Has KJVO caused any church splits?

[HAmilton]

I appreciate your intent (the level of education needed for good comprehension) but a fifth grade capacity in any language is not enough to proficiently translate a children's book let alone a truly complex document such as the Bible. The guys who attempted this came from a church in Rochester, NY, not far from you.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Harold,

If you LIKE the KJV, and so use it, I have no problem with that. But the KJVO people (who claim that the KJV is the only legitimate version of scripture), and EXCLUDE or DISMISS other Christians who prefer another version, ARE a cult. When you can take a translation, show that even the people who translated it said it would need to be redone when language progressed (such as the KJV translators did), and yet those people listen to modern "so called" gurus, most of which have little to no actual education in the field, AND they believe in, among other things, a "RE-INSPIRED" version of scriptures, with no Biblical mandate...you have a cult.

I like, for example, the ESV. I happen to read a little Greek. I happen to see that the ESV is more consistent in it's theology, it is truer to the underlying Greek text, and it lacks many of the quantitative and qualitative contradictions that SO many atheist apologists love to throw around.

If you say "Your not reading the real Bible, because your not reading MY translation"...you are part of a cult. Sorry.

Brother, we who take the KJV literally to be the word of God without exception are not "cult members", we are Christians just as you say you're a Christian.

The reasoning you're using makes all Christians cult members when compared to what the rest of the lost world thinks about Christianity.

I find your referencing to "KJVO" being a "cult" fits into that same line of reasoning. It is derogatory in essence. It is mere speculation. Your view places yourself on a pedastal to judge other Christians. I find you to be in error according to many verses in the Bible.

 

[gb93433]

Brother, we who take the KJV literally to be the word of God without exception are not "cult members", we are Christians just as you say you're a Christian.

While I have no doubt as to your sincerity and honesty I believe you are sincerely wrong. There are some particular reasons. No translation is perfect. An original document always sits within a particular culture in a particular time and must be interpreted and translated in light of its historical context. Every language has words which cannot be tranlsated and have no meaning in the receptor language while it did in the source language. A great example in Spanish are the words ¿Cóma está?' and ¿Cómo estás? They translate with the same words in English but have very different usages in Spanish.

Can you explain how to translate a Greek perfect participle intro English such as in 1 Peter 1:4 the word translated "reserved"? Reserved is not an absolutely accurate translation. While it may be the best possible selection it is still not 100% accurate.

In 21:15-17 two different Greek words are translated "love." How does the English word point out the differences in the Greek words?

 

[Dale-c]

Your view places yourself on a pedastal to judge other Christians. I find you to be in error according to many verses in the Bible.

What hypocrisy!
WHo is the one separating based on what translation a person uses?

 

[Havensdad]

What hypocrisy!
WHo is the one separating based on what translation a person uses?

Amen. You took the words out of my mouth: thanks dude...

Harold,

YOU are the one saying "Your not doing things right unless you do them MY way".

I am actually doing the opposite of putting myself on a pedestal. If I were doing that, I would be saying something like "The ESV is the only legitimate translation of the Bible! All the other translations like the KJV, have been influenced by Anglican Bishops, Catholic manuscripts, and Satan himself!"

Sound familiar?

You point to the Bible to support? Where does the Bible say that the KJV is the only accurate version of the scriptures? Funny, since the KJV uses the Masoretic OT, yet Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint in the NT: a fact admitted by KJV translators.

 

[Harold Garvey]

While I have no doubt as to your sincerity and honesty I believe you are sincerely wrong. There are some particular reasons. No translation is perfect. An original document always sits within a particular culture in a particular time and must be interpreted and translated in light of its historical context. Every language has words which cannot be tranlsated and have no meaning in the receptor language while it did in the source language. A great example in Spanish are the words ¿Cóma está?' and ¿Cómo estás? They translate with the same words in English but have very different usages in Spanish.

Can you explain how to translate a Greek perfect participle intro English such as in 1 Peter 1:4 the word translated "reserved"? Reserved is not an absolutely accurate translation. While it may be the best possible selection it is still not 100% accurate.

In 21:15-17 two different Greek words are translated "love." How does the English word point out the differences in the Greek words?

Your line of reason takes God totally out of the picture and leaves all men at the mercy of men like you.

Think on that for a minute or two and see if you can realy continue thinking like this.

 

[Harold Garvey]

What hypocrisy!
WHo is the one separating based on what translation a person uses?

Separating from what, not whom. Cannot say you are separating from what, but whom.

You reject my position and then reject my fellowship. Where have I once rejected you? have I once asked you to leave BB?:saint:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Amen. You took the words out of my mouth: thanks dude...

Harold,

YOU are the one saying "Your not doing things right unless you do them MY way".

I am actually doing the opposite of putting myself on a pedestal. If I were doing that, I would be saying something like "The ESV is the only legitimate translation of the Bible! All the other translations like the KJV, have been influenced by Anglican Bishops, Catholic manuscripts, and Satan himself!"

Sound familiar?

You point to the Bible to support? Where does the Bible say that the KJV is the only accurate version of the scriptures? Funny, since the KJV uses the Masoretic OT, yet Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint in the NT: a fact admitted by KJV translators.

When you stop lumping me up and mixing previous dialogues with others i can respond to you, until then maybe you should try to leave our dialogue amiss of other dialogues.

 

[gb93433]

Your line of reason takes God totally out of the picture and leaves all men at the mercy of men like you.[/quote[] Actually quite the opposite. It leaves God out as much as one refuses who to obey God's word by studying and meditating on it.

It makes as much sense as having a building built by a non-Christian who has proven himself as a master than a Christian who lacks experience and knowledge.

If you believe that then show how God is included in your methodology by clearly explaining the message Jesus communicated to Peter in John 21:15-17 by explaining the two different Greek words translated by one word in English "love".

Think on that for a minute or two and see if you can realy continue thinking like this.

Easily. That is the reason I decided to learn the languages instead of relying on the opinions of others especially the ignorant misleading those who are willing to follow them without any verification. If Acts 17:11 were applied we would fail to see such a following of those false teachers.

===========================================

From the Introduction to An Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament by George Ricker Berry, Ph.D.

The Value of Hebrew and Greek to the Clergyman

1. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot understand the critical commentaries of the Scripture, and a commentary that is not critical is of doubtful value.

2. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot satisfy yourself . . as to the changes which you will find in the Revised Old and New Testament.

3. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot appreciate the critical discussions relating to the Books of the Old and New Testament.

4. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be certain that in your sermon based on a Scripture text, you are presenting the correct teaching of that text.

5. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be an independent student or a reliable interpreter of the Word of God.

6. As much knowledge of Hebrew can be secured in one year with the aid of an Interlinear Old Testament as can be gained of Latin in three years. Greek, though somewhat more difficult, may be readily acquired with the aid of an Interlinear New Testament/Lexicon.

7. The Hebrew language has, in all, 7000 words, and of them 1000 are repeated over 25 times each in the Old Testament.

8. Hebrew grammar has but one form of the Relative pronoun in all cases, numbers and genders; by three forms for the Demonstrative pronoun. The possible verbal forms are about 300 as compared with the 1200 found in Greek. It has practically no declension.

9. Within ten years, the average man wastes more time in fruitless reading and indifferent talk, that would be used in acquiring a good working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek that in turn would impart to his teaching that quality of independence and of reliability which so greatly enhances one's power as a teacher.

10. There is not one minister in ten who might not if he but would, find time and opportunity for such study of Hebrew and Greek as would enable him to make a thoroughly practical use of it in his work as a Bible-preacher and Bible-teacher.

 

[saturneptune]

While I have no doubt as to your sincerity and honesty I believe you are sincerely wrong. There are some particular reasons. No translation is perfect. An original document always sits within a particular culture in a particular time and must be interpreted and translated in light of its historical context. Every language has words which cannot be tranlsated and have no meaning in the receptor language while it did in the source language. A great example in Spanish are the words ¿Cóma está?' and ¿Cómo estás? They translate with the same words in English but have very different usages in Spanish.

Can you explain how to translate a Greek perfect participle intro English such as in 1 Peter 1:4 the word translated "reserved"? Reserved is not an absolutely accurate translation. While it may be the best possible selection it is still not 100% accurate.

In 21:15-17 two different Greek words are translated "love." How does the English word point out the differences in the Greek words?

Yes, we all took different languages in high school and college. So what is your point? Most people are going to buy an English Bible version of their choice and learn the Word of God. That is as deep as they will ever get, and guess what, the Holy Spirit will guide them and teach them what they need to know and understand. While knowing Greek and Hebrew does aid in Bible interpretation and understanding, there are lots of people with Hebrew and Greek language knowledge where basic doctrine never sinks in? Sound familiar?

I am with you. I doubt you would see any type of Bible in a SBC church.

 

[gb93433]

Yes, we all took different languages in high school and college. So what is your point?

KJVO folks trust their mentors without any verification just as there are those who are not KJVO who trust their mentors without any verification. Both are wrong. Obviously when there are disagreements both cannot be right. Words are only correctly understood as one understand the context correctly. Translation does not always reveal a full understanding. One can translate the Spanish questions [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]¿Cómo está? and [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]¿Cómo estás?[/FONT] with the question "How are you?" However, it does not tell the entire story of their correct usage.

Most people are going to buy an English Bible version of their choice and learn the Word of God. That is as deep as they will ever get, and guess what, the Holy Spirit will guide them and teach them what they need to know and understand.

You have a good point in that the early church did not have a Bible in every hand and God used them. I am quite confident they were taught by those who followed and knew Jesus.

For those who have taken the languages they now realize the lack they once had. It is much like trying to explain sight to the blind.

While knowing Greek and Hebrew does aid in Bible interpretation and understanding, there are lots of people with Hebrew and Greek language knowledge where basic doctrine never sinks in? Sound familiar?

There are many who refuse to believe. I have heard it with my own ears. Actually nobody who is disobedient will ever get deep because God does not reveal himself to the disobedient.

I doubt you would see any type of Bible in a SBC church.

I am not familiar with types of Bibles. Can you explain?

 

[Josh the Baptist]

As far as leaving, I consider the KJVO movement a cult. by Havensdad



That wasn't very nice when Havensdad implied that all KJVO folks were cultists. It's difficult to judge an entire group based on what one has encountered in some. It would have been better to say that "some come across as cultists", because that would be a true statement. What you consider is not absolutely true and ruined the thread. Did you really think you could make such a statement and no one come to defend their personal convictions? Instead of getting the original question answered we have endure another argument.

 

[EdSutton]

You point to the Bible to support? Where does the Bible say that the KJV is the only accurate version of the scriptures? Funny, since the KJV uses the Masoretic OT, yet Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint in the NT: a fact admitted by KJV translators.

This is certainly true.

In addition, one might note that in Lk. 4:16-21, Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah, that was present in the synagogue at Nazareth, where the text He read from (not some text which He may have paraphrased) complies with neither the LXX or Masoretic text, and pronounced what He had read as Scripture!

16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
18 “ The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,[a]
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.”[b]
20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Lk. 4:16-21 - NKJV)

This passage is from Is. 61:1-3, which apparently reads in this manner in the Massoretic text (and I do make the assumption that the translators have accurately rendered the Massoretic text here) in these words.

1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, (Is. 61:1-2a - NKJV)

Here is how the LXX reads for the same passage as translated here -

http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Isaiah/61.html

1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; 2 to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, (Is. 61:1-2a, as rendered in the LXX)

One should note the differences in the texts, as shown by the blue words which I have bolded, here.

Incidentally, here is a link to the LXX where this can also be found.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible...on=0&it=kjv&ot=lxx&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search

The point is, these OT texts of Isaiah are indeed different, even to the third one which Jesus read from. Yet He specifically proclaimed this as Scripture.

Personally, I'm gonna' agree with Jesus. :jesus:

Any others may do as they choose.

Ed

 

[Harold Garvey]

It makes as much sense as having a building built by a non-Christian who has proven himself as a master than a Christian who lacks experience and knowledge.

There you go, placing the authority of the word of God into man's hands.

If you believe that then show how God is included in your methodology by clearly explaining the message Jesus communicated to Peter in John 21:15-17 by explaining the two different Greek words translated by one word in English "love".

easy, define love, exhaustively, without showing the meaning of the passage.:tongue3:

The Greek enhances the definition now doesn't it? But all along the meaning is right there.

I think you'd like for others to forget English ios made up of many different languages, including Greek.

 

[Harold Garvey]

This is certainly true.

In addition, one might note that in Lk. 4:16-21, Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah, that was present in the synagogue at Nazareth, where the text He read from (not some text which He may have paraphrased) complies with neither the LXX or Masoretic text, and pronounced what He had read as Scripture!This passage is from Is. 61:1-3, which apparently reads in this manner in the Massoretic text (and I do make the assumption that the translators have accurately rendered the Massoretic text here) in these words.Here is how the LXX reads for the same passage as translated here -

http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Isaiah/61.html
One should note the differences in the texts, as shown by the blue words which I have bolded, here.

Incidentally, here is a link to the LXX where this can also be found.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible...on=0&it=kjv&ot=lxx&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search

The point is, these OT texts of Isaiah are indeed different, even to the third one which Jesus read from. Yet He specifically proclaimed this as Scripture.

Personally, I'm gonna' agree with Jesus. :jesus:

Any others may do as they choose.

Ed

Would you agree that most of who Jesus spoke to NEEDED to hear the word in GreeK?

For those unaware of the trickery here, Greek was the common man's tongue of the Jews under Roman rule. Most did not even speak Hebrew.

 

[EdSutton]

Would you agree that most of who Jesus spoke to NEEDED to hear the word in GreeK?

Whether or not I would agree with your posed question is irrelevant. The fact remains that in Luke 4, Jesus read Isa. 61:1-2a from a copy of Isaiah that does not match any known MSS in any version or language, be it a copy of the Greek LXX or any Hebrew MSS of that passage, and pronounced what He read to be Scripture.

The point is, these OT texts of Isaiah are indeed different, even to the third one which Jesus read from. Yet He specifically proclaimed this as Scripture.

For those unaware of the trickery here, Greek was the common man's tongue of the Jews under Roman rule. Most did not even speak Hebrew.

I have not claimed otherwise, as to what language was being spoken in Luke 4, which indeed was that of koine Greek. (And let it be noted that I have here cited renderings from an Hebrew rendition, which is purported to be apparently identical to the Massoretic Text, the LXX, and the third copy from which Jesus read.)

I have attempted no trickery of any kind.

No my brothers and sisters, the real "trickery" is here offered in the "question-begging" and fancy footwork by which Harold Garvey is side-stepping and avoiding answering the questions raised, and attempting to change what someone has actually said, by implying something else, entirely. And I am not falling for such subterfuge.

Ed

 

[gb93433]

There you go, placing the authority of the word of God into man's hands.

Translation, yes. God's word no.

easy, define love, exhaustively, without showing the meaning of the passage.

Could you explain?

The Greek enhances the definition now doesn't it? But all along the meaning is right there.

Then explain the differences between the two words translated as love. There is a difference in the usages of thsoe words then what the English depicts.

I think you'd like for others to forget English is made up of many different languages, including Greek.

So what is the difference between scribe and graph?

Do you know what the Hebrew word for wife is?

 

[gb93433]

Would you agree that most of who Jesus spoke to NEEDED to hear the word in GreeK?

For those unaware of the trickery here, Greek was the common man's tongue of the Jews under Roman rule. Most did not even speak Hebrew.

If you were to read the Greek text of the NT you would quickly realize that for most it was their second language. Greek was the trade language at the time much like English is today. Most of the NT is written in Greek using Hebrew phraseology as one would write a language which was their second language.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Whether or not I would agree with your posed question is irrelevant. The fact remains that in Luke 4, Jesus read Isa. 61:1-2a from a copy of Isaiah that does not match any known MSS in any version or language, be it a copy of the Greek LXX or any Hebrew MSS of that passage, and pronounced what He read to be Scripture.I have not claimed otherwise, as to what language was being spoken in Luke 4, which indeed was that of koine Greek. (And let it be noted that I have here cited renderings from an Hebrew rendition, which is purported to be apparently identical to the Massoretic Text, the LXX, and the third copy from which Jesus read.)

I have attempted no trickery of any kind.

Oh, so you're saying Luke was present to actually hear Jesus read?:tongue3:

No my brothers and sisters, the real "trickery" is here offered in the "question-begging" and fancy footwork by which Harold Garvey is side-stepping and avoiding answering the questions raised, and attempting to change what someone has actually said, by implying something else, entirely. And I am not falling for such subterfuge.

Ed

Maybe you forget Luke was not one of the twelve, he was Paul's personal physician. Luke would have written his Gospel from at least a third person perspective: Jesus spoke. His words passed on eventaully to Paul ( who only saw Jesus in his glorified body) and from here to Luke.

talking about "subterfuge"!!!:sleeping_2:

deal with the facts and stop maligning the thoughts of others.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Translation, yes. God's word no.

So then your line of reasoning places God's words amiss from any translation and we can't have the word of God because it perished in the original manuscripts.

Could you explain?

yep, define "agape'" love apart from any definition of the English word "love".

Then explain the differences between the two words translated as love. There is a difference in the usages of thsoe words then what the English depicts.

Double speak; love has many definitions applicable to the receiver and from the giver of that love.

Humorous that you understand Greek in English then deny English can relate the Greek.

So what is the difference between scribe and graph?

Use a dictionary. Your insisting me to be one to compare with your understanding.

Please show us your definitions and the Greek from where you form your opinion and i will show you that your explanation is in English.:tongue3:

Do you know what the Hebrew word for wife is?

"eesha". Now what lies ahaed is a proliferation by you on the word as if it ONLY means "woman" and somehow leaves out the distinction of "wife" when the context tells us the meaning and how the word is to be understood.