The real reason I am KJVO

[franklinmonroe]

... Here Peter(under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), tells us that if we were to hear God’s voice from heaven speaking to us, that the words found in the Bible, are to be considered more accurate.

That is not the way I would interpret 2 Peter 1:19. I believe that what Peter is saying is: that despite his claim that the apostles were telling the truth, the fulfilled OT prophecies concerning the Messiah are stronger evidence than his own testimony (even as an 'earwitness'). And by the way, should I hear the audible voice of God, His words will not conflict with those in the Bible.

 

[Keith M]

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

That's not how it was intended to be, stilllearning. God's word was meant to be easily understood by the common man. You would add a requirement for understanding God's word that He never intended.

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

Your confusion lies in the fact you have fallen for a teaching that casts doubt on God's ability to preserve His word in as many Bible translations as He sees fit. This teaching also questions His wisdom in graciously providing those translations for us. Everyone who accepts the KJVO position is deeply confused.

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:33 NKJV

The KJVO position is not only based in deep error and confusion, it is also the cause of much strife and division among the church today.

 

[Askjo]

Ahhh - gotcha. You're hung up on the choice of words between the modern versions and the KJV. OK, well, maybe going to the Greek will help as well as the useage of the word by the KJV translators:

The word translated as "testimony" or "witness" is "martyria" which means:

1) a testifying

a) the office committed to the prophets of testifying concerning future events

2) what one testifies, testimony, i.e. before a judge

Interestingly enough, the KJV translators translate this word 15 times as "witness", 14 times as "testimony", 7 times as "record" and 1 time as "report".

So using "witness" or "testimony" is the same thing according to the translators. It was their choice to use both words to translate the ONE Greek word.

Yep - not a great argument against the MVs.

The Greek word is same for a few English words. Modern versions used "testimony" in BOTH cases; other modern versions used "witness" in BOTH cases. To translate the SAME Greek word 2 different ways is to give right words on these passages.

Jesus' testimony is true AND not true. Did you see THAT?

 

[annsni]

What I find so interesting is that the very translators of the KJV felt it was of utmost importance to have a translation in the 'vulgar' language so that all men may understand the Word. They don't say "get a dictionary to understand the words". Here's what they DO say:

"Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11]"

"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

 

[annsni]

The Greek word is same for a few English words. Modern versions used "testimony" in BOTH cases; other modern versions used "witness" in BOTH cases. To translate the SAME Greek word 2 different ways is to give right words on these passages.

Jesus' testimony is true AND not true. Did you see THAT?

No - His testimony is not "true and not true". Read in context, it is easily understood. I'm sorry you don't see it.

 

[Askjo]

No - His testimony is not "true and not true". Read in context, it is easily understood. I'm sorry you don't see it.

Read again your post:

Originally Posted by annsni
Let's look at each of these:

John 5:31

KJV - If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

NASB - If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.

NIV - If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.

ESV - If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.


* I see no difference in any of these versions



John 8:14

KJV - Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

NASB - Jesus answered and said to them, "(A)Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know (B)where I came from and where I am going; but (C)you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

NIV - 14Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.

ESV - Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself,(A) my testimony is true, for I know(B) where I came from and(C) where I am going, but(D) you do not know where I come from or where I am going.



* I don't understand your point here. The Scriptures are consistent across the versions.

Show me what the KJV said -- 2 words on these passages.

 

[franklinmonroe]

John 8:17&18 (KJV) --

It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.​

 

[annsni]

Read again your post:
Show me what the KJV said -- 2 words on these passages.

Ahhh - OK - You don't understand the Scriptures in context? Let me explain.

Let's read chapter 5 in context:

25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

31If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

32There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

33Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.

34But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

35He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.

36But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Now let's go back to Deuteronomy 19:15

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

One man's testimony or witness is not enough - it is not considered "true" even if it IS true.

What does verse 32 say in John 5? That there is another witness. That would validate Jesus' testimony about Himself because John was a second witness. But is that enough? No. Because we see in verse 37 that God Himself is a witness to Jesus. then finally there is in verse 39 the testimony of Scripture.

Now for chapter 8. Let's again look IN CONTEXT:

13The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

14Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

15Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

16And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

17It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

18I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

19Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

20These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.

21Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.

22Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.

23And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

25Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.

26I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

27They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

28Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

So, to explain the "contradiction", it is perspective. According to the law, one person's testimony is not valid - but Jesus went on to tell them that it is not just His testimony but also on John's, the Father's and the Scripture's. So according to the law, Jesus' testimony is not true. But according to the truth, there are witnesses, so it is true.

Clear as day to this unlearned mind.

 

[Keith M]

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.

The 1611 KJV was also the work of a group, Samuel. If we follow your line of reasoning, that means the KJVs are also untrustworthy.

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.

Most who use the KJVs were raised around them. Because of their (our) familiarty with the language of the KJVs much of the antiquated language is easily understood. But when you give one of the KJVs to someone who was recently saved and never previously exposed to Elizabethan English, the language can be the source of much confusion. A lot of people have been told the language in the KJVs isn't hard to understand for people never exposed to the language. Because they've been told the English of the KJVs isn't difficult, they actually begin to believe this erroneous idea.

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.

Then are you conceding the modern translations are just as much the word of God as the KJVs?

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.

In other words, those who don't use one of the KJVs have no "sensible discrimination." Isn't that what you're saying, Samuel?

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.

No one bites and scratches at KJV users. What we "bite and scratch at" is what we believe is a false, man-made teaching about the KJVs - the teaching that one of the KJVs is the only true word of God in English.

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

So someone who uses a modern Bible translation has a lifestyle that will send them to hell? What about David Koresh (sp?)? Since he used one of the KJVs do you think he went to heaven when he died?

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.

So God isn't the source of the modern Bible translations? You believe Satan is the source of modern Bible translations, so you don't believe any of the modern translations really are the word of God. If that's the case, then despite your previous danial, you really are KJVO. Which is it, Samuel? Are you or aren't you KJVO? Are modern Bible translations the word of God or aren't they the word of God?

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.

Not true, my friend. It's the KJVO position that can't possibly exist in God's holy presence and in His all-encompassing truth. When we all get to heaven KJVOs will be forced to admit their error before God and to apologize for ever doubting His ability and His wisdom. I pray that day will come before we all get to heaven, but I rest assured the truth will eventually conquer the errors of the KJVO position.

 

[Keith M]

All the while Giod expects men, ALL men, to get in line with His reasoning.

That's right, we should. But the KJVO position isn't close to God's reasoning. The KJVO position isn't even hiunted at in any Bible translation.

God even abases himself to an estate of lower degree to come where man is at and offers to reason together with man. Isaiah 1:18.

Still men are persistently making unsubstanciated works of their hands as to perfect the word of God to any reader while that has already been accomplished by the Spirit of God.:thumbsup:

Proof? The KJB ends up the main subject of EVERY topic in this and all other forums when the Bible is discussed. The only exception is when MV proponents intentionally start topics determined to avoid mention of the KJB. But when it does come to mention, they ridicule it's advocates and begin to attack them and the KJB. They attemtp to jusitfy their attacks by saying that KJVO's do the same: reminds me of secualr reason amongst a bunch of muggers, robbers, and thieves!

Not true, Salamander. What true Bible-believers attack is the incorrect notion that only one of the KJVs is the word of God in Engloish. I've never seen anyone at BB attack the KJVs - just a false teaching about the KJVs. There's a huge difference which you apparently don't understand. I regret your confusion.

Yall boys keep trying to perfect that which is already PERFECT and we'll keep standing on the KJB!:godisgood:

Well, KJVOs keep wishing and trying to turn the errant KJVO teaching into truth. It'll never happen, Sal, even if you close your eyes, wish really hard and click your heels together three times.

 

[Askjo]

Ahhh - OK - You don't understand the Scriptures in context? Let me explain.

Let's read chapter 5 in context:


Now let's go back to Deuteronomy 19:15


One man's testimony or witness is not enough - it is not considered "true" even if it IS true.

What does verse 32 say in John 5? That there is another witness. That would validate Jesus' testimony about Himself because John was a second witness. But is that enough? No. Because we see in verse 37 that God Himself is a witness to Jesus. then finally there is in verse 39 the testimony of Scripture.

Now for chapter 8. Let's again look IN CONTEXT:




So, to explain the "contradiction", it is perspective. According to the law, one person's testimony is not valid - but Jesus went on to tell them that it is not just His testimony but also on John's, the Father's and the Scripture's. So according to the law, Jesus' testimony is not true. But according to the truth, there are witnesses, so it is true.

Clear as day to this unlearned mind.

I understand these Scriptures, but you did not answer it. Read my previous post:

Originally Posted by Askjo
Read again your post:
Show me what the KJV said -- 2 words on these passages.

 

[Keith M]

Modern versions said:

Jesus’ testimony is true
Jesus’ testimony is not true.

Other modern versions said:

Jesus’ witness is true
Jesus’ witness is not true.

Modern versions affected the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Hmmm...modern versions like the 1611 KJV?

If I beare witnesse of my selfe, my witnesse is not true. John 5:31 1611 KJV

Iesus answered, and said vnto them, Though I beare record of my selfe, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I goe: but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I goe. John 8:14 1611 KJV

Askjo, you really need to check your "facts" a little better before you prove beyond doubt you don't know what you're talking about. Where did you come up with this hogwash that modern Bible translations contradict themselves here? If the modern translations contradict themselves here, then so do the KJVs.

Actually, despite your errant claim, neither the modern translations nor the KJVs contradict themselves here. This is a case of Jesus responding to two different situations at two different times. In your confused state it's easy to see how you would make this mistake, Askjo.

 

[Keith M]

No I am not suprised! your early manuscripts, do not have Jesus in them. Origen, and his Alexandrian scholars removed as much as they could, without making it to ovious.

They were responsible! for the two Alexandrian text, used for the MV's.

Samuel, you have it backward. It's impossible to remove something from manuscripts that didn't yet exist. However, it certainly isn't impossible for later manuscripts to add something to older manuscripts. See how you're confused?

 

[Askjo]

Askjo, you really need to check your "facts" a little better before you prove beyond doubt you don't know what you're talking about. Where did you come up with this hogwash that modern Bible translations contradict themselves here? If the modern translations contradict themselves here, then so do the KJVs.

Actually, despite your errant claim, neither the modern translations nor the KJVs contradict themselves here. This is a case of Jesus responding to two different situations at two different times. In your confused state it's easy to see how you would make this mistake, Askjo.

You MISSED the point! Read these passages carefully and S L O W L Y.

 

[annsni]

I understand these Scriptures, but you did not answer it. Read my previous post:

I did answer it. Jesus said that by the law, His testimony alone is not true. But based on the fact that He has witnesses, His testimony IS true. He's not saying that His testimony is actually false but to the court it would be. It would be "inadmissable" even though it were true.

 

[Samuel Owen]

I told you I was not a KJVO person, I simply like it better, and each version has their little glitches. I find sometimes a verse, is much better translated into modern english. But I still do not see the need to delete words, to get at the same meaning the long way around.

Now that's said there are MV's which I will not use, one being the NIV. Its at best is an ecumenical translation. and the RSV which goes off on terms of its own, I think they call it textual freedom to be idiomatic.

In Bible studies I use the NASB, and the KJV. I find the NASB to be of much better understanding in the OT, which is filled with much symbolic language. Probably understood 2000 years ago, but not so easy these days.

 

[annsni]

I told you I was not a KJVO person, I simply like it better, and each version has their little glitches. I find sometimes a verse, is much better translated into modern english. But I still do not see the need to delete words, to get at the same meaning the long way around.

Now that's said there are MV's which I will not use, one being the NIV. Its at best is an ecumenical translation. and the RSV which goes off on terms of its own, I think they call it textual freedom to be idiomatic.

In Bible studies I use the NASB, and the KJV. I find the NASB to be of much better understanding in the OT, which is filled with much symbolic language. Probably understood 2000 years ago, but not so easy these days.

I wouldn't call the NIV an ecumenical translation. It IS a translation that's coming from a different method - and one that WILL have some issues at times. I found a book online that is very enlightening with some of the "issue" verses. It was written by one of the translators and has some good information in it to help understand their thought processes.

http://www.ibs.org/niv/accuracy/NIV_AccuracyDefined.pdf

 

[Ed Edwards]

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

Amen, Brother Rbell - Preach it !

Your statement contradicts with modern versions.

Modern versions said:

Jesus’ testimony is true
Jesus’ testimony is not true.

Other modern versions said:

Jesus’ witness is true
Jesus’ witness is not true.

Modern versions affected the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Tee Hee, this is what is called a SHELL GAME SCAM - the nut is under the third shell

Jesus’ testimony is true - John 8:14 NIV
("Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid")

Jesus’ testimony is not true - John 5:31 NIV (uses 'valid' not 'true')

So according to Bro. Askjo - the NIV has a doctrinal difference. (No doctrinal difference was suggested, specified, or indicated.)

Here is what the King James Version, 1611 Edition says:

Joh 8:14 (KJV1611 Edition):
Iesus answered, and said vnto them, Though I beare record of my selfe, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I goe: but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I goe.

Joh 5:31 (KJV1611 Edition): If I beare witnesse of my selfe, my witnesse is not true.

The selfsame 'contradiction' exists in the KJVs as exists in the MVs!

John 5:31 tells a common human truth: a person who gives record (testimony, witness) of one's self needs to be checked out.
In John 8:14, Jesus says even though normally, a person who gives record (testimony, witness) of one's self needs to be checked out, He doesn't need to be.

BTW, Brother Askjo has been told this last year at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=40172

 

[Keith M]

We know that it wasn’t broken, was because the Bibles translated during that time, were effective in changing people’s lives.

And Bibles translated since that time have also changed people's lives. Your argument simply doesn't stand up in the face of truth, stilllearning.

But all of us, must base our opinions on something.

That's just it, stilllearning. The KJVO position is one that isn't based on one shred of truth. So what do you base your opinion on?

I am basing my opinions up, the Bibles warnings about deceivers in the last days.

Yep, KJVOs are definitely deceivers who expect everyone else to fully accept an errant teaching that has absolutely no scriptural or intellectual basis.

 

[Askjo]

I did answer it.

No, you did not answer it. What did the KJV say on John 5:31 and 8:14? Please answer two words.

Jesus said that by the law, His testimony alone is not true. But based on the fact that He has witnesses, His testimony IS true. He's not saying that His testimony is actually false but to the court it would be. It would be "inadmissable" even though it were true.

I know that.