Avid following

[Armchair Scholar]

Actually, since the Scripture never speaks of the Holy Spirit coming down in human form, "itself" is not a wrong translation.

It is said to descend as a dove in the Gospels. We refer to doves as both it, he, or she.

"itself" in Paul's Epistle to the Romans is a proper translation.

It's unlikely that the likeness of the descending dove would have been a "she," therefore it can be understood as a male dove, therefore, the Holy Spirit is still correctly a "he." HE is God the Holy Spirit and He is still a person even though he did not take on human form as the Son did. God did not become a person because he came down from heaven. He has always had personhood distinctively equal in the three persons of the Godhead. He is/was a person apart from coming to earth (and before the Son took on a human body) and He was a person before He created the earth. He did not require a human body to be a person. God the Father is a spirit, as Jesus Christ the Son stated and affirmed, but this does not make the Father an "it" as the KJV translators did the Holy Spirit. God the Father was in heaven while Jesus Christ the Son was on earth (hence, he prayed "Our Father who is in heaven"), and God the Father is still referred to as "He" and "Him," not as "it." God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all ONE God and three in one together, so why not refer to the Father and the Son as "it" also? My God is three distinct persons in one Godhead and neither of them are an "it." They are He/Him.

 

[Salamander]

Is the Holy Spirit an "it" or is he a real person having intelligence and feeling? The KJV translators made a mistake when they wrote "itself" instead of "himself" in Romans 8:16, 26. In my opinion, referring to the Holy Spirit as "itself" is offensive and I don't believe that God refers to himself as an "it." However, the NKJV and NASB have correctly translated those verses.

Added:

Here is the Bishop's Bible, the Bible that the KJV is a revision of:

Romans 8:16 The same spirite, beareth witnesse to our spirite, that we are ye sonnes of God.

Romans 8:26 Lykewyse, the spirite also helpeth our infirmities. For we knowe not what to desire as we ought: but ye spirite maketh great intercession for vs, with gronynges, which can not be expressed.

The Bishop's Bible translators didn't make that mistake.

The KJV calls the Holy Spirit and "it" also in John 1:32 and in 1 Peter 1:11. The NKJV correctly renders "it" as "He." God the Holy Spirit is just as much in the masculine sense as God the Father, who is also identified as spirit in Scripture. So, if God the Father is a "he" then so is God the Holy Spirit, as is God the Son.

Obviously you
know very little about English grammar.

 

[Salamander]

It's unlikely that the likeness of the descending dove would have been a "she," therefore it can be understood as a male dove, therefore, the Holy Spirit is still correctly a "he." HE is God the Holy Spirit and He is still a person even though he did not take on human form as the Son did. God did not become a person because he came down from heaven. He has always had personhood distinctively equal in the three persons of the Godhead. He is/was a person apart from coming to earth (and before the Son took on a human body) and He was a person before He created the earth. He did not require a human body to be a person. God the Father is a spirit, as Jesus Christ the Son stated and affirmed, but this does not make the Father an "it" as the KJV translators did the Holy Spirit. God the Father was in heaven while Jesus Christ the Son was on earth (hence, he prayed "Our Father who is in heaven"), and God the Father is still referred to as "He" and "Him," not as "it." God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all ONE God and three in one together, so why not refer to the Father and the Son as "it" also? My God is three distinct persons in one Godhead and neither of them are an "it." They are He/Him.

Then we can conclude you have a problem with Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Jesus is the One spoken of here, and it is obvious the simile is present, but your objection would also concur that "he" could never be referred to in the feminine sense as it is given in Isaiah 53:7.

May I suggest you learn something about simile's and Jewish tradition.

 

[EdSutton]

Obviously very little about English grammar.

Glad to see you back.

I was starting to get a bit worried by your absence, in this forum.

Now I know there will be usually something to read, in it.

Ed

 

[John of Japan]

This has not been my personal experience. The only thing I have seen regarding this is from non-native, and at times non-Spanish speakers.

There are a few modern Spanish translations but almost the entire Spanish speaking world uses the Reina-Valera 1960 edition.

In my opinion, most believers here, have no clue about a versions debate an probably would not care if they were told there is one.

To my knowledge, the battle is in Mexico rather than the rest of SA where you are, or Spain. I don't know a whole lot about it, though.

 

[John of Japan]

There were huge battles in Ireland over this particular. Patrick was severely criticised because we used the Vulgate and was not OLO (Old Latin Only). He did however use the Vulgate at times and even did some Latin paraphrasing.

I didn't know this. So old Patrick was not OLO, eh? I've always been fascinated by him. Somewhere I've got a St. Pat's day SS flannelgraph, and I did it once in Japan, but it's kind of far off for them.

 

[Alcott]

God NEVER has shown me even ONE mistake in my KJV.....and I would NOT believe it was Him if I ever supposedly found one.

And you can't make the connection that that's why He's never shown you one? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

I love abuse...NOT!

Well....as expected I knew I was opening myself up to criticism when I commented on this subject(which is why I don't do so very often). StandingFirm, I appreciate your support and as for the rest of you,your arguments do not convince me to believe that my Bible has even ONE single error in it. My faith in the superiority of the KJV (and I believe it is the 1769 edition that I use) remains unshaken. I'm not going to waste much time here on debating the issue....I just felt led to make my original comment and I'll stand on it. I have a perfect and preserved Bible and I'm very thankful for that. I don't trust the MV's(including the NKJV (NOT from the TR)since it is not a true KJV). I've sat in church services where preachers have used other english translations and it is as if something sucked all the life out of the message being preached. They just leave me COLD every time. If my Pastor EVER changes to another version I'll be going elsewhere for my spiritual food and my place of service. EVERY church I have ever heard of that introduced the use of the MV's (pick one..any one...it doesn't matter which) has gone liberal and become more and more worldly while steadily abandoning Biblical seperation and other standards of biblical deportment and behavior. We need REVIVAL desperately and it won't come from any of those powerless,lifeless,so-called "new-gen" bibles. We won't win this culture by caving in to it and there is NOTHING in a King James Bible that can't be clearly understood (if you are TRULY Born Again) with the use of a good Strongs concordance,a Websters and liberal amounts of PRAYER. We don't need new methods OR new VERSIONS....we just need to return to the OLD PATHS and be faithful to the God of the Word and the Word of God (yes boys and girls....I most certainly DO mean the King James Bible)...God's HOLY, PRESERVED WORD for the english speaking people of the Laodecian church age.

By the way...I am fully aware that I just convinced No ONE to change their mind on this issue. I can live with that. The ONLY Bibles I know of that are full of mistakes and mis-translations are the MV's. I've compared many of the verses and seen the terrible footnotes that call the authority of many portions of the scriptures into question. God is NOT in that. I reject that thinking as well....Have a nice day!!!

Greg Perry Sr.:BangHead: :type: :saint:

 

[Logos1560]

I believe it is the 1769 edition that I use)
Greg Perry Sr.

The KJV edition you use is very likely not every word the same in text as the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. While there may be ten or more varying editions of the KJV in print today, I don't know of any of them that are every word the same in text as the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. Changes were still introduced in Oxford editions of the KJV as late as 1885 and in Cambridge editions of the KJV after 1900.

Below are some places you can check to see if your KJV edition is actually a 1769.

The 1769 Oxford KJV edition had "the earth" instead of "the world" at 1 Corinthians 4:13. The 1769 KJV edition had “coast“ instead of “coasts“ at Judges 19:29, “priest‘s custom“ instead of “priests‘ custom“ at 1 Samuel 2:13, “on the pillars” instead of “on the top of the pillars“ at the end of 2 Chronicles 4:12, “unto me” instead of “under me” at Psalm 18:47, “feared” instead of “fear” at Psalm 60:4, and “part“ instead of “parts“ at Psalm 78:66. It has “about” for “above” at 2 Corinthians 12:2 and “our joy“ for “your joy“ at 1 John 1:4. The 1769 edition also had “Heman“ at Genesis 36:22 instead of “Hemam“, “brakedst” at Deuteronomy 10:2 instead of “brakest”, and "thy companions" at Job 41:6 instead of "the companions" . The 1762 Cambridge edition had “Heman” at Genesis 36:22 and may be the source of the 1769 Oxford rendering. Eadie asserted that the 1769 edition had “thy progenitors” for “my progenitors’ at Genesis 49:26 (English Bible, II, p. 366).Norton pointed out that the 1769 had “you were inferior“ instead of “ye were inferior“ at 2 Corinthians 12:13 and “the mighty is spoiled” instead of “the mighty are spoiled” at Zechariah 11:2 (Textual History, pp. 113, 298). McClintock maintained that the 1769 edition had “children of Gilead” for “elders of Gilead” at Judges 11:7 and “gates of iron” for “bars of iron” at Psalm 107:16 (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 563). McClintock also claimed that the 1769 edition omitted the following words at Revelation 18:22: “at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more” (Ibid.). Several of the above renderings in the 1769 Oxford edition remained in Oxford editions over 70 years since they can still be found in a 1840 Oxford edition, and one remained over 100 years.

 

[Amy.G]

Well....as expected I knew I was opening myself up to criticism when I commented on this subject(which is why I don't do so very often). StandingFirm, I appreciate your support and as for the rest of you,your arguments do not convince me to believe that my Bible has even ONE single error in it. My faith in the superiority of the KJV (and I believe it is the 1769 edition that I use) remains unshaken. I'm not going to waste much time here on debating the issue....I just felt led to make my original comment and I'll stand on it. I have a perfect and preserved Bible and I'm very thankful for that. I don't trust the MV's(including the NKJV (NOT from the TR)since it is not a true KJV). I've sat in church services where preachers have used other english translations and it is as if something sucked all the life out of the message being preached. They just leave me COLD every time. If my Pastor EVER changes to another version I'll be going elsewhere for my spiritual food and my place of service. EVERY church I have ever heard of that introduced the use of the MV's (pick one..any one...it doesn't matter which) has gone liberal and become more and more worldly while steadily abandoning Biblical seperation and other standards of biblical deportment and behavior. We need REVIVAL desperately and it won't come from any of those powerless,lifeless,so-called "new-gen" bibles. We won't win this culture by caving in to it and there is NOTHING in a King James Bible that can't be clearly understood (if you are TRULY Born Again) with the use of a good Strongs concordance,a Websters and liberal amounts of PRAYER. We don't need new methods OR new VERSIONS....we just need to return to the OLD PATHS and be faithful to the God of the Word and the Word of God (yes boys and girls....I most certainly DO mean the King James Bible)...God's HOLY, PRESERVED WORD for the english speaking people of the Laodecian church age.

By the way...I am fully aware that I just convinced No ONE to change their mind on this issue. I can live with that. The ONLY Bibles I know of that are full of mistakes and mis-translations are the MV's. I've compared many of the verses and seen the terrible footnotes that call the authority of many portions of the scriptures into question. God is NOT in that. I reject that thinking as well....Have a nice day!!!

Greg Perry Sr.:BangHead: :type: :saint:

I would love to believe that God has preserved His word in ONE version. If He had, I would read nothing but that version. So far, I haven't been convinced that only one version is the inerrant word of God.
I don't understand why the KJV was chosen as the "only" version. Why isn't the Geneva Bible the "only" version? It was in English before the KJV.
Would a KJVOist like to explain this to me?

 

[robycop3]

Well, Mr. Perry, perhats you've overlooked "Easter' in Acts 12:4 or "the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. Whether or not YOU wanna call'em booboos or not is upta you, but they're certainly not correct.

 

[MovieProducer]

<snip>

By the way...I am fully aware that I just convinced No ONE to change their mind on this issue. <snip>

Greg Perry Sr.:BangHead: :type: :saint:

You never know. It's rare to persuade someone to your view, but it happened to me three years ago, much to my own astonishment, and it took about three years to persuade my friend Jon. Now he's brimming with the same excitement I felt at discovering the certainty of God's words, and also the frustration at learning how difficult it is to persuade.

I will say that my only successes have been among family and close friends, people with whom I have a long relationship. They know me and trust me, and they also knew me when I was a Bible Whateverist and an evolutionist, so the change itself is evidence of powerful forces at work.

It's also interesting that what finally tipped Jon was a bit of evidence that I didn't think was all that impressive, but which he thought was mind-blowing. Different people are persuaded by different info. You never know who might read what you've written and be affected.

 

[robycop3]

I would love to believe that God has preserved His word in ONE version. If He had, I would read nothing but that version. So far, I haven't been convinced that only one version is the inerrant word of God.
I don't understand why the KJV was chosen as the "only" version. Why isn't the Geneva Bible the "only" version? It was in English before the KJV.
Would a KJVOist like to explain this to me?

I doubt is any KJVO will take you up on that, Amy, but lemme say this:

The British accepted the AV1611 only with reluctance. The GB continued to be printed until 1644. one reason was the high price of the AV compared with the GB. The AV bore the king's TAX STAMP.

Another reason is the British Govt. outlawed the printing/sales of any other English-language version but the AV within the British Empire for a good while. Thus, the AV was given a monopoly by default.

King James despised the GB because of its footnotes, especially those that say it's OK to rebel against a tyrannical king.

 

[Palatka51]

Do you know of any other Bible translation that has the following that the KJVO has?

According to history did not the pagan Romans consider the Christian Church a cult sect of the Jewish religion? I think that KJVO folks are in great company then.

Why are you treating KJVOs as outcasts of the Christian faith? This is not very becoming as a sister of the faith.

 

[Amy.G]

I doubt is any KJVO will take you up on that, Amy, but lemme say this:

The British accepted the AV1611 only with reluctance. The GB continued to be printed until 1644. one reason was the high price of the AV compared with the GB. The AV bore the king's TAX STAMP.

Another reason is the British Govt. outlawed the printing/sales of any other English-language version but the AV within the British Empire for a good while. Thus, the AV was given a monopoly by default.

King James despised the GB because of its footnotes, especially those that say it's OK to rebel against a tyrannical king.

Thank you Robycop for responding. I sorta figured it happened in a similar way. Do I recall correctly that the Pilgrams brought the GB with them to America? Sounds like the "only" Bible available to the public after 1644 was the KJV. That would certainly explain it's popularity. :laugh:

Would any KJV onlyist like to answer my question?

I don't understand why the KJV was chosen as the "only" version. Why isn't the Geneva Bible the "only" version? It was in English before the KJV.

 

[DHK]

According to history did not the pagan Romans consider the Christian Church a cult sect of the Jewish religion? I think that KJVO folks are in great company then.

To be fair, people are resistant to change and sometime go overboard in their reasons to be agaist change. If you study history there was a similar reaction when they tried to convice the people that the Latin Vulgate was not as accurate as the version following it. There was a resistance to change. Some would never accept the fact that holy Bible written in the holy language of Latin itself could ever be translated into English or any other language and end up to be a better translation. That would just be impossible. Remember that to this day, in some places the mass is still said in Latin.

 

[Amy.G]

You never know. It's rare to persuade someone to your view, but it happened to me three years ago, much to my own astonishment, and it took about three years to persuade my friend Jon. Now he's brimming with the same excitement I felt at discovering the certainty of God's words, and also the frustration at learning how difficult it is to persuade.

I will say that my only successes have been among family and close friends, people with whom I have a long relationship. They know me and trust me, and they also knew me when I was a Bible Whateverist and an evolutionist, so the change itself is evidence of powerful forces at work.

It's also interesting that what finally tipped Jon was a bit of evidence that I didn't think was all that impressive, but which he thought was mind-blowing. Different people are persuaded by different info. You never know who might read what you've written and be affected.

Very interesting. What changed your mind? What did your friend find mind blowing?

(I am not trying to debate this subject. I would really like to know how KJVO's have come to their conclusions why the KJV is the "only" valid version.

 

[MovieProducer]

Well, Mr. Perry, perhats you've overlooked "Easter' in Acts 12:4 or "the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. Whether or not YOU wanna call'em booboos or not is upta you, but they're certainly not correct.

"Certainly" not correct?

On both of these points there is a great deal of disagreement, even if you consider only the opinions of KJV critics. (In fact, if you study these critics, you'll find that the only thing they agree about is their disapproval of the KJV).

In light of the vast range of disagreement among all the scholars, the way to show "Easter" and "all evil" are "certainly not correct" is to show an alternative that certainly is.

Can you show us one?

 

[EdSutton]

"Certainly" not correct?

On both of these points there is a great deal of disagreement, even if you consider only the opinions of KJV critics. (In fact, if you study these critics, you'll find that the only thing they agree about is their disapproval of the KJV).

In light of the vast range of disagreement among all the scholars, the way to show "Easter" and "all evil" are "certainly not correct" is to show an alternative that certainly is.

Can you show us one?

I'm not robycop3, but I'll take a short stab at "Easter".

Try Passover!

FTR, show me one "scholar" that thinks that "Easter" is more accurate a rendering of "πασχα", than is "Passover", on any linguistic grounds.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

I'm not robycop3, but I'll take a short stab at "Easter".

Try Passover!

Ed

Good one Ed !