Regarding the King James Bible

robycop3 · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Sure, Baal had an image and the 3 words don't alter any doctrine, but why were they added? This is NOT a waste of time.

Surely you jest?

You contradict your self, Cranston [/QUOTE]DO I?

Was Paul quoting 1 Kings 19:18 or not? Are the words "the image of" in any old Greek ms containing Romans 11:4 or not?

We're not dealing with whether Baal had an image or not-we're dealing with the justification for adding the words "the image of" to Romans 11:4 when they're NOT found in either the mss translated nor in the original words of God in 1 Kings 19:18. Like most Onlyists you try to avoid direct issues & questions. Please address the issue presented here-if you can.

Precepts · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by robycop3:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Sure, Baal had an image and the 3 words don't alter any doctrine, but why were they added? This is NOT a waste of time.

Surely you jest?

You contradict your self, Cranston [/QUOTE]DO I?

Was Paul quoting 1 Kings 19:18 or not? Are the words "the image of" in any old Greek ms containing Romans 11:4 or not?

We're not dealing with whether Baal had an image or not-we're dealing with the justification for adding the words "the image of" to Romans 11:4 when they're NOT found in either the mss translated nor in the original words of God in 1 Kings 19:18. Like most Onlyists you try to avoid direct issues & questions. Please address the issue presented here-if you can. [/QUOTE]Your obsession is getting the best of you, there is no issue, only your attempt to maximize a mole hill formed by your criticisms. There is no taking away or adding to the Word of God as you suggest. There is no harm done to the scripture, but there is to your obsessed behaviour and I won't discuss this any further, it is to no avail. Your continuancve in the matter will only prove the more you are fanatically obsessed, or a little more than just a pest. I'll ignore anymore of your ranting and ravings, Thank You.

robycop3 · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by BonnieStormcloud:
I agree,,, the KJV has the most of all the translations of the original text. Our Pastor recently gave us a handout on all the translations of the bible such as the NIV and the New KJV.. which showed how much of the original verses was ommitted from the original text and scrolls. I would read no other Bible!

Did you-or your pastor-check out the veracity of the info in the handout? Did you check the reliability of the author of the handout? Do you KNOW the KJV was made from the "original" texts? Do you ever stop & think that the writers of dome of these handouts may be mistaken or downright dishonest?

Your handout may have been free to you, but I can promise you that someone, somewhere paid a printer to make it.

ScottEmerson · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Your obsession is getting the best of you, there is no issue, only your attempt to maximize a mole hill formed by your criticisms. There is no taking away or adding to the Word of God as you suggest. There is no harm done to the scripture, but there is to your obsessed behaviour and I won't discuss this any further, it is to no avail. Your continuancve in the matter will only prove the more you are fanatically obsessed, or a little more than just a pest. I'll ignore anymore of your ranting and ravings, Thank You.

In other words, you have no answer, and for fear of admitting that there is a small chink in the armour of the KJV, you'll ignore it.

Elk · Jan 14, 2004

This is my opinion...
And to make a point...
When I was struggling with the concept of the Trinity, I searched high and low for a long time, prayed, etc. And in God's mercy, HE showed and revealed Truth to me. BUT, I realized for every person that one talks to, one will get a different view on the Trinity, a different view, a different explanation, a different illustration, etc. etc...some radical some conservative, etc.
And it hit me one day...and this is what I believe...if the Trinity view exults Jesus, Who was, is and is to come, then I am for it, but if the Trinity view does not exult Jesus, then I am against it.

In the same way...
When I look at Bibles, I find that the most important overview of the Bible is the exultation of Jesus...if it plays down Jesus, Who was, is and is to come, then I am against it.

So, when I look at modern Bibles, I find that some of them do alter the words. For example, removing the word "Name" and replacing it here and there with "authority", knowing full well, that in the Thayer's definition, that "authority" is a minor alternate meaning for that Greek word. Now, we see that word "authority" in John 5:43, 10:25, and even in Acts 2:38!!! And "Name" is a basic Greek word meaning Name. Authority is like a secondary alternate meaning.
Also, probably one of the most obvious verses is John 1:18. That word "bosom" which in the Greek is bay or between the arms, etc. But what do we see now in sooooo many translations? "Side".
Since when does Bosom become side?
In Revelations, the Lamb is in the midst of the Throne!
Oh, but people will say, oh, Jesus sat down on the Right Hand of God. True, it says that, but it means "in the place of authority". Now, why don't they translate that? Instead, they even double it in some places where it says "right hand" where in the Greek it only says "right".
But that is not in all cases.
When I see deliberate deletions from for example John 3:13, it makes me wonder about people trying so hard to invent another doctrine, when it is all so unnecessary.

So, what am I trying to say in all this?
That we can pick and pick at all the discrepancies that we find in the King James Bible or the other Modern Translations,... but what is all important? It is about Jesus, God Who came to die, shed His Blood and save us and forgive us and so many things. God did not send someone else, but it was God Himself, in a Human Body.

In that regard, don't you think that the KJVO's have a case? I think they do. For there are many, many places where it is clear Who Jesus was on earth in Human form.
But I also believe that a couple of other Bibles have a case too.
Yet, we all see the problems made by human hands.

So, what can be done? Guard the treasure and pass it on to your children. I mean really, guard the treasure.

Precepts · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Your obsession is getting the best of you, there is no issue, only your attempt to maximize a mole hill formed by your criticisms. There is no taking away or adding to the Word of God as you suggest. There is no harm done to the scripture, but there is to your obsessed behaviour and I won't discuss this any further, it is to no avail. Your continuancve in the matter will only prove the more you are fanatically obsessed, or a little more than just a pest. I'll ignore anymore of your ranting and ravings, Thank You.

In other words, you have no answer, and for fear of admitting that there is a small chink in the armour of the KJV, you'll ignore it. [/QUOTE]I'll have to include you in the same boat. It's for obvious reasons I cannot attempt to reason with the like, and for that, I am truly sorry/grieved.

ScottEmerson · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
I'll have to include you in the same boat. It's for obvious reasons I cannot attempt to reason with the like, and for that, I am truly sorry/grieved. [/QB]

I just believe that there are no "mole hills" when it comes to infallibility, so everything deserves to be answered and addressed. That's why I believe that a KJVO can't ignore any of the charges, such as the one involving italicized words.

Refreshed · Jan 14, 2004

QS,

Answer the charges!

Do you have no defense for what you believe?

Jason

Precepts · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by Refreshed:
QS,

Answer the charges!

Do you have no defense for what you believe?

Jason

Psalms 13:4 Lest mine enemy say, I have prevailed against him; and those that trouble me rejoice when I am moved.

Psalms 3:1 <<A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son.>> LORD, how are they increased that trouble me! many are they that rise up against me.
Psalms 9:9 The LORD also will be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble.

Psalms 27:5 For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion: in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me; he shall set me up upon a rock.
Psalms 31:7 I will be glad and rejoice in thy mercy: for thou hast considered my trouble; thou hast known my soul in adversities;
Psalms 31:9 Have mercy upon me, O LORD, for I am in trouble: mine eye is consumed with grief, yea, my soul and my belly.
Psalms 32:7 Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah.
Psalms 37:39 But the salvation of the righteous is of the LORD: he is their strength in the time of trouble.
Psalms 46:1 <<To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, A Song upon Alamoth.>> God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
Psalms 50:15 And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.
Psalms 54:7 For he hath delivered me out of all trouble: and mine eye hath seen his desire upon mine enemies.
Psalms 59:16 But I will sing of thy power; yea, I will sing aloud of thy mercy in the morning: for thou hast been my defence and refuge in the day of my trouble.
Psalms 60:11 Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man.

I find this oppressive and of no help. It really troubles me.

There is admonishment in the previous verse. If you know the Lord, then be admonished by His counsel.

robycop3 · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
[Your obsession is getting the best of you, there is no issue, only your attempt to maximize a mole hill formed by your criticisms. There is no taking away or adding to the Word of God as you suggest. There is no harm done to the scripture, but there is to your obsessed behaviour and I won't discuss this any further, it is to no avail. Your continuancve in the matter will only prove the more you are fanatically obsessed, or a little more than just a pest. I'll ignore anymore of your ranting and ravings, Thank You.

This is KJVO-ese for, "I'm stumped, but my KJVO myth means more to me than the truth". No obsession here; just a simple question that shouldn't be hard to answer. "Where is the justification for ADDING the words'the image of' to Romans 11:4 when they're NOT found in any Scriptural ms, nor are they needed for clarification, nor are they implied by context, especially in the light that God's words to Elijah in 1 Kings 19:16 didn't contain these words in Hebrew?"

This is not a difficult question; there are only two possible answers-either such justification exists(which no one has shown us yet) or it doesn't. Surely a dedicated KJVO can answer a question about his pet version!

You may ignore us if you wish, but that will accomplish only two things: show that you're clueless about the issue, and leave our rebuttals of your KJVO assertions standing as posted, without any opposition, making us "winners" by default. It's up to you, pal. If ya don't wanna try to defend your own doctrine, so be it, but don't expect our refuting your assertions to subside...

robycop3 · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Refreshed:
QS,

Answer the charges!

Do you have no defense for what you believe?

Jason

Psalms 13:4 Lest mine enemy say, I have prevailed against him; and those that trouble me rejoice when I am moved.

Psalms 3:1 <<A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son.>> LORD, how are they increased that trouble me! many are they that rise up against me.
Psalms 9:9 The LORD also will be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble.

Psalms 27:5 For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion: in the secret of his tabernacle shall he hide me; he shall set me up upon a rock.
Psalms 31:7 I will be glad and rejoice in thy mercy: for thou hast considered my trouble; thou hast known my soul in adversities;
Psalms 31:9 Have mercy upon me, O LORD, for I am in trouble: mine eye is consumed with grief, yea, my soul and my belly.
Psalms 32:7 Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah.
Psalms 37:39 But the salvation of the righteous is of the LORD: he is their strength in the time of trouble.
Psalms 46:1 <<To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, A Song upon Alamoth.>> God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
Psalms 50:15 And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.
Psalms 54:7 For he hath delivered me out of all trouble: and mine eye hath seen his desire upon mine enemies.
Psalms 59:16 But I will sing of thy power; yea, I will sing aloud of thy mercy in the morning: for thou hast been my defence and refuge in the day of my trouble.
Psalms 60:11 Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man.

I find this oppressive and of no help. It really troubles me.

There is admonishment in the previous verse. If you know the Lord, then be admonished by His counsel. [/QUOTE]Not one word of legitimate answer to Refreshed's question, nor to the original questions. Also, not one word in defense of KJVO.

Kinda reminds me of asking someone what day of week it is, & he answers, "September".

Refreshed · Jan 14, 2004

Then I will formulate a defense!

The italicized words are, indeed, the word of God as they help make understandable that which would not be understandable in the transition from one language to another.

Whenever text is translated from one language to another (even closely related languages such as English and Spanish), there is a need to at least reorder the words to make them understandable. In any translation, a word-for-word translation would not get across the meaning that was intended because of different rules in the languages, different dictionaries, etc. When you look at a completely literal translation, it may not make sense without some added words necessary for understandable text.

This, in no way, detracts from the KJV or any other version that uses italics to point out words that were not necessarily in the original Greek or Hebrew text. Lets face it, sometimes five words in English are needed to translate one Greek word.

The italicized words in no way detract from the inerrancy of a bible version, no matter which way you look at it. All translations have words that were not in the original text, so the italics argument is a straw man. Anything you say about the italics in the KJV has to be applied to all other versions equally. If they are not infallible in the KJV, they are not infallible in any version.

In other words, the words are still infallible in a faithfully translated version, it may just take one or two or ten more words to accurately translate one word in the Greek or Hebrew.

Jason

BrianT · Jan 14, 2004

Refreshed, that's *one* reason italics appear in the KJV, and I personally don't have a problem with that. However, that's not the only way/reason italics are used in the KJV. In the phrase "the image of Baal", those italicized words are not needed to make the translation understandable. In 1 John 2:23, which says "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also", that whole phrase is not simply added because of the difference in grammar between Greek and English, not added because it was necessary for understandable text.

robycop3 · Jan 14, 2004

Thanx, Jason! Your defense, as you said, must be equally applied to all Bible translations.

However, I'd still like to see the Onlyist who says the KJV is "perfect", to explain the wording of Romans 11:4. The words "the image of" weren't in God's words to Elijah, not in any NT ms, nor are they needed for clarification. Sure, not one peep of message or thought is changed by adding those words, but the "perfection" theory sure goes "Poof!"

Precepts · Jan 14, 2004

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

This discussion is become folly, gentlemen.

Refreshed, if you went back about 3 or 4 pages ago,l you'd see I already said everything you just posted, friend. I've already given them light in this area and they refuse it by making insiduous demands for satisfying their desire.

Gluttony might be a term well researched concerning this, or even the "wine of their fornication" could help.

I know these are strong words, but none any stronger than what is said just in this one thread.

There is no defense of KJVO as these who continue to rant and rave about it. They invented it as a way of labeling peiople and they are the ones who have to deal with it. It causes a "schizm" in the body of Christ and it almost seems they are proud to do it. Why else can't they leave it alone knowing the consequences?

"KJVO" is an oxy-moron, it has it's values, but in turn contradicts itself, that's what an oxy-moron is. (for any who might think otherwise, it is not a slanderous statement or "jab" at anyone).

The KJB stance is rooted in the MSS being the reason, but the label attributed is slanderous and demeaning.

It seems more that the ones "bothered" by those "italicized words" have a higher standard than God in the principle given in Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The KJB is the perfect rendering of the Originals, we "KJVO"'s understand that and we don't argue about it, we just keep on proclaiming the truth and let other fall where they may, we can't make you belive anything, but you certainly convince yourselves

You guys label me as "KJVO", but it seems like a slanderous statement than a realization of what we who stand on the KJB really believe and know.

May I also suggest you "split hairs" with a finer knife? the one you're using is contaminated with obsession and not purified with rationality.

tinytim · Jan 14, 2004

QuickeningSpirit, do you, or do you not believe the KJB is God's *Only* true Bible to English speaking people? If you do, then Don't be ashamed of being labeled *KJVO*. I for one only use *KJVO* as a way to label someone that doesn't beleive in the validity of MVs. There is no slander on my part when i call someone KJVO. To most KJVOs that is a compliment.
Furthermore, we are in a debate forum, which means that people are not going to agree with everything. If we type that we believe something, then we should be willing to, either back it up, or admit we don't know. I for one have often admitted in life I was wrong, or simply didn't know something. Also don't get offended when pressed for answers, this is a debate. Please answer the previously asked questions, as I would like to here your response. If you can't, admit it and allow another KJVO Believer answer them. I have no ill will here, I always believed that italics were for clarification, but the MVs have a point on these passages. What is the KJVO stand. I really want to know, Thanks, Tim

LRL71 · Jan 14, 2004

Sounds like some KJV-onlyists have the same in common with the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox: They'll keep their traditions and myths over the truth. Incredible...... to say this about Baptists!

Archangel7 · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

It seems more that the ones "bothered" by those "italicized words" have a higher standard than God in the principle given in Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Actually, it seems more like the ones *not* bothered by the italicized words in Rom. 11:4 have a higher standard than God in the principle given in Rev. 22:18 KJV: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

The KJB is the perfect rendering of the Originals....

No it isn't, and Rom. 11:4 is one of *many* verses which prove this. Neither the original Hebrew text of 1 Kg. 19:18 nor the original Greek text of Rom. 11:4 contain the words "the image of." The KJV translators have *added* something to Rom. 11:4 not found in the Originals, therefore the KJV cannot be a perfect translation of the Originals.

And it will not do to say that the KJV translators were justified in adding "the image of" in Rom. 11:4 to "clarify" what was meant because there's absolutely nothing in the Originals to warrant that clarification. If the words "the image of" are needed in Rom. 11:4, then they are also needed in 1 Kg. 19:18 -- you can't have the "clarification" in one verse but not the other. So either the KJV "adds unto" to Rom. 11:4 or it "takes away from" 1 Kg. 19:18. One way or the other, the KJV is guilty of violating Rev. 22:18-19.

Precepts · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by Archangel7:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

It seems more that the ones "bothered" by those "italicized words" have a higher standard than God in the principle given in Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Actually, it seems more like the ones *not* bothered by the italicized words in Rom. 11:4 have a higher standard than God in the principle given in Rev. 22:18 KJV: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

The KJB is the perfect rendering of the Originals....

Click to expand...

No it isn't, and Rom. 11:4 is one of *many* verses which prove this. Neither the original Hebrew text of 1 Kg. 19:18 nor the original Greek text of Rom. 11:4 contain the words "the image of." The KJV translators have *added* something to Rom. 11:4 not found in the Originals, therefore the KJV cannot be a perfect translation of the Originals.

And it will not do to say that the KJV translators were justified in adding "the image of" in Rom. 11:4 to "clarify" what was meant because there's absolutely nothing in the Originals to warrant that clarification. If the words "the image of" are needed in Rom. 11:4, then they are also needed in 1 Kg. 19:18 -- you can't have the "clarification" in one verse but not the other. So either the KJV "adds unto" to Rom. 11:4 or it "takes away from" 1 Kg. 19:18. One way or the other, the KJV is guilty of violating Rev. 22:18-19. [/QUOTE]Those three words offer clarity to the text that others reading it might understand that Baal is only a false god having no form, no comeliness, no mouth to speak, no ears to hear ( all inclinations on the hearing part INTENTIONAL!).

Those reading the O.T. account might have the assumption Baal is something real, Everyone that reads the Bible is not a Bible scholar such as you. When people think of buddah, they immediately think of the enormously fat guy with that stupid grin on his face, too fat to even stand up. The KJB translators could see "Thou shalt have no graven image set before thee to bow down and to worship" should also be related accordingly to Baal. Israel bowed down to ONLY an image! NOT anything real or supposedly real.

The mistake yall are making is idolized worship of the wording of the text, when it's the principle, not the actual text.

#End of discussion

BrianT · Jan 14, 2004

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
#End of discussion

Whew, finally.

Regarding the King James Bible

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

<img src =/tim2.jpg>

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member