I need two willing people

[EdSutton]

I suppose you can agree with me on this:.

as much as I am for the KJV and won't change my mind, you are the same in the way for the Newer Versions.

I believe I cited versions both older and newer than which undefined "KJV" you are supporting, here.

(Why is it that those who are proclaiming what you seem to, cannot or will not define "which" particular KJV they are supporting?? It's not that difficult a question, I should not think. And the question should be very clear-cut as to I John 5:12, I'll add, without the song and (avoi)dance that seems to accompany this question, every time that C4K, EdSutton, or some other brings it up.)

Anyway, at least where I'm concerned, this does not necessarily apply, as to my being "for the Newer versions." In fact, one can look over my posts in the archive to find that I have two particular preferences, one is a genuine KJV 1967 Edition and the other being a genuine NKJV 1982 Edition.

I am just not willing to make any claims as to any "ONLY one version" which neither the Bible, in any legitimate translation of which I'm aware; nor the translators of that Bible version were willing to make. I challenge anyone to find where any of these translators thought they had said the final word on this.

Ergo, when an earlier (or later) translation of the (English) Bible appears more accurate than does another, IMO, I go with that version at the point in question, over <6 1/4 Centuries, from the WYC (1382) thru the TMB, ISV, WEB, and counting.

Ed

 

[tenderhearted]

I believe I cited versions both older and newer than which undefined "KJV" you are supporting, here.

(Why is it that those who are proclaiming what you seem to, cannot or will not define "which" particular KJV they are supporting?? It's not that difficult a question, I should not think. And the question should be very clear-cut as to I John 5:12, I'll add, without the song and (avoi)dance that seems to accompany this question, every time that C4K, EdSutton, or some other brings it up.)

Anyway, at least where I'm concerned, this does not necessarily apply, as to my being "for the Newer versions." In fact, one can look over my posts in the archive to find that I have two particular preferences, one is a genuine KJV 1967 Edition and the other being a genuine NKJV 1982 Edition.

I am just not willing to make any claims as to any "ONLY one version" which neither the Bible, in any legitimate translation of which I'm aware; nor the translators of that Bible version were willing to make. I challenge anyone to find where any of these translators thought they had said the final word on this.

Ergo, when an earlier (or later) translation of the (English) Bible appears more accurate than does another, IMO, I go with that version at the point in question, over <6 1/4 Centuries, from the WYC (1382) thru the TMB, ISV, WEB, and counting.

Ed

I don't study the history of bibles, I dont study greek and hebrew, I study my bible. I dont worry about what the ORIGINAL GREEK or HEBREW says, as I am NOT either of those, I am English. the KJV is perfect, and I dont know why the verses you posted are a problem.

 

[annsni]

I don't study the history of bibles, I dont study greek and hebrew, I study my bible. I dont worry about what the ORIGINAL GREEK or HEBREW says, as I am NOT either of those, I am English. the KJV is perfect, and I dont know why the verses you posted are a problem.

I'm sorry to have to break the news to you but the Bible was written by God in Greek and Hebrew and the KJV is not perfect. The translators themselves acknowledged that.

 

[annsni]

I used to attend a non denominal church, that used the NIV. I had read in the NIV in Isaiah about satan and his fall. It said:

Isaiah 14:12 (New International Version)

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

a couple of days later, I am at sunday service and they are singing a song called Oh MORNING STAR!!

My heart sank, I could not even listen to the sermon and I certainly quit singing. I was under the impression that the Morning star was satan, after all I just read it in the bible.

Later on the afternoon, I went online and spoke to a friend that had been teaching me about the KJB, I asked him who the morning star was and he told me Jesus and showed me the contradiction in the NIV.

Revelation 22:16 (New International Version)

16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

In the niv, both Jesus and satan are called morning stars, but in the kjv:

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

No confusion, clear, cut, and revealing of the word of God.

I am sticking with KJB.

You do realize that translating "Lucifer" in Isaiah is from the Latin - not the Hebrew, right? That the KJV translators followed the Roman Bible's translation, right?

Additionally, do you know that the true 1611 KJB has "or Day Starre" in the margin for Isaiah 14:12? It's true.

In the notes to the reader, they explained their use of alternate readings in the margins

REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN, WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain." There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

If you'd like to educate yourself on the King James translation, it would be good to start with the translators themselves. You can see a copy of the translators' "The Translator's Notes to the Readers" here.

Finally, I leave you with the translator's own words in why there needs to be a translation in the "vulgar" or common tongue (which 1600s English is not for today):

TRANSLATION NECESSARY

But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, "Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be tohim that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me." [1 Cor 14] The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous; [Clem. Alex. 1 Strom.] so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S. Jerome himself called the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) [S. Jerome. Damaso.] so the Emperor of Constantinople [Michael, Theophili fil.] calleth the Latin tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: [2::Tom. Concil. ex edit. Petri Crab] so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations, Lognazim, which islittle better than barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: [Cicero 5::de finibus.] so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away thestone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11]

 

[tenderhearted]

I think it was a mistake to join in on this thread, forgive me.

 

[queenbee]

Debate can be a healthy thing, but it's so sad when we spend so much time arguing about you spell tomahto and I spell tomatoe that we miss the point - God 'speaks' to us in a variety of ways. We all need to stop boxing our Heavenly Father in. If you find your Father comforts and helps you understand via the KJV - good for you! I however, love my recently purchased NLV - yeah, I know, flail away at it those of you who hate the MV's - but the truth of the matter is after years of KJV and NASB and RSV and LV and NIV, I've finally landed with the translation that speaks to my heart. I really don't care whether your use your tomahto or I use my tomatoe, I think our God is big enough, smart enough, tender enough and wise enough to get his ideas across to us no matter the language spoken.

P.S. There is absolutely nothing, nothing, more poetic and beautiful than the 23rd Psalm in the KVJ version and when you are dealing with a life-threatening illness like Ed & I, and some of the others here on BB, it gives a whole new meaning to comfort food for the soul!

 

[EdSutton]

I think it was a mistake to join in on this thread, forgive me.

Why would you think it was a mistake to join on this thread?

The mistake, if there is such a thing here, is assuming something that is not taught by the Scripture, nor declared by the translators to be true (primarily that there is "a one version" superiority, somehow), and positing that the Scripture does, teach this, and being offended when someone happens to question it.

For example #1, you are the one who introduced "Day-Star" or "Morning Star" into the thread re. Isa. 14:12 (post#12) and claimed "I am sticking with KJB. " (as opposed to agreeing with the NIV rendering, here), yet now take offense when annsni (post #44) shows that the KJV translators even offer this, as well, as well as the reason(s) for the side-notes in the KJV. It seems that the KJV is arguing against what you are claiming, here.

For example #2, when shown clearly that there is a major difference in wording of I Jn. 5:12 between the KJ-1611 and KJ-1769 editions, you seem to want to pretend this does not exist. (C4K posts #25, 27, 30 & 35; EdSutton posts # 39 7 41).

For example #3, you have incorrectly 'lumped' me in ("Lump" is a bad word to hear for me, these days!) with some undefined group which advocates something I do not, by any stretch. Incidentally, since you, me, and queenbee have now had at least some close contact with the ravages of cancer, I can fully appreciate what queenbee is saying about Psalm. 23, in the KJV, MCB, NIV, and the other ten or so versions in which I have read this in, for that matter, thus getting at least a dozen sources of comfort.

Granted, I memorized this Psalm over 40 years ago from a KJV (that was something less than fully genuine, FTR), but it still speaks to me, just the same, in these other versions, as well.

Incidentally, have you any copy of "the genuine article" you are claiming to support? FTR, if your KJV is not an Oxford, Cambridge, or printed under their auspices, it does not happen to be "genuine" regardless of how often one may claim this, or how strongly one may believe this.

As I noted previously, I happen to have, use and support a "genuine" KJV along with a genuine NKJV. And yes, I am fully aware that the KJV is an Anglican version. And since the NKJV happens to be the most "Baptist" of all major versions, I would think that you, yourself, as a Baptist, as am I, could support it, as well.

I do not know anything about Hebrew or Aramaic either (and I make no claim to being any sort of scholar, although I did learn a wee bit of Koine Greek), so I depend on those rascally Anglicans and onery Baptists to have put the Word of God into a language this old plowboy (Yes, I'm a farmer.) can understand.

I think they all did an outstanding job, frankly. :thumbs:

I am just not willing to go much beyond that, as they did not make any such claims.

FTR, there is nothing to forgive you for, except that I believe that you, as well as I or any other, really do need to be a Berean, as opposed to a Thessalonian in that

These were more noble then those in Thessalonica, in that they receiued the word with all readinesse of minde, and searched the Scriptures dayly, whether those things were so. (Ac. 17:11 - KJ-1611)

Still a good admonition for all of us, even after 4 Centuries? I believe so, just as it is today.

Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. (AC. 17:11 - WEB)

Oops! Gotta' make that 6+ Centuries!

Soothly these were the nobler of them that be at Thessalonica, which received the word with all desire, each day seeking the scriptures, if these things had them so. (Ac. 17:11 - WYC-P - 1395)

Ed

 

[Rippon]

I don't study the history of Bibles, I don't study Greek and Hebrew, I study my Bible.

Studying the history of Bibles may prevent you from posting things you will later regret.

I don't worry about what the ORIGINAL GREEK or HEBREW says, as I am NOT either of those, I am English.

No, you're an American.

The KJV is perfect...

Based on what -- your opinion? Which, out of many KJV editions is perfect?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I suppose you can agree with me on this:.

as much as I am for the KJV and won't change my mind, you are the same in the way for the Newer Versions.

Nope, I love my KJV and use it regularly

 

[robycop3]

I think it was a mistake to join in on this thread, forgive me.

Not actually! You might discover why KJVO is untrue. You could start with the fact that it's MAN-MADE & not found in Scripture at all, not even in the KJV itself, by the slightest implication.

 

[TC]

well, I understand about context, the experience I had was as a newborn in Christ, and it forever changed my views on what Bible to read.

Apparently, you do not understand context because you came here spouting the same old KJVO myth that the NIV teaches that Satan and Jesus are the same person.

I can only go by what the LORD has led me to do, and that is to read and study the KJV bible.

The LORD speaks to me with that bible.

The LORD speaks to me from the Bible I read. Nevertheless, that did not stop you from speaking bad about my Bible.

I can not go by what a person tells me, for my final authority must be the bible. And if the bible I am reading requires me to have to go elsewhere to get the "true" meaning, then that bible is failing me. I do not have to do such things with a KJV.

You say you do not go by what people say yet you believe only the people that say that the NIV cannot be trusted.

I do so love the LORD and I am growing in Christ, and the bible I read is what has fed me to do so.

I think about how the arguments over what version is better or worse and I think about those who live in other countries that dont even have a bible to read, those who have to walk a two or three day journey just to hear a preacher.

And yet you came hear arguing that your Bible is better than mine. I am thankful for the many good English translations of the Bible that God has provided us and I support the efforts of those that labor to translate the Bible into a language that does not have one.

I dont expect the LORD to have to accommodate to the new way English is spoken, I am expected to learn the Word of God by HIS standards, NOT MINE. For my standards are not good enough.

I appreciate all of your comments, I truly do. Yet I am so uncomfortable with other versions, and I dont want to go against what the LORD has provided for me.

God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 30:
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

God made the word very easy for them to understand and obey. God has not changed and He provides us with His word in the language we speak today. I do not believe that God requires us to learn 17th century English in order to read His word.

If you choose to only use the KJV then that is just fine. However, have you ever thought that God wants you to grow and expand you comfort zone? Have you ever read the Geneva, Bishops, or Tyndale's New Testament?

 

[tenderhearted]

If there is no bible that is accurate then we are left with untruth, even if it is a small percent.

We all know that a little inaccuracy led to the fall of MAN.

I don't like to argue about stuff, really. To argue about what version is true and so on, it is a terrible distraction from studying the word of God.

I do not take any comfort in reading other versions of the bible, the KJV has been my guide and I have grown so much in the LORD because of that book.

I believe wholeheartedly that I hold in my hands the perfect word of God, I do not want to settle for anything less than that.

 

[annsni]

If there is no bible that is accurate then we are left with untruth, even if it is a small percent.

We all know that a little inaccuracy led to the fall of MAN.

I don't like to argue about stuff, really. To argue about what version is true and so on, it is a terrible distraction from studying the word of God.

I do not take any comfort in reading other versions of the bible, the KJV has been my guide and I have grown so much in the LORD because of that book.

I believe wholeheartedly that I hold in my hands the perfect word of God, I do not want to settle for anything less than that.

Can I ask you a couple of questions?

What do you do with the added words to the KJV? They're the ones in italics and were not given by God in the original languages? Were they inspired later on?

What about where there are errors in the KJV? Because there are some. Does that still mean it's "perfect"?

 

[Ed Edwards]

In post #52 it says: // I believe wholeheartedly that I hold in my hands the perfect word of God, I do not want to settle for anything less than that. //

I will never settle for THAT LITTLE :-(

The Word of God says:

1. 2Co 13:1 a (KJV1611 Edition):
   This is the third time I am comming to you:
2. in the mouth of two or three witnesses shal euery word be established.
   
   ​

an again a second Witness says:

• 2Co 13:1 (Geneva Bible):
• Lo this is the thirde time that I come vnto you.
• In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall euery worde stand

and yet a third Witness says:

2 Corinthians 13:1 (NIV, 1976)
This will be my third visit to you.
"Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

I.E. it is obvious that both
1. the Word of God
2. the word of persons
shall be both:
11. establilshed
12. and continue to stand on the basis
of the witness/testimony of 2 or 3.

My question is: How is using the KJV only showing more than one witness?

 

[SBCPreacher]

The LORD speaks to me with that bible.

Doesn't that limit God?

 

[SBCPreacher]

HOW do I know that I have the right version? I prayed and prayed, and I was given my answers with the KJB.

The Mormons say that same about the Book of Mormon. Does that mean that they've been right all along?

 

[robycop3]

If there is no bible that is accurate then we are left with untruth, even if it is a small percent.

We all know that a little inaccuracy led to the fall of MAN.

I don't like to argue about stuff, really. To argue about what version is true and so on, it is a terrible distraction from studying the word of God.

I do not take any comfort in reading other versions of the bible, the KJV has been my guide and I have grown so much in the LORD because of that book.

I believe wholeheartedly that I hold in my hands the perfect word of God, I do not want to settle for anything less than that.

It is not perfect. "Easter" in Acts 12:4, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, and the omission of the phrase "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25 are three KJV goofs that have been discussed ad nauseam here. Insteada discussing them again, I refer you to the archives of this forum.

I believe that any time we hold a valid version of God's word in our hands, we are holding what GOD has made available for us. Betcha cannot prove differently!

 

[TC]

If there is no bible that is accurate then we are left with untruth, even if it is a small percent.

We all know that a little inaccuracy led to the fall of MAN.

I don't like to argue about stuff, really. To argue about what version is true and so on, it is a terrible distraction from studying the word of God.

I do not take any comfort in reading other versions of the bible, the KJV has been my guide and I have grown so much in the LORD because of that book.

I believe wholeheartedly that I hold in my hands the perfect word of God, I do not want to settle for anything less than that.

The KJV did not just fall out of the sky. It is a translation made by men. It is a revision of earlier English translations as well as a translation of the original language manuscripts (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) - you know, the languages God inspired the originals in. The KJV you hold is quite different from the first edition that came out in 1611. It was updated several times over the years by various editors. Some editors are known and some rename nameless. How do you know every editor (known or unknown) made the right choice every time?

You say that you don't want to argue but you started here by arguing that your Bible was better than mine. When you make such comments, be prepared to be challenged and ready to defend them.

You say that you take no comfort in reading other Versions. I think you are missing out on what God has provides us English speakers. The Bishop's, Geneva, and William Tyndale NT are older than the KJV and uses the same textual base as the KJV translation. You can download the Bishop's, Geneva, and the 1611 KJV for free at http://www.e-sword.net/index.htmlhttp://www.esword.net

 

[queenbee]

"I appreciate all of your comments, I truly do. Yet I am so uncomfortable with other versions, and I dont want to go against what the LORD has provided for me."

Then don't - but don't make blanket statements that KJV is the only language that God speaks and that the rest of us heathens are burning and going to hell becuz we don't learn, speak and study KJV only - sorry, you may not have actually said the words, but many KJVO's imply that.

By the way, it's healthy to read several alternate versions in addition to your preferred version when doing bible study, to add to your understanding and grow in knowledge and wisdom of God, my friend. Lots of folks here on BB do just that and I'm pretty sure most major biblical scholars and authors do that as well. I can't for the life of me believe that Billy Graham confines himself solely to KJV. I'll bet my last dollar he's read and studied plenty of other versions as well in his lifetime.

 

[robycop3]

"I appreciate all of your comments, I truly do. Yet I am so uncomfortable with other versions, and I dont want to go against what the LORD has provided for me."

Then don't - but don't make blanket statements that KJV is the only language that God speaks and that the rest of us heathens are burning and going to hell becuz we don't learn, speak and study KJV only - sorry, you may not have actually said the words, but many KJVO's imply that.

By the way, it's healthy to read several alternate versions in addition to your preferred version when doing bible study, to add to your understanding and grow in knowledge and wisdom of God, my friend. Lots of folks here on BB do just that and I'm pretty sure most major biblical scholars and authors do that as well. I can't for the life of me believe that Billy Graham confines himself solely to KJV. I'll bet my last dollar he's read and studied plenty of other versions as well in his lifetime.

Even the AV translators themselves wrote that "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures." They, like us, knew that many, MANY Koine Greek, Hebrew, & Aramaic words/phrases/expressions have multiple correct English meanings, and so didn't want anyone to believe THEIR renderings were the end-all, be-all definitions of such words.