What does it mean to you to be KJVO?

But don't you agree that the TRANSLATION, the actual rendering of the Koine Greek into the target language, English, must change as the target lasnguage itself changes? Is it still appropriate to refer to the Holy Spirit as 'ghost' ir 'it' in MODERN usage?

This is where the advantage of having both old & new Bible translations comes in. One who has read only the KJV may believe the HS is really a ghost in the modern sense of the word, or be bamfoozled when he/she comes across 'let' as meaning 'hinder' in one place and 'allow' in another. To a reader of 400 years agon the meaning would be clear, but mosta us now don't know archaic English all that well. (Not to brag, but it's no prob for me, as I've read Chaucer, Shakespeare, and the tales of chivalry, many of them written in the 1400s/1500s from my youth. Not that I'm so smart; I've simply had a keen interest in those old works mosta my life. Thus, I voraciously read the Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, and AV 1611.)

What if the words DIDN'T change in later versions to reflect the changes in the language?

Here's the most famous, most-quoted verse in all Scripture, in the English of C.995 AD:

“God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."

Now, if all our English Bibles were in THIS version, how many could read it?

See what I'm getting at? As time passes, languages change, and not just by adding words as tech advances. I 100% believe GOD causes/allows those changes, hince HE created the languages to begin with, and that He provides His word in versions that reflect those changes. As I said before, I THANK HIM EVERY DAY for providing His word in my language, while keeping the old versions before us also. WHAT A GREAT, ALL-WISE GOD HE IS; HE IS THE ONLY GOD!

 

Scott J asked: Why? What proof do you offer that God intended Ghost but not Spirit?

With all due respect, you haven't shown that proof. Nor can you show those 89 changes are incorrect. Nor can you show that other changes, such as "passover" in Acts 12:4, changed from "Easter" in that verse in the KJV is incorrect.

 

Correction. They didn't *change* anything, they translated the word differently.

In order for it to be a *change* it would have to be orginally written as "Ghost" and not "Spirit". But since it is the exact same word, it can be translated either way. A change did not a occur, a different translation did occur.

 

It would depend on the usage as to whether the Holy Ghost is used as an 'it' or a 'He', as TCassidy pointed out.

As to the either/or, I believe it was translated as Spirit in some verses because it was meant to be translated that way and into Ghost in others because it was meant to be.

 

Philip,

Please forgive me if I have offended you in any way. I probably have gone overboard myself in a few posts, but I am just sick of the accusing fingers pointing at the person instead of the message.

One can only handle so much and I probably should have just turned off my monitor and gone to bed.

But I still stand on the fact that it seems that those who advocate the MV's, rather than try to debate in a civilized manner, seem to get into a hateful mud slinging match against the person's character. It may be best that forums such as this not even exist, for things like this will always break out.

 

The KJV 1611 has the Word as Easter.

 

You said that before. I asked what proof you offer that this was a direct act by God. Your continuing to say it without supporting it seems to indicate that you cannot support it at all. Why would you attribute something that by all available proof was an act of men to God?

 

So what? That was another decision made by the translators that while expressing the meaning accurately enough to still be God's Word is not the most technically accurate translation possible.

The words of the KJV were chosen by the translators according to the providence of God. They were not directly inspired by God Himself.

The same can be said of every other faithful version.

 

Even if the MV's were to be accepted, one has a harder time convincing another of this when one is attacking another's character and walk with God.

 

So?

 

now there's an intelligent response. lol

 

BTW, Standing firm, I've answered your questions and statements as truthfully as my little knowledge will allow. Now, mind answering mine?

"How do you justify believing the KJVO myth when you KNOW it's not supported by SCRIPTURE from the KJV itself?"

This is light of the fact that Scripture is our highest written authority, and it stands to reason that any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by it in order to be valid. Otherwise, one is placing a man-made doctrine ABOVE Scripture.

 

An intelligent response to an equally-intelligent statement.

 

How do I justify a phrase that MV'rs came up with? The answer is I cannot justify someone elses false statement. They must justify it themselves.

 

it is sort of an oxymoron to brand someone as a KJVO and then say that KJVO is a myth.

 

That's easy...just read the KJV and see for yourself if there's one word or phrase that justifies the myth built around it. I have read the KJV completely umpteen times & have NOT seen ANYTHING even REMOTELY suggesting that the KJVO myth is true.

And with all due respect, Sir, I asked a legitimate question, but you evidently cannot answer, or won't DARE answer correctly, because the correct answer destroys any semblance of veracity for the myth. Do you REALLY think that much of the KJVO myth that you ignore the TRUTH about it? (Please note that I'm not calling you a liar or any name at all; I'm just wondering why you are AVOIDING ANSWERING THE QUESTION.)

Remember, there are prolly dozens of lurkers reading this & wondering the same thing I am. Non-answering destroys, rather than builds up, your cause.

 

Again, no answer. The DOCTRINE is the myth. A KJVO BELIEVES the myth.

Once again...THERE'S NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH. How do you justify believing it?

 

If KJVO is not true, why are you arguing against something that does not exist?

 

Because the doctrine DOES exist. How do you justify believing it when Scripture does NOT support it?