Why is the KJV the main subject in this section?

Your last sentence is why it gets discussed so much.

Some imply that others are "settling for less", implying we are less faithful as Christians, we are deceived, etc., etc., etc. If you want to use only the KJV, that's perfectly fine. But don't use your position to put someone down who uses another version.

 

Not "less faithful as Christians", but, yes, sadly deceived into think that all versions are the same! If they were, then why the need for a hundred new English versions since the KJV? All claim to be based on better evidence, and easy to read. Are we all that hard of understanding the English language? It because some suppose that the modern versions are "better", because of some new evidence, that those who have seen it all before, stick with the original and best, the KJV!

 

KJVOnlyism effects doctrine and a negative way. It is not to be found in the Bible itself but many use it as a test of orthodoxy. They call all other versions names like "perversions" and anyone who uses one a "liberal/modernist" or worse.

The fact is that the original fundamentalists who took on real liberals and humanists used versions other than the KJV to defend "The Fundamentals".

My main concern is that it is corrupting and dividing biblical fundamentalism among Baptists. KJVOnlyism is not biblical, not fundamental, and not a sound position based on historical facts. It is contentious, divisive, and man-made. It creates exactly the kinds of division in a very similar way that God condemned in the opening chapters of I Corinthians.

 

Other KJV-only supporters I met have told me that.

I don't think all versions are the same. But thanks for saying we're deceived - very edifying.

The KJV is neither the original, nor the best.

 

ScottJ

You are right that the KJV is the "test" [attack on the Word of God snipped]. Though I am NOT a KJV only person, I strongly do feel the need to have this version as the English "standard"!

[ April 02, 2005, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Natters, you say

"The KJV is neither the original, nor the best"

I suppose that you have done research in to this well enough to give a scholary response as you here give? Can you tell me which English version is more faithful to the original, especially when it concerns the Person of Jesus Christ?

 

Who said or believes that? They are not the same obviously. Some are better. Some are worse... and some are not worthy of use.

Why the need for any translation after the Geneva?

Honest translators think they can offer God's Word to people in a form that is faithful to the original tongues and understandable. This hasn't changed since the KJV translators cited it as their motive.

Some probably are. That is a matter of debate and proof.

The originals were in the language of the people. The KJV is not the language of Americans today.

The KJV is not the original in any sense.

"Best" is subjective. In my opinion, "best" cannot be a version that someone cannot read and understand for themselves without unnecessary difficulties caused by the language used.

I used the KJV and have learned it for more than 30 years. Not every Christian has this benefit.

 

icthus, which do you want me to address, "original" or "best". As for "original", I sure hope you're aware that many Bibles existed before the KJV. As for "best", we don't have originals to compare it to, so we must rely on textual criticism when determining accuracy to the originals - and textual criticism largely points to 'modern version' readings. As for "concerns the Person of Jesus Christ", I've already tried to make it very clear to you that determining textual accuracy is NOT done by what sounds better to one's personal doctrines.

 

No, it is not. The test for any and every version is its faithfulness to the evidence for the originals and the quality and method of its translation. Honest people can have some degree of honest disagreement on the evidence without compromising God's Word or its teachings.

The KJV is a translation. It is NOT the standard for others.

Further, you blaspheme the Word of God by calling versions that you cannot definitively prove are incorrect "perverse". Further, at worst, these translations have been used fruitfully in the building of God's church... identifying your words and position to be contrary to the working of the Spirit.

[ April 01, 2005, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

What do you mean by "personal doctrines"?

Lets look at Luke 1:35, read this in the KJV and then in any modern version. You will notice that the words "of thee" (literally, "out of thee") have been removed. Why? It was known to and quoted by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Didymus, Tertullian, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Novatian, etc. And yet it has been removed!

These two small words are clear teaching that the human nature of Jesus Christ was actually derived from that of the virgin Mary, against that what the Gnostics taught, that the human nature of Jesus simply "passed through" the womb of Mary, like "water does through a tube". The language is two fold in the Greek. "ek" = "out of" as denoting "source", and "sou", the singular, personal pronoun, which excludes Joseph as having anything to do with the conception of Jesus Christ.

This is NOT my personal theology, but what the Bible actually teaches, and what the enemy saw to was removed by enemies of the Truth!

 

No, it is not. The test for any and every version is its faithfulness to the evidence for the originals and the quality and method of its translation.

The KJV is a translation. It is NOT the standard for others. </font>[/QUOTE]Not just a "translation", but a faithful one, more than can be said for those that use the USB, N-A and W&H texts for their textual basis!

 

In the same verse you cited, Luke 1:35, the KJV calls Jesus a "thing". That hardly qualifies as a strong assertion of His humanity. In fact, "Holy One" (NKJV) and "Holy Child" (NASB) have direct ties back to the promised Messiah in the OT who was expected to be a human ruler.

Your argument is specious. The Gnostics most certainly would have loved to call Jesus a "thing" rather than a child or the "One" from the OT.

 

That is pure opinion on your part. I have read many of your claims here. The greatest impression you have made is that you are enamoured with your own opinions and will swallow any camel to preserve them.

 

We've already been over this. You cannot judge textual accuracy based on what "sounds better" to you.

Pick and choose whatever example you want. Bottom line, you cannot prove it was changed to strengthen orthodox doctrine against the gnostics.

 

BTW, I primarily use the KJV followed by the NKJV and the NASB. I believe that on the whole the Byzantine probably represents the originals better than the Alexandrian. However the TR contains readings with the least support of any of the three choices such as the last 7 verses of Revelation and I John 5:7-8.

 

That is pure opinion on your part. I have read many of your claims here. The greatest impression you have made is that you are enamoured with your own opinions and will swallow any camel to preserve them. </font>[/QUOTE]I take it that you have done some Textual Criticism yourself?

 

You ought to do your home work before posting, then you won't be guilty of talking nonsense

The Greek here is "hagion", which is a neuter adjective, and therefore correctly rendered as "Holy thing". The same is used of believers in John 6:37, "all that (neuter) the Father gives me...". Not a problem if you understand Greek grammar

 

With regards to the passage in 1 John 5:7-8. I still hold out the challenge to anyone to prove from the remaining (without the disputed words) text, that grammatically John could have written what he did. I am a very strong believer that the Holy Spirit, Who is the author of the complete Bible, cannot make any errors. taken as it is without the disputed words, the Greek grammar is faulty! There sre three neuter nouns, "Spirit, water and blood", but the words that relate to these nouns, "treis eisin hoi marturounets" (there are three that bear witness), are in the masculine gender! If the words were not part of the original, John, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, would have written, "Tria eisi ta marturounta", which is in the neuter, and which he uses to describe the same neuter nouns in verse six!

 

icthus said:

[attack on the Word of God snipped] versions of the Holy Bible, like the RV, NIV, ASV, NSAB, ESV, etc



[ April 02, 2005, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]