• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A very silly KJVO argument...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Winman

Active Member


Well, blame Jesus. Read Mark 9 and see Jesus Himself use the exact same word (not an OT Hebrew reference) that is translated as "cut off" - as in chopped, maimed, lop off the offending hand like Moslem do still today to thieves.

Actually TWICE in the same chapter - the word means to CHOP OFF. Not to "stop fellowship".

So wonder where the NIV translators got the idea for using the word in exactly the same way when they came to Galatians?

Consistency.

"Cut off" used by Jesus = chop off, maim physically
"Cut off" used by Paul = chop off, maim physically

Bravo for consistency. And what a graphic picture God gave!

Only problem is that is not what Paul is saying. When Jesus said if your hand offends you to cut it off, it is obvious hyperbole. Or maybe you actually believe Jesus was telling people to literally cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes? Oh yeah, I forgot, you believe babies are born with the ability to speak lies, are poisonous like adders, and have teeth like lions. So obviously you do not understand what hyperbole is.

If you are correct Paul is wishing physical harm to another human being, a very un-Christian attitude.

And I showed before, commentators like Matthew Henry understood cut off to mean to disassociate with false teachers, not to have fellowship with them. I agree with Henry's interpretation, not yours.

But the real point I am trying to make is that the KJV and the MVs are very different and are not saying the same thing in many verses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sag38

Active Member
But the real point I am trying to make is that the KJV and the MVs are very different and are not saying the same thing in many verses.

Where is the "in my opinion."? In my opinion they aren't that different. Anyone with any reasonable level of intelligence, when reading the Bible in context, and not lifting out stand alone proof texts to support an opinion, would have no problem with a MV. In fact, in my opinion, one who speaks and reads modern english, would have even less problems. Personally, I have no problems with the KJV because of my life long exposure to it. However, I can tell you story after story of new Christians who have had no exposure to the KJV who perfer a MV because it is easier for them to understand.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter


Well, blame Jesus. Read Mark 9 and see Jesus Himself use the exact same word (not an OT Hebrew reference) that is translated as "cut off" - as in chopped, maimed, lop off the offending hand like Moslem do still today to thieves.

Actually TWICE in the same chapter - the word means to CHOP OFF. Not to "stop fellowship".

So wonder where the NIV translators got the idea for using the word in exactly the same way when they came to Galatians?

Consistency.

"Cut off" used by Jesus = chop off, maim physically
"Cut off" used by Paul = chop off, maim physically

Bravo for consistency. And what a graphic picture God gave!

Amen Dr. Bob! A little study goes a long way, does it not?
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Have you ever considered politics? You should.

Of course I do. This is why I look for the WHOLE of wisdom rather than one group of people's decisions based on a king's whims.


Well, I do understand grammer and this verse as shown in the NIV and KJV is clearly saying two different things with absolutely different meanings. I do not know Jonathan Borland, but he seems to be quite the scholar and he agreed with me. Here is what he said:

He, of course is standing on the side of KJVO, isn't he? Do you think he'd disagree with a KJVO stance?


Going back to Acts 8:37, it is either the word of God or it isn't. If it is, then the KJV is correct and the MVs that omit it are in error. If Acts 8:37 is not the word of God but inserted my men, then the KJV is in error and cannot be called inerrant.

But you cannot say the KJV and MVs are the same. They are not. And if you would do even a little bit of study you would know they came from completely different manuscripts.

Look up Majority Text and Minority Text.

I know about both majority and minority text but apparently you don't know that the KJV is not based on the majority text but the Textus Receptus which differs from the majority text in hundreds of places.

But God is so good. He's allowing us to find more and more manuscript evidence to clean up the small errors that have been found and to come closer and closer to a perfect copy of the original autographs. We'll never know exactly what they are since God found it fit to destroy them but God is quite powerful and can preserve His Word throughout the ages and today we can find faithful translations in our language in multiple versions.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You say the nicest things. :love2:

Anytime.

I do not consider the footnotes to be what God is saying, the footnotes are the opinions of man. Oh, occasionally I will find a difficult passage or verse and look at a few commentaries online to see what noted scholars say. And you know what? They often disagree and interpret the same verse or passage very differently. No, I believe the best way to interpret scripture is by scripture itself. So, I will look up as many verses as I can find on a given topic and usually this will answer any questions I have.

Good - Scripture interpreting Scripture. I don't like using commentaries too much and if I do use them, I like to use many to see if there is common agreement amongst them. But I know that commentaries are man-written and not on par with Scripture. However, even the KJV translators said that it's OK to put in multiple translations of a word to make it more clear to the reader. Read the Notes to the Reader from the KJV1611 sometime. It's quite enlightening to the "Only" crowd, IMO.

I had a great pastor years ago who I promise could leave anybody on this forum in the dust when it came to bible knowlege. He told me he never read commentaries, because he generally found commentators had the same difficulties he had explaining a verse or passage.

I think there is a bit of pride in that statement from your pastor but I agree that we can't take our theology from commentaries. But there has been a wealth of wisdom left to us in commentaries and a wise person will use the "wisdom of many" to possibly show him a different angle. Otherwise, why would we even listen to a preacher? Because we're hearing another believer's view on something that just might not have been our first thought on the passage and a good believer would study more to see if the Scriptures say what they are saying.
 

Winman

Active Member
When I spoke of politics, I was referring to your answer where you did not take a stand. It's like the politician that came to my door and asked for my vote. I asked, "Are you pro-life or pro-choice?" He said, "I am pro-solution!" with a big grin on his face. I asked him to leave and promised I would never vote for him. He asked why, and I told him you can't ride the fence on this matter, you are either on one side or the other.

And that is what I keep asking here. I have demonstrated that the KJV and MVs are very different and do not say the same thing in many verses. In the example of Acts 13:20 there is an obvious problem, either the KJV must be in error or the MVs must be in error. They cannot both be inerrant at the same time.

But you insist Acts 13:20 is the same in both versions. Even Dr. Bob did not say that. And I have no idea if Jonathan Borland is KJVO or not. He simply said that the Alexandrian (MVs) and Byzantine (KJV) manuscripts differ very distinctly. He did not say he was KJVO.

What I have noticed though is that when you come right out and ask those who support the MVs if the KJV is corrupt and full of errors, they suddenly disappear and refuse to answer the question. I think that is very revealing.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
When I spoke of politics, I was referring to your answer where you did not take a stand. It's like the politician that came to my door and asked for my vote. I asked, "Are you pro-life or pro-choice?" He said, "I am pro-solution!" with a big grin on his face. I asked him to leave and promised I would never vote for him. He asked why, and I told him you can't ride the fence on this matter, you are either on one side or the other.

I answer each question honestly.

And that is what I keep asking here. I have demonstrated that the KJV and MVs are very different and do not say the same thing in many verses. In the example of Acts 13:20 there is an obvious problem, either the KJV must be in error or the MVs must be in error. They cannot both be inerrant at the same time.

But you insist Acts 13:20 is the same in both versions. Even Dr. Bob did not say that. And I have no idea if Jonathan Borland is KJVO or not. He simply said that the Alexandrian (MVs) and Byzantine (KJV) manuscripts differ very distinctly. He did not say he was KJVO.

Actually Dr. Bob DID say that they are the same:

Dr. Bob said:
Just read it in the Greek (1555 Stephens) and it seemed clear to me.

He talks about the captivity in Egypt, exodus, wandering and conquest and says 450 years. My own calculations are closer to 447-448 years, but Paul said "about 450". Then he begins the next thought. After this, the judges, etc etc

What issue am I missing? This is straightforward and accurate.

So checked it in other English translations and all say the same. Hmmm.

What I have noticed though is that when you come right out and ask those who support the MVs if the KJV is corrupt and full of errors, they suddenly disappear and refuse to answer the question. I think that is very revealing.

No one believes that the KJV is corrupt nor full of errors but it does have some errors in it. That's easy enough to prove. But none of the errors have any doctrine tied to them and it is easy enough to understand why the error might be there. It's the same with the MVs. There are some errors and some mistakes but nothing to get worked up over. There is no Bible in this world that is perfect and 100% error free. If anyone thinks that, then they are delusional. But God is good and has made sure that His Word is faithful and we can know that we can know that the Bibles we hold in our hands are from His.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Every English version is a worka man, that is, God's perfect word translated by imperfect men into their languages at His will.

Given the many possible correct English renderings of many, MANY Hebrew or Greek words/phrases, it's no marvel that there are so many differences between translations. Thus, the AV men wrote that "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures".

Just arbitrarily saying "This version is entirely-right & all others are wrong" is an unfounded statement based upon MAN'S speculation, opinions, & guesswork. The whole KJVO thingie or any other one-versionism is based mostly upon guesswork, partly on opinion, and NOT ON SCRIPTURE WHATSOEVER.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I've gotta say, I'm learning sign language from two deaf people and even they disagree on the proper sign sometimes. Translating ANY language is such an imperfect science because there are just no comparisons between the two.

Here is from the KJV translators themselves in the Preface:

16 [Reasons moving us to set diversity of senses in the margin, where there is great probability for each.]

• 1 Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken.
• 2 But we hold their judgement not to be so sound in this point.
• 3 For though whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S.Chrysostome saith, [panta ta anagkaia dhla. S.Chrysost. in 2.Thess. cap. 2.] and as S.Augustine, in those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity; [S.Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.]
• 4 yet for all that it cannot be dissembled {disguised}, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their everywhere plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves,
• 5 it hath pleased God in His divine providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem {be suitable to} us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to revolve upon modesty with S.Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis: [S.August. li. 8. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.
• 6 There be many words in the Scriptures [apax legomena.] which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places.
• 7 Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S.Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.
• 8 Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?
• 9 For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.
• 10 Therefore as S.Augustine saith, [S.Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.
• 11 We know that Sixtus Quintus [Sixtus V. præf. Bibliæ.] expressly forbiddeth that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favourers for this conceit.
• 12 They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.
• 13 If they were sure that their high priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege as the dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an oracle, his opinion a decision.
• 14 But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while: [omoiopaqhV. trwtoV g oi crwV esti.] they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable; and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.
 

Winman

Active Member
Every English version is a worka man, that is, God's perfect word translated by imperfect men into their languages at His will.

Given the many possible correct English renderings of many, MANY Hebrew or Greek words/phrases, it's no marvel that there are so many differences between translations. Thus, the AV men wrote that "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures".

Just arbitrarily saying "This version is entirely-right & all others are wrong" is an unfounded statement based upon MAN'S speculation, opinions, & guesswork. The whole KJVO thingie or any other one-versionism is based mostly upon guesswork, partly on opinion, and NOT ON SCRIPTURE WHATSOEVER.

Well, I wouldn't say guesswork and opinion, I would say faith. Now you are correct, God never said in his word that he would preserve the scriptures in the English language in a version called the Authorized King James Version. Of course, he didn't mention any other version as well.

But I believe God clearly promised to preserve his word.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

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

And when God said he would preserve his word (which he did), he also said his word was pure, which means without corruption. So, his word is not like those books a few years back called "Where's Waldo", where we have to hope we can find God's word in a jumble of man's writings.

Now, maybe you don't believe this. I will admit is is a matter of faith, I have no absolute way of proving this. That is what faith is. If there was absolute proof, then there would be no faith required.

But if you agree that God preserved his word, then the question is, "Where is it?". It must be somewhere. It cannot be in all the various versions, because they are very different from each other. In fact, all the versions are different, even the MVs are very different from each other.

There are really only two possibilities.

#1 God did not preserve his word and it is lost forever.

#2 God did preserve his word in one version.

This is not rocket science. It is simple, straightforward, and pure logic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TC

Active Member
Site Supporter
Sorry, but you are only wishing there were only two possibilities. A third possibility is that you are wrong and God preserved his word in a variety of good translations.
 

Winman

Active Member
I've gotta say, I'm learning sign language from two deaf people and even they disagree on the proper sign sometimes. Translating ANY language is such an imperfect science because there are just no comparisons between the two.

Here is from the KJV translators themselves in the Preface:

Ann, no matter how many times I say it, you just can't seem to grasp my position. I agree with you 100% that translation is difficult. I agree that the men who translated the KJV were normal, fallible men.

You keep talking about the translators, I am talking about God. My faith is that God promised to preserve his word. I simply believe God made sure those translators got it right. Did they believe themselves to be infallible? No. But God used them just the way he used very normal men in the scriptures.

James 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.


Elijah was a very normal man, that is what this verse is saying. He had the same problems we all have. He made mistakes. But he had faith in God and God used him.

And this is what I believe about the KJV. I believe God moved men to write the scriptures in the language of the common man so every man could know God's word for himself and be saved. No longer would he be dependent upon the church (especially the RCC) to be told what God was saying in his word. They didn't call it the Dark Ages without reason, the Catholic church held men in ignorance for centuries, telling men they had their very souls in their hands. There were a few here and there that had the uncorrupted scriptures, and they were hunted down and killed without mercy.

These translators did not claim to be prophets, they freely admitted they were normal men. But they were good and honest men, and experts in the original languages. I simply believe God was behind their work, preserving his word as he had promised to do.
 

Trotter

<img src =/6412.jpg>
Winman said:
There are really only two possibilities.

#1 God did not preserve his word and it is lost forever.

#2 God did preserve his word in one version.

This is not rocket science. It is simple, straightforward, and pure logic.

Or not. God's word is with us. We have in many, many English translations although none of them are perfect... nor will they ever be perfect. Why? Because the original was not written in English and any translation will not be in perfect unison with the source because of the differences between the languages themselves.

For some reason you seem to completely miss this very simple concept. It's not what you or anyone else would prefer (I know I don't), but that is the way it is. If you want something better then get to cracking on learning ancient Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek because that will be the only way you are going to get it.

TC said:
Sorry, but you are only wishing there were only two possibilities. A third possibility is that you are wrong and God preserved his word in a variety of good translations.

Amen, brother. Sad to see that the KJVO crowd would rather believe in a translation than the One who wrote the original.

Winman said:
And this is what I believe about the KJV. I believe God moved men to write the scriptures in the language of the common man so every man could know God's word for himself and be saved.

I added emphasis for a reason. You say "I believe" and "I believe" that, but it is not "scripture says" this or "scripture says" that. there is a big difference between the two.

Winman said:
I simply believe God was behind their work, preserving his word as he had promised to do.

So do I. God has also been behind many other groups of translators since then but you refuse to recognize this. The KJV translators were experts and so are those who have translated the scriptures since then. The only differences between then and now are the amount of manuscripts available and the many more tools and other data that are available now that was not available then.

It is a good thing that you have faith in the KJV and I commend you for it. Honestly I do. you stick by your guns and I admire that. My problem is when you try to take that and apply it to everyone else. That crosses over from personal conviction to man-made doctrine and only those like minded will accept that.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The one thing I can't grasp is God stopping His hand in 1611 (or 1769 or whatever). Why would He preserve in language that isn't current and is confusing for a modern person reading it today? There are words that just don't mean today what they meant then. So is God looking to confuse the common man? Thank God the KJV translators didn't feel that way:

"Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11]"

"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."


From the Preface to the KJV 1611.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The one thing I can't grasp is God stopping His hand in 1611 (or 1769 or whatever). Why would He preserve in language that isn't current and is confusing for a modern person reading it today? There are words that just don't mean today what they meant then. So is God looking to confuse the common man? Thank God the KJV translators didn't feel that way:

"Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11]"

"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

From the Preface to the KJV 1611.

You and Miles Smith make too much sense. It's perfectly rational and therefore totally unacceptable to the KJVO mindset.
 

Amy.G

New Member
But the real point I am trying to make is that the KJV and the MVs are very different and are not saying the same thing in many verses.

I found this difference thanks to Animal Planet while watching a program called Beasts of the Bible.


I have always believed that when Aaron threw down his rod in Pharaoh's palace that it became a snake.

NIV - Exd 7:12 -
Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.

NLT - Exd 7:12 -
Their staffs became snakes, too! But then Aaron's snake swallowed up their snakes.


But that is not correct.


KJV - Exd 7:12 -
For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

ESV - Exd 7:12 -
For each man cast down his staff, and they became serpents. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.

NASB - Exd 7:12 -
For each one threw down his staff and they turned into serpents. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.



Notice even the MV'S disagree with each other, but it is clear that the NIV and NLT are incorrect in their translation of "snake".


The Hebrew word used in this verse is tanniyn.

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
8577. tanniyn
Nynt tanniyn tan-neen'
or tanniym (Ezek. 29:3) {tan-neem'}; intensive from the same as 8565; a marine or land monster, i.e. sea-serpent or jackal:--dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale.

This is not a snake.


In Genesis, we also see the word "serpent", but it is a different Hebrew word, which does mean snake.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
5175. nachash
vxn nachash naw-khawsh'
from 5172; a snake (from its hiss):--serpent.



The snake in the NIV and NLT referred to in Ex 7:12 is not a snake at all. This is a mistranslation.


The point is that like Winman has said, all versions do NOT say the same thing.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Now, if the Holy Spirit guided the AV men, who's to say He didn't guide the translators of all the other valid versions, in English, and in other current tongues?
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I found this difference thanks to Animal Planet while watching a program called Beasts of the Bible.


I have always believed that when Aaron threw down his rod in Pharaoh's palace that it became a snake.

NIV - Exd 7:12 -
Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.

NLT - Exd 7:12 -
Their staffs became snakes, too! But then Aaron's snake swallowed up their snakes.


But that is not correct.


KJV - Exd 7:12 -
For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

ESV - Exd 7:12 -
For each man cast down his staff, and they became serpents. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.

NASB - Exd 7:12 -
For each one threw down his staff and they turned into serpents. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.



Notice even the MV'S disagree with each other, but it is clear that the NIV and NLT are incorrect in their translation of "snake".


The Hebrew word used in this verse is tanniyn.

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
8577. tanniyn
Nynt tanniyn tan-neen'
or tanniym (Ezek. 29:3) {tan-neem'}; intensive from the same as 8565; a marine or land monster, i.e. sea-serpent or jackal:--dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale.

This is not a snake.


In Genesis, we also see the word "serpent", but it is a different Hebrew word, which does mean snake.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
5175. nachash
vxn nachash naw-khawsh'
from 5172; a snake (from its hiss):--serpent.



The snake in the NIV and NLT referred to in Ex 7:12 is not a snake at all. This is a mistranslation.


The point is that like Winman has said, all versions do NOT say the same thing.

My Strongs says it can also be a venomous snake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top