Regarding the King James Bible

[Precepts]

Originally posted by 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..

You'd better put the lid back on that can of worms or they'll spoil your tulips, and you'll find them squeezing between your tippy-toes.

I really like the way so many have side-stepped, and then start backing up. Now you guys are trying to place the MV's in league with the KJB, it can't be done.

I'll admit my lack of knowledge, but I will not conform to this modernistic hoopla. I've tried to read the MV's, and they have never compared to the KJB in it's eloquence, they can't, they lack the earmarks of literary grace found in the KJB.

Besides, God isn't illiterate, and neither is there excuse for so being, but all we who know the Lord, don't have to rely on literacy to understand what He wants us to know.

Also, the Mind of Christ is too supernaturally fantastic for even the most intellectual mind to contain in the mere human. This banter is self exalting concerning MV's, which is contrary to the wisdom of God in the beginning.

What may be "cut and dried" to so many who propitgate MV's, the KJB is alive with revelation, application, and having only one interpetation, that is what gives the KJB it's eloquence/ it has the touch of God, MV's only have the touch of men.

The KJB is the high mark, that MV's can only dream of attaining.

 

[tinytim]

QS : "Now you guys are trying to place the MV's in league with the KJB"

Don't give us the credit, God did that. They are all His Word. And as you alluded to before, questionable words neither add to, nor take away what God wants us to understand.

God gave humans a message: The Bible
It is in many translations.
All reveal His message.
He loves us enough to die for our sins.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

...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.

Then you should have absolutely no problem whatsoever with a new edition of the KJV which has the very same italicized words in 1 Kg. 19:18 as it does in Rom. 11:4 --

"Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto the image of Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him." (1 Kg. 19:18)

"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." (Rom. 11:4)

If the words "neither add to, not take away from what God wants us all to understand," then they should be in both verses -- right? On the other hand, if "the image of" in italics shouldn't be in 1 Kg. 19:18, then it shouldn't be in Rom. 11:4 either. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by tinytim:
QS : "Now you guys are trying to place the MV's in league with the KJB"

Don't give us the credit, God did that. They are all His Word. And as you alluded to before, questionable words neither add to, nor take away what God wants us to understand.

God gave humans a message: The Bible
It is in many translations.
All reveal His message.
He loves us enough to die for our sins.

Amen, Brother Tinytim -- Preach it!

And may God bless us one and all!

 

[Precepts]

You guys miss the point, I would rather have the complete Mind of God in the KJB, than to have His Mind after men have performd a labotomy as in MV's.

I never said the MV's didn't contain the Gospel message, but that's not all God has to say to His Bride in His Love Letter.

I've heard the Bible called "The Book of Dreams, contained in the reality of God's Mind".

I'd rather be told the whole dream, than have it conveyed in bits and pieces to my heart that hungers and thirsts after righteousness.

The particular discussion does apply in the respect to Romans 11:4, but whther the words in question are there or not does make some difference, the more complete thought being in the KJB, that has already been determined, you might not see it that way, but I do.

I would rather live in the Light of His Blessed Word than to darken counsel by making attacks to It's integrity.

Thank You Gentlemen for the discussion, I have further strengthened my stand on the King James Bible 1611/1769. "18??", I don't believe I've had the "pleasure".

Archangel, I was only kidding about the "homosexual" part unless you really are?

I was only trying to gwet you to understand your line of reasoning could be compared that way, be careful from now on.

I see also that no one responded to my analogy of your reasoning in regards to Rev 22, that's allright, I know it's hard to admit your rules of reason are a little "bent".

 

[BrianT]

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:

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.

Your point?


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.

But here we've been talking about only ONE instance of italicized words.

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 understand that three words were unnecessarily ADDED to the passage by the translators. And I see you've quoted another booboo in the KJV-straining *AT* a gnat. The Greek here is 'diulizo'(strain or filter OUT, not AT), from which we get "dialysis", and 'konops', a type of gnat which breeds in fermenting wine.

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.

So it's OK to ADD to God's word even though He several times said NOT to?

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.

The only "perverted sense" seen here is the totally-inexcusable, unjustifiable adding of three words to a translation of God's word. If EVERY generation of copyists & translators had done the same thing, God's pure word would be thoroughly mixed with man's impure additions. We're not talking about clarifying a translation here nor rendering a word or phrase with multiple meanings into the proper context for a given usage-we're talking about three spurious words added into a translation of a Bible verse from Greek to English.

"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.

Again-WHAT JUSTIFICATION-what possible reason-did the AV translators have for adding words to a translation not found in the words being translated and not needed to clarify the translation nor to place the translated words into the correct context?

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!

The reasonong is quite simple-three unnecessary, unjustifiable words were ADDED to God's word in translating this verse from Greek to English. Make all the excuses you can invent, but they don't change the FACT. Those words weren't in God's original words to Elijah & they weren't in Paul's paraphrasing of God's words. The AV translators had no excuse to have ADDED them.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
You'd better put the lid back on that can of worms or they'll spoil your tulips, and you'll find them squeezing between your tippy-toes.

Hey, you KJVOs would LIKE that, wouldn't you? You'd like not having people like us non KJVOs stepping up & proving KJVO wrong in every point, wouldn't you?

I really like the way so many have side-stepped, and then start backing up.

Well, don't count me among "you guys'. I'm staying right on the course-the course that three unnecessary words were ADDED to Scripture in Romans 11:4 by the AV translators. you cannot prove differently.


Now you guys are trying to place the MV's in league with the KJB, it can't be done.

We know. The KJV is written in what's now archaic language.

I'll admit my lack of knowledge, but I will not conform to this modernistic hoopla. I've tried to read the MV's, and they have never compared to the KJB in it's eloquence, they can't, they lack the earmarks of literary grace found in the KJB.

Eloquence & literary grace don't cover up the booboos.

Besides, God isn't illiterate, and neither is there excuse for so being, but all we who know the Lord, don't have to rely on literacy to understand what He wants us to know.

But yet the KJVO seeks to limit God in His presentation of His word by declaring all Bibles except the KJV not valid.

Also, the Mind of Christ is too supernaturally fantastic for even the most intellectual mind to contain in the mere human. This banter is self exalting concerning MV's, which is contrary to the wisdom of God in the beginning.

No banter except about three words added by men to God's word.

What may be "cut and dried" to so many who propitgate MV's, the KJB is alive with revelation, application, and having only one interpetation, that is what gives the KJB it's eloquence/ it has the touch of God, MV's only have the touch of men.

Proof, please?

We've clearly shown in just the one example in this thread that the KJV bears the touch of man.

The KJB is the high mark, that MV's can only dream of attaining.

High mark of WHAT??? And how can BOOKS(the mvs) dream?

 

[HankD]

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?

No!

Keep reading.

HankD

 

[Pastor_Bob]

After 10 pages of "debate," it's time to wrap this one up. This thread will closed no earlier than 10:00 EST tonight.

 

[robycop3]

Far as adding words goes-1 Corinthians 7:9 ends with "to burn" in the KJV(and the Greek)while almost every other version adds "with passion", which clarifies the meaning of "to burn". Yet, the MV critics holler about that, while attempting to defend "the image of" in the KJV's Romans 11:4, which clarifies nothing. Is this a double standard or what?

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Whew! All dis rat-maze gonna maka my head feel like swiss-cheese!

Boys...ain't I glad I've stuck to just the one ol'Book I started out with many years ago!

(Musta been made into a readable language for simple-minded-folk like me)!

"Like begats Like and the KJBible came from Like."

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:


(Musta been made into a readable language for simple-minded-folk like me)!

GG- without looking at a dictionary, would you consider the following words readable? (see 1 Cor 14: 9). besom, bruit, bestead, stomacher, amerce, brigadine, wen, munition, sith, sottish, tabering, etc? My point is that the MV's translate (or update) these words in their current usage, which makes God's Word understandable to the common man. Of course every word in the MV's may not be understood by every reader, but if that word has current usage, then look it up, either in a dictionary, or better yet, an Expository Dictionary such as Vine's. Why be cumbered with the archaic English in certain words, when it's modern equivalent will shed the light on what the original authors were intending to say?

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
Whew! All dis rat-maze gonna maka my head feel like swiss-cheese!

Boys...ain't I glad I've stuck to just the one ol'Book I started out with many years ago!

(Musta been made into a readable language for simple-minded-folk like me)!

"Like begats Like and the KJBible came from Like."

BUT-Do you believe that one ol'book is the ONLY valid Book? And what "like" did the KJV come from? Its immediate predecessor as the fave English version was the Geneva Bible-and the AV 1611 is quite a bit different from it. Far as that goes, the commonly-used 1769 KJV is quite different from the AV 1611.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Now I don't have time for all this tomfoolery, but I'm aware satan is still up to his old garden tricks---throwing doubt in believer's hearts: "Yea, hath God said...?"

God is not the author of confusion, amen? Thanky. The Lord has kept & preserved His Holy Word for ALL generations until us today (& He will continue to do so).

I'm battle-weary & the older I get, it seems the stronger satan gets. As long as I have my KJBible (only), I feel like I have a fighting chance to continue on.

No, I have not had problems understanding any of the Words, even as a child; I just keep readin' on till it clears itself up. This Book was good enuff to get even my grandparents saved (& theirs before them!)

I do know words change meanings over the years...I have discovered that since I've been on the 'net & found the Webster's 1828 Dictionary---those are the "true" meanings, I would think, compared to today's. I trust my KJBible, too. (I do not have men's notes or even a concordance, but somehow It has never let me down)!

We have always tried to use Chevys, but from what I hear, today's model is not the same as that beloved ol'57; yet we still choose the Chevy over a Ford!

In my heart of hearts, I have believed this way all my life that the KJBible is pure; it is my "straight stick". God promised to preserve His Words & God cannot lie.

"Thinking is very far from knowing". The truth will make itself heard in the end.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
Now I don't have time for all this tomfoolery, but

Translation: I'm not taking the time to listen to anything you say, but I will gladly state my unsupported opinion as though it were truth, and lob veiled insults at you in the process.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
God is not the author of confusion, amen?

So then it would be safe to say that he is not the author of these words: besom, bruit, bestead, stomacher, amerce, brigadine, wen, munition, sith, sottish, tabering ... ??????

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
God is not the author of confusion, amen?

So then it would be safe to say that he is not the author of these words: besom, bruit, bestead, stomacher, amerce, brigadine, wen, munition, sith, sottish, tabering ... ?????? </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly.

A position that claims that a "straight stick" popped into existence in 1611, (which was straigher than any previous stick, and still needed some further minor straightening itself) is very confusing. And "God is not the author of confusion".

All dis straight-stickin' talk aint makin' sense to a simple-minded-farm-boy like me! Sounds like a fancy-talkin' trick of Satan to me, tryin' to get me all afuddled!

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
The Lord has kept & preserved His Holy Word for ALL generations until us today (& He will continue to do so).

Amen! we are in agreement! So, that's exactly why MV's are important!The KJV was a MV in 1611. If God has only preserved His word in the AV1611, where was His Word in 1603? 1610? the same place it was in those years is what the MV's can be based upon now, i.e. The Originals. (I know some object to this term, but we have the meaning of the Originals preserved in MSS, etc BTW, the Original KJV no longer exist either!, i.e. the very first to roll off the presses )

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Mock-on, boys! I believe what I've trusted in for more-years-than-you-are-old, to be the "final frontier"...

Sorry if I've ruffled your feathers.