A Question regarding KJVO

[Yeshua1]

The huge and important difference is the truth that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

An English Bible translation in 1611 is not the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations. You are appealing to the wrong standard to evaluate or try other Bible translations.

The Hebrew and Greek texts are to be the primary sources, not any English translation!

 

[George Antonios]

The huge and important difference is the truth that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

An English Bible translation in 1611 is not the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations. You are appealing to the wrong standard to evaluate or try other Bible translations.

That wasn't your initial point. You shifted. Your original point was about "taking their Bible away from them".
Also, there is no one Greek or Hebrew. So in so far as the KJB translation makes the correct synthesis, then it becomes the standard.

 

[37818]

. . . there is no one Greek or Hebrew.

That would be a denial of Psalms 119:89, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Would it not?

 

[robycop3]

That wasn't your initial point. You shifted. Your original point was about "taking their Bible away from them".
Also, there is no one Greek or Hebrew. So in so far as the KJB translation makes the correct synthesis, then it becomes the standard.

We have pointed out a number of goofs & booboos in the KJV. (NOT "KJB")

 

[robycop3]

Apologies for not making myself clear. I am not looking for a Spanish translation, but want to know the KJVO answer to the question.

Should the entire world learn English? Should they use a Spanish translation of the KJV? Or should they use a translation direct from manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek?

I don't see a good solution if one holds to KJVO.

One should use a translation straight from the ancient manuscripts, as it'll be more-accurate than a translation of a translation.

And the KJVO myth is proven false in the "Bible Translations" forum on this site.

 

[37818]

One should use a translation straight from the ancient manuscripts, as it'll be more-accurate than a translation of a translation.

And as it is being done, more often than not, the right readings are not being chosen. And then there are issues of translation choices.

 

[Yeshua1]

That wasn't your initial point. You shifted. Your original point was about "taking their Bible away from them".
Also, there is no one Greek or Hebrew. So in so far as the KJB translation makes the correct synthesis, then it becomes the standard.

ANY of the Greek texts used, such as Na, Tr, MT superior to to any English translation!

 

[George Antonios]

We have pointed out a number of goofs & booboos in the KJV. (NOT "KJB")

Take a number, amateur.

Robert Sanderson (19 September 1587 – 29 January 1663) was an English theologian and the head of English casuists and Bishop of Lincoln. In her introduction to the 1985 facsimile edition E. J. Ashworth writes that "The young Isaac Newton studied Sanderson's logic at Cambridge, and as late as 1704." Thomas Heywood of St. John's College, Ashworth adds, recommended Newton "Sanderson or Aristotle himself".

Dr. Robert Sanderson developed a dear friendship with Dr. Richard Kilbie (Kilby, Kilbye), an older English scholar and priest, rector of Lincoln College and Regius Professor of Hebrew, who served in the "First Oxford Company" charged by James I of England with translating the latter part of the Old Testament for the King James Version of the Bible.

The following incident is recorded by Isaak Walton in his “Life of Dr. Robert Sanderson”:

“I must here stop my Reader, and tell him that this Dr. Kilbie was a man of so great learning and wisdom and was so excellent a critic in the Hebrew Tongue, that he was made Professor of it in this university; and was also so perfect a Grecian, that he was by King James appointed to be one of the Translators of the Bible; and that this Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent discourses, and loved as father and son. The Doctor was to ride a journey into Derbyshire, and took Mr. Sanderson to bear him company: and they going together on a Sunday with the Doctor's friend to that Parish Church where they then were, found the young Preacher to have no more discretion, than to waste a great part of the hour allotted for his Sermon in exceptions against the late Translation [the King James Bible] of several words, – not expecting such a hearer as Dr. Kilbie, – and shewed three reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise translated. When Evening Prayer was ended, the Preacher was invited to the Doctor's friend's house; where after some other conference the Doctor told him, "He might have preached more useful doctrine, and not have filled his auditors' ears with needless exceptions against the late Translation: and for that word, for which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he said; he and others had considered all them, and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed;[1]”

[1] Emphasis and brackets mine

 

[JD731]

I consider myself a KJV preferred person. I own several KJV Bible's an ESV and an NIV. I preach and teach exclusively from the KJV, yet am not KJVO. My question pertains to languages other than English. More and more Spanish speakers are moving into my home town. If KJV is the only inspired word of God, what should non English speaking people use?

I'm not trying to be rude, just truly interested in learning your thoughts.

They should not use anything. Bibles are not for unsaved people but for saved people. These people should be treated like the sinners they are and someone needs to preach to them. Not anyone, but a preacher who does have a Bible they have believed is the word of God and has a testimony of being born again and knowing God in a personal way. Some who post on this forum will disagree, I think. Preachers are not constrained to bible words but have the freedom to convince another sinner in their own words using their own testimony.

The reason sinners are condemned to hell is because they have broken the law of God. The law of God includes the righteous laws of government because we are admonished by God to submit to those laws as if we are submitting to him. There is no salvation without repentance and these Spanish people you refer to, if you live in the USA, are required by law to learn our language, which is English, and adopt our laws. Many of these Spanish people are in our land illegally and I doubt they are about to repent about anything. However, if they do get saved and submit to our laws, then teach them that our nation was built upon the KJV and the freedoms and blessings of God we have enjoyed through our history is because of that Bible. If they argue with you, teach what America is becoming since this new bible philosophy has been adopted by liberal Christianity. Be sure to tell them that you now must learn a new language just to witness to your neighbors across the street.

 

[Keith Mullins]

They should not use anything. Bibles are not for unsaved people but for saved people. These people should be treated like the sinners they are and someone needs to preach to them. Not anyone, but a preacher who does have a Bible they have believed is the word of God and has a testimony of being born again and knowing God in a personal way. Some who post on this forum will disagree, I think. Preachers are not constrained to bible words but have the freedom to convince another sinner in their own words using their own testimony.

The reason sinners are condemned to hell is because they have broken the law of God. The law of God includes the righteous laws of government because we are admonished by God to submit to those laws as if we are submitting to him. There is no salvation without repentance and these Spanish people you refer to, if you live in the USA, are required by law to learn our language, which is English, and adopt our laws. Many of these Spanish people are in our land illegally and I doubt they are about to repent about anything. However, if they do get saved and submit to our laws, then teach them that our nation was built upon the KJV and the freedoms and blessings of God we have enjoyed through our history is because of that Bible. If they argue with you, teach what America is becoming since this new bible philosophy has been adopted by liberal Christianity. Be sure to tell them that you now must learn a new language just to witness to your neighbors across the street.

You surely can't be serious. Because someone is from another country or speaks another language they are automatically lost? No way they could be Christian?

A lost person can't read a Bible?

I have never seen such a ridiculous post. I hope this is a poor attempt at sarcasm. I'll pray for you.

 

[JD731]

You surely can't be serious. Because someone is from another country or speaks another language they are automatically lost? No way they could be Christian?


I have never seen such a ridiculous post. I hope this is a poor attempt at sarcasm. I'll pray for you.

Well, if they are not "lost," as you say, and they are not illegals, they probably already have a bible in their own language and your worries about them are misplaced.

A lost person can't read a Bible?

An unsaved man in Acts 8 had a bible he was reading but God had to send him a preacher before he could get saved. That is just the way God is. God said that faith comes by hearing. What are your favorite 3 examples of people getting saved by reading a bible in the NT?

 

[Salty]

An unsaved man in Acts 8 had a bible he was reading ...

The only Bible at the time was the Old Testament
He was reading Isa 53:
Acts chapter 8 was in the vicinity of 35-40 AD
Thus he did NOT have a Bible!
And neither did anyone else spoken of in the NT!!!

 

[JD731]

The only Bible at the time was the Old Testament
He was reading Isa 53:
Acts chapter 8 was in the vicinity of 35-40 AD
Thus he did NOT have a Bible!
And neither did anyone else spoken of in the NT!!!

This is true and is my point. God sent saved preachers to unsaved people and the scriptures to churches where saved people congregate in local assemblies. He sent the NT scriptures piecemeal, one epistle at a time. Even the gospel accounts were not written until late in the apostolic era and the 5 works of John were last to be written in the 90's AD. Obviously the Acts, a history of what happened with the ministry of the preachers, the apostles, was not written until the end of that era. All the gentiles who were saved in the 1st century were saved by believing a preacher telling about Jesus Christ and the love of God in sending him.

Unsaved people do not need a bible, they need a witness. It is proven on this forum every day that a bible does no one any good unless they are saved. Unsaved people do not believe the bible because they cannot understand it. God designed it that way.

1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[Logos1560]

That wasn't your initial point. You shifted. .

I responded directly and soundly to what you yourself had stated. There was no shift in my direct response to your own assertions. I applied what you asserted consistently and justly. You challenged me to apply my comments to the Hebrew and Greek, and I did what you requested. Perhaps you shift as you try to dodge and avoid a consistent, just application of truth.

 

[robycop3]

Take a number, amateur.

Robert Sanderson (19 September 1587 – 29 January 1663) was an English theologian and the head of English casuists and Bishop of Lincoln. In her introduction to the 1985 facsimile edition E. J. Ashworth writes that "The young Isaac Newton studied Sanderson's logic at Cambridge, and as late as 1704." Thomas Heywood of St. John's College, Ashworth adds, recommended Newton "Sanderson or Aristotle himself".

Dr. Robert Sanderson developed a dear friendship with Dr. Richard Kilbie (Kilby, Kilbye), an older English scholar and priest, rector of Lincoln College and Regius Professor of Hebrew, who served in the "First Oxford Company" charged by James I of England with translating the latter part of the Old Testament for the King James Version of the Bible.

The following incident is recorded by Isaak Walton in his “Life of Dr. Robert Sanderson”:

“I must here stop my Reader, and tell him that this Dr. Kilbie was a man of so great learning and wisdom and was so excellent a critic in the Hebrew Tongue, that he was made Professor of it in this university; and was also so perfect a Grecian, that he was by King James appointed to be one of the Translators of the Bible; and that this Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent discourses, and loved as father and son. The Doctor was to ride a journey into Derbyshire, and took Mr. Sanderson to bear him company: and they going together on a Sunday with the Doctor's friend to that Parish Church where they then were, found the young Preacher to have no more discretion, than to waste a great part of the hour allotted for his Sermon in exceptions against the late Translation [the King James Bible] of several words, – not expecting such a hearer as Dr. Kilbie, – and shewed three reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise translated. When Evening Prayer was ended, the Preacher was invited to the Doctor's friend's house; where after some other conference the Doctor told him, "He might have preached more useful doctrine, and not have filled his auditors' ears with needless exceptions against the late Translation: and for that word, for which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he said; he and others had considered all them, and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed;[1]”

[1] Emphasis and brackets mine

These were men who lived in an age where migraines were "cured" by trepanning(cutting a hole in the skull to allow the "Bad humours" to escape.) and who would've been astounded by a common flashlight. there have been a great many discoveries made since then. And you, Sir, even though armed with some of the knowledge of Sanderson & Kilby, cannot get past the "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4, among others.

 

[George Antonios]

These were men who lived in an age where migraines were "cured" by trepanning(cutting a hole in the skull to allow the "Bad humours" to escape.) and who would've been astounded by a common flashlight. there have been a great many discoveries made since then. And you, Sir, even though armed with some of the knowledge of Sanderson & Kilby, cannot get past the "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4, among others.

Spoken like a true evolutionist.

 

[robycop3]

Spoken like a true evolutionist.

Spoken like a man stuck in the past.

 

[JD731]

These were men who lived in an age where migraines were "cured" by trepanning(cutting a hole in the skull to allow the "Bad humours" to escape.) and who would've been astounded by a common flashlight. there have been a great many discoveries made since then. And you, Sir, even though armed with some of the knowledge of Sanderson & Kilby, cannot get past the "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4, among others.

i see a huge problem with philosophies like yours and logos1560's and always have. You believe in Jesus Christ but you do not believe God. The idea that God is hiding his magnificent word from everybody in a Hebrew and Greek language that no one has spoken for a couple thousand years would be laughable, if not so tragic.

Our Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins, and praise him for it, but the testimony about it is from God the Father and you will have to believe what he says to be saved and instructed. If you feel the need to keep translating the Hebrew and Greek into English over and over again with no end in sight, then your very actions say you neither believe what God says in Hebrew, Greek or English enough to make a stand on it..

Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it (righteousness) was imputed to him (Abraham);
24 But for us (believers after the cross and resurrection) also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him (God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered (by God the Father) for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Many of these translations you fellows champion do not even translate the Hebrew and Greek but uses dynamic equivalences. That says all that needs to be said about what they think about believing God. Fundamentalist Baptist Christians cannot be suckered that easily. Sadly though, our numbers are shrinking at an alarming rate and the deception is great.

I am saying we have the testimony of God in our language somewhere in words he has chosen himself.

 

[George Antonios]

Spoken like a man stuck in the past.

You mean like Solomon?

Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Ecc 1:10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
Ecc 1:11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

I'll take it.

 

[George Antonios]

If you feel the need to keep translating the Hebrew and Greek into English over and over again with no end in sight, then your very actions say you neither believe what God says in Hebrew, Greek or English enough to make a stand on it..

Brilliant.