-
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!
How I KNOW the KJB is the Word of God!!!!!
- Thread starter Bro Shaun
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Again I say NONSENSE! The Greek word translated "called" is the word kletos. It does not mean to call something by a name, I.E., Bob, Jim, butcher, baker, or saint, but means "invited" or to be "divinely selected and appointed." Your statement "not written to those 'to be' called" proves your total lack of understanding regarding this word. It is not future tense as you assume. They were already called (kletos, divinely selected and appointed) to be saints!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We are probably beating a dead horse...however, I know what it means. I have done the word study and found the same meanings you listed above. Perhaps I am nitpicking an ambiguity but "to be" is the future tense, is it not? There are other options for eliminating confusion. The NASB reads "called as saints."
Again I say NONSENSE! The Greek word translated "called" is the word kletos. It does not mean to call something by a name, I.E., Bob, Jim, butcher, baker, or saint, but means "invited" or to be "divinely selected and appointed." Your statement "not written to those 'to be' called" proves your total lack of understanding regarding this word. It is not future tense as you assume. They were already called (kletos, divinely selected and appointed) to be saints!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We are probably beating a dead horse...however, I know what it means. I have done the word study and found the same meanings you listed above. Perhaps I am nitpicking an ambiguity but "to be" is the future tense, is it not? There are other options for eliminating confusion. The NASB reads "called as saints."
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
Pastor Larry,
Please type "Jimmy DeYoung" on the search engine. I assure he does know Hebrew like the back of his hand. He speaks it too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am not interested at this point in his credentials. I can read Hebrew and I can tell you that if someone says the KJV is a perfect translation of the Hebrew they do not know Hebrew very well. You may have misrepresented what he says. He may have said it is a good translation (which is true for the most part). He may have said it is the best translation (which is a legitimate argument but IMO not true). For him to say it is perfect is ludicrous. It is not perfect.
Pastor Larry,
Please type "Jimmy DeYoung" on the search engine. I assure he does know Hebrew like the back of his hand. He speaks it too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am not interested at this point in his credentials. I can read Hebrew and I can tell you that if someone says the KJV is a perfect translation of the Hebrew they do not know Hebrew very well. You may have misrepresented what he says. He may have said it is a good translation (which is true for the most part). He may have said it is the best translation (which is a legitimate argument but IMO not true). For him to say it is perfect is ludicrous. It is not perfect.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
The KJV more readable than the NIV? Too funny!
If this "research study" is the same one that is cited in Riplinger's abomination, then I could probably list four or five ways in which it fails to be a proper, controlled scientific test, and I could easily whip up a proper test that refutes it. Maybe I will.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then do your own study. The fact still remains, it is easier to understand and read. The archiac language is not that difficult to understand. They make kids read Shakesphere (and N
NE would ever alter his words) and they understand it. If you can't understand it, you are just to lazy to try. He is a little lesson.
Thee, Thou, Ye means you or you all.
Not all that hard.
The KJV more readable than the NIV? Too funny!
If this "research study" is the same one that is cited in Riplinger's abomination, then I could probably list four or five ways in which it fails to be a proper, controlled scientific test, and I could easily whip up a proper test that refutes it. Maybe I will.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then do your own study. The fact still remains, it is easier to understand and read. The archiac language is not that difficult to understand. They make kids read Shakesphere (and N
NE would ever alter his words) and they understand it. If you can't understand it, you are just to lazy to try. He is a little lesson.Thee, Thou, Ye means you or you all.
Not all that hard.
Dear Bro Shaun,
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/matt26.htm
Your Bible may say 1611. It is not the 1611 version but may be based upon it.
Here is an original 1611 version with marginal notes, one of which indicates that the KJV translators were not sure which word to use in the passage.
BTW , you will notice that "Jesus" is spelled "Iesus" in the 1611. Does your Bible have "Jesus" or "Iesus" and which is it?
Do you believe that the very letters (Jots and tittles) are inspired? Then which is the Perfect Word of God the 1611 or the 1769 version or the Greek underlying text which has not changed since it was first written?
HankD
[ August 30, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/matt26.htm
Your Bible may say 1611. It is not the 1611 version but may be based upon it.
Here is an original 1611 version with marginal notes, one of which indicates that the KJV translators were not sure which word to use in the passage.
BTW , you will notice that "Jesus" is spelled "Iesus" in the 1611. Does your Bible have "Jesus" or "Iesus" and which is it?
Do you believe that the very letters (Jots and tittles) are inspired? Then which is the Perfect Word of God the 1611 or the 1769 version or the Greek underlying text which has not changed since it was first written?
HankD
[ August 30, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]
Chris Temple
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
Pastor Larry,
Please type "Jimmy DeYoung" on the search engine. I assure he does know Hebrew like the back of his hand. He speaks it too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why is it KJVOs reject modern scholarship when it comes to textual criticism, but then put forth their own scholars in defense of the KJV?
Pastor Larry,
Please type "Jimmy DeYoung" on the search engine. I assure he does know Hebrew like the back of his hand. He speaks it too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why is it KJVOs reject modern scholarship when it comes to textual criticism, but then put forth their own scholars in defense of the KJV?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
Pastor Larry,
Please type "Jimmy DeYoung" on the search engine. I assure he does know Hebrew like the back of his hand. He speaks it too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I did what you suggested and found Mr. DeYoung's website. I saw no evidence that he was KJVO and considering some of the folks that he is associated with I doubt that he is. He also went to Tennessee Temple which has never been KJVO so far as I know.
I used their sight search but got no hits for "bible versions" or "kjv".
It is not right that either of us speak for this man. Please cite the quote that you refer to and I will e-mail him and ask for his explaination.
Pastor Larry,
Please type "Jimmy DeYoung" on the search engine. I assure he does know Hebrew like the back of his hand. He speaks it too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I did what you suggested and found Mr. DeYoung's website. I saw no evidence that he was KJVO and considering some of the folks that he is associated with I doubt that he is. He also went to Tennessee Temple which has never been KJVO so far as I know.
I used their sight search but got no hits for "bible versions" or "kjv".
It is not right that either of us speak for this man. Please cite the quote that you refer to and I will e-mail him and ask for his explaination.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
He also went to Tennessee Temple which has never been KJVO so far as I know.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then you don't know a thing about Tennessee Temple. It is very liberal now and uses and version out there, but it was started by Dr. Lee Roberson and had very high standards from the beginning and only used the KJB.
He also went to Tennessee Temple which has never been KJVO so far as I know.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then you don't know a thing about Tennessee Temple. It is very liberal now and uses and version out there, but it was started by Dr. Lee Roberson and had very high standards from the beginning and only used the KJB.
DocCas
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
Perhaps I am nitpicking an ambiguity but "to be" is the future tense, is it not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it is not. "Be" is a state of being verb and is controlled by the active voice verb "called." "Called" is obviously past tense.
And if you are going to criticize the KJV and say there is an error because they added "to be" then you must make the same baseless accusation against the NIV for they added the word "as."
Both accusations are without merit.
Perhaps I am nitpicking an ambiguity but "to be" is the future tense, is it not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it is not. "Be" is a state of being verb and is controlled by the active voice verb "called." "Called" is obviously past tense.
And if you are going to criticize the KJV and say there is an error because they added "to be" then you must make the same baseless accusation against the NIV for they added the word "as."
Both accusations are without merit.
Bro Shaun said:
Then do your own study.
Thank you, I will in a week or so when time permits (coming up with a bunch of random samples and doing calculations on them is time-consuming).
The fact still remains, it is easier to understand and read.
If you believe that, we are in factual disagreement. The VERY TEST you promoted, the Flesh-Kincaid, when properly done proves otherwise, as I will demonstrate.
The archiac language is not that difficult to understand. . . . If you can't understand it, you are just to lazy to try. He is a little lesson.
["Little lesson" snipped]
I never said I couldn't understand it. Actually, it gives me no problems. I read Shakespeare for fun.
What I said was, the language of the King James is not more readable than the language of the NIV. That has nothing to do with my language skills. It is an empirically testable claim.
Then do your own study.
Thank you, I will in a week or so when time permits (coming up with a bunch of random samples and doing calculations on them is time-consuming).
The fact still remains, it is easier to understand and read.
If you believe that, we are in factual disagreement. The VERY TEST you promoted, the Flesh-Kincaid, when properly done proves otherwise, as I will demonstrate.
The archiac language is not that difficult to understand. . . . If you can't understand it, you are just to lazy to try. He is a little lesson.
["Little lesson" snipped]
I never said I couldn't understand it. Actually, it gives me no problems. I read Shakespeare for fun.
What I said was, the language of the King James is not more readable than the language of the NIV. That has nothing to do with my language skills. It is an empirically testable claim.
The problem is that people want an easier Christian life. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit helps us understand the Word of God. The base of the KJV 1611 is the God-protected version for the English people. It was later put into a more modern English, but the meanings of the words were not changed, and no Scriptures were left out. The newer versions have changed the meanings and have left out Scriptures.
Rev. 22:18, 19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
It scares me to use another version of the Bible for that reason. God is not the author of confusion, but 1 church and 10 different versions causes confusion. Lets stick to the original Scriptures for the English speaking people. If you have trouble understanding the KJV, maybe you should check to see what you can do to walk closer to the Holy Spirit.
Rev. 22:18, 19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
It scares me to use another version of the Bible for that reason. God is not the author of confusion, but 1 church and 10 different versions causes confusion. Lets stick to the original Scriptures for the English speaking people. If you have trouble understanding the KJV, maybe you should check to see what you can do to walk closer to the Holy Spirit.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Bible says that the Holy Spirit helps us understand the Word of God. ... If you have trouble understanding the KJV, maybe you should check to see what you can do to walk closer to the Holy Spirit.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So why even have an English translation? Can the Holy Spirit not help you understand the Greek? He sure does it for me (after I put several minutes of study into each verse). He even helps me understand the Hebrew (in less than several minutes per verse). Of coures, he also helped through six years of Greek and three years of Hebrew to be able to read it.
If you can't read the Greek and Hebrew, you just need to see what you can do to walk closer to the Holy Spirit.
Of course, this argument is ludicrous ... just like yours is.
So why even have an English translation? Can the Holy Spirit not help you understand the Greek? He sure does it for me (after I put several minutes of study into each verse). He even helps me understand the Hebrew (in less than several minutes per verse). Of coures, he also helped through six years of Greek and three years of Hebrew to be able to read it.
If you can't read the Greek and Hebrew, you just need to see what you can do to walk closer to the Holy Spirit.
Of course, this argument is ludicrous ... just like yours is.
I assure you that TTU is not liberal by any means. The school policy is that only the King James Bible is to be used in the schools.
As far as Jimmy DeYoung, I do beleive I did make an asumption. He stated that he only uses the King James Bible, not that it was perfect, which is my statement too.
As far as Jimmy DeYoung, I do beleive I did make an asumption. He stated that he only uses the King James Bible, not that it was perfect, which is my statement too.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity:
I assure you that TTU is not liberal by any means. The school policy is that only the King James Bible is to be used in the schools. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What planet have you been on? TTU is very liberal. Next your gonna tell me Liberity University is a strong IFB school. I would like to see that letter Dr. Cassidy has from Dr. Roberson. I have had the privelage to hear him preach on several occasions and I know he is KJVO, as was the school when he ran it.
I assure you that TTU is not liberal by any means. The school policy is that only the King James Bible is to be used in the schools. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What planet have you been on? TTU is very liberal. Next your gonna tell me Liberity University is a strong IFB school. I would like to see that letter Dr. Cassidy has from Dr. Roberson. I have had the privelage to hear him preach on several occasions and I know he is KJVO, as was the school when he ran it.
Pastor Larry, you just proved the point I was making. We can not understand a language that we do not speak or read. That is why they translated the Bible into English, but that was not good enough, we have to have it more understandable?? I understand that the 1611 was put into modern English, because the new English was like Greek or Hebrew to people, but again the meaning was not changed and Scripture was not ripped out. The new versions have butchered the Holy Scriptures to fit their thinking. I believe the Holy Spirit was with the King James Translators. I don't think that God make a mistake and waited 400 more years to come up with a better English version. Something that has worked for more than 400 years does not need changed. If it was in another language like Greek or Hebrew yes, we would need a translation, but why try to make the Perfect better. I did not mean to offend anyone about checking their walk with the Holy Spirit, I am just saying that He gives the understanding of the Scriptures, there are a lot of passages that I do not understand, but I believe that if I pray to the Lord to give me the understanding he will, I do not need a group of translators to re-do the Holy Bible (That is already in my language) to understand it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity:
I assure you that TTU is not liberal by any means. The school policy is that only the King James Bible is to be used in the schools.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Trinity/Shaun, A school's stance on the KJV is not a proper means for determining their orthodoxy, fundamentalism, or even their conservatism. KJVOnlyism is none of these things. If anything, it is liberal- a departure from sound, orthodox doctrine- and a relatively recent aberration. One might also call it hyper-conservatism (aka Phariseeism).
With regard to TTU, my understanding is that they went through a period when standards of conduct as well as standards of religion deteriorated. However, they seem to be back on the right track now.
I assure you that TTU is not liberal by any means. The school policy is that only the King James Bible is to be used in the schools.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Trinity/Shaun, A school's stance on the KJV is not a proper means for determining their orthodoxy, fundamentalism, or even their conservatism. KJVOnlyism is none of these things. If anything, it is liberal- a departure from sound, orthodox doctrine- and a relatively recent aberration. One might also call it hyper-conservatism (aka Phariseeism).
With regard to TTU, my understanding is that they went through a period when standards of conduct as well as standards of religion deteriorated. However, they seem to be back on the right track now.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
Pastor Larry, you just proved the point I was making. We can not understand a language that we do not speak or read. That is why they translated the Bible into English, but that was not good enough, we have to have it more understandable?? I understand that the 1611 was put into modern English, because the new English was like Greek or Hebrew to people, but again the meaning was not changed and Scripture was not ripped out. The new versions have butchered the Holy Scriptures to fit their thinking. I believe the Holy Spirit was with the King James Translators. I don't think that God make a mistake and waited 400 more years to come up with a better English version. Something that has worked for more than 400 years does not need changed. If it was in another language like Greek or Hebrew yes, we would need a translation, but why try to make the Perfect better. I did not mean to offend anyone about checking their walk with the Holy Spirit, I am just saying that He gives the understanding of the Scriptures, there are a lot of passages that I do not understand, but I believe that if I pray to the Lord to give me the understanding he will, I do not need a group of translators to re-do the Holy Bible (That is already in my language) to understand it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Toolman, Please research this issue more. You seem to be very sincere. The KJV is a very good translation. It is my primary Bible. But it is not perfect nor was it endorsed by God to be the final authority for English speaking people. It was made by some of the best scholars of their day from the most reliable resources they could find.
None of the modern biblical scholars are ripping things out of the Bible. They are simply considering information that was not available to people in the past. And it isn't just two "corrupted Alexandrian" manuscripts either.
I have known some wonderful, holy christians who probably never knew there was another version...they might not even have known what the original languages were. But most of the hardcore KJVO's I know personally are Pharisitical, superficial, and often carnal. Most of them are also docrinally unsound and/or ignorant.
Pastor Larry, you just proved the point I was making. We can not understand a language that we do not speak or read. That is why they translated the Bible into English, but that was not good enough, we have to have it more understandable?? I understand that the 1611 was put into modern English, because the new English was like Greek or Hebrew to people, but again the meaning was not changed and Scripture was not ripped out. The new versions have butchered the Holy Scriptures to fit their thinking. I believe the Holy Spirit was with the King James Translators. I don't think that God make a mistake and waited 400 more years to come up with a better English version. Something that has worked for more than 400 years does not need changed. If it was in another language like Greek or Hebrew yes, we would need a translation, but why try to make the Perfect better. I did not mean to offend anyone about checking their walk with the Holy Spirit, I am just saying that He gives the understanding of the Scriptures, there are a lot of passages that I do not understand, but I believe that if I pray to the Lord to give me the understanding he will, I do not need a group of translators to re-do the Holy Bible (That is already in my language) to understand it.
Toolman, Please research this issue more. You seem to be very sincere. The KJV is a very good translation. It is my primary Bible. But it is not perfect nor was it endorsed by God to be the final authority for English speaking people. It was made by some of the best scholars of their day from the most reliable resources they could find.
None of the modern biblical scholars are ripping things out of the Bible. They are simply considering information that was not available to people in the past. And it isn't just two "corrupted Alexandrian" manuscripts either.
I have known some wonderful, holy christians who probably never knew there was another version...they might not even have known what the original languages were. But most of the hardcore KJVO's I know personally are Pharisitical, superficial, and often carnal. Most of them are also docrinally unsound and/or ignorant.
Chris Temple
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:
Next your gonna tell me Liberity University is a strong IFB school. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Liberty U is solidly conservative, and thankfully now, an SBC college.
Next your gonna tell me Liberity University is a strong IFB school. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Liberty U is solidly conservative, and thankfully now, an SBC college.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is why they translated the Bible into English, but that was not good enough, we have to have it more understandable<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We do not need more to understand meaning. We need something else to understand significance, i.e., how it applies to me. The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God until the Spirit of God illumines him. He can read the words and understand what they mean. He cannot understand it with reference to himself.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The new versions have butchered the Holy Scriptures to fit their thinking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a false statement. They have not butchered the Scripture. Textual variants are a good deal more complex than “butchering” the text.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Something that has worked for more than 400 years does not need changed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are making the same argument made in previous generations. By your own standard, there was no need for the 1611 translation because “something that worked for [however long previous version were used] does not need to be changed.” Your own preferred version was translated in opposition to your own argument.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If it was in another language like Greek or Hebrew yes, we would need a translation, but why try to make the Perfect better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Two problems: 1) It is in another language – one different than we speak today. (Dost thou speak the language of the KJV? Of course not.) 2) It wasn’t perfect. 400 years have brought vast knowledge in the understanding of language. We should take advantage of those to have a more precise translation.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I did not mean to offend anyone about checking their walk with the Holy Spirit, I am just saying that He gives the understanding of the Scriptures, there are a lot of passages that I do not understand, but I believe that if I pray to the Lord to give me the understanding he will, I do not need a group of translators to re-do the Holy Bible (That is already in my language) to understand it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you would read a modern translation you would find a lot of the passages you don’t understand are perfectly clear. It was a hard switch for me to make initially. Now, when I read the KJV (which is not often) I find myself wondering what it says and looking to a modern version to find out. The choice between good translations are a matter of preference. When I was a youth pastor, I had teens all the time asking me what certain things meant from the KJV. I wanted to say, “Get out your NIV or NASB and you will know exactly what it means.” Being in a KJV Only church I couldn’t do that. I had to tell them what the NIV or the NASB said without telling them where it was coming from.
We do not need more to understand meaning. We need something else to understand significance, i.e., how it applies to me. The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God until the Spirit of God illumines him. He can read the words and understand what they mean. He cannot understand it with reference to himself.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The new versions have butchered the Holy Scriptures to fit their thinking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a false statement. They have not butchered the Scripture. Textual variants are a good deal more complex than “butchering” the text.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Something that has worked for more than 400 years does not need changed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are making the same argument made in previous generations. By your own standard, there was no need for the 1611 translation because “something that worked for [however long previous version were used] does not need to be changed.” Your own preferred version was translated in opposition to your own argument.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If it was in another language like Greek or Hebrew yes, we would need a translation, but why try to make the Perfect better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Two problems: 1) It is in another language – one different than we speak today. (Dost thou speak the language of the KJV? Of course not.) 2) It wasn’t perfect. 400 years have brought vast knowledge in the understanding of language. We should take advantage of those to have a more precise translation.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I did not mean to offend anyone about checking their walk with the Holy Spirit, I am just saying that He gives the understanding of the Scriptures, there are a lot of passages that I do not understand, but I believe that if I pray to the Lord to give me the understanding he will, I do not need a group of translators to re-do the Holy Bible (That is already in my language) to understand it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you would read a modern translation you would find a lot of the passages you don’t understand are perfectly clear. It was a hard switch for me to make initially. Now, when I read the KJV (which is not often) I find myself wondering what it says and looking to a modern version to find out. The choice between good translations are a matter of preference. When I was a youth pastor, I had teens all the time asking me what certain things meant from the KJV. I wanted to say, “Get out your NIV or NASB and you will know exactly what it means.” Being in a KJV Only church I couldn’t do that. I had to tell them what the NIV or the NASB said without telling them where it was coming from.