Puppets

Serpent Slayer, Welcome to your very first post here. I hope you do enjoy being here, and are not put off by some of the hard-hitting. I hope that all is conducted in love.

There are 100's of posts on this board on the very subject, and you would do well to do a search for yourself, and read some of them.

Why is the KJV superior than the vast majority (98%) of the Modern Versions, is very simple. The men who were involved in the translation of the KJV, were foremost, great believers in the Inspiration, Infallibility, Inerrancy and Absolute Authority of the Word of God. The same, however, cannot be said about the men whose Text for the MV's were used. I am not here referring to the Committee's of, say the NIV, but to the textual basis for these versions. For example, the Greek Text produced by Westcott and Hort, or the United Bible Societies, which is used by the majority if MV's. I suggest that you follow this link http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/modern2.htm and see for yourself what these men believed, and then consider whether they were honorable, faithful, and godly men, who had a great love for the Truth. Don't be put off by those who will no doubt attack the link because it belongs to a website of on Mr David Cloud. The facts speak for themselves, and are well documented, which you could always double check yourself.

Your last paragraph is ill informed. I think that about 95% of those on this board have never stuided Textual Criticism for themselves. I don't mean by reading a couple of good books on the subject. But, actually spending many hours examining the Greek manuscript, ancient versions, like the Old Latin, the works of the early Church fathers in the original Greek and Latin, not by simply referring to the English translations. The 5%, of which I would would place myself, have this knowledge. I have been doing TC for some 20 years now.

I will give but three examples here, which I have posted elsewhere, which show the standard set by the KJV, and the unfaithfulness of the textual scholars of the Greek texts for the MV's. I refer to 1) Mark 16:9-20; 1 Timothy 3:16; and 1 John 5:7. The first two examples have been dealt with by Dr John Burgon, with such depth and authority, that no one in over 100 years has been able to refute what he has written. The modern textual scholars, like Bruce M Metzger, don't even compare to the genius os Burgon, in this field. I have said this before, and will repeat myself. The two foremost Textual Scholars in Christindom, are without any doubt in my mind, Drs F Scrivener and Burgon. Some might disagree, thats their choice, but this does not in any way alter this fact. On the third example, I have spend at least seven years investigation in to this passage, both external and internal, and have 100% confidence that John wrote the words concerning "The Three Heavenly Witnesses". The Greek grammar itself, proves beyond any doubt that it is genuine, even though the likes of Dr Daniel Wallace assume that it does not!

 

Hi Brother Serpent Slayer. You seem to be one who understands the
Prime Directive of Bulletin Boards (bbs):

Read before you Write!


Icthus: "The Greek grammar itself, proves beyond any doubt that it is genuine, even though the likes of Dr Daniel Wallace assume that it does not."

Unfortunately, your statement requires an addition to scripture

Rev 22:18 (Icthus's Version)

For I testifie vnto euery man that heareth the wordes of the prophesie
of this booke, If any man shal adde vnto these things
(that which is not written in good Greek Grammer),
God shall adde vnto him the plagues, that are written in this booke.

 

The link given, in my opinion, is kinda silly. I have come acorss the same kind of sites bashing on rock music and Rick Warren and I think I even found one bashing on John MacArthur. The site is HEAVILY biased against anything that isn't his way of doing Bible translation.

I've been posting here a while (not exactly sure how long) and I've seen the same thing serpent slayer has seen with the KJVO's (and with anyone else who picks one Bible version and places their hope and faith and trust for their salvation in it).

I don't think most of the people here are being used as puppets of Satan (although I wouldn't doubt that Satan has made many a job at Christianity through their rantings here). I posted a page to my blog the other day on the issue of Scripture memorization. If people don't understand the language of the Bible, how are we to expect them to memorize Scripture and share the gospel? We don't speak in that period of English and so it does little good to have the Bible in that form of english.

I am a firm believer that we should have accurate, readable versions of the Bible. This only makes sense. I am 21 years old, was raised the first...12 years or so of my life on KJV and, honestly, I got nothing out of it. I didn't understand the words half the time, and the sentence structure was so hard for me to read that I quit reading my Bible entirely. I got saved when I was 15 and the Bible used to share the gospel with me was not a KJV. It was a New American Standard Bible. The sentences were hard to read (cuz I wasn't used to the version of the Bible), but I understood the language.

In all that ranting, my point is that we need to lose our pride over issues like Bible versions. People are turned away from even considering Christianity because they see people saying one version of the Bible is God's version and all others are unacceptable. Non-Christians come across sites like the one here saying the MV Greek text is bad because the people who put it together "don't believe in the authority and infallibility of the word of God". But do we as preachers and pastors really believe in the infallibility of the word of God? If so, wouldn't we be trusting that God's work will be done through it because it's perfection will shine through our imperfections? Afterall, isn't that how salvation works?

 

Amen and Amen, Serpent Slayer!

 

Moderator note:

Since SS is new this thread is being permitted to run as is. Please do not take advantage of the "puppets of Satan" terminology. If this goes wrong the thread will be closed.

Thanks,
Roger
C4K

 

I believe that MOST KJVOs are Christian brethren who seek to serve the Lord same as every other Christian. However, they've been misled into a false doctrine; the KJVO myth has been proven wrong time and again.

Most of the time, their other actions show they are indeed children of God. However zealous they may be for the KJVO myth, they simply don't realize it's false. They just haven't studied the FACTS in-depth to know the KJVO myth(and any other one-version-onlyism) is NOT sanctioned nor supported by Scripture whatsoever, and that virtually all its points are simply WRONG.

Nothing wrong with using only the KJV...long as one doesn't try to promote the false doctrine that it's the ONLY valid English Bible translation, nor criticize anyone using other versions.

 

I would hope and pray that none of us have our hope of salvation in any book, including the bible.

Our hope of salvation is in God and secured by Christ.

The bible, any version, has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I myself am a KJVO person because I believe it is a superior translation to more modern versions and because I was raised and taught from the KJV. I am not so blind as to say that God re-inspired it in 1611, but I do believe it was preserved in other forms until that time and is still preserved in that version and several of its editions.

I have yet to see anything in the KJV which is contrary to what the Hebrew and Greek teach, which I do not find to be the case with most MVs.

I sometimes think that certain things in the KJV could be "better" translated; read "more literally", but just because something could be stated in more words does not make it subpar.

Having a concordance to go with your bible is about the best way to go, no matter what version you use.

People who pick on us KJVOers because of who we are do no better than those KJVOers who pick on others because they use another version.

I don't intend to pick on anyone or tell anyone else that their prefered version is wrong.

I'll use my translation and you are more than welcome to use your own. Just don't be surprised if you come to my church and find that you can not follow along in your bible.

In my first year of college, I was in a weekly bible study group on campus. We would meet around 7:30am on Thursdays in the lobby of the University hotel. Out of about 10 people, I was the only one with a KJV. It was a tad confusing for me trying to follow along, but when it was my turn to read, the guys were just awe struck. You would think they had never heard the word of God before. Not to say that their bibles were wrong, but there was just a different feeling among them when I was reading from my bible.

I know it was not from me, and I know I didn't imagine it because they told me how they felt about it.

I found it neat that simply reading the KJV aloud to them was like reading an entirely new book; a book of beauty and poetic rhythm. They were actually paying close attention to each word and digesting it like a newborn's first taste of milk.

That is how I feel when I read or listen to a KJV bible.

There is just somwthing about it that captures your attention and gets you to studying and asking questions.

I don't know if I've done justice to my reasoning, but that is the best way I know how to explain what most of we KJVO people feel about the KJV.

Aside from that, it worked for our English-speaking forefathers, so it ought to work for us as well.

God bless.

Bro. James

 

Ro 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Ro 10:14
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

What is so unclear about THIS???!!!

Or THIS:
Joh 3:15
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Or THIS;
1Th 5:9
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Th 5:10
Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

Or THIS;
1Jo 5:11
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jo 5:12
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1Jo 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

No sir; I absolutely REJECT your premise that the KJV (though old) cannot be read and understood and lead someone to Christ.

I reject it outright. There is NOTHING in the KJV that cannot be understood by even the most immature believers if they but trust God rather than our self appointed modern day scribes and pharisees who would like to think THEY have a handle on Truth.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

God will lead people to himself. It doesn't matter if the only bible was written in Chinese. It is just a book and does nothing for our salvation except tell us about it.

Gospel = Good news

The sad thing is that the KJV is written in English and I fear that most English-speaking people couldn't read it. Then again, I graduated with many people who had trouble reading Mark Twain, so I even doubt that they could read a Modern Version.

If someone as dumb as me can read the KJV, then I would bet that almost anyone in the world could do it with a little practice.

However, until God has touched their hearts and opened their eyes, as he did with Paul in Damascus, it will be only words to them and have no true meaning whatsoever, no matter what language it's written in.

I know a lot of really smart people who can read and interpret bibles of all sorts, but, as smart as they are, they do not "understand" it in the way that God allows some to understand it.

I pray, as Paul did, that God would give all of His children eyes to see, ears to hear, and pure minds to understand His promised to us laid out in scripture.

 

Av1611jim: //Ro 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Ro 10:14
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
and how shall they hear without a preacher?

What is so unclear about THIS???!//

Several things are unclear. First is why
don't you take a small time to insert the
source of the book (probably the KJV1769)
into the passage citation?
Again, i plead in the blessed name of Jesus
if you have any respect or consideration
for your fellow workers in the field,
that you list with
each passage the source of your quote. I am required by God to
check ALL alledged scriputres that i read to see if they are
really right. You are wasting thousands of dollars worth of this
servant of God's time. Have you no respect for the fellow servants
of God? How hard is it to add (KJV1769) after the verse citation?

A. What is unclear about this?:

Rom 10:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
For whosoeuer shall call vpon the Name of the Lord, shall be saued.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they haue
not beleeued? And how shal they beleeue in him, of whom they
haue not heard? And how shall they heare without a Preacher?

B. What is unclear about this?:

Romans 10:13-14 (Latin Vulgate):
13 omnis enim quicumque invocaverit nomen Domini salvus erit
14 quomodo ergo invocabunt in quem non crediderunt
aut quomodo credent ei quem non audierunt quomodo autem
audient sine praedicante

 

I'm a little confused over a statement made above in regards to the source manuscripts.

The NIV and NRSV both used the oldest known Greek Manuscripts in existence and were compared to the later Greek to ensure accuracy.

The KJV used the Bishop's Bible as its base, and then looked to the manuscripts available in the age of King James to double check it. There have been hundreds of older manuscripts found since then, in better condition, and written much closer to the time Christ actually walked the earth.

I love the King James. I love its beauty, its grace, and I believe it is accurate - however - there are times when it simply doesn't translate with as much "detail" as the original manuscripts did because

The King James used today isn't even the one that was first published by King James. The 1611 King James was updated by Oxford press in 1769. The 1611 version admitted that there were words they didn't understood or couldn't read so they put them in another font to warn the readers. The 1769 version corrected "printers errors" from the 1611.

There are many changes between 1611 and 1769 that did not involve "printing errors". One of them includes the following:
1 John 5:12 Add of God after hath not the Son.
* 1 Pet 5:10 Read called us unto instead of called us into.
Rev 12:14 Read fly instead of flee.

If the intent is to be true to the words of God written by the authors of the bible, why do so many people have trouble with translations that go back to the best copies of those manuscripts?

I'm not anti-King James, but I do worry about anyone who thinks that the authors wrote the bible in the english of 1611 or the english of 1769.

 

Bro. James, it sounds as if you are more KJV Preferred than KJV Only. The majority of those in the KJVO sect not only want to use only the KJV for themselves, but they want to make the decision as to what Bible everyone else uses. God bless you!

 

Bro. James Reed: God gives us all different abilities and "takes" of what we observe. While I had no trouble reading the KJV(or the AV 1611, or the Geneva Bible) due to my having had a keen interest in the old tales of King Arthur and chivalry since childhood, not everyone else has the same background. I believe God has supplied His word in a number of versions to be understandable to as many readers of various ability as possible.

 

__________________________________________________

This is a reply and NOT an attack.

1.)Your statement that the "group" known as KJVo believing that there is "only one perfect translation of the Bible" is highly suspect. You need to do a bit more research into the matter. KJVo's are as widely diverse as are Baptists in general. They run the gamut from thinking God re-inspired the AV 1611 to thinking that the KJV is best FOR ENGLISH PEOPLE but that it's source texts are best for other languages as well.

("Puppets of Satan" is highly inflammatory. One could just as easily be a "puppet of Satan" by posting inaccurate things like what you did.)

2.) Obviously God didn't want just one perfect Bible since He did authorize translations into other languages long before the AV 1611. (French, Spanish, Latin, German, etc.) Have you ever read the Translators notes to the Reader in the KJV? So again, you build at best, a straw man.

3.) Your second paragraph is where I replied to your implication that the KJV cannot lead one to salvation.
"The message of salvation would have to be able to be comprehended by those who read it would it not?"
This sentence of yours is very clear that you are charging the KJV with NOT being able to be comprehended for salvation. The subject in your post is the KJV and KJVo's. Hence my first post. No apology coming from me.

4.)Your third paragraph is just more of the same. No reply is necessary except to say that you need to clarify WHO you are talking about. I know many KJVo's who do NOT have an elitist attitude. It has been MY experience that it is just the opposite. It is the self professed Bible scholars who like to think they can correct the Bible at the drop of a hat who are elitist.

4.)As for other versions; I do believe they are inferior. I believe the text of the KJV is the superior. Most modern versions use inaccurate texts, IMO. I do NOT believe they are inadequate for leading folks to Christ, nor that they are inadequate to lead a decent Christian life. One could lead someone to Christ using a simple tri-fold tract.

Here is something I would like for you to seriously consider.
Rather than coming out with an inflammatory charge like "puppets of Satan" perhaps you ought to use a bit more grace when addressing your brethren in Christ.

And finally, I would like for you to show me just one person who thinks a farmer in China ought to use the KJV only. Every KJVo that I know of would say that "The KJV is the perfect and inerrant Bible for the ENGLISH speaking people." (Including Ruckman)

Nuff said.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

("Puppets of Satan" is highly inflammatory. One could just as easily be a "puppet of Satan" by posting inaccurate things like what you did.)

What did he post that was inaccurate Jim? In another post you claimed that Jesus man side was still lower than the angels thereby claiming that Christ is still tempted by sin like He was when He was a man. I consider this a false doctrine. I did not put words in your mouth when I debated you on your error so why do you put words in SS’s mouth Jim? I presented facts based on scripture and even referenced you back to the AV1611.

1.)Your statement that the "group" known as KJVo believing that there is "only one perfect translation of the Bible" is highly suspect. You need to do a bit more research into the matter. KJVo's are as widely diverse as are Baptists in general. They run the gamut from thinking God re-inspired the AV 1611 to thinking that the KJV is best FOR ENGLISH PEOPLE but that it's source texts are best for other languages as well.

There is nothing suspect about what he said about KJVOism. You can not mix KJV preferred with KJVOism. I think that you no better than this Jim and you are smarter than that my brother. Would you like me to list evidence of KJVOism making the claim that the only perfect translation is the KJV? Have you ever heard KJVOist claim that the KJV is the inspired, inerrant, preserved bile for the English speaking people? Is this not elitism and arrogance at its height? I think that you need to clarify yourself more Jim. You said,” Your statement that the "group" known as KJVo believing that there is "only one perfect translation of the Bible" is highly suspect.” And then you said,” They run the gamut from thinking God re-inspired the AV 1611 to thinking that the KJV is best FOR ENGLISH PEOPLE but that it's source texts are best for other languages as well.” thereby contradicting yourself. Re-inspiration equals KJVO Ex Cathead which means perfection Jim. No weasel double talk pleases my friend LOL!

2.) Obviously God didn't want just one perfect Bible since He did authorize translations into other languages long before the AV 1611. (French, Spanish, Latin, German, etc.) Have you ever read the Translators notes to the Reader in the KJV? So again, you build at best, a straw man.

If you have read the Translators notes to the Reader then why are you KJVO? Why think God retired in 1769? I think that you are spinning around this issue. To be KJV or MT preferred is fine just like being CT and ESV preferred is fine. No doctrines are changed by being CT preferred when compared to the MT preferred crowd.

Since you trust the AV translators then perhaps you would care to start another thread explaining to me why you reject the marginal notes in the 1611 starting with the one about Jesus being a little while inferior to the angels.

3.) Your second paragraph is where I replied to your implication that the KJV cannot lead one to salvation.
"The message of salvation would have to be able to be comprehended by those who read it would it not?"
This sentence of yours is very clear that you are charging the KJV with NOT being able to be comprehended for salvation. The subject in your post is the KJV and KJVo's. Hence my first post. No apology coming from me.

SS did not say this and you should apologize to him. Don’t be dishonest and put words in another person’s mouth. This makes you look suspect my brother in the Lord.


4.)Your third paragraph is just more of the same. No reply is necessary except to say that you need to clarify WHO you are talking about. I know many KJVo's who do NOT have an elitist attitude. It has been MY experience that it is just the opposite. It is the self professed Bible scholars who like to think they can correct the Bible at the drop of a hat who are elitist.

Most KJVOist that I have been around are arrogant and elitist when it comes to other bibles and KJVOism. Many KJVOist are self made scribes and know it alls. KJVOist like Cloud, Ruckman, Gipp, Riplinger, Waite, etc… are elitist. These KJVOist think that they can tell people what bible to read and call other fine bibles tainted and perverted. How much more arrogant and elite can you get when you try to tell someone what bible to use and say that only one version is best? What gives a KJVOist the right to attack another brother’s bible when the KJVO can not prove KJVOism with scripture?

Would you like for me to post some links Jim?

And you said:

4.)As for other versions; I do believe they are inferior. I believe the text of the KJV is the superior. Most modern versions use inaccurate texts, IMO. I do NOT believe they are inadequate for leading folks to Christ, nor that they are inadequate to lead a decent Christian life. One could lead someone to Christ using a simple tri-fold tract.

This is an opinion at best. I feel that NASB is superior to the KJV in many verses. I feel that Geneva Bible is superior to the KJV is many verses. I feel that the KJV is superior to the NASB in many verses. Gee kinda sounds like what the AV1611 translators said in 1611 about using other versions to get the clear message of God.

 

DavidJ;
In order to avoid derailing this thread into a "he-said/she-said" type of see-saw ridiculousness let me just say; you don't know what you are talking about. Bringing irrelevant things from another unrelated thread into the discussion is called...diversion.

And quite frankly, had you read with comprehension what it was that I wrote, I wouldn't even have to reply to your silliness.

For example;

I said,
4.)As for other versions; I do believe they are inferior. I believe the text of the KJV is the superior. Most modern versions use inaccurate texts, IMO. I do NOT believe they are inadequate for leading folks to Christ, nor that they are inadequate to lead a decent Christian life. One could lead someone to Christ using a simple tri-fold tract.

And you said,

This is an opinion at best. I feel that NASB is superior to the KJV in many verses. I feel that Geneva Bible is superior to the KJV is many verses. I feel that the KJV is superior to the NASB in many verses. Gee kinda sounds like what the AV1611 translators said in 1611 about using other versions to get the clear message of God.

You start your reply with a not so thinly veiled dismissal by saying "This is an opinion at best." Yet you TOTALLY MISSED those three capitalized letters which are in the very paragraph you were referring to, namely...IMO!!!

Perhaps your comprehension skills need fine tuned a bit.

Can you say...DUH!?
I knew you could.
In HIS service;
Jim

 

No Jim I comprehend things very well. Strange thing is that I did see "IMO" and I replied with an IMO. Who needs the comprehension skills? Why even bother with that Jim? You failed to address the subject of my IMO!

Perhaps you would care to address the points of my reply without the stall tactics and insults. I'm not the one speaking double talk Jim. I'm very upfront and blunt.

By the way if you want to have another round about the off topic point that I made then please start a new thread. You mentioned the AV1611 translators and I merely showed that you do not trust them.

Now what about corrected yourself and mend the false statement that you made about what SS said in this thread.

I'm not the one dodging the issues Jim. You used the AV1611 translators first and I responded by proving that I simply take their advice. Do you take the advice of the AV1611 translators?

Thanks,