Question for KJ only crowd

Travelsong said:I'm just curious. Please don't take this as a provocation because I've thought about these kinds of verses often. Dean raised an objection from Scripture that is compromised and not talked about much at all. Any thoughts?

Again, not trying to push buttons, but it does appear that the body as a whole has made some odd concessions regarding the role of women in church as of late. Yes?

Since there are a lot of women posting on this board and some are "preaching" to others, I see nothing wrong with Diane being one who can give somebody the "boot" if they are misbehaving!!

After all, at home it's a woman "mom" that washes a kids mouth out with soap or disciplines him if he does something wrong!

Have a good day!!

Tam

 

Diane also said "this is not a church."
If it were, you would have little precious part in it. Perhaps only in those forums confined to women.
DHK

 

There is no way this can be called an "error". All of these translators must have purposefully chose "unicorn" either because of good reason or because of evil deciet. There is no "mistake" made here in the translating. They had a reason and just because the reason might be long lost, it doesn't give us the right to say they were wrong. Maybe the reason is researchable, but rest assured these translators, and there were many, not just KJViers, had some good reason for saying unicorn. No God fearing Christian would conclude that a word which could mean "wild ox" should be translated "unicorn" without some sort of logical reason. Since you don't know the reason then maybe they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Just my opinion

And it is true that this must be accepted by faith.

Again this is only by faith, correct? You have no way of proving that the existing manuscripts are exactly what was written in the originals, correct?

God Bless!

 

In some cases, the only reason for a rendering in the KJV may be simply that the KJV translators kept it from the Bishops' Bible or one of the other earlier English Bibles. For examples, some of the renderings in the 1611 edition that later editors corrected (and KJV-only advocates excuse as being only printing errors) were actually the responsibility of the KJV translators themselves since they kept or left them in the text from the Bishops' Bible.

The early English Bibles' source for "unicorn" was likely the Greek Septuagint's rendering "monokeros" or Latin Vulgate's "unicronis" or both. Based on Deut. 33:17, where the Hebrew word 'reem' is singular
but has "horns" plural, many Hebrew scholars maintain that the animal in question had two horns.

Roy Pinney offered one explanation of how the reem may have been mixed up with the Greek unicorn. Pinney pointed out how the reem is presented on the Ishtar GAte, a brick arch in ancient Babylon that is covered with glazed basreliefs that showed various animals in profile. Pinney noted that "the bi-horned reem, in its appearance on the gate, appears to have but a single horn" (ANIMALS OF THE BIBLE, p. 204).
THE BAKER ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BIBLE also noted: "The translators of the KJV called the wild ox a unicorn because of representations found on Babylonian mosaics and Egyptians drawings. These representations showed it in strict profile, showing only one horn; hence 'unicorn'" (Vol. I, p. 114).

There is a picture of an unicorn in the 1611 edition of the KJV, but that picture in the royal coat of arms is of the mythological "unicorn."

 

Yes, it can be called an error. Just because people copy other people's errors doesn't make it any less an error. Quite often the majority is wrong. No one said anything about evil deceit, and you are the one that implies that. The fact is that it is not a good translation and you are so emotionally attached to the translation that you won't admit it.
If there was a good reason for using the word "unicorn" then what is it? I haven't heard it yet. It was a bad translation. Period. A mistake in translation--whatever suits your terminology best.
Are you saying that all the translations since the KJV that have translated the word "rheem" as wild ox, whether in commentaries, lexicons, or in the many other translations (both English and in other languages) are ALL ungodly? How arrogant an assumption!! There are dictionaries (lexicons) available. The Hebrew word is "rheem." Learn how to use a Hebrew lexicon and look the word up for yourself. It does not mean unicorn. That means the translation of the KJB is wrong. Isn't that simple?

Here is some information about the KJV you ought to know:

("Touch Not the Unclean Thing," Sorenson)

It is a position that can be accepted by intelligent faith. All others (ex. secondary inspiration) are based on blind faith, if not absolute illogical fallacies and absuridities which cannot be explained away. My position is the only position which has Scriptural support.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--Frist point is all Scripture is inspired of God. We can all agree on that.

2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--Second, The Scriptures came by the will of God, as holy men of God (the prophets and the Apostles) spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. This speaks of the operation of the Holy Spirit in the process of inspiration. Who did God inspire? He inspired: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul, Peter, John, etc.: the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles of the New Testament. Specifically, God inspired their words. Thus it was their manuscripts and no other manuscripts that were inspired. No copies were inspired. No translations were or are inspired. Only the words of the prophets and Apostles are inspired. This is exactly what this verse says. The problem is that you don't want to believe it.

2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Third, What does Peter say, by way of a commandment? Be mindful of the words which were spoken to you. Spoken by Whom?
1. by the holy prophets.
2. and of the commandment of US the apostles of the Lord and Savior.

Peter says that they should be mindful of both the OT prophets and the NT Apostles, and puts the words of the Apostles on par with the words of the prophets--just as important as the prophets whom the Jews revered.
Never is any translation said or inferred to be inspired, neither any copy, but only the words of the prophets and of the Apostles. We don't have those words any longer. We only have copies of them, and then translations of them. I believe that the Word of God is preserved in the copies that we have of the originals that don't exist any longer for God has promised to preserve his word. He never promised to preserve his language in the KJV or in any other language.

Today there are more than 5,650 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. The vast majority of these contain only portions of the New Testament. In some cases, they represent less than a single page of a given book.
Nevertheless with such a preponderance of manuscripts still in existence, there is a way to determine what exactly was written in the originals if one is willing to take the time to do the study. Again, study and faith go together. Faith is not blind, but is based on evidence and intelligence.
Many religions, like Islam, go by "blind faith." They blindly believe whatever the Mullahs teach whether it makes sense or not. Many KJVO's do the same thing. They have blind faith. It is irrational to do so.
DHK

 

Then read the New Testament here and explain what it means to me:

John 1


No you don't need "other" translations. You don't even need the KJV, which is a translation itself. You need to know what the translation says, and why the translation says what it is saying. Why did the translators use certain words.
Why did the KJV use the phrase "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle when you know that the stainless steel needle that you are acquainted with wasn't even invented yet. So what did Christ mean?

What did Peter mean when he said "gird up the loins of your mind," What did the KJV translators have in mind when they translated the Greek in those terms? Why don't you go read the actual Greek and find out what it says. The Bible is not preserved in a translation, but rather in the Greek and Hebrew.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK;
You KNOW there is no "actual Greek". And there is no "actual Hebrew".

Unless you want us to believe that you have read and have access to and understand, and can translate all of the 25,000+ MSS of those two languages combined?

Quit it. You fellas make me chuckle at times considering you post as if you are the end all and be all of Bible translational issues.

Why don't you fellas excercise a little bit of faith in God's ability to get it right for us peons?

Nevermind. You won't or can't.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

God got it right the first time. He didn't need a second chance with Ruckman.

 

Yep! and the English language doesn't exist, neither does America, nor Israel for that fact. I guess some people wantto be blind.

My personal belief is that the Bible that we have today is preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and in the Received Text, both of which are available at www.ccel.org I don't have to be a scholar to be able to use them, just like I don't have to have a Ph.d in English to use a dictionary
But some people love to dwell in ignorance and naiviete. In fact they refuse to obey the commandment:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Which, of course, is a commandment written in Greek. I believe it is very cowardly of some on this board to avoid the study of the Bible in the languages in which they were written. This is God's command isn't it. It was written in Greek, not in English.

And who has the last laugh? I could list dozens of phrases or words that you would have no understanding whatsoever without an outside help--someone who has studied the Greek and Hebrew for you, because you won't do it for yourself.
For example, what does it mean in Phil.3:20

"For our "conversation" is in heaven..."
What does the word "conversation" mean in this verse, and how do you know?

Because you can't get it right without outside help. I have already demonstrated that.
If you could you would know what a unicorn without this discussion.
Phil.3:20 "conversation"
"gird up the loins of your mind"
"camel to go through the eye of a needle"
literal meaning of "Belial" 2Cor.6

Do you want more? Can you find the meanings of these without going to any other source but the KJV? Somewhere along the line I will guarantee that you use some source that has sourced the Greek or Hebrew even if it is Strong's concordance.
DHK

 

Is that kind of like us, trying to convince the blind, there is sight.

 

So we should believe that the KJV translators looked at the word "rheem" in the manuscripts but chose to say "unicorn" just because others had in the past. If that is the "reason" then it is true that they didn't really care much whether they were very acurate in their work. Pretty slopy work indeed.

My very point. If we don't know why then any declaration of right or wrong is forming an opinion without knowing all the facts.

Calm down brother. You are placing remarks to me that were not spoken by me. I haven't made any assumptions. Have you?

Can we talk about this issue without putting down or trying to belittle a brother in Christ?

I don't think it must always be so cut and dried. Many translators in the past believed that unicorn was a good term to use in the passage. Why? I don't know. I do believe however that all of these translators must of had a good reason for believing themselves that it was ok and appropriate, a reason that we do not understand. If it was so simple to just say wild ox then why wouldn't they just say that? They could have, right? Surely they must have discussed it. Without all of the proper facts, which we may never know in this life time, we should not declare the translators in error. If we knew why they did it then we could make an informed decision as to whether or not they made a right judgment.

Thanks brother, I have read many of these views over and over, I am not new to this topic. I have studied the pros and cons in depth and have come to a different opinion than you. Maybe in the end you will be found right. But I am a conservative and have put my trust in the belief that God has provided the common folk like myself with a preserved Word in English and since the KJB was good enough for His children for some two hundred years or so I will just stay with it and preach it as the pure Word of the Lord. God has blessed me and my ministries and it is the only bible I now read from. I use to study an NIV but it left me very wanting.

Well, I will let my faith be judged by our Lord. Maybe He will tell me one day that I had a stupid faith. "Intelligent Faith" brother? Bottom line is faith! You have absolutely no proof that the originals were error free yet you believe it as do I. That is blind faith in God and is exactly what all of us have after you cut through all of the "scholarship" rehtoric.

I belive it brother. I also believe that God would not deliver His Word with perfection and then fail to preserve it with perfection. If He can deliver it with perfection in spite of imperfect men then He can preserve it with perfection in spite of imperfect men, even from language to language. I believe the copies are also perfect and that makes them the "inspired" words of God. Just my stupid faith

You still need that portion of faith, just can't escape it! God Bless!

 

Diane also said "this is not a church."
If it were, you would have little precious part in it. Perhaps only in those forums confined to women.
DHK

You say that like I forgot where I am!! I know full well your opinion of women in church.

I was trying to be nice and that's what I get.

Thanks for nothing.

Working for Jesus,

Tam

 

Are you claiming that the KJV was not translated from the "actual Greek" and the "actual Hebrew?"

 

Tam, it wasn't meant as an offensive remark, but rather to show where the original poster (Dean) was way off in his remarks. We welcome all posters (including you.) Many churches (especially more conservative Baptists) have a limited role for women in the ministry. For example, they definitely would not have a female pastor. If anything I thought my remark would open the discussion to that area.
I am sorry if I offended you.
DHK

 

The issue here is not MV's or the NIV. The issue pertains to the inerrancy of the KJV, which you apparently believe. I also stand against the MV, since I believe that the Bible has been preserved in the Received Text. So the NIV is not the issue.
I use the KJV. I believe it is the most accurate translation that we have today. I am on your side. I disagree with the MV's and abhor the way that Critical Text was deliberately tampered with, as far back as Origen, in order to weaken doctrines such as the deity of Christ. I fully realize these things.

But the KJVO position has gone overboard to another position without thinking it through, and without regard for Scripture. You need an understanding of what faith is. Faith is not blind belief. Faith is not calling an apple pink, and eternally declaring it pink, when it is red. No matter how much you (by faith) call the apple pink, it will always be red. Faith operates on knwledge. It has a basis in fact. It is not blind. Abraham is known as a man of faith. The basis of his faith was God's Word, what God had told him he acted upon. His faith was not blind. "He staggered not at the promises of God, but was strong in faith, being fully persuaded that what God had promised he was able to perform." Abraham was strong in faith. Why? He was persuaded that what God had promised he would do. How come? He staggered not at the promises of God.
His faith was based on what God had said.

God never said He would preserve His Word in English, not to mention inspire it. There is no such promise in the Bible. Your faith is blind. It is not based on the Word of God. Yes, I have faith. It is an intelligent faith based on the facts that are given in the Word of God, such as every Christian ought to have--not blind faith as the heathen have.

You arrogance shows in the above post. God provided an inspired Word for less than 1% of the world, and damned the rest of the world to hell. Though the Bible says he so loved the world He sent his son to die for the world, that whosoever believes in him should have everlasting life, you don't believe that. Because only the KJV is inspired. Thus people who cannot read the KJV cannot be saved.
What about over one billion people that read and understand Sanskrit, the most widely spoken language in the world. They don't have a KJV Bible. So are they all condemned to Hell because God didn't give them the KJV? What about Arabic, Cree, Punjabi, Maori, etc. Does not God love these people also? They don't have the KJV. Is God so limited that He so loved the KJV people, and gave his only begotten son only for the KJVOers that if the KJVOer would believe in him they should have eternal life and all others will take their place in the lake of fire. Is that your belief?
DHK

 

Wow!

Are you sure you are responding to my comments?

Slow down brother, we are discussing the accurracy of an English translation. I have no idea how accurate these other bibles are in other languages nor do I care. What I have found is that there is no absolute "errors" in the KJB translation. Some things are questionable at best, but nothing is proven to be out right wrong.

Please don't let your emotions drive your responses. You are laying on me things that I do not believe and demanding that I do! If your position is correct on the matter you will be vindicated in the end. If my position is found to be in error then I will humbly accept my Lord's rebuke. If you are wrong, I also pray the Lord does not hold any charge against you.

But for now I must teach that the bible (KJV) I hold in my hand is the pure preserved Word of God in English. If our Lord finds that offensive, I pray He will deal with me for any wrong I have done.

God Bless!

 

DHK,

Can you explain to me how you "know" the original manuscripts were error free?

God Bless!

 

The trouble is that you are not responding to mine. You care not to respond to the mistranslations or the difficult passages that I have presented to you. You are strangely quiet about them. Why?

There are dozens if not hundreds of errors. You don't want to believe that only because of pure sentimentality. Here is a good example of one. The word "pascha" means Passover. This Greek word is used 29 times in the New Testament. 28 times it si conrrectly translated as Passover. Only once is it translated differently than passover, and that is in Acts 12:4, where it is erroneously translated "Esster." "Pascha" does not, has never meant Easter, which is a pagan celebration. The word "pascha" has one and only one meaning, and that is Passover. The mistranslation was a deliberate error on the part of the KJV translators because of political expedience, as was other ecclesiatical words:
baptidzo should have been translated immersion, and not Baptism.
ekklesia should have been translated assembly, and not church
In Phil.3:20 "ocnversation" should have been translated "citizenship, not conversation. This is an obvious mistake.
In Rom.6:2 God Forbid! is a complete mistranslation, and an error. There is no "God" and no "forbid" in the Greek (in any manuscript anywhere). It just isn't there. The correct translation is "May it not be." What the KJV translatros did is what most fundamentals complain and criticize the MV translators of doing. It is called dynamic equivalency. They didn't give a literal translation. They gave what they thought was something equivalent in their own words. It is more like a paraphrase than a translation. To get a good example read the Living Bible.

You say you are simply talking of the English Bible. That is your problem. Christ didn't die just for the English speaking world. He died for all the world. So tell me what are the "inspired" versions in other languages? If you don't know I will tell you. Many nations in this world have Bibles that have been translated by the Wycliffe Bible Translators, for which we thank the Lord for. However, as the Wycliffe Bible Translators have gone to nations all over this world, they have gone with the critical text and have produced translations in different languages from the critical text. I have been in several nations which only have one Bible, and that Bible is translated from the Critical Text. If you were a missionary to that nation preaching the gospel to them would you stand before them and tell them that they don't have the Word of God just because it is not the KJV, or just because it is not from the Received Text. You have a problem Houston!!

And I applaud you. Teach the Bible. But you cannot teach that Bible if you do not know what it means. You cannot know what it means unless you consult the Greek and Hebrew from which it was translated. It is not the translation that is preserved, it is the Greek and Hebrew from which all translations come from that is preserved. If you say otherwise, then every foreign translation must be translated from the KJV, which is a ridiculous position to take. When Adoniram Judson went to Burma, he translated the Bible into the Burmese language. But he could do so because he could read Greek fluently. Half way across the Atlantic he changed from being a Congregationalist and became a Baptist by studying the Greek New Testament, and became convinced that baptidzo meant immersion, and thus baptism had to be by immersion. The Congregational Church was just wrong on this issue. Despite the consequence he became a Baptist. His conclusions were solely based on a study of the Greek. His translation of the Burmese Bible was based solely on the Greek and Hebrew, not the KJV. The KJVO has a big problem with foreign languages, foreign nations, foreign Bibles, and consequently the Great Commission. For the Great Commission does not say: Go into all the world and take the KJV to every creature.
DHK

 

I believe the Bible. God says they were. He gives me his assurance. Check 2Pet.1:20,21 and 2Tim.3:16.
God's Word is inspired. The words of the prophets and the Apostles (2Pet.3:1,2); those are the words that are inspired, not the words of the KJV translators--but the words of the prophets and the Apostles. The Bible is very clear on this. The Bible makes no provision for copies and translations.
DHK

 

The Bible makes no provision for copies and translations.
DHK
__________________________________________________

Therefore; not one person of any language on earth has Scripture today.

Neither Peter nor Paul would have known OT Scripture apart from copies and (according to some folks) translations.

So what you are saying is that neither Peter nor Paul had Scripture, since it is SCRIPTURE that they both say is inspired of God. But they do not know what Scripture is since all they had was copies or translations.

As you said, "The Bible is very clear on this."

(I think you just stepped on your tongue, sir.)

In HIS service;
Jim