#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

[DHK]

Originally posted by altalux:

I don't know which KJVO crowd you've actually sat down and discussed things with, but I do know that a lot is lost in translation due to the poor communication tool we know as the Internet.

The internet is not to be blamed here. It is another technological advantage that has given mankind a greater tool in translating the Bible into different languages, just as it has given us a greater advantage in communicating right now--as I am communicating with you.
Much is lost in translation--every translation--including the KJV. It is not a perfect translation, never was, and never will be. The KJV, like any other translation, has errors in it. To use another example the word "church" translated from "ekklesia" is a wrong translation. "Ekklesia" means assembly, not church. The Greek word for church is "kuriokos." The stipulations put on the High Anglican/Catholic translators forced them to be politically correct and translate the word "church," instead of its true meaning, "assembly." This is one of the reasons they hated the Tyndale translation so much. 115 times the KJV wrongly translated ekkesia as church. That is 115 mistakes. That means the KJV is not perfect or infallible or inspired. If you look near the end of Acts 19 you will find that the town clerk addressed the "assembly" and he dismissed the "assembly" that had gathered in the theatre. The word for "assembly" in these two cases is ekklesia, properly translated as assembly. A church is a congregation or an assembly. There were no denominations for more than a century later. There were no "church" buildings for 250 years after the apostles. Ekklesia means assembly.

I have never heard of anyone who insists that English is the language of God, which would be the logical conclusion of such people. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think it strange that God would inspire just one OT for the less than 1% of the world's population who speak modern Hebrew (quite different from the Masoretic Hebrew) and a NT for the almost 0% who speak Koine Greek (a language which had significantly died by 150 AD and had virtually vanished by 330 AD), thus leaving over 99% of the world without a Bible. No, there are many excellent (and for all I know, perfect) translations of the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Textus Receptus into many of the worlds languages, especially those languages spoken by the great missionary and evangelical outreaches of history.
:

"I don't know of anyone..." Have you met Michelle? Our western English speaking nations are spoiled having so many different translations to choose from, when so much of the world doesn't have any. Michelle's position (staunch (KJVO), is that the English speaking world has the inspired perfect infallible Word of God in the KJV, and that the "dead languages of Greek and Hebrew" are no longer necessary. She also believes that God has kept His promise to "preserve his word" in every language in the world, and that it is preserved infallibly and perfectly inspired.
Others I have met believe only the KJV is inspired giving no thought to the other nations whatsoever. When questioned they have no answer. Only the KJV is inspired in their minds.
Either way the KJVO camp has a serious problem.

#1. If God promised to preserve His word, what makes you think that it would be in English? Do you have any proof that it is in the KJV? What about the rest of the 3,000 languages, or at least the other 321 translated Bibles currently in use in different countries.

#2 There are no perfect translations of the Word of God, and contrary to what you may think most of the translations of the Bible in foreign languages have been done by the Wycliffe Bible Translators, who used the Critical Text as their source to translate from. More than 90% of the translations used in foreign nations are the equivalent of an ASV or a RSV, not translated from the Textus Receptus. So do they have the Word of God or not. I am a missionary. I go to some of these nations, where their only translation of the Bible is missing Acts 8:37 and 1John 5:7 like some of the MV's do. Do you shattter their faith and tell them that they do not have the Word of God? Of course not. For they do have the Word of God. It may not be the KJV, but it is the Word of God.

The preserved Word of God is found only in the Hebrew and Greek from which the KJV was translated from, and from which all translations can be translated from. The only reason that another nation can have the Word of God in its own language is because the Word of God is preserved in the Greek and Hebrew. William Carey went to India and translated the Bible into 26 different languages. But he didn't do it from the KJV. He translated from the Greek and Hebrew. It is the Greek and Hebrew that give you the meanings of any of the words or passages in questions, not English dictionaries. To say otherwise is very foolish.
DHK

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by artbook1611:
Satyr is a monkey or fawn and is also the first meaning in Noah Websters 1828. Mythology was added by men but is not a part of scripture.

Whoa, hold on there Artie. That "first meaning" that you refer to is not an english definition of the word "satyr"- it's the etymology of the word, from the latin satyrus. The english definition of the word "satyr" is the unbracketed text that follows that etymology. The latin "satyrus" refers to a "monkey, or a fawn". The english derivative "satyr" means a mythical half-man/half-goat.

By rejecting the english meaning of the word "satyr", and by expressing your preference for its meaning in the latin word "satyrus" from which the english word is derived, let me tell you what you've done [You might want to take a seat for this]:

1. The KJV (obviously) is an english-translation of God's Word.

2. KJVOnlyism believes that the KJV is God's perfect, 100% word-for-word preservation of God's Word for english-speaking people; and therefore any need to refer back to the original languages is unnecessary.

3. Since you reject the english meaning of the word "satyr", as it appears in the KJV, and yourself claim that the meaning of the latin word from which "satyr" is derived is actually the correct meaning, guess what: you've just demolished a major tenet of your KJVOism beliefs. You're stating that the word that appears in the KJV is inferior and incorrect, and that the original language's meaning (in this instance, latin) is superior and correct.

4. In doing so, you've joined with the ranks of anti-KJVO's, who believe that God's Word is inerrant only in its original languages (In the case Of God's Word: Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic).

You can't have it both ways Artie. Either you accept the english meaning of the word "satyr" as it appears in the KJV to be correct; or else you accept the fact that the word "satyr" was an incorrect word choice in the KJV by its translators.

Since you have already stated that you reject the english meaning of the word (as it appears in the KJV), and conversely accept the meaning of the word in its original language, guess what: whether you realize it yet or not, you've just renounced KJVOism.

Welcome to the truth!

 

[michelle]

Larry,

Take a look at this:

Revelation 9

3. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
7. And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9. And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10. And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

............

17. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
18. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
19. For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.


Amazing imagery. Do you take this literally? or symbolically? Or both? Why then do you have a problem with the word satyr? It is not uncommon for God to use this imagery, whether you personally think it is myth or not, or that myth has been attached to it. What about the red dragon? Hmm?

The KJB is the infallible and inerrant words of God/scriptures in our English language. What about this do you not understand? Just because you personally disagree with the word choice, does in no way constitute these words are in error. No one has proved that yet, and no one ever will, because the truth cannot be proven wrong.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Jason Gastrich]

After all of the presentations here about "unicorns", I must conclude that the KJV is perfectly inerrant in the use of this word. Many may not like the translation "unicorn", but the translation is definitly not an error. You simply must get the childhood stories out of your minds and focus on the true definition of the the word.

Frankly, you came in here with an a priori bias trying to prove the KJV inerrant, so your "conclusion" isn't worth much. You might as well call black white while you're at it.

Let's continue onward on this never ending search for an "error" in God's Holy Word, the beloved KJB. I have yet to be convinced of one.

And you probably never will be. Like Will, I'm sure you'd be happy to "continue onward" and leave this error behind because you have "concluded" it's ok. However, you haven't proven to me that it's ok to say there are mythical animals. This was a KJV mistranslation. You have a burden of proof as well and your hand waving hasn't met it.

Now, read the post regarding the satyrs. It's on this page and it's very convincing to me. Do you support those mythical animals as well? Do you look beyond the KJV to find the answers in other language Bibles?

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by LarryN:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by artbook1611:
Satyr is a monkey or fawn and is also the first meaning in Noah Websters 1828. Mythology was added by men but is not a part of scripture.

Whoa, hold on there Artie. That "first meaning" that you refer to is not an english definition of the word "satyr"- it's the etymology of the word, from the latin satyrus. The english definition of the word "satyr" is the unbracketed text that follows that etymology. The latin "satyrus" refers to a "monkey, or a fawn". The english derivative "satyr" means a mythical half-man/half-goat.

By rejecting the english meaning of the word "satyr", and by expressing your preference for its meaning in the latin word "satyrus" from which the english word is derived, let me tell you what you've done [You might want to take a seat for this]:

1. The KJV (obviously) is an english-translation of God's Word.

2. KJVOnlyism believes that the KJV is God's perfect, 100% word-for-word preservation of God's Word for english-speaking people; and therefore any need to refer back to the original languages is unnecessary.

3. Since you reject the english meaning of the word "satyr", as it appears in the KJV, and yourself claim that the meaning of the latin word from which "satyr" is derived is actually the correct meaning, guess what: you've just demolished a major tenet of your KJVOism beliefs. You're stating that the word that appears in the KJV is inferior and incorrect, and that the original language's meaning (in this instance, latin) is superior and correct.

4. In doing so, you've joined with the ranks of anti-KJVO's, who believe that God's Word is inerrant only in its original languages (In the case Of God's Word: Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic).

You can't have it both ways Artie. Either you accept the english meaning of the word "satyr" as it appears in the KJV to be correct; or else you accept the fact that the word "satyr" was an incorrect word choice in the KJV by its translators.

Since you have already stated that you reject the english meaning of the word (as it appears in the KJV), and conversely accept the meaning of the word in its original language, guess what: whether you realize it yet or not, you've just renounced KJVOism.

Welcome to the truth! </font>[/QUOTE]Fantastic post! You should make a web page with this data!

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[Will J. Kinney]

The "if" clauses in the King James Bible.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews 6 - Verse 6. If they shall fall away
[Greek omitted] And having fallen away. I can express my own mind on this translation nearly in the words of Dr. Macknight: "The participles [Greek omitted], who were enlightened, [Greek omitted], have tasted, and [Greek omitted], were made partakers, being aorists, are properly rendered by our translators in the past time; wherefore, [Greek omitted], being an aorist, ought likewise to have been translated in the past time, HAVE fallen away. Nevertheless, our translators, following Beza, who without any authority from ancient MSS. has inserted in his version the word si, if, have rendered this clause, IF they fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But as no translator should take upon him to add to or alter the Scriptures, for the sake of any favourite doctrine, I have translated [Greek omitted] in the past time, have fallen away, according to the true import of the word, as standing in connection with the other aorists in the preceding verses."


Hi Clint, I will limit myself to addressing just a few of your points and questions. I don't feel inclined to answer all your questions since it will take up too much time and not be worth the effort. If you choose not to reply to my points, that is fine with me.

However, in this example of Hebrews 6:6 and the "if" clause, this is not a case of "following Beza without any authority from the MSS."

You are totally wrong about this and I thought I would just point it out. I will go into more detail if requested.

The KJB translators did not "add" anything. Do you know what a conditional participle is?

If you would kindly tell us which version you prefer at the moment, then I will show you how they do the exact same thing in several other passages or even in the same one.

This is called a conditional participle.

I can show where you have been incorrect in
several issues you have brought up, like Matthew 24:3 the end of the WORLD, where you post stuff like the KJB is in error and the word aion does not mean "world" but age,etc.


Instead of acknowledging that I have made a valid point, you immediately jump to the next "alleged error". I have no wish to answer all the questions imaginable that you bring up.

Anyway, you are clearly wrong about the "if" passages in the KJB and you are wrong about how all the aorist tenses should be translated, and you are wrong about the KJB translators following Beza instead of the MSS.

I think you guys just copy and paste stuff form other anti-KJB only sites without ever doing any real study on your part, or else just make it up and hope nobody will call you on it.


So, if you are so inclined, let us all know which uninspired, probably close enuf version you prefer at the moment and I will give you a few examples of these conditional participles in your own bible version. Then you can feel free to jump immediately on to your next deep thought and extraordinary finding about the errors in the KJB.

Will Kinney

 

[altalux]

.

DHK, may God bless you for your missionary work. I, too, make it to the field when I can and am praying to do it full-time. The laborers are indeed few. Yes, speaking from personal experience, go ahead and show them their missing/problem verses. You will not shatter their faith if they are truly born-again and they will be delighted to learn that the gospel is even better than they have been told. Simply explain that Satan hates God's word and has sought to erase parts of it. Ephesians 5:11 is an important part of our calling. If you do not feel it is right to show them where their translations are errant, why are you attempting to show Michelle the errors in hers? Are you not concerned about shattering her faith?

One more note on the unicorn issue, only because it will help me address the ekklesia issue: When I was a younger Christian, I too questioned the use of "unicorn" as a pagan influence. When non-believers challenge you with the idea of unicorns proving the Bible as just a book of fairy tales, how do you respond? What about when they question the use of the pagan "Easter" in Acts 12:4 over of the usual "passover"? I can tell you that the typical response of criticizing the KJV translators does not impress them in the least. They will walk away saying, "What kind of wimpy God do you have who can't even supervise a few translators? Doesn't he claim to be worshipped as King of the Universe or something?" When you tell them the true word is preserved ONLY in the Hebrew and Greek, they will sneer, "A lot of good that'll do me - I speak English! Your God goes through all the trouble of inspiring the exact words he wishes to communicate to the world, then fumbles the ball with the very version that will most fulfill the role of being carried to the world? Something isn't adding up: Either he is not so all-powerful or he doesn't care much about his message for us!" If they don't say it out of politeness, they will think it. What else do you expect them to think? Before we answer, we need to pause and ask ouselves, "Will this edify or alienate?"

Now, in no way do I intend to diminish the purity of the original languages, but did you know that by 1804, some 409 million KJVs had been printed? Or that by 1932, some 1.3 billion? And that by 1975, some 2.5 billion? If God fumbled the ball or was simply asleep at the wheel with the KJV (the most familiar and widespread form of his Word the world has ever seen), then this was one of the biggest blunders in history. How could God have missed such an important opportunity to speak his mind? Seriously, what do you think God was doing while the KJV translators were being so allegedly corrupt and lorded over by dogma? We're talking about the Most High God here, who every minute of every day has created myriads upon myriads of snowflakes for thousands of years now, patiently and precisely ordering each one so that no two are ever alike even though the vast majority of them will never be seen by any living being. But, he gets tongue-tied when he tries to speak plain English on the most important subject of all?

Try this the next time you are challenged by a non-believer on the "unicorn" or "Easter" or similar issues: Give them the answers that the KJV crowd gives them (Will's website is a very good starting point). If it pains you too much, open with "Well, KJV fans explain it this way ..." Having tried both ways, I promise they will leave you with a much less scornful attitude following the KJVers' way. They might even get saved, but they will certainly be humbled. "Wow, Easter really IS the right word! Maybe God doesn't make mistakes after all."

On ekklesia, I count 112 times as "church(es)" and 3 times as "assembly" in the TR/KJV. Much like the unicorn/rhinoceros issue, these words were synonyms. The KJV translators clearly understood that the word could be translated into either English synonym because they in fact did so. Then, like the Easter/passover issue, context showed them which synonym made more sense per occasion. [Note: Easter and passover are not synonyms, but rather two words into which the Greek word "pascha" can be translated with equal validity dependent upon context.] "Church" was (and still is) an English word which the common man knew to mean "assembly". The Geneva Bible of the day used the word "congregation," another synonym, so it should be clear that the people of that era were able to separate the concepts of building and soul. When ekklesia was used in the NT, it was usually in the context of a gathering of saints, hence the English word "church" was chosen which connoted a religious (or even a specifically Christian) gathering 112 times. The context of Acts 19, where the word is three times translated "assembly" (vs. 32, 39, 41), demands such diction because it was a mob of angry worshippers of Diana in Ephesus, not your typical NT Sunday picnic. According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "In classical Greek ekklesia was the name for the body of free citizens summoned by a herald. In this sense the church calls all the world to become identified with it. It denotes the whole body of believers, all who are called." I might add that the church is also a body summoned by the herald of Jesus Christ. I don't think we can safely judge the motives of the KJV translators as political, nor is that viewpoint likely to edify anyone. All it does is portray God as some sort of uncaring wimp who can't cut through a little politics. The world is tired of "churchy" answers. Let us all earnestly portray the God of power and might, heaven and earth filled with his glory.
.

 

[Jim Ward]

Will,

I hope Clint does you take you up on your offer and will actually try to stay with you rather then jump from topic to topic because of his false views being exposed. You have wet my appetite with this post of yours and I am hoping to see more.


Jim

 

[Will J. Kinney]

artbook1611 said "In Duet 33:17 , It is not plural. It is still a singular noun. If you had a herd of single horned animals,they collectively would be plural but each one still possesses one horn, thus "horns" used here in Duet 33 is correct."

Natters&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Well then, you have a problem. For the Hebrew has "horns" (plural) of the "animal" (singular). The KJV has plural/plural, where the Hebrew has plural/singular. The KJV is not perfectly preserving the Hebrew, it changed the singular to a plural, and introduced a popular New Age symbol of Amduscias, the grand duke of Hades, into the KJV."


No so natters, I guess you didn't read my article about unicorns where I explained the use of the singular and plural usage in Hebrew.

Art is correct too. If we say "the manes of the Arabian horse are quite beautiful", how many horses" are we talking about?

By the way, I notice you refer to mythology and then mention Hades. Did you know your nkjv, nasb, niv, Holman and a whole bunch of other mvs use this word, which according to the dictionary, is a mythological place?

Seems you guys with no inspired bible keep applying a double standard.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

:
"There are more than 3,000 languages in this world. Would you not think it strange that God would only inspire just one Bible for 10% of the population of the world, and leave 90% of the world without a Bible? A little arrogant is the KJVO crowd aren't they?"


Well, I find it much stranger to believe that God did not inspire any Bible and we do not have any Book that can in reality be called the inspired, preserved word of God.

Would it also be considered "arrogant" for the Jew to say that ONLY the nation of Israel had the true words of God and if anyone wanted to get them he had to come to Israel?

"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

Or how about this for "arrogance"?

"Ye are the children of the LORD your God...For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth."

Deut. 14:1-2


I am an American, but I would not give you two cents for any American bible version. Give me the one God has set His seal of divine approval upon - that one produced over there in England - the King James Bible.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Philippians 3:20 "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ."

The word "conversation" in this verse if often criticized by those who do not believe the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God. In fact, the people I have heard criticize this verse do not believe any Bible or any text is the inerrant, complete and preserved words of God.

Lately I have run into two people at the Baptist Board who criticized this verse as it stands in the King James Bible. One of them writes: "Archaic words may not be wrong. The word "conversation" for example is an archaic word that although today means "speech," then it meant "behaviour," or "manner of life." But we come to a problem in Philippians 3:20. For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Is our speech in Heaven? No.
Is our behaviour, our way of life in Heaven? No.
Then what is in Heaven? What is meant by "conversation" that the KJV so poorly translated here, and for all intent and purposes were in error."

Aside from the bad grammar of this self appointed critic who assumes to know more than the 50 or more learned men whom God used to put together the undisputed masterpiece of the English language, this same man thinks the word ekklesia should never be translated as "church", even though the NKJV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NIV, Holman CSB all do so, just like the King James Bible. He also thinks the word baptizo should be translated as immerse and not as baptize. "Immersion" is being submerged into water, - glug, glug, glug; whereas baptism is going under the water and coming back up again - a picture of our identification with the crucified and risen Christ. Almost every Bible version I know of translates the word as "baptize" and not "immerse". This guy needs to write his own bible version. That is the only one he will ever be happy with.

The other man who criticises the word "conversation" had this to say when I asked him these simple questions.


Question #1 Do you personally believe there is any Bible or any single Hebrew and/or Greek text that is now the complete, inerrant, inspired words of God? Or do you believe there is any text in any language that is now the inerrant, complete words of God. If so, what is it called?

Answer - "No, I do not. I believe that each manuscript or fragment is reliant upon others for support, but we will never have anything conclusive until we see God in Glory (1Corinthians 13:12). To believe that any human or group of humans could perfectly preserve the original text, as well as the true intention of the text, is to elevate these men to the status of God. (Job 42:3)


Question #2 Do you believe that all Hebrew texts have been corrupted or miscopied in some places, as in Judges 14:15 for example? I have many other examples I could site, but this one will suffice for my present purposes.

Answer #2 "I believe that they all contain errors of various sorts, but they do not neccessarily occur in the same places. We are left with examining "majorities" of "agreements."


It is obvious that neither one of these Bible critics has any inspired, inerrant, tangible Holy Bible he believes is the pure words of God, but they are quite eager to point out what they think are errors in the King James Bible.

Now to address the issue of the word "conversation" as used by the King James translators.

First of all, the King James Bible is not the only one to translate this word as "conversation" in Philippians 3:20. So do Tyndale 1525, Cranmer, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, the Douay- Rheims version, and Webster's 1833 translation.

Geneva Bible - "But our conuersation is in heauen, from whence also we looke for the Sauiour, euen the Lord Iesus Christ"

Webster's 1833 - "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ"
 
 Other versions have translated this word in a variety of ways.


Third Millenium Bible - "For our ABIDING is in Heaven..."

NKJV, Holman, NRSV, NASB, NIV - "For our CITIZENSHIP is in heaven..."

Revised Standard Version 1952 "But our COMMONWEALTH is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ"

Bible in Basic English 1960 - "But our COUNTRY is in heaven..."

Darby - "But our COMMONWEALTH HAS ITS EXISTENCE in the heavens..."

Weymouth - "We, however, ARE FREE CITIZENS of Heaven..."

New Century Version - "But our HOMELAND is in heaven..."

Bible Commentaries:

John Wesley comments: "Our conversation - The Greek word is of a very extenslve meaning: our citizenship, our thoughts, our affections, are already in heaven."

Matthew Henry notes: " For our conversation is in heaven. Observe, Good Christians, even while they are here on earth, have their CONVERSATION in heaven. Their citizenship is there, politeuma. As if he had said, We stand related to that world, and are citizens of the New Jerusalem. This world is not our home, but that is. There our greatest privileges and concerns lie. And, because our citizenship is there, our CONVERSATION is there; being related to that world, we keep up a correspondence with it. THE LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN IS IN HEAVEN, where his head is, and his home is, and where he hopes to be shortly; he sets his affections upon things above; and where his heart is there will his CONVERSATION be."

I have capitalized certain words above to show that Matthew Henry still uses the word "conversation" to bring out both senses of this word. The Christian's very life and home are in heaven.

The meaning of the word in both English and Greek.

Conversation

Webster's 1828 Dictionary


1. General course of manners; behavior; deportment; especially as it respects morals.

Let your conversation be as becometh the gospel. Philippians 1:27.

Be ye holy in all manner of conversation. 1 Peter 1:15.

2. A keeping company; familiar intercourse; intimate fellowship or association; commerce in social life. Knowledge of men and manners is best acquired by conversation with the best company.

3. Intimate and familiar acquaintance; as a conversation with books, or other object.

4. Familiar discourse; general intercourse of sentiments; chat; unrestrained talk; opposed to a formal conference.


Websters modern dictionary
con·ver·sa·tion

Etymology: Middle English conversacioun, from Middle French conversation, from Latin conversation-, conversatio, from conversari to associate with, frequentative of convertere to turn around
1 obsolete: conduct, behavior
2 oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas : an instance of such exchange: talk.



The Greek word

As John Wesley noted, the Greek word has a variety of meanings. According to Wigram's Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, the word used in Philippians 3:20 is politeuma. It is found only one time and it comes from the verb politeuomai which is used twice in the New Testament. The verb is used in Acts 23:1 "I HAVE LIVED in all good conscience before God until this day."

The second instance is in Philippians 1:27 where we see the same English word as found in the King James Bible. "Only LET YOUR CONVERSATION BE as it becometh the gospel of Christ.". Here most modern versions translate this as "live your life" - Holman; "conduct yourselves" - NASB, NIV; "let your conduct be" - NKJV; "let your manner of life be" - ESV.

Many older Bible versions read the same as the King James Bible with "Let your conversation be...". These include Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', and the Geneva Bibles.

There are differing opinions among scholars as to what this Greek word, both the verb and the noun, means. According to Kittel's nine volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume VI page 526, the verb means "to walk" rather than "to be a citizen", and the author says the noun politeia does not mean civil rights, constitution or state, but rather it is "the pious order of life". These definitions would agree more with the sense of the King James Bible reading.

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon lists several meanings for the Greek words used. Among them are: 1. to be a citizen or a freeman; 2. to take part in government, 3. to deal with others in private affairs, and 4. to behave - then it references Philippians 1:27 as an example of this use. The last two meanings would be the sense found in the KJB.

Thayer's Greek-English lexicon also lists several meanings, including: 1. to be a citizen, 2. to behave as a citizen, 3. to conduct oneself as pledged to some law of life. The last two definitions also fit the KJB meaning.

Finally Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich also list the same various meanings of the verb and noun, one of which is "to live", to "conduct oneself", "to live one's life".

If we follow the context of Philippians 3 we see that the apostle Paul is exhorting the Christians regarding their practical, everday walk with the Lord. "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample...."For our conversation (our manner of life, our walk, our behaviour) is in heaven; from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body..."

Actually it is the King James Bible that brings out the better of the two meanings rather than the newer versions that limit the context merely to the place of our "citizenship". We can be citizens of heaven but live like the world in which we find ourselves. Most of us do this too much now. The King James rendering follows the context of the passage and reminds us that our true life, behaviour and affections are in heaven.

We find the same positional truth expressed in such verses as Colossians 3:1-4 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."

Ephesians 1:4-6 also tell us that we are now seated in heaven with Christ - "But God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us...hath quickened us together with Christ...And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

Our life is hid with God in Christ. We are seated in the heavenly places, and our life or "conversation" - to use an older and now archaic word - is in heaven. The apostle exhorts us to live now as we will be living then. This is the truth presented in the King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by altalux:
.
If you do not feel it is right to show them where their translations are errant, why are you attempting to show Michelle the errors in hers? Are you not concerned about shattering her faith?

I am not concerned about shattering their faith. Their faith will far less likely to be shattered than Michelle's. For Michelle has gone to the point of being a part of cult which we call Ruckmanism. Certainly one can point out the "errors" in the Bible; but arrogant people like Michelle, and possibly stubborn people like yourself won't accept them. As there are errors in the Bibles of other languages, there are errors in the translations of every Bible, including the KJV. Errors come because man is fallible. He makes mistakes. The KJV translators were not God. They were sinful men capable of error. Why do you put them on par with the Holy Spirit of God--perfect, flawless, without error. That is arrogant, as well as illogical. God used the prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles on the New Testament to inspire His Word. The Words that they penned and only they were inspired. The original autographs were inspired and no other (See 2Peter 1:21). They were the "holy men of God," which Peter spoke of, not the KJV translators. To say otherwise is very arrogant.

One more note on the unicorn issue, only because it will help me address the ekklesia issue: When I was a younger Christian, I too questioned the use of "unicorn" as a pagan influence. When non-believers challenge you with the idea of unicorns proving the Bible as just a book of fairy tales, how do you respond? What about when they question the use of the pagan "Easter" in Acts 12:4 over of the usual "passover"? I can tell you that the typical response of criticizing the KJV translators does not impress them in the least. They will walk away saying, "What kind of wimpy God do you have who can't even supervise a few translators? Doesn't he claim to be worshipped as King of the Universe or something?" When you tell them the true word is preserved ONLY in the Hebrew and Greek, they will sneer, "A lot of good that'll do me - I speak English! Your God goes through all the trouble of inspiring the exact words he wishes to communicate to the world, then fumbles the ball with the very version that will most fulfill the role of being carried to the world? Something isn't adding up: Either he is not so all-powerful or he doesn't care much about his message for us!" If they don't say it out of politeness, they will think it. What else do you expect them to think? Before we answer, we need to pause and ask ouselves, "Will this edify or alienate?"

Now how politely can I say this, but how ignorant do you think other people are? The one's that are loopy here are the KJVO people here. Go to other nations and see. For example, go to any nation which is either Muslim or predominantly Muslim. Take a look at their Koran written in the language of the particular nation that you are in. You can do this in America as well. Purchase an English Koran. Every translation of the Koran has the Arabic with it side by side with the English or whatever language it is translated into. The Muslim says that the original language of the Koran is Arabic, and therefore they always have the Arabic along with the translation. The translation of this "holy book" comes from another language. And so does the Bible. Only the silly KJVO doesn't want to admit this. This is true of every major religion of the world. The Sikh's holy book, "The Granth Sahib," is composed of a number of different languages, so many that there are very few people in the world that are able to read it. The only way that even a Sikh can read his own "holy Scripture" is to read a translation. All major religions rely on translations of their Scriptures. Do you take the world for ignorant people? Your position is untenable and very foolish. People the world over are quite aware of what a translation is.

So as the Muslim god (Allah) has preserved the Koran in Arabic (for argument sake), God has preserved The Word in the Greek and in the Hebrew, not in any translation. This is a simple concept to understand. What would be a confusing concept to these people and others around the world is to say that the Bible is inspired in a translation, because they know better! To lie to them would be unconscionable.

Now, in no way do I intend to diminish the purity of the original languages, but did you know that by 1804, some 409 million KJVs had been printed? Or that by 1932, some 1.3 billion? And that by 1975, some 2.5 billion? If God fumbled the ball or was simply asleep at the wheel with the KJV (the most familiar and widespread form of his Word the world has ever seen), then this was one of the biggest blunders in history. How could God have missed such an important opportunity to speak his mind? Seriously, what do you think God was doing while the KJV translators were being so allegedly corrupt and lorded over by dogma? We're talking about the Most High God here, who every minute of every day has created myriads upon myriads of snowflakes for thousands of years now, patiently and precisely ordering each one so that no two are ever alike even though the vast majority of them will never be seen by any living being. But, he gets tongue-tied when he tries to speak plain English on the most important subject of all?

If it is statistics you want to talk about consider that there are about half a billion people in the world today that speak English, but one and a half billion that speak Mandarin. Mandarin is spoken by three times the number of English speaking people. If God were just and fair, he would have preserved a Bible in the Mandarin language, not the English language, and forced all the KJVOers to learn Mandarin. Perhaps the real inspired Bible is in Mandarin and you just don't know it, because you haven't studied the history of it. Do you even care?? Or has your ethnocentrism got the best of you?

God hasn't fallen asleep. The Word of God is preserved in the Greek and the Hebrew, where every translation can be translated from.

Try this the next time you are challenged by a non-believer on the "unicorn" or "Easter" or similar issues: Give them the answers that the KJV crowd gives them (Will's website is a very good starting point). If it pains you too much, open with "Well, KJV fans explain it this way ..." Having tried both ways, I promise they will leave you with a much less scornful attitude following the KJVers' way. They might even get saved, but they will certainly be humbled. "Wow, Easter really IS the right word! Maybe God doesn't make mistakes after all."

WHAT!! Are you suggesting that I tell lies??
The word unicorn is a blatant mistake by the KJV translators that even Bibles in foreign languages have corrected. People are less scornful when you tell them the truth, not when you lie to them and try to justify known errors. No translation is perfect.

On ekklesia, I count 112 times as "church(es)" and 3 times as "assembly" in the TR/KJV. Much like the unicorn/rhinoceros issue, these words were synonyms. The KJV translators clearly understood that the word could be translated into either English synonym because they in fact did so.

Either you are naive or lying, which one? Unicorn and rhinocerous are not synonyms. Neither are church and assembly synonyms. I have already demonstrated that.
They are synonyms in as much as prostitute and woman are synonyms, correct?
They are synonyms, in as much as maiden and virgin are synonyms in Isaiah 7:14 are, correct?

You can't have it both ways. Some of the modern versions translate "virgin" of the KJV as maiden. The KJV will cry heresy, get all fired up about it, denounce the mv's for their mistakes, etc. The mver's will counter (just like you are doing). Well, isn't a virgin a maiden. They are synonyms. Every virgin is a maiden. There is no contradiction here. This is your precise logic concerning unicorn and church. Obviously every virgin is a maiden, but not every maiden is a virgin. A specific kind of maiden was being referred to.

Whatever way you look at it, and whatever way you define it, a specific type of unicorn is referred to in the Bible. And the KJV translators did not define it. They mistranslated it by using a word that commonly is associated with mythology. Grow up and face the facts. They are not synonyms.

Church and assembly are not synonyms. Check Acts 19. Was there a church in the theatre? Did the town clerk or mayor dismiss the church that angrily met in the theatre? This is the exact word for church that is used--ekklesia--translated assembly, and in every other place translated church. Why the inconsistency? It means assembly, not church, which has a plethora of other meanings--building, denomination, organization, universal church, local church, etc.
Ecclesia means assembly or congregation, and that is all.

Then, like the Easter/passover issue, context showed them which synonym made more sense per occasion. [Note: Easter and passover are not synonyms, but rather two words into which the Greek word "pascha" can be translated with equal validity dependent upon context.] "Church" was (and still is) an English word which the common man knew to mean "assembly". The Geneva Bible of the day used the word "congregation," another synonym, so it should be clear that the people of that era were able to separate the concepts of building and soul. When ekklesia was used in the NT, it was usually in the context of a gathering of saints, hence the English word "church" was chosen which connoted a religious (or even a specifically Christian) gathering 112 times. The context of Acts 19, where the word is three times translated "assembly" (vs. 32, 39, 41), demands such diction because it was a mob of angry worshippers of Diana in Ephesus, not your typical NT Sunday picnic. According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "In classical Greek ekklesia was the name for the body of free citizens summoned by a herald. In this sense the church calls all the world to become identified with it. It denotes the whole body of believers, all who are called." I might add that the church is also a body summoned by the herald of Jesus Christ. I don't think we can safely judge the motives of the KJV translators as political, nor is that viewpoint likely to edify anyone. All it does is portray God as some sort of uncaring wimp who can't cut through a little politics. The world is tired of "churchy" answers. Let us all earnestly portray the God of power and might, heaven and earth filled with his glory.
.

The directives that the KJV translators had to follow were clearly spelled out for them. They were required to follow the old ecclesiastical terms already in use. Clint can quote some of the exact sources for you. Their hands were tied by political correctness.

As far as Easter was concerned, the word in the Greek was "Pascha." It is used 29 times in the New Testament. 28 times it is translated "passover." Once they erred in translating the word "Easter." Consistency is what is required. Passover and Easter are not synonyms. Every other time it is passover. It was a mistake to translate it Easter. There are mistakes in translations. Admit it.
DHK

 

[Johnv]

DHK doth my mynde speake. (translation: I agree with what DHK said).

 

[Bro Tony]

DHK doth my mynde speake. (translation: I agree with what DHK said).

Dittoeth

Bro Tony

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
I am an American, but I would not give you two cents for any American bible version. Give me the one God has set His seal of divine approval upon - that one produced over there in England - the King James Bible.

Will K

So are you saying that 2 Timothy 3:16 is wrong? Are you in the business of correcting the context of scripture and setting the record straight just like the Mormons--so far as it is translated correctly?

 

[artbook1611]

larryN
Please do not put words in my mouth. With or without the websters 1828, the KJB is still the preserved flawless word of God. I don't claim to understand everything in the KJ, but I have full confidence in the God who inspired it and preserved it . He can do nothing short of perfection.

 

[steaver]

Frankly, you came in here with an a priori bias trying to prove the KJV inerrant, so your "conclusion" isn't worth much. You might as well call black white while you're at it.

Jason, I do not try to prove the KJB inerrant. I have chosen to trust the KJB because God chose to trust it for such a very long time. Since the modern versions do not coincide with the KJB, then I must believe that they were meant to divide the church, even if those producing them done it in good faith, they have been decieved in my opinion.

You have a burden of proof......

I have no burden of proof. I believe God has preserved His word in English. The very title "God's Word" denotes perfection. If you do not have a perfect bible, then please do not call what you read from the "Word of God".

I have seen opinions and I have seen other ways of translating a word or phrase presented. I have not seen absolute evidence of any errors.

God Bless!

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Hi Clint,

Hi, Will. Decided to address something, eh?

I will limit myself to addressing just a few of your points and questions. I don't feel inclined to answer all your questions since it will take up too much time and not be worth the effort.

Well, if you would stick to one error per post, cite a credible source or at least one that hasn't been distorted, and if you stayed on top of answering questions as they come to you instead of thinking they will just disappear, perhaps it wouldn't take so much of your time.

If you choose not to reply to my points, that is fine with me.

Now, Will, you know very well I'm not going to let you off the hook! Did you post today because I had not done so in a few days?

However, in this example of Hebrews 6:6 and the "if" clause, this is not a case of "following Beza without any authority from the MSS."

You are totally wrong about this and I thought I would just point it out. I will go into more detail if requested.

I'm sure that you could write an essay long enough to convince yourself that you have pontificated away the insertion of the word "if" to Hebrews 6:6, but the insertion would still be there. It didn't exist in the Greek. Period.

The KJB translators did not "add" anything. Do you know what a conditional participle is?

Well, it's been a few years since High School English but yes, I remember "if" being a conditional participle. They had them in Greek, too, you know. There were 16 ways to say "if". None of them occur in the Greek manuscripts in what we know as Hebrews 6:6.

If you would kindly tell us which version you prefer at the moment, then I will show you how they do the exact same thing in several other passages or even in the same one.

My preference is irrelevant. Just because other translation reflect the same bias does not mean that they are correct. But, if you like, I like reading Young's Literal Translation sometimes in my study.

Better still, I read the KJV daily as well in my studies! Show us some more places that they inserted translator bias! THEN you would finally be showing some credibility.

I can show where you have been incorrect in
several issues you have brought up, like Matthew 24:3 the end of the WORLD, where you post stuff like the KJB is in error and the word aion does not mean "world" but age,etc.

I do not believe that was me. Though a study of the intention of the New Testament's authors behind the phrase is a very good study.

Instead of acknowledging that I have made a valid point, you immediately jump to the next "alleged error". I have no wish to answer all the questions imaginable that you bring up.

You have had since September 6th to address the issue of italicized words and the preface being authoratative or not and the issue of the changing of Jacob to James being true "inspiration!
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2767/16.html?#000236

You have had since the 13th to cite specific examples of modern version text or footnotes contributing to the belief that Genesis had several authors, Jeremiah was written by more than one man, or that "badger skins" being a questionable translation for tachash is due to modern versions. To say that you "have no wish" to address these questions is obvious to all!

Very well, I will acknowledge a valid point that you have made:

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

Agreed. I had to dig around for it.

Anyway, you are clearly wrong about the "if" passages in the KJB and you are wrong about how all the aorist tenses should be translated, and you are wrong about the KJB translators following Beza instead of the MSS.

So you are asserting that the Greek manuscripts, including Aleph and B, are in error? That is a mighty bold claim.

I think you guys just copy and paste stuff form other anti-KJB only sites without ever doing any real study on your part, or else just make it up and hope nobody will call you on it.

To the contrary, I spend a great deal of time researching my post and more often than not back them up with cited sources. This one tonight was pretty easy, though.

So, if you are so inclined, let us all know which uninspired, probably close enuf version you prefer at the moment and I will give you a few examples of these conditional participles in your own bible version. Then you can feel free to jump immediately on to your next deep thought and extraordinary finding about the errors in the KJB.

Will, strutting like a rooster only works on hens! Go ahead, show me some translator biases in other versions. I may well agree with them. It doesn't negate the fact that "if" doesn't exist in Hebrews 6:6 unless men put it there.

Your diversions, bluffs and avoidances are almost comical! Your pride is only serving to show what a self-serving egotist you are. You're not interested in the truth in any fashion if it refutes your sentimentality over the KJV, are you?

Even with all this, you still haven't addressed my post from the 13th:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2805.html#000009

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Will,

I hope Clint does you take you up on your offer and will actually try to stay with you rather then jump from topic to topic because of his false views being exposed.

I have yet to back from any of Will's challenges. He just never answers mine. He researches long enough to find that he is in error and then ignores me. After he thinks it's safe, he comes back on to the thread like he's some kind of returning hero when he is actually a defeated champion who is repeatedly revealed for what he is.

As for my "false views", perhaps you may want to expose them? Unlike the dogmatic errorists I am encountering here, I am very much interested in the truth according to the Scriptures.

Kinney: Question #1 Do you personally believe there is any Bible or any single Hebrew and/or Greek text that is now the complete, inerrant, inspired words of God? Or do you believe there is any text in any language that is now the inerrant, complete words of God. If so, what is it called?

Answer - "No, I do not. I believe that each manuscript or fragment is reliant upon others for support, but we will never have anything conclusive until we see God in Glory (1Corinthians 13:12). To believe that any human or group of humans could perfectly preserve the original text, as well as the true intention of the text, is to elevate these men to the status of God. (Job 42:3)


Question #2 Do you believe that all Hebrew texts have been corrupted or miscopied in some places, as in Judges 14:15 for example? I have many other examples I could site, but this one will suffice for my present purposes.

Answer #2 "I believe that they all contain errors of various sorts, but they do not neccessarily occur in the same places. We are left with examining "majorities" of "agreements."

Still beating that straw man you set up without answering my list of quesions, Will? You have no honor whatsoever, do you? Be a man and address the issues. Hopefully, we will recover the lost thread or at least someone who has page 8 of it so that I can once again expose you as a charlatan. You talk much but you say little. I reissued the challenge on page 1 of this thread. The questions are old but still valid. Answer them or admit your error. If you are not interested in the truth, you are a very poor witness.

[ September 21, 2004, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[artbook1611]

Clint writes

Still beating that straw man you set up without answering my list of quesions, Will? You have no honor whatsoever, do you? Be a man and address the issues. Hopefully, we will recover the lost thread or at least someone who has page 8 of it so that I can once again expose you as a charlatan. You talk much but you say little. I reissued the challenge on page 1 of this thread. The questions are old but still valid. Answer them or admit your error. If you are not interested in the truth, you are a very poor witness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are sure full of insults to brother Will. Whats this "no personal attack" rule you guys have on this board? Practice what you preach.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Art, you have been following all three threads and saw Will say that he would not answer my questions unless I answered his list. I did so and he never returned to answer the list I have posted four or five times now.

That is not an "attack." That is pointing out lies and deliberate avoidance on Will's part. He had the benefit of the doubt from me when he first entered these threads. I am now convinced that he is no more than a propogandist and his views are little more than cultism.

If you disagree, report the post. I will state here, THE OTHER MODERATORS HAVE FULL REIGN TO EDIT MY POSTS IF THEY FIND THEM IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES.

If you think Will has answered the clear concise questions I posed, point me to the post and I will retract the statement.

Will is the worst kind of KJVO. He sees the truth but ignores it. Unlike others on this thread that believe in only the KJV, there is little about him that I see as sincere. Those others I treat with full respect. Will lost my respect through his own actions. That is not an easy task for anyone.

As for the others, I address them with the same respect they show me. When they ask for resources or opinions, I show them resources or opinions. When they do not want to answer a question, they do not try to divert the thread with irrelevant questions and then not own up to their end of the bargain. Notice in his last post he STILL won't answer my questions but wishes to set up another strawman with "whatever version I prefer." Does my preference offer support for his position? No, but it does give him wiggle room to once again avoid the issues.

Watch and see. He still won't answer them. He will either ignore them or say that they take too much time. The truth is that he can't without comprimising his position. He is a quarreler over words. I am instructed to show him for what he is as he only serves to ruin the hearers. That was the neccessity for Timothy's study.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2805.html#000009