KJV-only myths about the 1769

[Ransom]

Go stand in the corner, Han.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by HanSola2000:
See how nice the anti-kjv people are? See what a nice example they give while they attempt to reprove us? Oh yes. Tell me more!

What did you write?

 

[IFBChristian]

I think the reason so many people stand behind the KJV is how seriously the translators took their job of translating the Bible into English.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by HanSola2000:
There is no error in the KJV, what else is there to know???

What else is there to know? That there ARE errors, as have been well-documented on this and other boards.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by IFBChristian:
I think the reason so many people stand behind the KJV is how seriously the translators took their job of translating the Bible into English.

There aren't that many who stand behind the KJV ALONE.

 

[Logos1560]

Do KJV-only advocates actually have a KJV that is every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition?

Judges 11:7
children of Gilead (1769)
elders of Gilead (present Oxford)

Judges 19:29
coast (1769)
coasts (present Oxford)

1 Samuel 2:13
priest's custom (1769)
priests' custom (present Oxford)

Nehemiah 1:11
O LORD (1769)
O Lord (present Oxford)

Job 41:6
thy companions (1769)
the companions (present Oxford)

Psalm 2:4
the LORD (1769)
the Lord (present Oxford)

Psalm 18:47
unto me (1769)
under me (present Oxford)

Psalm 44:23
O LORD (1769)
O Lord (present Oxford)

Ps. 60:4
feared (1769)
fear (present Oxford)

Ps. 78:66
part (1769)
parts (present Oxford)

Ps. 107:16
gates of iron (1769)
bars of iron (present Oxford)

Rom. 11:23
not in unbelief (1769)
not still in unbelief (present Oxford)

2 Cor. 12:2
about (1769)
above (present Oxford)

1 John 1:4
our joy (1769)
your joy (present Oxford)

 

[HankD]

I think the reason so many people stand behind the KJV is how seriously the translators took their job of translating the Bible into English.

Perhaps, but what do you base that statement upon and is there any evidence that you know of that the NASB or NKJV translators were any more or less serious than the KJV translators?

HankD

 

[kubel]

Originally posted by IFBChristian:
I think the reason so many people stand behind the KJV is how seriously the translators took their job of translating the Bible into English.

I disagree. I think most people stand by the KJV because they are told to. I used to be a strong KJVO because that's how I was raised. I was fed KJVO doctrine from a very young age and accepted it as truth.

When I grew older, I decided to take a stand against false beliefs by only accepting what is in the Bible. I didn't want to slip into any cults (which there are many many christian based cults that even call themselves Baptists). Any doctrine that I recieved that could not be backed up by the Bible was discarded from my beliefs. At the time of making this decision, KJVO was not on my mind. To make a long story short, I came to find out that KJVO was not scripturally supported. There was no verse that says God supernaturally worked through the translators to produce an inerrant version in our tongue. And there is no verse that declares there will be one translation that is authorized by God. I would think if that would be the case, it would be mentioned as a prophecy somewhere. Add this with the simple history of the KJV and the words from the translators themselves, and I came to the conclusion that not only was KJVO unscriptural, it was also a false belief.

So really, I think most decide to go with the KJV only because they are not aware of the simple truth.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by HanSola2000:
There is no error in the KJV, what else is there to know???

There are errors in the KJV 1611 and any of the other editions check out Acts 5:30. But you will make excuses. (Ya'll always do)

 

[nate]

Originally posted by kubel:

I disagree. I think most people stand by the KJV because they are told to. I used to be a strong KJVO because that's how I was raised. I was fed KJVO doctrine from a very young age and accepted it as truth.

I agree. Also being raised in a strictly KJV enviroment people are just KJVO because thats what their told to be. ALL THEIR LIVES.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by nate:
There are errors in the KJV 1611 and any of the other editions check out Acts 5:30. But you will make excuses. (Ya'll always do)

The word "and" is a conjunction and was often used in the transition from Middle English to Modern English to indicate "together with" or "along with" or "as well as." The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and [together with or along with or as well as] hanged on a tree. In this case the conjunction "and" does not indicate sequence but rather simple connection. Unfortunately most 21st century English speakers are not familiar enough with their own native language to recognize such correct grammar with they see it. Probably part of the "dumbing down" of the American education system in the past 30 or 40 years.

 

[nate]

Ok. But I think that proves the point right? I think that is the very reason MV's should be used. Is because we don't know the older English. How about Matthew 23:24. Is it also differant in older English?

Nate

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by nate:
Ok. But I think that proves the point right? I think that is the very reason MV's should be used.

There is no doubt that the older grammar and syntax could use a thorough updating.

How about Matthew 23:24. Is it also differant in older English?

No, I think that is more of a quibble over nothing. The word "at" does not necessarily mean "in or near." It can also mean "on account of" or "because of." We still use the word in that manner today when we say "I rejoiced at the birth of my grandson." It does not mean I rejoiced while present, but rather I rejoiced because of or on account of his birth.

"Ye blind guides, which strain on account of a gnat, and swallow a camel."

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Dr. Moorman has written one of the most ridiculous excuses for the KJV's "Easter" in Acts 12:4 that I've ever seen. His points have been soundly trounced on this very forum.

robycop, could you post the title of and/or a link to the thread where this is discussed? Thanks.

 

[TCassidy]

Jack Moorman advances the fallacious "easter = Ishtar" theory at http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/moorman-easter.html

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks, but I meant the thread where this was discussed on the Baptist Board.

 

[robycop3]

Here's one, Mr. Vaughn:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2355.html#000000

There are a coupla more, but I can't find'em right off. And while they're mostly about Easter and not necessarily about Moorman's guesswork, I believe this one I was able to find is representative of the others. If necessary, we can re-post the facts refuting Moorman's stuff.

 

[grahame]

I suppose I have used quite a few English translations of the Bible in my time. I use anything to help me get to the sense of a particular passage of scripture. But I do prefer the King James version because I have always found it easier to memorise. I don't see many people memorising the Bible these days. I'm not sure if it is because of the many many different translations, or what. But that is one of the reasons that I use that translation more than any other.

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
A_A, you have yet to prove the first thing about your "Antioch" superstition.

The passage concerning Antioch talks about the ***Christians*** in THAT city. (Acts 11:26) </font>[/QUOTE]I notice that since the Bible never
mentions Christians in the American Midwest,
not even in the prophetic books. Therefore i must
conclude by the same logic you are using,
Brother Askjo, that you are NOT and cannot
ever be a 'Christian'. Please note my logic
by absurdity: i make an assumption (that Bible
listing as a Christian is the only way you
can be a Christian in that area) and progress
logical to an absurd conclusion. The
absurd shows the assumption to be false.
The Bible listing the existence of Christians
on a particular place is NOT the only way that
a person can be a Christian in that place.

Logic falls off the back of the fool
like water off a duck </font>[/QUOTE]Beem me up Scotty! Spock we need more Bibles!

 

[william s. correa]

Originally posted by nate:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kubel:

I disagree. I think most people stand by the KJV because they are told to. I used to be a strong KJVO because that's how I was raised. I was fed KJVO doctrine from a very young age and accepted it as truth.

I agree. Also being raised in a strictly KJV enviroment people are just KJVO because thats what their told to be. ALL THEIR LIVES.

</font>

What are you? And why do we need 400 translations in ENGLISH? I was once Roman Catholic and grew up that way yet I Knew Nothing of Dogma.