The reason I am KJBO

[robycop3]

I know you're a moderator, but is not that a derogatory statement about a version of the Bible? I thought that was against forum rules?

It appears to be a personal opinion.

 

[robycop3]

There are other sources of Divine Revelation than the Bible. We see General Revelation all around us. "The Heavens declare the Glory of God and the firmament showeth forth His handiwork." However, that General Revelation tells us of the existence of God but not what he desires from us. For that we need Specific Revelation, God's Self Revelation to us which tells us Who He is and what He wants.

General Revelation can teach us the existence of God. That is creation.

Specific or Special Revelation is necessary for salvation. That is the Bible.

Without the Bible, man would deduce that some "Higher Intelligence" created all matter & energy, but he wouldn't know who that "intelligence" is.
God caused His word to be written because writing was the most-reliable way to accurately & permanently record words until fairly recently. And God chose to originally give His word in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek cuz rhey were the main languages of His chosen penmen. And He caused those languages to become "dead" so there'd be an UNCHANGING written preservation of His word. But out "living" languages DO change. That's why GOD causes newer translations to be made, to keep His word in the current language.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

All I know is that if the KJT is the only translation a man can trust he should use it.

If a man can trust other sound translations than he ought to use those as well.

 

[gaultzilla]

The KJV is what I was raised on. (i'm 46) But, there sure is a lot of it I don't understand. For me personally, i tended to read highlighted verses that I did have an understanding of over and over instead of delving deeper in the word.

I have a much deeper and better relationship with Our Lord, since I got a translation that I can understand more easily. I also find it much easier to explain verses from the NIV to my children. Maybe I'm simple-minded, but I much prefer modern language translations.

Having said all that, I think, there are many more important things to God, like spreading His plan of salvation and changed lives for eternity. Sometimes
this issue, which really seems like a non-issue, becomes the central theme of entire denominations.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Without the Bible, man would deduce that some "Higher Intelligence" created all matter & energy, but he wouldn't know who that "intelligence" is.

He would though know about His power, His position as Creator, and our duty to worship Him as such. IOW, creation tells us enough about God to reveal our duty to Him and thus make us guilty.

What creation cannot possible reveal is God's love or plan of redemption, for that one needs the direct revelation of God, namely Christ as revealed in Scripture.

 

[Mexdeaf]

All I know is that if the KJT is the only translation a man can trust he should use it.

If a man can trust other sound translations than he ought to use those as well.

Can't argue with that. Someone will probably try to, though!

 

[TomVols]

There is a difference between saying "I believe the only translation I can trust is the KJV" and someone saying "The only translation ANYONE can trust is the KJV, and those who trust others aren't trusting the Bible." There are some translations I don't put my trust in that are valid translations of Holy Scripture.

Remember: I'm a former KJVO. I know the lingo. I speak their language. Those who are not or have not been may not see the loading in the language used on that side.

 

[Winman]

Can't argue with that. Someone will probably try to, though!

You can trust anything or anybody, ask Bernie Madoff. Trusting any translation does not make that translation reliable.

 

[Mexdeaf]

You can trust anything or anybody, ask Bernie Madoff. Trusting any translation does not make that translation reliable.

See I told you, C4K! I could feel it in my bones.:laugh:

That applies to the KJV also, since it is a translation.

 

[rsr]

You cannot get past the KJV's poor translation of 1 Tim. 6:10, let alone any other goofs in it.

I happen think that the KJV translators got that particular verse (almost) right, the expression being hyperbolic and in context with the preceding verses. The NET is among the few modern version, IMO, that have rendered it correctly, the rest having taken it upon themselves (following some pretty prestigious examples, such as Luther, to be sure) to correct the apostle's wording.

 

[TCassidy]

I happen think that the KJV translators got that particular verse (almost) right, the expression being hyperbolic and in context with the preceding verses. The NET is among the few modern version, IMO, that have rendered it correctly, the rest having taken it upon themselves (following some pretty prestigious examples, such as Luther, to be sure) to correct the apostle's wording.

I couldn't help but notice Cranston did not reply to my comments on the verse.

I also think the NET bible did an excellent job of translating the Greek, even to the point of recognizing the definite nature of the phrase required a definite article. However, I am not sure the "s" on the end of "evils" is necessary as "evil" can be a collective noun. But I won't fault the NET for making the plurality obvious.

 

[Winman]

See I told you, C4K! I could feel it in my bones.:laugh:

That applies to the KJV also, since it is a translation.

Well of course, because it is a silly argument. Just because you believe something to be true does not make it so. Thousands of people fully trusted Bernie Madoff and gave him their life savings and lost everything.

But you are correct, simply because I only trust the KJB does not prove it the only true translation. I agree with you 100% on this. I have always maintained that I believe the KJB the preserved and pure word of God in English by faith.

To me it is simple. God said he would preserve his pure word. I believe that, so the preserved and pure word of God must exist in the world. My task is to identify that preserved and pure word.

But I will never believe the Critical Text and Received Text the same and do not see how any intelligent person can. One has nearly 3000 less words in the Greek than the other. Either one added to God's word, or one diminished from it, but they are not the same.

Have you ever looked at those puzzles that shows maybe six similar drawings and asks you to identify which two drawings are the same? Would you pick a drawing with 3000 differences from another and say they are exactly the same?

Perhaps some of you would. :laugh:

 

[Phillip]

That statement would have been true from 1611 to the 1880's, by not since then.

Rippon you are absolutely right. I have to disagree with C4K on this particular issue because it is just not correct. It is not a matter that the early versions of the KJV were accurate and I am talking about the 1769 version later; but, is it accurate today?

I think it might be accurate or as accurate as you can get based on two assumptions, first the background text may or may not be the most accurate and I know C4K prefers the Byzantine text form, but the KJV translators really restricted themselves and not only restricted themselves but also used the Vulgate as a comparison.

The second, and most important reason that I think the KJV is not the best choice for today is your answer, Rippon, and that is the fact that English has changed so much that my six year old grandson cannot understand it like he understands a modern translation that uses the language he speaks today.

For example, somebody and it may have been you, Rippon, or even C4K made a list of words that just do not mean the same thing as they do now. This is a major problem because so many people thinnk they are understanding it, while they are understanding something completely different because the words are completely different.

It is more dangerous to THINK you understand what you are reading, but not realize that it may be using words that have not meant the same for over 100 years or more; than it is to read the Vulgate and not know Latin and realize that you do not understand what you are reading.

If you like the textform, then buy an NKJV. Isn't the net Bible also based on the Byzantine textform? We must also remember this only applies to the New Testament and only very small percentages of it at that. So, unless we know for certain what every single later-old English word means, then we may think we know what we area reading.

I listened to a KJVO pastor at my daughter's church, whom I love dearly, but disagree on his theology and we both know that we must agree to disagree because both of us are strong in our beliefs. But, he actually said that the meaning of the Greek for the eye-of-the-needle is a smaller gate built into the bigger gate to let the sheep pass through. This old fable has nothing to do with the KJV, but he was using it as an issue that in the KJV that's what it means and in the Modern versions it means a real needle. Sorry, but there has never been any evidence for that story to be truthful and I've been to Israel and asked archeologists there specifically about that story and they say there is nothing to it. (These are Christians I talked with---see there are a lot of athiests in Israel among the Jews, Arabs and other groups who are in the Israeli military.) Israel is not the holy land people think they are going to find, unless Catholic shrines stuck on everything counts. Israel is known as a party country with little regard to any religion; in reality.

Bottom line, Rippon is correct in that during those periods of time, then yes, that may be true, it was a good translation. Too much time has passed and our language has changed too much for it to be a good translation for modern English speaking people.

Another thing is that I get a real laugh when i hear people say, my six year old can understand the KJV just as good as he can understand an NIV. Now, the NIV is not my favorite translation, but to reach a six year old, it is an easy Bible for them to read their favorite Bible stories in. Mine, during that age period was The Living Bible (Paraphrase) and Good News For Modern Man's New Testament that was almost given away. I loved the second one a lot. My mom could tell you how I read it instead of listening to the boooring preacher jump on our sins every week over and over. I learned about love and neighborly and brotherly love; while the KJV preacher tends to jump the lifestyle of everybody in the room every Sunday without much positive. For some reason that must be the easiest portion to read.

 

[TCassidy]

Isn't the net Bible also based on the Byzantine textform?

No. It is based on the Alexandrian textform.

 

[TCassidy]

I listened to a KJVO pastor at my daughter's church, whom I love dearly, but disagree on his theology and we both know that we must agree to disagree because both of us are strong in our beliefs. But, he actually said that the meaning of the Greek for the eye-of-the-needle is a smaller gate built into the bigger gate to let the sheep pass through. This old fable has nothing to do with the KJV, but he was using it as an issue that in the KJV that's what it means and in the Modern versions it means a real needle. Sorry, but there has never been any evidence for that story to be truthful and I've been to Israel and asked archeologists there specifically about that story and they say there is nothing to it. (These are Christians I talked with---see there are a lot of athiests in Israel among the Jews, Arabs and other groups who are in the Israeli military.) Israel is not the holy land people think they are going to find, unless Catholic shrines stuck on everything counts. Israel is known as a party country with little regard to any religion; in reality.

Don't be too quick to discount the eye of the needle being a small opening adjacent to the main gate. Remember Emperor Hadrian destroyed Jerusalem, including much of the city wall, in the 2nd century AD. See the following:

I always wondered about that phrase in the Gospels ... until I happened to hear of a place quite near to the Holy Sepulcher ... a place called: The Russian Excavations, or St. Alexander's Chapel in honor of St. Alexander Nevsky.

The name Russian Excavations comes from the archeological excavations carried out in 1883 by Archimandrite Antonin Kapoustin, Chief of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. He was a talented, but amateur archeologist. The area excavated was within the headquarters built by the Orthodox Palestine Society.

In the late 1880's there were so many Russian pilgrims walking all the way to the Holy Land, that the Czar received permission to buy this area and create a hostel for the Russian "Orthodox" Pilgrims. A place where they could rest, be understood and cared for by their own people. It used the name "Palestine" because that was the official name of this country at the time. And it was to be a "Society" so that it would be autonomous from the official Russian Orthodox Church. (At present, the president of this society, here and abroad, is His Eminence Bishop Anthony Grabbe.)

Under layers of stone and dirt, left there after the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1009 by Caliph Hakim in a maniac fit of anger, they listed as discovered the following:

1. Remnants of the Judgement Gate, built in the 1st century BC by King Herod the Great.

2. Remnants of an arch and two columns, built by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in the beginning of the 2nd century AD.

3. Remnants of the Basilica built by the Byzantine queen St. Helena at the beginning of the 4th century.

4. Remnants of a convent of the Chanoines (a holy order of monks who were servants at the Holy Sepulcher in the time of the Crusades).

Fr. James Heinsch ofm

It is possible that #2 above is the remains of the "eye of the needle" Jesus was talking about.

 

[Jim1999]

I know we are off topic here, but I always understood that the entry to the city was a gate through which a man on a horse could not enter. He had to dismount outside the gate,,plus camels, the more frequent beast of burden and war, could not enter at all....this was the "eye of the needle (gate)."

The Oxford Dictionary describes the "eye of the needle as the least possible aperture, esp. with reference to Matt 19:24."

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Trotter]

God said he would preserve his pure word.

Yes. Not in a single condensed point like what you just wrote, but He did promise to preserve His word.

I believe that, so the preserved and pure word of God must exist in the world.

Again, yes.

My task is to identify that preserved and pure word.

Logical conclusion. Not quite right, but logical. God will take care of His word... we are to obey it.

But I will never believe the Critical Text and Received Text the same and do not see how any intelligent person can. One has nearly 3000 less words in the Greek than the other. Either one added to God's word, or one diminished from it, but they are not the same.

And then you jumped off the dock of logical thinking into the sea of complete personal preference. While they are not the same, no one has the authority or knowledge to be able to point their finger and say "This one is right" or "This one is wrong." The fact is that we just don't know and God isn't giving us any hints.

Honestly, I doubt either one is 100% correct, but that doesn't shake my faith in God, His word, or His promise to preserve it. God will do so regardless of man's attempts to help him along or man's efforts to push their own agenda/interpretations. We just won't know for sure until we get to heaven and then it won't mater because we will have the Word Himself.

 

[Winman]

Yes. Not in a single condensed point like what you just wrote, but He did promise to preserve His word.

Again, yes.

Logical conclusion. Not quite right, but logical. God will take care of His word... we are to obey it.

And then you jumped off the dock of logical thinking into the sea of complete personal preference. While they are not the same, no one has the authority or knowledge to be able to point their finger and say "This one is right" or "This one is wrong." The fact is that we just don't know and God isn't giving us any hints.

Honestly, I doubt either one is 100% correct, but that doesn't shake my faith in God, His word, or His promise to preserve it. God will do so regardless of man's attempts to help him along or man's efforts to push their own agenda/interpretations. We just won't know for sure until we get to heaven and then it won't mater because we will have the Word Himself.

I agree, the KJB is a personal preference for me. I examined the many versions of scripture and how they came to be and was persuaded the KJB was the preserved word of God in English. I believe this by faith, as it is impossible to know for an absolute certainty. The debates here prove that.

If you doubt that any version is 100% correct, then you doubt God's promise to preserve his pure word. Pure means without error or corruption.

I agree with you that the preserving is in God's hands and control. I don't believe for one second that the KJB translators considered themselves prophets under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But that does not mean God was not in control of their translation. I believe God brought about the entire Reformation and those men who gave their lives to write the first English translations. I believe God brought about the KJB just as England became the world's first global superpower and took the word of God to nearly every nation on earth.

None of the modern versions can compare with this. What great revivals have ever been attributed to the MVs? It was not the MVs that were taken to every continent and nearly every nation on earth.

You think that a coincidence? I don't. So I believe history itself shows strong support for the KJB.

And you know, try as you might, you folks cannot prove that the RT did not exist before the CT. The RT has support from early church fathers and scriptures written in other languages that the CT cannot produce. It has a trail of continuity back to the first centuries well before the CT.

 

[rsr]

Don't be too quick to discount the eye of the needle being a small opening adjacent to the main gate. Remember Emperor Hadrian destroyed Jerusalem, including much of the city wall, in the 2nd century AD. ... It is possible that #2 above is the remains of the "eye of the needle" Jesus was talking about.

It is possible, of course, that such a gate existed and was known as the "eye of the needle," but I cannot find any good evidence for it from antiquity, although Victorian visitors to Jerusalem apparently accepted the story.

You can find a similar figure of speech in the Babylonian Talmud:

R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: A man is shown in a dream only what is suggested by his own thoughts, as it says, As for thee, Oh King, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed. Or if you like, I can derive it from here: That thou mayest know the thoughts of the heart.
Raba said: This is proved by the fact that a man is never shown in a dream a date palm of gold, or an elephant going through the eye of a needle.

Tractate Berakoth 55b, as translated by Maurice Simon, from Contents of the Soncino Babylonian Talmud, London, 1935.

In context, Jesus' comment can be seen as 1) a hyperbole or 2) a flat statement condemning rich men or 3) a reminder (contrary to traditional belief that riches were God's reward to righteous men) that no one who has not been born from above may enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus' further comments show that the action he is talking about is not just difficult, as would be a camel or horse to kneel: "With men this is impossible but with God all things are possible."

There is an alternate explanation (from Lamsa) that the word translated camel should have been translated rope; whether Lamsa was right or wrong on this point, it does not change the thrust of the statement: neither a camel nor a rope can go through the eye of a needle; it is impossible.

How would Hadrian's Arch (circa A.D. 135) qualify? Aside from its date, the arch originally was larger than it appears now, the level of the city having been raised considerably by repeated demolition and rebuilding throughout the 1,900 years since its construction.

 

[jbh28]

None of the modern versions can compare with this. What great revivals have ever been attributed to the MVs? It was not the MVs that were taken to every continent and nearly every nation on earth.

And it wasn't the KJV that did it. It was God and his word.

You think that a coincidence? I don't. So I believe history itself shows strong support for the KJB.

No, the KJV was just the version that was out at the time.

And you know, try as you might, you folks cannot prove that the RT did not exist before the CT. The RT has support from early church fathers and scriptures written in other languages that the CT cannot produce. It has a trail of continuity back to the first centuries well before the CT.

Of course the RT was out(1500's) before the CT(1800's). What can be proved is that manuscript evidence is typically older for the CT in the variants. That doesn't prove anything more than the majority does. There are many factors that have to be weighed in the picture.

As you said, this is your preference. That's good. But don't teach logical fallacies as part of your defense.