King James Only and Jehovah

I beg to differ that there are really not that many Baptists that are KJVO. In the Independent circles it is more prevalent, but overall is is not that widespread. It is just that the ones who hold it are VERY vocal about it. Here at my seminary, the KJV is definitely the least used of the popular translations. Usually, it would first be the NASB or NKJV, then NIV, then ESV or KJV. Personally, I like the KJV, but don't use it much. I really do not like the NIV much and would not really recommend it for serious study.

Grant,

Have fun! You may have opened a can of worms that you don't want down here with this thread! It is hard enough to keep the KJVOs up there in the Versions forum without them spilling over to other forums in the Baptist only area! Watch out if they all come flocking down here! The RCC won't be the main topic of discussion for much longer!

In Christ,
Neal

 

they brought it up neal, not me (for once).

 

You're right! Baptists translated Catholic manuscripts. The NIV is a curious mixture of Baptist and Catholic doctrines.

also...can you give me some examples of the KJB condemning baptist doctrine. i've never heard anyone say that before.

Do you believe that Mary is the mother of God (Luke 1:35)? That Christ is free to leave heaven to be physically present with us in His supper (Act 3:21)? That baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21)? That we share Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament (1 Cor. 10:16)? That unworthy guests are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:27)? That God was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16)? That we are redeemed through His blood (Col 1:14)?

If not, perhaps you should switch to the Baptist friendly NIV.

 

"The important thing to remember is that since the time of the King James, there has only been primarily one group of people taking on the task of evangelizing the entire world. That, of course, is the english-speaking people. God knew well ahead of time who would be evangelizing the world in the latter days and knew that He needed to preserve His words in the language of those people. That is one reason why the King James Bible came about. And that is why God chose to preserve His words in English."

This is without a doubt the greatest piece of nonsense ever quoted on the Baptist Board.
The accomplishments in the missionary field, by both the Dutch and the Germans are enormous, comparatively larger than the results of the English speaking peoples.

 

to what time frame are you referring?

 

"He would be a gun carrying, church going man with a Godly wife and children, all who believe the Bible to be the word of God and would try to direct people to the knowledge of the truth - Jesus Christ."

In the 1980's I discovered to my own dismay that I am a potentially dangerous person. I don't mean that I am psychotic, I mean that I can hit anything in a 50 meter radius around me with perfect accuracy and serious damage even if I'm dead tired and severely stressed. I don't even need a gun, I do it with a simple slingshot and some lead marbles. (King David eat your heart out )
I occasionally make lame jokes about it, but to be honest I find my 'talent' disturbing.
How do you deal with the fact that you are good at hurting things from a distance if you are a pacifist and live in a society where the constitutional right to own firearms is considered ridiculous?

 

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshdow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Mary is the mother of Jesus' physical body. God, and more specifically God the Son, existed before Mary was born. She was not the mother of God. She was the mother of the body in which was manifest the Son of God.

you lost me on this one.

1 Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Baptism does not save a person from Hell and this verse does not say that baptism saves a person from Hell. It says that baptism gives us a good conscience toward God, in that he wants us to be baptized after salvation and if we do it, it is obedience and gives us good conscience toward Him. It even says that baptism doesn't wash away the filth of the flesh (that's sin).

1 Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

first of all there's no mention in the Bible of sacraments. and the Lord's Supper or Communion is nothing but a picture of the fact that when you are saved you are already a part of the body of Christ. Eph 2:16

verse 29 talks about this in more detail saying that "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself". unfortunately everyone always assumes that damnation means hell because they forget the next verse. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. if you take communion unworthily you run a great risk of ending up very sick, or even dead.

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

i don't know any baptist that disagrees with that statement.

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

again, don't know any baptist that would disagree.


i'm sorry, but you haven't proven anything here.

 

Harvest
"the NIV was translated from catholic manuscripts. it's NOT a baptist version."
Actually the NIV was translated from a combination of Oriental Orthodox manuscripts and Eastern Orthodox manuscripts. The KJV was translated only from Eastern Orthodox manuscripts. I assume both KJV and NIV probably used exactly the same text for the Old Testament, the Jewish Masoretic text.
There are no purely baptist Bible versions and speaking as a baptist myself, why should there be?

 

Ofcourse everybody knows the real Preserved Word of God is "de Statenbijbel", the Dutch States Bible. Not authorized by some measly king, but by the Staten Generaal, the government of the first ever republic to come into being since before the birth of Christ our Lord.

 

why? that sounds very impressive. as long as you don't go around hitting people in the head with those things, who cares?

well i can tell you that in our society the only people that think our right to own firearms is ridiculous is the moronic left-wingers who think we should all unite into a one-world government.

the right to keep and bear arms ensures that the citizens will not come under tyrannical control of the government. that's what our 2nd amendment, in part, was designed to do. keep us free!

it also helps us protect ourselves from the non law-abiding citizens of this country. the police are rarely there to stop a crime in progress. they only come afterwards and try to find out who did it. i have a biblical responsibility to protect my family and having a gun helps me to do so. if someone intends to do harm to my wife or my soon-to-be-born child, i will put a bullet in them without hesitation. and every other husband/father ought to do the same exact thing.

 

To summarize some of your questions, let me try to answer them as best I can:

1. Concerning Yaweh and Jehovah:
The two words are the same. The name for Jehovah was (and possibly still is) unpronounceable). The Jews considered it so holy that they would not write it. Eventually they wrote only the consonants into the Scripture. We are left to guess at the vowels. Thus the word could be either Yaweh or Jehovah. It is almost like a person’s preference, and doesn’t make a lot of difference. It is not worth arguing about. Basically what GraceSaves said about the matter was correct.

2. Concerning the content of the KJV
What Harvest said about the Deuterocanonicals is correct. They were originally put between the Testaments as uninspired, but historical books. They were never considered inspired. The Bible has only 66 inspired books.

3. Concerning inspiration and preservation.
Harvest, only the original manuscripts are inspired and we don’t have those today. Consider:

(2 Pet 1:21 KJV) 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.
--These “holy men of God” were the Old Testament prophets, and by extension the Apostles. They were not the KJV translators, or any other translators. Only the writers of the Bible were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the Scriptures, and therefore only what they wrote was inspired. No other documents were inspired but theirs.

However God did promise to preserve His word, but He did not explain to us how He would preserve His Word, so we should be careful on being too dogmatic, and make sure that we have all the facts in order before we jump from the frying pan into the fire.

4. Concerning other denominations.
The KJV is not a pedobaptist, or Anglican, or Presbyterian, or Baptist, etc., Bible. It is used by people of different faiths all throughout the world. It has been the greatest selling book in the world for the last number of how many “I don’t know years.” It’s literary value alone is unparalleled in history, not to mention its spiritual value. It is NOT a denominational book. Such talk is just foolishness. The seventy scholars (actually closer to 54) that were used translated the Bible literally with very little bias. Their interest was to come up with an accurate translation from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts made available to them—not to come up with a translation biased toward any denomination. They weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses!!

5. Translators were pedobaptists.
So what! As explained above it didn’t make any difference. The only difference it made here is that they had to be “politically correct” in this case. Instead of translating the word “baptidzo,” as “immerse,” they simply transliterated the word and came up with “baptism” which could mean anything from sprinkle, pour, to immerse. The meaning of the word “baptidzo” when properly translated is immerse. This shows one of the fallacies of Harvest’s position that the KJV is infallible. No translation is infallible. Mistakes are made in translation, because men are fallible and make mistakes. God makes no mistakes, and He made no mistakes when He inspired the prophets and Apostles to write down the words that He wanted to be written down.

6. Concerning Manuscripts
Harvest get your (head) thoughts together.
What if? What if? What if?
The what if’s don’t count.
I am a missionary. I work in a nation that has a illiteracy rate of 87%. In the mother tongue of this nation there is no translation of the Bible. In national language (different than the most common language) a translation was made some years ago and is comparable to the RSV. The language is very difficult to learn to say the least. Now, would you be the one to go to such a nation, teach the people fluently Shakespearean English, make sure they know their own national language fluently, make a translation from either the KJV (if that is your conviction) or the Greek and Hebrew texts that underly them. Are you willing to do that?
Will you go to such a nation, and tell these people because they have a Bible only in the RSV that they don’t have a Bible at all, or that it is not the Word of God. Do you how devastating that would be to a person’s faith. What as a missionary would you tell people like that.
Do you know that most nations in the world have Bibles that are translated from the Critical Text and not the Received Text?
Would God, that the Lord would get a hold of some of you who bicker so much about translations and set you in the midst of Afghanistan, or Pakistan, Iran, or Iraq, where the Word of God is scarce; where it doesn’t matter to them what text the Bible comes from, just as long as they have a Bible, eyes to read a Bible, the ability with their eyes even to read at all. It doesn’t matter what denomination you are in those countries you are. All that fall under the great umbrella of Christendom are prone to horrible persecution, most of which we never hear about. If you really cared about their translations then go there, learn languages, and make an accurate translation for them. Jesus said: “If you love me keep my commandments” The greatest demonstration of our love for Christ is our obedience to His commands, one of which is the Great Commission.
DHK

 

Sounds like you have a problem with a Born-Again Believer, here. You are also falsely accusing this Born-Again Believer. His website has the plan of salvation all over it. He seems to me to be using his life for the Lord. I went to your website and found what? If you have a bug up your butt about someone who cares enough about the lost world, then you will have the Lord to face one day.

If English did cease, which there's little worry about that, then the Lord will find the way to continue to preserve his Word. Simple answer. Maybe you need to look again at who has actually
been brainwashed.

 

"to what time frame are you referring? "
The whole 19th century and the first half of the 20th century for the Dutch (that's all KJV time by the way), the Germans went on a little longer. Nowadays most effective missionary work is done, by the folks born in the area's coverted in the last 2 centuries, not by Westerners.

"again this is just speculation. you have no evidence, only your own reasoning. "
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/lifechanges/baptism.html
http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/getback/gbpuritan.htm
2 links proving that both Puritans and Anglicans baptize children.

"here is a portion of "The Answer Book" by Dr. Sam Gipp that will help you with your problem here."
Sorry Harvest, Gipp is in the same fraudulent league as Alexander Hislop.
I got my Degree in church history partly by writing a very long essay on the lies of the 19th century American anti-catholicism movement. I recognize that stuff anywhere, even if it's used for a different purpose.

 

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshdow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Mary is the mother of Jesus' physical body. God, and more specifically God the Son, existed before Mary was born. She was not the mother of God. She was the mother of the body in which was manifest the Son of God.

No. That's what the NIV says: The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." The KJV says the holy thing born of Mary. And that Christ was made of a woman. In another words, Mary is the mother of God.

you lost me on this one.

NIV: He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets

1 Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Baptism does not save a person from Hell and this verse does not say that baptism saves a person from Hell. It says that baptism gives us a good conscience toward God, in that he wants us to be baptized after salvation and if we do it, it is obedience and gives us good conscience toward Him. It even says that baptism doesn't wash away the filth of the flesh (that's sin).

But the NIV better supports your innovative interpretation by actually using the word "symbol": and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

1 Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

first of all there's no mention in the Bible of sacraments. and the Lord's Supper or Communion is nothing but a picture of the fact that when you are saved you are already a part of the body of Christ. Eph 2:16

The NIV supports the Baptist innovation by watering down the communion to a mere participation: Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

verse 29 talks about this in more detail saying that "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself". unfortunately everyone always assumes that damnation means hell because they forget the next verse. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. if you take communion unworthily you run a great risk of ending up very sick, or even dead.

According to the NIV we are not guilty of body and blood. We are simply sinning against the body and blood:Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

i don't know any baptist that disagrees with that statement.

The NIV supports the Baptist view that Christ's divinity can be seperated from His humanity: Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body.

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

again, don't know any baptist that would disagree.

Again, the NIV supports the Baptist view. The denial of the two natures of Christ means that we can not be saved by His blood: in whom we have redemption,the forgiveness of sins.

i'm sorry, but you haven't proven anything here. </font>[/QUOTE]The KJV is the more accurate bible because it denies both the Baptist and the Catholic heresies.

[ October 07, 2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

I can't believe God would
call you to cross swords here and NOT
prepared you with this simple preperation.

The very name "baptist" is a clue ot
a KJV translation oops.
"Baptise" is a translitteration of
a Greek term. There is a perfectly good
English word: "Immersion" which could
have been used to translate that Greek term.
Why do the KJVs use "baptise"
when "immersion" is better?

 

Steve asked
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the 1611 original KJV also the "perfect preserved Bible", as it included the deutercanonicals? (those seven books included in Catholic Bibles and excluded in subsequent KJV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Harvest answered:

"Yes it was. I assume by deutercanonicals you are talking about the apocrypha. The apocryphal books were inserted BETWEEN the testaments as uninspired, historical reading. They were not in the OT canon as with Catholic "bibles"."

Steve says:
While they were inserted between the testaments, nowhere did the translators refer to them as "uninspired". And in fact seem to be saying otherwise in their Preface from the Translators to the Reader. Where there is a passage explaining

1.) how God caused the Septuagint to be written (see for reference: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/trpref4.htm )
and
2.) that the Septuagint is God's Word. (see for reference: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/trpref7.htm )
The Septuagint as we all know included the deutercanonicals without any distinction of being uninspired or less inspired etc.

Steve asked:
Or did it evolve to be perfectly preserved?
----------------------------------

The Harvest answered:

"nope, the translators did their job the first time."

Steve says: If the translators did their job (which was translating, and by the way which is not necessarily inspired by God)the first time that would mean that the perfectly preserved translation of the Bible should include the deuterocanonicals as they did from the versions that they translated and were included within the KJV first issuance, No?


Steve asked:

Was the Holy Spirt involved in the committee to establish the canon of the original version or the last committee to change it, or both and was seemingly confused? Or neither, and then where did the authority come to either include or exclude?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Harvest answered:
"The Holy Spirit was not confused and I would recommend you be very careful in word choices when talking about the Holy Spirit in such a manner.
The canon of the KJB includes 66 books. As I stated above the apocrypha was in between the Testaments as uninspired writings and was never considered by the AV translators to be part of the canon. So when it was taken out it didn't change the perfection of the inspired texts of the 66 books."

Steve Continues:

If I thought the Holy Spirit was actually involved in excluding what He had previously authored and confirmed through the Church councils, I in fact would not speak of God in such a manner. As it is I can emphatically tell you it was not the Holy Spirit that changed the canon!

Can a bible with an incomplete Canon still purport to be "perfectly preserved"?

And what about the marginal references that the translators included in the original KJV. Weren't these put there for elucidation? If so why did the translators refer at least six times in the NT to the deuterocanonicals; if they are so insignificant that they would subsequently be removed from the Bible?


Steve asked:
How do we know if the current KJV is complete in what it includes as perfectly preserved?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Harvest answers:

"Because God promised to preseve His word.
Ps 12:6-7
Matt 24:35
Mark 13:31
Luke 21:33"

Steve finishes with:
Yet nowhere do we see there what constitutes what Christians are to consider the canon of scripture.
And where in these references do we see the authority to include or exclude any certain books?

God Bless
Stephen

 

If you don't mind, please check and see how many Baptists were involved with the translation of the NIV. I could understand your claim a bit more if it were referring to the HCSB (which about half of the translation team was Baptist), but I fear that you are sorely mistaken when it comes to the NIV. In the preface of the NIV, Lutherans are named as part of the translation committee as well.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Could whoever made this comment (I think John) explain? I do not understand what you are saying here. If you mean that we believe Jesus was not God while he was in the flesh, you are flat out wrong. Please explain.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Yes, a bible written by Baptists using Catholic manuscripts. And I suppose they taught you from one of those new Catechisms instead of the old 1943 LCMS Catechism?

No wonder you turned Catholic. You could have just as easily become Baptist. You were never given a chance to be Lutheran! </font>[/QUOTE]Tsk tsk. Not so quick to judge.

Yes, we used the newer Catechism, but I was taught by an EXTREMELY orthodox pastor (so much so that many didn't like him, although I did), and my father is a diehard Lutheran instructed by a pastor who is as German Lutheran as one can get. Trust me; I was raised in orthodoxy.

And you're right. I don't see any legitimacy to Lutheransim. If Catholicism is wrong, it's every man for himself. </font>[/QUOTE]The new NIV Catechism is full of mistakes. Unfortunately, it never occurred to anyone in the LCMS that a bible translated by Baptists from Catholic manuscripts might be full of heresy!

There was no problem when the LCMS used the KJV Catechism. The Lutheran Confessions agree perfectly with the KJV bible. The KJV translaters used the same manuscripts as Luther and were not trying to sell bibles to Baptists.

You, apparently, are too young to remember when the LCMS used the KJV exclusively with historic liturgy, ordinaries, and lectionary from the 8th century. Now, the LCMS uses a modern NIV liturgy full of errors with bible lessons approved by the Pope himself!