Regarding the King James Bible

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

From John Gill's Expositor:

"...to [the image] of Baal.... in the Greek text the article is of the feminine gender, wherefore our translators have supplied the word image. This word has, in the Septuagint version, sometimes a feminine article as here; see #2Ki 21:3 Jer 2:8,23,28 7:9 11:13 #Jer 12:16 19:5 23:27 32:29,35 Ho 2:8 13:1; but in #1Ki 19:18, from whence this passage is taken, the article is masculine, as it is also in #Jud 2:11,13, and in other places. This deity being either of both sexes, or of no distinguished sex...."

In the Greek LXX, there is absolutely no difference in meaning between "Baal" with the masculine article and "Baal" with the feminine article. They are interchangeable, and mean exactly the same thing -- "Baal," nothing more, nothing less. The following pairs of verses are instructive:

(1) "the high places"

KJV Numbers 22:41 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places *of Baal* (του Βααλ, masculine), that thence he might see the utmost part of the people.

KJV Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places *of Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine), to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind

(2) "the altar"

KJV Judges 6:25 And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD said unto him, Take thy father's young bullock, even the second bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar *of Baal* (του Βααλ, masculine) that thy father hath, and cut down the grove that is by it:

KJV 2 Kings 21:3 For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars *for Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine), and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them.

(3) "burning incense"

KJV 2 Kings 23:5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense *unto Baal* (τω Βααλ, masculine), to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.

KJV Jeremiah 7:9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense *unto Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine), and walk after other gods whom ye know not

It's evident from these passages that "Baal" with either the masculine or feminine article means simply "Baal," not "the image of Baal." This is also the case for the following pair of verses:

(4) "bowing the knee"

KJV 1 Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed *unto Baal* (τω Βααλ, masculine), and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

KJV Romans 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee *to the image of Baal* (τη Βααλ, feminine).

Conclusion: the KJV has added to the word of God by adding "the image of" to Rom. 11:4.


"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Gal. 4:16, KJV)

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by tinytim:
I want to thank everyone that posts on this board, even the ones I strongly disagree with. I have learned more in the last few months about the different versions, by being on this board, than I ever did in the past. I'm sorry some can't handle debate. I personally learn from it. Thank you!

It's not a matter of being able to "handle" it, but more of whose side you're on. When Michael debated with satan, he just stepped back and said, "The Lord rebuke thee". So many debate with the Lord? Go'head!

 

[Precepts]

In the Greek LXX, there is absolutely no difference in meaning between "Baal" with the masculine article and "Baal" with the feminine article. They are interchangeable, and mean exactly the same thing -- "Baal," nothing more, nothing less. The following pairs of verses are instructive:

Sounds like a good arguement for lesbians and "homosexuals".

 

[Youthguy]

I'm so confussed. Today is my first day on the message board and my first time to ever be on one of these and this is the first topic I have read about. I jut have a question, When I was growing up and reading my KJVB and not understanding it and asking my non-christian mom to explain it to me and she could not, then someone gave me a NIVB and I begain to understand what I was reading, am I wrong to read this Bible?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> In the Greek LXX, there is absolutely no difference in meaning between "Baal" with the masculine article and "Baal" with the feminine article. They are interchangeable, and mean exactly the same thing -- "Baal," nothing more, nothing less. The following pairs of verses are instructive:

Sounds like a good arguement for lesbians and "homosexuals". </font>[/QUOTE]It's also proof that the KJV has improperly added to the word of God in Rom. 11:4 -- which is the issue being discussed.

 

[Precepts]

Sounds like a good arguement for lesbians and "homosexuals".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's also proof that the KJV has improperly added to the word of God in Rom. 11:4 -- which is the issue being discussed.

So then, you are admitting to being a homosexual?

Gosh! I didn't know!

Then we do have the problem, your definition of proper and mine.

 

[russell55]

Ahh, c'mon QS! We don't need that sort of thing, even in jest....

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Sounds like a good arguement for lesbians and "homosexuals".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's also proof that the KJV has improperly added to the word of God in Rom. 11:4 -- which is the issue being discussed.

So then, you are admitting to being a homosexual?

Gosh! I didn't know!

Then we do have the problem, your definition of proper and mine.

</font>[/QUOTE]Another poor attempt to avoid the issue...

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
2004 KJV

Pardon me, you said 2004 KJV. Where did you find it? Please let me know.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Askjo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
2004 KJV

Pardon me, you said 2004 KJV. Where did you find it? Please let me know.

</font>[/QUOTE]There is no 2004 KJV... it was a hypothetical question. Suppose there *were* a new 2004 KJV which read "all the knees which have not bowed unto the image of Baal" in 1 Kg. 19:18 -- would you agree with the addition of the "clarifying" words in italics?

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Youthguy:
I'm so confussed. Today is my first day on the message board and my first time to ever be on one of these and this is the first topic I have read about. I jut have a question, When I was growing up and reading my KJVB and not understanding it and asking my non-christian mom to explain it to me and she could not, then someone gave me a NIVB and I begain to understand what I was reading, am I wrong to read this Bible?

Welcome Youthguy, to answer your question you are NOT wrong to read the NIV. Which is more important, reading a Bible you understand or, spend all your time trying to understand outdated english. God wants us to understand His message from His Word. Just a note of caution ... be careful what you believe from the KJVO camp. They make big deal of being spiritual enough to understand old English. they say, "If you were close enough to God you would understand KJV language." But when pressed for proof about their beliefs they either shut up, lie, mis-quote, take out of context, or attack you personally, You know like calling you names. (see above few posts) The KJVO, and I mean onlies, not KJVPs, are slandering God's word and one day must answer to him. IMO, they need to repent from their sin of Idolatry.

 

[robycop3]

Very interesting info, QS, for those who haven't read Gill's commentary, but still there's not one peep of justification for adding "the image of" to Romans 11:4. You just don't wanna admit those words were put there by the human whim of a human translator.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Youthguy:
I'm so confussed. Today is my first day on the message board and my first time to ever be on one of these and this is the first topic I have read about. I jut have a question, When I was growing up and reading my KJVB and not understanding it and asking my non-christian mom to explain it to me and she could not, then someone gave me a NIVB and I begain to understand what I was reading, am I wrong to read this Bible?

The versions debate has been going on for years, but there are some things to remember:

1. The KJV is an excellent 400-yr-old translation of the Scriptures into the English of the time, nothing more, nothing less. The KJV is just as valid a translation as any other, and if you can now understand it & want to read it, by all means go ahead.

2. The doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version is totally false. This is NOT simply opinion, it's been PROVEN.

3. Not every Bible version is valid, however, and some are better than others. The NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses is bogus, as is the People's Bible of England. The Living Bible actually contains modern "CUSSING", and "The Message" is more paraphrasing than translation. Personally, I use the NKJV, NIV, KJV, & NASB, though not necessarily in that order-and I also use the AV 1611(the original KJV) and even the Geneva Bible(the predecessor to the AV 1611, first published in 1560) on occasion. However, this is NOT a complete list of valid English-language Bibles, nor is the former a complete list of bogus versions. The serious Bible student learns all he/she can about the various versions and their sources.

4. Although MOST of the incorrect info comes from the KJVOs, the non-KJVO camp has come up with some silly notions also. Your best bet is to study the issue for yourself, with *PRAYER* for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by russell55:
Ahh, c'mon QS! We don't need that sort of thing, even in jest....

I believe QS's frustration with a fact he cannot deal with is starting to shine...I hope he returns to HONORING CHRIST with his posts & leaves the Ruckmanesque behavior in the trash.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by russell55:
Ahh, c'mon QS! We don't need that sort of thing, even in jest....

Lighten up, Dude, we all need to learn to laugh at ourselves a little more, especially after some of the trash being sprinkled over the rice crispies.

 

[russell55]

Lighten up, Dude, we all need to learn to laugh at ourselves a little more, especially after some of the trash being sprinkled over the rice crispies.

Hmm....First, YOU call someone something rude, and then when someone objects, you suggest its THEIR problem because they need to lighten up. Nice deflection...I'm impressed....a true insultmeister at work.

(And I'm not a dude....)

 

[Precepts]

Although MOST of the incorrect info comes from the KJVOs, the non-KJVO camp has come up with some silly notions also. Your best bet is to study the issue for yourself, with *PRAYER* for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

O.K. Cranston, (man, who named you that?), here's the "beef": I heard this arguement years ago over the Italicized words. I prayed to God for reason claiming James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted.

Cranston, I'm rejoicing! the Lord showed me that the words in question neither add to, nor take away from what God wants us all to understand. I've read behind commentaries like John Gill and find sound reasoning for them by some of the most profound of scholars. Many, many passages have these words in italics to help express the contextual meaning to the reader, not unlike the niv in that respect, tries to simplify the passage for the reader to understand, BUT, when you omit the italicized words , and allow only a word for word translation, it becomes hard for anyone to understand.

What you understand by the passage in question only came from intense study, but that is likened to straining at a gnat and a whole camel has passed your lips and you become choked.

I've held back until now, because I see too many of you just cannot come to grips with your outlandish attacks on the "adding to/taking from" SUPPOSITION.

If the very reasoning you are using is applied in the same perverted sense, then every translation of the Originals is in violation of Rev 22:18,19, because they take the original tongue, "Take it away" from it's original textual form and convert it into another textual form to represent it into that other tongue. Then that becomes a violation in that it adds a translation to the original language.

"Taking from the Original/adding to another language". So if you stop for about 3 seconds and consider your views you will see yourself straining at gnats and swallowing camels, and it will become perfectly clear and you won't have to suffer the ridicule of self inflicted and intentional blindness.

I find it tickles my pea brain of a funny-bone when I look at the reasoing you guys use sometimes, and this has proved to be another one of those times!

 

[Precepts]

(And I'm not a dude....)

Pardon me , Ma'am. Down here south of the Mason/Dixon line we call people named "russell" a dude. I've heard tell of some mighty strange goin's on up yonder in Canada, like calling people by their last names, but since 90% of us southerners have the same last name that would become confusing.

So, like I said, "Do a Michael Jackson, just keep your hands off the little boys!

 

[tinytim]

QS: "Cranston, I'm rejoicing! the Lord showed me that the words in question neither add to, nor take away from what God wants us all to understand."

EXTRA, EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!
QS HAS HIS EYES OPENED TO THE TRUTH

Hmmmm....... the above quote is just the point we non-KJVOs have been trying to show you. Whether its the words in italics or words that differ from the KJV in a MV they neither add to, nor take away from what God wants us all to understand. In other words, HIS MESSAGE!!!!
THANK YOU FOR FILLING THE KJVO STANCE WITH HOLES..

 

[russell55]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> (And I'm not a dude....)

Pardon me , Ma'am..... </font>[/QUOTE]I meant I spent my early years on a ranch riding horses and driving cattle.....