• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why so much against KJB-only?

michelle

New Member
Peace and love to you in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

TC, try this one on for size:

Maybe Jesus Christ said what he said, it was the truth, he meant it, and that settles it. What the prophet Isaiah said was the truth, and what Jesus Christ said was the truth, and what Luke recorded was the truth.

Please take this to the Lord in prayer, and he will show you the answer, if you only rely upon him to answer it and show you. It has been explained to you many times, but your ears are shut and your eyes closed to hear the Lord give you the answer.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Greek and hebrew are only translations of what the Holy Spirit said to those holy men as they were moved by Him and they penned down into those translations.
Greek and Hebrew aren't translations of anything. They are what the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible in. You didn't know that???

The problems come when men can't discern what the Spirit is saying, not what he has said, but actively saying. God is still speaking through the Scriptures, yall are hung up on what He has said, but we know He is still speaking through the AV 1611 KJB, we don't need it told to us any simpler, we just need God to tell us, and He is doing just that.
I agree with this. But the reality is that this is insufficient.

Then yall try and limit the scriptures to an exact or "best" word for word translation, which yall should know all to well, that is next to impossible, that is why God gave us the KJB.
We are not the ones limiting Scripture. That is you who are doing that ... "Scripture" is any and all faithful translations.
 

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by michelle:
TC, try this one on for size:

Maybe Jesus Christ said what he said, it was the truth, he meant it, and that settles it. What the prophet Isaiah said was the truth, and what Jesus Christ said was the truth, and what Luke recorded was the truth.
Yes, what Luke recorded was the truth. Luke recorded that Jesus "read", not made things up. Luke recorded that Jesus read what was "written", not spoke what was not written. Luke recorded that Jesus called it "scripture", which by definition is God's word in *written* form. What Jesus had for Isa 61 is slightly different than what the KJV has for Isa 61.

Please take this to the Lord in prayer, and he will show you the answer, if you only rely upon him to answer it and show you.
I personally have done this. He showed me that I can trust what Luke said: that Jesus had "scripture" that was slightly different than what we have today, but I can trust in both despite the differences.
 

Precepts

New Member
I would also add that I agree wholeheartedly with HankD's post as well. There are several Christians on the board, as you know, that have called you on your posting style.
you and others have judged me by my posting "style", I have judged you by your actions, then you have the audacity to deny your motives in your actions. I have explained why I post the things as I do, you have persistently alluded to them as if they are malicious, all the while you have done so maliciously, that's hypocritical, not Christian.

You and Hank are running with a plastic t-bone. Rsr will be along shortly to "growl" his insistent rants as well, you know, like where I said I would question, where I accidently said "will question" Travelsong's salvation, "IF".

I painted a scenario, and yall have attacked my accidental word "will" when all along I meant "would". Wolf-wolf. :rolleyes:
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
You are assuming that the modern versions are based on reliable texts (which they are not).
I am not assuming anything. I know that they are based on reliable texts. Your argument is invalid in that you assert that the TR is the reliable one. You have no proof of that. The evidence that God preserved for us tells us that the eclectic text is reliable.

You compared the translation of the Hebrew and Greek languages into English, as "dumbing down", as the same to english to english. You should know better Larry, that your example is totally flawed and in error. The origional languages absolutely would be the best for accuracy, but to stretch it and say that it is dumbing it down is not true, and is not the same thing from changing from one form of English to another, which is of the same language.
To say that Greek to 17th Century English is dumbing down is no more ridiculous or unfounded than saying that 17th Century English to 21st Century English is dumbing down. You are the one who claimed (even in this very post) that people just needed to quit being lazy and study. So I tell you, quit being lazy and study the Greek and Hebrew. It is not that hard. The fact is that the KJV is not in the language we speak anymore.

You claim that I have said the Holy Spirit is to help us understand the language? I did not say that. I said the Holy Spirit gives us understanding of God's word.[/qutoe]Your complaint was that we didn’t need easier to read translations. To say that we did was to deny the power and work of the Holy Spirit. That seemed pretty clear to me.

It is people today, who have become lazy who do not want to search and study Gods word, or lazy pastors, who do not want to explain the hard things in the word of God, that one recieves from the Holy Spirit in his word, and the modern versions have taken this away.
Having exclusively used MVs for almost 10 years, I can conclusively say that you are wrong. The Holy Spirit is working through modern versions. In fact, when I switched from the KJV to modern versions, I found greater ministry. I have seen more people growing in the word of the Lord and growing in Christ. That is an undeniable fact in my ministry.

t has nothing to do with the language, but the process that is being done with Bible versions today that try to fix things in God's word that he requires us to work out for ourselves in what he has given, and end up corrupting it by thier false interpretations of it (adding, taking away from God's word - and taking the place of the work of the Holy Spirit in sorting it out for you), and then claiming they had to do it because there was an error or contradiction that needed to be fixed and made simple. This is wrong and it is dangerous and not a translation.
You have the same problem with the KJV. They tried to “fix” things and have given their “false interpretations of it;” they have “added to it” in numerous places. The simple fact again, is that you have taken your position as true without actually proving it. The arguments made against modern versions were made against the KJV. They will be made, should the Lord tarry, about other versions. There is nothing new under the sun. The only thing that changes is the name of the version being talked about.

We all can understand the english language in the KJV,
This is simply not true. In my time as a youth pastor, I constantly had teens asking me what the KJV meant. They didn’t understand it. Today, as a pastor, I often have members who carry a KJV ask me what a passage means. People do not understand the language and the sentence structure. I grew up on it. I read far above my grade level and I didn’t understand it like I should have. Simply put, God’s word was written in the common man’s language. There is no reason for it to be different today.

It is the presumption on the part of the person, whether they are in rejection of the Lord, or hear people like you, say that it is hard to read, or agree with them that it is which validate thier false belief.
They don’t need me to tell them it is hard to read. They have figured that out long before they heard it from me. If you were rebellious against the Lord, you can’t blame that on the version or on people like me. You have no one to blame but yourself.

I do not see confusion nor contradiction to when the Bible refers to Ezekiel as the son of man, because number one, his name is given and known, and this is an addition to his real name already given.
The same is true with Satan. There is no confusion. This is a concocted story used to attack God’s word. It has been conclusively answered.

Secondly, I do not see the confusion because many of the prophets were given names representative of Christ Jesus our Lord.
This is not true.

You can continue to say that you have already posted these things two weeks ago, over and over again, but this does not change the fact that the translation in the NIV is not the correct translation, and is blasphemous and is also getting rid of the negative meaning of Lucifer, by deleting it altogether.
It wasn’t two weeks ago. This discussion has gone on for years. There is nothing new here. People have tried to attack God’s word like this for years and it has already been answered.

The reality is that the word of God doesn’t need to be in old fashioned language. It doesn’t need people like you to attack it and to call it blasphemous. What it needs is to be read and listened to. It needs to be followed and obeyed. I praise God that he is using the NASB and the NIV to change people’s lives here. I would encourage you to get involved in a faithful Bible preaching church that uses a modern version. Then you will see just how baseless these charges are.
 

Precepts

New Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greek and hebrew are only translations of what the Holy Spirit said to those holy men as they were moved by Him and they penned down into those translations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greek and Hebrew aren't translations of anything. They are what the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible in. You didn't know that???
So now you are trying to say that God speaks in Hebrew and Greek? Which one is He speaking now? Hebrew or Greek, and why did he change from Hebrew to Greek?
I agree with this. But the reality is that this is insufficient.
Larry, I really don't believe anything God has said or is saying is
insufficient. People have come up with mv's because they don't like what God has already said and is saying in the KJB.
We are not the ones limiting Scripture. That is you who are doing that ... "Scripture" is any and all faithful translations.
I say God is still speaking, yall say "but God said" Now who is limiting the Lord? You are!

Your mv's are the ones that are unfaithful, there are only faithful in being unfaithful in constantly rewording and re-inventing new ways to tell us what the Lord has already said and is saying in our AV 1611 KJB.

KJB is active, as in alive. mv's are passive, as in passed away, uh, dead.
 

michelle

New Member
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Thanks Brian, you really gave me a good hearty lauph at your last post. I have to say, I am just in amazement at how totally lacking in understanding many here are in. That is the precise point I and a couple others here were making. Translation my dear, and not interpretation. THe correct tranlsation is NOT MORNING STAR. It is your version that has interpretated it to mean morning star, and added to God's word, that wasn't there -the word "star".

Furthermore, you could quote to me that 1000 men claim that this is the correct translation of this verse, but if it is not indicated in the Hebrew text, then I must disagree. The Hebrew says Helel, ben shachar. Where is the Kokab? Helel means bright one - not morning star. It is very understandable and easy to see. We also see that we are warned that Satan can come as an angel of light. This doesn't say that he is an angel of light, because he is not. He can come as an angel of light - deceptive. He is not refered to EVER AS THE MORNING STAR by God.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour and bright and morning star,
michelle
 

Alex Mullins

New Member
Michelle:

God bless you for your stand for truth. I have been a believer of the pure word, the KJB since I was saved in 1970. I am thankful for getting a start in a KJB church and being warned about the "wolves" and the "lions" that creep among us.

God wrote only one Bible and it is vitally important that we have it to read today. He promised He would and He did what He promised. If it is not the KJB, then we don't have it and that makes God a liar, which is impossible.

It seems that the more educated a person is, the harder it is for him/her to grasp that God did not write over 200 Bibles. Most, perhaps ALL of the Modern versions contain some of God's Words bu the KJB (not KJV) IS God's Word - 100% pure.

One need only study the differences, there are thousands of them. Which one is the pure word? Since they all agree against the KJB in the same places, the pure word can only be the KJB. That is not rocket surgery.

Folks who underestimate God's ability to preserve this Word also deny that satan has the intelleigence or ability to weaken, pervert and even destroy that word, very subtely, little by little over a period of several thousand years. God's word has been under attack since the Garden of Eden.

I can tell you that there are thousands who are in agreement with you on this issue. Do not be discouraged.

There are thousands more who will attack you on a personal level for your stand on this issue. God is not the author of confusion, so we know where this confusion and division is coming from, amen?

You will feel the hatred in their words, as you take your stand for the truth.

I believe Matthew 12: 26. I see that happening before our eyes. Satan has been successful in his goal to divide and conquer. I am sure he laughs at well-intentioned believers every six months when the next easier-to-read version rolls off the presses.

Anyway, you can waste a lot of time and take a lot of abuse by staying on this thread.

Please believe me, your time is better spent in the fields, which are white unto harvest, winning the lost.

I would be interested in knowing if you have subscribed to publications such as O'Timothy or the Berean Call, both of which spend a lot of time researching the apostacy that is taking place today with in our so-called Bible churches.

We are certainly living in the end times as described in 2 Tim: 3. it is the time to keep our eyes open and be alert.

I encourage you never to grow weak and I will pray for you.

God bless you as you stay true to the pure word and try to win others to Him. This matter has nothing to do with salvation, should never have a negative impact on our fellowship and, praise God, He still does His work, in spite of the way satan has mutilated His Word.

Alex
 

Orvie

New Member
Originally posted by Precepts:
"KJB is active, as in alive. mv's are passive, as in passed away, uh, dead." [/QB]
Oh, Quecepts, why have you used the MV words for Heb 4:12? "The Word of God is quick and powerful" , but you did exactly what we've been saying all along, that God's Word is active and alive. You inadvertently proved the veracity of the MV's :D 1 Cor 14:9 in the KJV "words easy to be understood" Weren't the Anglican AV translators wise to say here that God wants His Word understandable to the "average Joe", not for the Elite Elizabethean English readers? Isn't He wonderful? again, "words easy easy easy to be understood" (emphasis on easy added, in case ya didn't know ;) )
 

Orvie

New Member
Alexandrian, How can you claim the KJV is 100% pure? It is a translation by MAN. How can it be pure, when only what God inspired is pure? I hope you're not a believer in "advanced revelation"? And I'm sure you've been asked before, but exactly which edition of the KJV do you allege is pure? If the 1611 is, then the 1769 is not, since they differ. Are the "jots and tittles" of the 1611 inspired? What happen to those "j & t" by 1769? where'd they go? I'm sure you mean well and love God's Word, but to say what you do, in essence you've moved beyond preserving God's Word to pickling it! Read 1 Cor 14:9 and tell me if you really think God is against updating the English of the KJV for the modern reader. Remember, the AV translators were for updating their version, and contrary to Mr Precepts "unigue" pretext of the translators preface, they did say that "a variety of translations were profitable".
 

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by michelle:
Thanks Brian, you really gave me a good hearty lauph at your last post.
You're welcome.

I have to say, I am just in amazement at how totally lacking in understanding many here are in.
I agree.

Translation my dear, and not interpretation. THe correct tranlsation is NOT MORNING STAR. It is your version that has interpretated it to mean morning star, and added to God's word, that wasn't there -the word "star".
Wrong. "morning star" IS translation, not interpretation. Interpretation deals with who it refers to. You're argument that the word "star" isn't in the Hebrew is inconsistent, for the Greek word for "star" does not appear in 2 Pet 1:19 either, yet "day star" is what ended up in English translations. In translation, you take the meaning of the word in the source language, find the equivalent meaning in the target language, and use that. There is not always a one-to-one correlation! Then, after that is done, you can interpret what the term is referring to.

The Hebrew says Helel, ben shachar. Where is the Kokab? Helel means bright one - not morning star.
In 2 Pet, the Greek says "phosphorus". Where is the "aster"?

Did you know Helel is the name of a Babylonian god? Did you know Shachar is also the name of a Babylonian god? Take a wild guess at the relationship of these gods, and what they are the gods of. Shachar is the Babylonian god of the dawn. Shachar's twin brother is Shalim, god of the dusk. Another brother of Shachar is the well-known Baal. Shachar's mother is Asherah (also mentioned repeatedly in scripture), and Shachar's *son* is Helel. Guess how the Babylonians thought Helel made himself visible? As Venus when it appears as a star in the morning, brought forth by the dawn and bringing light. "helel ben shachar" - "Helel, son of Shachar" - "morning star, son of the dawn". That is the text, that is the meaning. How is "Satan" the "son of the morning"? He isn't, and that doesn't even make sense. It is alright to *interpret* this passage to be about Satan, but that doesn't alter what constitutes a (the) valid translation.
 

Precepts

New Member
Yes, what Luke recorded was the truth. Luke recorded that Jesus "read", not made things up. Luke recorded that Jesus read what was "written", not spoke what was not written. Luke recorded that Jesus called it "scripture", which by definition is God's word in *written* form. What Jesus had for Isa 61 is slightly different than what the KJV has for Isa 61.
Misnomer and a play on words.

What Jesus had for Isaiah and what he read from was Isaiah, but Isaiah 61 is not exactly what Luke said Jesus read. Again you limit Luke 4:18 to Isaiah 61:1. Anyone with any sense at all should have picked up on this by now, why do you keep trying the same bunk? Oh, I know! It's the "bunk" version, right?
 

Johnv

New Member
Originally posted by cdg:
I am wondering why those who are anti-KJB-only and pro-any version care so much about the Bible I use.

Because those of us who use other versions also use the KJV, and we generally feel that onlyism of any version (kjv or other) is unscriptural.
Someone said on another post something like "No one should compulse everyone to use only one version". No one is. I believe KJB-only, but I do not force you to use my Bible.

Then you're not KJVO. You're KJVP (preferred). In other words, you use only the KJV, but do not require others to do the same, if they are not so led. KJVO-isn, otoh, asserts that the KJV is to be the one sole translation for all people who speak English.
Why is it such a big deal to any-versioners that there are people who will use only one version?

It's not. My cousin uses only the KJV. My sister in law only uses the NAS. No problem with either. Neither of them require the other, or me, to use only their version.
Why are some so rigidly against the use of one version? (By the way the KJB is not just a version, it is the inspired, inerrant Word of God for the English speaking people.

Yes it is. So are my NIV or NKJV, or my sister's NAS. However, if you assert that ONLY the KJV is such, please show scriptural support for your position.
It's God's Word, one shouldn't argue against its use.) Have a nice day.
No one should argue against the use of any of the mainline translations.
 

Precepts

New Member
Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michelle:
Thanks Brian, you really gave me a good hearty lauph at your last post.
You're welcome.

I have to say, I am just in amazement at how totally lacking in understanding many here are in.
I agree.

Translation my dear, and not interpretation. THe correct tranlsation is NOT MORNING STAR. It is your version that has interpretated it to mean morning star, and added to God's word, that wasn't there -the word "star".
Wrong. "morning star" IS translation, not interpretation. Interpretation deals with who it refers to. You're argument that the word "star" isn't in the Hebrew is inconsistent, for the Greek word for "star" does not appear in 2 Pet 1:19 either, yet "day star" is what ended up in English translations. In translation, you take the meaning of the word in the source language, find the equivalent meaning in the target language, and use that. There is not always a one-to-one correlation! Then, after that is done, you can interpret what the term is referring to.

The Hebrew says Helel, ben shachar. Where is the Kokab? Helel means bright one - not morning star.
In 2 Pet, the Greek says "phosphorus". Where is the "aster"?

Did you know Helel is the name of a Babylonian god? Did you know Shachar is also the name of a Babylonian god? Take a wild guess at the relationship of these gods, and what they are the gods of. Shachar is the Babylonian god of the dawn. Shachar's twin brother is Shalim, god of the dusk. Another brother of Shachar is the well-known Baal. Shachar's mother is Asherah (also mentioned repeatedly in scripture), and Shachar's *son* is Helel. Guess how the Babylonians thought Helel made himself visible? As Venus when it appears as a star in the morning, brought forth by the dawn and bringing light. "helel ben shachar" - "Helel, son of Shachar" - "morning star, son of the dawn". That is the text, that is the meaning. How is "Satan" the "son of the morning"? He isn't, and that doesn't even make sense. It is alright to *interpret* this passage to be about Satan, but that doesn't alter what constitutes a (the) valid translation.
</font>[/QUOTE]Do "kethiv" and "qere" sound familiar? Kethiv is translation, qere is interpetation by supposition and not accurate. You should know this by now. Read the answer to the thread you started on II Peter 1:19.
 

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by Precepts:
What Jesus had for Isaiah and what he read from was Isaiah, but Isaiah 61 is not exactly what Luke said Jesus read. Again you limit Luke 4:18 to Isaiah 61:1. Anyone with any sense at all should have picked up on this by now, why do you keep trying the same bunk? Oh, I know! It's the "bunk" version, right?
Sorry, but Jesus read from a parchment or a scroll. Not a digital word processor with copy/paste capabilities. Go to your local synagogue and ask if, when they read scripture during a worship service, if it's acceptable or common to take phrases from here/there/everywhere and construct new "scripture" on the fly.
 

michelle

New Member
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Pastor Larry,

I have a question for you, do you think that an effective way of determining that something is of or condoned by God is by the evidence of the numbers of people being affected? Have you ever heard of false confessions? What is your view on the purpose driven church? The charismatic movement? This is how they determine or use to prove that what their doing is of God. Do you think that Jesus determined the effectiveness of his sermons, based upon the amount of people who showed up to see, hear and be healed of him? Or maybe a better question would be the apostles because Jesus didn't need to determine, he knew. Do you really think the end results justifies the means/method? Does God?

You have accused me and others of attacking God's word. WE are not attacking God's word, but standing for it, and warning you and others of the corruptions that have been done to his holy word. You claim that the NIV is translated from reliable texts. Then how come they differ so much from the Received Texts? How do I know the Recieved texts are God's word preserved? I can ask you, how then do you know that the Aleph and B are God's words preserved? Please answer this for me. Please also show me where the KJV added to or deleted from the underlying texts. If they have not included those things of the Aleph, or B, it is because they DISAGREED WITH THE MAJORITY TEXTS. Your versions are based on these texts that were the minority that disagreed with the majority texts and even amongst themselves, and were stagnant in Egypt for centuries. ON top of that, Westcott and Hort altered the texts, and not to mention that they were heretics. You trust these versions and claim that it is God's pure preserved word?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by Precepts:
Do "kethiv" and "qere" sound familiar? Kethiv is translation, qere is interpetation by supposition and not accurate. You should know this by now. Read the answer to the thread you started on II Peter 1:19.
First, you don't really understand kethiv/qere in general. Second, although there is a kethiv/qere in this verse, it does not affect this discussion, because both the KJV and "modern versions" translate from the same thing: helel. Third, if you want to get into kethiv/qere discussions, I have several examples of where the KJV translated from the qere instead of the kethiv.
 

BrianT

New Member
Originally posted by michelle:
ON top of that, Westcott and Hort altered the texts, and not to mention that they were heretics.
Ah, Michelle, you just keep bringing up subjects near and dear to my heart.
Many times in the past, people have come here and claimed that W/H were heretics. Many times I have asked for evidence. Many times the evidence put forth was shown to be erroneous. And many times those putting for the evidence didn't realize that Erasmus and the KJV translators were at least as "heretical".


Care to put forth a few quotes? Start a new thread, I'll be glad to examine any quotes you put forth.
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Precepts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You have not established a reason for violating the rule that you admit is fair. You blather on and on but give no reasonable defense of your double standard.
I don't have a double standard, I have a quadruple standard, I have four KJB's in my posession. I don't have any other versions, not that I claim anyway.</font>[/QUOTE] Whatever you say... you are none the less in violation of biblical principles for holding one standard. A double standard is a sinful form of deception- cute evasive tactics won't change that.

I have consistently shown how "deceived" is NOT "flattered".
What you have not consistently shown is that one is an accurate translation of the Hebrew word while the other is not. You have been shown that the idea that God can be "flattered" is no less opposed to His character than that He can be deceived.

Flattery is insincere or excessive praise usually meant to curry favor. The word also carries the direct connotation that the object of the speech can be duped by their vanity. One can attempt to flatter God or one can attempt to deceive God but both are examples of man's vain folly.

The KJB translators used the right word, yall just like to make everyone think God is or was deceived, we know better.
In fact, you have been shown that the KJV translates the same word as "deceived" in other places. The KJV translators legitimize this translation in the NASB whether you like it or not.
Flattery is not always as deceptive as yall would like for some to believe,
Yes it pretty much is. It is dependent upon the vanity of the object causing them to grant favor to the speaker. It depends on a degree of deception by stretching one's true feelings. Otherwise, it would "praise" or "honor" would be the correct, more powerful word.
...by those opposed to Truth.
If you ever post anything that is "Truth" on this subject, I promise that I will agree with you. Your unsubstantiated opinions (your own mind) however are not my finaly authority. If you want to be believed, lay out a case that is intellectually honest and consistent with the history as well as the text and examples of scripture.
The NasV reads as if God was "deceived" but we know He was only flattered
God was neither deceived nor flattered. This is an indictment of those who would approach Him with flattering deceitful tongues... The word flatter is never used in a positive context in the KJV nor is it ever used in a way that does not denote deception on the part of the speaker.

It is a softer word but it is still an affront to the character of God to say that He can successfully be "flattered".

...and didn't give into their rants, much like yours.
When did I rant?
Contention is never reasonable, intellectually honest, or Biblically fair minded. It can be consistent, but such contentions are sinful, except when the truth of God's Word is to be established in that manner, yall can't say finding "weaknesses" are doing such, but are only introducing more contentions.
I am not being contentious. I am opposing you with the truth. You can't refute it so you persistently attempt to evade or obscure the issues.

Once again, more vain double standards. Because YOU by the final authority of YOUR own mind have determined that the KJV is the only valid English version, you don't see that it is you that is introducing contentions. You say that we are being contentious for pointing out weaknesses in the KJV. At the same time, you believe that you are not being contentious while you make railing, false, wholesale condemnations of modern versions of God's Word.

God's reason is always one sided. intellectually non-discernable, and He is never "fair" by man's standard of fairness, But He is definitely consistent, mv's are not.
By any and every standard that you have used to show that MV's are not consistent... the KJV likewise fails. Usually though, your standards are absolutely ridiculous and designed specifically to impugn God's Word in MV's.

Translations are the works of men. They will have weaknesses and strengths. The KJV translators were fine scholars... as are the NASB translators- but neither group operated under direct, divine inspiration therefore neither group produced an absolutely perfect translation.

We can and do hold the Standard of the AV 1611 KJB, yall have to allude to too many other "versions" to try and tell us what the Lord has already said in ther AV 1611 KJB. ;)
Nope. My references to other versions for you is nothing more than an attempt on my part to show you the truth. The KJV and MV's say the same thing when handled properly... just like Luke 4:18 and Isaiah in the KJV.
 

Precepts

New Member
Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:
Do "kethiv" and "qere" sound familiar? Kethiv is translation, qere is interpetation by supposition and not accurate. You should know this by now. Read the answer to the thread you started on II Peter 1:19.
First, you don't really understand kethiv/qere in general. Second, although there is a kethiv/qere in this verse, it does not affect this discussion, because both the KJV and "modern versions" translate from the same thing: helel. Third, if you want to get into kethiv/qere discussions, I have several examples of where the KJV translated from the qere instead of the kethiv. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, you speak generally, and I spoke specifically about the qere rendering of Isaiah 14: 12 .

The KJB translators could CLEARLY see that the CONTEXT refused the "morning star" rendering in the qere, as to avoid the relating of "morning star" in II Peter 1:19, as any possibilty of lucifer being understood when Jesus is so CLEARLY indicated. I believe the KJBtranslators refer to this as HARMONY, not CONFUSION.

Now there I go speaking specifically concerning Isaiah 14:12 and II Peter 1:19, care to "generalize" it for me some more? :rolleyes:
 
Top