Question about KJV

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by mojoala:
Did we just take them to spite Catholics?

No. We didn't take them out. They were never there in the first place. No Hebrew copy of the OT contains the Apocrypha. The only place the Apocrypha appears is in Greek translations of the OT.

And even the KJV (and some earlier English Versions) did not include the Apocrypha in the OT as do Catholic Bibles, but rather the translators segregated the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments so it would not appear as if the Apocrypha were part of the OT.

Also bear in mind that the Church of England did not consider the Apocrypha to be scripture, and specifically tells us in the 39 Articles of Religion "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:" then lists the Apocryphal books.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

JRG,

my friend, you must become more discerning. Even most KJVO will not read Jack Chick. His claims are simply false, but you will have to realize that yourself.

May I ask you why you feel people such as he should be trusted when it comes to discussing the KJV and its merits?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
JRG,

my friend, you must become more discerning. Even most KJVO will not read Jack Chick. His claims are simply false, but you will have to realize that yourself.

May I ask you why you feel people such as he should be trusted when it comes to discussing the KJV and its merits?

Yeah, but he's sooooo much fun to read.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by JRG39402:
I just looked at this site: http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/ What do you think of it?

Been there...seen it...done that. It's the usual KJVO propaganda, been on the net for years. Most of it is not to be believed.

Nothing to do with the superiority or lack thereof of the KJV translators.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Hello, PeterAV - good to see you again!!

PeterAV: //Well,I could go on and on.//

Don't bother.

1. Most of us have already read Gail Riplinger.

2. Your acceptance of Ripliner's 'facts' without checking
them out (or even knowing what they mean) tells a lot about you,
which you would be wise to hide

3. Here is some minor refutation of some of your copied-without-thinking
about-what-they-mean:

PeterAV: //Another reason the AV is to be held in high reguard,is that
you can trust it at every word.You will never have to worry
about any missing thing in it.
It simply stays the same.//

I have three versions of the KJV which I consult
frequently, if that is what you are talking about
with the term 'AV'. BTW, I still have heartburn about those who imply
that AV = the version authorized by God. In fact, the KJV1769 edition
wasn't authorized by GOd, wasn't authorized by King James, goodness
only knows who 'authorized' it???

PeterAV: //It also has its own built in Bible dictionary,to give you
the definition of terms and words that you might not
know.eg.scrip=a shepherd's bag//

Uh, I didn't know scrip = shepherd's bag. What verse shows
that?

PeterAV: //Just look at the first mention of a word,and it will give
you the basic meaning of it.//

Alright, what is a 'mystery' according to Paul in the New Testament?
This is not a quick quesiton. There is a passage written by Paul
that explaines what 'mystery' means.

PeterAV: //It is easier to memorize because of the cadences.
It is easier to read inspite of the retoric against it.//

Hogwash. This statement has no more meaning than 'rock & roll
is jungle bunny music'.

PeterAV: //It affords revival to any nation that upholds the Holy Bible.
It promotes more missionaries in church history that all others combined.//

Where is the data supporting this conclusion?
What nations have provided missionares to whom.
I suspect off hand that probably the Syrian text of the 4th century has
spawned enough missionaries to upset you anglophilic excess.

PeterAV: //Even the unsaved have more confidence in it as being the word of God
than any of the new fangled productions.//

The poll was taken by which polling agency among which group of
'unsaved'?

Salamander: //No one has taught me to read and comprehend
the KJB other than going to public school and the Holy Ghost//

I know KJV readers who think the U.S. Publick School system is
THE MARK OF THE BEAST.

Salamander: //It seems many would like to seprarate the Holy Ghost
from understanding the Bible, seems yall like to forget about Him.//

Please say 'obviously some of yall ... ' -- thank you.
I recall the Holy Ghost must help us understand the Bible.
However, I do NOT limit the Holy Spirit to one edition of
one version (KJV1769) as some a want to do -- the Holy Spirit
can shine in any version of the Bible, even the poor and
ordinary ones.

JRG39402: //I just looked at this site:
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/ What
do you think of it? //

It lies spiritually between gossip and a lie.
Christians should avoid the sight - it flunks
the 'test the spirits' test ;(

Salamander: //I find that anything I believe in the KJB is backed up with
other Scriptures;//

What is the name of Satan, the chief of the devils (daemon, demons, etc)?
Satan - deceiver - a title
ol' mealy mouth - a title
serpent - a title

'scriptures' is plural. Show Satan's name with two or more scriptures.
Thank you.

Here is something I found in an athiest/agnostic site:
Is Christ the bright and morning star (Revelation 22:18)
or is Satan the bright and morning star (Isaiah 14:12)?

 

[Phillip]

Here is Chick at his finest (a question and answer with a lot of backup references)

" QUESTION: Where was the Bible before 1611?

ANSWER: In the available Antiochian manuscripts.

EXPLANATION: Critics of the perfect Bible like to throw out this question as though it will "stun" Bible believers. It doesn't.
The overwhelming majority of Bible manuscripts existent throughout history have been the text found in Antioch. They have always been available in some form, either in copies of the original Greek, or the old Latin of 150 AD, (NOT to be confused with Jerome's corrupt "Vulgate") or the Syrian Peshetto of 157 AD.
That it would be difficult indeed to gather all of these sources together and place them in the hands of the common man gives credence to God's reasoning for the collation and translation of the King James Bible."

 

[Ransom]

Actually, that's not Chick, it's Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. - whose scholarly integrity and honesty are equally renowned.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JRG39402:
I just looked at this site: ... What do you think of it?

It's a Jack Chick site. Jack Chick is a deceiver, especially on the topic of bible translations. I would no more trust Chick to tell the truth than I would trust Benny Hinn to heal.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Johnv:
And as of yet, no one has been able to provide any scriptural support for single-translation-onlyism. Just a lot of statements of preference and nonobjectivity.

It is clear that, while having a personal preference for a certain translation is perfectly permissible, it is abundantly clear that KJVOism is not scriptural doctrine. I fail to see why any discerning Christian would buy into it.

I prefer not to be misled, misinformed, or fail to see contextual harmony due to updated definitions that refuse to include earlier understanding.

When one will simply consider: harmony verses intellectualisms, the "need" for updated verbage, (which is actually more vague than simple English), and the more apt to teach that, which is slowly becoming watered down, which is closer in actual time to relate Scriptural truths; one will only find the KJB to be most inline.

If that is not doctrinal and only a preference, then it must be God's preference to give us truth verses disharmony,clarity instead of vagueness, and better undestanding than having men that by wisdom try to teach God's children and they know less and less about God but more and more about languages.

 

[Phillip]

...and obviously you grew up with the King James Version like I did so you can easily understand it. A 15 year old of today will not only have difficulty reading it, but they will completely misunderstand what many of the 17th century words mean today because the meaning has changed.

If you carefully select WHICH versions you use, then you can be assured that the Word of God is NOT watered down. I certainly think the Lord God is capable of maintaining His Word in the Modern English language just as well as He did with 17th century lingo.

The latest version of the King James in popular use today (besides the NKJV) is the 1769 version. It is quite interesting that you think a difference of only about 10% of the time from now until back to when Jesus walked the Earth, is enough difference in time to make one iota of difference. In other words, a change of only 10% closer to 4 BC is immaterial when it comes to our understanding of Greek and Hebrew. In fact, our knowledge AND available manuscripts has increased since 1611, not decreased.

Yes, your opinion IS based on preference, but your reasons for that preference have weaknesses.

If God is giving us disharmony today, then the multitude of translations available in 1611 must have caused confusion then. Between The Great Bible, The Bishop's Bible, The Vulgate, The Geneva Bible--and on top of that almost ALL of the translations include the apocrypha. Talk about adding confusion to the reader.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
I prefer not to be misled, misinformed, or fail to see contextual harmony.

Neither do I. That is why I prefer a translation in English of today, not of 400 years ago.

When one will simply consider: harmony verses intellectualisms

There is no objective evidence to support the claim that the KJV is perfect in its harmony, nor is there any objective evidence to suggest that the KJV is more harmonious than all other translations.

the "need" for updated verbage

The need is rather clear. Elizabethen English is no longer the language that is spoken today. It is neither unreasonable nor unscriptural to desire a translation of scripture into the language of today.

...which is slowly becoming watered down...

That statement is quite subjective and unsubstantiated.

which is closer in actual time to relate Scriptural truths

Another statment that is quite subjective and unsubstantiated.

one will only find the KJB to be most inline.

If that were truly so, I'd be using solely the KJV.

If that is not doctrinal and only a preference...

Which it isn't, thus making the rest of your statement without any doctrinal merit.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by mojoala:
And so, if your Bible contains the 46 books of the Septuagint as the Old Testament, then you are using the same Old Testament canon that Jesus, the Apostles, the New Testament writers and the Catholic Church has used for the past 2000 years.

[/i]

This is frightening. Did we just take them to spite Catholics? [/QB]

What you quoted contains a lot of false understanding, IMO, but one thing I want to point out specifically is that there is no proof that Jesus and Disciples used LXX.

Jesus mentioned Jot and tittle in Mt 5:18, which can be found only in Hebrew Aleph Bet, Jesus mentioned Abel to Zechariah as the martyrs and Zechariah was the last martyr in the Hebrew Bible because Chronicles are the last book according to the Masoretic Text, while LXX has the order similar to our current bible order.

At the Cross, the title was written in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, which means that Hebrew did not disappear from their colloquial language.

Furthermore, Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew as we read Acts 26:14.

Often people in faovor of LXX say Disciples used LXX in their quotation, but when I checked carefully, there was always minor difference between LXX and NT.

Let's look at Heb 10:5, you can find the difference there.

Often they mention LXX was mentioned by Stephen in Acts 7:14.
But if you check with LXX, it has contradictory statements about the numbers of Israelites who went to Egypt, in Deut 10:22, LXX mentions 70 souls again while it says 75 souls in Exodus 1:5. The funny calculation is that LXX mentions 9 souls for Joseph in Genesis 46:27. There may be some more explanation about the numbering as the expression in Acts 7:14 is "en pushxais ebdomekonta pente" and this "en" might have some solution like as "within", or counting method may differ a little depending who should be included, even though women were excluded basically.

So, I have not found any convincing proof that Jesus or Disciples used LXX in quoting.
Again, I can simply comment that what you quoted contains a lot of misleading Info.

 

[robycop3]

'Tis another typical KJVO wannabee thread...Lotsa rhetoric by a coupla KJVOs, and NO SCRIPTURE! Can you KJVO advocates support your claims with SCRIPTURE? If not, your doctrine has no merit, and as Christians, you should admit it if you cannot support it with SCRIPTURE.

I believe the Apocrypha were included in the AV as a study help, and nothing more, just as modern Bibles(regardless of version) often include small studies of what some historians believe happened to each Apostle after Jesus returned to heaven, or similar little studies. Then, as now, many people had likely heard of the Apocrypha, but had never read them, so the makers of the AV decided to include them between the Testaments.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mojoala:
And so, if your Bible contains the 46 books of the Septuagint as the Old Testament, then you are using the same Old Testament canon that Jesus, the Apostles, the New Testament writers and the Catholic Church has used for the past 2000 years.

[/i]

This is frightening. Did we just take them to spite Catholics?

What you quoted contains a lot of false understanding, IMO, but one thing I want to point out specifically is that there is no proof that Jesus and Disciples used LXX.

Jesus mentioned Jot and tittle in Mt 5:18, which can be found only in Hebrew Aleph Bet, Jesus mentioned Abel to Zechariah as the martyrs and Zechariah was the last martyr in the Hebrew Bible because Chronicles are the last book according to the Masoretic Text, while LXX has the order similar to our current bible order.

At the Cross, the title was written in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, which means that Hebrew did not disappear from their colloquial language.

Furthermore, Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew as we read Acts 26:14.

Often people in faovor of LXX say Disciples used LXX in their quotation, but when I checked carefully, there was always minor difference between LXX and NT.

Let's look at Heb 10:5, you can find the difference there.

Often they mention LXX was mentioned by Stephen in Acts 7:14.
But if you check with LXX, it has contradictory statements about the numbers of Israelites who went to Egypt, in Deut 10:22, LXX mentions 70 souls again while it says 75 souls in Exodus 1:5. The funny calculation is that LXX mentions 9 souls for Joseph in Genesis 46:27. There may be some more explanation about the numbering as the expression in Acts 7:14 is "en pushxais ebdomekonta pente" and this "en" might have some solution like as "within", or counting method may differ a little depending who should be included, even though women were excluded basically.

So, I have not found any convincing proof that Jesus or Disciples used LXX in quoting.
Again, I can simply comment that what you quoted contains a lot of misleading Info. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Not being an expert in ancient languages, I would appreciate it if one of our resident experts would respond to this.

Is it not true that if the author were "truly" meaning the marks in the Hebrew when it is translated into "jot and tittle" that it would be referring to the marks added some 300 years later?

Please understand that this is not what I think is meant by "jot and title", but if it were and if what you say above is right, would those jots and tittles exist in the first century?

Just curious.

 

[Eliyahu]

I mentioned the points according to the Scriptures. What els do you need?

Calendars were included in KJV, it doesn't mean KJV claimed Calendars are the bible.

Jod was there in the first century as it is 10th alphabet while it is not in Greek at all.
Otherwise they could not write Jehovah.
Tittles were used at that time in the daily life, Masoretics didn't create new things which didn't exist before. Even chanting was used then. I don't think even chanting was created later, but believe it existed since or before Asaph, the Psalm writers. Then it is clear.

 

[Phillip]

I am not so certain that "jot and tittle" means what you are assuming it means---this is why I am asking a Hebrew language expert to clarify this issue.

 

[Eliyahu]

I am very sure that there is no Jot and tittle in Greek, LXX.

 

[TCassidy]

I think Phillip may be confusing jot and tittle with vowel pointing, which was added later to the consonantal text. Jot and tittle represent a letter of the Hebrew alphabet and a part of a letter which distinguishes that letter from another similar letter much as the cross distinguishes the "t" from the "l".

What is meant by the phrase "jot and tittle" is a whole different discussion.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
I think Phillip may be confusing jot and tittle with vowel pointing, which was added later to the consonantal text. Jot and tittle represent a letter of the Hebrew alphabet and a part of a letter which distinguishes that letter from another similar letter much as the cross distinguishes the "t" from the "l".

What is meant by the phrase "jot and tittle" is a whole different discussion.

Yes, I was confusing it with vowel pointing; this is why I was asking an expert such as yourself. Thank you, Dr. Cassidy.

Might I also be brave enough to say that (In my humble opinion), Eliyahu, may be misunderstanding the actual meaning of the complete phrase.

 

[Eliyahu]

Actually there is a controversy about what is Tittle even though both jot and tittle surely belong to Hebrew Alphabet, because κεραια may mean any point like that in sheen or any masorah. In any case, Jesus was talking about Hebrew Bible in that case ( Mt 5:18)