KJV-Onlyism Commentary

Originally posted by steaver:
Clint, doesn't it bother you that all these versions have many totally opposite meanings in many places?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clint>>>No, they do not affect the message of the stories in which they are found.

Hi Clint, I find it a bit confusing that you are attacking certain individual words found in the King James Bible, like whale vs. big fish, and "the end of the world" vs. "the end of the age", and then you turn around and tell us that totally opposite meanings "do not affect the message of the stories." Say what?

Let's look at a couple examples we have been dealing with.

In Job 42:6 the KJB along with the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, and ESV says: “Wherefore I ABHOR MYSELF and repent in dust and ashes”. The NASB says, “Therefore I RETRACT, and I repent in dust and ashes.” The Holman CSB says: "Therefore I TAKE BACK MY WORDS, and repent..." There is a big difference between abhoring myself and "taking back what I said".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You then say: "Wow! Big dilemna, huh? Let's look at the HCSB and see what they say about this verse:
Job 42
6 Therefore I take back my words and repent in dust and ashes.[1]
Footnotes
h 42:6 LXX reads I despise myself and melt; I consider myself dust and ashes

Hey, lookee there! A footnote that points to the LXX (that's the Septuagint) reading upon which, evidently, the KJV translators' rendering was based. "


First of all, Clint, the HCSB is not addressing the part about "I despise myself" from the LXX, but rather the latter part of the verse which says "and melt; I consider myself dust and ashes." It is this latter part that is different from the Hebrew reading. You missed the obvious.

So, if these totally opposite meaninigs "do not affect the message of the stories", then what in the world would it take for you to consider the message to be changed or different?

Here is another one: quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Exodus 26:14, “Thou shalt make a covering for the tent of ram's skins dyed red, and a covering of BADGER'S skins". The NKJV, Geneva, Darby, Young’s, Webster's, KJB 21, Third Millenium Bible, Rotherham's Emphatic Bible, and the Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NASB has "PORPOISE skins" while the NIV has "SEA COWS". The RSV and the 2001 ESV both have "GOATSKINS". The Holman says: "MANATEE SKINS". In the wilderness, badger's skins would be a difficult to come by, but how many porpoises (NASB) or sea cows (NIV) , or manatees (Holman) do you think they could have scrounged up?


To which you respond:

Definition
a kind of leather, skin, or animal hide
perhaps the animal yielding the skin
perhaps the badger or dugong, dolphin, or sheep

Hey, all those animals are listed and seeing as how the Israelites were herders, maybe goat ain't a bad guess, huh?"

Well, Clint, how about the manatees of the HCSB, or the sea cows of the NIV. Did the Israelites also herd these animals out there in the wilderness?

Do you still affirm that the differences between badgers, sea cows, manatees, porpoise and goats "doesn't affect the meaning of the stories"?

That is why I refer to you guys who have no inerrant, preserved and complete Holy Bible as Whateverists. Hey, no change in meaning. The general message is the same, right?

Here is one more of a hundred such examples I can provide. See, no changes in meaniing, right? The story is the same.

Deuteronomy 33:2 "The LORD came from Sinai, and ROSE UP from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints; FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM."

The part: "from his right hand went a fiery law for them" is found in the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, the Douay, the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew - English versions, Spanish Reina Valera, Darby and several others. Now let's see what the noted scholars of today have done with this passage.

NIV- "The LORD came from Sinai and DAWNED OVER them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones FROM THE SOUTH, FROM HIS MOUNTAIN SLOPES." (That's right, this is what is in place of "from his right hand went a fiery law for them".)

NASB - "The LORD came from Sinai, and DAWNED ON them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came FROM THE MIDST OF (not with?) ten thousand holy ones, AT HIS RIGHT HAND THERE WAS FLASHING LIGHTNING FOR THEM."

Was it a "fiery law", "flashing lightning", or "from the south"? Who really cares? As Professor James White says, "If we compare all the bible versions together, we arrive at a better understanding of what is really being said." Don't you agree? Hey, they all mean the same thing, right? Not to worry. All bibles have the same message.


Will Kinney

 

DHK>>>"Again, the standard of translation is not to paraphrase, but to translate. "


Hi DHK, to "translate" means to carry over into another language. All your modern translators tell us we need to get the message across with the impact it has in the target language.

"God forbid" is a perfectly accurate translation or carrying over into the English language of what is expressed in the Greek. Many translators both in the past and today agree with this rendering.

DHK, all you have done is set up your own understanding as the final authority. You tell us that no translation can be inspired, in spite of the examples from Scripture that tell us a translation can be inspired.

You then tell us that only the originals WERE inspired, and obviously we do not have those today. So, the only logical conclusion of your position is that there is no infallible, inerrant, complete, inspired Book that is called the Holy Bible on this earth today.


You are just like all the other Whateverists out there. You pick and choose among the thousands of textual variants and change both the texts and the meanings whenever the mood strikes you. Your only final authority is your own understanding.

God apparently didn't really mean that He would preserve His wordS till heaven and earth pass away. He either lied or was just kidding.

You may have gone to seminary or whatever, and you have come out telling us that the Greek cannot be translated as "God forbid". Yet a whole bunch of other guys also went to the same type of seminaries and had access to the same info, and yet they translated this expression as God forbid.

It is a real shame they did not have you on their translation committees to clarify things for them.

With all your learning, have you been able to produce for us an infallible Bible? No. You don't believe it is possible.


As for 2 Peter 1:21 I have no problem with this verse at all. 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."

This addresses only the issue of original inspiration. It does not speak of the preservation or the loss of what God inspired one way or the other. We need to look at other passages that teach the preservation of what God originally inspired.

Does God's word teach that He would preserve His inspired words? Yes, most emphatically it does.

I believe He has done this. You do not. In fact, you don't think it was even possible.

The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

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

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 111:7-8: "The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness."

Psalm117:2: "For His merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD."


Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

1 Peter 1:23-25: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is
preached unto you."

John 10:35: " the Scripture cannot be broken."

Will Kinney

 

Once again, who made you the final authority in this matter? The only thing that borders on blasphemy are the folks who continuously attack the KJB, the Bible that has proven itself faithful for several hundred years and produced such a vast revival in the 1800.s
Look at the sad state of the church now, and you don't think the multi version issue has played a part?
This last generation has been inundated with versions and what a coincidence that we are the most spiritually malnutritioned people in all the church age.


Amen, brother Art. I thank God for you and all the other saints who believe God has given us a Book which contains all His inspired and preserved words of truth and life.

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail..."

Isaiah 34:16

WK

 

More examples of the spirit of unbelief behind the modern versions.

What do some of the men behind these modern versions actually believe about the Bible itself? I'm not talking about their character or their doctrinal stance on "the fundamentals", but what they actually believe about the Scriptures they are forming and translating into the modern versions.

The beliefs of Westcott and Hort have been well documented, so I will only mention in passing that never once did either of these men profess a faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God.

Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history ... I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did" (Westcott, Life of Westcott, II:69).

What about some of the men who are alive today and are responsible for the modern bible versions? Bruce Metzger is one of the chief editors of the Greek text of the United Bible Society, which is the basis for such versions as the NASB, NIV, Holman Christian Standard, and the ESV. What are his views of the Bible itself?

Bruce Metzger wrote the introductions to each of the books of the Reader's Digest Bible, and questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, and Peter. Consider some examples:

Genesis: "Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses."

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus: "Judging by differences in style and vocabulary from Paul's other letters, many modern scholars think that the Pastorals were not written by Paul."

1 Peter: "According to tradition, the apostle Peter wrote the letter from Rome, perhaps after the outbreak of persecution by the emperor Nero in A.D. 64. But this is questioned by some modern scholars, who prefer to date the letter nearer A.D. 100, with authorship unknown"

2 Peter: "Because the author refers to the letters of Paul as 'scripture,' a term apparently not applied to them until long after Paul's death, most modern scholars think that this letter was drawn up in Peter's name sometime between A.D. 100 and 150."

Bruce Metzger co-edited the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973), with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as the Oxford Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the Bible to be approved by a Roman authority. Mr. Metzger wrote many of the notes in this volume and put his editorial stamp of approval on the rest. Consider the folowing from the notes to this version:

NOTES ON GENESIS:

"Genesis 2.4b-3.24 ... is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2,4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman. ... 7:16b: The Lord shut him in, a note from the early tradition, which delights in anthropomorphic touches. 7:18-20: The waters covered all the high mountains, thus threatening a confluence of the upper and lower waters (1.6). Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local inundations, e.g. in the Tigris-Euphrates basin."

NOTES ON JOB:

"The ANCIENT FOLKTALE of a patient Job circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)."

NOTES ON JONAH:

"The book is didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of POPULAR LEGEND and put it to a new, more consequential use."

Notes from "How to read the Bible with Understanding":

"The opening chapters of the Old Testament deal with human origins. They ARE NOT TO BE READ AS HISTORY... These chapters are followed by the stories of the patriarchs, though THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS STRICTLY HISTORICAL. ... it is not for history but for religion that they are preserved ... When we come to the books of Samuel and Kings ... Not all in these books is of the same historical value, and especially in the stories of Elijah and Elisha there are LEGENDARY ELEMENTS ... We should always remember the variety of literary forms found in the Bible, and should read a passage in the light of its own particular literary character. Legend should be read as legend, and poetry as poetry, and NOT WITH A DULL, PROSAIC AND LITERALISTIC MIND."

Gleason "scribal error" Archer is one of the Hebrew scholars who worked on both the NASB and the NIV translations. He reveals a great deal about his own personal beliefs regarding the Bible itself in his book titled Bible Difficulties. This book is highly recommended by Hank Hannegraff.

Mr. Archer's book is full of statements such as these: "the Masoretic text has lost the number that must have been included in the original manuscript." (p.171); "the eye of the Hebrew scribe unfortunately jumped passing over 26 Hebrew words in between, but the LXX supplies us with all the missing words" (p. 40); "a word has been lost in the received Hebrew text. Sometimes this omission occurred before the third century B.C., and so not even the LXX can retrieve it for us" (p. 40); "probably a scribal error"; "in the course of transmission the notation was miscopied. The accurate preservation of statistics is notoriously difficult, and 1 Samuel has more than its share of textual errors." (p.173).

Mr. Archer recommends several "lost readings", including whole verses, that not even the NIV or the NASB adopt, but they are found in the more liberal RSV. All of these versions, the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV depart scores of times from the Hebrew texts and often not even in the same places as the others.

In the Scofield edition of the NIV we read these faith destroying words in a footnote at 1 Chronicles 11:11. "mistakes in numbers sometimes occur. Many disagreements between numbers in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are alleged. Actually, out of the approximately 150 instances of parallel numbers, fewer than one-sixth disagree...God gave us a Bible free from error in the original manuscripts. In its preservation, He providentially kept is from SERIOUS ERROR, although He permitted a few scribal mistakes...Some say that Chronicles has exaggerated numbers so as to enhance the reputation of ancient Israel."

Notice these words from the NEW KJV 1982 on page 1235: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

These footnotes in the NKJV generally have to do with the 3000 -5000 words that have been omitted from the New Testament in such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV. The NKJV editors are of the opinion that THE AVERAGE READER can DELETE something he FEELS is not part of the text.

The actual Greek texts of the modern versionists continues to change from one edition to the next, and the various bible versions themselves often do not agree among themselves.

I am reminded of the Scripture at the end of the Judges - "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25.

Will Kinney

 

I am watching loads of students coming to Christ while the majority of churches are dead and dying. The issue is not about versions but about those who call themselves conservative who in fact live as practical atheists. If one is not actively making disciples as Jesus commanded then he is a practical atheist.

 

Will,

I certainly don't have your knowledge of the details of version comparison. You have studied well. However I do not think that any proof lies in comparing the versions in individual places. After all the argument is NOT whose version is BETTER - it is whether or not the KJV is the ONLY BIBLE. The different versions are translated from different manuscripts so of course they'll be somewhat different!

The most reasonable defense of the KJV rests in the fact that it was essentially THE English bible for centuries, thus indicating that it was in fact God's word (He did promise it would remain with us forever).

While I agree that the changes that have occurred with KJV revisions have been quite small they are still changes. This presents a bit of a problem for a bible which claims to be 100% error free.

It seems to me that the issue REALLY is not a comparison with any particular MV - but rather whether or the existence of ANY modern version (even a hypothetical one) is possible. That is to say could we ever have another bible besides the KJB?

I think the evidence says yes we could!

 

You have a wide definition of translate. That definition: "to carry over into another language," includes paraphrasing. A good translator will translate the Bible literally, and allow the reader to interpret the meaning for himself. That is not what the KJV translators did in Romans 6:2. If it was OK there then it should be OK in Eccl.6:9

Ecclesiastes 6:9 "Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire."

But to "carry this over into another language (both from Greek apparently) we have the LB:

"A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush."

So, this is what the KJV translators are doing in Romans 6:2. They are not translating. They are, as you say, carrying over into another language just like the Living Bible did. So what do you have against the Living Bible? It fits your definition of a translation perfiectly.

That is your opinion of the translator's paraphrase. I couldn't care less about your opinion. But I do care about facts, and literal translations. It wasn't a literal translation. In your opinion it was a good translation. But "God forbid" that we should base a sacred translation of the Scriptures on someone's opinion. NO, it needs to be accurately translated from the Greek from whence it came. It was the Greek and Hebrew that was originally inspired. Paul did not speak English. Paul did not say "God forbid." For you to say that he did, is a lie. Does God inspire lies??

Perhaps, as I previously suggested, you should find out the meaning of the word translation, as well as the word "inspiration" before you so freely toss these terms about. It seems that you don't know the meanings of the very terms that you use. How many languages are you acquainted with. Although I studied Greek and Hebrew, I will freely admit that I am not a scholar in them. But I am fluent in a couple of other foreign languages. That gives me an advantage to know what it is like to preach in another language, out of another Bible, and to realize that meaning is lost in any translation when going from one language to another. That includes going from Greek to English. It is impossible to have a perfect, and thus infallible inspired translation. You have given no Scripture whatsoever that proves that a translation can be inspired—none, nada, zip, zero, nilch. You can't do it. You can't prove it.

You say I set up my own understanding as the final authority. That is a ridiculous statement to make as the opposite is true. You are the one claiming that the KJV is inspired. You have claimed that the translation is inspired, without any evidence. We are to believe your word against all others when you can provide no evidence to do so. I can show you the word of Scripture—in the Greek. Romans 6:2 has no God, no forbid. The KJV translates it "God forbid." It is in error if it is supposed to be a literal translation. It is not a literal translation in this case. If it is not you must admit that. Admitting that you destroy your argument that it is infallible. It isn't. Just like in Acts.12:6 where pascha is translated Easter instead of Passover—a deliberate mistranslation.

Part of what you said is true. The other part is an illogical conclusion. It is true that only the originals were inspired. I didn't say that; God did. You argument is with Him, not me. God breathed into the words of the prophets and the Apostles life. That is inspiration. He did it once, and only once. Those words were on the manuscripts that they wrote, not on the copies that were made from them, and definitely not on the translations that came from them. So take your argument up with God.
Your "logical conclusion" isn't logical. The Bible we have today isn't inerrant. It does have various mistakes in it as different ones have pointed out to you, and will continue to do so. If it isn't inerrant, it obviously isn't perfect, and it obviously isn't inspired. It doesn't have to be. Only the originals are. It is complete. It has all 66 books and all the chapters and verses that God intended it to have. God has preserved His word for us. We have the Word of God. He preserved it for us. Like I said, you need to get a grip of this word "inspiration," find out what it means, and not allow it to trip you up. Just because it isn't inspired, doesn't mean it isn't God's Word. I paraphrase God's Word everyday (and so do you) when you witness to others, give your testimony, spread the gospel, explain the way of salvation, etc. I don't always give precise quotes, and if I do I explain what they mean. That is paraphrasing.

No, if you must know, when I have a question whether or not a word like "conversation" badly mistranslated in Phil.3:20, is correct, or has a better meaning, I will go to my textus receptus, get the Greek Word, look up the meaning of that Greek Word, and find out the true meaning of the Word. I don't confine myself to the English language, especially 17th century English. We have lexicons, word helps, and many study aids that help us with the meanings of words so that there is no excuse not to find the true sense of what is being said in any given passage. It is the Greek and Hebrew in which the Bible is preserved, not in the translation. No translation could ever be inspired. The Bible itself is clear on that.

They won't and haven't passed away. The very fact that they have been preserved in Greek and in Hebrew has made it possible for every nation on the earth to have a Bible. There are three times as many people on earth that speak Mandarin as there are than those that speak English. If God were to preserve and possibly inspire a translation of the Bible don't you think that he would do it in the Mandarin language? Why should he confine himself to English. Your ethnocentrism is getting in your way. God died for all the world, not just the English speaking world.

I have no argument with that. They are at perfect liberty to do so. But a whole bunch of other guys don't claim that the KJVO is absolutely infallible and inspired. They are not "Ruckmanites."

I believe that I could take the Gospel of John and accurately translate it. I believe that my translation would be just as accurate, and even more so than the KJV. The question is: Would you accept my translation, if just as accurate, as the Word of God? Why or why not?

There was only one inspiration. There was no re-inspiration, or secondary inspiration. God inspired the Bible once, and only once. Again, you need to look at a proper definition of "inspiration" and "preservation." The two are different as day and night. You confuse the two, thus confusing the readers.
God said that he inspired the WORDS of the prophets and apostles. No other WORDS were inspired. Not the words of copyists or translators. Show me one promise in the Word of God where God promised that he would inspire the words of a translator. There is none. He inspired the WORDS of holy men of old—the prophets, the apostles. Did you know that many of the KJV translators were probably unsaved men. They were hign Anglican, quite profane in their speech, but scholars nevertheless. The spiritual life was left wanting. God did not inspire these ungodly men, nor their words. Translations are never inspired. There is no Biblical support for it. You have a logical fallacy when it comes to this argument. You argue very much like the Roman Catholic does.

Because the Bible doesn't mention infant baptism, that doesn't mean there isn't.
Because the Bible doesn't say Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven that doesn't mean she wasn't.
Because the Bible doesn't say there will be no cats and dogs in Heaven, that doesn't mean that there aren't.
Because the Bible doesn't say there is a second inspiration, that doesn't mean that there wasn't.

Because the Bible doesn't say…. With that preface you can make up any doctrine you want. You can make the Bible say anything you want. And that is your frame of reference. That is how the Catholics argue for their various doctrines, and that is how you argue for yours. Pitiful!!

Good verses. And they all point to the language in which they were written—the Greek and the Hebrew. Not one of those verses point to a translation being preserved.
DHK

 

Artbook1611: "Once again, who made you the final authority in this matter?"

You appear to be ignorant of (don't know) what transpires on this
Baptist Board. We each give our opinion. In no case did i try
to pass myself off as an authority as you falsly suggest.
I do however, have the opinion that I am correct about this being
the 21st century (2001-2100).

Artbook1611: "The only thing that borders on blasphemy are the folks
who continuously attack the KJB, the Bible that has proven itself
faithful for several hundred years and produced such a vast revival in the 1800.s"

You appear to be ignorant of (don't know) the History of the KJV,
the KJB, or the revival storys of the 1800s (1800-1899).

In fact, the biggest revival of the 19th century (1801-1900)
due to the KJV1769 was the revival lead by Joseph Smith Jr, the founder
of Mormonism, a pseudo-Christian religion.

In fact, the KJV1769 that many call the KJB has NOT been around "several
hundred years" to prove itself. 2004-1769=235years. Two hundred and
Thirty-Five years is not "several hundred years" at least not in the
state where i was qualified to teach mathmetics.

I really don't recall anybody here being "folks who continuously
attack the KJB". I do know some who relentlessly condemn the foolish,
non-Baptist, non-Christian concept called KJBO.

Some say "hate the sin, love the sinner"
I say "hate the KJBO doctrine, love the KJVs"

Praise Iesus!

 

I am not ignorant of what goes on , on this baptist board or any other for that matter.
I too , gave my opinion and that is you come off sounding like the final authority.
Twice you call me ignorant but I am aware of the history of the KJ (whichever date you use) and am full aware of the revival in the late 1800's.
Ever heard of Mcgee, Sunday,Ironside, Spurgeon,Pink,Ritchie,Wycliffe,Pentecost,Henry,Leopold, Barnhouse,Talbot,Macdonald,to name but a few great bible teachers and preachers?
Most of these men of God are dead by now but their contribution to the study of the scriptures has been a blessing to many.
Need I go into all the great hymns of the faith that had their origin in the 1800's?
There is a fountain.
When I survey the wondrous cross.
It is well.
How firm a foundation.
My hope is built.
What a friend.
Blessed Assurance
And can it be.
The list is endless to the hymns of praise and worship that had its roots in times past.

Yes Mr.Ed, you are relentless in your mockery of the King James.

art

 

Artbook1611: "Ever heard of Mcgee, Sunday,Ironside, Spurgeon,Pink,Ritchie,Wycliffe,Pentecost,Henry,Leopold,
Barnhouse,Talbot,Macdonald,to name but a few great bible teachers and preachers?"

I'm familiar with these. I'm also familair with (you may have
some ignorance about) the convention to have a space
after the comma(,) As always, we cut slack for folks with no thumb.
But the person i know that has a no thumb on his right hand always
manages to punch the space bar with thier index finger.
One should not try to make one's self appear to be an expert
on the English Language (or the Bibles therein) with out following
the general conventions of the use of that same language.
Sorry, that is hypocracy -- people will notice.

Artbook1611: " ... (whichever date you use) ... "

Which date do you use?
Cat got your tongue?
Actually i use three dates of KJV:
KJV1611
KJV1769
KJV1873 - the spelling correction of the KJV that is NOT accepted
by most KJVOs. I note no reason is ever given. Personally i
see the KJV1769 as being no better than the KJV1873. In fact,
the KJV1873 I have includes the original 1611 translator notes
as footnotes, a much more honest approach to Bible presentation.

BTW, the term "ignorant" is very illustrative of the difference in the
English Language between 1769 and 2003. The KJV1769 uses "ignorant"
sixteen times - some with negative conotations, some with positive
conotations. The HCSB uses "ignorant" 9 times, always with
negative conotations. As i use in my work, "ignorant" refers to
"not knowing" usually specifying what is not known for contrast.
This meaning, common in 1769, should be apparent to all students
of the 18th Century (1701-1800).

Praise Iesus

 

What kind of response was that, Mr. Ed?


Some say "hate the sin, love the sinner"
I say "hate the KJBO doctrine, love the KJVs"
END QUOTE

What a joke!
I'm done talking to you.

 

Will J. Kinney

If there are 200 "archaic" words out of a total of 6000 unique words, then the ratio is 3.33%. There is a HUGE difference (statistically) between .004% and 3.33%. - About 833 times as much!

Will, I'm not so much confused as surprized that one who stakes his argument so heavily on "objective" statistics doesn't seem to have a problem when they are so ridiculous and appear to be pulled from "thin air". If you say, "well, they are not my statistics", then why do you use them? I personally would feel a bit reluctant to use such seemingly dishonest (confused?) data. You heard of the "bearing false witness" thing haven't you?

Maybe it is because you can get away with it among KJVOs who don't know any better or simply don't concern themselves with objective truth.

If you use statistics like these because you are truly confused or have been deceived, then I apologize. Anyone can make a mistake.

 

Even worse than obviously archaic words
are words used with archaic meanings but
are words with also modern meanings.

May your bowels be refreshed by my message!

 

Speaking of statistics:

On September 05, 2004 01:37 AM Eastern, Will Kinney posted:

I recognize this one. Paul Pressler used it in the appendix of his book, A Hill on Which to Die (page 346). Judge Pressler credited it to Noel Wesley Hollyfield, Jr. approved by G. Willis Bennet, chairman, E. Glenn Henson, and Henlee Barnette, professors at SBTS. Judge Pressler does not attribute these numbers to any particular cause but simply states them as data. The point of his book, however, was to justify the attack on "modernism" within the SBC (a whole other subject).

Pressler was wise not to attribute the statistics to anything as in themselves as a single piece of data they prove nothing. I have not seen the thesis in which this chart is included and do not know what the conclusions were that were reached. We are not even told what the title is by either Judge Pressler nor Mr. Kinney.

Also, we have no baseline of reference. Is there a similar chart for seminary students' beliefs BEFORE the use of "modern versions"? Does the author of the thesis attribute these alarming numbers to the use of MVs? Were the people who were asked about their beliefs in the original poll even questioned about what version they use? We do not know. We are given a single piece of data floating in space with no reference to which to tie it. It proves NOTHING.

Your task, Mr. Kinney, is to provide PROOF that the failing belief of the seminary students in 1976 at SBC seminaries was due to modern versions.

Another weak argument that must be addressed: on September 05, 2004 01:48 AM Eastern, Mr. Kinney posted:

Once again, this is an ad hominem attack that does nothing to dispel the argument, that being the use of archaic terminology in the KJV. Jack Lewis' only relationship to this thread is that his name was used for sourcing two posts: one here and the other here.

The posts I made are subjective proof. Some folks may be able to read through the paragraph in the second link effortlessly. I, for one, can not. Mr. Kinney, recognizing the subjective nature of the demonstration, posted his own list of words from different modern versions. However recognizing the fultility of such an argument when confronted with the use of modern and available dictionaries, he resorted to the ad hominem.

Mr. Kinney, this is typical of you fellas that claim to have an inspired Bible. You think, "Well, if my bible has big words in it, so does yours. Na, na, na, na, nah, yah." http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2767/12.html#000168

Your task, Mr. Kinney, is to provide PROOF that the use of archaic terminology in the KJV, without the use of an older or unabridged dictionary, does not impede understanding of the Scriptures. Attacking the original author of the source does not do this.

Now let's talk about Job some more.

On September 03, 2004 11:03 PM Eastern, Mr Kinney posted as one example of the alleged "corruption" of the inspired text a verse from Job, to whit:

In response I warned him about approaching Job in this discussion. Steaver asked why I would not answer his question and so I posted a link to the NASB online version and noted the footnote referencing the FACT that the Septuagint was more in agreement with the KJV translation. Mr. Kinney contended that (1) the NASB, and I in turn, were using "silly scholarship" and (2) the Hebrew versions of the Old Testament agree with the KJV.

In turn, I posted two seperate articles affirming that the KJV translators used the Septuagint to aid them in translating obscure words and/or wording in the Hebrew text. In addition I posted a quote from an online Hebrew Bible that was more in agreement with the NASB translation. Mr Kinney's retort was,

Now notice the shift in position from the first unbolded quote and the last. At first his contention was: There is a big difference between abhoring myself and "taking back what I said".

Now his position is: "the HCSB is not addressing the part about "I despise myself" from the LXX, but rather the latter part of the verse which says "and melt; I consider myself dust and ashes." Which is it, Mr. Kinney?

Your task is twofold in this instance, Mr. Kinney. (1) You must provide PROOF that the KJV translators did not use the Septuagint for the purpose of translating the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament, especially in Job, and (2) provide PROOF that Hebrew translations of Job agree with the KJV.

One other point you may wish to address in that post, should it come forth, is of which sin exactly did Job need to "repent"? Or is there another definition of repent that may not mean "turn away from sin" and may be considered synonymous with the phrase "taking back what I said"? (Hint: 1Chronicles 21:15)

Now, about the "badger skins" mentioned 14 times in KJV Old Tesatment.

Until I am required to construct a covering for the Tent in the Tabernacle that is 11 cubits X 4 cubits X 5 cubits, yes, it does not affect the story. Let's assume that a cubit is 30 inches. This would make the area of the tent 550 square feet. Let's say the average badger pelt is (generously) 4 square feet. This means that it would require nearly 140 fully cured badger pelts to complete the task. (More about mideast badgers here! )

"But at least they could GET badger pelts," says Mr. Kinney, "dolphins and sea cows did not exist in the dessert!" We know that the Israelites carried many possessions and valuables from Egypt with them (gold does not exist in abundance in the desert either, c.f. Exodus 25:3) some of which may have been porpoise skin:

These debates over words and phrases are by no means new. Luther wrote about it in 1530.

It was also like this for St. Jerome when he translated the Bible. Everybody was his master. He alone was totally incompetent, and people who were not worthy to clean his boots judged the good man's work. It takes a great deal of patience to do good things in public. The world believes itself to be the expert in everything, while putting the bit under the horse's tail. Criticizing everything and accomplishing nothing, that is the world's nature. It can do nothing else.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

So did Paul.

2 Timothy 2
14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.


This is sufficient for now, I believe.

 

DHK>>>Only the originals are. It is complete. It has all 66 books and all the chapters and verses that God intended it to have. God has preserved His word for us. We have the Word of God. He preserved it for us."


Well, D, you state your case with great conviction, however, none of the above is true as you have stated it. You say the originals ARE inspired, when you know quite well we do not have one scrape of the originals.

You say of the originals "It IS complete, and it HAS all 66 books." However the "originals" never were placed into a single book - never. For all 66 books to be placed into a single Book, we then need to have a translation into another language and the preservation of the long ago inspired Scriptures.

Your position sounds very pious indeed, until we actually examine what you are saying. And you are the one who is so concerned about proper definitions.

The KJB is not re-inspired. I never said that. God's words are like water. If I take this same water and put it into another vessel, even of a different shape, and there is no addition or subtraction of the water, it is the same water.

God promised to preserve His inspired words. He did not promise to re-inspire them.

I believe He did both. He inspired them and He preserved them in a Book.


Will K

 

Now, by implication, you have said that God has re-inspired, and re-inspired, and re-inspired, and, etc. Every time another copey, another translation is made you believe another re-inspiration has taken place. That is heresy. The Bible doesn't teach that. Why do you refuse to believe the clear teaching of the Word of God. I present it to you over and over again. You can only use your human reasoning, but you cannot refutte Scripture. Why is that? Let's look at Scripture again.

2 Peter 1:21 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.

# 1. The prophecy or Scriptures did not come by the will of man. They did not come by King James' decree, his will, his decision. It was not by the will of the translators of the King James translators that the Scriptures came.

#2. The Scriptures came by holy men of God. Peter refers to "holy men of God," and when he does, he is not referring to the men of the 17th century who translated the KJV. He is referring to Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. By extension he also is referring to the Apostles. He is not referring to any copyist or translator.

#3. "holy men of God spoke It is the words of the prophets and the Apostles that were inspired and not the prophets and the Apostles themselves. Not everything they said was inspired, but only the words that God inspired them to say at certain times in their lives. It was the WORDS that THEY spoke and no others. It does not refer to the words copied or translated. There is no way that you can extrapolate that meaning from this verse.
"Do you teach infant baptism too?" Your logic and exegesis is terrible.

#4. "were borne along by the Holy Spirit" The words of the prophets and Apostles were carried along or given life by the Holy Spirit. Again, this can only apply to the words of the prophets and the Apostles. No other group of people is mentioned here--no copyists, no translators. You cannot read into Scripture that which is not there. Do you also believe dogs and cats will also be in Heaven? You might as well. There is just as much evidence to say that inspiration continues. The Bible doesn't teach it.

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:

All Scripture is inspired--both the Hebrew and the Greek. That was the only Scripture that was available at that time. They had all the Hebrew Old Testament canon, and most of the New Testament, since 2Timothy was the last of the epistles of Paul. He was martyred shortly after that.

Inspiration means "God-breathed." The meaning is that God breathed into the Scripture, the words of the prophets and the Apostles the very life of God. That is inspiration. It was only their very words that they spoke that were inspired or God breathed. That does not apply to the words of the copyists or to the words of translators. It applies only to the original words of the apostles and prophets.
It was them that God used as vessels to breathe his holy words. God used the virgin Mary as vessel to bring Christ into this world. Your logic would indicate that only virgins would be able to trust Christ as Savior. Ridiculous isn't it.
The apostles and prophets were but vessels used by God to bring the Word of God into this world, just as Mary was but a vessel used by God to bring Christ into the world. When Christ entered into the world he was the perfect sinless Son of God.
When the Word of God came through the prophets and Apostles it was the perfect infallible inspired Word of God. When we accept Christ as our Saviour we do not become perfect, sinless, infallible.
When a tranlsation is made, it does not become perfect, infallible without error.

Inspiration can only apply to the original autographs. Only the apostles andd prophets were inspired of God. God breathed into them what he wanted them to write. He did not use any others. To assert that he did, borders on blasphemy.
We have the Word of God. To say that it is not inspired is not wrong. It is not damaging to one's faith. Why should it shake your faith. Is your faith that shallow?
The Word of God has been preserved. I believe that it has been preserved in the masoretic text of the Old Testament and in the textus receptus of the New Testament. Others believe it has been preserved in the Critical text. That is where the debate is held. The KJVO debate is frivilous. It defies any sense whatsoever. There are obvious mistakes in any translation including the KJV. Not to admit that is both pride and sin, based upon pure sentimentality.
DHK

 

Including the many italicized words? Including the preface? Or are these "impurities" in the water?

Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.
Translators to the Reader, Preface, 1611 KJV
http://www.bibleword.org/kjvlet2.html

See it in their own printing here, far right of image, 8th line of text body from bottom: http://www.locksley.com/6696/kjv3.jpg

Are you also including the margin notes, a very few of which are scanned and posted online for those who wish to see them?

http://www.bible.ca/kjv-1611-version-margin-notes-judg19.gif

(In the interest of page loading for dial up members I did not post the image on the page but refer them to the link. I will stop at one example of scanned margin notes. Those interested can find more here: http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof or by doing an image search on Google using the search terms "KJV margin notes".)

What of the changing of the graecized Hebrew name "Iakobos" (Jacob) to "James" in three different New Testament individuals? Is that the "same water"?

[ September 06, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Again, I ask: Where is God during a translation? Does God not care about his word of truth to the believers in that prospective language, that he would allow errors in His word of truth in that language? God didn't stop preserving his word only in the Hebrew and Greek. God's word is living and with the believers. Yes, his infallible, and inspired words. I feel very sorry for those who deny this very important and wonderful truth. I do not speak Hebrew and Greek, and many others do not either. Does this mean we cannot believe every word in our Bible is not God's word of truth? Does God's word, the scriptures have errors in them? I think not. If they did, then we would no longer have the word of truth, and therefore would most assuredly be believing in something other than the scriptures. I tell you, and all here, with the utmost confidence that I have the scriptures, the very word of God in my own language. There are NO ERRORS in the scriptures, nor in my Holy Bible.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Amen, Sister Michelle -- Preach it!

Praise Jesus for the Holman Christian
Standard Bible (HCSB) -- God's Holy
Scriptures, the Holy Bible, for the
21st Century (2001-2100) English reader.

I believe it from cover to cover!
I even believe the cover: "Holy Bible"!!!

 

The same place He always is:

2 Chronicles 18:18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

Psalms 11:4 The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.

Psalms 47:8 God reigneth over the heathen: God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness.

God doesn't make errors. Man does. If man in his own fallibility, carelessness, or even deliberate biasness chooses to make mistakes, is that the fault of God. Do you blame God for man's mistakes? If I translate the Gospel of John (and I believe I can), and make a mistake doing so, does that make it any less the Word of God? Not at all. God doesn't inspire me, nor my words, nor my translation. His words have already been preserved in the Hebrew and Greek. I just use them to make my own translation. The same held true for the KJV translators. You have taken this case so far that you almost worship a translation. There are mistakes in the KJV. Admit it. Is there such a thing as a unicorn? No. The animal was a wild ox. Unicorns belong to Greek mythology. Mistakes galore. I can point out many more of them if you are open to them.

There is a difference between inspiration and preservation. Learn it. Only the original words of the prophets and apostles were inspired. Inspired literally "God-breathed." God breathed into the apostles and prophets the very words that He wanted them to write down. He did not do that with the 17th century KJV translators. To imply or infer that is wrong, and is making up a heretical doctrine, and is the foundation of a false cult.
God only inspired the writings of the apostles and prophets, and that is all. That is the teaching of 2Peter 1:21 and 2Tim.3:16.
Those words have been preserved for us in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Inspiration is not preserved. Inspiration applies only to the words of the prophets and apostles. This ought not to bother you or shake your faith. If it does, your faith is very shallow. God promised to preserve His Word, not the inspiration of His Word; there is a difference. It appears to me that the only reason you want to say that the KJV is inspired is because you want to avoid the study of the Greek and Hebrew. You rebel against God's command: "Study to show yourself approved unto God..."

Don't feel sorry for me, but rather for yourself for you have been deceived by what many believe is a false cult called "Ruckmanism." The Bible has been preserved in the Hebrew and in the Greek. There are errors in every translation. Why? Because man makes errors, either intentionally or unintentionally he makes errors. Many of the errors of the KJV were made because the translators were High Anglican/Catholic translators who had to be politically correct in their translation, and therefore pleasing to the king and many of the church higher ups. A couple of examples:
The word ekklesia was translated church deliberately to cause confustion. Church has many meanings. But ekklesia has only one: assembly or congregation. Church does not refer to a building or an organization, like the Anglican Church or the Catholic Church. It means "assembly" as in a local church or assembly. If they had translated it properly there would be a lot less confusion in the doctrine of ecclesiology today.

The same is true of baptism. In fact they did not even translate "Baptidzo," they transliterated it. The translation is "immerse." That is what the word means. But since many of the churches employed sprinkling or even pouring as their method of baptizing they used this more generic word instead of translating the word as it should be--immerse. If they had translated immerse it would have gone directly against their own church's practice. They wouldn't have been politically correct in doing so. They translated it with their own bias in mind.

There are obvious mistakes in the KJV.
There are mistakes in every translation. Every nation of the world has its own translation. How do you reconcile your philosophy with the other nations of the world? Their translations must be translated from only one standard--the standard of the Greek and Hebrew. The world's standard is not and never has been the KJV. Our doctrine comes from the preserved Word of God--preserved in the Hebrew and in the Greek. Because you don't want to obey God and study it is your problem and and your sinful heart attitude toward God, especially since you have the ability to do so.
DHK