Good for you. Progress is being made in this era of deceiving and being deceived.
-
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!
Four reasonable questions concerning KJVO
- Thread starter dad
- Start date
Baptizo
Member
So you reject the KJV and NKJV rendering? What translation would you go with?
Baptizo
Member
Here is my view of God's Word.
Titus 1:2 - In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.
Was Jesus killed before being hung up on the cross? Or was he killed by being hung up on the cross?
You still haven't answered the question.
Well you are comparing God and his ways and his thoughts to your own and that is a mistake. I doubt you can name a single person who thinks God killed his son and cursed him in our place by hanging a corpse on the cross. Do you know anyone like that?
Most religious men say they need 100 new versions and translations and paraphrases because they cannot understand the KJV. From what I can read in the scriptures, some of which I have already posted, that kind of rhetoric is an indictment against their faith. What if God wrote his scriptures to us in old English to test us? Dead sure God is able to teach his people his doctrines with it and hide them from the worldly wise and prudent. There sure is a precedent for it in the scriptures. But the KJV does have similar words before this in the scriptures.
De 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
What the scriptures was showing in Acts 5 and accusing Israel of was killing their Messiah and having God curse him, the perfect sacrifice that came into the world to save them from their sins.. It is nothing about the order. God sent Jesus Christ to die. He did not intend for his own people to put him to death, but they did.
A reference is made of the curse of De 21 here;
Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
I will not post the several occasions when cursed men hung on a tree but one of the most famous was Judas and he was taken down by God's earthquake and buried by it according to God's law in De 21.
You can go on believing that you have a gotcha verse but you really haven't. You are just showing your ignorance of the scriptures. I am using the word ignorance in the sense of not knowing, not to disparage you .Please don't take it wrong.
You compare God and his thoughts to your own as you try to read your human non-scriptural KJV-only opinions into verses that do not teach them.
Baptizo
Member
I used to be KJVO myself and at some point I took the time to understand that the translators did not have as many resources as we have today, understand that there are reasonable explanations for textual variations and understand that I was jumping through way too many hoops to defend my position because it is circular reasoning.
The KJV (and many other translations and even manuscripts) do not claim they are the words of translators, they claim they are the words of God. This makes God appear to be on crack cocaine or something similar. He commands us to all speak the same things and then sanctions a never ending line of translations and paraphrased editions in the last days just when he prophesies that the leaven of corruption in the churches will have no remedy but judgement and men will be deceiving themselves and others., heaping up teachers having itching ears while they turn from the truth. It is irrational, illogical, and unreasonable to preach your doctrine of the scriptures. I believe there will be serious consequences for doing so.
I know that God's ways are different from my ways. He accused Israel of failing because they did not know his ways. You can not learn them without a divine teacher and so we all should be checking ourselves according to 2 Cor 13:5.
Ro 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
There is nothing about God and the spirit world that you did not learn from the scriptures, at least nothing that you can be sure of. The scriptures have a voice and I have learned they were spoken before they were written.
Baptizo
Member
So every Christian before 1611 was lead astray and will face judgement?
Your human opinion could be wrong.
You have not soundly demonstrated from the Scriptures that your modern KJV-only doctrine of the Scriptures is rational, logical, and reasonable. The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision/correction decisions, and interpretation/translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England men in 1611.
Do you demonstrate that it would be supposedly rational, logical, reasonable, and sound for you to seem to encourage believers to commit sin by having respect to persons to the KJV translators (James 2:9) and to contradict the wisdom from God above that is without partiality (James 3:16)?
The makers of the KJV did acknowledge that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bible translations and a translation.
According to its own title page and its preface, the 1611 KJV professed to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.” The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.” Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds (1549-1607) "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). Mordechai Feingold cited where John Rainolds wrote: “We must diligently give ourselves to reading and meditating of the holy scriptures in tongues in which they were written by the holy Spirit” (Labourers, p. 14). Feingold also cited where John Rainolds asked: “Are not they blind, who prefer a translation, and such a translation before the original?” (p. 121). In a sermon on Roman 1:16, Miles Smith (?-1624) referred to “the fountain of the prophets and apostles, which are the only authentic pen-men, and registers of the Holy Ghost” (Sermons, p. 75). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.” Earlier on the third page of this preface, Miles Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.” Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”
Do you claim that the stated views and doctrine of Scriptures of the KJV translators were supposedly irrational, illogical, and unreasonable?
CJP69
Active Member
I reject neither.
I wonder why you made comments like this when I have never hinted at that scenario. This is a strawman you have set up. Faith in God is what matters and the only way you can have faith in him is by his word. You must believe his words. His words are under attack and are being corrupted with translations and paraphrases.
Mr 11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
God himself is partial and so therefore context is of utmost importance when forming your doctrines.
Ex 2:25 And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them.
God even tells us why he has respect unto them.
2Ki 13:22 But Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz.
23 And the LORD was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet.
You quote men saying why God wants hundreds of translations and paraphrases and why he cannot have a faithful word either in the original language manuscripts or in a translation but you cannot and do not quote God saying he wants this.
No! But I will say that God had more to do with it than the translators themselves. God was ready to move away from Europe with it's Catholicism and devilish Lutheranism and the corruption they spread. The KJV and America where freedom reigns was a matter of his grace.
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty
God's movement in scripture has always been westward. The sun rising in the east and setting in the west suggests the beginning and the ending in nature.
Mt 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Ps 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Mt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
Re 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
SUPPER IS AT THE END OF THE DAY!
God is out of real estate in the west now and the corruption is great with the new translation philosophy being a great contributing factor in it so his next move is to start over with the Son coming out of the east..
So, bottom line, I think it is safe to say that my reasoning is lost on you, eh?
Last edited:
Baptizo
Member
By all means, please continue to use the KJV as your primary translation. If that’s all you have then you’ll be just fine.
I’m just simply saying that it is a historical fact that Christians going back to the first century didn’t have the same resources that the KJV translators had. You didn’t have a completed canon early on. Then there is also the apocryphal books. The Textus Receptus, which the KJV is based on, is a printed text based on 6 or 7 Greek manuscripts put together by Erasmus. Each manuscript differed from one another. He used the same form of textual criticism to create the TR that modern translators use today.
The Tyndale Bible was the first to translate Greek directly into English. It did not include the Comma Johanneum. Erasmus recognized that this was a late addition from the 15th century yet was under pressure to include it in the TR. The reality is that the Comma Johanneum is a minority reading amongst all manuscripts. That’s not to say that it isn’t true but the overwhelming evidence suggests that John did not write it.
I’m not attacking the KJV. I love it and I personally wish that it would have been the final translation published. It is the foundation of my country. Previous generations grew up learning how to read in grammar school from it. So it has a special place in my heart. The issue for me is when others are told that they are second-class Christians because they use a modern Bible, or a more extreme view would be to say they aren’t saved if they use a modern Bible.
You improperly try to distort what was accurately stated. You attack a strawman since I did not claim that God wants hundreds of translations and paraphrases. I quoted the makers of the KJV so you are misrepresenting and attacking them and their view of Bible translations.
The KJV itself is a revision of multiple pre-1611 English Bibles and is based on multiple varying sources including varying Bible translations in other languages. You have failed to demonstrate that God seeks to bind the word of God to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and interpretation/translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611. Your human, illogical, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning is incorrect.
Daniel Featley (1582-1645), who was a chaplain of KJV translator George Abbot, who was appointed to the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and who may have been a KJV translator according to the British Museum list of translators, asserted what could be soundly regarded as the typical Church of England and Protestant view of that day.
In 1624, Daniel Featley wrote: “We believe the Originals of the two Testaments, in Hebrew and Greek, to be authentical, and of undoubted authority“ (The Roman Fisher, p. 98). Daniel Featley wrote: “No translation can equal the authority of the original, much less be preferred before it” (Appendix to the Fishers Net, pp. 69-70). In a later book published in 1646, Daniel Featley wrote: “For no translation is simply authentical, or the undoubted word of God. In the undoubted word of God there can be no error. But in translations there may be, and are errors. The Bible translated therefore is not the undoubted word of God, but so far only as it agreeth with the original” (Dippers Dipt, p. 1). Concerning translations, Daniel Featley asserted: “For there is none in which there are not some mistakes, more or less” (p. 74). Daniel Featley added: “Other slips must be born with in translations, or else we must read none at all till we have a translation given by divine inspiration, as the originals are” (Ibid.).
In 1624, Daniel Featley wrote: “We believe the Originals of the two Testaments, in Hebrew and Greek, to be authentical, and of undoubted authority“ (The Roman Fisher, p. 98). Daniel Featley wrote: “No translation can equal the authority of the original, much less be preferred before it” (Appendix to the Fishers Net, pp. 69-70). In a later book published in 1646, Daniel Featley wrote: “For no translation is simply authentical, or the undoubted word of God. In the undoubted word of God there can be no error. But in translations there may be, and are errors. The Bible translated therefore is not the undoubted word of God, but so far only as it agreeth with the original” (Dippers Dipt, p. 1). Concerning translations, Daniel Featley asserted: “For there is none in which there are not some mistakes, more or less” (p. 74). Daniel Featley added: “Other slips must be born with in translations, or else we must read none at all till we have a translation given by divine inspiration, as the originals are” (Ibid.).
God is the God of order, and He established the order or primacy [the state of being first or foremost] with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages serving as the one foundation and authority on which Bible translations would need to be based or built. Almighty God gave or laid the foundation on which Bible translations depend. The Scriptures in the original languages obviously preceded any later Bible translations. No other foundation for Bible translations can be laid than the one God Himself laid when He gave the Scriptures in the original languages by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, 1 Cor. 2:13, Ps. 11:3, 1 Cor. 3:11).
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 1:7, Prov. 1:29). Divers weights and divers measures, both of them are alike abominations to the LORD (Prov. 20:10).
According to the Scriptures, would KJV-only use of unscriptural, double-minded, unjust measures in many of its misleading, extreme allegations against the NKJV and other English Bible translations indicate the fear of the LORD? Would the abomination of the use of unjust measures honor God? Is the fear of the LORD soundly understood (Prov. 2:5) if it is thought that use of unjust measures and unrighteous judgments would be in agreement with it? The fear of the LORD is to hate evil, pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way (Prov. 8:13). It should be clear that believers do not choose fear of the LORD when they choose to use double-minded, unjust measures or standards (Prov. 1:29) in making their accusations against the word of God translated into present-day English in the NKJV. Would the use of unscriptural, unjust measures and the use of fallacies be a hindrance and stumbling-block or a help and stepping-stone in the pursuit or advocating of truth? Do KJV-only advocates close their eyes to the arrogance and pride evident in human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning and accusations?
Truth cannot be defended nor advocated by use of unscriptural, unjust measures and by use of fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading.
According to the Scriptures, would KJV-only use of unscriptural, double-minded, unjust measures in many of its misleading, extreme allegations against the NKJV and other English Bible translations indicate the fear of the LORD? Would the abomination of the use of unjust measures honor God? Is the fear of the LORD soundly understood (Prov. 2:5) if it is thought that use of unjust measures and unrighteous judgments would be in agreement with it? The fear of the LORD is to hate evil, pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way (Prov. 8:13). It should be clear that believers do not choose fear of the LORD when they choose to use double-minded, unjust measures or standards (Prov. 1:29) in making their accusations against the word of God translated into present-day English in the NKJV. Would the use of unscriptural, unjust measures and the use of fallacies be a hindrance and stumbling-block or a help and stepping-stone in the pursuit or advocating of truth? Do KJV-only advocates close their eyes to the arrogance and pride evident in human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning and accusations?
Truth cannot be defended nor advocated by use of unscriptural, unjust measures and by use of fallacies such as begging the question and special pleading.
Psalms 119:130
The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Light is a metaphor for understanding.
Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light (the understanding) of life.
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light (the understanding) of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light (the understanding) of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Darkness is a metaphor for ignorance and unbelief.
it seems to me that you have it figured out and have charted your course and so I rest my case.
Last edited: