The real reason I am KJVO

[stilllearning]

Hi Deacon

Sorry to hear about your grandson. Hope he gets to feeling better.

And I am also sorry for my last response to you. Later I realized that it, in itself, was kind of sarcastic.
--------------------------------------------------

1. I don’t want to be deceived.

Your right, I do not want to be deceived.
--------------------------------------------------

2. Other versions change God’s words when compared to the KJV.

This IS NOT exactly what I have been saying:

The point that I have been making is, that the MV’s have gotten away from the “texts” that were being used by Bible translators, back in the 1600's.

You might ask, “what was so special about these texts”? (That is a good question.)
Today scholars use questionable manuscripts, that should not be used.
--------------------------------------------------

3. The KJV is harder to understand (so it’s got to be good for you).

This is ridicules. You quoted me saying.......
"Some prefer these MV’s because they are easier to read; One stated, that he reads them, because he wants all the help that he can get, in understanding what God is saying in his word."

Try putting this paragraph in context.
--------------------------------------------------

4. I don’t trust those people that say other versions are better.

No, I did not single them out at all. What I have been CLEARLY saying, is that I do not trust ANYONE, to correct my Bible!
--------------------------------------------------

5. I trust that the translators of the KJV picked the corrects texts.

This is almost correct. I trust the texts, that were trusted back then.
And the reason I do, is because the Bible that these texts created, truly changes people’s lives.
--------------------------------------------------

6. I’m afraid (“paranoid”) to change versions.

No. I am not afraid. As you can CLEARLY see, I said.......
“I may sound paranoid, but from what I read in the New Testament, there is a lot to be paranoid about.”

2 Timothy 1:7
“For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”

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

7. I like a version that hasn’t changed for a long time.”

This is true.
--------------------------------------------------


Once again, please forgive me, for my sarcasm last time.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi 4His_glory

You can get these answers from my previous posts, but here they are again.
--------------------------------------------------

Why do you not trust modern scholarship?

Because it is a product of a “broken system”.
--------------------------------------------------

When did scholarship become modern?

Back in the late 1800's
A few “respected scholars”, broke away from established parameters, and literally got away from God’s Word.
--------------------------------------------------

Was not the scholarship in the 1600́s modern for that era?

I guess so.
--------------------------------------------------

How do we determine what is modern scholarship and what is not?

If it follows the flawed conclusions of BB Warfield, et.al, than it is modern scholarship.

 

[EdSutton]

Thank you!

Welcome to the Baptist Board! :wavey:

Heard a lot about you over the years. And I really would like to personally meet you, sometime.

Hey, BTW, Didn't I just hear something about you having a birthday, recently?

Let's see - I think you were born in 1483, so that means you are what - 525, now? 525??

WOW! That's getting to be REALLY ol...! :laugh:

Ed

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Crabtownboy

You quoted someone saying........

“When James I came to power in 1603, he found himself in the heart of religious conflict. England had been struggling to remain neutral while the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants escalated After meeting with a number of Church officials and Protestants, he decided to commission his own translation of the Bible. While he hoped his new translation would calm both sides, his main objective was to create a Bible that didn't contain the problematic marginal notes the Geneva Bible included - notes that undermined the King's authority. This translation was finally published in 1611, but didn't become the translation of choice until the Restoration of Charles II in 1660.”

I have heard this before and this person’s attempt to rewrite history.

The statement that.......
“James the 1st, decided to commission his own translation of the Bible”

Is totally false.
We need to be careful, and check the actual history of the KJV, before posting stuff like this.
--------------------------------------------------
This kind of mis-information, is the favorite took of those who hate the KJV.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again Keith M

You said.......

“Well, you finally got something right - or at least partly right. The Bible wasn't written in English. And the message God gave us doesn't change - that's why the words need to change sometimes so the message is kept the same.”

As I have said; Simply get an English dictionary, and look up the old means of the words.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said........

“If you don't trust modern scholarship today then you shouldn't trust what was modern scholarship in the early part of the 17th century, either. You're being inconsistent, stilllearning. If you were smart you'd stop denigrating and denying God's word.”

I have already explained this statement to you, several times.
--------------------------------------------------
From this point, you last post got more and more ridiculous.

Until you final point.
--------------------------------------------------
You quoted me........
“So now we see. Man is having to keep God’s Word “alive and fresh”.
Those who want their ears tickled, will also tell their pastor, “give us something fresh”.

Then you said.......

“The message in God's word has never changed. Yet the meanings of some words have changed during the course of time. Therefore, it's necessary at times to change the printed words that convey the message. Through the action of the Holy Spirit working through the minds and hands of men, the message of God's word has been kept as alive and fresh for today's readers as it was for early readers. Your error here, stilllearning, is that you're confusing "fresh" with "different" or "changed." I regret you're so confused, stilllearning, but we're trying to help you learn the truth. You really need to stop denying the truth and embrace it instead. I'm praying for you, stilllearning.”

If I am confused about something, than please share it with me.

And thanks for your prayes.

 

[4His_glory]

Thank you for your replies SL you said:

Because it is a product of a “broken system”

So why was the system not broken in 1611? Who determines when the system broke? When did it break?

Back in the late 1800's
A few “respected scholars”, broke away from established parameters, and literally got away from God’s Word.

So then all the scholars who were involved in textual and translational work before the 1800s were orthodox? And here all this time I believed the historical record that someone like Erasmus was a Roman Catholic humanist.

I guess so.

OK. So using your logic because it was modern it must be wrong. I guess we can´t trust the KJV.

If it follows the flawed conclusions of BB Warfield, et.al, than it is modern scholarship.

Says who? Sounds more like a matter of opinion than anything else.

 

[Logos1560]

The statement that.......
“James the 1st, decided to commission his own translation of the Bible”

Is totally false.
We need to be careful, and check the actual history of the KJV, before posting stuff like this.
--------------------------------------------------
This kind of mis-information, is the favorite took of those who hate the KJV.

How is that statement "totally false"?

I have read several books about the KJV translators and several histories of the KJV and the earlier English Bibles, and I do not see the basis for your claim that the statement is "totally false."

It is usually claimed that John Rainolds first suggested the idea of the making of a new translation at the Hampton Court Conference. The statement above did not claim that King James first suggested the idea of making of a new translation. After Rainolds suggested it, it is then reported that King James agreed with and approved the making of a new translation. Therefore, it would not seem to be "totally false" to say that King James commissioned the making of a new translation.

King James' objections to or complaints about the marginal notes of the popular Geneva Bible seem to have been the main reason for his agreeing to the idea of the making of a new translation.

McGrath observed: "The ultimate grounds for James's hostility toward the Geneva Bible was the challenge its marginal notes posed to his passionate belief in the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings'" (In the Beginning, p. 141). In his introduction to the facsimile edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Michael Brown pointed out: "King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible" (p. i). Gustavus Paine also noted: "James's real reason for objecting to the Geneva Bible was rooted in his need to feel secure on his throne. Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version had wording which disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes!" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 10). Vance maintained that “it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that bothered the king--it was the notes” (King James, His Bible, p. 21).

Pastor Mincy affirmed: "King James saw in this new translation an opportunity to get rid of the influence of the Puritan Bible, the Geneva" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 131). Allen maintained that King James "hoped to supplant the popularity of the Geneva Bible, the Puritan translation whose accuracy and readability made it a vast favorite with the people" (Coming of King James Gospels, p. 3). KJV-only advocate Robert Sargent acknowledged that King James "despised the Geneva Bible" (English Bible, p. 206). In his Dictionary of the Bible, John Brown (1722-1787) maintained that “King James heartily hated the Geneva translation” (p. 97). Bradstreet confirmed that James “hated the Geneva Bible” (KJV in History, p. 87). KJV defender Steven Houck also observed that James "greatly disliked the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible because he thought they encouraged disobedience to kings and therefore wanted a new translation to replace it" (KJV of the Bible, p. 3). McGrath wrote: "The king, according to the Geneva Bible, was accountable for his actions. It was not a view that James I cared for" (In the Beginning, p. 147).

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Martin Luther

Nice to hear from you.

You said.......

“Where does truth come from or should I say who gives truth? Most will agree that people can and are being saved by many other versions.

Truth comes from God’s Word, and yes I agree, that people are saved by other versions.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

For me Young’s is ten times the bible the KJV is. We have NOT been promised a perfect bible.

I must disagree with you here. God has promised to preserve His Word for us.
I believe that it is Satan’s lie, that we should not expect our Bibles to be perfect.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.........

It is only possible to receive truth from the Holy Spirit.
"John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

He you are partly right here.
The Holy Spirit gave us the Bible, and we are to use the Bible, to make sure, that the voice that we are hearing, is actually the Holy Spirit’s voice.

Some people may say, “The Holy Spirit told me to have more than one wife”.
The only way, that we can know for sure, that this person is wrong, is by checking it out in our Bible.
This is why, Satan hates it, when people trust their Bible’s to be 100% correct.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.........

“Not all men reading some perfect word will receive truth, however, all men reading a corrupt text lead of the Spirit will receive the full truth.”

I think that I know what you are saying, and if I do, than I agree with you.

But this doesn’t mean, that we should use “a corrupt text”, simply because it my be mostly true.

 

[annsni]

Hello Martin Luther

Nice to hear from you.

You said.......

Truth comes from God’s Word, and yes I agree, that people are saved by other versions.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

I must disagree with you here. God has promised to preserve His Word for us.
I believe that it is Satan’s lie, that we should not expect our Bibles to be perfect.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.........

He you are partly right here.
The Holy Spirit gave us the Bible, and we are to use the Bible, to make sure, that the voice that we are hearing, is actually the Holy Spirit’s voice.

Some people may say, “The Holy Spirit told me to have more than one wife”.
The only way, that we can know for sure, that this person is wrong, is by checking it out in our Bible.
This is why, Satan hates it, when people trust their Bible’s to be 100% correct.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.........

I think that I know what you are saying, and if I do, than I agree with you.

But this doesn’t mean, that we should use “a corrupt text”, simply because it my be mostly true.

However, the "corrupt text" is an opinion - not fact. I'm sorry but my ESV is God's Word, no question. I can read it and know that all I learn about my Lord God is true 100%. My ESV says the same as your KJV and the same as someone else's NIV, NASB, YLT, or whatever. God is God and He has preserved His Word to us. Praise Him!!

 

[Logos1560]

As I have said; Simply get an English dictionary, and look up the old means of the words.

The common, average, one-volume edition of an English dictionary today does not list all the words used in the 1611 KJV. Even for those words that it does include, it does not always give the definition or meaning that matches the way the word was actually used by the KJV translators.

 

[rbell]

Some people may say, “The Holy Spirit told me to have more than one wife”.
The only way, that we can know for sure, that this person is wrong, is by checking it out in our Bible.
This is why, Satan hates it, when people trust their Bible’s to be 100% correct.

And that is why you find no significant doctrinal differences between the KJV and modern faithful translations.

 

[Martin Luther]

Hello Martin Luther


I must disagree with you here. God has promised to preserve His Word for us.
I believe that it is Satan’s lie, that we should not expect our Bibles to be perfect.
--------------------------------------------------

Show me the verse.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi annsni

You asked........

“So in other words, those of us who don't stick with the KJV are stupid?”

No, I have never said that. And that is not what I meant, when I said........
(And if you were smart, you would join me.)
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said......

“How can the true meaning of the word be an attack on the deity of Christ? The word means "young woman" which was pretty much synonymous with a virgin. Today it's not but at the time it was written it was not. No attack there.”

You make an interesting point. This point, reminds me of the other opinions people have about John 1:1, and how some people can translate it to say “a God”.

I am not quite sure, what God was trying to do, with things like this, but I am still searching.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said......

“This verse, 1 John 5:7, is in just about none of the manuscripts and it was not originally in Erasmus' text - until someone gave him a highly suspect manuscript with it in it. It is in all of the modern versions but rightly questioned for it's heritage. How ever, not adding this verse doesn't mean that the modern versions question the Trinity since it is clearly taught all through the whole of Scripture.”

As for the “heritage” of this verse. You have your opinion, and I have mine.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you quoted me........

So now we see. Man is having to keep God’s Word “alive and fresh”.
Those who want their ears tickled, will also tell their pastor, “give us something fresh”.

These were not my words: This was my response to someone elses words.

 

[annsni]

The common, average, one-volume edition of an English dictionary today does not list all the words used in the 1611 KJV. Even for those words that it does include, it does not always give the definition or meaning that matches the way the word was actually used by the KJV translators.

Seriously - some words have changed meaning SO much from the 1600s.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi rbell

I will be glad to set this straight.......

If you will look closely, Keith M said...........

“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.”

And I responded......

So now we see. Man is having to keep God’s Word “alive and fresh”.
Those who want their ears tickled, will also tell their pastor, “give us something fresh”.

--------------------------------------------------
This was the context of this statement.

 

[rbell]

You make an interesting point. This point, reminds me of the other opinions people have about John 1:1, and how some people can translate it to say “a God”.

I have always found it disturbing how KJVO folk will lump MV's, and their readers, in with Jehovah's Witnesses and their heretical NWT. That is a patently unfair comparison. Let's be intellectually honest and pull that one off the table.

 

[annsni]

Hi annsni

You asked........

No, I have never said that. And that is not what I meant, when I said........
(And if you were smart, you would join me.)

But if we don't join you, we're not smart. That's what that says.

Next you said......

You make an interesting point. This point, reminds me of the other opinions people have about John 1:1, and how some people can translate it to say “a God”.

I am not quite sure, what God was trying to do, with things like this, but I am still searching.

"A God" is not in the text - it is "God".

Next you said......

As for the “heritage” of this verse. You have your opinion, and I have mine.

Yep - but did you know that it's not in any of the MSS?? Not one of the Greek manuscripts? That's enough evidence for me.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Well; I see I have to do this again.

First of all I am sure there are some modern scholars, who are legitimate. But just from my personal observation, many more are not. Since modern Bible texts are the work of groups of many, stands to reason some of the not so good get in there. And effect their influence.

Then there is the KJV, the language is not all that difficult. But a lot of people have been told it is, so they believe it.

Really I don't care what version you use, use what you want. I am not telling you what version to use, I am just stating reasons for the one I use, and why.

Most people have been conditioned from Tv advertising as to; what to buy, what to wear, what to listen to, what you need to see, is there any wonder sensible discrimination like Elvis, has left the building.

But put the shoe on the other foot, you bite and scratch at the KJV users. But why is this, don't you feel people are free to use the version they want?. Who slings the most mud, the KJVO's or the MV users. Its probably an even heat.

I don't think your MV's are going to send you to Hell, but your lifestyle might?.

But like the so called reformation, which started the many different denominations we have today, and the confusion they present. So do dozens of Bible translations. Now its pretty obvious to me, who had their hand in the reformation, to create so much confusion. And I think he just might have a hand, in this modern Bible reformation also.

Not only do we have a bunch of different MV's, but each scholar/pastor - Bible teacher; has a version of their own. All with footnotes, the problem with this is most of the time, They do not agree on things. Confusion, on confusion add nauseam.

It will end when the Lord returns, and says YOU were all wrong, aren't you very happy, I have grace for you. In the mean time we just continue :tonofbricks: each other.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I don't believe that King Ahaz (and any others present at the time) understood the true prophet Isaiah's words to mean that an Israelite female would bear a child without the natural participation of a human male. The consequence of insisting that Isaiah must have meant "virgin" (in the sense of no sexual relations) in his prophecy is to demand that a supernatural conception already took place hundreds of years before Jesus (or to deny that Isaiah was speaking contemporarily at all). Have you considered this?

I know of no historical record that indicates the Jews ever believed that such a miraculous pregnancy took place then (or ever in their history); nor does it seem from the NT accounts that they were even anticipating such a Messianic 'virgin birth' during the days of Christ (see John 6:42, John 7:42, and John 8:41).

I accept that Matthew is correct when he appeals to Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy. However, it is only looking back under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that he was able to show us. I do not think our translations should anachronistically reflect the progressive revelation from God. I think that ordinary interpretation and proper translation ought not be 'doctrinally' motivated.

 

[annsni]

Well; I see I have to do this again.

First of all I am sure there are some modern scholars, who are legitimate. But just from my personal observation, many more are not. Since modern Bible texts are the work of groups of many, stands to reason some of the not so good get in there. And effect their influence.

So you are a greater authority than the scholars of today? You know more than them or enough to say that they don't know what they're talking about?

Then there is the KJV, the language is not all that difficult. But a lot of people have been told it is, so they believe it.

This is untrue. The language is extremely difficult. We have a group of students who are here in the States from China. They're graduate students and they cannot understand the KJV but the NIV was much easier for them to understand. What do you say to them? It's tough enough to learn the "lingo" of Christianity - no less 1600s Christianity.

Really I don't care what version you use, use what you want. I am not telling you what version to use, I am just stating reasons for the one I use, and why.

That would be fine if that's what you were really doing. However, undermining the basis of every other version than the KJV, you are attacking the other versions AND telling us that what we use as our Bibles really aren't valid.

Most people have been conditioned from Tv advertising as to; what to buy, what to wear, what to listen to, what you need to see, is there any wonder sensible discrimination like Elvis, has left the building.

Hate to tell you but I don't choose my Bible from TV advertising. I choose by doing my own research and looking at the text myself. I now use the ESV and many men that I highly respect in the Christian world also use it. I'm quite comfortable with my choice. Is it right for everyone? Probably not but it's right for me.

But put the shoe on the other foot, you bite and scratch at the KJV users. But why is this, don't you feel people are free to use the version they want?. Who slings the most mud, the KJVO's or the MV users. Its probably an even heat.

I have not seen one attack of the KJV anywhere near like the attacks on the modern versions. It's not even close. No one says that those who use the KJV are wrong to use it. No one says that the textual basis is wrong (even though it was extremely limited at the time of the translation). What we are saying is that the idea that the KJV is the ONLY valid version of God's Word is wrong. That's not attacking the KJV at all - in fact I'm sure 99% of us highly respect and use the KJV as God's Word. But we are attacking the false beliefs of KJVOlyism.

I don't think your MV's are going to send you to Hell, but your lifestyle might?.

Because we have a wrong lifestyle due to our MVs? I know many men who are KJVO who will be going to hell based on their lifestyle. Bible versions have nothing to do with it.

But like the so called reformation, which started the many different denominations we have today, and the confusion they present. So do dozens of Bible translations. Now its pretty obvious to me, who had their hand in the reformation, to create so much confusion. And I think he just might have a hand, in this modern Bible reformation also.

I've never been confused by the different Bible versions nor has anyone I know. Maybe that's the Spirit in us? Maybe because there's no difference in the different versions when it comes to doctrine or teachings?

I know who has His hand in the Bible controversy and it's not in influencing the different versions. It's in making people worship a translation rather than the God who wrote it.

Not only do we have a bunch of different MV's, but each scholar/pastor - Bible teacher; has a version of their own. All with footnotes, the problem with this is most of the time, They do not agree on things. Confusion, on confusion add nauseam.

It will end when the Lord returns, and says YOU were all wrong, aren't you very happy, I have grace for you. In the mean time we just continue :tonofbricks: each other.

Yeah - difference in opinions on theology is nothing new - it's even spoken of in Scripture. I think most people know that the footnotes and such are not inspired. They're NOTES - just as if I took notes in a class. Mine are not going to match my classmates but that doesn't mean my professor didn't say what he said. That would just be stupid.