Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

steaver, Your question is legitimate. You'll see that I tried the same type question earlier in the posts. Just commit to one single verse as infallible and inerrant. natters somewhat committed to Matt. 1:1, but admitted that he doesn't know for certain that an older and more reliable text may surface showing that it doesn't belong as 'original.'
After all these years of textual criticism and unearthing/uncovering manu-scraps, and polishing grammar, honing lexical and linguistic skills, etc. what has really been accomplished?
I hear all the time that all the versions are basically the same and that the KJV and NIV, etc. drive the same theology and the same doctrine.
To what end then was all the toil, labor, blood, $weat, and tear$ I wonder? It e$capes me.

 

Ed, to answer your question, the KJV 1769 is by far the best 'edition.'
I have a facsimile AV 1611 in Gothic print and two different AV 1611's in modern font.
I remember distinctly when I special ordered one from the Christian bookstore, the man said, "Oh, I wouldn't bother. You couldn't read it if you tried." He actually tried to talk me out of it. Ha,ha. But, it can be read quite easily. The U's and the V's are often interchanged and they often used F's for S's, and the spelling is different (yee instead of ye, etc.). Honestly, I don't skip a beat when doing a test read. People have just imagined that it was impossible or something.
But to answer your question, I use the 1769 or modern KJV.
Somehow, in the minds of many, this (there being an updated spelling and font edition minus the Apocrypha) justifies the doctrinal changes (as opposed to printing, typographical, or orthographical changes) in modern versions.

[ December 28, 2005, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Bookborn ]

 

The simple asnwer is: Because only God is perfect; only God is able to produce a product which has absolutely no mistakes. He did in the original manuscripts which we no longer have. We have copies of them--over 3,000 of them. But only the original manuscripts were inspired by the authors that God chose (the Apostles and prophet) to write them. The alone are infallible and inspired.

Infallibility means without error. That refers to the slightest punctuation, spelling error, revision, etc. Why? Because God is perfect. His original copy was absolutely without error. There was no mistake of any kind, not grammatically, doctrinally; not of ommission, not even of spelling. The original was manuscripts were absolutely perfect in every way as the authors were guided by the Holy Spirit.

Since then men have made translations. Translations are not perfect. They lose meanings in their translation. Some words and phrases cannot be perfectly translated. Besides that, because man is fallible he makes mistakes. God doesn't make mistakes, but man makes many mistakes. That is evident, not only in the KJV, but in every translation in the world.

Here are some of the ludicrous positions that some of the KJVO people believe.
1. Some believe that the KJV is so inspired that the KJV corrects tha Hebrew and the Greek (Ruckman)
2. Most believe that there was a second inspiration that took place during the time of King James.
3. Almost none of them can explain the need for five revisions of the KJV.
4. Most of the are KJVO who insist on KJV-1611 only, but never use it themselves, and probably couldn't if they tried.

(Ecc 2:1) I said in mine heart, Goe to now, I wil prooue thee with mirth, therfore enioy pleasure: and behold, this also is vanitie.
(Ecc 2:2) I saide of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it?
(Ecc 2:3) I sought in mine heart to giue my selfe vnto wine, (yet acquainting mine heart with wisedome) and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sonnes of men, which they should doe vnder the heauen all the dayes of their life.
(Ecc 2:4) I made me great workes, I builded mee houses, I planted mee Uineyards.
(Ecc 2:5) I made mee gardens & orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kinde of fruits.
(Ecc 2:6) I made mee pooles of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth foorth trees:
(Ecc 2:7) I got me seruants and maydens, and had seruants borne in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattell, aboue all that were in Ierusalem before me.
(Ecc 2:8) I gathered mee also siluer and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the prouinces: I gate mee men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sonnes of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts.
(Ecc 2:9) So I was great, and increased more then all that were before mee in Ierusalem; also my wisedome remained with me.
(Ecc 2:10) And whatsoeuer mine eyes desired, I kept not from them; I withheld not my heart from any ioy: for my heart reioyced in all my labour; and this was my portion of all my labour.
(Ecc 2:11) Then I looked on all the workes that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to doe: and behold, all was vanitie, and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit vnder the Sunne.
(Ecc 2:12) And I turned my selfe to behold wisedome, and madnesse and folly: for what can the man doe, that commeth after the king? euen that which hath bene already done.
(Ecc 2:13) Then I saw that wisedome excelleth folly, as farre as light excelleth darkenesse.
(Ecc 2:14) The wise mans eyes are in his head, but the foole walketh in darknes: and I my selfe perceiued also that one euent happeneth to them all.
(Ecc 2:15) Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the foole, so it happeneth euen to me, and why was I then more wise? then I said in my heart, That this also is vanitie.
(Ecc 2:16) For there is no remembrance of the wise, more then of the foole for euer; seeing that which now is, in the dayes to come shall be forgotten; and how dieth the wise man? as the foole.

I really don't think they use "good old 1611 KJV" as they claim? Do you> In fact the version they use may be more than one hundred years more recent than that. So it really isn't a four hundred year old Bible after all.

Now if the KJV was perfect and infallible there would have been no revision, no change in any spelling, no neeed to have any other edition at all. Every word of God is perfect, remember? If every word in the Bible is perfect and infallible then why does "sonne" have to be changed to "son?"
Because man is fallible, and change is necessary. The the KJVO can't see through his own fallacious logic. The translators found it necessary to update the langauge in the 17th and 18th centuries. But our hard-nosed KJVO contemporaries would never think of changing the Old English word "conversation" into its prsent meaning of "behaviour" or "prevent" into "precede"

1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

English changes; but the KJVO doesn't. Neither do they recognize some obviuos errors of translation either. But the fact remains, if there is but one error, spelling or otherwise, then the translation is not inspired. Only what God does is perfect, infallible, without error. And the KJV does not fall into that category. It was a translation made by man. And man is not perfect; he makes mistakes.
DHK
DHK

 

Universal negatives have nothing to do with this. If you want to believe in Greek mythology, and that the KJV translators deliberatley used a flying horse with a horn in the middle of its head, then that is fine with me. It was foolish of the translators to do so when more accurate words were available for them to use. Why muddle the translation with references to Greek mythology, with imaginary creatures--horse like creatures that fly through the air? This is an obvious mis-translation.

I take it Will Kinney does a lot of your work for you. He used to post regularly here.

That doesn't make it a good translation.

And we know that the latter is also wrong. We remain (abide) here on earth until Christ comes, or until our time on earth is up, which ever comes first. Thus the Millenium Bible is not a good translation either.

[uote]NKJV, Holman, NRSV, NASB, NIV - "For our CITIZENSHIP is in heaven..." [/quote]
And that is the proper meaning of the word, not "conversation," nor even "behaviour" which the word "conversation" normally means in the KJV.

This is another suitable translation.

same as citizenship.

It is not really saying that is it? We lay up our treasure in heaven. That is taught elsewhere in the Bible. It says that our citizenship is in heaven. Our labouring is done here on earth that we may lay up treasure in our homeland of which we are a citizen of.

No it isn't. This is a mistranslation. You have as much as pointed this out. Our citizenship is in heaven; not our conversation, not our behaviour, not our labours. There are other words that the KJV translators could have used but they didn't. The word underlying this word is the only time it is used in the Bible, but they chose to confuse the issue, by using the common word "conversation" for a word which actually had a political connotation. It was a wrong choice. Furthermore the only way you could find out that information is for you to go to the Greek or someone else go to the Greek to find out what it really meant. You have defeated yourself in that area itself. Whether you justify the word's usefelness or not. You have had to restort to the Greek to do it. So my case is won already. You can't find out the meaning of the word without going to the original language. You didn't do that. You couldn't do that. You had to resort to the Greek. There was no way around it.

All that you were doing was justifying the translation. But you did find out the Greek word. You had to go to the Greek to do it. My case is won.
DHK

 

I appreciate Will's labor for the Lord and was redeeming the time. His answer was thorough.
Entering into another man's labors, and finding agreement, is somehow grievous to you? (I take it that you don't have many books in your library written by somebody other than you?)
And yet you do the same with respect to leaning upon scholars who support your position of 'nonposition' (no perfect final authority upon Earth) and excluding contrary evidence.

Your case was in no case 'won.' Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Or, perhaps a better, more scholarly rendering would be "Never precalculate on your juvenile poultry before the proper process of incubation has fully materialized."
You didn't prove an error in the KJV in Philippians 3:20. You didn't prove that your understanding of Greek was superior to that of the King James translators either.
Again, I said, "I would like to point out that the word for "commonwealth" is actually found in Ephesians 2:12 and IS NOT THE SAME WORD FOUND HERE. Go and check. There is quite a difference between 'commonwealth' and the 'ADMINISTRATION' of a commonwealth. The word 'conversation' allows for this thought and distinction, whereas "citizenship" or even "commonwealth" certainly doesn't. "
The KJV is still preserved without PROVEN error. You didn't prove beyond any shadow of doubt that 'conversation' was an error.
Also, did I ever say it was definitely a horse with a horn? But if it was, what is that to you?
You deny endeavoring to prove a universal negative, while asserting there are no such a thing as unicorns. Adding insult to injury, you've defied the law of identity. What you are doing is trying to prove a universal negative (there is and has been no such thing as a unicorn). I assert that you don't have absolute knowledge -- universal and transcending all time and space.
Since the KJV translators are 'foolish' as you say, why don't you give the body of Christ a perfect Bible?
You've exalted yourself above a book that God has honored for centuries, and still haven't pointed out your perfect Bible with specificity.

[ December 28, 2005, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Bookborn ]

 

You, for some reason, are hung up on a universal negative. The logic (or illogical reasoning) of a universal negative has nothing to do with anything here. What is at stake is the proper translation of the Hebrew word "rheem." Did the KJV translators muddy the waters using a word that relates purely to Greek mythology? The answer is yes. There is no such thing as a unicorn except in Greek mythology. Your (and Will's) entire premise is faulty. Instead of working from the Hebrew word "Rheem" you work from the English word "unicorn" which is the wrong translation to begin with. Why try to define that which is a wrong translation? The right thing to do is to rightly define the Hebrew Word "rheem," not to try to defend the wrongly translated English word "unicorn." The whole approach is illogical. If they had translated the word "T-Rex" would you continue to defend and define "T-Rex" instead of trying to find out what the Hebrew word "Rheem" means? The issue here is not what "unicorn" means. It means a one-horned horse in Greek mythology. The question is what does "Rheem" the Hebrew word that was wrongly translated "unicorn" mean? That is what one needs to find out. Whether you think it is T-Rex, or unicorn is entirely irrelevant. Your opinion and mine is irrelevant. Opinions count for nothing. "Thus said the Lord!" What does the Lord have to say? Not the KJV? Not Will Kinney? Not you or I? But the Lord! And the Lord used the word Rheem. What does this word, Rheem, mean?

This part is true enough. The rest of Kinney's allegorical ramblings are irrelvant.

Will completely misunderstand this passage. A study of this passage shows conclusively that it is a wild ox. The Lord is comparing a wild ox to a tame ox. Read the passage (in its context) carefully. A tame ox can be tied to its crib; a wild ox cannot. Thus the Lord asks Job: Cany you tame it? Can you tie it to its crib? These are rhetorical questions, the answer of which was: NO! Only God could do that. Job was able to tame the domesticated ox, but not the wild ox.

Kinney's nonsensical ramblings.

Note: Kinney doesn't start with the Word of God, he starts with an error in a translation of the Word of God. The error is the word "unicorn" a mytholigical creature in Greek mythology. He is trying to justify it. But he is starting from the point of the error, not from the point of the Word of God, which is "Rheem." The Word of God is preserved in the Hebrew in the Old Testamaent, and in order to find out the meaning one must be able to define "rheem" not "unicorn."

When you have nothing better to do, Will, just demean your opposition. That is the best argument that you can present.

As we come to the end of this article, we will have Kinney himself admitting that he himself does hot know what the animal is; but other scholars do. And they have asserted as much. Just because some of them disagree with them doesn't mean that they don't know what it is. Kinney knows less than they do, because he starts with a false premise.

That is like saying "Elephants don't exist anymore. And they don't. They have gone extinct. They used to roam the plains of Pakistan, but now they are extinct in that area. You can still find them in India, but not in Pakistan. That is the reasoning of Kinney. So there are Buffaloes, wild oxes, rhinos, etc. Sure they are extinct--in Palestine. That doesn't mean they are extinct all together. No one said they were.

You know what? I don't really care. I don't care in justifying a mis-translated word that means "one-horned" in the Entglish, but has nothing to do with the Word of God. The word is Rheem, not unicorn. Unicorn has nothing to do with this. It is a mistranslation.

That does't make it a unicorn. That means that you have re-defined an already existing animal by another name, just like you would redefine rhinoceros as unicorn. Both are wrong.

Since you are working from someone else's translation of Pliny's work, as well as the other's that you quoted, you know that they didn't use the English word "unicorn" Again you are describing an animal of another nature probably of another name. The unicorn of such didn't exist except in Greek mythology. What was really mentioned in those writings was "a wild beast."
DHK

 

You, for some reason, are hung up on a universal negative. The logic (or illogical reasoning) of a universal negative has nothing to do with anything here. What is at stake is the proper translation of the Hebrew word "rheem." Did the KJV translators muddy the waters using a word that relates purely to Greek mythology? The answer is yes. There is no such thing as a unicorn except in Greek mythology. Your (and Will's) entire premise is faulty. Instead of working from the Hebrew word "Rheem" you work from the English word "unicorn" which is the wrong translation to begin with. Why try to define that which is a wrong translation? The right thing to do is to rightly define the Hebrew Word "rheem," not to try to defend the wrongly translated English word "unicorn." The whole approach is illogical. If they had translated the word "T-Rex" would you continue to defend and define "T-Rex" instead of trying to find out what the Hebrew word "Rheem" means? The issue here is not what "unicorn" means. It means a one-horned horse in Greek mythology. The question is what does "Rheem" the Hebrew word that was wrongly translated "unicorn" mean? That is what one needs to find out. Whether you think it is T-Rex, or unicorn is entirely irrelevant. Your opinion and mine is irrelevant. Opinions count for nothing. "Thus said the Lord!" What does the Lord have to say? Not the KJV? Not Will Kinney? Not you or I? But the Lord! And the Lord used the word Rheem. What does this word, Rheem, mean?

This part is true enough. The rest of Kinney's allegorical ramblings are irrelvant.

Will completely misunderstand this passage. A study of this passage shows conclusively that it is a wild ox. The Lord is comparing a wild ox to a tame ox. Read the passage (in its context) carefully. A tame ox can be tied to its crib; a wild ox cannot. Thus the Lord asks Job: Cany you tame it? Can you tie it to its crib? These are rhetorical questions, the answer of which was: NO! Only God could do that. Job was able to tame the domesticated ox, but not the wild ox.

Kinney's nonsensical ramblings.

Note: Kinney doesn't start with the Word of God, he starts with an error in a translation of the Word of God. The error is the word "unicorn" a mytholigical creature in Greek mythology. He is trying to justify it. But he is starting from the point of the error, not from the point of the Word of God, which is "Rheem." The Word of God is preserved in the Hebrew in the Old Testamaent, and in order to find out the meaning one must be able to define "rheem" not "unicorn."

When you have nothing better to do, Will, just demean your opposition. That is the best argument that you can present.

As we come to the end of this article, we will have Kinney himself admitting that he himself does hot know what the animal is; but other scholars do. And they have asserted as much. Just because some of them disagree with them doesn't mean that they don't know what it is. Kinney knows less than they do, because he starts with a false premise.

That is like saying "Elephants don't exist anymore. And they don't. They have gone extinct. They used to roam the plains of Pakistan, but now they are extinct in that area. You can still find them in India, but not in Pakistan. That is the reasoning of Kinney. So there are Buffaloes, wild oxes, rhinos, etc. Sure they are extinct--in Palestine. That doesn't mean they are extinct all together. No one said they were.

You know what? I don't really care. I don't care in justifying a mis-translated word that means "one-horned" in the Entglish, but has nothing to do with the Word of God. The word is Rheem, not unicorn. Unicorn has nothing to do with this. It is a mistranslation.

That does't make it a unicorn. That means that you have re-defined an already existing animal by another name, just like you would redefine rhinoceros as unicorn. Both are wrong.

Since you are working from someone else's translation of Pliny's work, as well as the other's that you quoted, you know that they didn't use the English word "unicorn" Again you are describing an animal of another nature probably of another name. The unicorn of such didn't exist except in Greek mythology. What was really mentioned in those writings was "a wild beast."
DHK

 

When and by whom was that translated? The same KJV translators perahps? Its original was not in English. It is speaking of a different animal but was translated into the English unicorn by some English person who made the same mistake that the KJV translators did.

And how would you know this. English is a very recent language, with its roots in the 11th century. Whey did Justin Martyr live? How would he use the word "unicorn" if it did not exist yet? Another mistranslation I presume.

Does all of that make it right? Or perhaps in some cases it just makes some of them copycats.

I have no interest in what the Septuagint says. The word unicorn is used many times in the Old Testament. That is true. Each time it comes from the word rheem. So the only question of importance is: What does the word "rheem" mean?

I guess you haven't made a thorough study of rhinos either have you? You suggest the rhino, yet many of them have two horns, not just one. How odd!!
Furthermore, the reference in Deuteronomy indicates a plurality of horns on the unicorns.

Deuteronomy 33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
--In this particular construct, "the horns" refer back to the bullock which has two horns. The horns of the unicorn are like the horns of the bullock (two in number or plural). It is written in the plural.

I just addressed this. If he used the Hebrew it would be very clear wouldn't it. Instead he ignorantly uses the English mythological "unicorn" "corny" words which cause confusion. The word means "wild ox" not confusion as in unicorn.

He has defeated his own argument by not reading the entire verse in its context. Does he deliberately ignore the phrase: "his bullock, and his horns." One animal's horns compared to another animal's horns. The comparison is so obvious it can hardly be missed.

Indeed it is. In Greek mythology! But that is not the meaning of rheem.

Job 39 pretty much tells us that it is a wild ox. Just study the context. Besides that, there is a general consensus that the word means "wild ox." It really isn't too difficult to see that the word does not mean unicorn, and the best or closest meaning is wild ox. Please study Job 39.

Right! Are there any Rhinos indigenous to the holy land. The Jews didn't live in India, neither did they scale the heights of Mt. Everest in Nepal!
DHK

 

DHK,
How do you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there never was any such beast as a unicorn? And do you admit that you cannot prove a universal negative (ie. you don't have access to universal knowledge which transcends time and space)?
Also, you said that unicorns are from Greek mythology, which is a common misnomer. They are from Greek natural history (as well as other cultures). Greeks, for example, held to the reality of unicorns, speaking of them in historical accounts and not mythological accounts.
It's interesting to see the transition. First, 'unicorns' MUST BE AN ERROR because they are from Greek mythology and never existed.
Then -- well, even if they did exist it doesn't matter b/c I know Hebrew better than the KJV translators.
Why would a goat have ONE horn in Daniel 8:5? Was God imagining this too?
"And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: AND THE GOAT HAD A NOTABLE HORN BETWEEN HIS EYES." (KJV)
Goats have two horns, God -- what were You thinking?

[ December 28, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Bookborn ]

 

The case was won in this respect. Read through just this thread again. You will find some typical responses and attitudes by the average KJVO.
One is that we don't need the Greek and Hebrew because we have the perfectly infallible inspired word of God in the KJV. I have represented that position fairly well. I think so. But you and Will Kinney, must use the Greek in order to define words like "conversation" and "unicorn." You do the very thing that you say you don't have to, and tell your adherents to stay away from. You demean "scholars" who do use Greek and language tools, and then you go ahead and use the same. That is the height of hypocrisy. The truth is you cannot define words without going to the original languages. Remember that Ruckman's position is that the KJV is more inspired than the Greek and Hebrew, and in some places corrects the Hebrew and Greek. How ludicrous!!
"I won" not because of the result I came to--"wild ox" vs. rhino; but rather in forcing you to go to back to the original languages to come to whatever conclusion you wanted to come to--even if it was a pre-conceived on. Your reasoning was this. The words that I want to prove true are "conversation" and "unicorn" are the correct translations. Therefore I will use the Hebrew and the Greek to prove that they are true. You weren't objective. You had an axe to grind. But neverthelss you went back to the original langauges to "prove your point." You had to. You had no other choice. And that is the way it should be in all serious Bible study, when we try to ascertain the meaning of any passage of Scripture. We need to start with "What saith the Lord?" And that means "What does it say in the original langauge? The original language in Hebrew, "rheem" simply means "wild ox." It is that simple.

As far as books are concerned I am between a rock and hard place am I not. I am condemned if I do use them (usually by Tam), because the Bible is my final authority), and now condemned if I do (by you). Yes, I have a personal library of over 2,000 books that I can refer to at anytime, besides all the resouces that I have loaded on to my computer, with additional source (almost unlimited) on the internet. I find the Bible most enlightening when it defines words for itself. It defines the word "unicorn" in Job 39. Read the passage. You can't miss the meaning. It is so plain. If you have a problem I will go through the passage with you.

I fully realize that. The most accurate translation is citizenship, a far cry from "conversation."

It is a bad translation, if not an erroneous one.
If you want an erroneous translation, Acts 12:4 translates "Pascha" as Easter. The word is "pascha." Every single time in the Bible pascha is translated passover, without exception. In fact, why should there be an exception? That is the meaning of the word. There is no exception, except when the KJV translators made this glaring error and decided to translate it Easter instead--a pagan festival that worships the false god of Istarte. That is not the meaning of pascha. It means passover, and nothing else. The made a mistake. Swallow it.

It means it is a mistake, an error.

There are unicorns in Greek mythology. Look it up in the dictionary. Why do I have young Christians come to me and ask if there is Greek mythology in the Bible, after they have just read a passage of Scripture with the word "unicorn" in it? They know the meaning of the word. There is no such thing as a unicorn except in Greek mythology. You are trying to define a word by its etymology. We don't do that. Our language woould be in a mess if we did.
Example: What does the word "Sunday mean to you?"
1. The first day of the week.
2. The day we go to church and worship the Lord.
3. A day out of seven that we rest.
Or any of the above, or some such similar meaning.
I mean without going to a dictionary, what does the word Sunday mean to you, in your mind? How does the average person today define Suday?
If you use etymology to define Sunday--we must say that it is the day we set aside to worship the sun. Is that what you do on Sundays? Just because the word is unicorn doesn't automatically mean that it means "One-horned animal." You can't define a word by its etymology. Define the word Christmas. If you have been reading the threads you will have noted a number of meanings. The etymology: the mass of Christ. Are you a Catholic. Did you go to midnight mass on Christmas eve? That is where that word originated from. We can't use etymologies to define words. A unicorn is a horse with one horn in its head in Greek mythology. That is its meaning, not its etymology, but its meaning.

Your problem is with the definition of words, not with universal negatives. If you don't know what a unicorn is, how can you say such a thing.
What if I were to say: There never was a Koran in all the universe before the year 500 A.D. Can I prove that statement true? Would you believe me? Is it a universal negative in your mind. But Mohammed didn't live before 500 A.D., and unicorns don't live outside of Greek mythology.

No, you have demeanded youreself to the sin of Bibliolatry, worshiping an idol--setting up a book, the KJV, as an idol.
The word is rheem, not unicorn. The sooner you learn that the better off you will be. Define rheem. Defining unicorn is fruitless. You don't need the definition of unicorn. It isn't in the Bible. The Hebrew word "Rheem" is. Find out what it means instead. Use honest translation.

BTW, If I translate John chapter one, from Greek into English (and I believe I can), would it be just as "inspired" as the KJV? Why or why not?
DHK

 

Eliyahu: //Ed, are they not all orthographical or scribal errors and corrections?//

That has to be true, if the KJVO's are right.
But it isn't true, so the KJVOs are in error.
In fact, the KJVOs (a development in the last 30years, you
know, like in my adult life - to me the rise
of KJVO-ism was news, not history) have painted themselves
into a corner. No longer can the KJV1769 be updated from time
to time. The culprit is NOT the KJV translation, it is, in fact,
the very written word of God, the problem is ENGLISH is a living
language - it changes. Words change flavor.
I even started a series (thru several topics) over in
the Versions Forum. (I know non-Baptists can post in the
Versions Forum, but you can vote on the polls and you can
read to your heart's content).

FOr example "avoid every form of evil" is used to
mean 'don't even look like you are doing bad stuff'
which is DOES NOT MEAN.
The English language of 1769 didn't mean that, the language
of 2005 does mean that.

What 'avoid every form of evil' means is
'avoid evil no matter in what shape it might appear'.

Strangely, literalists who misunderstand something make
an idol of their misunderstanding and worship it and beat
the rest of us over the head for 'not believing'

Bookborn: there is another BIG change which usually gets
omitted. The KJV1611 had TRANSLATOR FOOTNOTES which the
KJV1769s typically omit (or hide in SChofield's notes, or somebody
else's comentary). The translator footnote blow 95% of
the KJVO doctrine out of the water. The priestly class
who uses KJVO as a club to line up their members don't understand that
the source documents vary. It is only honest to deal with the
variations of the sources of the Bible that we have - the KJV1611 does it,
the KJV1769 does not - has nothing to do with dolla's - has to
do with DECEPTION OF THE FLOCK. (as a sop to the preachers who do it,
they probably are ignorant of what the translator footnotes mean
- but they should not have bought into the cult of ignorance -
it is a FALSE DOCTRINE.)

 

You haven't provided the advanced revelations that you allege are gleaned from Hebrew or Greek that the KJV translators, or a person using the KJV, have missed.

Did you not read the example of immersion?

Again I ask you for the third time, which translation is perfect?

Are you suggesting that the KJV will lead a person astray?

It will unless they know the king's English. Words such as piss and conversation.

When I witness to others, I use scripture, and specifically, KJV.

I prefer to use the Bible they already have in their home.


In other words, demonstrate how you are superior to the KJV in your testimony.

Are you really suggesting that you don't share your faith and really do not know the difference? The KJV does not know God. I do.

Please don't just make grand unsubstantiated claims. Show the KJV folk out here what nuggets of revelation the KJV translators and users have missed over the centuries (of course, you have your hand on the pulse of such things) and show us where we, by using the KJV, would lead a sinner astray.

Sinners almost know no Bible if any. So how could they be led astray by a Bible they nothing about?

You forgot to add Amos 4:4. It does not even come close to the MT and LXX. However it is the same as the NIV. So what eclectic text does it follow? The same as the NIV?

 

The KJV says there was, so now prove that mythological being existed other than in your mind.

 

Read Revelation and Ezekiel. That just might give a few answers.

 

gb93433 (Mr. NASB himself).
Amos 4:4 - Are you suggesting that the Hebrew word 'YOWM' cannot be translated as year?
Answer this, CAN THE WORD BE TRANSLATED AS DAY AS WELL AS YEAR depending on its context -- or must it always be translated DAY?
And does your NASB adhere to your principle?
I'm all eyes.
And this is your ADVANCED REVELATION?
C'mon, gb9343. Show me some advanced revelation you found only in the Hebrew and Greek that the KJV translators and users missed.

 

gb93433, Are you a Baptist or an Immersionist? Should you head up the committee to change the name of your church to First Immersionist instead of First Baptist? Should John the Baptist be called John the Immersionist?
Look up the etymology of the word, "baptize".
For example,
[Middle English baptizen, from Old French baptiser, from Late Latin baptzre, from Greek baptizein, from baptein, to dip.]
The word means to 'dip.' If you have a problem with it, start calling yourself an Immersionist when you're out soulwinning (using the people's Bible version in their respective homes -- as you stated).

 

Ed,
Thank you very much for commenting.
Updating the language is the important job for the next generations, for which even our generation is lazy or unfaithful as we can see a certain difference between KJV and NKJV. Any corrections might be excused as monors, by KJVO.
But the belief that any translation is perfect is a superstition, I think. Pre-suppostionalism is even more serious than KJVO, because we can reach KJVO without Presuppositionalism.
KJV is not perfect, but it is better than any other version available in this era, and therefore there is no reason to rely on any other versions, even though we may refer to others from time to time to refute any attacks from the opponents. - this can be a reasonable KJVO.
If anyone says KJV is the only English version designated by God, then it is a serious problem because it is the case where someone presumes to speak a word in the name of God, which He has not commanded him to speak (Dt 18:20). That will prevent the improvement and updating of KJV itself.

Ed pointed out the problems properly without need to compare to another version, but to KJV itself.

What I am afraid about is the situation where the too much emphasis on KJVO or Presuppositionalism may lead to allowing the Opposite sides and MV's to find the pretexts to attack KJV more evidently because we can apparently find more or less the errors in translation of KJV plus many problems with language update.

Nevertheless, I just stay on the line KJVB-KJV Best, because I consider the spiritual aspects are the most important and read the Bible for the spiritual benefits and in that aspect, KJV is more accurate than any other version. I can keep the connection with Elizabethan English and enjoy the antiquity of it.
For the modern English, I can enjoy it from the daily newspapers and from watching TV's.

I am not so much superstitious to believe any translation is perfect! but want to advocate KJVO with some extra(?) loving kindness!

I love them none the less for their faults, despite some stubbornness in loving the Words of God.

 

You are wrong. A little study will indicate that the word has more than one meaning.

The word also goes back into the secular world also. Take a look at Liddell & Scott

BTW not all Baptists are saved. But all Christians are. So I prefer to call myself a Christian.

 

Give me one case where it was ever translated as "year". The NIV and KJV do not agree with the LXX and MT.

So again, I ask what text did the NIV and KJV use?

 

Rom 9:17 For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

God has no problem substituting the word scripture for his own name. Amazing

Heb 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, Today if ye will hear his voice,
Heb 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

Another truly enlightening thought here straight from the Holy Bible. as the Holy Ghost saith. It wasn't just the scripture, or the law, or the commandments of God, but the Holy Ghost speaking. Psa 119:161 Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word. Do you stand in awe of his word? Or do you correct it and deny it's authenticity in places.

1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are:
1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

What is more base than the King James Bible? What is more despised than the King James Bible (even among Christians)? Those who love the King James are called foolish. I wonder why? Maybe these verses shed some light. But those in the flesh wish to prove their scholarly wisdom and agree with the scientific methods of "Biblical criticism." What an oxymoron (emphesis on moron). That's about like saying Christian Rock (which properly translated means Christian fornication). Or "Merry Christmas", which being interpreted means happy death of Christ. And no gb93433, we (bookborn and I) are not Catholic, nor do we celebrate the unholy day of Christ-mass. So don't try to use that against us. Nor do we worship the Sun on Sunday. We will refer to the 25th as Christmas, because the rest of the world refers to is as such, just as they do the 1st day of the week as Sunday.

Psa 56:4 In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will not fear what flesh can do unto me.
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

I would like to propose a challenge to the opponents of a perfect, preserved Bible. Could you put together a few verses to back up your claim to God NOT preserving his word and leaving it up to you or some other Bible rejector to preserve.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

Who shall keep them???????? You? Your pastor? Your Bible College teacher? Your favorite Greek text? Or God shall keep them?