Why so much against KJB-only?

[tinytim]

CDG, Hi, allow me to say hi.

I really want to compliment you on what knowledge you have attained up to this point.
Just don't stop learning. OK.

I have to say i am really impressed with you. Most KJVO that I know have a know it all spirit about them. You don't.

I also grew up on the KJB. Still love it.

YOu have more knowledge that most teens about the subject.

You stated that you would probably use the latest KJV available. Assuming that you don't consider the NKJV trustworthy, may I suggest that you invest in a 1873 KJV.
There are three popular KJVs today.
1) the 1611 (with apocrypha) and marginal notes.
you know, like the footnotes in most MVs
2) the 1769 (the one most are familiar with)
3) the 1873. It is more like the 1611 in a lot of places. It also includes the marginal notes of the 1611 as footnotes at the bottom. That way you can see what the translators were thinking.

There are a few changes from the 1769.
Ruth 3:15 for one. One has "he" went into the city. The other has "she".

BTW, This is a question for someone with a 1611.
Does the 1611 have "he" or "she?"

Another is in Matthew instead of strain "at" a nat, the 1873 has strain "out" a nat.

It also is in paragraph style. (which is one drawback to me, as I like to find verses easily)

If you're worrying about the influence of westcott or Hort, don't worry. They realeased their stuff in 1881. 8 years after the 1873 edition.

I want to emphasize that even though I'm not KJVO, I think you should keep on reading your KJB. It is great that teens like you want to learn more.
BTW, I became a non-KJVO while reading the KJB.

I was reading Luke where Jesus was reading in the temple.:
Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written,
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him.

I ran reference because I wanted to know where this was in Isaiah. I found it in Is 61:1:
Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me; because Jehovah hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
Isa 61:2 to proclaim the year of Jehovah's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

I started doing some research because I realized that what Jesus read was not what the translators of the KJB used to translate Is 61:1

Jesus was reading from the Septuagent. While the Translators used the masoretic text.

This led me to a question.

Which was actually what Isaiah said?

Was the translators right? Or was Jesus right? If no two things that are different can be the same, then one must be wrong. They are clearly different. No denying that.

Or is there another way of looking at it?
Can two phrases that read differently mean the same thing? Of course they can.

It all boils down to the fact that Jesus used a different version than what the KJB translators used. Which means that Jesus OK'd the use of different versions.

Once I realized that, my eyes were opened and the Holy Spirit enlightened me.

If it is OK for Jesus to use different versions, then why can't we.
BTW, Philip and the eunich used differing versions of IS 53. check it out.

This question is for anyone. What version did Jesus use on the road to Emmaus?

CDG, just keep using the KJB until you are comfortable with another version. If that never happens, no harm done. After all the KJB has been around for 400 yrs.
As Tony the tiger says, "Itttt'sss Grreeaatt"

 

[Precepts]

But, more pertinent is, "Your hippo won't fly".

It's God's hippo and He told it to, and "he went and did" fly. Still does!

The next phrase will undoubtedly provoke you:

AV 1611 KJB

 

[cdg]

Thank you, ED.

 

[cdg]

Tiny Tim,

I agree the KJB is Great. I appreciate your kind words about me. BUT, I have alot of....we could say "spirit" when it comes to these matters. I have been trying to hold back because I want to show the love of Christ(as I am sure we all do) and to retain a good testimony. I am discussing an issue with someone in the arminian/calvinism area(cant remember what it is called) and I had to erase some things I said. I did notice though, He used another version and it did make a difference in our discussion. I told him to use the KJV or his argument would mean nothing to me.(I know that is offensive but it is the truth and it is toned down). I did try to be respectful though. Again, thank you for your input.

 

[Precepts]

There are a few changes from the 1769.
Ruth 3:15 for one. One has "he" went into the city. The other has "she".

Hint: Naomi was in Bethlehem. Ruth went laiden with the barley to see her mother-in-law. Bethlehem is a city. Ruth is a she. She went into the city to see her mother-in-law. See Spot run.

Another is in Matthew instead of strain "at" a nat, the 1873 has strain "out" a nat.

What, praytell, is it you would strain out a gnat and still have a camel in it? Who would want to swallow a camel verses a gnat?

If you're worrying about the influence of westcott or Hort, don't worry. They realeased their stuff in 1881. 8 years after the 1873 edition.

Then explain to him why yall rely so heavily on
them for evidence?

It all boils down to the fact that Jesus used a different version than what the KJB translators used. Which means that Jesus OK'd the use of different versions.

Once I realized that, my eyes were opened and the Holy Spirit enlightened me.

I wouldn't attribute your presumptions to the Holy Ghost, that's nearly blasphemy. Now explain to him why Luke wasn't there to hear Jesus actually read Esaias 61.

This question is for anyone. What version did Jesus use on the road to Emmaus?

I'll give you a clue: Himself. I just wonder, tiny, did Jesus ever actually "need" a scroll to read from to know what He Himself inspired others to write? I think that's another consideration worth, uh, consideration, don't you?

 

[tinytim]

thank you, I too can be very spirited at times. I mean nothing of it. I just like to debate.
My poor wife.

She hears it all.

As i said, I use the KJB.
Actually, what i carry is "Today's Parallel Bible" My youth group got it for me for pastor appreciation month last Oct.
At least someone loves me
Anyway, it has the 1873 KJB, along side the NIV, NLT, and NASB.

Our church bought every teen a life app. Bible (NLT) We use these in our group studies.

Tonight we learned about predestination and freewill. We used the NLT, and the KJB.

There were no doctrinal differences between the two versions.

OK, I'm rambling
Anyway, I can be spirited especially when someone says that a person cannot be saved from another version than the KJB. Why, even a tract has enough to be saved from.

We may agree to disagree, and I may even learn somethings from you. I'd just ask one thing though. Please be open to the truth.
Check everything you believe with your KJB.
If you do, I'm pretty sure you'll learn from me too.

 

[cdg]

Roby,

I am enjoying our conversation. "Proof" huh? I may get to that in a second. But first. Respectfully, I am only 18 and not a genius at all(or within light years) but the language in the KJV is not too difficult to understand. It is on a fifth grade reading level(or so they tell me). Really, I dont see the harm in the KJV-only view(I know you will enlighten me again, thank you in advance). I do understand that some can go to far as Ruckman has. And that some in their avid defense they go to far and they are ugly, mean, or offensive. I have seen some in my own area who defended things with such fight in them and they seemed to miss it. That these things were not most important. But here is where many will disagree with me, the KJV is worth fighting for as the true Bible for my church and the only English Bible(opposing mv's) for me. I wondered what would be a real example of differences between the KJV and MV's and I found it on another section of the board. The person I am having the discussion appears to be very sincere but still we disagree on the issue. And I use the KJV and it backs up my view(as far as I can tell) but he uses another version and his version(if it is a real version, respectfully he has not put the initials for his version, so I really dont know what it is, but he seems very informed on the issue we are discussing) backs up his view. So the versions probably make the difference or a big difference in our understanding of the Bible. I may never have proof enough for those who disagree with my belief. And thats ok. I will be ok. I have peace on the issue.

Tiny Tim,

I understand what you are saying and will leave it to another to debate with you on the Scriptures you have mentioned. I don't know the answers. But I have peace on that issue. I am sure that on this issue I am where I need to be. And it's that peace that makes the difference in each one of our lives. Oh yeah, I use the KJV 1769. I appreciate the information on the versions of the KJV. Again, thanks.

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Precepts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Then explain to him why yall rely so heavily on
them for evidence?

I'm talking about the 1873 KJB. I know how you all hate W/H so I was showing him he didn't have to worry about that in 1873

</font>[/QUOTE]I wouldn't attribute your presumptions to the Holy Ghost, that's nearly blasphemy. Now explain to him why Luke wasn't there to hear Jesus actually read Esaias 61.

What does it matter if Luke wasn't there? didn't the Holy Spirit inspire Luke. The account in Luke differs from Isaiah.
Which do you think is right?
Which version did Isaiah write?

This question is for anyone. What version did Jesus use on the road to Emmaus?

I'll give you a clue: Himself. I just wonder, tiny, did Jesus ever actually "need" a scroll to read from to know what He Himself inspired others to write? I think that's another consideration worth, uh, consideration, don't you? [/QUOTE]

I agree with you QS, (BTW, love the face-lift)
The reason I asked was a KJVO said that because of the order Jesus put the books in on the road to Emmaus proved he didn't use the Septuagent.

Now if that is true, and what you are saying is true then we all agree that Jesus used other versions than what was penned down by the Jews.

IOWs, Isaiah wrote a version,
then came the Septuagent, Which is what Luke quoted from in LK 4, then apparently we have Jesus's own version,(from what you said)

That's 3 differing versions.
Which is Right?
And If Jesus's version is right, where does that leave Is. 61 in the KJB.

Is it wrong?
God forbid.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

I will be ok. I have peace on the issue.

"Out of the mouths of babes...now that's lingo da granny understands!"

 

[Ed Edwards]

Sometimes i wonder if people really understand
what they are saying?

I heard some people back in the 1980s singing:
"This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius". Here is what
it meant. over 4,000 years ago, the Babylonians had
a zodiac of twelve signs which they worshiped as
an idol. Each sign represented an actual star
constilation. If you were born on Sept 14 you
really were born when the sun was rising in
Libra.

The procession of the axis: the north poll of
the earth has a 24,000 year wobble. So each
24,000 divided by 12 = 2,000 years, the
procession of the axis causes a change in sign.
When the Children of Israel were in Babylong,
the signs were one off the real stars.
About the time Jesus was born, the sun at the
spring equinox rose in a NEW SIGN. The signs
were now two signs off.

At the dawning of the age of Aquarius, the
signs became three notches off the real stars.
I.e. if you are born 1 Oct you are born under
the sign of Libra, but the sun isn't rising in
Libra but three signs over.

So if you say: "the dawning of the age of Aquarius"
you are really saying:
astrology is phoney for the signs are three
ticks off the REAL STAR constelations.

----------------------------------------------

What does a person mean when they say: "There
is a doctrinal difference between the KJV
and the (choose one) MV"?

Not a whole lot. The major differances in theology
came before the KJV was first published in 1611.
The five great branches of the church were founded
on different people's interpertation of what the
Bible means: from West to East: Protastant, Roman Catholic,
Orthodox, Coptic, and East Syrian (Nestorian).
Oh, the reason you don't know about the Coptic and the
East Syrian is because of Roman Catholic propoganda.
The RCC (Roman Catholic Church) doesn't want you to
know about any other than themselves).

Anyway, those variances in dogma came before KJV.
After KJV, from about 1700-1900 the KJV was the boss Bible.
From that Bible came the majority of varying Protestant
opinion. Whole waves of denominations were started
starting, all the variations in Doctrine use the KJV, the
same KJV. This person just sees the meaning different from
that person. God doesn't change, but people change.
After 1900 and after the NIV started outselling in the KJV
in the USofA, there were very few denominations begun with
varying doctrines. Now it even seems that the only people
starting new denominations are TV evangelists, and they
all seem to have the same doctrines anyway: money, money money

So when you hear someone say:
"There is a doctrinal difference between the KJV
and the such-and-so MV" they are meaning that they
haven't the foggiest about the history of denominations.
Most protestant denominations were started by variant
doctrines found within the KJV. Oh the words are the same,
but which verse is more important and what those words
mean, that varies.

 

[Precepts]

I'm talking about the 1873 KJB. I know how you all hate W/H so I was showing him he didn't have to worry about that in 1873

I never said I hated them, I just thought they would have gotten saved over the course of their, uh, study.

What does it matter if Luke wasn't there? didn't the Holy Spirit inspire Luke. The account in Luke differs from Isaiah.
Which do you think is right?
Which version did Isaiah write?

It matters when you say Jesus is quoted verbatum. Everytime the Holy Ghost inspires a person to say or write something, in the case of another individual, the words will come out different. Spend a little while on the study of why we can say the Four Gospels are in perfect harmony, yet different wordings, by different writers, but w/o any "changing" of subject matter.

Isaiah wrote as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is always right. We may not say exactly word for word what the Lord has said, but the subject matter isn't to be altered or misleading in our report.

BTW, I'm not "hung up" on versions, I have only the AV 1611 KJB.

I agree with you QS, (BTW, love the face-lift)
The reason I asked was a KJVO said that because of the order Jesus put the books in on the road to Emmaus proved he didn't use the Septuagent.

I wouldn't attribute and suggest what Jesus read as a means to verify anything, like I said, Jesus never needed to read from the Septuagint, He is the Word of God. The only thing I could attribute to His reading the Septuagint? in the synogogue was His not wanting to offend the other priests and also His opportunity to deal with them on Truth from what they accepted in their readings as well.

I mean, what sense is their in trying to prove what Jesus read, when He didn't need to read anything, all He needed to do was just speak....and the heaven and the earth were created by Him, and there was nothing made that wasn't made by Him?

That's 3 differing versions.
Which is Right?
And If Jesus's version is right, where does that leave Is. 61 in the KJB.

Is it wrong?
God forbid

God forbid that you should have to ask these type of questions. You have introduced a tangle of words, playing on the use of semantics, not the all too uncommon practice of those who try and promote mv's.

 

[Precepts]

Sometimes i wonder if people really understand
what they are saying?

I heard some people back in the 1980s singing:
"This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius".

Me too. I hadn't realized this until now, I am much older than you, ED. I first heard this song when I was 12, in 1972-73.

Anyway, those variances in dogma came before KJV.
After KJV, from about 1700-1900 the KJV was the boss Bible.
From that Bible came the majority of varying Protestant
opinion. Whole waves of denominations were started
starting, all the variations in Doctrine use the KJV, the
same KJV. This person just sees the meaning different from
that person. God doesn't change, but people change.
After 1900 and after the NIV started outselling in the KJV
in the USofA, there were very few denominations begun with
varying doctrines. Now it even seems that the only people
starting new denominations are TV evangelists, and they
all seem to have the same doctrines anyway: money, money money

Then please explain all the different name changers that are getting all caught up in the charismatic movement who just so happen to use the niv?

We're IFB, AV 1611 KJB, we haven't changed doctrinally since the Lord saved each of our members, we do occasionally have to deal with those from outside our affiliation to refute error, that has always been the case. We welcome study in all the supposed MSS, simply so we can go back to the Word of God to squash apostacy along with doctrinal error, inluding the RCC and popish,uh, trash.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Precepts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm talking about the 1873 KJB. I know how you all hate W/H so I was showing him he didn't have to worry about that in 1873

I never said I hated them, I just thought they would have gotten saved over the course of their, uh, study. </font>[/QUOTE]How do you know they didn't? They seem to have considered themselves Christians.

OTOH, Erasmus repudiated the reformation his whole life. He believed in RCC doctrine but believed that the clergy had widespread corruption.

And again, how do you know all or even any of the KJV translators were born again? The 39 Articles of Religion they ascribed to references baptismal regeneration. The CoE in King James day was guilty of persecuting Baptists and other dissenters. That charge cannot be leveled at W/H or the Anglican church that they belonged to.

It matters when you say Jesus is quoted verbatum. Everytime the Holy Ghost inspires a person to say or write something, in the case of another individual, the words will come out different.

So in other words, Jesus used the same OT as the KJV but the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to record an erroneous account of what Jesus read?

One of the most critical aspects of this comparison is that Jesus read what was recorded. He didn't just use different words when compared to Isa 61 (KJV), He used different information.

Spend a little while on the study of why we can say the Four Gospels are in perfect harmony, yet different wordings, by different writers, but w/o any "changing" of subject matter.

Spend a little while on why we can say that faithful Bible versions are in perfect harmony every bit as much as the 4 Gospels, yet different words, by different translators, but w/o changing of subject matter.

Isaiah wrote as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is always right. We may not say exactly word for word what the Lord has said, but the subject matter isn't to be altered or misleading in our report.

If Jesus was reading from Isa 61 and it differs from the "perfect" Isa 61 in the KJV then one record or the other is misleading.

Which is Right?
And If Jesus's version is right, where does that leave Is. 61 in the KJB.

Is it wrong?
God forbid

God forbid that you should have to ask these type of questions. You have introduced a tangle of words, playing on the use of semantics, not the all too uncommon practice of those who try and promote mv's. [/QUOTE]
God forbid you should avoid a difficult question again .

 

[Precepts]

Wasn't avoiding tiny's question, just beieng realistic and not defaming the Name of Christ or what He is reported to have said, or read.

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. When they were openly rebuked by their instructors they exhibitsd the character of rebels to the faith in knowing we have a Bible, bu that does not go w/o saying Luther was also rebuked by his "instructers" but he was establishing the availability to the common folk the scripture, not suppressing it or maligning it.

By some's opinion and how they surmise the ties tio Rome, they themselves would write Luther off as a heretic anmd condemn him to hell, we know the Rcc sure has tried, but that is alltogether different by contrast, huh?

As far as the rest of your presuppositions, I am truly getting tired of repeating myself to you and everybody else.

Instead of demanding "proof" from your fellow Christians, why not demand of God? May you find your demands of Him more readily satisfying and not so easily twisted in your reaction.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Precepts:
Instead of demanding "proof" from your fellow Christians, why not demand of God? May you find your demands of Him more readily satisfying and not so easily twisted in your reaction.

God has provided this proof without us having to demand it of him. We have seen him work through modern versions, not only in our own lives but in the lives of others, as they have come to the knowledge and understanding of Jesus Christ through reading His Word. That is evidence enough to knock down KJVO, which says that only the KJV is his infallible, inspired Word of God.

 

[Elijah]

Originally posted by cdg:
New versions in their mere existence say that the KJB is wrong. Every new version is saying everyone before it is wrong or less in accuracy. If not why have a new version($$$)?

Why have more than one translation? Let me answer that ,using not my opinion ,but that of the King James translators.
"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures:"

I think that a lot of the controvery surrounding Bible versions could be done away with simply by reading the preface to the kjv bible. I'm not saying that all translations are good ones, there are a few that I would not recommend at all, but to say that all except the kjv are bad, goes against what even the kjv translators believed.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Precepts: "We're IFB, AV 1611 KJB, we haven't changed doctrinally
since the Lord saved each of our members, ... "

Interesting. Why in 1979-1980 when i sent
my Daughter to an IFB church school (yes, we had
school teacher/parent mettings in the church
building) i never did know they were KJBO.
Maybe they were KJBO like you. You know, I'm KJP = KIng
James preferred, just not KJBO.

Sorry to point it out, but i note a bit of IFB dictrinal\
slip here. I think prior to 1980 the KJBOs kept their
mouth shut in IFB churches.
Anyway, the think that struck me about the IFB
(I'm SBC) church back then was all the Missionary
literature in the back foyer. IFB at least keep
track of and pray for real missionaries (not just
magazine missionaries) -- SBCs hardly know any
real missionary.

Anyway, KJBOism is a NEW IFB doctrine, as far as i
can tell from my experience.

 

[michelle]

Hello everyone!

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. I am a new poster here. This debate is a hot one, but also a very serious one. 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 have been referred to myself, as a member of the KJV cult - falsely so. Does this bother me? No. It does however sadden me deeply, not saddness for myself, but saddness for others and for the integrity and truthfulness and purity of God's word of truth that he holds above everything else. What also saddens my heart, is that many are allowing themselves to be affected by watered down, if not subtely deceptive ommissions and additions in the modern versions. I would not touch any version that has clearly and blasphemously replaced the name of Lucifer with that of "the morning star" (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) in the verse Isaiah 14:12 in the NIV. 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? Was not Eve in the garden of Eden decieved because God's word was corrupted from what he origionally said? And what about the text that underlines many of the modern versions? Do you all realize and understand who these men were and what they believed, and you now trust the very versions that their texts say? You see, those who hold to the KJV, and dislike the modern versions, speak out about the dangers in the modern versions out of love first for God's word of Truth, and secondly out of love and concern for their bretheren/sisters in the Lord. If the word of God has been subtley altered and watered down, then how does one expect their walk with the Saviour to be any different? Is not God's word of truth the very sustanance of our faith and walk? If God's truth has been tampered with under the guise of modernizing the language for the culture for today, then how then can we expect to walk in the will of the Lord, if indeed the culture itself is becoming more and more wicked? Did God want confusion and division among us regarding this issue? 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? I think not. But this is the outworking and evidence of the modern versions. There are people on both sides of this issue that take it to the extreme, which is hurtful also, but doesn't change the truth that is clearly evident to all who have eyes to see, and ears to hear. Would you want rat poison to be slipped into your morning coffee? Would you dare touch it? Why then, is it different concerning the word of God? A little leaven, will leaveneth the whole lump. This is excellent truth given to us by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. IF you think that the enemy/enemies of God, would not tamper with his word of Truth, then you are allowing yourself to be mightily decieved. Let us therefore cling to and remember the warning of our Saviour, regarding deception: Let no man decieve you in any way. Be as wise as serpents, but as harmless as doves. We live in very deceptive times, and it will only get worse. For God has claimed, that those who had not the love of the truth, God shall send them strong delusion to believe the lie.

I have been personally shocked, as I read from those who claim to be baptists, supporting versions that have altered God's truth. I suppose it is not all that surprising, knowing that many baptist denominations have slipped onto the slippery slope of apostacy because of the SBC and the ecumenical movements that abound today. I pray earnestly, that the Lord will soften your hearts to the truth and cause you to come out of her my people and be ye separate.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord,
michelle

 

[GrannyGumbo]

"Aaah Michelle~howdy!

You take a STAND that many folks are abandoning! Praying for you & God Bless!

~Rom 8:28

 

[Ed Edwards]

Michelle: "I would not touch any version that has clearly
and blasphemously replaced the name of Lucifer with that
of "the morning star" (who is Jesus Christ our Lord)
in the verse Isaiah 14:12 in the NIV."

Sorry brother Mich, you must abandon then the
King James Versions, the Authorized Version of 1611,
that "cleary and blasphemously" replaces
the name of "Lucifer" with a title "the morning star" :
The reading from the margin (translator note
which is a second best translation) there at
Ifaiah XIIII:12 is this:

How art thou fallen from heauen,
O daystarre, sonne of the morning? how
are thou cut downe to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations?

P.S. i hisitate to slap one with a wet fish.
Chick Comics has the theory that the
KJV1611 was contaminzted by Papest infiltration
and that only the editon of 1769 (KJV1769) is
the REAL Authorised King James Version suitable
for KJBOs.

Ain't i kool helping folks support their unsupportable
contentions

with a comic book philosophy!
Careful, Ed, you can get a
crick in your back patting your back so

My hope is built on nothing less
Than Schofield's notes and Broadman press