Use of the KJV

[gb93433]

Some seem to have forgotten that the KJV of 1611 was a modern version in 1611. Then later when newer versions of the KJV there was the same problem then as there is today.

Those who advocate the KJV as the best because it is old I am certain would not advocate going back to the wringer washer with a gasoline motor on it or to the washboard. Do you think those things had come in to being because the newer things are worse. Since the KJV many manuscripts have been found. So we now have more to work with,

In some cases the MT is not as good as the LXX in conforming to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

To say the KJV is best is to say that the English never changes is ignorant of language. There are words in the KJV that would be considered vular today. Scripture was meant to be read publically. Anyone ever heard a preacher read 2Kin 18:27 and
Isaiah 36:12 from the KJV?

Sometime look up the word "conversation" in a KJV concordance and see if those verses accurately translate the text so that it is fully understood in today's English. A translation is only as good as the language it uses. Language changes meanings so must the words that are used to give a correct translation. The KJV misleads people to think thagt the writers of the NT used old language from an age other than the time period it did. Old English gives a sense of formality that does not exist. It also conveys a message that somehow spiritual language is different than today's English when it is not.

Even from an English point of view the KJV is poor at bext for today's reader.

Ever notice that those sermons preached from the KJV tend to be longer than those preached from a more updated version. That's because the preacher doesb't have to spend his time explaining old English. In an updated version the words are already there.

 

[Matt Black]

What I find so astonishing about KJVonlyism is its Anglocentricity. I marvel to think what a French or Chinese Baptist would make of the arrogant assertion that only we English-speakers have God's uncorrupted word.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[timothy 1769]

BrianT,

I think those parts are referring to only the Greek and Hebrew, not any particular translation. I agree with those statements, and think God providentially blessed the 1611 translation as well.

My main point is that many on your side try to paint a belief in a perfect preserved Bible as a strange modern innovation, when the exact opposite is the truth.

[ September 30, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1769 ]

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
I...think God providentially blessed the 1611 translation as well.

Here's an example of where KJVO's always lose me. I think it's great what you think, but unless you can back it up with Scripture, don't tell me that I must think it too!


[Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here: I'm talking about the KJVO belief that God chose to bless the KJV to the exclusion of all others that followed.]

[ September 30, 2003, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: LarryN ]

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
[QB. I agree with those statements, and think God providentially blessed the 1611 translation as well.

My main point is that many on your side try to paint a belief in a perfect preserved Bible as a strange modern innovation, when the exact opposite is the truth. [/QB]

the problem w KJBOism isn't at all its belief that God providentially preserved the 1611 Bible. no, it's just that--in KJBOism--He preserved it exclusively, so that His preservation somehow failed in 1948, 1978, 1995, etc.

that exclusivist doctrine--which sometimes even goes backwards in time to exclude the LXX, Vulgate, Aleph, Sinaiticus, etc--IS a MODERN invention.

the belief in a preserved Bible--nay, multiple preserved Bibles even--isn't modern. but the belief in one VERSION or Revision of one version--ah, that's undeniably new fangled.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by LarryN:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
I...think God providentially blessed the 1611 translation as well.

Here's an example of where KJVO's always lose me. I think it's great what you think, but unless you can back it up with Scripture, don't tell me that I must think it too!

[Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here: I'm talking about the KJVO belief that God chose to bless the KJV to the exclusion of all others that followed.] </font>[/QUOTE]LarryN,

I don't remember telling you what you must think.

But here I go!

I believe, and think you should too, that the Hebrew and Greek have been perfectly preserved, based on what the Bible teaches. I'm sure you've heard the proof verses before. Apparently this is the orthodox historical belief which has been discarded by many MV proponents due to their preference for modern critical texts.

In addition, I believe the KJV to be a perfect English translation blessed by God for the great work he had and has for it. Certainly God could do it again, but such work would need to be based on the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts, not the modern critical texts. That eliminates the vast majority of Modern Versions from consideration.

I've looked into the NKJV, and IMO it doesn't even come close (shudder).

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Some seem to have forgotten that the KJV of 1611 was a modern version in 1611. Then later when newer versions of the KJV there was the same problem then as there is today.

There were no new versions, just corrections to grammar and type. I think no problems occurred intil 1901 when the ASV came around. I wonder if you were to look at history after 1901, what bad things happened (i.e., all the wars).

Those who advocate the KJV as the best because it is old I am certain would not advocate going back to the wringer washer with a gasoline motor on it or to the washboard. Do you think those things had come in to being because the newer things are worse. Since the KJV many manuscripts have been found. So we now have more to work with,

Just because we have found other MSS does not mean they are better or we need a new Bible.

To say the KJV is best is to say that the English never changes is ignorant of language. There are words in the KJV that would be considered vular today. Scripture was meant to be read publically. Anyone ever heard a preacher read 2Kin 18:27 and
Isaiah 36:12 from the KJV?

The truth was meant to be read publically. The reason those verses sound old to you is because the world has created so many watered down Bibles that they don't know what trurth is. That is probably why the NIV removed sodomites(sodomy) from their version, they didn't like it because it was too harsh. THE TRUTH HURTS DOESN'T IT.

Ever notice that those sermons preached from the KJV tend to be longer than those preached from a more updated version. That's because the preacher doesb't have to spend his time explaining old English. In an updated version the words are already there.

Maybe those sermons that are longer are just longer and those that are shorter are just shorter. The preaching at my church usually lasts 45 mins to 1 hour, not because the pastor ran out of things to say, but to keep the congration awake.

BTW, if your on the same page as the pastor, you don't need ever word explained.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
The modern versions of the Bible corrupt God’s word, so if you support those versions, well, I have a shoe for ya.

This is untrue. Will you stop repeating false teaching?

Yes, who and what determines that?

Anyone who knows the truth can determine what it is. Get out your Greek text and compare them. You can see for yourself.

Sure there has, you just fail to accept it.

I have rejected it because it has not been "careful research." It has been biased and has been demonstrated to be such. It does not take into account all the truth but only things that support its point. That cannot be called careful.

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
I...think God providentially blessed the 1611 translation as well.

Here's an example of where KJVO's always lose me. I think it's great what you think, but unless you can back it up with Scripture, don't tell me that I must think it too!

[Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here: I'm talking about the KJVO belief that God chose to bless the KJV to the exclusion of all others that followed.] </font>[/QUOTE]LarryN,

I don't remember telling you what you must think.

But here I go!

I believe, and think you should too, that the Hebrew and Greek have been perfectly preserved, based on what the Bible teaches. I'm sure you've heard the proof verses before. Apparently this is the orthodox historical belief which has been discarded by many MV proponents due to their preference for modern critical texts.

In addition, I believe the KJV to be a perfect English translation blessed by God for the great work he had and has for it. Certainly God could do it again, but such work would need to be based on the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts, not the modern critical texts. That eliminates the vast majority of Modern Versions from consideration.

I've looked into the NKJV, and IMO it doesn't even come close (shudder). </font>[/QUOTE]Brother, thanks for taking the time to tell me what I should think after all!

I still see a lot of I believe , I think , Apparently , and IMO though; and a definite lack of what would actually sway me: the backing of God's Word.

Here's something I'd like your thoughts on: Since the NIV has been the most widely circulated version since 1985, and since MV's currently out-sell the KJV by a 4:1 ratio, has the battle for God's word (in your opinion) already been lost?

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
What I find so astonishing about KJVonlyism is its Anglocentricity. I marvel to think what a French or Chinese Baptist would make of the arrogant assertion that only we English-speakers have God's uncorrupted word.

Brother Matt I thought about this too but consider this.

If the KJVO position is wrong then everyone (French, Chinese, English, etc) is in (has always been in) exactly the same position that you have described.

I commend James White for actually saying (King James Only Controversy p. 36) what every one of his contemporaries believes:

"All of these things [scribal errors] contributed to the simple
fact that there is not a single handwritten manuscript of the
Bible, in Greek or Hebrew, that does not contain, somewhere, an
error, an oversight, a mistake. To err is human."

We only have two choices; James White's position- not a single manuscript with no errors, or the KJVO position- a restored Bible. As Bartholomew has said many times the choice is between "none" and "some".
Finally here are some e-mails my old pastor has recieved from folks whose first language is not English.

[My Old Pastor (see http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article447.cfm ) often recieves] letters and e-mail from King
James Bible believers all over the world. In many lands, where
there are multiple dialects, the KJV brings unity:

"I've got more comprehension on KJV from you. Thank you very
much for your help. I believe that KJV is the perfect preserved
WORD of GOD. Stand fast in this ministry.
-From a college student in Korea

"I'm glad that there's a church out there in Texas that really
proclaim God's Only book - the King James Bible. Keep on.
You've some friends in the Philippines that believe the book
too."
-Pastor Joey G, Pampanga, Philippines

"…On Sunday I gave a teaching in our little group on the new
age bible versions and that people need to get back to the KJB.
I was amazed that so many had never even seen that new
translations were wrong in so many ways."
Kittie L., Cape Town, South Africa

Lacy

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
This is untrue. Will you stop repeating false teaching?

It's not false teaching, it's faith in God. One example of corrupt would be what gb93433 posted about 2 Kings 18:27 and Isaiah 36:12 concerning "piss" on page 3. Was not "piss" in the greek and hebrew? If the new versions were not around, then "piss" would be accepted as perfect scripture and not the foul word you guys associate it with today. What about "sodomite?" Why they take it out? Wasn't it a lesbian that had a part in the NIV? Modern versions have corrupted the word of God in so much that people doubt God's word.

Anyone who knows the truth can determine what it is. Get out your Greek text and compare them. You can see for yourself.

Maybe if I had an original Greek text I would, but they are lost forever. Also, history reveals that the common man did not know but 1 language and God foresaw this and gave us a Bible in the language of today, English.

I have rejected it because it has not been "careful research." It has been biased and has been demonstrated to be such. It does not take into account all the truth but only things that support its point. That cannot be called careful.

You talk as if you are the authority of "careful research." I am sure that those who have written and published literature have done a thorough study before printing. I'm sure that they didn't want to make a fool out of theirself and God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
]It's not false teaching, it's faith in God.

Faith in God does not mean that modern versions have corrupted the word of God. I have great faith in God. In fact, since I started using MVs exclusively, my faith has grown by leaps and bounds. I have more faith now than I did when I used the KJV.

One example of corrupt would be what gb93433 posted about 2 Kings 18:27 and Isaiah 36:12 concerning "piss" on page 3. Was not "piss" in the greek and hebrew? If the new versions were not around, then "piss" would be accepted as perfect scripture and not the foul word you guys associate it with today.

No, "piss" is not in the Greek and Hebrew. Piss is an English word, which is the translation of either shenehem or meme regalim. The Hebrew construction means "urine," which is what your Hebrew dictionaries will tell you if you get them out and look them up. The word "piss" today is a slang word that is inappropriate. The MVs have translated it in a more dignified manner appropriate to God's word.

What about "sodomite?" Why they take it out? Wasn't it a lesbian that had a part in the NIV?

The word "sodomite" was not taken out of modern versions. It was never there. It was in teh KJV. A lesbian did not "have a part" in the NIV. There was a woman who was an English style consultant who was later found to be a lesbian. You have listened to someone who didn't know what they were talking about. Homosexuality is soundly condemned as sin in modern versions. Anyone who says differently is either lying or hasn't bothered to read them.

Modern versions have corrupted the word of God in so much that people doubt God's word.

KJVOs (who never use modern versions except to attack God's word) are the only ones who seem to doubt. I don't find this doubt anywhere else.

Maybe if I had an original Greek text I would, but they are lost forever.

You don't need an original Greek text. God has preserved more than 5000 Greek manuscripts to compare it to. Get it out and do your homework.

Also, history reveals that the common man did not know but 1 language and God foresaw this and gave us a Bible in the language of today, English.

This doesn't make sense. The world has many many language and most of the world does not speak English. None of hte world speaks King James English. God has given us several faithful translations in English, as well as many other languages. Rather than attacking them, you should thank God for them.

You talk as if you are the authority of "careful research." I am sure that those who have written and published literature have done a thorough study before printing. I'm sure that they didn't want to make a fool out of theirself and God.

But in spite of that, many of them have managed to anyway. I am not the authority on "careful research" but I know the difference between truth and error. The people you have learned from do not, or have chosen to espouse error intentionally. That is a serious problem. Careful research can be identified by its resouces, it argumentation, its credibility, and its proper use of objective evidence. There is not one KJVO author who qualifies on these four issues. They all violate one or more of them. There are some defenders of the TR and the Majority Text who do follow these. There is some legitimate debate to be had about bibliology. Whether or not MVs have corrupted God's word is not in that realm.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by LarryN:

Here's something I'd like your thoughts on: Since the NIV has been the most widely circulated version since 1985, and since MV's currently out-sell the KJV by a 4:1 ratio, has the battle for God's word (in your opinion) already been lost?

The battle for God's Word cannot be lost, we have God's promise:

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

What does it mean that so many NIV's are being sold? I have no clear idea. But I have a question - has English really changed so very much that we need a new NIV already? Is there going to be a new NIV every 30 years or so? Also, why do you think the "translation explosion" waited for the 60's and 70's to begin, decades characterized as times of selfishness and rebellion?

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
The battle for God's Word cannot be lost, we have God's promise:

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

i don't recall that in context as a promise of KJB outselling the NIV or any other Bible. one cld make a case (just as eisegetical a one) for the Vulgate outdoing the KJB by several centuries. it seems to me that the verse teaches that God's Words will be fulfilled, regardless (whether in Heb, Gk, the KJB, or MVs).

What does it mean that so many NIV's are being sold? I have no clear idea. But I have a question - has English really changed so very much that we need a new NIV already? Is there going to be a new NIV every 30 years or so? Also, why do you think the "translation explosion" waited for the 60's and 70's to begin, decades characterized as times of selfishness and rebellion?

this seems like a case of onlyist paranoia. what does it matter--30 yrs or 300 yrs. the principle's the same. when the language changes--at whatever rate (n mind u, the rate of change, w the Internet n globalisation, isn't slowing any)--so will the translation of Scripture (n what a blessing, that somebody's alert to the changes n has a heart to get it out in the ploughboy's contemporary, koinH langauge).

but sadly, due to versionOnlyism, there remaineth only calumny against zeal for the common good.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
i don't recall that in context as a promise of KJB outselling the NIV or any other Bible.

I agree. Truth isn't determined by vote.

this seems like a case of onlyist paranoia. what does it matter--30 yrs or 300 yrs. the principle's the same. when the language changes--at whatever rate (n mind u, the rate of change, w the Internet n globalisation, isn't slowing any)--so will the translation of Scripture (n what a blessing, that somebody's alert to the changes n has a heart to get it out in the ploughboy's contemporary, koinH langauge).

Historically didn't widespread literacy and education actually slow down the rate of change in English language? If so, what does that say about our times?

In any event, I don't fundamentally oppose the idea of updating the language of a translation. I would even consider using a minimally updated KJV if the updater could truly limit himself to only updating the clearly archaic language and not in any way attempting to "correct" the translation proper. For example, I think the Modern KJV goes way way too far. But on the whole I think it's probably best to just learn the few hundred archaic words.

But when changes come every two decades, I suspect such updates have more to do with following cultural/intellectual fads (like inclusive language) than with dealing with true changes in our language.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As for the only "perfect Word of God in the English language," let's see you prove that contention. Nobody has been able to do it yet....

If the King James Bible is not perfect, then it is up to one to find one that is. </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, why would you possibly need to use one of the posthumous revisions, if the AV is indeed the Perfect Word of God?

Secondly, you still didn't prove your contention.
Hey: you said it, I didn't.

Incidentally, I never said that the AV wasn't perfect. I simply said that it wasn't the only one.....

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
Do you have any honest examples for Metzger of what you said?

To be honest is that you cannot deny Metzger is an unbeliever.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
[qb] The modern versions of the Bible corrupt God’s word, so if you support those versions, well, I have a shoe for ya.

This is untrue. Will you stop repeating false teaching?
</font>[/QUOTE]Untrue? That is a main problem!

False teaching? No!

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by LarryN:
since MV's currently out-sell the KJV by a 4:1 ratio, has the battle for God's word (in your opinion) already been lost? [/QB]

Outsell? The KJV still outsells since 1611. You can't count - gone back to 1611. Thank God for giving us the accurate Bible for English-speaking tongue.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Faith in God does not mean that modern versions have corrupted the word of God. I have great faith in God. In fact, since I started using MVs exclusively, my faith has grown by leaps and bounds. I have more faith now than I did when I used the KJV.

Edward F. Hills quoted:

"Sad to say, modern Bible-believing scholars have taken very little interest in the concept of consistently Christian New Testament textual criticism. For more than a century most of them have been quite content to follow in this area the naturalistic methods of Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. And the result of this equivocation has been truly disastrous. Just as in Pharaoh's dream the thin cows ate up the fat cows, so the principles and procedures of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism have spread into every department of Christian thought and produced a spiritual famine."

Are you one of them?