Some Help; Maybe!?

the 2nd link was especially good to read, as it does not handle the translation approaches FE, DE, or paraphrase pejoratively.

 

THE KJV1611 IS THE WORD OF GOD.YOU JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT GOD IS A BIG ENOUGH GOD TO PERSERVE HIS WORD.I WOULD BE GLAD TO GO VERY DEEP INTO THIS SUBJECT TO ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO INTO IT DEEPER.THEY ARE TWO LINES OF BIBLES.ONE IS CORRUPT,AND ONE IS NOT.IF YOU ARE USEING ANYTHING EXCEPT A KJV1611,I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO FIND OUT WHO WESCOTT AND HORT ARE.IF YOU USE AN NIV TURN TO ACTS 8:37 AND TELL ME WHAT IT SAYS.THE WORD "SODOMITE" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE NIV.DO YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE ONE OF THE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD OF OF THE NIV WAS A LESBIAN.YOU NEED TO CHECK THIS STUFF OUT FOLKS.KEVNO1PAINTER@AOL.COM

 

< THE KJV1611 IS THE WORD OF GOD. >

Nonsense. It is one translation of the Word.

< YOU JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT GOD IS A BIG ENOUGH GOD TO PERSERVE HIS WORD. >

But He's too small to see to it that His Word is received through many languages and translations? You don't gotta believe anything in the line of a translation being superior to what is was translated from.

< THEY ARE TWO LINES OF BIBLES.ONE IS CORRUPT,AND ONE IS NOT.IF YOU ARE USEING ANYTHING EXCEPT A KJV1611,I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO FIND OUT WHO WESCOTT AND HORT ARE. >

If you are using a KJV1611, you are reading the letter 'f' in place of an 's,' among other things changed to the later editions. And the idea that the older manuscripts are less accurate than the newer ones demonstrates nothing but brainwashing.

< THE WORD "SODOMITE" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE NIV.DO YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE ONE OF THE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD OF OF THE NIV WAS A LESBIAN. >

And the words "homosexual" and "lesbian" do not appear in the KJV. Do you know why? King James himself is one place to begin searching.

YOU NEED TO CHECK THIS STUFF OUTFOLKS. >

This "stuff" has been checked out numerous times.

 

YES,I AM BRAINWASHED BY GOD,TO BELIEVE THAT HE HAS PERSERVED HIS WORD FOR ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE IN THE KJV1611.THANK GOD!!!MY VERY SALVATION DEPENDS ON WHAT THAT BOOK SAYS!I AM GLAD THAT I KNOW IT IS GOD'S WORD.

[ March 24, 2002, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

I'm glad you know that, but who here says it isn't? Those who oppose KJV-onlyism do not argue that it isn't God's word, we argue against the idea that it ONLY is God's word. Error in translation do not prevent a English Bible from being God's word.

 

Then you don't have salvation. Our salvation does not depend on what the KJV1611 says or any edition of the KJV for that matter. Your salvation depends on the substitutionary atonement of Christ which saved people long before there was a KJV and, should the Lord tarry, will save people long after the KJV has disappeared from use. The message of salvation is found in every good and faithful translation.

Your view is heresy, plain and simply. Either you have not studied the issues or you have willfully chosen to participate in unbiblical teaching. Either way you need to repent and change your views.

The KJV is a very good translation and it is one of many very good translations. Use it, love it, read it, and memorize it but do not spread false teaching about it.

This is wholly inappropriate for this forum. If you have something to say, use words that are appropriate for believers rather than choosing a wordly phrase and changing a few words to avoid using foul language.

[ March 24, 2002, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Is that so? Well come to think of it, it does say somewhere He will lay up his words in your heart.

[ March 24, 2002, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Jeremiah 31:31-34

"The days are surely coming...I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts...for they shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more."

(personal favorite of mine)

Joshua

 

This is a reference to regeneration as is clear from the context.

 

Larry, I was making no attempt to exegete it. Just providing the reference .

Joshua

 

Since you've already stated that the KJV1611 is the only Word of God, you might save yourself some embarrasment by checking to see if your version is the real 1611.

[ March 24, 2002, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: TimothyW ]

 

BELIEVE ME BROTHER I AM NOT GOING TO BE EMBARRESED.I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE GOING WITH THAT COMMENT.I HAVE DONE MY HOMEWORK.I WILL GO AS DEEP INTO THIS AS YOU WANT TO GO.GOD HAS PERSERVED HIS WORD.THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.

 

First, please do not post in call capital letters. It makes it hard to read, and in internet discussions is equivalent to yelling.

Yes, Joseph was Jesus' father. Not in a biological sense though. "Father" does not mean only in a biological sense (ie. open a dictionary), and there are numerous passages even in the KJV where "father" is used in a non-biological sense. Even in the same passage, Mary called Joseph his "father" (verse 48), and she of all people would know.

If this is a subtle attack (which I disagree with), it is too subtle, for the NIV affirms the virgin birth in Isa 7:14, Matt 1:23, Luke 1:27 and Luke 1:34.

Both this, and the "virgin" example above, are textual (Greek) differences. The NIV affirms both Mary's virginity and the role of Christ's blood time after time. If you want to reject a version on the basis of what sounds better to *you* personally, ignoring all evidence, shall we compare the NIV to the KJV in verses like Rom 9:5 (Christ's deity is explicit in the NIV, but 'subtly attacked' in the KJV), Jude 1:25 ("through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages" is 'missing' in the KJV), Acts 4:25 ('ripped out' "the Holy Spirit" and thus divine inspiration of the OT), Phillip 1:14 (NIV has "word of God" while KJV only has "word"), or dozens of other similar examples?

You see, there is more to the issue that what just "sounds nicer". There is more to it than what *you* prefer. If you are going to bring accusations against some translations, are you going to be honest enough to examine the KJV by the same methods? It goes both ways, and if you only are willing to see one direction, you only sound like a hypocrite. I hope you are really willing to discover the truth of the matter, and I hope pride will not prevent you from admitting when you are wrong.

God bless,
Brian

[ March 24, 2002, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

< SATANIC ATTACK ON THE VIRGIN BIRTH. >

Kevo, explain the KJV's "SATANIC ATTACK ON THE VIRGIN BIRTH"...

Luke 2:48 -- And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (KJV)

And Villin, the expurgated quotation from my previous post changes the reason that passage was brought up-- which was not to indicate the Word of God is whatever we feel it is. But I am sure we know how to find a passage if we so need.

 

BRIAN,I KNOW WHAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE SAYS FROM COVER TO COVER.IT IS NOT JUST WHAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.IF YOU WOULD ONLY STUDY WHERE THE KING JAMES BIBLE COMES FROM,AND WHERE THE OTHER VERSIONS COME FROM YOU WOULD SEE WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.THE ONLY WAY YOU WOULD USE ANOTHER VERSION IS IF YOU WERE A CATHOLIC. 2 TIM.2:15

 

KEVO said:

Sure you have.

[ March 25, 2002, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Chet ]

 

Kevo,

You are mistaken on a number of issues.

First, the differences in the translations are based on textual variants that exist. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy to delete doctrine. Every doctrine found the KJV is found at least as clearly in the MVs. There is no weakening of doctrine. The KJV is based, in most scholar's knowledgeable opinion, on a weaker text than the MVs. IT has been demonstrated to have clear errors in it in a number of places.

Second, the KJV has been changed hundreds of times since 1611. They have not been huge changes but some directly affect the meaning. In many cases they have added to the text; in some cases they have taken out the text. In some places they have added the names of God and in others they have deleted the names of God. These are historical facts that can be checked out.

If you have studied this issue as in depth as you say you have, then it seems you wouldn't be making these very basic mistakes. My suspicion is that you have read a couple of books (none of them involving any textual discussion or language information) and have formed your opinion without a knowledge of the whole issue. There are a good many people here who will discuss this issue if you are willing to be a gentleman about it and stay away from the inflammatory rhetoric.

Lastly, it is untrue that only Catholics use MVs. I am as Baptist as they get and reject the Catholic church vehemently. I use MVs exclusively. I opened my KJV once about a year ago to find a note I had written in it. I am very familiar with the KJV and believe that it is an excellent translation. I do not overlook its flaws or exalt it to a position that denies the biblical doctrine of Scripture.

[ March 25, 2002, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Then why bring up verses like you did, and not comment on the verses I brought up? If it is not about what "sounds good" to you, please explain why Acts 4:25 starts with "You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:" in the NIV, but "Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said" in the KJV".

I *have* studied this extensively. It is one of the reasons I disagree with you. Besides, isn't the issue really about what the texts say?

This is yet another false generalization. Actually, it is a lie.

Brian

 

HEY BRIAN, IT'S NOT JUST WHAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.IF YOU WOULD TAKE ABOUT 6 MONTHS AND STUDY WHERE THE KJV CAME FROM AND WHERE THE OTHER VERSIONS CAME FROM YOU TO WOULD BE KJV ONLY.I WILL BE POSTING MORE STUFF LATER.
KEVIN