Why so much against KJB-only?

[michelle]

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

Hello granny! Thank you for your blessing. May the Lord also bless you richly.

Maybe I am just stupid, but I did not understand the point the following poster (Ed?) was making in reference to the obvious blasphemy in the NIV regarding Lucifer. My KJB reads:

Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

My footnote claims that in Latin, Lucifer means morning star or Light bearer. In Hebrew means the (helel)"bright one", which appears no where else in the Old testament. Do we translate from the Latin or from the origional hebrew languages? I saw a program on the discovery channel claiming that the Hebrew meaning of Lucifer is the morning star. This is what Madame Blavatsky a satan worshipper, believes also. Is satan the morning star? OR rather is Jesus Christ our Lord the morning star, or day star? Then read the CONTEXT of this passage and also refer to the scriptures in Rev.22:16 and 11 Peter 1:19 in the KJV regarding who is the morning star! Now if one has the NIV version, who do you think the reader will understand who is being spoken of in these passages? Is there now some confusion as to who the morning star is? Can Lucifer and Jesus Christ both be the morning star? If not, which one is the morning star? All the evidence points to the fact that Jesus Christ is the morning star and that Lucifer is the bright one. We are also told that he can come as an angel of light, which fits the description of this origional Hebrew word helel, bright one, son of the morning. "Kokab" which is the Hebrew word for star, does not appear in this text. So where does the NIV get the authorization to add it into the text? From the Latin? Or from the Hebrew?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord,
michelle

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Hey~pay no never mind to BroEd...he sez his halo's on too tight, whatever that means!

 

[TC]

originally posted be Michelle.
Many think that those who hold to the KJV and are against the modern versions are causing divisions within the body of Christ. This is sad, but very true. However, I would beg to differ, that it is indeed the modern versions themeselves that are causing and have caused the divisions. If anyone has done any reading regarding this issue, and not just on one side of the issue, but rather both, and based on all the facts of this issue, and love of the truth, one would conclude this.

I'm an avid reader of church history. The truth is that there have been many divisions in the church from the beginning. It is very simplistic to blame divisions on the modern English versions - and IMO, is dishonest as well. By your logic, one can conclude that when the KJV first came out, it caused divisions. Sorry, but I disagree with your conclusion.

What many falsely claim is that all versions of God's word is God's word. I also beg to differ. Is it God's word if it has been altered from the origional texts? Would you now trust it?

Exactly what the RCC said about any translation that wasn't the vulgate. The RCC even killed those that would dare challenge them (i.e. Tyndale) by translating the Bible into that vulgar tongue (English) that degraded and corrupted the perfect Word of God.

Take an honest look at what is causing the division. Is it that the modern versions have subtely changed God's word and are indeed different from the KJV, and even from one to the other? Which one encourages better memorization? And if there are so many different versions to choose from, how then can there be order and unity within the communication and fellowship with one another, if they all differ. Is God a God of confusion and chaos?

So, then tell me why does every English version before the KJV all differ? And why does the KJV differ from those? Was God's Word in in 1610 no longer good enough? Why did the KJV have to come in and cause all that division?

Maybe I am just stupid, but I did not understand the point the following poster (Ed?) was making in reference to the obvious blasphemy in the NIV regarding Lucifer. My KJB reads:

Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Point is the KJV translators put a side note in the original 1611 KJV that gives daystarre as an alternative word for lucifer. BTW, the word lucifer came directly from the latin Vulgate and is not in any Hebrew text.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Precepts:
On the subject of w/h, how do you know they were? Just because some one says they are a Christian doesn't mean they are.

I never said they were... you said they weren't. Neither of us has anyway of knowing outside of their own testimonies.

...he was establishing the availability to the common folk the scripture, not suppressing it or maligning it.

As were W/H... you may not like them or agree with their opinions. But their efforts were designed to yield Christians with the most accurate Bible possible.

As far as the rest of your presuppositions,

My presuppositions are not in question. Yours are. You presume that the KJV is perfectly worded then get all frustrated when shown an inescapable, undeniable proof that your belief is categorically wrong.

I am truly getting tired of repeating myself to you and everybody else.

Then by all means stop... don't evade, obfuscate, deny, delay, etc. Just give a real, direct answer to the questions we ask.

Luke 4:18 and Isa 61:1 in the KJV don't match exactly. They use different words that don't mean the same thing and there is even a whole phrase that is different.

The answer you gave is of the same type as the answer I give concerning different translations. I think it is a legitimate answer but it should be applied consistently. It isn't your reasoning altogether that I disagree with... its your double standard.

Instead of demanding "proof" from your fellow Christians, why not demand of God?

No need. He gave proof... my belief is consistent with the evidence He gave. Yours is not.

Don't you see how silly this argument of yours is? You make an unfounded assumption. I challenged it. Then you say that I should demand proof from God for your false assumption rather than you.

Let me say this once again: GOD DID NOT SAY THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT THE KJV IS TRUE... YOU DID. Therefore, we properly ask YOU for proof and not God.

May you find your demands of Him more readily satisfying and not so easily twisted in your reaction.

I have no need to demand anything of God. He has provided all the proof I need to KNOW that KJVOnlyism is false. He has provided evidence that has shaped my opinion on this subject rather than my having to engage in a constant, self-deceiving effort to shape the facts to fit my opinion. If the evidence shows that any part of my opinion is wrong, I will gladly change it.

I was once KJVO. I remember that feeling of superiority- of being holier than thou. I remember having to swallow my pride when faced with many of these same facts. But denying the truth just because you find it unpleasant or unsettling or even offensive is not godly.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
As were W/H... you may not like them or agree with their opinions. But their efforts were designed to yield Christians with the most accurate Bible possible.

Or to make money, a motive of many bible translators, publishers, and printers, including the KJV.

Luke 4:18 and Isa 61:1 in the KJV don't match exactly. They use different words that don't mean the same thing and there is even a whole phrase that is different.

Translations seldom do.

I was once KJVO. I remember that feeling of superiority- of being holier than thou. I remember having to swallow my pride when faced with many of these same facts. But denying the truth just because you find it unpleasant or unsettling or even offensive is not godly.

Wow! Great testimony! I hope a lot of people follow in your footsteps!

 

[Scott J]

Thanks Skan.... I think...

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Thanks Skan.... I think...

I meant it! I just wanted to throw a bit of cold water on your implication that W/H were selfless champions of the truth no matter the cost. And, of course, your testimony regarding your deliverance from KJVOism is great!

 

[Precepts]

Luke 4:18 and Isa 61:1 in the KJV don't match exactly. They use different words that don't mean the same thing and there is even a whole phrase that is different.

So do you limit Luke 4:18 to just Isaiah 61:1?

Could it not be that Jesus was comprising the general aspects of His ministry to the Jews then present?

If as you say that Jesus was reading and Luke's account is somewhat wrong in the KJB, then why is there only those whose eyes were "fastened" on Him and not those standing and voicing their oopositions to what He is supposed to have read regarding Isaiah 61:1?

It seems Scott J there is either something you're not telling us or it is something you are not aware of.

What about Isaiah 58:6 and 42:7? Are these two verses completely excluded from the rendering of Luke 4:18?

Also of note, how is it Jesus is reading in the synogogue when He had no actual position meeting the requirements to read publickly in the synogogue?

I'm curious to your explanations of this and how you either exclude the other verses and how you justify, or nullify, His reading in the synogogue.

Give me those words that don't mean the same thing and the phrase you say is not even mentioned and where it is not mentioned.

 

[rsr]

Could it not be that Jesus was comprising the general aspects of His ministry to the Jews then present?

Yeah, I suppose. Whatever that means.

And it could be that pigs can fly.

Also of note, how is it Jesus is reading in the synogogue when He had no actual position meeting the requirements to read publickly in the synogogue?

Pray tell, what does this mean? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[cdg]

Ed,

You must be a professional when it comes to using illustrations to prove a point.

Michelle,

Glad to see you here. I agree with your posts.
(as best as I can tell)

Granny,

Hi, God bless you.

Elijah,

Hello, thanks for the input. But we have commentaries that help give the sense of the Scriptures, which at best is what mv's are to me (commentaries). The KJV is the best English translation, so the mv's have no use to me.

Ed,

The publishing of the majority of mv's began in the 70's. So it was not a question for many churches till the 70's. I dont know about every church, only some around where I live. I am sure some churches in the beginning flocked to the mv's and still hold to them. And there are some that took longer to fall to them. But in my area there are some that never have used them and dont plan to any time soon. So saying it has not always been an issue is true, because most of the mv's have not been around very long(longer than me but still not very long). As always, pleasant to talk(technically "write") with you, Ed.

 

[cdg]

Ed,

You must be a professional when it comes to using illustrations to prove a point.

Michelle,

Glad to see you here. I agree with your posts.
(as best as I can tell)

Granny,

Hi, God bless you.

Elijah,

Hello, thanks for the input. But we have commentaries that help give the sense of the Scriptures, which at best is what mv's are to me (commentaries). The KJV is the best English translation, so the mv's have no use to me.

Ed,

The publishing of the majority of mv's began in the 70's. So it was not a question for many churches till the 70's. I dont know about every church, only some around where I live. I am sure some churches in the beginning flocked to the mv's and still hold to them. And there are some that took longer to fall to them. But in my area there are some that never have used them and dont plan to any time soon. So saying it has not always been an issue is true, because most of the mv's have not been around very long(longer than me but still not very long). As always, pleasant to talk(technically "write") with you, Ed.

 

[cdg]

rsr,

"Inquiring minds want to know" This is true. I have to agree with you.

 

[cdg]

Ed,

You must be a professional when it comes to using illustrations to prove a point.

Michelle,

Glad to see you here. I agree with your posts.
(as best as I can tell)

Granny,

Hi, God bless you.

Elijah,

Hello, thanks for the input.
We have commentaries that help give the sense of the Scriptures, which at best is what mv's are to me (commentaries). The KJV is the best English translation, so the mv's have no use to me.

Ed,

The publishing of the majority of mv's began in the 70's. So it was not a question for many churches till the 70's. I dont know about every church, only some around where I live. I am sure some churches in the beginning flocked to the mv's and still hold to them. And there are some that took longer to fall to them. But in my area there are some that never have used them and dont plan to any time soon. So saying it has not always been an issue is true, because most of the mv's have not been around very long(longer than me but still not very long). As always, pleasant to talk(technically "write") with you, Ed.

 

[cdg]

Ed,

You must be a professional when it comes to using illustrations to prove a point.

Michelle,

Glad to see you here. I agree with your posts.
(as best as I can tell)

Granny,

Hi, God bless you.

Elijah,

Hello, thanks for the input.
We have commentaries that help give the sense of the Scriptures, which at best is what mv's are to me (commentaries). The KJV is the best English translation, so the mv's have no use to me.

Ed,

The publishing of the majority of mv's began in the 70's. So it was not a question for many churches till the 70's. I dont know about every church, only some around where I live. I am sure some churches in the beginning flocked to the mv's and still hold to them. And there are some that took longer to fall to them. But in my area there are some that never have used them and dont plan to any time soon. So saying it has not always been an issue is true, because most of the mv's have not been around very long(longer than me but still not very long). As always, pleasant to talk(technically "write") with you, Ed.

 

[cdg]

Ed,

You must be a professional when it comes to using illustrations to prove a point.

Michelle,

Glad to see you here. I agree with your posts.
(as best as I can tell)

Granny,

Hi, God bless you.

Elijah,

Hello, thanks for the input.
We have commentaries that help give the sense of the Scriptures, which at best is what mv's are to me (commentaries). The KJV is the best English translation, so the mv's have no use to me.

Ed,

The publishing of the majority of mv's began in the 70's. So it was not a question for many churches till the 70's. I dont know about every church, only some around where I live. I am sure some churches in the beginning flocked to the mv's and still hold to them. And there are some that took longer to fall to them. But in my area there are some that never have used them and dont plan to any time soon. So saying it has not always been an issue is true, because most of the mv's have not been around very long(longer than me but still not very long). As always, pleasant to talk(technically "write") with you, Ed.

 

[Precepts]

Uh, guys? We're discussing a period of time in regards to Luke 4:18 when the "son of a carpenter", not a priest, not a Levite, not high priest, (in their eyes anyway) was in the place of authority to be handed the scrolls by the Chazan in a very strict environment of the sect of Jewish order. There's much here not seen by the natural eye, so please don't be limited by it.

But then we will have to consider "annointing" "unction" and the fact The VERY Christ had mounted the pulpit, and is more than just endowed to Preach His Holy Book.(Man talking about AUTHORITY!)

It's no wonder their eyes were fixed upon Him, they were beginning to see just Who He is!

So answer the question, is Luke 4:18 somehow limited to Isaiah 61:1? and how is it you know for certain that is true? Don't dodge the question, answer. Inquire first, then answer.


Special note for rsr; Grow up and get over it.

 

[michelle]

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

TC, you are comparing apples to oranges with your examples to prove, or rather excuse the modern versions. Do you understand what a "translation" is? This is clearly not what is represented in the modern versions, as was done with the KJV. And furthermore, to compare the work of the modern versions and the opposition to it (because of the dangers represented therein), to that of the opposition that the RCC had with the KJV is not the same thing, and you should know this.

I have heard comments in the way of well, Jesus Christ quoted Isaiah differently than what was written in the old testament scriptures. Does anyone here, understand that our foundation for the scriptures comes from God himself, and that it is the foundation of our faith, including the writers and writings

of the New Testament? However, translators, and editors do NOT HAVE THIS ABILITY NOR AUTHORIZATION. I have read someone comparing translations to that of other ancient texts, or a journalists text, or one's own writings. Would it bother you, if someone took what you wrote, and added to, or deleted from, or even changed what you wrote because they felt they knew what it was you were saying, but could say it better and in a language the common people would understand, even though you wrote it in a way all could understand? How would you feel if someone started corrupting or distorting, even subtle as it may be, your written work? Would it be beneficial to your intended message and the intended readers? You might argue for you, they might be able to improve upon it. However, we cannot say the same thing of God Almighty and his work.

Also, you misunderstood what I was saying concerning division. I was clearly speaking of those who excuse the modern versions, accusing those of us who warn of the dangers in the modern versions, of causing division within the body of Christ. I did NOT say that the modern versions are cause for all division, nor did I say the division only came from it. What I said, was that the modern versions themselves are causing divisions in the body of Christ, and that the division is not being caused by those who oppose the modern versions and warn of the dangers, as we have been accused of doing.

By the way, forgive me, but I am ignorant when it comes to internet jargon, but what does IMO mean?

I would also be interested to know, as I saw repeatedly someone posting, that those who believe that the KJV is the only reliable and best translation for the english speaking people, have made this doctrine, and calling it false doctrine at that. ARe you, whoever you are, now being a hypocrite and questioning our salvation? And how do you justify this belief, that this belief is even a doctrine? If standing for the purity and uncorrupted word of God, and against those things that would corrupt God's holy and pure word, or those things that have and warning of it, is false doctrine, please show this to me in the scriptures. I have read that blessed are those who read God's word and keep it. I have read that there are those who would be martyred for the testimony of Jesus Christ and the word of God. I have also read that those who add to, or take from the word of God shall endure his wrath. So now tell me, who is believing the false doctrine and who isn't? Who is standing for the word of God and who isn't? It is one thing, to change word to a word that means the same thing, however it is quite a different thing to change the word to change the meaning of the context of the passage, or to take from it or add to it which has clearly been done in the modern versions, some more than others.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

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

TC, you are comparing apples to oranges with your examples to prove, or rather excuse the modern versions. Do you understand what a "translation" is? This is clearly not what is represented in the modern versions, as was done with the KJV. And furthermore, to compare the work of the modern versions and the opposition to it (because of the dangers represented therein), to that of the opposition that the RCC had with the KJV is not the same thing, and you should know this.

I have heard comments in the way of well, Jesus Christ quoted Isaiah differently than what was written in the old testament scriptures. Does anyone here, understand that our foundation for the scriptures comes from God himself, and that it is the foundation of our faith, including the writers and writings

of the New Testament? However, translators, and editors do NOT HAVE THIS ABILITY NOR AUTHORIZATION. I have read someone comparing translations to that of other ancient texts, or a journalists text, or one's own writings. Would it bother you, if someone took what you wrote, and added to, or deleted from, or even changed what you wrote because they felt they knew what it was you were saying, but could say it better and in a language the common people would understand, even though you wrote it in a way all could understand? How would you feel if someone started corrupting or distorting, even subtle as it may be, your written work? Would it be beneficial to your intended message and the intended readers? You might argue for you, they might be able to improve upon it. However, we cannot say the same thing of God Almighty and his work.

Also, you misunderstood what I was saying concerning division. I was clearly speaking of those who excuse the modern versions, accusing those of us who warn of the dangers in the modern versions, of causing division within the body of Christ. I did NOT say that the modern versions are cause for all division, nor did I say the division only came from it. What I said, was that the modern versions themselves are causing divisions in the body of Christ, and that the division is not being caused by those who oppose the modern versions and warn of the dangers, as we have been accused of doing.

By the way, forgive me, but I am ignorant when it comes to internet jargon, but what does IMO mean?

I would also be interested to know, as I saw repeatedly someone posting, that those who believe that the KJV is the only reliable and best translation for the english speaking people, have made this doctrine, and calling it false doctrine at that. ARe you, whoever you are, now being a hypocrite and questioning our salvation? And how do you justify this belief, that this belief is even a doctrine? If standing for the purity and uncorrupted word of God, and against those things that would corrupt God's holy and pure word, or those things that have and warning of it, is false doctrine, please show this to me in the scriptures. I have read that blessed are those who read God's word and keep it. I have read that there are those who would be martyred for the testimony of Jesus Christ and the word of God. I have also read that those who add to, or take from the word of God shall endure his wrath. So now tell me, who is believing the false doctrine and who isn't? Who is standing for the word of God and who isn't? It is one thing, to change word to a word that means the same thing, however it is quite a different thing to change the word to change the meaning of the context of the passage, or to take from it or add to it which has clearly been done in the modern versions, some more than others.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

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

TC, you are comparing apples to oranges with your examples to prove, or rather excuse the modern versions. Do you understand what a "translation" is? This is clearly not what is represented in the modern versions, as was done with the KJV. And furthermore, to compare the work of the modern versions and the opposition to it (because of the dangers represented therein), to that of the opposition that the RCC had with the KJV is not the same thing, and you should know this.

I have heard comments in the way of well, Jesus Christ quoted Isaiah differently than what was written in the old testament scriptures. Does anyone here, understand that our foundation for the scriptures comes from God himself, and that it is the foundation of our faith, including the writers and writings

of the New Testament? However, translators, and editors do NOT HAVE THIS ABILITY NOR AUTHORIZATION. I have read someone comparing translations to that of other ancient texts, or a journalists text, or one's own writings. Would it bother you, if someone took what you wrote, and added to, or deleted from, or even changed what you wrote because they felt they knew what it was you were saying, but could say it better and in a language the common people would understand, even though you wrote it in a way all could understand? How would you feel if someone started corrupting or distorting, even subtle as it may be, your written work? Would it be beneficial to your intended message and the intended readers? You might argue for you, they might be able to improve upon it. However, we cannot say the same thing of God Almighty and his work.

Also, you misunderstood what I was saying concerning division. I was clearly speaking of those who excuse the modern versions, accusing those of us who warn of the dangers in the modern versions, of causing division within the body of Christ. I did NOT say that the modern versions are cause for all division, nor did I say the division only came from it. What I said, was that the modern versions themselves are causing divisions in the body of Christ, and that the division is not being caused by those who oppose the modern versions and warn of the dangers, as we have been accused of doing.

By the way, forgive me, but I am ignorant when it comes to internet jargon, but what does IMO mean?

I would also be interested to know, as I saw repeatedly someone posting, that those who believe that the KJV is the only reliable and best translation for the english speaking people, have made this doctrine, and calling it false doctrine at that. ARe you, whoever you are, now being a hypocrite and questioning our salvation? And how do you justify this belief, that this belief is even a doctrine? If standing for the purity and uncorrupted word of God, and against those things that would corrupt God's holy and pure word, or those things that have and warning of it, is false doctrine, please show this to me in the scriptures. I have read that blessed are those who read God's word and keep it. I have read that there are those who would be martyred for the testimony of Jesus Christ and the word of God. I have also read that those who add to, or take from the word of God shall endure his wrath. So now tell me, who is believing the false doctrine and who isn't? Who is standing for the word of God and who isn't? It is one thing, to change word to a word that means the same thing, however it is quite a different thing to change the word to change the meaning of the context of the passage, or to take from it or add to it which has clearly been done in the modern versions, some more than others.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Precepts:
So answer the question, is Luke 4:18 somehow limited to Isaiah 61:1? and how is it you know for certain that is true? Don't dodge the question, answer. Inquire first, then answer.

He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him.

The passages come from the Septuagint versions of Isaiah 61:1 and Isaiah 58:6. They mirror that version, NOT the Hebrew that is found therein. Prophets of that time were permitted to bounce from verse to verse according to Lightfoot.