Use of the KJV

Actually, one who prefers the KJV over an MV is not a KJVO. Hank is a good example of that. While Hank and I disagree, he is not KJVO and does not call me unsaved or heretical or blame me for attacking God's word.

A KJVO is someone who claims that the KJV is the only word of God in the English language. Some can prefer the KJV without making that claim. Unfortunately there are very few of them here. Most of the KJV people are KJVO.

We all believe that God has preserved his word. There is a difference of opinion on "how" God has preserved it. That is something that God has not revealed to us. When someone says that God preserved his word only in one particular version, they are adding to God's revelation. God didn't say that. That is the heart of teh KJVO position. They cannot defend it from Scripture because God never told us which version to use. It is clear from Scripture that versions other than the KJV were used. There are places in the NT where the OT is quoted differently than what we see in teh OT itself. Taht shows that a translation is not always "word for word." There are many discussions on this issue throughout the forum.

But rest assured ... most of us here know the difference between KJVO and a KJVP. The problem comes in when the KJVOs want to run the rest of us out of Christianity or declare us Bible-attackers, as was done earlier this morning (or last night ... I can't remember which).

 

I believe the KJV1611, KJV1769, and KJV1873 are
all the result of God's Divine preservation.
They each individually and collectively
contain the written word of God.

I generally prefer to use a KJV1769 for
teaching and witnessing and memorization.

I'm far from being a KJVO.

 

the "O" in "KJBO" stands for ONLY.

does that help?

 

KJV-only usually means "the KJV is the 'only' Bible that is the word of God", not "the KJV is the 'only' Bible I will use". The first is a doctrine, the second is a preference. I don't have any problem with the preference.

 

I think I agree with this ... However, I am not quite sure I understand it ... You are right that the KJV was translated using several English versions and a Greek text as its base. All of those were preserved. That's why we have them. (Once in discussing this with someone, he affirmed that the Alexandrian texts had not been preserved, only the TR had been preserved. I asked him how we had the Alexandrian texts if they weren't preserved. He had no answer for that.) The point is that God did not tell us which manuscripts or family of manuscripts are closest. None of them are perfect. They all have copyists errors (perhaps analogous to the printer's errors of the KJV).

What we must understand is that simply because a translation uses a different set of words, it does not mean that it is not God's word. God's word proper is the original writings. We have copies and translations of God's word by his providence in preservation throughout history. God's word is not confined to one particular text (they are all different) or one particular version.

We must also understand that textual variants (differences in Greek manuscripts) are legitimate issues of discussion. We should not question the loyalty of someone over their choice of a variant. There are good reasons both to accept and to reject most variants. Belief in inspiration or in preservation should not be judged by that.

Is this an error in translation, or is this how the original quote is stated in manuscripts? </font>[/QUOTE]It is how the apostles quoted the original quote. Their citation is often slightly different than the precise Hebrew we have today. It shows that the apostles used a Greek translation (most likely) from which they quoted.

For instance if you compare the writings of Isaiah 61 with Christ's quotation of it in Luke 4, you see different words. That shows us that differences in translation can still be authoritative and can truly be called the "word of God" even if they do not match precisely. This is a key text that the KJVOs have no reasonable explanation for. If the KJVOs are right (that only one set of words is the Word of God), then they would have to explain why Christ quoted something that was not the word of God. He quite clearly used a "modern version," as modern as it could be in the first century. As a result, the exact wording was slightly different, but it was still considered by Christ to be the Word of God. Other NT citations of OT passages demonstrate the same situation.

 

If it's taught as a truth related to the Christian faith, yes it is a doctrine. More specifically, it is a false doctrine.

 

what? not inspired?

of course it is! so is every accurately translated bible--if the LXX that Timothy read was "given by inspiration of God" (2Tim 3:16), why not the bibles that we have?

i wonder abt MVers who consider the KJB inspired ... hmm, is there a category for these?

 

I am KJVO, but I don't think the KJV was re-inspired, or is a product of advanced revelation. I do think it is a good and faithful translation, without error, of the providentially preserved Hebrew and Greek texts. I believe in God's promise to preserve his Word, and think the 1611 translation was providentially blessed because of the great work God had and has planned for it.

Certainly the MV's have some advantages, including the general ability to be more easily understood. But fundamentally the Critical Text movement is born of intellectual pride and an unhealthy veneration of the wisdom of this world. Its development has paralleled the growing secularization of the Western world, and IMO is an unfortunate outgrowth of it.

I admit there is an element of childlike faith in the KJVO position. The KJV and its Greek and Hebrew texts have been the Word of God, committed unto Lord's churches for hundreds of years. I trust God to have been able to put his Word in our hands, and I for one will not abandon it merely to conform to the empty, man-centered, and ultimately unbelieving intellectual fashions of this age.

 

They were for the most part. But all the meticulous-ness in the world cannot make people perfect. The OT text is also fraught with some great difficulties including places where there are most likley words missing. No one talks about that because 1) Hebrew is a lot harder than Greek and no one can fake a knowledge of it, and 2) there is only one basic Hebrew text. The differences in the Hebrew texts are miniscule.

Probably an LXX. That appears to be what teh apostles quoted from.

 

I am KJV preferred for two major reasons:

1) It is based upon the TR (Scrivener - actually he used the stephanus and amended it where it did not agree with the KJV English).

2) Everyone will hear it. Some people will shut down the thinking process when they see/hear NIV or NKJV (or anything other than the KJV).

Too bad, because although I don't agree with the W&H proposition and reliance on Aleph/B, the MV's are superior (IMO) to the KJV in at least two areas: a) For the most part they are in the modern vernacular English as God intended His Words to be given and as He did in the beginning. b) There are several places where (largely for reasons unknown, possibly the Anglo/Catholic Church of England influence) the KJV translators blundered (IMO) which some/many MV's correct.

For instance:

KJV Hebrews 2
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

RSV Hebrews 2
9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

The "little while" is in ALL the families of mss.
The KJV "lowering" of Jesus (kenosis) apears to be permanent.

KJV Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

ASV Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

The Greek word here is en not meta a small but exceedingly important difference.

KJV Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

NAS Acts 12:4 And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people.

An obvious KJV translators blunder which the KJVO try to defend but surely is an embarrassment to them.

HankD

 

There may be some who want to argue with the dictionary, but in 1611 'Easter' could signify the Jewish Passover, as had been the case for hundreds of years. Check the OED.

 

For instance:

KJV Hebrews 2
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

RSV Hebrews 2
9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

The "little while" is in ALL the families of mss.
The KJV "lowering" of Jesus (kenosis) apears to be permanent.

The KJV translation is correct, as this is the same construct used two verses earlier in a direct quotation from Psalm 8:5.

Psalms 8
To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm of David. 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: 7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; 8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. 9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

Angels in verse 5 is elohim, which can be traslated God. Far from correcting a mistake in the KJV, this modern translation of Hebrews 2:9 supports Mormon theology! Was man created a little while lower than God?

 

I love the KJV, and it will be heard before any other translation in my church, but it is not my first choice.

The problem I have is with paraphrases and dynamic equivalents, which take the texts in the original language and give you what the translators think is the same idea. I do not want any man's interpretation as far as what the idea is...it's enough for translators to try to find the proper word/words to represent another. Who needs regurgitated Scripture?

In Christ,
Trotter