1611 KJV only and anger

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

King James only folks perhaps have a higher view of scripture than most others (general statement).

'Perhaps' being the operative word.

Those who do not think God's Word is bound to one particular time in history perhaps have a higher view of scriptures than most others (general statement). Perhaps they believe that God can preserve His word in a language which suits the people of every generation.

I believe the TR text used by the King James translators was this text, and if properly translated into any language is the accurate word of God in that language.

Would that include the NKJV translated into English from the same text?

 

[Rippon]

Well, you would probably include me in that last statement.

And his last statement was that some KJVO folks seem to have elevated the KJV to the status accorded to the Father,Son and Holy Spirit.

You are in agreement with that heretical conception? Really?

 

[convicted1]

The thing that gets me, is why would one hold one version higher than the other? Sure, I really prefer the KJV over the rest, but I also have a Strong's, plus I have the Hebrew Greek Interlinear by Jay Green(I highly recommend this:thumbs: ) and an ESV. Each and every translation/version is translated from either the CT or RT, and who knows which one is more correct? The thing that one needs, is to find that translation/version that they can glean the most from. It doesn't matter which version you read from, if God doesn't enlighten your mind to understand, you'd just as well read a comic book.

 

[Winman]

And his last statement was that some KJVO folks seem to have elevated the KJV to the status accorded to the Father,Son and Holy Spirit.

You are in agreement with that heretical conception? Really?

Did you see the verse I submitted with that statement? The scriptures themselves say God has magnified his word ABOVE his name. (Psa 138:2)

Jesus Christ IS the Word of God (Jn 1:1, Rev 19:13)

I simply believe if Jesus is perfect, then his Word must be perfect as well. I can't explain it or prove it, but I believe God promised to preserve his Word. Therefore one version must be that preserved, perfect Word. In English I believe that Word is the KJB. Any accurate translation from the same original text would be the Word of God in that language.

This is something you either understand or you don't. It is understood by faith, not sight.

 

[David Lamb]

Well, you would probably include me in that last statement.

Psa 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.

But Psalm 132.8 does not say:

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word in the form of a particular translation into English above all thy name.
​

 

[Mexdeaf]

Did you see the verse I submitted with that statement? The scriptures themselves say God has magnified his word ABOVE his name. (Psa 138:2)

There are alternative and authoritative ways of translating this verse from Hebrew. Some versions say God has magnified His word and His name above all.

Here is an interesting article explaining the translation issues:

http://sumsekel.blogspot.com/2008/03/psalm-1382.html

and:

http://drmacdonald.blogspot.com/2008/01/psalm-138-verse-2.html

At any rate, David was not referring to a particular translation of God's Word.

[Edit: I see that Bro. Lamb (what a great name!) has already made that last point.]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Any accurate translation from the same original text would be the Word of God in that language.

So you do believe that the NKJV is God's perfect word in 20th century English then?

 

[JesusFan]

Well, you would probably include me in that last statement.

Psa 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.

King James only folks perhaps have a higher view of scripture than most others (general statement). We believe the KJB is the only accurate word of God in English. I do believe the CT is a corrupt text.

You would believe a lie here though!
The HS did NOT preserve the KJV as ONLY english word of God for today, he preserved essential the original documents for us today to base all the various version/translations off of...

And you do NOT hold to the Bible for its inerrancy/infallibility any more so that say those scholars that did either NASV/NIV version!

CANNOT prove by ANY factual basis that KJV is best, nor only, can hold to that the TR/BZ is a better text to base it off from, ansd that it is the best availablr english version for today based upon that, can be KJVP, that would be about it!

KJB only folks like me believe this by faith, I cannot prove my position scientifically. I simply believe that God is perfect and desires we know him, so he has preserved a perfect text. I believe the TR text used by the King James translators was this text, and if properly translated into any language is the accurate word of God in that language.

You may believe that, but have NO factual basis based upon either textual criticism/nor upon how you view "preservation" of the TR text!

So, you would probably view me as extreme, and I am OK with that.

Just as long as you realise that position cannot be suported by "the facts!"

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Just as long as you realise that position cannot be suported by "the facts!"

Or the scriptures

 

[preacher4truth]

No, we wouldn't view you as "extreme" but rather as one desiring to wear said label fatuously as some badge of honor.

What we do find is that you're misinformed and in error most of the time, both interpretationally and logically.

 

[Winman]

'Perhaps' being the operative word.

Those who do not think God's Word is bound to one particular time in history perhaps have a higher view of scriptures than most others (general statement). Perhaps they believe that God can preserve His word in a language which suits the people of every generation.



Would that include the NKJV translated into English from the same text?

I have visited sites and seen the differences, I personally do not like the NKJV. I really see no need for it, I am satisfied with the KJB.

 

[JesusFan]

I have visited sites and seen the differences, I personally do not like the NKJV. I really see no need for it, I am satisfied with the KJB.

Even though the NKJV is based upon "better/newer" scholarship, based upon the TR, but with improvents from the time of the 1611 KJV?

 

[Winman]

No, we wouldn't view you as "extreme" but rather as one desiring to wear said label fatuously as some badge of honor.

What we do find is that you're misinformed and in error most of the time, both interpretationally and logically.

You could not be further from the truth. When I first got saved as a boy I read several different versions and immediately realized they were not the same. This troubled me, as I just wanted to know the truth, and nothing but the truth. I prayed and prayed for God to show me the truth and read books on the subject. I became convinced that the KJB was the only accurate version in English. Nobody swayed me toward this conviction, I wasn't even attending church at the time, and I had never heard of King James Only.

Matt 4:4 was the verse that convicted and convinced me there was only one true version. Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

It occurred to me that if Jesus expects us to live by "every" word of God, that a just God would provide every word and not let his words be lost or corrupted. I still believe that. So, I set out to find it.

I could care less what people think of me. It has certainly not been a badge of honor, to the contrary, it has brought me much ridicule as it does here at BB. That's OK, I would rather know the truth than have the honor of men.

 

[JesusFan]

You could not be further from the truth. When I first got saved as a boy I read several different versions and immediately realized they were not the same. This troubled me, as I just wanted to know the truth, and nothing but the truth. I prayed and prayed for God to show me the truth and read books on the subject. I became convinced that the KJB was the only accurate version in English. Nobody swayed me toward this conviction, I wasn't even attending church at the time, and I had never heard of King James Only.

Matt 4:4 was the verse that convicted and convinced me there was only one true version. Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

It occurred to me that if Jesus expects us to live by "every" word of God, that a just God would provide every word and not let his words be lost or corrupted. I still believe that. So, I set out to find it.

I could care less what people think of me. It has certainly not been a badge of honor, to the contrary, it has brought me much ridicule as it does here at BB. That's OK, I would rather know the truth than have the honor of men.

As long as you hold that its your personal conviction/preference that KJV is best/only one FOR YOU fine, its just that KJVO holders extend that to evryone else needs to see the bible same way!

 

[Winman]

Even though the NKJV is based upon "better/newer" scholarship, based upon the TR, but with improvents from the time of the 1611 KJV?

Would you care to show me examples of better/newer scholarship and improvements from 1611 please? Be very specific and show me these improvements and explain in your own words how they are better. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke and repeating something you heard somewhere.

 

[Winman]

As long as you hold that its your personal conviction/preference that KJV is best/only one FOR YOU fine, its just that KJVO holders extend that to evryone else needs to see the bible same way!

I am not telling you what to read, you can read a child's version if that's what you want to do. I don't think you'll get much out of it, but that is your prerogative.

But if I see an example of a MV saying something different, I am going to point it out.

For example, you started a thread about the "sin nature" in Galatians 5. Right away I knew you were reading the NIV. The Greek word here is sarx, translated as "flesh" in the KJB and most of the MVs as well. The scriptures say Jesus came in the flesh (sarx). Do you believe Jesus was born with a sin nature? I DON'T.

Needless to say, I would never read the NIV.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have visited sites and seen the differences, I personally do not like the NKJV. I really see no need for it, I am satisfied with the KJB.

Okay, but since it fits your own qualification as God's word is it God's word in English for the 21st century as the KJV was for the 17th?

 

[Winman]

Okay, but since it fits your own qualification as God's word is it God's word in English for the 21st century as the KJV was for the 17th?

I don't personally think so, but I do not know Greek and am therefore not qualified to refute the NKJV translators when they translated some verses to line up with the MVs.

An example is John 4:24 where the KJB says "God is a Spirit" while the NKJV says, "God is Spirit". The KJB has the word "a" while the NKJV does not and conforms to several MV translations.

Does that make a difference? Does it give a different meaning? I believe it does. Jesus was pointing out and differentiating God from all other spirits. There are many spirits, Satan is a spirit. To say "God is Spirit" could convey to some that God encompasses all that is spirit, that all spirits are ONE, where Jesus was pointing out God's individuality and being separate from all other spirits.

I think many folks would not notice this difference unless pointed out, but it can lead to a different understanding of what Jesus actually said, and could even lead to false doctrine.

My 2 cents. So I will stick with my KJB, I do not consider this an improvement, in fact it could lead to error.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I don't personally think so, but I do not know Greek and am therefore not qualified to refute the NKJV translators when they translated some verses to line up with the MVs.

An example is John 4:24 where the KJB says "God is a Spirit" while the NKJV says, "God is Spirit". The KJB has the word "a" while the NKJV does not and conforms to several MV translations.

Does that make a difference? Does it give a different meaning? I believe it does. Jesus was pointing out and differentiating God from all other spirits. There are many spirits, Satan is a spirit. To say "God is Spirit" could convey to some that God encompasses all that is spirit, that all spirits are ONE, where Jesus was pointing out God's individuality and being separate from all other spirits.

I think many folks would not notice this difference unless pointed out, but it can lead to a different understanding of what Jesus actually said, and could even lead to false doctrine.

My 2 cents. So I will stick with my KJB, I do not consider this an improvement, in fact it could lead to error.

You have a problem with a one word difference in that passage, but no problem with a two word difference in KJV1611 and KJV1769 in 1 John 5v12? Since you claim every word is perfect, which one of these two verses is?

 

[Winman]

You have a problem with a one word difference in that passage, but no problem with a two word difference in KJV1611 and KJV1769 in 1 John 5v12? Since you claim every word is perfect, which one of these two verses is?

I understand it is necessary to add words when translating from one language to another, and the KJB identifies these words.

The issue is whether these added words alter the meaning of the verse. If added words clarify the verse and make the "true" meaning more obvious and precise, I do not see that as adding to God's word. However, if the added words could alter the true intention of the verse, then that is a problem.

As I am not a Greek scholar, I cannot speak as to exactly why this change was made. From what I have read in the past, this is not the only example in the KJB where words were added to clarify scripture.

That is my personal view.

And I could respond in kind to you, you have a huge issue with two words, but do not take issue that the TR has nearly 3000 more words in the original Greek than the CT. Not to be unkind, but you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.