What Happens if you are Not KJB only?

[Will J. Kinney]

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.

Roby, you guys are a funny bunch. The use of "thee" and "ye" is far more accurate. Yet you tell us it is Elizabethean and archaic, yet everyone understands it. Then you tell us we need to go to the Hebrew and Greek, which hardly anybody understands, and both the Hebrew and Greek texts are in the "old fashioned" language - they are not spoken this way today in either Israel or Greece, yet they can understand it.

God has placed His words in such a fashion that they can be understood and they are accurate though in an older manner of speech. This is rather a plus than a negative. It makes God's word stand out from the TV and newspaper jargon of today.

Oh well, some will have ears to hear and others will not.

Here are some examples of how the KJB is much more accurate.

Some examples of the ambiguity that arises from not properly translating singulars and plurals.

In Luke 22:31, the NIV rightly explains in a footnote that the term "you" as used in that verse is plural. But then it FAILS to mention that in verse 32, the word "you" is singular in Greek! Of course, those who use the AV have no difficulty discerning that even without footnotes!

Exodus 4:15.


"THOU shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth; and I will be with THY mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach YOU what YE shall do."


The THOU, THY refer to Moses himself, but YOU refers to the entire nation of Israel which would be instructed by the spokesman Aaron. It becomes quite difficult to tell who is being addressed without being able to distinguish properly between singular and plural pronouns.

Exodus 29:42,


"This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout YOUR generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD where I will meet YOU, to speak there unto THEE."


The you, referring to the children of Israel, is explained in the following verse, but THEE refers to Moses, who had the holy privilege of hearing the words of God directly (Leviticus 1:1).

2 Samuel 7:23,


"And what nation in the earth is like THY people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for YOU great things and terrible, for THY land, before THY people, which THOU redeemedst to THEE from Egypt."


Here David is in prayer to God, speaking TO God in the second person singular (THY, THOU). David also speaks ABOUT God in the third person--"God, himself, him," a change of style that hardly marks prayers today. The people of Israel are referred to in the second person--YOU, even in a prayer. Consider what confusion could result if this important distinction were done away with by using YOU, YOUR throughout? It could be incorrectly thought that David was praying in part to the nation -- or that the land belonged to the people and not to God. Either misconstruction invites error.

Matthew 26:64,


"Jesus saith unto him, THOU has said: nevertheless I say unto YOU, hereafter shall YE see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."


THOU refers to the High Priest. YE and YOU refers to all who will see Him in the day of His glory (Revelation 1:7), it can be open to some interpretation, but AT LEAST include all those who were standing there IN ADDITION to the high priest.

John 3:7,


"Marvel not that I said unto THEE, YE must be born again." The message was spoken to the individual Nicodemus, but obviously the message has a wider application, referring to all men. So also in John 3 verse 11, we read: "I say unto THEE...that YE receive not our witness."


1 Corinthians 8:9-12,


"Take heed lest...this liberty of YOURS.... If any man see THEE which hast knowledge... through THY knowledge...but when YE sin."


The plural form likely refers to all church members, but the singular form to those individuals in responsibility. In verse 13, Paul even brings the principle home to himself!

2 Timothy 4:22.


"The Lord Jesus Christ be with THY spirit. Grace be with YOU." (Contrast 1 Timothy 6:21.)


The singular refers to Timothy, to whom alone the Epistle was written (2 Timothy 1:1). But the plural refers to others who were also included in Paul's final greetings, "Priscila and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus" (4:19).

Titus 3:15.


"All that are with me salute THEE. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with YOU all."


Here, the singular refers to Titus, but the YOU to the church in Crete (1:5), and to all who loved Paul in the faith.

Philemon 21-25.


"Having confidence in THY obedience I wrote unto THEE, knowing that THOU wilt also do more than I say .. I trust that through YOUR prayers I shall be given unto YOU ... There salute THEE ... the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with YOUR spirit."


The singular refers to Philemon, but this short letter was also addressed to "Apphia ... Archippus ... and to the church in thy house" (v. 2). Thus the plural form is used in verses 3 and 25 where grace is offered, and in verse 22 where fellowship with the whole church is expected, as well as with Philemon as an individual.

Get out a "modern" translation that has dropped the use of the 2nd person singular/plural distinction and compare the above passages along with Numbers 16:8-11; Deuteronomy 4:3; 1 Kings 9:5-6; Isaiah 33:2-4; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 6:4-7; Matthew 11:23-24; Matthew 18:9-10; Matthew 18:22-35; Matthew 20:21-22; Matthew 23:37-38; Mark 14:37-38; Luke 5:4; Luke 6:30-31; Luke 9:41; Luke 10:13-14; Luke 16:25-26; Luke 22:31-32; John 1:50-51;James 2:16; etc. Replacing "thou/thee/thy/thine" with the ambiguous "you" does not clarify, but muddies the Scriptures, and conveys half-truths.


Will K

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
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?

This still does not support your contention that God's Holy Word can only be found in English via the King James Bible.

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"

The only thing I have ever seen demonstrated are noun/verb tenses, pronoun usage, various differences in the Texts, and arbitrary differences in words. I saw your articles on the NIV when I followed your link the other day.
The difference you point out in Genesis 4:8 does not change "the message" of the Verse. In either Version, Cain and Abel went into the field, and Cain murdered Abel.

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?

You will recall that you start many of your articles with either Deuteronomy 4:2 or Matthew 5:18. I use a fascimile of the 1611 Authorised Version and it contains the Apocrypha. Regardless of how it is presented, and regardless of what is written before the Scriptures, it is still there, thus contradicting Proverbs 30:5-6, and failing the same test you apply to the NIV. Moreover, what about the Masoretic Texts? They added vowels to the Ancient Hebrew. A vowel would most definitely qualify as a "jot" or even a "tittle."

Back to my challenge to you: I am still waiting for you to prove using the Scriptures that God's Holy Word can only be found in the King James Bible.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
God has placed His words in such a fashion that they can be understood and they are accurate though in an older manner of speech. This is rather a plus than a negative. It makes God's word stand out from the TV and newspaper jargon of today.

I just couldn't let this go. This is a fatal flaw in your argument. The Greek that God chose to use wasn't the classical kind, but was koine. God chose to use the common language of the time. He didn't worry about whether it wouldn't stand out or not - the message allows it to stand on its own without worrying about the age of the language. Your argument falls.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:
I can see what Will is saying, and what he is basing his beliefs on. He is giving the reasons why we should only believe the TR, not other manuscripts.

No, he's not. He's giving the reasons why we should only believe the KJV. If he were giving reasons why the TR is the only acceptible source text, he might have a leg to stand on.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Roby, you guys are a funny bunch. The use of "thee" and "ye" is far more accurate. Yet you tell us it is Elizabethean and archaic, yet everyone understands it.

DO they? How many REALLY know 'thee' is singular & 'you' plural in archaic English? I mean, after all, the language wouldn't have changed unless it was God's will.


Then you tell us we need to go to the Hebrew and Greek, which hardly anybody understands, and both the Hebrew and Greek texts are in the "old fashioned" language - they are not spoken this way today in either Israel or Greece, yet they can understand it.

Now you're starting to wander off into the desert, Will. Not one in ten thousand of us knows Greek all that well, let alone KOINE Greek, and of those who do, not one in a thousand knows Hebrew also. But it DOES enhance one's knowledge of Scripture if one learns something about the languages in which the oldest known copies of Scripture are written, and which are used to make translations into the languages of today.If we all knew those older languages, we'd have no need of translations, but God chose for us to have the languages we now use.

God has placed His words in such a fashion that they can be understood and they are accurate though in an older manner of speech. This is rather a plus than a negative. It makes God's word stand out from the TV and newspaper jargon of today.

When Tyndale made the Bible that bears his name, he wrote in the English style of his time, in the commonest spelling of his time. He didn't use any special form of English. By the time the AV was made, the language had changed a little from Tyndale's time. The AV translators wrote in the best English of THEIR day. Their style of English compares favorably with that of their contemporaries who wrote strictly human and original works, such as Shakespeare and KJ himself.

And do the newer versions contain all the ambiguities you attribute to them? Let's take just one example:

Matthew 26:64, KJV Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Same verse, NIV "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Plainly, the antecedent of both 'thou' and the first 'you' is the high priest, as shown in V.63. There should be no doubt about that. But the phrase'all of you' in the NIV rendering also leaves no doubt as to whom Jesus then spoke after He answered the high priest.

Oh well, some will have ears to hear and others will not.

And the 'will nots' are called 'KJVOs'.

Get out a "modern" translation that has dropped the use of the 2nd person singular/plural distinction and compare the above passages along with Numbers 16:8-11; Deuteronomy 4:3; 1 Kings 9:5-6; Isaiah 33:2-4; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 6:4-7; Matthew 11:23-24; Matthew 18:9-10; Matthew 18:22-35; Matthew 20:21-22; Matthew 23:37-38; Mark 14:37-38; Luke 5:4; Luke 6:30-31; Luke 9:41; Luke 10:13-14; Luke 16:25-26; Luke 22:31-32; John 1:50-51;James 2:16; etc. Replacing "thou/thee/thy/thine" with the ambiguous "you" does not clarify, but muddies the Scriptures, and conveys half-truths.

Something you totally ignore, Will-the not-insignificant fact that no modern English speaker uses the 'odd pronouns' in ordinary conversation. yet, we see that no one has any prob knowing who the antecedents of 'you' are in any of our literature.

One more example: the first one in your above paragraph, Numbers 16:8-11. The context is that Moses is addressing Korah,(V.8 begins,"Then Moses said to Korah...) but he says, "Hear now, you(ye) sons of Levi:" Plainly, Moses is actually addressing all those who accompanied Korah, with special emphasis to Korah alone, as he is the leader of the dissidents. In V.10, according to the KJV, Moses says, 10 "And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also?"

Same verse, NKJV- "and that He has brought you near to Himself, you and all your brethren, the sons of Levi, with you? And are you seeking the priesthood also?"

Plainly, the NKJV's English indicates the antecedent of 'you' to be Korah. I don't believe we need to bore everyone by going through this process with every set of verses you've listed, to show that this is just another rather poor KJVO argument.

The KJV was written in the best English of its day. However, that day was 400 years ago.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Scott, you posted: "Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
God has placed His words in such a fashion that they can be understood and they are accurate though in an older manner of speech. This is rather a plus than a negative. It makes God's word stand out from the TV and newspaper jargon of today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just couldn't let this go. This is a fatal flaw in your argument. The Greek that God chose to use wasn't the classical kind, but was koine. God chose to use the common language of the time. He didn't worry about whether it wouldn't stand out or not - the message allows it to stand on its own without worrying about the age of the language. Your argument falls.


Scott, you missed my point. God sees the end from the beginning, right?

The way it is NOW, is that the Hebrew, the Greek and the English of the KJB are all found in a form that is understandable by native speakers, but it is not the way we speak in everyday discourse. I see a divine pattern here. You do not.

Will K

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
I use a facsimile of the 1611 Authorized Version and it contains the Apocrypha. Regardless of how it is presented, and regardless of what is written before the Scriptures, it is still there, thus contradicting Proverbs 30:5-6, and failing the same test you apply to the NIV.

In all honesty I think this is a straw man argument. The translators of the KJV were all Anglicans, as Dr. Bob has gleefully pointed out several times. The 39 Articles clearly present the position of the Church of England regarding the Apocrypha, that they did NOT believe it was inspired, but that it was profitable for reading for a number of reasons. They removed the Apocrypha from being part of the Old Testament and segregated it between the testaments to avoid any appearance of canonicity.

I also think your objection is more than a bit disingenuous as the two favorite Greek manuscripts of the modern version proponents (Aleph and B) both contain the Apocrypha as an integral part of the OT canon.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Scott, you missed my point. God sees the end from the beginning, right?

The way it is NOW, is that the Hebrew, the Greek and the English of the KJB are all found in a form that is understandable by native speakers, but it is not the way we speak in everyday discourse. I see a divine pattern here. You do not.

Talk to the common American 14-year old. Ask them if the KJV is understandable. Go to the inner cities of the nation and ask them if they can understand the KJV.

Your divine pattern is about as divine as the "Bible codes" - merely a manmade device to try to hold onto that which is wrong.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

I just couldn't let this go. This is a fatal flaw in your argument. The Greek that God chose to use wasn't the classical kind, but was koine. God chose to use the common language of the time. He didn't worry about whether it wouldn't stand out or not - the message allows it to stand on its own without worrying about the age of the language. Your argument falls.

Actually, YOURS fails. The AV 1611 was written in the best English of its day, and its vernacular is consistent with that of other contemporary scholarly works. The reason it stands out today is because its English style is 400 years old. Shakespeare's works stand out just as much for the same reason.


Scott, you missed my point. God sees the end from the beginning, right?

The way it is NOW, is that the Hebrew, the Greek and the English of the KJB are all found in a form that is understandable by native speakers, but it is not the way we speak in everyday discourse. I see a divine pattern here. You do not.

Will, you'd see a divine pattern in an ink blot if it served your purpose. The divine pattern you miss-one that's plain as day-is that in English, God has presented His word in the language style current for its time for hundreds of years. There's no Scriptural indication that He retired in 1611 and no longer preserves and presents His word in the current language. You KJVO ladies & gents simply refuse to see the plain, unmistakable work of God right before your eyes.

You often say, "He that hath ears...". Try practicing what you preach.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
In all honesty I think this is a straw man argument. The translators of the KJV were all Anglicans, as Dr. Bob has gleefully pointed out several times. The 39 Articles clearly present the position of the Church of England regarding the Apocrypha, that they did NOT believe it was inspired, but that it was profitable for reading for a number of reasons. They removed the Apocrypha from being part of the Old Testament and segregated it between the testaments to avoid any appearance of canonicity.

So, are you saying that it is okay to add to God's Holy Word, provided one either adds a disclaimer or segregates it? Where might I find the Scripture that supports this contention?

I also think your objection is more than a bit disingenuous as the two favorite Greek manuscripts of the modern version proponents (Aleph and B) both contain the Apocrypha as an integral part of the OT canon.

Disingenuous? That is quite an assumption on your part given the anonymity of this bulletin board.
I have stated numerous times that I utilize a fascimile of the true 1611 Authorised Version, and have no problem whatsoever with the Apocrypha. As you have eloquently listed above, the rationale behind the placement of the Apocrypha in the 1611 Authorised Version was clearly explained. However, to say that this is a "straw man argument" is rather convenient for you. In other words, what you are really saying is "This test only applies to your Bible, not mine." Additionally, you are seemingly implying that the litmus test has now been altered to include proximity. If a test is to be administered to establish the exclusion of all other English translations of God's Holy Word, there must be uniformity.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Actually, YOURS fails. The AV 1611 was written in the best English of its day, and its vernacular is consistent with that of other contemporary scholarly works. The reason it stands out today is because its English style is 400 years old. Shakespeare's works stand out just as much for the same reason.

Of course, Shakespeare utilized the Geneva Bible, which would place him in the "not KJB only" camp.....

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
Actually, YOURS fails. The AV 1611 was written in the best English of its day, and its vernacular is consistent with that of other contemporary scholarly works. The reason it stands out today is because its English style is 400 years old. Shakespeare's works stand out just as much for the same reason.

Of course, Shakespeare utilized the Geneva Bible, which would place him in the "not KJB only" camp.....

</font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm...Wonder if Chaucer(D.1400) was a Wycliffe man?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
So, are you saying that it is okay to add to God's Holy Word, provided one either adds a disclaimer or segregates it? Where might I find the Scripture that supports this contention?

You seem to have missed the point. The translators did not "add to God's Holy Word" as you charge. They REMOVED the Apocrypha from the Old Testament (where it exists in the LXX, Aleph, B, etc.) to show it was NOT "God's Holy Word" but placed it OUTSIDE of either the Old or New Testaments. Material between the covers of a bible which is in neither the Old or New Testaments is not part of "God's Holy Word." Every bible I own has such "additions" and nobody I know is uninformed enough to think the concordance, index, study notes, etc. is are "God's Holy Word." Once again, you have raised this issue as a straw man. It exists only in your own mind.

Disingenuous? That is quite an assumption on your part given the anonymity of this bulletin board.
I have stated numerous times that I utilize a facsimile of the true 1611 Authorized Version, and have no problem whatsoever with the Apocrypha.

Exactly my point! You criticize others for doing exactly the same thing you do! You recognize that the Apocrypha is NOT "God's Holy Word" then accuse others, who use the same bible, of "adding to God's Holy Word."

However, to say that this is a "straw man argument" is rather convenient for you. In other words, what you are really saying is "This test only applies to your Bible, not mine."

No, that is what you are saying. My bibles all contain non-canonical material between the covers which I recognize as being non-canonical. It is you who has erected a double standard.

Additionally, you are seemingly implying that the litmus test has now been altered to include proximity. If a test is to be administered to establish the exclusion of all other English translations of God's Holy Word, there must be uniformity.

Wrong again. Every bible contains non-canonical material between the covers. And I have not used the "litmus test" to exclude any English version. I use several different English versions. What I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. You think it is okay for you to use a bible containing non-canonical material but refuse to allow the same liberty to those who hold to the KJVO position.

 

[gb93433]

"Every bible contains non-canonical material between the covers.

What might that be?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
What might that be?

The things I listed!

the concordance, index, study notes, etc.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
You seem to have missed the point. The translators did not "add to God's Holy Word" as you charge. They REMOVED the Apocrypha from the Old Testament (where it exists in the LXX, Aleph, B, etc.) to show it was NOT "God's Holy Word" but placed it OUTSIDE of either the Old or New Testaments. Material between the covers of a bible which is in neither the Old or New Testaments is not part of "God's Holy Word." Every bible I own has such "additions" and nobody I know is uninformed enough to think the concordance, index, study notes, etc. is are "God's Holy Word." Once again, you have raised this issue as a straw man. It exists only in your own mind.

Really? Is the Apocrypha contained in the 1611 Authorised Version, yes or no? I do not recall ever discussing "the concordance, index, study notes, etc." as my AV does not contain them. The location of the Apocrypha is irrelevant to the discussion, as the test outlined in the first post of this discussion makes no mention of proximity.

You criticize others for doing exactly the same thing you do! You recognize that the Apocrypha is NOT "God's Holy Word" then accuse others, who use the same bible, of "adding to God's Holy Word."

How on earth did you arrive at this conclusion? This is nonsensical.
I utilize the 1611 Authorised Version. In other words, I am using the real "King James Bible." I do not, however, make the foolish assumption that God's Holy Word can only be found in the 1611 Authorised Version. I responded to the author of the thread that the 1611 Authorised Version that I use fails the test outlined in the first post of this discussion. The Apocrypha, regardless of proximity, has been placed in my Bible. As a matter of fact, it is also in my copy of the Septuagint. I did not criticize anyone.

&gt;&gt;However, to say that this is a "straw man argument"
&gt;&gt;is rather convenient for you. In other words,
&gt;&gt;what you are really saying is "This test
&gt;&gt;only applies to your Bible, not mine."

No, that is what you are saying. My bibles all contain non-canonical material between the covers which I recognize as being non-canonical. It is you who has erected a double standard.

Again, you are not making sense. Please show me where I "erected a double standard." If you read my comments, you will realize that I did indeed apply this test to my Bible, and noted that it failed the test. How in the world did you come to the conclusion that I have somehow "erected a double standard" given this fact?

Wrong again. Every bible contains non-canonical material between the covers. And I have not used the "litmus test" to exclude any English version. I use several different English versions. What I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of your position. You think it is okay for you to use a bible containing non-canonical material but refuse to allow the same liberty to those who hold to the KJVO position.

Actually, I don't think that at all, and do not recall implying this. Since you have missed my point altogether, let me try stating it a different way:
I use the 1611 Authorised Version. I believe it is the Divinely Inspired Word of God. I can also find the Divinely Inspired Word of God in the Wiclif Bible, Luther's Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, The Septuagint, the NKJV, the ESV, and even the much-maligned NIV! NOBODY on this list has ever given a legitimate Scriptural Basis for justifying the belief that God's Holy Word can only be found in the King James Version. I have pointed out that my Bible failed the test that is outlined in this discussion that was claimed to be the evidence to support KJV-onlyism.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

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"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing I have ever seen demonstrated are noun/verb tenses, pronoun usage, various differences in the Texts, and arbitrary differences in words. I saw your articles on the NIV when I followed your link the other day.
The difference you point out in Genesis 4:8 does not change "the message" of the Verse. In either Version, Cain and Abel went into the field, and Cain murdered Abel.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Baptist in Richmond, I certainly hope for your sake as well as for others that you are not a pastor or in a leadership position anywhere in the church. You modern version promoters seem to have so little reverence for the words of God. Apparently you didn't bother to look through much of the lists I have posted on my site about all the instances where the NASB, NIV have rejected the Hebrew texts, and the ESV, which you promote, is often worse than these two bogus bibles.

All you've noticed are "various differences in the texts, and arbitrary differences in words"? Well, Duh? Just looking at random I noticed this morning the ESV readings in a few places. I could produce 100 such examples but I doubt it would do any good for certain individuals, but in case somebody out there still has a smattering of godly fear for the true words of God, I will give a couple examples.

In 1 Samuel 9:25 when Saul went to Samuel and he was anointed king of Israel we read: "And when they were come down from the high place into the city, SAMUEL COMMUNED WITH SAUL UPON THE TOP OF THE HOUSE.

So read the Hebrew texts, and even the NASB, NIV, NKJV. However your ESV says: "And when they came down from the high place into the city, A BED WAS SPREAD FOR SAUL ON THE ROOF, AND HE LAY DOWN TO SLEEP."

Then in a footnote the ESV tells us this reading comes from the Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads like the KJB, nasb, niv, nkjv.

Now I hope this is not way over your head, but the meaning is not the same. The ESV also changes the Hebrew texts right here in verse 24 where the Hebrew says: "I have invited the people", but the LXX says "that you might eat with the guests". The ESV also changes verse 26 and follows the LXX and not the Hebrew. Three times in three successive verses.

Then just two verses later in 1 Samuel 10:1 the ESV adds a whole bunch of words not found in the Hebrew texts nor in the nasb, niv, nkjv. The KJB, as well as the nasb, niv, says: "Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?"

BUT, the ESV says: "Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, Has not the LORD anointed you to be prince over HIS PEOPLE ISRAEL? AND YOU SHALL REIGN OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE LORD AND YOU WILL SAVE THEM FROM THE HAND OF THEIR SURROUNDING ENEMIES. AND THIS SHALL BE THE SIGN TO YOU THAT THE LORD HAS ANOINTED YOU TO BE PRINCE OVER his heritage."

All the words in capital letters are not found in the Hebrew, but they are brought in from the spurious, alleged pre-Christian Septuagint version which is wildly different than the Hebrew texts in hundreds and hundreds of passages.

There are HUNDREDS of places like this in the O.T. where the ESV has altered the Hebrew text, and you have only noticed a few little differences, huh?

One more "little" one you might comment on. In 1 Samuel 13:1 the KJB says: "Saul reigned ONE year: and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel...."

However your ESV says: "Saul was ....years old when he began to reign, and he reigned ....and two years over Israel."

But the NASB from 1960s through 1972 and 1977 said: "Saul was 40 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 32 years"; but the 1995 nasb now says: Saul was 30 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 42 years."

Hey, they all mean the same thing, right? He went to sleep on a bed on the roof= No, he didn't. He was .....years old = he was 40 years old = he was 30 years old = he reigned one year. Just ask "Doctor Bob", "all the bibles are inspired by the same Holy Spirit".

It appears to me and other King James Bible believers that you guys have gone off to some seminary where you paid good money to have your brains scrambled and your faith in an inspired, inerrant Bible stolen. You have come out on the other side promoting idiocy in the name of advanced scholarship, and since you no longer can even think straight, you want us to join you in not believing any Bible or any text on God's green earth is the inerrant, preserved words of God. May God have mercy on the poor people you guys try to indoctrinate with your foolishness and mind numbing mumbo jumbo.

Have a nice day,

Will Kinney

 

[skanwmatos]

Well, I think I have gotten to the point of wasting my time. No KJVO has ever claimed the Apocrypha was canonical. You say the 1611 fails their test, but refuse to see that they have never made the inclusion of non-canonical material a test. You are still erecting straw man arguments, engaging a double standard, and assigning to them that which you know they do not believe. If you can't be honest with them, why should they listen to you? Why make up things you say they believe, such as this non-existent "test" when there are so many things they do believe which can be openly and honestly dealt with? You sound as bad as Ruckman claiming every modern version uses is a member of the "Alexandrian Cult!"

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi skanwmatos, thank you for the very reasonable explanation you provided. The Apocrypha was not considered to be Scripture.

Will Kinney

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
I use a facsimile of the 1611 Authorized Version and it contains the Apocrypha. Regardless of how it is presented, and regardless of what is written before the Scriptures, it is still there, thus contradicting Proverbs 30:5-6, and failing the same test you apply to the NIV.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all honesty I think this is a straw man argument. The translators of the KJV were all Anglicans, as Dr. Bob has gleefully pointed out several times. The 39 Articles clearly present the position of the Church of England regarding the Apocrypha, that they did NOT believe it was inspired, but that it was profitable for reading for a number of reasons. They removed the Apocrypha from being part of the Old Testament and segregated it between the testaments to avoid any appearance of canonicity.
I also think your objection is more than a bit disingenuous as the two favorite Greek manuscripts of the modern version proponents (Aleph and B) both contain the Apocrypha as an integral part of the OT canon.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Scott posts: "Talk to the common American 14-year old. Ask them if the KJV is understandable. Go to the inner cities of the nation and ask them if they can understand the KJV.
Your divine pattern is about as divine as the "Bible codes" - merely a manmade device to try to hold onto that which is wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Scott, your arguments are really pathetic. Do you want accuracy and the truth, or a comic book bible that is easy to read, though it perverts true doctine, adds to God's word, and omits thousands more? Well, I guess you have already decided.

As for 14 year olds, I know of plenty a lot younger than this who read and understand the KJB. Here in the Denver area there are quite a few black Christian churches where they use and love the KJB and most of them have not gone to seminary to have their brains reemed out. They can still think clearly.

Do you need to get a dictionary from time to time to find out what a word means? Oh my, what a novelty!

Hey, try out this spelling quiz from your easy to understand niv or nkjv.

Words in the New King James Version

Those who criticize the King James Bible as being too hard to understand should consider giving this vocabulary test to their children, or even take it themselves. Try giving a definition of these words and see if you would get a passing score.

The NKJV does not always follow the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the Authorized 1611 King James Bible. It also changes its own wording from one edition to the next. To date there are three different NKJV editions, 1979, 1980, and 1982, all with different wordings. When compared carefully with the old KJB, it is evident that the NKJV has drastically changed the meaning of hundreds of verses, paraphrased many literal readings, introduced several proveable contradictions and perverted several doctrinal issues. Aside from these more important matters, the following list provides many difficult words found in this so called easy to understand version.

You may be able to recognize and define many of these words, though you too would probably fail a vocabulary test, but try giving this list to the average high school student today and see how they do.

The vocabulary of the New King James Version, along with some "helpful hints".

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths (not to get clean), bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty (not modern slang), borne, breach, brandished (not drunk), bray, bristling, buffet (not a restaurant), buckler (not a belt), bulrush, (not a stampede), burnished, butress (not a chair), calamus, caldron, capital (not a city), carcasses, carnally, carrion (not luggage), cassia, caulkers, centurion (not a 100 years), chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste (not pursued by a runner), chasten, (not related to previous chaste), chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern (not feminine of brethren), citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven (not a spice), commission (not money), commonwealth (not shared money), compound (not a barracks), concede , compulsory, conciliation, concubine (not a tractor), congealed, contemptuously, confederacy (not the South), contingents (not same as large land masses), corban, coriander, countenance (not adding up ants), couriers (not an hordourve), covert, crags, crescents, crest (not the top of a hill), cropped (not food), cubit, custodian (not the one who cleans the school halls), curds, dainties (not effeminate), dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed (not relaxing after a foto op), deride (not same as dismount), despoiled (not really, really rotten), diadem, diffuses (not to disarm a bomb), dilapidation (not the act of standing up), dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner (not a grape grower), docile, dragnet (not a detective drama), dregs, drachmas, dropsy (not clumsiness), dross, dryshod, eczema (God bless you), edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails (not a short cut), envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise (not jogging), expiration (not a date on a carton of milk), faction, fallow, famish, fare (not average and not money), fatlings (not piglets), feigned (not passed out), festal, fetched, fidelity (not good sound), figurehead (not a statue of a head), filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers (not a baseball term), fuller (not less empty), furlongs (not cat tails), gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew (not a man's name), homers (not baseball), hoopoe (not a garden tool), immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy (a TV show, but what does it mean?), jubilation, kors (not a brand of beer), laden, lamentations, laud (not Boston pronunciation of lard), lusty, mail (not a letter), mammon, matrix (other than the movie), mattock (not a TV lawyer show), mercenaries, mina (not a type of bird), mite (not a bed bug), moorings, nativity, offal (not terrible), offscouring (not dandruff), omnipotent, onager (Job 39:5 - you won't believe this one!) oracle, pangs, papyrus (not a fruit), paramours, parapet(not a dog and a cat), penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins (not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot), pinions (not a type of nut), plaited (not dishes), platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice (not chickens), Praetorium (not a place to pray), prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators (not people who put things off till later), propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver (not to shake), rampart (not a piece of a truck), ravenous, ravished, raze (not to lift up), reconciliation, recount (not to double check your arithmetic), rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled (does not have to do with guns), rivulets, rogue, salute ( does not have to do with the army), satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle (not a type of bus or spaceship), siegeworks, sistrums (not an affectionate term for your sisters), skiff, soothsayer, spelt (not anything to do with spelling words), straits (not the opposite of crookeds), superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng (not a skimpy bathing suit), timbrel, tittle (not the name of a book), tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton (not desiring something), warp (not to bend), wend, wield, winebibber, woof (not a dog or stereo), wrought.

NIV Vocabulary Test


Ask your son or daughter if they can define these words. It is highly unlikely that most high school students would get a passing grade on such a vocabulary test. In fact, you too would probably not pass it. Try it and see how you do.

Words found in the NIV.

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; “The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: "The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."

So you see, the modern versions also have many words that are hard to be understood.


So, what's your score? Would you get a passing grade, even with my helpful hints?

Will Kinney