Mellowing out on the KJV

One minute your a catholic, then a Christian, then a catholic again
Oh, please tell me that was just a poor choice of words...

I myself hold the King James Bible to be the infallible, inerrant, perfect word of God, without error or contradictions.
Except for the errors and contradictions. Actually, in all fairness, many of the contradictions are inhierent from the original manuscripts, and appear in all accurate translations.

But the minute - yea, the very second - you claim it has NO errors, THEN you become "superstitious", a "heretic", and a "member of a cult".
Well, of course, because the KJV having errors is not a matter of opinion, it is factual. I have listed those very clear errors numerous times.

How about God sloppily preserving His general messages in a multitude of varying manuscripts disregarding specific wording?
So, the arguement becomes: it's okay for KJVO's to add to doctrine, but not non-KJVO's. Not a convincing arguement favoring a KJVO stance.

I said if one STOPS being KJVO, one goes from believing the Bible HASN'T any errors, to believing it HAS errors. This means you believe it LESS. There's no way you can deny that.
Not at all. If what you believed before was wrong, then it's not okay to believe it. Besides, one can still be a non-KJVO and believe that the manuscripts which the KJV came from is perfect. That's a more reasonable belief than a perfect translation, especially given the fact that there are clear inperfections in the translation of the KJV.

If you abandon KJVOnlyism, you will only believe all 'Bibles' have errors.
No, you don't believe that the Bible has errors, you just believe that translations are imperfect.

 

Why is it that MVers have faith in everything except an infallible Bible? Makes me wonder how they can have faith in Jesus, after all, every bible has errors in it right? What if the error is in salvation and you have to work to get to Heaven. What if the error is a non-virgin birth?

If I'm not mistaken Johnv, there has not been one contradiction proven in the KJB.

 

Neither were your comments.

No, it proves you don't understand my statement. Were YOU ever KJVO? Did YOU believe the AV had ZERO errors in it 7 years ago, but now have more faith in it AFTER believing it DOES have errors in it? My original post was NOT addressed to you, but to mozier, who was talking about abandoning the belief that the AV has ZERO errors in it. It is blindingly obvious that if one goes from a position of believing something has ZERO errors, to believing it has SOME errors, he/she ends up with LESS faith in it. A child could see this. Why can't you?

The only thing I was wrong about was your determination to play (what appear to be dishonest) word games in order to avoid admitting what you so obviously believe. Please tell me: WHERE is this "Bible" that doesn't have any errors in it? You don't actually believe it EXISTS, DO YOU?

And so are you.

 

Most of us do have faith in an infallible Bible. It is the translations that sometimes have errors or things that could be done differently. That is different than saying that the Bible has errors in it.

 

Neither were your comments.</font>[/QUOTE]You need to go back and read your comments. I commented on your original statement, not your subsequent one.

I did understand your statement. It was a wrong statement.

Becuase you are unclearly thinking through this issue and the conversation. I never believed that the AV has zero errors in translation because I do not believe false teaching, especially when it has been shown to be false. That was not the issue. You said that when you abandon KJVO, you will have less faith than before. I simply showed that your statement was wrong. Period.

You are wrong about your misplaced belief. The Bible has no errors as originally given from God. That is orthodox doctrine and has been taught for all of church history. The translations that we use today are inerrant inasmuch as they reflect the original language texts. This is really a simple issue. As you said earlier, A child can understand it. Why can't you?

Good comeback. Now if there were only some substance to go along with it. You could settle this once and for all by showing us where God teaches what you believe. I am willing to learn from him. I have shown where Scripture teaches the position that I hold. You have not done so. And that appears to be a major difference between you and I. THe Bible is my final authority. It does not appear to be yours.

 

Must you have these arguments in public forum? They look kind of personal to me (in opposition to forum rules) Go to PM and settle it there, if you're able.

 

Yes it is... how was it the KJV translators said was the best way to get the sense of scripture?

Yet you trust with blind allegiance the translation work of folks who held false doctrines and persecuted our Baptists forebearers.

Just like the original KJV, right?

It isn't the strong meat that most object to. It is the rotten meat of lies and distortion. For instance, Cloud for whatever reason recently resurrected a 20 year old false accusation against John MacArthur. Regardless of what you think of MacArthur, there is no legitimate, scriptural reason for Cloud to attack him falsely.

The OT prophets spoke under the direct authority of God Himself. Cloud and Chick don't. The NT gives guidelines for rebuking and confronting other Christians. They don't include pride, distortion, lies, malice, envy, etc.

First you compare their authority to the prophets and now to Christ Himself?

Most of the time, these guys are being refuted based on their misuse of scripture or extra-biblical standards- well outside the bounds of biblical reproof.

 

Boy oh boy,here we go again!!! When it comes to trying to support ones views about the MVs they always drag the KJB translators into it;according to them,they are the best thing since sliced bread.If they are wanting to downplay the KJB;the KJB translators are nothing but a bunch of baby sprinkling,Baptist persicuting,Anglican puppets.Why is this???

 

Yes. As a matter of fact it is. True facts and true faith compliment each other. They don't contradict. The reason they seem contradictory is man's inability or unwillingness to perceive the truth of one or the other.

Nope. There are instances where what seemed to be true was not.

Of course that is not the definition being implied and you know it. To use this type of diversion is demonstrates the weakness of your position even further.

No. It is a belief that is consistent with the evidence. It is based on the tangible, not the intangible. The difference is that KJVOnlyism contradicts both biblical and historical fact. Biblical because even Jesus used scriptures that were not the originals and not the KJV. Historical because it originated in 1611 and is different from every other version both before and after. Thus, to accept KJVOnlyism is to reject all other versions including the originals.

No. We simply accept the historical facts and interpret them by what the Bible teaches about itself. We are not bound by our presuppositions to reject any fact that doesn't fit the conclusion.

Yes but those with whom you are debating accept the Bible because it is fact while rejecting KJVOnlyism because it is not.

Yes. All of which were testified to by eyewitnesses, ascribed to the supernatural actions of God, and recorded under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. KJVOnlyism fails on all three of these proofs of fact.

What a convenient out for you... the facts don't prove what you need them to therefore the facts must be incomplete because there is no chance that your presuppositions are wrong. Seems that evolutionists frequently use this same defense. Perhaps their methods are rubbing off on you as you debate them.

That's fine. Now all you have to do is come up with a theory of your own that accounts for the known facts. KJVOnlyism doesn't do it.

True and we don't. What we do is reconcile the historical facts to what the Bible teaches. I believe it is also impossible to please God by denying evidence in order to maintain an extra-biblical dogma.

You failed to mention a couple of other things Abraham knew. He knew God had promised him a nation through Isaac. He knew by experience that God kept His promises. He know that God could perform supernatural acts to include resurrecting Isaac. All of these outweighed the fact, and it was a fact, that Isaac would die when stabbed.

And we call on those who follow God to reject the wisdom of Cloud, Gipp, Ruckman, Marres, Riplinger, and even you. KJVOnlyism is not taught by scripture. It wasn't even possible until 1500 years after inspiration of scripture ended. It is contrived by the wisdom of men alone (a practice you condemn)... although the quality of those men's wisdom is certainly questionable.

What is? Accepting KJVOnlyism in spite of the proof against it?

If you do not then please once and for all provide the scriptural proof that the KJV is the only valid version of the Bible in English. If not, then at least admit that you follow the wisdom of man every bit as much as (if not more) than those you accuse.

I am convinced that I have followed the facts of scripture and history and my faith is not contradicted by them. I could still be wrong and would change if so proved.

This is a matter of recognizing fact/truth, not ignoring it.

Also, the phrase "trust me, I’ve debated MVrs that don’t get them"- This is not the first time you have claimed to have some superior spiritual or intellectual understanding than the rest of us. It seems that you think you and perhaps other KJVO's have received some "private interpretation" that the rest of us are blind to.

Your personal interpretations are just that- personal. You cannot legitimately claim to have revelation beyond what the Bible teaches.

Nope. Faith in truth will never contradict true facts.

I disagree. It is based on a reasonable interpretation of historical and biblical teaching. KJVOnlyism on the other hand is founded solely on the wisdom of vain men.

 

Why not answer the objections rather than evading?

The KJV translators were good scholars but bad theologians and churchmen. They were capable intellectually of producing a good translation. They were not capable spiritually to produce a perfect one.

There. Your questions answered.

 

It is interesting to see those who whine and complain about the unbelieving textual critics and liberal translators of the MVs turn around and complain when someone points out the truth about the KJV translators. The truth is that they are not that much different in this regard. If anything, the spiritual credentials of modern translators are likely to excel those of the KJV translators.

The fact is that neither compromises the ability to translate a word or a sentence from one language to another. That does not require a great amount of spiritual sensitivity. It requires a knowledge of the language. Too often, this simple truth is missed by those who would defend their position at all costs.

So I ask you, MV-neverist: Why are you so willing to defend those whose doctrine and practice is unbiblical, simply because they translated a version you happen to like? Why do you complain when someone does exactly what your side does? Is that not a double standard?

 

If I'm not mistaken Johnv, there has not been one contradiction proven in the KJB.


Here's a list of translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form" The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read "Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which means someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth"

In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days."

Malachi 4:6 should read "lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect."

Matthew 24:22 should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original (the RSV puts it in a footnote): "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood."

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week" The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure (or choosing)."

In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original Greek.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo as "hate", when it should be "love less" (as in a comparison). We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize(ing) IN water" not "with water".

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses".

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" rather than "And supper being ended".

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved."

II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8.

I Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original.

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil"

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

I John 2:23 has "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the trinity doctrine.

Revelation 8:13 "eagle" rather than "angel."

Revelation 11:18 should read "nations" instead of "dead."

Revelation 19:17 should read, "gather yourselves together unto the great supper of God", not "supper of the great God."

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

Revelation 22:19 should read, "tree of life" instead of "book of life."

 

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the above statement...did you mean.they shouldn't of put it in italics? If so..I agree. If you meant the italicised phrase isn't in the original greek..read on ...

The phrase the KJV transators put in italics is included in the NASB and modern translations..as well as the NA 27th and USB Greek Texts.

It's found in Aleph, A, B, C and a host of witnesses including latin, syriac, coptic,
Origen, Cyprian, etc.

It's absent from the "majority" text.

-kman

 

Not all of what John listed are errors. Some certainly are. Some are more interpretive than others, which don't really qualify for errors.

Gen 1:2 should not be translated "became." There is no Hebrew support for that as Weston W. Fields showed in his book "Unformed and Unfilled."

1 John 2:23 is an interesting one. The KJV included something for which there was not adequate support. That is why they put it in italics. Interestingly enough, their addition turned out to be correct.

Examples of clear errors are places like 1 John 5:7, not included in the Majority text or the eclectic text; The last six verses of Revelation contain over a dozen errors in the TR, some of which are untranslated (such as articles) and others of which are found. He mentioned one of them--book of life vs. tree of life. Heb 10:23 translates the word for "hope" as "faith," a clear error never repeated anywhere else in the KJV. The passage that reads "straining at a gnat" should read "straining out a gnat." There is a passage in acts where the Greek word theos is translated as "Lord," a clear error since the word theos always means "God," never means Lord. Lord is either kurios or despotes in most cases.

There are also changes which show errors. Scrivener listed a host of these in his book from over 100 years ago. In addition you have all the spelling errors, which most KJVOs right off as "not errors." However, I have never seen a teacher yet who would accept such a weak definition. They always counted my spelling errors as plain old errors. I kept trying to tell them it wasn't a mistake; they just didn't buy it. Of course, any reasonable person understands that spelling errors are just that, errors. When the printers messed up, they messed up. It is interesting that the KJVOs believe in a God whose idea of "perfect preservation" involves his word hand copied for 1500 years with no two manuscripts that match, now preserved in an English translation that has been revised many many times in its 400 year history and still is not right (doesn't even match other KJVs). When you start putting out the facts, the KJVOs start jumping becuase they have no answer for the obvious.

 

Well, you answered the question that ALL Bible belivers have been asking lately!! You were pointing out errors(which are NOT there!) and saying what it should have been this,or that,or blah,blah,blah;therefore,proving that your final authority is your own mind.Bout time you fessed up!!!

 

This is not an error, and I would ask that you stop posting it as such. I have just finished a year of Hebrew and what you have posted is not true. I agree with Pastor Larry, this is interpretive, but definitely not a translational error. 'Hayah' means "to be." It can mean "to become," but the common use is "to be."

Neal

 

Do we need to go here again? Come up with a real argument and come back later. If you are willing to say that you don't use your mind to determine that the KJV is the only Bible then you are not living in reality. I have already had a thread on this one. Why is the same old stuff that is shown to be incorrect rehashed over and over and over and over and over and over and over.....well, you get the picture.

Neal

 

Oh yes! All too well

 

Good! I look forward to not seeing the same old worn out arguments used over and over.

Thanks!

Neal

 

You mean you are going to quit dogging the KJB;outstanding!!

No,thank you!!!!!!