-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The question KJVOs cannot seem to answer
- Thread starter try hard
- Start date
Hal Parker
New Member
Someone wrote: "You cannot find in the NIV the word Sodomite, GodHead,and other important things."
The implications of this statement are the NIV does not teach that homosexuality is a sin and NIV does not teach the doctrine of the trinity.
Both of those implications are incorrect. The NIV does teach against homosexuality. We don't use the term sodomite very much any more. So, it wasn't the word used in the translation of the NIV. The NIV also teaches the trinity.
I read the NIV regularly for my devotions. It teaches the same doctrines that I learned from studying the KJV. I have also read the NASB regularly in the past. It also teaches the same doctrines that I learned from studying the KJV.
Just because different translations use different words for the same doctrines doesn't mean there error in the translation.
The implications of this statement are the NIV does not teach that homosexuality is a sin and NIV does not teach the doctrine of the trinity.
Both of those implications are incorrect. The NIV does teach against homosexuality. We don't use the term sodomite very much any more. So, it wasn't the word used in the translation of the NIV. The NIV also teaches the trinity.
I read the NIV regularly for my devotions. It teaches the same doctrines that I learned from studying the KJV. I have also read the NASB regularly in the past. It also teaches the same doctrines that I learned from studying the KJV.
Just because different translations use different words for the same doctrines doesn't mean there error in the translation.
Ok, I said I would post some more changes so here they are:
II Chron.28:11
1611: "the wrath of God"
1638: "the wrath of the Lord"
Mark 10:18
1611KJV"there is no man good"
1638KJV"there is none good"
Josh. 13:29
1611KJV "Manesseh"
1638KJV "the children of Manesseh"
Rev. 12:14
1611KJV "she might flee"
1769KJV "she might fly"
Now, can some KJVO answer the question as to why they are against modern version changes(compared to the KJV) and are ok with the changes made to the 1611? Pleasssssseeee!!!!
It should not matter if the doctrine is not changed. I know it is not. But by the same position a KJVO advocate takes, these are doctrine changes in the revisions. .
If God preserved the 1611 exactly like the KJVO's said He did than He preserved it PERFECTLY
. No errors whatsoever. Including typos. And if he preserved something that way, he would never allow changes to it, right?
I don't understand KJVO's anymore. Maybe I should have taken KJVOism's ignorance 101 this semester!
II Chron.28:11
1611: "the wrath of God"
1638: "the wrath of the Lord"
Mark 10:18
1611KJV"there is no man good"
1638KJV"there is none good"
Josh. 13:29
1611KJV "Manesseh"
1638KJV "the children of Manesseh"
Rev. 12:14
1611KJV "she might flee"
1769KJV "she might fly"
Now, can some KJVO answer the question as to why they are against modern version changes(compared to the KJV) and are ok with the changes made to the 1611? Pleasssssseeee!!!!
It should not matter if the doctrine is not changed. I know it is not. But by the same position a KJVO advocate takes, these are doctrine changes in the revisions. .
If God preserved the 1611 exactly like the KJVO's said He did than He preserved it PERFECTLY
. No errors whatsoever. Including typos. And if he preserved something that way, he would never allow changes to it, right?
I don't understand KJVO's anymore. Maybe I should have taken KJVOism's ignorance 101 this semester!
Maverick
Member
Well, [disrespectful personal addressed deleted] I think I tried hard to do that, but either you did not read my last response or you did not understand it. The difference is the texts. The texts are different. If within the text there are two possible translations like with the word kai then either is not an error. Kai is usually translated and, but between two nouns it can be translated even.
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. KJV
If the KJV folks had translated kai here as even it would have been technically correct and nothing changed theologically. If a reviser down the road said that for continuity sake or for some other reason that it should be rendered as "and" he would be technically correct as well and no damage done theologically. Those changes are undestandable and acceptable.
Without studying the passages you gave I cannot tell you why they made those changes, but it may well have been along the lines I just laid out. No foul there if the text allows for several honest translations rather than the subjective "dynamic equivalent" mode popular today.
The problems from the beginning in 1881 are the changes are made by consulting obvious errent, heretical texts. They have not made the changes I have discussed rather they have taken out passages and made assumptions and we all know what happens when you assume. These changes were not stuff that could be reasonably debated from the texts or from any other study of much older versions, lectionaries or writings of the fathers, which affirm the texts that the KJV folks used. They put what they felt ought to be there. That is not scholarship. That is "private interpretation."
Again, you have allowed minority texts to wash away majority texts for the sake of "age" and preference not scholarship. Age does not make a counterfeit bill real just because it is older than a real one. If a 100 year old atheist started coming to your church you would not make him pastor just because he was older than the 50 year old one you have now. Yet the minority texts are applauded simply because they are 400 years older than the majority, which proves nothing and can be easily disproved by items far older than the minority texts. That is the problem. Changes made from forgeries and tampered goods are not good and valid changes. It was and is a satanic attempt to destroy the foundations so that the righteous have nowhere to stand. The MVs are working their way to a universal book that everyone can agree on. The Catholics would never put imprimatur on the KJV, but it does on the NIV because the NIV and others uses the corrupted and mutilated Vaticanus text that just happens to be missing great pieces of Revelation because even they realized they were being slamdunked in it.
It is one thing if the bank makes a mistake in posting one of you checks if your handwriting is bad or the check got wet or something and a 9 looked like a zero. It was an honest mistake and you can work it out and not be majorily upset. It is quite another thing if they cash an obviously forged check without requiring ID verification or any other proof that you wrote the check. You will be extremely angry and hard to placate because that was just plain irresponsible on their part.
The so-called ancient texts are obvious tampered goods and no one then or even now seems to care and that is damned irresponsibility on everyone involved from 1881 until now. Even one of the NASB board members has written a renunciation of his work on that one and hopes God will forgive him. You have everything you need to prove they are false and yet you cashed the checks and are even using counterfeit bills made to suit those checks to give to your customers. That is not scholarship or even honesty.
[ September 15, 2002, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. KJV
If the KJV folks had translated kai here as even it would have been technically correct and nothing changed theologically. If a reviser down the road said that for continuity sake or for some other reason that it should be rendered as "and" he would be technically correct as well and no damage done theologically. Those changes are undestandable and acceptable.
Without studying the passages you gave I cannot tell you why they made those changes, but it may well have been along the lines I just laid out. No foul there if the text allows for several honest translations rather than the subjective "dynamic equivalent" mode popular today.
The problems from the beginning in 1881 are the changes are made by consulting obvious errent, heretical texts. They have not made the changes I have discussed rather they have taken out passages and made assumptions and we all know what happens when you assume. These changes were not stuff that could be reasonably debated from the texts or from any other study of much older versions, lectionaries or writings of the fathers, which affirm the texts that the KJV folks used. They put what they felt ought to be there. That is not scholarship. That is "private interpretation."
Again, you have allowed minority texts to wash away majority texts for the sake of "age" and preference not scholarship. Age does not make a counterfeit bill real just because it is older than a real one. If a 100 year old atheist started coming to your church you would not make him pastor just because he was older than the 50 year old one you have now. Yet the minority texts are applauded simply because they are 400 years older than the majority, which proves nothing and can be easily disproved by items far older than the minority texts. That is the problem. Changes made from forgeries and tampered goods are not good and valid changes. It was and is a satanic attempt to destroy the foundations so that the righteous have nowhere to stand. The MVs are working their way to a universal book that everyone can agree on. The Catholics would never put imprimatur on the KJV, but it does on the NIV because the NIV and others uses the corrupted and mutilated Vaticanus text that just happens to be missing great pieces of Revelation because even they realized they were being slamdunked in it.
It is one thing if the bank makes a mistake in posting one of you checks if your handwriting is bad or the check got wet or something and a 9 looked like a zero. It was an honest mistake and you can work it out and not be majorily upset. It is quite another thing if they cash an obviously forged check without requiring ID verification or any other proof that you wrote the check. You will be extremely angry and hard to placate because that was just plain irresponsible on their part.
The so-called ancient texts are obvious tampered goods and no one then or even now seems to care and that is damned irresponsibility on everyone involved from 1881 until now. Even one of the NASB board members has written a renunciation of his work on that one and hopes God will forgive him. You have everything you need to prove they are false and yet you cashed the checks and are even using counterfeit bills made to suit those checks to give to your customers. That is not scholarship or even honesty.
[ September 15, 2002, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
This is not so obvious. The vast majority of evangelical scholarship disagrees with you for too many reasons to be stated here. YOu attribute this to preference not scholarship. Yet this is obviously not true. If you have studied the evidence and the reasoning behind the choices, you will find that preference had very little to do with it; scholarship was the primary consideration. You cannot simply assume your text is the correct one and decry the others because they are different. You may indeed be right about the Majority text type (not the TR). But if so, it is not objectively proven and never will be. YOu may also be wrong about it. That too will never be objectively proven. However, to call it satanic or intentional forgery is simply too much. God has blessed my "satanic version" preaching here and continues to do so. What's more remarkable is that people are studying it with zeal and vigor. Yet I imagine Satan didn't plan on that happening.
We need to stick dogmatically with what can be shown to be true. We need to be careful with what cannot be shown to be true. I would simply urge a lowering of the rhetoric so as not to make statements about God's word that are not true.
I think it was meant to be a derogatory term toward one of the people he disagreed with. But since I don't understand anything he wrote in his post, your guess is as good as mine about who he disagrees with.
Eric
[ September 15, 2002, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
Eric
[ September 15, 2002, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
mountainrun
New Member
I wonder which "Satanic version" of the Bible the French speaking people of the world are forced to read, since they obviously can't read the KJV.
Or, for that matter, what do Japanese Christians read? Or the Spanish or Chinese?
This KJV only line of thought quite probably seems very arrogant to non English speaking Christians.
Quite probably because it IS arrogant.
We should keep in mind that God inspired the original writings of the Bible in three different languages, none of them being English.
MR
[ September 15, 2002, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: mountainrun ]
Or, for that matter, what do Japanese Christians read? Or the Spanish or Chinese?
This KJV only line of thought quite probably seems very arrogant to non English speaking Christians.
Quite probably because it IS arrogant.
We should keep in mind that God inspired the original writings of the Bible in three different languages, none of them being English.
MR
[ September 15, 2002, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: mountainrun ]
DocCas
New Member
The French Olivetan bible is a Byzantine based bible and is so similar to the KJV in Enlish that the differences are miniscule.
I am not sure about the Japanses versions, but there are three Chinese versions, but the most used version is the Union bible, which, if I understand correctly, is largely based on the Alexandrian textform. The Spanish bibles that most Spanish evangelicals use is either the RV 1909 or RV 1960. Both are fairly close to the Byzantine textform with occasional departures in favor of the Latin Vulgate (Western textform based).
Well, most KJVOs consider it an English issue. Most of them state the KJV is the Only Preserved word of God for the English speaking peoples of the world, so I suspect your argument may be something of a straw man.
[ September 15, 2002, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
Doc Cas, do you believe the KJV to be a better or perhaps the best English translation?
Do you belive the KJV to be the 'only' translation for English speaking peoples in the sense that 'only' not only implies an opinion about a better translation, but also conveys a meaning that the KJV alone is exclusively the Word of God?
Do you belive the KJV to be the 'only' translation for English speaking peoples in the sense that 'only' not only implies an opinion about a better translation, but also conveys a meaning that the KJV alone is exclusively the Word of God?
I agree, Doc. If what the modern versions are after is really a better understanding in English of the Biblical text, then why not bring back the English forms of the second person pronoun which best acomplish this? All it would require to help the English reader would be a note in the preface explaining why it is done.
I think a better option would be to put a star or something beside plural, second-person pronouns; I'd be all for that. The old english pronouns would just confuse people, I think...
Btw, I'm curious, what's the difference between the different pronouns in the Elizabethan English? Are thee and thou plural and the others singular?
Eric
Interestingly enough, the JW's NWT makes a distinction, by putting singular "you" in lowercase, and plural "you" in reduced-size uppercase. A star or other indicator would be quite distracting, the JW's solution is actually very good. A few years back I wrote to the NIV translation committee about this, and they told me it was definitely worth their time to consider it for future editions, but I doubt it will happen. Besides, another similarity with the NWT would give the NIV-haters even more false arguments.
The NASB (before the 1995 update, at least) used thee and thou for the wrong reasons: they used it when referring to God, to sound more "reverent" rather than because of singular/plural reasons.
Thee/thou/thy is singular, ye/you/your is plural. When you're reading with this in mind, you can sometimes read a familiar passage with a new understanding.
Great, thanks for the info. I'll definitely make use of that!Originally posted by BrianT:
Thee/thou/thy is singular, ye/you/your is plural. When you're reading with this in mind, you can sometimes read a familiar passage with a new understanding.
It'll give me an excuse to use a really nice $40 KJV Bible that I got on clearance for $10 about a week ago
Clearance is a beautiful thing
Eric
[ September 16, 2002, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]