"KJV separates the men from the boys!"

One day recently I was behind a car that had this over-sized bumper-sticker on the back that said "If it isn't the King James Version, it isn't the Bible".

I remember thinking, if I was a non-Christian, why would I want to go to Church if all they do is argue about which translation of the Bible to use.

A simple "Jesus Loves You" bumper-sticker would have done a lot more good, in my opinion. Or, speaking of separating the men from the boys, "Real Men Love Jesus".

 

So, I guess using the Geneva Bible means that I'm not a man?

 

I don't know about that TC.
Real men can carry six different Versions
and not get a hernia (boys get hernias )!

 

(sarcasm on)

Now, if you'd ever learn to liberate yourselves from the gender-oppression of the dichotomy between men and boys you'd understand that certain people cannot relate to that metaphor!

Of course, to say children or adults would be equally offensive due to the age discrimination inherent in such a linguistic and cultural construction.

We might opt for person or person but that clearly offends our trans-species friends.

Nevertheless, what is "real"? This chauvinistic, patriarchal system of values and its corresponding theory of reality is far too outdated for this postmodern era.

Goodness!

(sarcasm off)

 

That pastor should have told you it separates the flake from the men. A real man knows enough to flee from the Devil.

 

I'm with StefanM.

If he wanted to make a strictly KJV biblical point (although I would disagree with the premise) he should have said "The KJV separates the sheep from the goats".

The irony of it is that instead he chose a dynamic equivalent so that he could get his massage across to 21st century folk.

HankD

 

So...
Is this episode the fault of KJVo, the KJV itself, or simply this man's delusional fantasies?

I vote for the latter, considering he is "pentacostal, holiness, blah blah blah.".

In HIS service;
Jim

 

If there were no KJVO nonsense, the delusional fantasies would not have manifested themselves as they did.

 

That charge is ridiculous.

"Pentacostal" delusions manifested themselves long before anybody came up with KJVo.

Delusional fantasies have manifested themselves in a variety of ways quite apart from KJVo. For example, Joe Smith, Ellen White, Blavatsky, Judge Rutherford, Russell, Benny Hinn, David Koresh, Jim Jones. And these are just the more recent. Many delusional fantasies have manifested themselves long before English was even a language. Origen, (self mutilation) for example.

So my dear brother Ransom...you have once again shown that you rarely think before posting.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Jim writes: "...long before anybody came up with KJVo."

It's refreshing to see a KJVOnly-ist admit that KJVOnly-ism is a man-made creation.

 

I think it is very interesting how some people think that when others are not thinking the same thoughts as they are thinking, then others must be thinking very thoughlessly. I think?

I personally associate myself with Curly's thinking, when he said, "I try to think...but nothing happens! Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk."

 

"ISM" is.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I think...I think!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

"Ism" is...and so is KJVO...and so is KJV for that matter. The KJV has existed during only a small part of Church history.

KJV=medicine
KJVOism=dope

 

Interesting.
KJVo is man made. So is KJV?
uh uh!
KJV is God's word therefore NOT man made.
Unless I misunderstood you.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Okay folks. Let's look at the facts, and draw conclusions from them.

Manuscripts still in existence include:
The Dead Sea Scrolls (from 200 BC to 70 AD)
The Geniza Fragments (Written in Hebrew and Aramaic. 400 AD,)
The Ben Asher Manuscripts (Masoretic Hebrew from 700 to 950 AD. They include the following:
The Aleppo Codex - 950 AD, much of it was destroyed in 1947.
Codex Leningradenis - AD 1008 - the complete Old Testament.)

In 400 BC the OT was translated into Aramaic, and called the Aramaic Targums.
In 250 BC the OT was translated into Greek. That was the Spetuagint, and is sometimes called the LXX. New Testament writers often referred to the LXX when they referred to OT scriptures.

Today we still have the Chestery Beatty Papyri and the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. These are all parts of the Septuagint.

There over 5,600 Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament in existence.

In 180 AD people began copying the NT fro mGreek to Latin. In 380 AD St. Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate. Jerome translated from Hebrew in the OT, and from Greek in the NT. Jerome's bible was the most accepted and commonly used bible until the 1500's. The Catholic's still look at this translation as the 'real' bible.

In 1380 AD John Wycliff translated from the Latin Vulgate into english.

In 1522 AD the Polyglot Bible was published. The OT was in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. The NT was in Latin and Greek. Tyndale used the Polyglot to translate the OT into English. He died before he could complete it.

In 1611 AD translators for King James used the Textus Receptus to translate the bible into English.

In 1968 AD the United Bible Societies 4th Edition of the Greek New Testament came out. This translation was made from the oldest existing Greek manuscripts (175 AD). This is the what the translators of the NIV used to translate from Greek.
In 1971 AD the NASV was published. It used Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that were older than previously used manuscripts, and which were not available for translation when the KJV was created. It is almost a word for word translation from the Greek.
In 1983 AD the NIV was published using the oldest manuscripts available in the original tongues. It was a "thought for thought" translation. To see the difference....
Hebrews 9:25 NASV - The high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own.
Hebrews 9:25 NIV - The high priest enters the most holy place year by year with blood not its own."
The difference, in meaning, is that the NIV translators looked at the fact that on the Day of Atonement high priests performed their work in the "Most holy place" (Holy of Holies) in the temple. The word "hagios" translates to "holy place," but the reference, in context in Greek, is clearly to the Holy of Holies, so the translators put the meaning of the Greek back into the translation.

This is a common problem, and hence debate, when translating.
Word for word translation of "I love you," from english to french would be "Je t'amour," however to a french man, Je T'amour is sexual in meaning. Je t'aime, is word for word, "I like you," but to the french it means what we mean when we say, "I love you."


The KJV was translated from Erasmus' printed Greek New Testament which used 5 greek manuscripts that dated to 1,100 AD.
The NASV and NIV used the UBS's printing of the New Testament in Greek in 1968. This addition looked at over 5,600 greek manuscripts written in the Alexandrian style. These manuscripts date back to 175 and 350 AD, or to put it in context, to within 100 years of the time Christ died for our sins. The early churh of around 97 to 350 AD (note, 97 would only be 64 years after Christ went to the cross), used Alexandrian texts when they quoted the NT.

So, when you look at the NIV and or NASV and say it "adds" to the bible, understand, they actually use older biblical manuscripts than King James used.

Now, I love the King James Bible, and I don't really see any differences in meaning between it and the NIV or NASV, but then again, I have a habit of going back to Greek and Hebrew to clarify the meaning of scripture, so what might "seem" different on the surface, is not different to me once I see the original Greek and Hebrew. I think the KJV is much more poetic, and therefore more easy to memorize. However, it is, at times, more difficult to teach because of the language.

 

My personal belief is that it is a good thing for Christians to be at least bilingual if not multilingual. Everyday that goes by, the language of the KJV is becoming more and more a foreign language and less and less understandable by the masses. Eventually, the language of the KJV will be no more intelligible to the typical English speaking person than German or French. And those people who can still read the KJV will still be able to read Thomas Shelton’s 1611 translation of Don Quixote. And this is as good an argument as any that the KJV of 1611, and only the KJV of 1611, is God’s inspired word. Modern versions are precisely that, “Modern,” and the Bible does NOT teach that God is a “Modern” God. When I pray, I use EXACTLY the same language and spelling that is used in the genuine 1611 King James Bible so I KNOW FOR A FACT that the KJV is the one and only real version of the Bible. Real men use the real Bible and the real Bible is the KJV of 1611. If you do not understand this, pray that God will give you understanding. Spiritualism will show you the truth about modern versions.

 

And if you come to Ireland I can take you to the Chester Beatty library to see them for yourself . Its free!

 

av1611jim said:

That charge is ridiculous.

"Pentacostal" delusions manifested themselves long before anybody came up with KJVo.

That's as may be, but this thread happens to be about KJV-only delusions, not Pentecostal delusions.

While many Pentecostals happen also to be KJV-onlyists, the fact that this man was both does not legitimize the KJV-only delusions, it only shows that he was doubly pathetic.