The Primacy of the King James Bible.

[Alan Gross]

Prior to the stereotype of 'KJVO', which I'm not, our printed tracks and things just called opponents to the Bible, 'opponents to the Bible', 'its critics are legions', 'skeptics', and stuff like that.

I realize KJVO is a type of cult mentality

The word 'cult' is against rule no. 9.2, btw, Mr. Moderator, i.e., 'taboo'...

"The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults,"...

Eleven Simple Rules for Posting

Totally unbelievable

there is no logical arguing w/ a KJvO

....not only KJVOs, but closed minds in general...

there will be no true reasoning.

Step aside.

 

[kyredneck]

God is simply greater than the KJVO folks allow.

....not only KJVO folks, but closed minded folks in general...

 

[Marooncat79]

I memorize almost all scripture in KJV

It’s a good translation

so is NASB and others

 

[robycop3]

The Model T Ford(1908-1927) was once "THE" car of the USA & much of the rest of the world. In just a few years, it caused America to build thousands of miles of roads, & a proliferation of gas stations & other businesses associated with cars. It popularized recreational driving & sped up the delivery of everything from fresh food to mail. Almost every family could afford one. They were customized into everything from race cars to buses to firetrucks. It held the all-time record for worldwide car sales til 1972 when passed by the VW beetle.

But the Model-T was replaced by the Model A, which had more-modern features, & eas more-suited to paved roads than the Model-T. And as the years passed, the most-popular models of a given time were replaced with generally-better models, thru today.

Same with the KJV. As the English language changed, more ancient Scriptural smm. were discovered, & translation improved, the KJV was supplanted by better versions, more-suited to today's language, with better translation. But just as Model-Ts remained in common use up til WW2, some still stubbornly cling to the KJV.

The KJV is still a legitimate Bible version, just as the Model-T is still a legitimate, legal car. But a few years ago, I drove a pristine 1920 Model-T from Portsmouth, OH to Cincinnati, & when I arrived, I was thoroughly exhausted. The T would only go 50-55 MPH & felt like it had crowbars for shocks. I had to steer constantly. But that car was a miracle for its time. I sure was glad to be back in my new Fusion !

The KJV is a "Model-T" Bible version. Its antiquated, obsolete English & its goofs & booboos (such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4) make it inferior to many modern versions.

 

[Conan]

Why is it unbelieving? It’s a simple yes or no question that I suppose him capable of affirming or denying.

You are accusing him. Insulting him, and you know it.

 

[Alan Gross]

You are accusing him. Insulting him, and you know it.

I'M TELLIN'.

 

[JonC]

Prior to the stereotype of 'KJVO', which I'm not, our printed tracks and things just called opponents to the Bible, 'opponents to the Bible', 'its critics are legions', 'skeptics', and stuff like that.



The word 'cult' is against rule no. 9.2, btw, Mr. Moderator, i.e., 'taboo'...

"The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults,"...

Eleven Simple Rules for Posting







Step aside.

Perhaps (but I mean "cult" in the definition of the word).

Many KJVO people tend to ignore him story and indoctrinate themselves in Christian conspiracy theories and myths. Others hold "double inspiration". No KJVO person I know of understands the meaning of Scripture as "God's Word" (they cannot grasp how the KJV and the NASB can both be the Word of God because they do not understand translation).

 

[Alan Gross]

there will be no true reasoning

God is simply greater than the KJVO folks allow.

(they cannot grasp how the KJV and the NASB can both be the Word of God because they do not understand translation).

I will have "true reasoning"

that "God is simply greater than I will allow"

when I "understand translation"

and "can grasp how the KJV and the NASB
can both be the Word of God",

although, one verse from each version
try to teach two different things,
that are diametrically opposed to one another?

Could you explain that, please?
...

Here's the KJV:

Psalm 10:4-5;

(4) "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance,
will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

(5) "His ways are always grievous;
thy judgments are far above out of his sight:
as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them."
...

Here's the NASB:

Psalm 10:4-5;

(4) "The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance,
does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, "There is no God."

(5) "His ways prosper at all times;
Your judgments are on high, out of his sight;
As for all his adversaries, he snorts at them."
...

"Hebrew Word":

"The word for grievous in Psalm 10:5 is the Hebrew word “chil” which is a verb that carries with it the meaning of “having labor pains, be in pain, or writhing.”

"It is used 51 times in the Masoretic Text, some examples are below.

"(Deu 2:25 KJV) "This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee."

"(Est 4:4 KJV) "So Esther's maids and her chamberlains came and told it her. Then was the queen exceedingly grieved; and she sent raiment to clothe Mordecai, and to take away his sackcloth from him: but he received it not."

"(Job 15:20 KJV) "The wicked man travaileth with pain all his days, and the number of years is hidden to the oppressor."

"(Isa 13:8 KJV) "And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames."


"Affected Teaching":

"I have included Verse 4 to give context.

"The beginning of verse 5 is definitely building on what was said in verse 4.

"The Scripture teaches that the way of the wicked is grievous and we have seen that the word which underlies it in Hebrew has only a negative meaning which includes pain and suffering.

"The verse is teaching that the way of the wicked is a painful, writhing way.

"However, when we look at the modern versions,
it states exactly the opposite.

"It shows that the ways of the wicked are prosperous, secure, and firm.

"The modern versions are actually endorsing living a sinful life because it produces a prosperous life.

"We read nowhere in Scripture that sinful living can bring security/ prosperity.

"Wicked sinfulness leads to Security/ prosperity how? from what? Death? Pitfalls?"


Adapted from: Psalm 10:5

 

[JonC]

I will have "true reasoning"

that "God is simply greater than I will allow"

when I "understand translation"

and "can grasp how the KJV and the NASB
can both be the Word of God",

although, one verse from each version
try to teach two different things,
that are diametrically opposed to one another?

Could you explain that, please?
...

Here's the KJV:

Psalm 10:4-5;

(4) "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance,
will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

(5) "His ways are always grievous;
thy judgments are far above out of his sight:
as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them."
...

Here's the NASB:

Psalm 10:4-5;

(4) "The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance,
does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, "There is no God."

(5) "His ways prosper at all times;
Your judgments are on high, out of his sight;
As for all his adversaries, he snorts at them."
...

"Hebrew Word:"

"The word for grievous in Psalm 10:5 is the Hebrew word “chil” which is a verb that carries with it the meaning of “having labor pains, be in pain, or writhing.”

"It is used 51 times in the Masoretic Text, some examples are below.

"(Deu 2:25 KJV) "This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee."

"(Est 4:4 KJV) "So Esther's maids and her chamberlains came and told it her. Then was the queen exceedingly grieved; and she sent raiment to clothe Mordecai, and to take away his sackcloth from him: but he received it not."

"(Job 15:20 KJV) "The wicked man travaileth with pain all his days, and the number of years is hidden to the oppressor."

"(Isa 13:8 KJV) "And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames."


"Affected Teaching:

"I have included Verse 4 to give context.

"The beginning of verse 5 is definitely building on what was said in verse 4.

"The Scripture teaches that the way of the wicked is grievous and we have seen that the word which underlies it in Hebrew has only a negative meaning which includes pain and suffering.

"The verse is teaching that the way of the wicked is a painful, writhing way.

"However, when we look at the modern versions,
it states exactly the opposite.

"It shows that the ways of the wicked are prosperous, secure, and firm.

"The modern versions are actually endorsing living a sinful life because it produces a prosperous life.

"We read nowhere in Scripture that sinful living can bring security.

"Security from what? Death? Pitfalls?"


Adapted from: Psalm 10:5

Yes, I can explain. Scripture does not oppose Scripture. KJVO folk tend to extract one verse and compare it to other verses (in a translation and f a secular book this would be like pulling out single sentences). But God's Word is preserved in the KJV and the NASB (etc.).

That's what I mean by KJVO people do not understand translation.

 

[Alan Gross]

Scripture does not oppose Scripture

But, error does.

KJVO folk

Who's KJVO?

If so, what kind?

One of Dr. Bob's? Definitions of KJV Only

KJVO #1 "I PREFER THE KJV"

This group believes the KJV is the best single English translation available today. This is based on its history, usefulness, beauty, etc. It does NOT mean that there might not be a better English translation possible and that other present translations are "bad".

These are only marginally KJVonly and should NOT be lumped in with discussion on other issues.

KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST"

This group believes that the MT (Majority Text) or the TR (Textus Receptus) -- even though there are obvious differences in the two -- are "superior" to all other Greek documents and more closely reflect the original autographs. They do not believe that the TR or the Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy. They believe that the King James Version, based on this text, is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today.

KJVO #3 "I BELIEVE IN THE RECEIVED TEXT ONLY"

This group would consider the TR has either been "supernaturally preserved" or even "inspired" and hence remain inerrant through the providential hand of God. They believe that the TR is verbally identical to the original autographs.

They consider any English translation from "inferior" Greek texts of W/H (Wescott & Hort) or UBS/Nestle-Aland (United Bible Society) as to be sub-standard and inaccurate.

KJVO #4 "I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

This group, by far the majority of the KJVonly, believe that the KJV itself, as an English translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. A person who would dare to defend or even use another translation of the Bible are rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible, the only Word of God.

To this group, any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is a deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt". The standard is always the KJV. They believe that God providentially gave the translators wisdom and guided them so that they translated all of the words correctly. As a result, they believe the King James Version is the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language.

"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone."

KJVO #5 "I BELIEVE THE KJV IS NEW REVELATION"

This group believes that the KJV was supernaturally inspired in such a way that the English text itself is an inerrant revelation. The Bible was "re-inspired" in 1611, rendering it in the English language.

These would say that the Greek/Hebrew should be changed to agree with the "new" revelation in 1611 and that all translations into other languages (Spanish, French, etc) should match the KJV.

That's what I mean by KJVO people do not understand translation.

Are you sure this is what you want to say that this is what you mean?:

KJVO folk tend to extract one verse and compare it to other verses

That's right.

Nailed it!

"KJVO folk tend to extract one verse and compare it to other verses..."

And that's what you "mean by KJVO people do not understand translation"(?)

I realize KJVO is a type of cult mentality and there will be no true reasoning.

I mean "cult" in the definition of the word

Remarkable, JonC.

 

[John of Japan]

Personally, I go by the primacy of the ライフライン聖書. English is so passe.

Augustine and others of his time went by the primacy of the LXX. Were they wrong? Many Christians in the time of Jerome went by the primacy of the Old Latin. Were they wrong? Some of the reformers went by the primacy of the Vulgate. Were they wrong?

Going by the primacy of the original language documents solves the whole problem.

 

[John of Japan]

There is a huge problem with Phil Stringer's message, linked to in the OP. He sourced absolutely nothing!! My sophomore Bible Doctrines students know better than that! They are required to write a 5 page research paper with sufficient sources, including an article from a peer reviewed journal.

I am not a Westcott and Hort fan, but I do have their 1886 two volume Greek NT, and sometimes consult it. The least Stringer could do is give us just one source, but he doesn't give any. So there is no way the listeners (who were all on his side anyway) or readers can fact-check him.

My son fact checked one of Waite's books on the KJV, and found he took W&H out of context, conflated quotes, etc., etc. That is not honest scholarship.

 

[John of Japan]

I challenge this statement at the end of section II of Stringer's message: "Many of these missionaries knew little or no Greek and Hebrew. They translated the Bible into 160 languages from the King James Bible. Truly the modern missions movement was a King James only movement."

As a retired missionary and a current Bible translator (and seminary prof of Bible translation), I'd love to see this statement sourced. I also teach church history, and have never seen this statement or proof of it in any historical source: histories, biographies, etc.

The greatest missionary Bible translators certainly knew the Greek and Hebrew: William Carey (45 languages and dialects), Adoniram Judson (Burma), Nathan Brown (Japan), etc.

 

[JonC]

But, error does.



Who's KJVO?

If so, what kind?

One of Dr. Bob's? Definitions of KJV Only

KJVO #1 "I PREFER THE KJV"

This group believes the KJV is the best single English translation available today. This is based on its history, usefulness, beauty, etc. It does NOT mean that there might not be a better English translation possible and that other present translations are "bad".

These are only marginally KJVonly and should NOT be lumped in with discussion on other issues.

KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST"

This group believes that the MT (Majority Text) or the TR (Textus Receptus) -- even though there are obvious differences in the two -- are "superior" to all other Greek documents and more closely reflect the original autographs. They do not believe that the TR or the Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy. They believe that the King James Version, based on this text, is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today.

KJVO #3 "I BELIEVE IN THE RECEIVED TEXT ONLY"

This group would consider the TR has either been "supernaturally preserved" or even "inspired" and hence remain inerrant through the providential hand of God. They believe that the TR is verbally identical to the original autographs.

They consider any English translation from "inferior" Greek texts of W/H (Wescott & Hort) or UBS/Nestle-Aland (United Bible Society) as to be sub-standard and inaccurate.

KJVO #4 "I BELIEVE THE KING JAMES IS INSPIRED"

This group, by far the majority of the KJVonly, believe that the KJV itself, as an English translation, is inspired and therefore inerrant. A person who would dare to defend or even use another translation of the Bible are rejecting the "true" and "real" Bible, the only Word of God.

To this group, any "change" (added words, omitted words or verses, different choices of English words, modern words) is a deviation from the truth and therefore "corrupt". The standard is always the KJV. They believe that God providentially gave the translators wisdom and guided them so that they translated all of the words correctly. As a result, they believe the King James Version is the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English language.

"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone."

KJVO #5 "I BELIEVE THE KJV IS NEW REVELATION"

This group believes that the KJV was supernaturally inspired in such a way that the English text itself is an inerrant revelation. The Bible was "re-inspired" in 1611, rendering it in the English language.

These would say that the Greek/Hebrew should be changed to agree with the "new" revelation in 1611 and that all translations into other languages (Spanish, French, etc) should match the KJV.



Are you sure this is what you want to say that this is what you mean?:



That's right.

Nailed it!

"KJVO folk tend to extract one verse and compare it to other verses..."

And that's what you "mean by KJVO people do not understand translation"(?)





Remarkable, JonC.

Yes, that is what I mean by evidence that KJVO people do not understand translation. I think that is obvious to anybody who has ever read a translated text (whether Scripture or a secular work). KJVO people simply do not (read "cannot") grasp that the KJV is a translation.

I'm curious. How do you think Latin found its way into the KJV OT text?