A Question regarding KJVO

[JD731]

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the inconsistent textual criticism decisions.

So we know what the scriptures do not teach, according to you. You are an expert on this but you don't ever tell us what they do teach. We have the most wonderful and magnificent word of God that contains promises from God himself while claiming to be from him, and you never offer any praise to God for it. You live in the negative and if a person listened to you for a long time, like I have, he would want to shoot himself. You refuse to quote from anything you think might resemble the word of God and once in a while you will string 15 or 20 references together knowing full well no one is going to look them up.

You are one unique preacher for sure.

 

[robycop3]

The KJVO myth is entirely man-made; the origin of the current edition of it are presented in the "Bible versions" forum. It's not found in Scripture at all, even in the KJV itself. This myth was invented by Satan, who influenced certain men to write books that would influence other men to make it into a doctrine. Satan's purposes in making it are to cause strife & dissend among & between congregations and to cast doubt upon perfectly-legitimate translations of God's word, hoping to hinder its spread. Unfortunately, he's had some success with his plan. We see this in the thralldom some people have to this myth, as though it has some sorta hex on them, causing them to believe a lie.

Any translation of the KJV or any other English version into another language will lose something in translation, same as translating a French Bible into English would lose something.

However, sometimes necessity steps in. John Eliot made a translation of the Geneva version into the Algonquin Indian language in 1663 with the help of Cockinoe, a Pequot, who helped him with interpretation. Eliot used the Geneva as he didn't know Greek or Hebrew. While not perfect, it was better than no Bible at all, and many Massachuset & members of other Indian nations that spoke Algonquin were receptive to it.

There are other similar examples, of course, but most-often a missionary who learned a native language would read from a Bible in his own language & translate it as he went. Again, that's better than no Bible at all.

 

[Yeshua1]

I made my points clearly and precisely and there is no use of doing it again. I will say here that if you are claiming the very first Christian influence you ever had was a bible drawing you to a bible believing church is a claim no one will believe. I do not want to be insulting towards you, but that is ridiculous.




Fine tune your argument somewhat. You are quoting a verse that says all scripture is given by inspiration of God yet you would only say the various translations are scripture if it it is what it takes to win an argument. Otherwise you would say that only the originals, (which we don't have BTW), are inspired. That means you have never read a single word of inspired scripture in your life, and worse, you never will.

And yes, I believe the KJV is the preserved word of God in the English language. Whether God has preserved the inspiration of his word in another language is a question I cannot answer. I can not read another language and I cannot compare the words in the verses. I can say this though, God has not called the Asians or the Africans to work out his purposes in this age. God's pathway is always from the east to the west and Paul's ministry to the gentiles consisted of 3 missionary journeys to the west. God chose who he would send his message to and who would receive it and who would preach it to the rest of the world. I can observe that much. He also chose what language he would preserve his word in and obscuring his truths and diminishing it's influence by continued never ending translations is a satanic plot.

1 Now these [are] the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

These are western nations.

The promises of God in the Bible regarding inspiration and preservation applied only to the Originals, and to the original languages texts!!

 

[JD731]

The promises of God in the Bible regarding inspiration and preservation applied only to the Originals!

How do you know this?

 

[Yeshua1]

So we know what the scriptures do not teach, according to you. You are an expert on this but you don't ever tell us what they do teach. We have the most wonderful and magnificent word of God that contains promises from God himself while claiming to be from him, and you never offer any praise to God for it. You live in the negative and if a person listened to you for a long time, like I have, he would want to shoot himself. You refuse to quote from anything you think might resemble the word of God and once in a while you will string 15 or 20 references together knowing full well no one is going to look them up.

You are one unique preacher for sure.

Inspiration and preservation per the bible just to the originals, and to the original languages texts!

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you know this?

Due to the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired ONLY Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, not English!

 

[JD731]

Due to the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired ONLY Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, not English!

IOW, it is a personal opinion of yours?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

IOW, it is a personal opinion of yours?

Nope, it's a widely held position.

 

[JD731]

Nope, it's a widely held position.

So what? Who told you?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

So what? Who told you?

In the circles, I fellowship in. What I'm trying to say is Yeshua didn't just pull his position out of his ear.

 

[JD731]

In the circles, I fellowship in. What I'm trying to say is Yeshua didn't just pull his position out of his ear.

He did not pull it out of the scriptures either, but he spoke with, what seems to me, much authority as if he could not be wrong.

This man is not the Jesus of the bible, you know.

 

[Yeshua1]

He did not pull it out of the scriptures either, but he spoke with, what seems to me, much authority as if he could not be wrong.

This man is not the Jesus of the bible, you know.

The Holy Spirit inspired the OT in Aramaic and Hebrew, and the NT in Koine Greek, and He has NO other languages he inspired!

 

[Yeshua1]

In the circles, I fellowship in. What I'm trying to say is Yeshua didn't just pull his position out of his ear.

That has been the accepted viewpoint since beginning of the church!

 

[JD731]

The Holy Spirit inspired the OT in Aramaic and Hebrew, and the NT in Koine Greek, and He has NO other languages he inspired!

Why don't you insist that these manuscripts in these languages be translated correctly then, and why to you accept dynamic equivalences and paraphrases and other mishandling of what you tell us you believe are the actual words of God? Your practice causes me to not believe you. You don't reverence these words and you do not walk as if you think they are that important.

What you teach others about God and what you personally believe about him is demonstrated by what you do and say. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, we are told. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, God says. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he, says the scripture.

This teaching about his word does not come from God.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Why don't you insist that these manuscripts in these languages be translated correctly then, and why to you accept dynamic equivalences and paraphrases and other mishandling of what you tell us you believe are the actual words of God?

I don't. I just don't make war on them.

 

[JD731]

I don't. I just don't make war on them.

Jesus said these words. He that is not with me is against me and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

My prayer is that God will deliver us from fence sitters. Some people makes miserable soldiers. They wage war against the friendlies and do not even recognize the enemies.

 

[Logos1560]

Why don't you insist that these manuscripts in these languages be translated correctly then, and why to you accept dynamic equivalences and paraphrases and other mishandling of what you tell us you believe are the actual words of God? .

You fail to practice what you preach. You do not insist on the same thing concerning the KJV. You in effect accept non-literal, non-word-for-word, dynamic equivalences and paraphrases found in the KJV.

Your human, modern, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not found in the Scriptures including as they are translated in the KJV.

 

[JD731]

You fail to practice what you preach. You do not insist on the same thing concerning the KJV. You in effect accept non-literal, non-word-for-word, dynamic equivalences and paraphrases found in the KJV.

Your human, modern, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching is not found in the Scriptures including as they are translated in the KJV.

Who besides you argues that the KJV is a paraphrase or was translated with the method of dynamic equivalence? Your charge is just not true.

On the positive side, you seem to be agreeing that paraphrases and dynamic equivalencies are a bad idea. That is something good I think.

Whatever, I don’t think it glorifies God to argue for the sake of arguing so this is all I have to say to you about it.

 

[Logos1560]

Who besides you argues that the KJV is a paraphrase or was translated with the method of dynamic equivalence? Your charge is just not true.

My point is true. You refuse to apply the same exact measures/standards that KJV-only advocates use to allege the use of dynamic equivalences and paraphrases in other English Bible translations to the KJV. I did not claim that the KJV is a paraphrase. You improperly try to twist my accurate statements into something that I did not say. Nevertheless, there are some places where the KJV gives a paraphrase or a dynamic equivalent rendering instead of a literal, word-for-word rendering. When the same exact standards/measures are applied consistently and justly, it is evident that the KJV has at least some of the same type renderings that are called paraphrasing or dynamic equivalents in other English Bible translations.

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English Bibles including even the NKJV and who acknowledges his own bias for the KJV, still had to admit: "The New King James Version has doubtless removed some paraphrasing which was in the old version [the KJV]" (The Bible Version Controversy, p. 231).

Glenn Conjurske acknowledged: "I grant that there is too much paraphrasing in the King James Version, more especially in the Old Testament" (p. 230).

Glenn Conjurske maintained that "most of the paraphrasing in the King James Version is retained from Tyndale and Coverdale" (p. 230).

Even some KJV-only authors have in effect acknowledged that KJV renderings such as "God forbid" and "God save the king" are the same type renderings that they call dynamic equivalents or paraphrasing in other English Bibles.

 

[robycop3]

He did not pull it out of the scriptures either, but he spoke with, what seems to me, much authority as if he could not be wrong.

This man is not the Jesus of the bible, you know.

it's easy to see that God either commanded some men to write down His words, or He inspired others to write down what He wanted written down by men. And they wrote in their own languages.

As for inspiration of translations...there's no indication God inspired one translation in any language over all others. That's someone's pipe dream.