Studies of the Original Texts

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Ransom:

The above so-called "confusion" is easily resolved with a little homework and close Bible study. Why don't you do some?

I agree! It even says so in the Bible. 2 Tin 2:15 (look it up!) It does say so doesn't it?

And in the meantime, stop trying to cast doubt on God's Word by coming to it from the position of skepticism and unbelief.

We don't doubt a single word, brother. We don't re-translate. We don't rummage around in dead languages or multiple choice versions . The doubt cast on the word is inherent in your position and this is the MAIN reason we are KJVO.

Doing a little googling on this passage, the first five hits making the exact same argument as Bryan were atheist sites trying to find fault with the Scriptures. Nothing like a little practical atheism from the Bible's defenders, eh?

"All of these things [scribal errors] contributed to the simple fact that there is not a single handwritten manuscript of the Bible, in Greek or Hebrew, that does not contain, somewhere, an error, an oversight, a mistake. To err is human." James White(King James Only Controversy p. 36)

Have you ever gone street witnessing (or door to door) and talked to some of these young athiests? I promise you they are aware of the MV position.

The KJVO position is not filling them with "doubt and skepticism" Many of them were dragged to church only to hear a preacher, week after week, say, "This is a bad translation", "In the original, it REALLY says", "I like what it says better in this version", etc. That kind of preaching dominates the modern pulpit, and it has yielded no significant revivals in holiness. What it has resulted in is a generetion of skeptics, athiests and scoffers who are laughing right with you Ransom.

You gotta laugh.

And none of this, of course,
Will stand
When I stand before the Man
On that great day
Of the great divide
When all the kings and queens
Will have their closets emptied
And the bones will all fall out
'Dem bones 'dem bones 'dem dry bones
Will not fail
Dead men will tell tales

And you can laugh
And I can laugh
And we can laugh
But it's not funny

-Mike Roe

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

How do you know?? I think aroudn 1611 there was confusino because the KJV was the modern version and many preferred the Geneva Bible.

This I am looking into in my studies. I'll find that answer.

A good preached makes those explanations anyway because he is committed to preaching the text. This is an overblown complaint, usually due to those who have never used a different version than the pastor uses.

I'm not arguing a good preacher will expound on what he has found in his studies. But to have to always be on the subject of additions, deletions, and why this version says one thing while another says something else is a waste of time, something God does not do. We should keep to HIs Word and the subject. I don't think this is an overblown complaint. And I also began my Christian walk in a church that used different versions. My first Bible was an NKJV, my husbands was a New Scofield. We saw confusion before we even knew anything about different versions. To me, a Bible was a Bible, until I tried to follow along with the Bible reading. A can of worms was opened.

I think the confusion over outdated words, difficult sentence structure, and old language is also not the kind of confusion God wants. But the reality is that that is how God has seen fit to work. Last week in my Adult Bible study class we looked a few differences between teh NASB, KJV, NKJV, and NIV. Without exception everyone agreed that the KJV was the most confusing. And I didn't pick a particular verse on purpose. I picked a random verse because I didn't decided to do it until I got in the discussion. Everyone also agreed that all the versions communicated the same truth. We did exactly what the KJV translators said to do ... used a variety of translations to gain the sense. It was a great exercise. And there was no doubt about what God's word was or what God wanted us to know.

I thought man was advancing, and being more intelligent, shouldn't he be able to learn a few archaic words to extend his vocabulary? I find no confusion in words I come across that I don't know the meaning of. I look them up. I have Bible dictionaries, concordances, etc. If a MV user has no problem with word usage in his Bible, then he shouldn't see a need to look up words in Greek or Hebrew. All is plain to see in the MV? Not likely. Opinions of people that read the easier versions are not high on a priority list, either. If you are in a room full of KJB users, and read from an MV, you will recieve alot of funny looks and grimaces, because they understand the language and if not, they will look further into the verse in question. I can't agree with your reasoning in this argument.

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
The doubt cast on the word is inherent in your position and this is the MAIN reason we are KJVO.

Nice work, Lacy. So YOUR inability to understand bibliology according to the teaching of the apostles, has made you KJVO. How great is that?

We are not KJVO because we take God at his word, and believe the Scriptures. I personally like the NASB and the ESV the most based on God's promise to preserve his word in Psalm 12:7.

Your reason is pragmatism, our is Scripture.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:
This I am looking into in my studies. I'll find that answer.

Unsolicited opinions from the one you publicly identified as an apostate

I sincerely hope that both you (AND your husband, if he is doing this with you) continue your studies.

I don't think this is an overblown complaint. And I also began my Christian walk in a church that used different versions. My first Bible was an NKJV, my husbands was a New Scofield. We saw confusion before we even knew anything about different versions. To me, a Bible was a Bible, until I tried to follow along with the Bible reading. A can of worms was opened.

Not doubting you, but I have a really hard time believing this. If you contend that there is confusion between the NKJV and the New Scofield, I would dissent. The NKJV does not add anything to the Bible in terms of Doctrine. My wife uses an NKJV, and although I am a purist with respect to our beloved language, I really like the NKJV. I like the marginal notes that point to the differences in the texts. I have yet to see anyone provide any legitimate proof (even Gipp at Chick Publications who has very pronounced animosity toward the NKJV) that the NKJV changes any Doctrine contained in God's Holy Word.

I thought man was advancing, and being more intelligent, shouldn't he be able to learn a few archaic words to extend his vocabulary?

Absolutely

Opinions of people that read the easier versions are not high on a priority list, either.

This is a very conclusive statement you have made. What source would you use to support this?

If you are in a room full of KJB users, and read from an MV, you will recieve alot of funny looks and grimaces, because they understand the language and if not, they will look further into the verse in question. I can't agree with your reasoning in this argument.

Not necessarily. If you are making a generalization that all KJB users possess the intellect to use the 1611 AV, then I would disagree with you. I have encountered very belligerent KJVO's that attack the MV's yet do not even know which version of the AV they are using. I have had someone honestly state that King James was foretold by the Old Testament. As for "room" scenario, the same could be said for reading the KJV in a similar room full of MV users.

As I stated earlier, I sincerely hope that you continue your studying.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Gunther:
Your reason is pragmatism, our is Scripture.

<whistle blowing>
Time out. Take a deep breath.
Nobody can justify their usage of a particular Version of God's Holy Word (KJVO or otherwise) with Scriptural Passages.

 

[Ransom]

Lacy Evans said:

We don't doubt a single word, brother.

Not unless the word is in the NIV, anyway. Then it's fair game for casting doubt on the Bible.

Nothing says "denial" like KJV-onlyists caught in an untruth and trying to dig their way out of it.

You gotta laugh.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gunther:
Your reason is pragmatism, our is Scripture.

&lt;whistle blowing&gt;
Time out. Take a deep breath.
Nobody can justify their usage of a particular Version of God's Holy Word (KJVO or otherwise) with Scriptural Passages.

</font>[/QUOTE]Oh yes you can....

Just apply some acrostic algebra (which God gives to His secretaries, you know).

Take a look at 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21. NO "k's" or "j's"!!!! Plenty of "n's", "a's", "s's", and "b's" but no "KJ". Obviously this means that God's promise to preserve His Word includes the NASB but not the KJV.

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Unsolicited opinions from the one you publicly identified as an apostate

I sincerely hope that both you (AND your husband, if he is doing this with you) continue your studies.

The opinions you give are just that, and I will consider them with a fair attitude. I identified you as an apostate on one of your opinions, and I cannot back down from that. You are correct in this statement

My husband is not doing this study. He is a staunch KJBO, and will die that way. I have reasons for my questions and studies on this subject, unbenounced to you. I am free from any influence of my husband on this subject, and my posts, as he does not look over my shoulder as I type. I search because I question and because of my current situation.

Not doubting you, but I have a really hard time believing this. If you contend that there is confusion between the NKJV and the New Scofield, I would dissent. The NKJV does not add anything to the Bible in terms of Doctrine. My wife uses an NKJV, and although I am a purist with respect to our beloved language, I really like the NKJV. I like the marginal notes that point to the differences in the texts. I have yet to see anyone provide any legitimate proof (even Gipp at Chick Publications who has very pronounced animosity toward the NKJV) that the NKJV changes any Doctrine contained in God's Holy Word.

I may not have been clear on this. We were new Christians, and given these Bibles. I was not looking at the differences in a doctinal light. The notes were great, but during the readings in the services, was when I had noticed difficulty following along. I had become accustomed to differences in Bibles when studying with JW's, but hadn't realized born again believers had differences, too.

Opinions of people that read the easier versions are not high on a priority list, either.

This is a very conclusive statement you have made. What source would you use to support this?

Of course it's conclusive. I should have stated it was "my" list.

Not necessarily. If you are making a generalization that all KJB users possess the intellect to use the 1611 AV, then I would disagree with you. I have encountered very belligerent KJVO's that attack the MV's yet do not even know which version of the AV they are using. I have had someone honestly state that King James was foretold by the Old Testament. As for "room" scenario, the same could be said for reading the KJV in a similar room full of MV users.

This was not my assertion. I think you are mixing the "referred" users with the 1611 users. This was not part of the argument, but that your last statement in this quote is my precise reasoning for stating what I did.

As I stated earlier, I sincerely hope that you continue your studying.

Am doing such. Thanks for your sincerity. You remind me of Romans 5:3-5.

[ October 03, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: TheOliveBranch ]

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Ransom:

Not unless the word is in the NIV, anyway. Then it's fair game for casting doubt on the Bible.

Nothing says "denial" like KJV-onlyists caught in an untruth and trying to dig their way out of it.

You gotta laugh.

And nothing says"

2Sa 21:19
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where
Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother
of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's
beam"

quite like the KJV.

By the way where is "the brother of" in 2Sa 21:19 NIV so I can properly "doubt" it?

I did get a kick out of your rather long explanation of why the KJV was right in the first place. And this is why we cause folks to doubt the Word?

I could laugh . . . but it's not funny

Lacy

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:
My husband is not doing this study. He is a staunch KJBO, and will die that way. I have reasons for my questions and studies on this subject, unbenounced to you. I am free from any influence of my husband on this subject, and my posts, as he does not look over my shoulder as I type. I search because I question and because of my current situation.

WHOA, HOLD ON!!
I hope you don't perceive me as subscribing to the belief that you are some sort of mindless automaton typing on command. I am not implying that at all.

As for the last sentence, I sincerely hope that this is a good "current situation" rather than a bad "current situation." We can leave that as stated.

I think you are mixing the "referred" users with the 1611 users. This was not part of the argument, but that your last statement in this quote is my precise reasoning for stating what I did.

[Christian

to you and your family.]

 

[HankD]

We don't doubt a single word, brother. We don't re-translate. We don't rummage around in dead languages or multiple choice versions . The doubt cast on the word is inherent in your position and this is the MAIN reason we are KJVO.

Here is a good thing about these so-called "dead-languages" of the original Scriptures.

They NEVER change.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jots and tittles = Hebrew letters/particles.

HankD

 

[Ransom]

Lacy Evans said:

I did get a kick out of your rather long explanation of why the KJV was right in the first place.

So I guess adding to the Word of God is OK when the KJV people do it, but when the NIV translators simply translate what is there, it creates a "contradiction" that no one but KJV-onlyists can see.

 

[Lacy Evans]

So I guess adding to the "Word of God" is OK when Ransom does it, but when the KJV translators simply "add" the actual words that Ransom found so obvious, it creates an "untruth, a denial" that no one but the Any Version-onlyists can see.

We could laugh, but it's not funny

Lacy

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
I did get a kick out of your rather long explanation of why the KJV was right in the first place. And this is why we cause folks to doubt the Word?

The 1611 Authorised Version WAS "right in the first place." That is why, if you believe in KJVO, you should not be using anything but the AV. That would include disregarding the 1769 revision.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Ransom:

So I guess adding to the Word of God is OK when the KJV people do it, but when the NIV translators simply translate what is there, it creates a "contradiction" that no one but KJV-onlyists can see.

Ransom, let me ask you two questions.

1)In 2 Sam 21:19, who was killed? (All wrangling & cross referencing aside, if it was Goliath most MVs are correct. If it was his Brother, the KJV is correct, at least in this one verse.)

2) Do you or do you not believe in your heart of hearts that the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of 2 Samuel to include "the brother of" in the original autograph, to "get the facts right"? (You corrected "the Greek", why is it such a shocking heresy for me to believe that God providentially could use the KJV translators to do the same, especially on such a no-brainer {I Chron 20:5})

Lacy

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
The 1611 Authorised Version WAS "right in the first place." That is why, if you believe in KJVO, you should not be using anything but the AV. That would include disregarding the 1769 revision.

Ah but you forget I'm much more radical than a KJVOer, I'm a KJV1769Oer!

I believe that God preserves things by resurrecting them because it is clearly shown in scripture.

I believe the 1611 is more "reliable" and more "accurate" when compared to the "original Greek" than the NIV, RSV, NASB, LB, NWT, et.al.. I also believe the TR family of translations is more "reliable" and follows more closely the "oldest and best manuscripts" than the Alexandrian family. I believe these things because of overwhelming fruit. (Quite frankly fruit is all we have to go on because nobody who has lived in at least the last 1500 years has seen an "Original Greek" to make absolutely sure.)

I believe that resurrection is sometimes a process because it is clearly shown in scripture.

But I believe the KJV1769 is perfect. The KJV1769 is the one book that has produced the most fruit, the most revival, the most holiness, in the last 1500 years.

My statement was completely consistent with my position.

Lacy

 

[bryan1276]

Here is some more modern version "bloopers" since 2 Samuel 21:19 made such a splash. Mark 1:3 in an NIV is a lie since Isaiah did NOT write that; it's found in Malachi. Acts 8:37 has been taken out of most modern versions along with Matthew 18:11, 17:21, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24. (we arent talking about he/she went to the citie---these are wiped out verses.) And then when witnessing to a Muslim (when I used modern versions) I was actually confronted with this: Jesus Christ and the Devil are the same person according to your NIV. He was right and showed me Isa 14:12 where the devil is called the morning star then he showed me Revelation 22:16 where Jesus Christ claims to be the morning star. He rejected Jesus Christ using that as his reasoning and no one using an NIV could say differently cause those were the words on the page.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
Mark 1:3 in an NIV is a lie since Isaiah did NOT write that; it's found in Malachi.

Isaiah is sometimes used as a synedoche for the prophets since he is the chief prophet. No problem here except your lack of understanding.

Acts 8:37 has been taken out of most modern versions along with Matthew 18:11, 17:21, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24.

Have you ever seen an MV with these verses in them?? OF course not ... so you are being dishonest here. These verses were never taken out of MVs. They were never there to begin with. Why? Because they were not a part of the Scriptures. They were added to Scripture in violation of Rev 22.

Jesus Christ and the Devil are the same person according to your NIV. He was right and showed me Isa 14:12 where the devil is called the morning star then he showed me Revelation 22:16 where Jesus Christ claims to be the morning star. He rejected Jesus Christ using that as his reasoning and no one using an NIV could say differently cause those were the words on the page.

I am a man, you are a man. Therefore, we are the same person. Oh wait, that was silly ... that reasoning doesn't work at all. See how ridiculous such a charge is??? The fact that two people have the same name and the same title means nothing. Simple looking at the context of these verses shows such an objection to be a foolish attempt to attack the Word of God. This "problem" has been answered ad nauseum and examples in the KJV have been shown that do the same thing. There was a recent thread where this foolish objection was debunked. Do some homework and get some answers.

And resist the temptation to bring up old, already answered issues. Find something new.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
And then when witnessing to a Muslim (when I used modern versions) I was actually confronted with this: Jesus Christ and the Devil are the same person according to your NIV. He was right and showed me Isa 14:12 where the devil is called the morning star then he showed me Revelation 22:16 where Jesus Christ claims to be the morning star. He rejected Jesus Christ using that as his reasoning and no one using an NIV could say differently cause those were the words on the page.

You will please
pardon me if i don't indulge
in the weekly discussion of this
passage. Here was the last one:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001046

 

[Ed Edwards]

Pastor Larry: "Isaiah is sometimes used as a synedoche
for the prophets since he is the chief prophet.
No problem here except your lack of understanding."

Amen, Pasor Larry -- Preach it!

BTW, should be: "synecdoche".