KJVO Lies

[Ransom]

Askjo posted the following hilarious sophistry:

Modern versions are Westcott/Hort translations.

JW Bible is also Westcott/Hort translation. This is a CULT!

That's how they derived from the W/H text.

Dogs have four legs.
Table have four legs.
Therefore, all dogs are tables.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by tinytim:
OK, the Mormons use the KJV. Should we throw it out just because a cult uses it?
Sorry, you are setting a dangerous precedent by your logic.

The Mormons know the KJV because they know it is the word of God, but they rejected it.

 

[Trotter]

Yeah, Askjo, and they also know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. And that the Pearl of Great Price is the word of God. And that the ...

Get my point?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[RaptureReady]

Too bad folks around here don't know it's the word of God.

The Mormons believe that the King James Bible is God's true word, this is what they believe. Just as you believe anything that has scripture in it is the word of God.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by RaptureReady:
Too bad folks around here don't know it's the word of God.

As far as I know or have seen, no one here doesn't know that the KJV is the Word of God. We simply reject the false dogma that it is the only acceptable translation of God's Word into English.

The Mormons believe that the King James Bible is God's true word, this is what they believe. Just as you believe anything that has scripture in it is the word of God.

Nope. We believe that revelation ended with John's "the end". Mormons, like KJVO's, believe that people within the last 400 years were divinely inspired to produce scripture.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Scott J:
As far as I know or have seen, no one here doesn't know that the KJV is the Word of God. We simply reject the false dogma that it is the only acceptable translation of God's Word into English.

But how can you pick and choose what is God's word. If they all differ from each other, they are not God's word, because God is not the author of confusion, and to say that all or some so called books are the Holy scriptures is confusing.

Nope. We believe that revelation ended with John's "the end". Mormons, like KJVO's, believe that people within the last 400 years were divinely inspired to produce scripture.

No, you're wrong. I don't know of any bible believer who believes that scripture was inspired after 1611, except the Mormons, who believe that Joseph Smith discovered a new testament of Jesus Christ in 1820.

 

[natters]

RaptureReady said "If they all differ from each other, they are not God's word" and then "I don't know of any bible believer who believes that scripture was inspired after 1611".

RaptureReady, how do you explain that there were many translations, all differing from each other, before the KJV? If it wasn't inspired in 1611, wouldn't that mean that when that was just another differing translation?

 

[RaptureReady]

The translations then served their purpose for that time and the conditions that were around. They however back up the King James Bible.

 

[natters]

RaptureReady, that doesn't answer my question. They were all different from each other, which according to you means they weren't God's word. When the KJV was made, it was just another differing version. Without inspiration in 1611 (which you seem to deny), how was the KJV not just another differing version?

Nat.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The translations then served their purpose for that time and the conditions that were around. They however back up the King James Bible.

RaptureReady,

Do you have any data to backup these two assertions? If you do, please post them; if you don’t, please don’t make such assertions.

 

[robycop3]

Askjo:The Mormons know the KJV because they know it is the word of God, but they rejected it.

Actually, it was because the KJV was just about the only English BV available to the common American in the 1840s.

If you've ever read the original Book of Mormon, you'll notice it's written largely in the modified Elizabethan English style of the 1769 KJV. That alone shows the falsehood of the BOM. Joey Smith wrote in that style to identify the BOM as a supplement to the KJV.

 

[robycop3]

Granny Gumbo:Howdy brotinytim! Long time no see! We raised our children on the kjbible and that is the very thing satan used to seduce our youngest son into another cult called oneness.

Yup, if they had used anything else, he'd never have gone there, but because they read from the one bible he was assured of, he decided to take 'em up on their "bible study" also known as "scripture twisting". The devil knows exactly what he is doing!

GG, God has most likely given YOU the armor through the KJV alone to resist the devil, but your son is a different individual. He MAY have been an indirect casualty of KJVO.

However, the KJV contains plenty of scripture that refutes the OP's trash. I've more than once used the KJV to prove them wrong since, as you said, it's their fave version. But for me, using more than one version both hardens and burnishes God's armor He gave me.

Satan can use anything on earth to his own end-if we let him.

 

[robycop3]

RaptureReady:Too bad folks around here don't know it's the word of God.

Actually, about everyone here believes the KJV is the word of God, but few believe it's the ONLY VALID ENGLISH VERSION of God's word.

The Mormons believe that the King James Bible is God's true word, this is what they believe.

Only as far is it's correctly translated, according to Joey Smith and Brigand Young's judgment....


Just as you believe anything that has scripture in it is the word of God.

That's what the AV translators believed:

"We affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, ... containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. ... No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word...."from the Translators to the Reader", AV 1611

But the modern KJVOs know so much more about the KJV than the men who made it.....

 

[robycop3]

Forgive me for being off-topic, but how are you and yours, Tiny Tim...especially your ill son?

 

[robycop3]

RaptureReady:But how can you pick and choose what is God's word.

Much the same way the KJVO does, only we use more precise methods than guesswork.


If they all differ from each other, they are not God's word, because God is not the author of confusion, and to say that all or some so called books are the Holy scriptures is confusing.

The Four Gospels all differ among themselves. How do you pick-n-choose among them?

How do you pick-n-choose the KJV to the exclusion of all others?

The translations then served their purpose for that time and the conditions that were around. They however back up the King James Bible.

By that premise, the KJV served its purpose for the Elizabethan-Jacobean English speakers and pointed to the NKJV. However, I don't see any proof that your statement is correct.

 

[Trotter]

RaptureReady wrote:
But how can you pick and choose what is God's word. If they all differ from each other, they are not God's word, because God is not the author of confusion, and to say that all or some so called books are the Holy scriptures is confusing.

True, God is not the author of confusion. But, in this case, man is.

Or, to be more specific, man is creating confusion where there should be none.

So what if the different translations say it differently? Unless I am very much mistaken, there are no two manuscripts or fragments that are exactly identical, either. So, are the KJVO folks gonna choose which one of them is the actual word of God?

It just kills me when the KJVO claim that the TR is the true word of God in the original languages. The TR is a compilation of many differing texts, edited together by man. Whoo, what a riot!

Different translations will be different. Unless the same person translates each one from the same manuscripts, they will be different (and even then the translator may change his mind about a word or fifty). But there really is no confusion.

Oh, the modern versions are different from the King James? Well, praise the Lord for it! Unless you KJVO's haven't looked around, God loves variety. If He didn't, everything would be the same. But, praise his name He made everything in its own way and fashion. And the same goes for the various translations of His word.

If having different translations doesn't confuse me, why should it confuse anyone else? If you don't like 'em, don't use 'em. But do not try to keep me from using them, because then you are stepping into the place of God...or Mama.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[GrannyGumbo]

GG, God has most likely given YOU the armor through the KJV alone to resist the devil, but your son is a different individual. He MAY have been an indirect casualty of KJVO.

"By his own admission, he had grown very slack in his study habits. He did not know how to refute their "rigged" bible study. THAT was his downfall, not the fact he used the kjbible."

 

[Eutychus]

I used to teach Sunday School with the KJV as the textbook. I spent as much time translating archaic language as I did teaching scripture.

Teaching though Paul's epistles, I eventually came to Philippians 2. Verse 6, which was very familiar to me, just didn't make sense in context. The KJV seems to contradict the idea Paul is trying to convey, namely, the humility of Jesus for our behalf.

In KJV, verses 5 & 6 read:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

I sat down with a concordance and Greek lexicon and came up with a translation that fits other new translations, like the NASB rendering:
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped

The word translated "robbery" in KJV also can be translated "something to be held onto." A completely different thought. IOW, Jesus did not consider His rightful place in heaven something of greater value than lowering Himself to become a servant and, ultimately, a sacrifice that we might have eternal life. (My loose paraphrase.)

The rendering of "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is a good thought - He was and is indeed equal with God - but in context it is just poor translation, IMO.

I like the NASB (1995 version) because of its literal translation style. That is important for a teacher of the Word. The styles give the translaters' slant on a passage. As a teacher, I want to have as close to the exact rendering in today's English. For casual reading, other versions flow more naturally and are easier to read - and I like them for that. But when I teach or am studying to understand doctrines, I want as little "help" of another's opinion as possible.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

My replies are in brackets.

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I used to teach Sunday School with the KJV as the textbook. I spent as much time translating archaic language as I did teaching scripture.
(You did? I have no such problem. My six year old sister understands it fine.)

Teaching though Paul's epistles, I eventually came to Philippians 2. Verse 6, which was very familiar to me, just didn't make sense in context. The KJV seems to contradict the idea Paul is trying to convey, namely, the humility of Jesus for our behalf.
(It does not. I can read this without assuming any such thing.)

In KJV, verses 5 & 6 read:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God
(Perfectly clear.)

I sat down with a concordance and Greek lexicon and came up with a translation that fits other new translations, like the NASB rendering:
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped
(Which Greek text did it use? There are more then 70 Greek texts. The King James was translated from what is known as the "Majority text" and can you guess what that means?)

The word translated "robbery" in KJV also can be translated "something to be held onto." A completely different thought. IOW, Jesus did not consider His rightful place in heaven something of greater value than lowering Himself to become a servant and, ultimately, a sacrifice that we might have eternal life. (My loose paraphrase.)
(You are right it is a completely different thought. And not for the better either.)

The rendering of "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is a good thought - He was and is indeed equal with God - but in context it is just poor translation, IMO.
(A poor translation by whose standard? Yours? HAH!!!!!!!!!!!!)

I like the NASB (1995 version) because of its literal translation style. That is important for a teacher of the Word. The styles give the translaters' slant on a passage. As a teacher, I want to have as close to the exact rendering in today's English. For casual reading, other versions flow more naturally and are easier to read - and I like them for that. But when I teach or am studying to understand doctrines, I want as little "help" of another's opinion as possible.

(So what you are saying is that you just switch versions around to get what YOU want to hear.)

 

[Eutychus]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
(So what you are saying is that you just switch versions around to get what YOU want to hear.)

You saw that inference where?

Let me be as plain and simple as I really am:
I wanted to understand the intention of the inspired writer of the scripture, not deal with archaic word usage and less than keen translation. Frankly, the KJV version didn't measure up in that respect.

But if you want a holy sounding style, it's there. In fact, take a peek at a Book of Mormon sometime and you'll see that the apostate Smith thought KJ English was the right sounding language to use, despite English of that period being much closer to today than Elizabethean English, the same style used in Shakespear's works.