Why so much against KJB-only?

[mioque]

"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."
We are talking saturday morning in the synagogue here. Nothing special going on, from the local Jewish perspective.

 

[Precepts]

Isaiah 42:7

ז לִפְקֹחַ, עֵינַיִם עִוְרוֹת; לְהוֹצִיא מִמַּסְגֵּר אַסִּיר, מִבֵּית כֶּלֶא יֹשְׁבֵי חֹשֶׁךְ.

7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.


Isaiah 58:6

ו הֲלוֹא זֶה, צוֹם אֶבְחָרֵהוּ--פַּתֵּחַ חַרְצֻבּוֹת רֶשַׁע, הַתֵּר אֲגֻדּוֹת מוֹטָה; וְשַׁלַּח רְצוּצִים חָפְשִׁים, וְכָל-מוֹטָה תְּנַתֵּקוּ.

6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?


Isaiah 61:1

א רוּחַ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, עָלָי--יַעַן מָשַׁח יְהוָה אֹתִי לְבַשֵּׂר עֲנָוִים, שְׁלָחַנִי לַחֲבֹשׁ לְנִשְׁבְּרֵי-לֵב, לִקְרֹא לִשְׁבוּיִם דְּרוֹר, וְלַאֲסוּרִים פְּקַח-קוֹחַ.

1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound

This is for those who try to indicate the verses don't appear in the Hebrew, These are all from the Masoretic Hebrew , not the Septuagint which is written in Greek.

Also I don't see any problem with Jesus reading from Isaiah, but I do see the problem those have trying to limit Luke 4:18 to Isaiah 61:1.

 

[TC]

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.

Yes, do you? The RCC opposition I mentioned was mainly directed towards the early English translators - especially Tyndale. None of the KJV translators lost their lives for the KJV. They were highly trained Anglican scholars protected by the king. However, William Tyndale did give his life for the Bible - he was hunted down like a dog and strangled and burned at the stake. The KJV tranlators changed Tyndales work whenever they wanted to. The KJV was mainly opposed by the puritans who used the Geneva Bible.

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?

It's because He did. Luke wrote that Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah and then quoted Jesus words which were different than those in the old testament book.

However, translators, and editors do NOT HAVE THIS ABILITY NOR AUTHORIZATION.

Then why do you vehemently defend the KJV translators who changed the Word of God in 1611? The KJV departed from the already existing English Bibles. Who gave them that authorization?

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.

So, when a KJVOnlyite walks up to someone quietly reading a NASB or NIV and tells them to throw that trash is the garbage, get a real Bible ( the KJV), then tells them that they are either apostate or unsaved if they don't, it's not causing division?

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.

The modern versions (MV's) themselves are not causing division - at least no more than the KJV caused division in 1611. The fact is that some in the Body of Christ have always opposed new Bible translations. And just as theit wild accusations proved to be false back then, all these accusations against the MV's will prove to be false also. Tradition and familiarity is no excuse to oppose what God is doing today through MV's. Can someone read a MV and get saved? If they can then that proves that they are from God and not from satan as so many KJVO's claim - a house divided against itself cannot stand and if satan cast out satan how shall his kingdom stand. Furthermore, if the MV's are getting people saved and you are opposing MV's, you are opposing God.

what does IMO mean?

in my opinion

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?

Did you see any such thing in my post? I reread what I wrote and couldn'd find anything like what you are accusing me of.

KJVOnlyism is a doctrine. Anytime a preacher gets up behind the pulpit and says you must use the KJV only, he is establishing doctrine - especially if he is one to say that someone can only be saved be reading the KJV.

I have read that there are those who would be martyred for the testimony of Jesus Christ and the word of God.

William Tyndale was. However, none of the KJV translators were - they were well paid and protected by the king of England.

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?

Where in scripture does it say "Thou must needs readeth only the KJV for it is the only correct English version?"

 

[TC]

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.

Yes, do you? The RCC opposition I mentioned was mainly directed towards the early English translators - especially Tyndale. None of the KJV translators lost their lives for the KJV. They were highly trained Anglican scholars protected by the king. However, William Tyndale did give his life for the Bible - he was hunted down like a dog and strangled and burned at the stake. The KJV tranlators changed Tyndales work whenever they wanted to. The KJV was mainly opposed by the puritans who used the Geneva Bible.

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?

It's because He did. Luke wrote that Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah and then quoted Jesus words which were different than those in the old testament book.

However, translators, and editors do NOT HAVE THIS ABILITY NOR AUTHORIZATION.

Then why do you vehemently defend the KJV translators who changed the Word of God in 1611? The KJV departed from the already existing English Bibles. Who gave them that authorization?

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.

So, when a KJVOnlyite walks up to someone quietly reading a NASB or NIV and tells them to throw that trash is the garbage, get a real Bible ( the KJV), then tells them that they are either apostate or unsaved if they don't, it's not causing division?

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.

The modern versions (MV's) themselves are not causing division - at least no more than the KJV caused division in 1611. The fact is that some in the Body of Christ have always opposed new Bible translations. And just as theit wild accusations proved to be false back then, all these accusations against the MV's will prove to be false also. Tradition and familiarity is no excuse to oppose what God is doing today through MV's. Can someone read a MV and get saved? If they can then that proves that they are from God and not from satan as so many KJVO's claim - a house divided against itself cannot stand and if satan cast out satan how shall his kingdom stand. Furthermore, if the MV's are getting people saved and you are opposing MV's, you are opposing God.

what does IMO mean?

in my opinion

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?

Did you see any such thing in my post? I reread what I wrote and couldn'd find anything like what you are accusing me of.

KJVOnlyism is a doctrine. Anytime a preacher gets up behind the pulpit and says you must use the KJV only, he is establishing doctrine - especially if he is one to say that someone can only be saved be reading the KJV.

I have read that there are those who would be martyred for the testimony of Jesus Christ and the word of God.

William Tyndale was. However, none of the KJV translators were - they were well paid and protected by the king of England.

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?

Where in scripture does it say "Thou must needs readeth only the KJV for it is the only correct English version?"

 

[Precepts]

Wow! New format! I like it! I like it!

TC, by what I've read in your post"s" , you, sir, are causing the division against those who stand on the AV 1611 KJB. Dat's da facts! Yeah!

 

[Precepts]

Where in scripture does it say "Thou must needs readeth only the KJV for it is the only correct English version?"

So where does it say in any "version" "Thou mayest read any version that fittest thy life best, no matter how much it deviates from the Truth or is misleading by it's wording"?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Precepts:
So where does it say in any "version" "Thou mayest read any version that fittest thy life best, no matter how much it deviates from the Truth or is misleading by it's wording"?

Could you give some examples of where versions other than the KJV are misleading? And some examples of where versions other than the KJV deviate from the Truth? Thank you.

 

[Precepts]

NAS"V" Psalm 78:36 But they deceived Him with their mouth And lied to Him with their tongue.

Ere since the NAS"V" is supposed to be the updated English translation, the word "deceived" indicates that these could have fooled the LORD.

Now I know "flatter" in the KJB does have in it's definition of the Hebrew "pathah", to deceive, it is used more in the sense of "persuade" or "seduce".

Common sense will tell you that the LORD is never "deceived" but the sense of Psalm 78:36 is that they only thought to persuade, seduce, "flatter" the LORD.

NAS"V" is deceiving by it's use of "deceived"

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Precepts:
So where does it say in any "version" "Thou mayest read any version that fittest thy life best, no matter how much it deviates from the Truth or is misleading by it's wording"?

Could you give some examples of where versions other than the KJV are misleading? And some examples of where versions other than the KJV deviate from the Truth? Thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]Now can you show me how Luke 4:18 is limited to Isaiah 61:1?

 

[cdg]

Oops. I am sorry. For the multiple same posts. My computer wasnt showing that the post was going through, so I tried again(and again and again, etc.) I didnt know till just now that any of them went through. I thought that all of them had not. Again I am sorry.
On the bright side, You know where I stand on that post. Thanks for understanding(I hope). I will try to be more careful in the future. Funny, I thought the posts had grown alot.

On second thought, it looks like some have caught on to the multiple same posts idea.
I have got to go check
the Bible versions forum, Oh no!

 

[Ed Edwards]

IMO = in my opinion

THis notes that you know what you say is an
opinion not the 10 commandments given at Mt. Sinai

Related:

IMHO = in my humble opinion

This notes that you know what you say is
an opinion, but you are sure it is right

IMMHO = in my most humble opinion

This notes that you know what you say
is right and everybody else better do likewise

Michelle: "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."

Nobody said or claimed "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" so there is no need to substantiate a statement
not said nor implied.

Most the participants in this Forum believe that the pure and
uncorrupted word of God is found in the King James Versions
but not in the KJV ONLY. Hello, reality check time.

Michelle: "ARe you, whoever you are, now being a hypocrite
and questioning our salvation? "

Nope. It is a trangression of board rules to question the
salvation of anybody on the board. We are still here,
therefore we never questioned any body's salvation.
Abiding by the board rule about salvation is NOT OPTIONAL
if you want to continue to post here.

 

[BrianT]

Luke 4:16-21 "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. [17] And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, [18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, [19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. [20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. [21] And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."

He "read" what was "written". It was "scripture" - which inherently means a sacred *writing* (as opposed to oral words). The "scripture" (SINGULAR) he "read" that was "written" is different than what the KJV has (differences highlighted):

Isa 61:1-2a "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, (omitted: and recovering of sight to the blind,) and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; [2a] To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,"

If Jesus didn't "read" what was "written" in Isa 61:1-2a, what "scripture" passage (singular) in Isaiah did he find to "read" from? He wasn't commentating, he wasn't cut-and-pasting a new "scripture" (singular) made up of bits and peices of other scriptures (plural), and he was NOT reading a KJV or something that matched the KJV when he read from it and said it was "scripture".

KJV-onlyism is a blight on reasonable Bible study. I can't believe we have to even point out these kindergarten-level facts, and I can't believe the lengths some go to avoid them so they can cling to their man-made myth.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Precepts:
Common sense will tell you that the LORD is never "deceived" but the sense of Psalm 78:36 is that they only thought to persuade, seduce, "flatter" the LORD.

NAS"V" is deceiving by it's use of "deceived" [/QB]

Yet another double standard. Can God be flattered by sinful man? "Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues." Oh, please.

 

[Precepts]

"Scripture" as a whole. Why limit the Holy One of Israel to just one passage of Scripture? Jesus read the "scripture", never is it stated that He only read the one passage of scripture from Isaiah 61. You really ought not to stumble over something so evidently clear, unless you just like to fall flat on your face in front of everyone.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Precepts:
"Scripture" as a whole. Why limit the Holy One of Israel to just one passage of Scripture? Jesus read the "scripture", never is it stated that He only read the one passage of scripture from Isaiah 61. You really ought not to stumble over something so evidently clear, unless you just like to fall flat on your face in front of everyone.

Jesus read from a scroll that was handed to Him-He didn't bring it with Him. If He hadn't read it verbatim, the already-skeptical audience would've gone ballistic. That's obvious from the context of the rest of Luke 4. The Onlyist simply doesn't wanna own up to what his own Bible clearly states.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Precepts:
NAS"V" Psalm 78:36 But they deceived Him with their mouth And lied to Him with their tongue.

I am sorry, Precept, but the Hebrew word "pathah" means, in the piel, to seduce or deceive. And, if you will check your KJV you will see that "pathah" is translated "deceive" eight times in the KJV. If it is wrong here in the NASB once, then it is wrong eight times in the KJV.

Now I know "flatter" in the KJB does have in it's definition of the Hebrew "pathah", to deceive, it is used more in the sense of "persuade" or "seduce".

Then what is the problem? You admit that "deceive" is an acceptable translation of "pathah." Therefore the NASB is technically correct even though it may see awkward to us.

Common sense will tell you that the LORD is never "deceived" but the sense of Psalm 78:36 is that they only thought to persuade, seduce, "flatter" the LORD.

Do you think the LORD can be flattered or seduced any more than He can be deceived? It is obvious that the people doing so did not fully understand the nature of God so they tried anyway.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Precepts:
Now can you show me how Luke 4:18 is limited to Isaiah 61:1?

I have never stated that it is. I believe it is at least a partial quote of Isaiah 61:1 but Christ may have been quoting from the Vorlage Hebrew text instead of the Masoretic text, which did not come into existence until much later.

 

[tinytim]

Ok let's break this debate down.

Underlying point: Luke 4 is not found word for word anywhere in Isaiah.

What are the possible reasons?
1) Jesus read from a passage in Isaiah that we have no record of.
2) The passage in Isaiah has been corrupted.
3) Jesus misquoted Isaiah.
4) Luke Misquoted Jesus reading Isaiah.
5) Luke misquoted Jesus while misquoting Isaiah.
6) Jesus corrected Isaiah with His own version.
7) Isaiah missed the boat when the Holy Spirit "moved".
8) They handed Jesus the wrong scroll.
9) He read from the Septuagent.
10) He read from another version that no longer exists.
11) He created new scripture that day.
12) When Jesus asked for the KJV, he was handed another MV instead.

OK, I know a couple is way out in left field, but I wanted to be "complete". Get it, the number 12!

Ok,Ok, Bad Joke.

But seriously, the fact is, what is in our KJV in Luke 4 is not in our KJV anywhere in Isaiah "word for word". And to believe that Jesus corrected Isaiah leads to the following outcomes.

1) Isaiah is wrong.
2) Jesus is wrong. (God Forbid!)
3) We have a Jesus version in Luke 4.
4) Luke is wrong about what Jesus read.
5) Luke is wrong about Jesus even reading.

Now, If any of the above people (Jesus, Isaiah, or Luke) is wrong, then we have a mistake in the inspired Bible.

But OTOH (on the other hand), if Jesus used any other version to read or quote from (LXX, another, or even Himself) then he used another version! Which means he either sinned because he used something different than the KJV, (or the KJVs underlying texts), or It is OK to use other versions. And since Jesus never sinned then It is OK to use other versions.
And as Precepts has already pointed out,
"...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."

That is what we mean when we say, that even though other versions have different words, they mean the same thing!


somemore possibilities:?
1)Erasmus found Luke 4 in the vulgate.
2)Westcott and Hort slipped back in time and took out some of Luke 4.

What? Stop with the possibilities.

OK, Oh well, you get the Picture.
Jesus didn't use the KJV!!!

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Precepts:
"Scripture" as a whole. Why limit the Holy One of Israel to just one passage of Scripture?

I'm not limiting him. Luke says he found the "place where it was written". Not "places".

Jesus read the "scripture", never is it stated that He only read the one passage of scripture from Isaiah 61.

Place. Singular. One passage. Or do you think Jews had such a low view of scripture they wouldn't mind someone hip-hopping hither and yon, constructing sentences out of phrases from whatsoever one felt like at the time?

Jesus read from something different than the KJV, and called it "scripture". Get over it.

 

[Precepts]

I can see yall have really got the handle on these things.