I am a NKJVp
However, if given the choice, I keep coming back to the TRUE 1611 Authorised Version (with the Septuagint a close second).
Pastor KevinR
New Member
Hi Will, I just read your post about the NASB using "Thee", "Thou", etc...that was simply out of reverence for our Lord, which, the Original makes no distinction, why should we? The other notations about "ye", "thee", "you" did matter (past tense), when we spoke like that! But since today's common English tongue does not use, "thee", "ye", "thou", etc your point is mute. Why is God limited to a form of English we no longer speak? Should we go back to Elizabethean English? And BTW, do you honestly believe that in Heaven God will say, to His faithful servants (trusting that means you and I), He'll say, "Well done thou good and faithful servant" instead of "Well done good and faithful servant"? God who quoted the OT in the NT using different words can do so in Heaven, wouldn't you agree? If you wanna love the KJV, hey, I won't stop you, (as if I could)..but respect each other's view, which I attempt, somewhat unsuccessfully.BTW, I'm not KJVO, which you are well aware of, but we have missionary candidates who come to our church who are KJVO, and I don't make an issue out of it, and if they're somewhat balanced about the translation issue, we sometimes take them on financially.I tell them up front what I believe, and they respond what they believe, then we move on to the business of souls! take care
skanwmatos
New Member
The Greek does make a distinction between the singular, plural and subjective, objective personal pronouns.
On the contrary. They didn't talk that way in 1611 either. The odd pronouns were deliberately brought forward from Middle English to help the reader distinguish between the singular/plural and subjective/objective. And if you would read "To The Reader" you would note there are no odd pronouns in the entire article with the exception of quotes from the Bishop's and Geneva bibles.
He isn't. And I don't really think that is what he is saying.
Pastor KevinR
New Member
Skan, thank you for your clarifications. One statemant if I may: The AV translators wanted their translation in the "vulgar" (common) tongue to be understood by the reader, that principle should also apply today, wouldn't you agree? Have I misunderstood your position? (as I apparently have in other cases)
skanwmatos
New Member
I would agree if by "vulgar" you mean the common language of English, and not the common tongue of the street people in Whitechaple. The KJV translators used very "high" English and inserted archaic pronouns to bring into English concepts in Greek that would be lost in generic modern English.Originally posted by Pastor KevinR:
Skan, thank you for your clarifications. One statemant if I may: The AV translators wanted their translation in the "vulgar" (common) tongue to be understood by the reader, that principle should also apply today, wouldn't you agree? Have I misunderstood your position? (as I apparently have in other cases)
I wonder just how far-removed that the 'odd pronouns' were from Elizabethan English? A smattering of them appear in Shakespeare's works, and in those of Milton a generation later, especially in his poetry.
It doesn't appear that the English speakers of today, us included, have any prob finding the antecedent(s) of "you" from the contexts of literature or conversations.
It doesn't appear that the English speakers of today, us included, have any prob finding the antecedent(s) of "you" from the contexts of literature or conversations.
Will J. Kinney
Member
Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Hi Baptist, Does Matthew 5:18 where the Lord speaks of not one jot or tittle will pass from the law refer to the Old Testament being written in Hebrew?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed it does, and this provides no basis whatsoever for KJV-Onlyism.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my understanding that the oracles of God (O.T.) were committed to the Jews (see Romans 3). Then it seems reasonalbe to conclude that if any version rejects the Hebrew scriptures or adds verses to them, or deletes or assumes some portions in the Hebrew texts have been lost, and translate according to these views, then this would disqualify the NIV, NASB, ESV as being God's true words. Your comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a copy of the ESV, and I love it. I cannot find any Scriptural Passage in the ESV that has been changed as to alter the meaning of the Message. I cannot comment on the NIV and NASB, as I do not utilize them.
Hi Baptist, if you look at the footnotes in your ESV you will see many times where they depart from the Hebrew texts and they even tell you this. Here are two articles I put together showing where the NIV, NASB depart, and often not in the same places, from the Hebrew texts. Then compare the ESV with these references. You will see that many of them are the same. If you change the words or numbers, you change "the message"
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html
and
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html
As for the Ecclesiastes 8:5 thingy, which of course is the Apocrypha and was never considered Scripture nor treated as such, what is your point? A printing error, or what?
Thanks,
Will K
Hi Baptist, Does Matthew 5:18 where the Lord speaks of not one jot or tittle will pass from the law refer to the Old Testament being written in Hebrew?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed it does, and this provides no basis whatsoever for KJV-Onlyism.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my understanding that the oracles of God (O.T.) were committed to the Jews (see Romans 3). Then it seems reasonalbe to conclude that if any version rejects the Hebrew scriptures or adds verses to them, or deletes or assumes some portions in the Hebrew texts have been lost, and translate according to these views, then this would disqualify the NIV, NASB, ESV as being God's true words. Your comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a copy of the ESV, and I love it. I cannot find any Scriptural Passage in the ESV that has been changed as to alter the meaning of the Message. I cannot comment on the NIV and NASB, as I do not utilize them.
Hi Baptist, if you look at the footnotes in your ESV you will see many times where they depart from the Hebrew texts and they even tell you this. Here are two articles I put together showing where the NIV, NASB depart, and often not in the same places, from the Hebrew texts. Then compare the ESV with these references. You will see that many of them are the same. If you change the words or numbers, you change "the message"
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html
and
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html
As for the Ecclesiastes 8:5 thingy, which of course is the Apocrypha and was never considered Scripture nor treated as such, what is your point? A printing error, or what?
Thanks,
Will K
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi Emily, you said: "Will
All of those verses you listed are in my NASB..
Perhaps I should take them to mean that the NAS is the only true inerrant infallible word of God and call all other good translations "per-versions"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily, there are several verses missing from the NASB. A lot depends on which year and which edition of the NASB you are looking at. They keep adding some verses or often parts of verses back into the text and they change the wording from one edition to the next.
I am not saying that if you use the NASB then you are not saved. I do not believe this way, but if you use the NASB you have a lot of serious problems and certainly no infallible bible version.
Did you even read the few of many examples I listed? Here are just a few of them again to consider.
God bless,
Will K
Is the Jesus Christ in your bible the one who lied in John 7:8 NASB, ESV? The KJB, NIV, RV, and NKJV say: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come"...verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." But the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".
Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, NIV teach? Both these versions read: "when the days of THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished", as opposed to the KJB, NKJV, Geneva bibles which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished". The only O.T. reference for this sin offering to make an atonements is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where only the woman offered the sin offering for her purification.
Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36? The NASB says the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not letting Him control your behavior, but you certainly cannot deceive Him.
Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."
There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. One such lie is found in 2 Samuel 14:14.
The context is when Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.
In the course of their conversation the woman finally tells king David in 2 Samuel 14: 13 -14: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."
The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.
Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.
However when we get to the New KJV, the NIV and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is a lie and a contradiction.
Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. 2 Samuel 12:15. In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also." I Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."
God obviously does indeed take away life, and the NKJV, NIV and NASB are all in error here in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.
In 2 Peter 3:12 the KJB correctly says we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine. See my more complete article on this verse here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hastingunto.html
Psalm 10:4 describes a wicked man: "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God; GOD IS NOT IN ALL HIS THOUGHTS." In other words, in everything this man thinks, God never enters the picture. The NKJV, NIV agree with the KJV. But the NAS has "All his thoughts are 'There is no God.'" Not even the staunchest atheist walks around all day long thinking; "there is no god, there is no god, there is no god." This is a false and preposterous statement in the NASB.
Ephesians 5:13 says along with the NKJV, NIV,ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish: "But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light; for WHATSOEVER DOTH MAKE MANIFEST IS LIGHT." In other words, the light of God's truth shows things for what they really are. It tells us what sin and unrighteousness are by exposing them. The NAS would have us believe "everything that becomes visible is light," Oh, really?
1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the NIV, NKJV too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?
These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one guiding and directing the modern versionists. This God seems to be a bit confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.
Will K
All of those verses you listed are in my NASB..
Perhaps I should take them to mean that the NAS is the only true inerrant infallible word of God and call all other good translations "per-versions"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily, there are several verses missing from the NASB. A lot depends on which year and which edition of the NASB you are looking at. They keep adding some verses or often parts of verses back into the text and they change the wording from one edition to the next.
I am not saying that if you use the NASB then you are not saved. I do not believe this way, but if you use the NASB you have a lot of serious problems and certainly no infallible bible version.
Did you even read the few of many examples I listed? Here are just a few of them again to consider.
God bless,
Will K
Is the Jesus Christ in your bible the one who lied in John 7:8 NASB, ESV? The KJB, NIV, RV, and NKJV say: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come"...verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." But the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".
Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, NIV teach? Both these versions read: "when the days of THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished", as opposed to the KJB, NKJV, Geneva bibles which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished". The only O.T. reference for this sin offering to make an atonements is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where only the woman offered the sin offering for her purification.
Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36? The NASB says the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not letting Him control your behavior, but you certainly cannot deceive Him.
Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."
There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. One such lie is found in 2 Samuel 14:14.
The context is when Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.
In the course of their conversation the woman finally tells king David in 2 Samuel 14: 13 -14: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."
The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.
Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.
However when we get to the New KJV, the NIV and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is a lie and a contradiction.
Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. 2 Samuel 12:15. In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also." I Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."
God obviously does indeed take away life, and the NKJV, NIV and NASB are all in error here in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.
In 2 Peter 3:12 the KJB correctly says we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine. See my more complete article on this verse here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hastingunto.html
Psalm 10:4 describes a wicked man: "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God; GOD IS NOT IN ALL HIS THOUGHTS." In other words, in everything this man thinks, God never enters the picture. The NKJV, NIV agree with the KJV. But the NAS has "All his thoughts are 'There is no God.'" Not even the staunchest atheist walks around all day long thinking; "there is no god, there is no god, there is no god." This is a false and preposterous statement in the NASB.
Ephesians 5:13 says along with the NKJV, NIV,ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish: "But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light; for WHATSOEVER DOTH MAKE MANIFEST IS LIGHT." In other words, the light of God's truth shows things for what they really are. It tells us what sin and unrighteousness are by exposing them. The NAS would have us believe "everything that becomes visible is light," Oh, really?
1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the NIV, NKJV too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?
These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one guiding and directing the modern versionists. This God seems to be a bit confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.
Will K
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi Kevin, I just wanted to address a couple things in your answer.
" Hi Will, I just read your post about the NASB using "Thee", "Thou", etc...that was simply out of reverence for our Lord, which, the Original makes no distinction, why should we? The other notations about "ye", "thee", "you" did matter (past tense), when we spoke like that! But since today's common English tongue does not use, "thee", "ye", "thou", etc your point is mute. Why is God limited to a form of English we no longer speak? Should we go back to Elizabethean English?"
Kevin, you are correct in that there is no distinction in using "thee" and "thou" as reverence for God. The NASB bungled that whole thing up for 10 different editions. The important distiction, which you never addressed, is that "thee, thou, thy" is always 2nd person singular, and "ye, you, your" is always 2nd person plural in both the Hebrew and the Greek, where this distinction exists and often makes a big difference in the meaning or application.
We don't speak that way today, but neither did they in 1611! The versions that continued to use the "thee" and "ye", which is far more accurate, were the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible.
God has kept his promise and preseved His words. He assembled the best scholars in history to translate it into the world's language (English) in its purest form, so that the common man can hold the Word of God in his hands. Yet, people moan about the "thee's" and "thou's" ! Some ignorant "scholars" say "Why not just use you?", the unlearned scholars fail to realise that the use of "thee" & "thou" is one of the strongest reasons for using the AV. The word you is actually used 2,004 times in the Authorised Version, the thee's, thou's, and ye's are used for accuracy and directness of translation.
It is often said that the AV is written in 16th/17th century English, but "Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine, etc" were never common street English, even in the times of Queen Elizabeth I. The pronoun "You" started to be used instead of "Thou" towards the end of the 13th century. "Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine, etc" are not archaic or obsolete English.
The AV correctly informs us on what was the proper original sense.
The AV translators desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text. They wanted to stick closely to the Biblical usage of the singular and plural distinctions in the second person forms of pronouns and verbs. If "You" is used for the singular as well as the plural: it becomes an ambiguous word. In Luke 22.31,32,
"The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat,"
"you" here referring to Peter and the other disciples;
"But I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not: and when THOU art converted, strengthen THY brethren."
"thee " and "thy" referring to Peter only. Satan's desire was directed to all the apostles, but the Lord prays for each individually. Such distinctions are completely lost when "you" is used throughout.
When thou, thee, thy, are replaced by you, your, the translation is liable to produce an erroneous impression on the reader, and have limited value in the exact study of Scripture.
The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is "you." Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I," while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English, however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. High English uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for the plural.
If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine, thee) it's SINGULAR,
but if it begins with "y" (ye, you, your) it's PLURAL.
In this way, the AV lets us know whether the Scripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee" mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several. This feature often helps us to better interpret God's Word.
Will K
" Hi Will, I just read your post about the NASB using "Thee", "Thou", etc...that was simply out of reverence for our Lord, which, the Original makes no distinction, why should we? The other notations about "ye", "thee", "you" did matter (past tense), when we spoke like that! But since today's common English tongue does not use, "thee", "ye", "thou", etc your point is mute. Why is God limited to a form of English we no longer speak? Should we go back to Elizabethean English?"
Kevin, you are correct in that there is no distinction in using "thee" and "thou" as reverence for God. The NASB bungled that whole thing up for 10 different editions. The important distiction, which you never addressed, is that "thee, thou, thy" is always 2nd person singular, and "ye, you, your" is always 2nd person plural in both the Hebrew and the Greek, where this distinction exists and often makes a big difference in the meaning or application.
We don't speak that way today, but neither did they in 1611! The versions that continued to use the "thee" and "ye", which is far more accurate, were the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible.
God has kept his promise and preseved His words. He assembled the best scholars in history to translate it into the world's language (English) in its purest form, so that the common man can hold the Word of God in his hands. Yet, people moan about the "thee's" and "thou's" ! Some ignorant "scholars" say "Why not just use you?", the unlearned scholars fail to realise that the use of "thee" & "thou" is one of the strongest reasons for using the AV. The word you is actually used 2,004 times in the Authorised Version, the thee's, thou's, and ye's are used for accuracy and directness of translation.
It is often said that the AV is written in 16th/17th century English, but "Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine, etc" were never common street English, even in the times of Queen Elizabeth I. The pronoun "You" started to be used instead of "Thou" towards the end of the 13th century. "Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine, etc" are not archaic or obsolete English.
The AV correctly informs us on what was the proper original sense.
The AV translators desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text. They wanted to stick closely to the Biblical usage of the singular and plural distinctions in the second person forms of pronouns and verbs. If "You" is used for the singular as well as the plural: it becomes an ambiguous word. In Luke 22.31,32,
"The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat,"
"you" here referring to Peter and the other disciples;
"But I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not: and when THOU art converted, strengthen THY brethren."
"thee " and "thy" referring to Peter only. Satan's desire was directed to all the apostles, but the Lord prays for each individually. Such distinctions are completely lost when "you" is used throughout.
When thou, thee, thy, are replaced by you, your, the translation is liable to produce an erroneous impression on the reader, and have limited value in the exact study of Scripture.
The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is "you." Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I," while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English, however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. High English uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for the plural.
If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine, thee) it's SINGULAR,
but if it begins with "y" (ye, you, your) it's PLURAL.
In this way, the AV lets us know whether the Scripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee" mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several. This feature often helps us to better interpret God's Word.
Will K
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi Kevin, I just wanted to address a couple things in your answer.
" Hi Will, I just read your post about the NASB using "Thee", "Thou", etc...that was simply out of reverence for our Lord, which, the Original makes no distinction, why should we? The other notations about "ye", "thee", "you" did matter (past tense), when we spoke like that! But since today's common English tongue does not use, "thee", "ye", "thou", etc your point is mute. Why is God limited to a form of English we no longer speak? Should we go back to Elizabethean English?"
Kevin, you are correct in that there is no distinction in using "thee" and "thou" as reverence for God. The NASB bungled that whole thing up for 10 different editions. The important distiction, which you never addressed, is that "thee, thou, thy" is always 2nd person singular, and "ye, you, your" is always 2nd person plural in both the Hebrew and the Greek, where this distinction exists and often makes a big difference in the meaning or application.
We don't speak that way today, but neither did they in 1611! The versions that continued to use the "thee" and "ye", which is far more accurate, were the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible.
God has kept his promise and preseved His words. He assembled the best scholars in history to translate it into the world's language (English) in its purest form, so that the common man can hold the Word of God in his hands. Yet, people moan about the "thee's" and "thou's" ! Some ignorant "scholars" say "Why not just use you?", the unlearned scholars fail to realise that the use of "thee" & "thou" is one of the strongest reasons for using the AV. The word you is actually used 2,004 times in the Authorised Version, the thee's, thou's, and ye's are used for accuracy and directness of translation.
It is often said that the AV is written in 16th/17th century English, but "Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine, etc" were never common street English, even in the times of Queen Elizabeth I. The pronoun "You" started to be used instead of "Thou" towards the end of the 13th century. "Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine, etc" are not archaic or obsolete English.
The AV correctly informs us on what was the proper original sense.
The AV translators desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text. They wanted to stick closely to the Biblical usage of the singular and plural distinctions in the second person forms of pronouns and verbs. If "You" is used for the singular as well as the plural: it becomes an ambiguous word. In Luke 22.31,32,
"The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat,"
"you" here referring to Peter and the other disciples;
"But I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not: and when THOU art converted, strengthen THY brethren."
"thee " and "thy" referring to Peter only. Satan's desire was directed to all the apostles, but the Lord prays for each individually. Such distinctions are completely lost when "you" is used throughout.
When thou, thee, thy, are replaced by you, your, the translation is liable to produce an erroneous impression on the reader, and have limited value in the exact study of Scripture.
The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is "you." Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I," while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English, however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. High English uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for the plural.
If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine, thee) it's SINGULAR,
but if it begins with "y" (ye, you, your) it's PLURAL.
In this way, the AV lets us know whether the Scripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee" mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several. This feature often helps us to better interpret God's Word.
Will K
" Hi Will, I just read your post about the NASB using "Thee", "Thou", etc...that was simply out of reverence for our Lord, which, the Original makes no distinction, why should we? The other notations about "ye", "thee", "you" did matter (past tense), when we spoke like that! But since today's common English tongue does not use, "thee", "ye", "thou", etc your point is mute. Why is God limited to a form of English we no longer speak? Should we go back to Elizabethean English?"
Kevin, you are correct in that there is no distinction in using "thee" and "thou" as reverence for God. The NASB bungled that whole thing up for 10 different editions. The important distiction, which you never addressed, is that "thee, thou, thy" is always 2nd person singular, and "ye, you, your" is always 2nd person plural in both the Hebrew and the Greek, where this distinction exists and often makes a big difference in the meaning or application.
We don't speak that way today, but neither did they in 1611! The versions that continued to use the "thee" and "ye", which is far more accurate, were the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible.
God has kept his promise and preseved His words. He assembled the best scholars in history to translate it into the world's language (English) in its purest form, so that the common man can hold the Word of God in his hands. Yet, people moan about the "thee's" and "thou's" ! Some ignorant "scholars" say "Why not just use you?", the unlearned scholars fail to realise that the use of "thee" & "thou" is one of the strongest reasons for using the AV. The word you is actually used 2,004 times in the Authorised Version, the thee's, thou's, and ye's are used for accuracy and directness of translation.
It is often said that the AV is written in 16th/17th century English, but "Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine, etc" were never common street English, even in the times of Queen Elizabeth I. The pronoun "You" started to be used instead of "Thou" towards the end of the 13th century. "Thou, Thee, Thy, Thine, etc" are not archaic or obsolete English.
The AV correctly informs us on what was the proper original sense.
The AV translators desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text. They wanted to stick closely to the Biblical usage of the singular and plural distinctions in the second person forms of pronouns and verbs. If "You" is used for the singular as well as the plural: it becomes an ambiguous word. In Luke 22.31,32,
"The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat,"
"you" here referring to Peter and the other disciples;
"But I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not: and when THOU art converted, strengthen THY brethren."
"thee " and "thy" referring to Peter only. Satan's desire was directed to all the apostles, but the Lord prays for each individually. Such distinctions are completely lost when "you" is used throughout.
When thou, thee, thy, are replaced by you, your, the translation is liable to produce an erroneous impression on the reader, and have limited value in the exact study of Scripture.
The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is "you." Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I," while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English, however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. High English uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for the plural.
If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine, thee) it's SINGULAR,
but if it begins with "y" (ye, you, your) it's PLURAL.
In this way, the AV lets us know whether the Scripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee" mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several. This feature often helps us to better interpret God's Word.
Will K
Will J. Kinney
Member
Dr. Bob posts: "KJVO #5 position is that God somehow, someway, and for what reason is beyond me, guided, superintended, inspired, enlightened XYZ in 1611 and THAT is the authority to day by which we judge truth.
No wonder people like Ruckman get laughed at. "
Well Bob, at least the KJB believer sees the providential hand of God at work in history to have kept His promises to preserve His infallible words. We at least don't come up with this gem of distilled wisdom:
"we are truly blessed to have so many choices when buying our Bibles. There are almost as many different versions of the Bible as there are different types of people-but we are all created by the same God, and all of our Bibles are written by the same Holy Spirit."
So all these conflicting "bibles" are all inspired by the same Holy Spirit, huh? This Holy Spirit you speak of is really confused, don't ya think? Boy, and you think our position is ridiculous!
Will K
No wonder people like Ruckman get laughed at. "
Well Bob, at least the KJB believer sees the providential hand of God at work in history to have kept His promises to preserve His infallible words. We at least don't come up with this gem of distilled wisdom:
"we are truly blessed to have so many choices when buying our Bibles. There are almost as many different versions of the Bible as there are different types of people-but we are all created by the same God, and all of our Bibles are written by the same Holy Spirit."
So all these conflicting "bibles" are all inspired by the same Holy Spirit, huh? This Holy Spirit you speak of is really confused, don't ya think? Boy, and you think our position is ridiculous!
Will K
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi Kevin, you ask a good question but misunderstand the answer. This is very common. Let me explain.
You note:Skan, thank you for your clarifications. One statemant if I may: The AV translators wanted their translation in the "vulgar" (common) tongue to be understood by the reader, that principle should also apply today, wouldn't you agree?
Kevin, what they meant by "vulgar" or common, is that the Bible should be in English and not limited to the Latin which the Catholic church used even though nobody in the pews understood Latin. They did not mean by "vulgar" that the Bible should be in street language or slang. They were referring to English, and the KJB English is still classified as modern English.
Will K
You note:Skan, thank you for your clarifications. One statemant if I may: The AV translators wanted their translation in the "vulgar" (common) tongue to be understood by the reader, that principle should also apply today, wouldn't you agree?
Kevin, what they meant by "vulgar" or common, is that the Bible should be in English and not limited to the Latin which the Catholic church used even though nobody in the pews understood Latin. They did not mean by "vulgar" that the Bible should be in street language or slang. They were referring to English, and the KJB English is still classified as modern English.
Will K
ScottEmerson
Active Member
We see it as well. You're just not looking in the right places.
Actually, this makes complete sense. You just refuse to open your eyes and see. You're looking in all of the wrong places. All of the Bibles we have come from the original Greek and Hebrew text. That is what is inspired - not the translation. Again, translations are not inspired. The KJV certainly, without a shadow of a doubt, is not. Too many mistakes and errors in the translating for it to have any credibility in that area. The translators tried their hardest, I believe, but the result is still flawed.