The real reason I am KJVO

[Priscilla Ann]

Hi Priscilla Ann

Nice to hear from you and welcome. The Lord has brought you to a fine forum.

And it is great to here, how the Lord delivered you from Catholicism.
(You have a wonder life with Christ, ahead of you.)
--------------------------------------------------
As for your question, as to which Bible version would be best for you.

You probably already know, what I am going to say. I was a baby Christian once myself, and I had the same trouble with the archaic wording of the KJV, but I got past it.

My suggestion is, go get yourself a nice English dictionary, and keep it with your Bible. Even though those words are archaic, they are still English.

What I have experienced over the years, is after looking an archaic word for the first time, I have never had to look it up again.

As for “second and third choices”, of Bible versions, I just don’t look at God’s Word like that.
Some here might say, that the “New King James version” is the next closest Bible, but I suggest that you tough it out, and after you get familiar with those archaic words, the KJV will be a breeze.
--------------------------------------------------
I have one more thing to share with you(and I am sure that everyone here will agree), and that is the Lord “wonderfully blesses” Bible study.
If you will be faithful, to study your Bible every day, the Lord will respond by opening up His Word to you, is a wonderful way.



I hope that I have been some help.


Have a great day.

I do have a copy of the KJV, so I will certainly keep your remarks in mind. The English dictionary is an excellent suggestion.

I have certainly learned, over the last 10 - 12 years, that bible study is essential for growing in my faith.

Thanks so much for your helpful suggestions!

 

[Priscilla Ann]

Priscilla Ann,

There are many good, faithful translations of Scripture that are easier to read and understand than the KJV (this is particularly true if one did not grow up listening to or reading the KJV).

If you choose to use the KJV, that is an excellent choice; I would echo stilllearning's suggestions to get a good dictionary.

However, other translations are also good choices. My preference is the ESV.

I would advise staying away from paraphrases--one man's opinion--such as the "Message" or "Living Bible" for one's study of the Scriptures. They can be helpful as commentaries, but the fact they are one person's translations make them too unreliable IMO to use as a copy of the Scriptures.

I feel the same way about paraphrases; they might be helpful, but I don't think it's the same as reading the "word of God". It sounds as if I can't really go wrong with KJV, NASB, or ESV.

 

[ray Marshall]

Guess it's time for me to again make my assertion that no real KJVO advocate has yet to give me a solidly-based reply:

What about those poor souls who died prior to 1611?

Too bad they didn't even have a chance to read the only truly God-breathed and totally inerrant Word of God! :tear:

By the way, you must have a whooper of an answer for us, so inform all of us of your intellect.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Below is a link to a very good volume, that will give you all you need to know about the words used in the KJV, and some of the phrases used that can be sometimes confusing to the non-initiated.

I have had this book for several years, sadly it is no longer available on the open market. But they have several used, and new ones here. Also it is available in a download, but unless you pay for the download it comes in a non-standard file. Which windows will not open.

Its the one with the Green and Violet cover, not the other.


http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/KJVWRDBK

 

[annsni]

I do have a copy of the KJV, so I will certainly keep your remarks in mind. The English dictionary is an excellent suggestion.

I have certainly learned, over the last 10 - 12 years, that bible study is essential for growing in my faith.

Thanks so much for your helpful suggestions!

I'd highly suggest you get a copy of the 1828 Webster's dictionary. It's got definitions closer to the meanings of the words from the 1600s rather than the 2000s. Meanings have changed a lot over the last 150 years but the 1828 is really good to go along with the KJV.

 

[ray Marshall]

I'd highly suggest you get a copy of the 1828 Webster's dictionary. It's got definitions closer to the meanings of the words from the 1600s rather than the 2000s. Meanings have changed a lot over the last 150 years but the 1828 is really good to go along with the KJV.

it is true that word meaning has changed through the years. If you have the 1828 dictionary available to check the word "Humanitarian " , see if the modern meaning is a word used for someone who does good for his country or other good deeds. In a old dictionary I have, one of the meanings states that a humanarian is "Someone that believes that JESUS was only a mere man." As much as I can remember that is what it say's. Please check it out and let me know if your dictionary gives the same phrase or meaning.
Thanks

 

[Samuel Owen]

vRo:1:21: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
2Co:10:5: Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

The two versus have the word "imaginations", we would think today the meaning was thought. No so in the English of the KJV, but it goes beyond thoughts to actual doing of contrary actions. This is one of the many phrases, the KJV Word Book clues you in on.

 

[annsni]

it is true that word meaning has changed through the years. If you have the 1828 dictionary available to check the word "Humanitarian " , see if the modern meaning is a word used for someone who does good for his country or other good deeds. In a old dictionary I have, one of the meanings states that a humanarian is "Someone that believes that JESUS was only a mere man." As much as I can remember that is what it say's. Please check it out and let me know if your dictionary gives the same phrase or meaning.
Thanks

You can look up the 1828 online and get definitions that way too. I'm too lazy to get up and get our hard copy but here's what the Webster says from online:

OK - there's no entry. Here's the closest that I could find:

humanity

HUMAN'ITY, n. [L. humanitas.]

1. The peculiar nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings. Thus Christ, by his incarnation, was invested

with humanity.

2. Mankind collectively; the human race.

If he is able to untie those knots,he is able to teach all humanity.

It is a debt we owe to humanity.

3. The kind feelings, dispositions and sympathies of man,by which he is distinguished from the lower orders of animals; kindness; benevolence; especially, a disposition to relieve persons in distress, and to treat with tenderness those who are helpless and defenseless; opposed to cruelty.

4. A disposition to treat the lower orders of animals with tenderness, or at least to give them no unnecessary pain.

5. The exercise of kindness; acts of tenderness.

6. Philology; grammatical studies.

Humanities, in the plural, signifies grammar, rhetoric and poetry; for teaching which there are professors in the universities of Scotland.

 

[ray Marshall]

You can look up the 1828 online and get definitions that way too. I'm too lazy to get up and get our hard copy but here's what the Webster says from online:

OK - there's no entry. Here's the closest that I could find:

humanity

HUMAN'ITY, n. [L. humanitas.]

1. The peculiar nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings. Thus Christ, by his incarnation, was invested

with humanity.

2. Mankind collectively; the human race.

If he is able to untie those knots,he is able to teach all humanity.

It is a debt we owe to humanity.

3. The kind feelings, dispositions and sympathies of man,by which he is distinguished from the lower orders of animals; kindness; benevolence; especially, a disposition to relieve persons in distress, and to treat with tenderness those who are helpless and defenseless; opposed to cruelty.

4. A disposition to treat the lower orders of animals with tenderness, or at least to give them no unnecessary pain.

5. The exercise of kindness; acts of tenderness.

6. Philology; grammatical studies.

Humanities, in the plural, signifies grammar, rhetoric and poetry; for teaching which there are professors in the universities of Scotland.

Thanks, I will look it up tomorrow.

 

[Jim1999]

//
On Off

if ( document.getElementById("wordclick_off") && getCookie("wordclick_enabled") == "no" ) { document.getElementById("wordclick_off").checked = "checked"; }; imagination

One entry found.





Main Entry: imag·i·na·tion Pronunciation: \i-ˌma-jə-ˈnā-shən\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin imagination-, imaginatio, from imaginari Date: 14th century 1: the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality2 a: creative ability b: ability to confront and deal with a problem : resourcefulness <use your imagination and get us out of here> c: the thinking or active mind : interest <stories that fired the imagination>

If you read 2Cor 10:5 "Casting down rationalizations........" You wil get the correct understanding.......

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Samuel Owen]

Yes I see where you are going, but in the 1611 English the same word. "Imaginations"; carried with it beyond thought, into putting that same into actual action.

So the word "Imaginations", carries with it a greater weight than just saying thoughts.

 

[Jim1999]

quote: Main Entry: imag·i·na·tion Pronunciation: \i-ˌma-jə-ˈnā-shən\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin imagination-, imaginatio, from imaginari Date: 14th century
-------------------------------------------

You will notice the definition for imaginations remained the same from the 14th century, hence the same meaning applied in the KJV 1611 etc.....We need to go to the Greek for the actual meaning of the word, and it does mean reationalization or reason...I forget the actual Greek word now, but I could check my NT.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[robycop3]

Well, since a vegetarian is one who eats only veggies, I thunk a humanitarian was a cannibal.

 

[annsni]

Well, since a vegetarian is one who eats only veggies, I thunk a humanitarian was a cannibal.

Hmmm - makes a lot of sense to me! I'll go with your description.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Imaginations - also noted as an Evil plan or Scheme. As can be seen from the two verses I noted, not only as a plan, but being involved in.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Humanitarian; wasn't that Jimmy Carter ????.

 

[Jim1999]

No, He ate peanuts! The meat of the peanut fields.

Cor, we are going bonkers tonight!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[EdSutton]

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html :

Questions for the KJV Critics

1. Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?

2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

3. Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?

4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?

5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (Johnn 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (Jn. 16:12-15; I Jn. 2:27), who taught you that the KJV is indeed infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

The translation team of the KJV did not believe their translation to be the final word, because it was "infallible", nor did they believe the very worst (meanest) translation was anything less than the very word of God". They did not believe or teach that such a version that it merely "contained (whatever part of) the word of God". Who taught differently?

Not the Holy Spirit, IMO. Did the Holy Spirit somehow just forget to teach the KJV translators the 'real truth', about their undertaking, maybe? Did the Holy Spirit later "repent" about this, and decide that maybe the KJV translation was now actually infallible, after all? I would suggest a couple of words I actually seldom use, that one can find in the Bible, and the use of which on the BB can get you in hot water, that I believe cover this veiled attack on the written word of God, under the masquerade of defending it, - the first one being a nine letter one that starts with the letters "bl" and ends in the letters "my", where I'm pretty sure I read something about what, when directed at the Holy Spirit, ain't good.

The second starts with an "h" and ends in "y". Are y'all following me "here"? - Ed

6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?

Why is it you believe that someone was more qualified to translate God's word in 1611, than in 1525 or 1384? That does amount to the "Same difference!", no??

I seriously doubt that many of those translators in 1611 were more qualified than Drs. Tyndale or Wycliffe and their associates, in language skills, both groups of whom were remarkably able in languages, with Wycliffe also equally skilled in philosophy, brilliant in science, theology, and able in politics, as well. Wycliffe theorized about atoms, and actually figured out things about the physical universe that would wait for another 200 years to be 'discovered' and understood, with the findings of such as Galileo, Brahe, and Copernicus.

Tyndale was a bit less widely accomplished, than was Wycliffe. Theologian, yes, but beyond that was mainly just a linguist, fluent in English.

And Greek.

And Hebrew.

And Latin.

And German.

And Spanish.

And Italian

And French.

The efforts of Tyndale, who accomplished all this, including mostly translating the NT, mostly alone, also the Pentateuch, Jonah, then revising and having his NT reprinted, was all done in 20 years, since he was arrested and imprisoned at the age of 41, before being "double martyred" a year later, when he was strangled while tied to the stake, before having his dead body burned. His "crime"? Giving a 'plough-boy' a Bible he could read and understand. Oh yeah, about 80 years later, it took a committee of almost 50 to decide he really had done a pretty fair job, and effectively adopted half his work, effectively unchanged. Not too shabby!! - Ed

7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?

8. Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?

9. Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

10. Before the first new [Bible attack snipped] was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjveasy.html

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/holybook.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[snipped by moderator as inflammatory]

I have no intention of attempting to set fire to all of Joab's barley fields, 'er I mean set fire to all the straw men that Goldie has borrowed for this occasion (even though I have already addressed a couple of points above in 'bold blue'), for several reasons.

One, I type very slowly, at best, and with the lovely combination of arthritis and diabetic neuropathy, added to the fact that I have had absloutely no typing training, and whatever skills I may have, are entirely self-taught, from a very poor intstructor, in this.

Two, our computer is acting up these days, and can "lock up" or shut down completely, with no warning, at any time (meaning I could lose the very post I am working on), and I am unable to even have a clue as to why this is occurring, or have any ability to fix the problem. To say that I am "technically challenged" with computers, is an understatement, roughly on a par with equating a WWI era biplane to a B-52, B-1 or a B-2 bomber. (The US planes had to be transported to the European theater on a ship, "for cryin' out loud," and I don't mean any "flattop" aircraft carrier, either!) My lovely, talented, and long-suffering bride :love2: does have the ability to fix the computer, but not the time needed, at this moment, and I will not ask her to do so, at this time.

Three, most of the serious questions, above, have been answered before, and which answers seem to be ignored on a more or less regular basis (although certainly not always by the same poster, and I am definitely not singling out Goldie in this, by any stretch, for he/she is not alone in this, or even anywhere close to being the most prominent). However, I have myself, in fact, responded to some things Goldie has raised previously, and had my responses ignored, and thus see no good reason to engage in any "Encore performance" at least at this time.

Let me add that I do understand the issue, (and do agree with some points, even while disagreeing with others) and am confident I could adequately respond to most of the substantive points, off the top of my head, should I have so chosen.

Fourth, some of this "stuff' is intended only to be inflammatory, IMO, and that I will not dignify more than it deserves.

Fifth, it's Christmas, so I'm gonna' try to be nice, even if I don't survive the attempt, 'cause I wanna' get a head start on Santa's "NICE" list for next year!

"Nevertheless, I have a few things against (this above post)!"

The implications contained in (or the direct words of) phrases such as 'false "bibles"'" and "perversion" when applied to any translation, version, or edition of the Scriptures, are "an attack on the Bible", IMO. :tear:

Ed

 

[Rippon]

Ed,I just wanted to correct a few things you said.First of all, John Wycliffe knew no Hebrew or Greek.He only knew English and Latin.And there is conflicting information about how much of an imput he had in the initial "Wycliffe Bible".John Purvey and Nicholas de Hereford certainly were the main translators of the second "Wycliffe Bible".

Point #2: The KJV committee adopted a great deal more than "almost half" of William Tyndale's work.Estimates range around 85% for the New Testament and 75% of his Old Testament work.

 

[Keith M]

So I am a doubt caster.

Would God confuse us by........
“preserve His word in more than a single English Bible translation?”
No He wouldn’t.

And I never said.......
“That modern Bible translations really aren't God's word.

Uh, read what I actually said, stilllearning. Did I say you're a doubt caster or that you said modern Bible translations aren't God's word? Not at all. I said those things about "those who want to deceive true Bible believers." Are you saying that you want to deceive true Bible believers? Do you have a guilty conscience? If not then why take it personally? I didn't say those things about you unless your desire is to "deceive true Bible believers."

As for your question about God confusing with multiple Bible translations, that's a ridiculous thought. God has preserved His word in various Bible translations in order to avoid confusion. When a living language like English evolves over time and words are no longer used or their meanings change it's often necessary to update the words used to convey the message in order to avoid confusion. Using language that's over 400 years old often contributes to confusion.

So they do subtle things, like changing “virgin” you "young maiden" in Isa.7:14

Using the various Bible translations found at http:www.studylight.org I didn't find a single Bible translation that uses "young maiden" in Is. 7:14. Several translations (GNT, RSV, NRSV, ERV, CJB, BBE and JPS) use "young woman." The Message uses "a girl who is presently a virgin." HNV uses "almah," the original Hebrew word. And the New Life Bible uses "young woman who has never had a man." Last time I checked a young woman who had never had a man was - guess what? - yep, a virgin! Still, in these various translations, the reference made in Mt. 1:23 refers to a virgin. The only exceptions are the NLB which duplicates the Isaiah terminology with "young woman who has never had a man" and the JPS which is a Jewish OT only.

According to Strong's "young woman" is a perfectly acceptable translation of the Hebrew almah. This Hebrew word, according to Strong's, is translated as "damsel" once, as "maid" twice and as "virgin" four times in the KJVs.

or removing the words “these three are one”, from 1John 5:7.

Before you make the accusation that words are removed check 1 John 5:8 to see if the words are actually removed or if they're still there even though they're not found in the previous verse. I believe that only when you take the verse out of context and the next verse isn't considered can it be said "words are removed." No doctrine is changed. Since we don't have the original autographs so that we can compare the texts, it's just as likely the later texts now called the textus receptus added words in v. 7 that duplicated words in v. 8. Scribal error is a definite possibility here since later texts have these words while earlier (and therefore more reliable) texts don't have the words.

They have found that just a few little changes, works just as well!

This is nothing but your unproven opinion based on your presupposition. It's not a valid argument for anything.

As I have said, if they did publish a Bible that said Christ wasn’t God, it would be rejected.
But they are still attacking the idea that Christ's deity and His virgin birth, in the ways that I just stated.

Actually, the word "one" in 1 John 5:7-8 is not a deity issue, but something else entirely. It means the three agree.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:7-8 KJV

In Matthew 4:4, Jesus didn’t say, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every idea and message that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

No, He wisely said, “every word”.

Because Ideas and messages, can be twisted, but Words nail ideas down.

This is true to an extent. That's why I normally avoid using paraphrases and one-person translations. However, when words are no longer used in a particular language, or when word meanings change, it's often necessary to change the printed words in order to avoid confusion.

A good example to help you understand this basic truth is the word "prevent" found in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 in the KJVs. When the 1611 KJV was translated, this word meant to precede or to go before. Now, in 2008 (almost 2009) the word has an entirely different meaning in its common use. Now it means to keep something from happening. Someone not raised knowing the archaic meaning of the word can become confused over its use in this verse. That's why it's more important to keep the meaning alive than it is to be stuck to a particular set of printed words.

Did John attach special significance to particular words on a page? Of course not - not even in the KJVs. Neither should we become overly concerned about a particular set of words when the message is what's really important.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5 KJV

For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 1 John 3:11 KJV

John didn't say "these are the exact words." What did he emphasize? That's right - the message! And that's why we should try our best to preserve the message today even if it becomes necessary to change the words used to preserve the message.

That's why God has graciously provided modern Bible translations for modern readers. The modern Bible translations keep the message alive and fresh just like when it was first written.