What do you think of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches?

[yogosans14]

They believe that the KJV is perfect and without error and they do old timey preaching about Hell and stuff. Do you think they are a cult or they are just like any other Baptist Church?

 

[DeaconDean]

They believe that the KJV is perfect and without error and they do old timey preaching about Hell and stuff. Do you think they are a cult or they are just like any other Baptist Church?

It is true that most Independant Fundamental Baptist churches use the KJV. It's purely a traditional thing. However, there are always exceptions to the rule.

What is the number 1 best selling book of all time?

The King James Version of the Holy Bible.

There is nothi9ng wrong with it, its language is antiquated, but other than that, there is nothing wrong with it.

So when this issue comes up, you also have to remember the issues with some of the newer versions. Some are paraphrases, which are not suitable for preaching and teaching.

Then you have the "gender neutral" versions which do is some cases, change the meaning of words, and/or leave some verses completely out.

Then you have the English Standard, and the Revised Versions which try to stay true to the Greek manuscripts.

I really think, coming from an Independant Missioinary Fundamental church, it's more of an issue of what you were brouight up on.

Most people take issue with the KJV because of its language. But I was raised on the KJV, to me personally, it's not that hard to understand.

And after all, it has been tried and true for some 300 years in the U.S. as well as other versions.

As to the "Hell and stuff" issue, let me say this, go abck and look at Jesus' own teachings in the Gospels.

Jesus Christ preached/taught more on hell and eternal punishment than anything else.

And it is important to inform the unsaved of their destination if they harden thier hearts, stifle the working of the Holy Spirit, and reject Him.

Cult?!?

I think not.

From 1969 until 1974, I sat under two very good, Spirit led men who taught/preached hell and damnation.

Thank God for these men.

Personally, I would not sit under a Pastor that wouldn't preach and/or teach hell and damnation.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[classicalhero]

They believe that the KJV is perfect and without error and they do old timey preaching about Hell and stuff. Do you think they are a cult or they are just like any other Baptist Church?

I am a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church and obviously you don't understand what is means. Sure we prefer to us to KJV, but that doesn't mean we believe it is perfect. We understand the limitations of any translation of the Bible, since you need to understand some of the original language. Well we preach what Jesus preached about and he most definitely preached about hell.

 

[ChaseWind]

I am a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church and obviously you don't understand what is means. Sure we prefer to us to KJV, but that doesn't mean we believe it is perfect. We understand the limitations of any translation of the Bible, since you need to understand some of the original language. Well we preach what Jesus preached about and he most definitely preached about hell.

Having been a member of 2 Independent Fundamental Baptist churches in the USA, I'm curious how similar they are to you in Australia. The major argument I heard from Pastors on staying with the KJV was the assembly needed a standard without variance. You do not have, "The KJV says...." and another, "But the NRSV reads..." The KJV was seen as blessed of God for 300 years and that was enough endorsement so it was the standard, but I've not known a Pastor to reject a layman's use of other versions in his personal study.

I find IFB churches vary widely in 'personality' depending upon the Pastor's personality and viewpoints. The IFB churches I'm familiar with, the Pastor is virtually the dictator, for he must give account for the souls of his congregation, therefore he rules. I find that extreme because you never know what you'll find upon going to a new IFB church.

I've not seen an IFB church that is not pre-mil and pre-trib with eyes on Israel in the news all the time. If you are a-mil or post-mil you are eyed as somehow illiterate in Scripture.

Overall, I've found the IFB churches to be the most friendly and 'family-like' of any churches I've attended. The most kind and caring Pastors I've ever met were in IFB churches. I'm a 'free-grace' believer but sadly, I have found the neo-Calvinist style Baptists to be some of the most cold, unfriendly and critical churches I've attended.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

They believe that the KJV is perfect and without error and they do old timey preaching about Hell and stuff. Do you think they are a cult or they are just like any other Baptist Church?

Those independent “Baptist” churches which teach, as very many of them do, that the God-given inspired word of God is the King James Version typically teach that every other translation of the Bible is part of a conspiracy to remove the “King James Bible,” the ONLY real Bible, from “our” churches. They also typically teach that the translators of the “modern versions” are of the devil and a part of the conspiracy. Furthermore, they typically teach that all churches, even Baptist churches, that use, in whole or in part, the “modern versions” are NOT Christian churches and that the members of those churches are NOT Christians.

These independent “Baptist” churches own very numerous websites on which maliciously false information in presented and taught. They also publish tracts, pamphlets, and books in which false information about the King James Version is taught and in which maliciously false information about the “modern versions” is taught. When asked about Bibles in languages other than English, they typically back off a little and claim that Bibles in other languages may be the inspired word of God IF the New Testament portion is translated from the same Greek “text” that the King James Version is translated from, or from an even more “correct” Greek text. For example, see the following,

http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0262.asp

Their pastors very seldom, if ever, have a good university and seminary education, and seldom have even a bachelor’s degree from an accredited Bible college. Indeed, they may have as little as a second grade education!

However, not all independent Baptist churches hold to such seriously incorrect beliefs and practices.

 

[The Conductor]

Isn't part of the independent bit that they are typically independent of one another? I grew up with some folks that went to an independent Baptist church, and aside from seeming a bit old-timey they seemed fine. I think, like all churches, you should look at them on an individual basis. I've heard of some churches in my local, non-independant convention that I wouldn't go to unless I was on a rescue mission.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

They believe that the KJV is perfect and without error and they do old timey preaching about Hell and stuff. Do you think they are a cult or they are just like any other Baptist Church?

I don't see anything wrong with either the KJV or preaching about "Hell and stuff." What do you find wrong with it?

 

[yogosans14]

I don't see anything wrong with either the KJV or preaching about "Hell and stuff." What do you find wrong with it?

Well I dont like how they preach that the modern Bibles like the NIV which I love is from Satan, it helps me understand Gods word better so why should I have to use a outdated english Bible?

 

[SeventhValley]

I love the KJV and the NKJV but they are not better than any other Bible. Each translation has its strength and weaknesses.

The tradition argument is the best for the KJV. Whe have used it for hundreds of years in English speaking countries.The NKJV is a language update of it but pretty similar. But even the KJV is not perfect. The KJV uses the Masoretic text for the OT. For over a thousand years Christians used the Septuagint for the OT.

I love the NKJV because it is a balance of traditional language and terminology of the KJV but easier to read. The KJV will never steer you wrong.

The KJV also uses the Textus Receptus for the NT. IT has verses not found in other NT manuscripts so depending on which set of manuscripts that a translator used to translate the NT from will depend on how many verses you have in each book of the Bible.

Ultimately the best Bible is the one you read.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Well I dont like how they preach that the modern Bibles like the NIV which I love is from Satan, it helps me understand Gods word better so why should I have to use a outdated english Bible?

Are you forced to go there? Their argument (most of the time) is that the resources used for the KJV are more reliable. (I don't believe this is true but some of them do) Or they may argue that the translators themselves were inspired (I don't believe this either) But they still are using a very good Bible and if you don't like it, don't go there. I would also point out that not all Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Churches are King James Onlyist Churches. I simply don't understand why people complain about xyz church when they have the option to go elsewhere. In some countries this might be a problem but in the U.S. it seems there are baptist Churches on every street corner.

 

[Scott4Him]

I've asked a KJVO proponent before:

If I read another translation and discover that-

God is holy, I am not and I am in need of a Saviour, who is Jesus Christ. Jesus is God Himself, who became a human, lived a perfect life, died for the sins of the world and rose again. I believe and repent, trusting in Jesus' finished work on the cross for my salvation...

Am I saved if I learned that from another translation?

He told me, probably not because I'm reading from a wrong version. And who knows whar false doctrines I'm learning there?

Granted, not all KJVO people would say thay.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Am I saved if I learned that from another translation?

He told me, probably not because I'm reading from a wrong version. And who knows whar false doctrines I'm learning there?

Granted, not all KJVO people would say thay.

I believe God has preserved his perfect word for us today. In English it is contained in the King James Bible. I believe you can be saved from other translations. I used the NIV when I first was saved. I know many people that believe the King James Bible is without error but have yet to meet one that believed you could only be saved with the King James bible.

 

[OzSpen]

I am a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church and obviously you don't understand what is means. Sure we prefer to us to KJV, but that doesn't mean we believe it is perfect. We understand the limitations of any translation of the Bible, since you need to understand some of the original language. Well we preach what Jesus preached about and he most definitely preached about hell.

Where I've been living in Queensland, Australia, IFB churches have been associated with

• KJV-only,
• very legalistic approach to Christian behaviour,
• isolationist in relation to mixing with other Christians.
• I used to attend a local Christian ministers' association (some call it the ministers' fraternal) for about 9 years in one city and the IFB church pastor was never to be seen at such a meeting.
• Some of these churches were so small that they could not afford a pastor.
• Very conservative in church worship with traditional hymns & organ for music.
• Pre-mill, pre-trib in eschatology.

How does this line up with your experience in Perth?


Oz (now in Brisbane)

 

[classicalhero]

Well I dont like how they preach that the modern Bibles like the NIV which I love is from Satan, it helps me understand Gods word better so why should I have to use a outdated english Bible?

The problem with the NIV(We sometime joking call it the Not Inspired Version) because of the method of translation. It use thought for thought far too often and thus obscures the meaning of some words. That way if you need to go to the Greek to understand it better, then that is harder in the NIV than compared to other version. The best translations are ones that use the Formal equivalence since they generally translate word for word, thus making it easier to go back to the original language and get a deeper understanding of the Bible.

Also the best translations use the majority text and not the oldest text from their Greek. Far too many version rely on two manuscripts that are very old, but they are like that since they were put away since the readers knew that they were full of errors and thus not used. In fact Sinainaticus was found in a rubbish dump on the monastery grounds, which shows how highly thought of it was.

I believe God has preserved his perfect word for us today. In English it is contained in the King James Bible. I believe you can be saved from other translations. I used the NIV when I first was saved. I know many people that believe the King James Bible is without error but have yet to meet one that believed you could only be saved with the King James bible.

I believe that there can never be a perfect translation, which is why with any version you should be able to go back to the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic to get a deeper understanding of the words. No matter how careful a translation, things will be lost in translation, due to the nature of the original languages and the language they are translated into.

Where I've been living in Queensland, Australia, IFB churches have been associated with

• KJV-only,
• very legalistic approach to Christian behaviour,
• isolationist in relation to mixing with other Christians.
• I used to attend a local Christian ministers' association (some call it the ministers' fraternal) for about 9 years in one city and the IFB church pastor was never to be seen at such a meeting.
• Some of these churches were so small that they could not afford a pastor.
• Very conservative in church worship with traditional hymns & organ for music.
• Pre-mill, pre-trib in eschatology.

How does this line up with your experience in Perth?


Oz (now in Brisbane)

We use the KJV as a preference but if someone uses another version, then we won't put the down for doing that.
We are most definitely not legalistic.
We have meetings with other Churches of like faith. We don't mix with those who are not doctrinally similar.
Some are, but most aren't.
We used to have an organ, but we mostly play a piano.
The churches of similar stance are both,which is what the Bible teaches.

 

[OzSpen]

The problem with the NIV(We sometime joking call it the Not Inspired Version) because of the method of translation. It use thought for thought far too often and thus obscures the meaning of some words. That way if you need to go to the Greek to understand it better, then that is harder in the NIV than compared to other version. The best translations are ones that use the Formal equivalence since they generally translate word for word, thus making it easier to go back to the original language and get a deeper understanding of the Bible.

Do you know NT Greek to the point where you can translate it?

From where do you get the idea that 'formal equivalence' translations are the 'best translations'?

Also the best translations use the majority text and not the oldest text from their Greek. Far too many version rely on two manuscripts that are very old, but they are like that since they were put away since the readers knew that they were full of errors and thus not used. In fact Sinainaticus was found in a rubbish dump on the monastery grounds, which shows how highly thought of it was.

You don't seem to have an understanding of how the UBS Nestle/Aland Greek text was compiled.

Please tell me where the majority of MSS for the Textus Receptus came from and from which centuries?

From where did Erasmus get the last 6 Greek verses of the Book of Revelation that he included in the Textus Receptus?

Please tell me about the Apocrypha that was included with the original KJV of 1611. Is this the KJV that your church approves.

Oz

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Please tell me about the Apocrypha that was included with the original KJV of 1611. Is this the KJV that your church approves.

The KJB never treated the apocrypha as God's word. It was put in between the 2 testaments as helpful material. Just like the 1611, which I have a reproduction of, contains notes from the translators on the edges of the page.

 

[SeventhValley]

Most pastors I have spoken with say the apocrypha is helpful but just to keep it's use in context for what it is.

 

[classicalhero]

Do you know NT Greek to the point where you can translate it?

There are just so many aides out there that anyone competent enough can get their hands on and read the research of those who have done enough. I have with me a concordance and a Complete Composite dictionary, and those are both elementary books and there is far more research out there. The are lots of commentaries by people who have studied the original languages. There is more than enough info out there for us to get to the bottom of the question on language.

From where do you get the idea that 'formal equivalence' translations are the 'best translations'?

For one it means you can look them up to find out specific means of the various words used in the Bible.

You don't seem to have an understanding of how the UBS Nestle/Aland Greek text was compiled.

I found this great website about why you shouldn't trust those version of the Greek NT.
The DBS Deserves Its Name - Ten Reasons Why

(6) Burgon Demanded at Least Six Prerequisites Before Any Authoritative Revision of the Textus Receptus Could Be Successfully Completed. Burgon was writing on page 124 of his book, Revision Revised, as quoted in paragraph "(5)" above. After stating that "for such an undertaking we are not yet mature: either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship," Burgon went on to tell why they were "not yet mature" in his day [1883]. It was for the same reasons, we are not yet mature in our day either. These six prerequisites rule out the Nestle-Aland Greek Text (ether the 26th or 27th editions). They also rule out the so-called "Majority Greek Text" of Hodges and Farstad, published by Nelson as we will show later as well as the "Majority Greek Text" of Robinson and Pierpont!
(a) Prerequisite #1: We Need at Least "500 More Copies" of the New Testament "Diligently Collated." Burgon wrote:

"Let 500 more copies. of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles be diligently collated." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].
​

This has not yet been done!
(b) Prerequisite #2: We Need at Least "100" "Ancient Lectionaries" "Very Exactly Collated." Burgon wrote:

"Let at least 100 of the ancient Lectionaries be very exactly collated also." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p.12 5].
​

This has not yet been done!
(c) Prerequisite #3: We Need, "Above All," the Church "Fathers" to Yield "Their Precious Secrets" by "Ransacking" Them, "Indexing" Them, and "Diligently Inspecting" Them. Burgon wrote:

"Above all, let the Fathers, be called upon to give up their precious secrets. Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of their works be diligently inspected in order that we may know what actually is the evidence they afford." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].
​

This has not yet been done!
(d) Prerequisite #4: We Need the "Most Important of the Ancient Versions" to Be "Edited Afresh" and Let Their "'Languages" Be "Really Mastered by Englishmen." Burgon Wrote:

"Let the most important of the Ancient Versions be edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for the first time really mastered by Englishmen." [Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125].
​

This has not yet been done!
(e) Prerequisite #5: We Need "Whatever Unpublished Works of the Ancient Greek Fathers' to be "Printed." Burgon wrote:

"Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the Ancient Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,--(and not a few precious remains of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and abroad,)--let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money, far more easily . . . ." [Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 125-26].
​

This has not yet been done!
(f) Prerequisite #6: We Need "For the First Time" the "Science of Textual Criticism" to Be Prosecuted "In a Scholarlike Manner." Burgon wrote:

"Yes, and in the meantime--(let it in all faithfulness be added)--the science of textual criticism will have to be prosecuted for the first time in a scholarlike manner. Fundamental principles.--sufficiently axiomatic to ensure general acceptance,--will have to be laid down for mans guidance. . . ." [Burgon, Revision Revised p.227].
​

This has not yet been done!
c. Proof That Neither the "Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th or 27th Edition" Nor the So-called "Majority Greek Text of Hodges-Farstad" Followed Burgons Six Prerequisites and Are Therefore Not What Burgon Would Call "Authoritative Revisions" of the Textus Receptus.
(1) The "Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th or 27th Edition Refused To Follow Burgon's Six Prerequisites and Therefore Is Not What Burgon Would Call an "Authoritative Revision" of the Textus Receptus. If you examine closely the Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th or 27th edition--in the Preface, you will find out a number of things. Using Kurt Alands 1967 totals for extant Greek manuscript evidence, the edition explains what evidence was used in making up its Greek text. In the first place, there are about 20 Ancient Versions. This figure is derived from the research of Dr. Jack Moorman in his Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version--a Closer Look! [ #1825 for a gift of $15.00+S&H], pp. 28-48. The total number of Church Fathers who wrote extensively during the first six centuries was 300, as Burgon has estimated. Here is the evidence used by Nestle-Aland.
The Nestle-Aland Greek Text--26th Edition
1. Papyrus Fragments-- 81 out of 81 = 100% of the evidence
2. Uncials-- 246 out of 267 = 92% of the evidence
3. Cursives-- 202 out of 2764 = 7% of the evidence
4. Lectionaries-- 5 out of 2143 = 0.23% of the evidence
Total MSS: 534 out of 5,255 = 10% of the MSS evidence
5. Ancient Versions-- 3 out of 20 = 15% of the evidence
6. Church Fathers-- 72 out of 300 = 24% of the evidence
Total Non-MSS: 75 out of 320 = 23% non-MSS evidence
Grand Total: **609 Out of 5,575 = 11% of ALL evidence**
In the above statistics you will notice that Dean Burgons prerequisite #1 was not followed. Prerequisite #2 was not followed. Prerequisite #3 was not followed. Prerequisite #4 was not followed. Prerequisite #5 was not followed. Prerequisite #6 was not followed. In fact, Nestle-Aland consistenly follows the false principles of Westcott and Hort. Because of this, they group all the so-called Byzantine texts as just one witness. They reject entirely Dean Burgon's methodology in textual criticism. The use of a mere 10% of the manuscript evidence is also decidedly against Burgon's sound principles. Nothing short of 100% of the evidence must be used for any major revision of the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible! The same is true of their handling of the non-manuscript evidence of Ancient Versions and Church Fathers. 23% of that evidence is also woefully defective. Dean Burgon would demand 100% of the evidence to be used.
(2) The So-called "Majority Greek Text" of Hodges & Farstad Also Refused to Follow Burgon's Six Prerequisites and Therefore Is Not What Burgon Would Call an "Authoritative Revision" of the Textus Receptus. If you examine closely the so-called Majority Greek Text of Hodges and Farstad, in the Preface, you will find out the following things. Using Kurt Aland's 1967 totals for extant Greek manuscript evidence, the edition makes use of the following evidence. As I said earlier, there are about 20 Ancient Versions according to the research of Dr. Jack Moorman in his Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version--a Closer Look! [ #1825 for a gift of $15.00+S&H], pages 28-48. The total number of Church Fathers who wrote extensively during the first six centuries was 300, as Burgon has estimated. Here is the evidence used by Hodges and Farstad.
The So-Called "Majority Greek Text of Hodges-Farstad"
1. Papyrus Fragments-- 8 out of 81 = 10% of the evidence
2. Uncials-= 4 out of 267 = 1% of the evidence
3. Cursives- 414 out of 2764 = 15% of the evidence
4. Lectionaries-- 0 out of 2143 = 0% of the evidence
Total MSS: 426 out of 5,255 = 8% of the MSS evidence
5. Ancient Versions-- 0 out of 20 = 0% of the evidence
6. Church Fathers-- 0 out of 300 = 0% of the evidence
Total Non-MSS: 0 out of 320 = 0% of the non-MSS evidence*
Grand Total: **426 out of 5,575 = 7% of ALL evidence**
In the above statistics you will notice that Dean Burgons prerequisite #1 was not followed. Prerequisite #2 was not followed. Prerequisite #3 was not followed. Prerequisite #4 was not followed. Prerequisite #5 was not followed. Prerequisite #6 was not followed. In fact, the so-called Majority Greek Text of Hodges & Farstad follows the false principles of Westcott and Hort when they refer to "intrinsic and transcriptional probabilities" [Preface, p. xxii]. The same is true when they make use of the "genealogical method" [Preface, p. xii] for John 7:53--8:11 and for the book of Revelation. The editors refused to follow completely Dean Burgon's methodology in textual criticism. The use of a mere 8% of the manuscript evidence is also decidedly against Burgon's sound principles. Nothing short of 100% of the evidence must be used for any major revision of the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible! The same is true of their handling of the non-manuscript evidence of Ancient Versions and Church Fathers. 0% of that evidence is preposterous! Dean Burgon would demand 100% of this evidence to be used.
What right does this so-called "Majority Text" and what right does the "Majority Text Society" have in claiming they are following Dean John William Burgon in such a document as this so-called "Majority Greek Text"? To all such people who are under the false impression that this text, is fulfilling the plan, program, and wishes of Dean John William Burgon, let them look again at his six prerequisites on pages 6-7 above. Then let them study the above table which shows their use of only 7% of ALL the evidence rather than 100% of the present evidence which would fulfill every one of the six prerequisites! Some of those who have this false impression are: (1) Terence Brown (formerly with the Trinitarian Bible Society [TBS] in London; (2) Andrew Brown (formerly with TBS in London); (3) Theodore Letis; (4) Wilbur Pickering; (5) The Majority Text Society, and others. To those who yet have questions about this matter, I would recommend that they order and read two pamphlets: (1) "Seven Defects in the So-called 'Majority Greek Text'" ( #1448, for a GIFT of 2/$1.50+&H) and "Why Reject the Majority Text." ( #1727, for a GIFT of 2/$1.50+S&H).

I think those six requirements are rather valid

Please tell me where the majority of MSS for the Textus Receptus came from and from which centuries?

Old doesn't mean better. The reason why so many manuscripts are young is that they were in constant use and thus when the manuscript had been used often enough it would be in need of replacing. The fact of the matter is the two oldest manuscripts around don't even agree with each other. The Majority text and the Byzantine text,since they were speakers of Greek.

From where did Erasmus get the last 6 Greek verses of the Book of Revelation that he included in the Textus Receptus?

early on he did the best with what he had and often times for Revelation he had to rely on the Vulgate to help him. But you see with later versions that he had access to better manuscripts with Revelation in it and he changes the Greek very little. When he first released his work, he did make mention of this problem a few times, so the reader would have known about it from the start. It is not like he did that and tried to conceal his efforts.
http://www.reltech.org/TC/v16/Krans2011.pdf
The above document has actual quotes from Erasmus explaining issues with his Greek Text.

Please tell me about the Apocrypha that was included with the original KJV of 1611. Is this the KJV that your church approves.

Oz

As others have said, they added it in not as scripture but as something that you might have found useful. Most Protestants don't find it useful, so they don't include it.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I believe God has preserved his perfect word for us today. In English it is contained in the King James Bible. I believe you can be saved from other translations. I used the NIV when I first was saved. I know many people that believe the King James Bible is without error but have yet to meet one that believed you could only be saved with the King James bible.

I have many different copies and editions of the King James Version in my study, and I took a look at them to see how accurately the wording has been preserved.. I started in the New Testament, and I did not have to read very far before I came to some differences in the wording. I found Matt. 4:2 especially interesting. Here is a summary of what found. Notice especially the last phrase in that verse.

Mat 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1874

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1898

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1917, Scofield Bible (Oxford)

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Cambridge Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society


We find here five different renderings of the last phrase in Matt. 4:2, all them in King James Bibles:

hee was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

Has the KJV preserved for all eternity God’s Holy Word in English? My grandmother did a better job than this of preserving her strawberries.

But that is not all! How about the readability? What English grammatical form are the printers attempting to render here, and precisely what does it mean? Do any of you King James Version readers know the answer to that question? And what is the difference between being “an hungered” (etc.) and being “hungry?” Do any of you King James Version readers know the answer to that question?

God preserved Matt. 4:2 in Greek, and the Greek text here is very plain and easy to read. The KJV is sadly confused and obscure.

The NASB, 1995, is very plain and easy to read, “He then became hungry,” an accurate, very readable translation of the Greek wording here where a third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb is used. The very same third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb is used in Mark 11:12 and, of course, the NASB translates this identical verb in an identical manner. In the KJV, however, this identical verb in Mark 11:12 is translated differently than it is in Matt. 4:2, using a less precise translation than that found in the NASB.

Mark 11:12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry. (KJV, all editions)

Anyone, anyone at all, who is familiar with New Testament Greek and the translations of it in the KJV and NASB, 1995, knows for an absolute, incontrovertible fact that the translation of the Greek New Testament found in the NASB, 1995, is VERY much more accurate than the translation of the Greek New Testament found in any edition of KJV. Who would want to drive an old, broken-down Chevy when for the same price he could drive a Rolls Royce Bentley? A country farmer might reply, “My Chevy gets me where I’m goin’.” But that is not always true! It breaks down in Matt. 4:2, Mark 11:12, and thousands of other places in the New Testament alone!

 

[motherprayer]

IFB Church Member here

Here's a link to a video from one of our services. We are KJVO, believe in the 5 fundamentals of faith, and we also believe that once a person accepts Christ as their personal Saviour, they are officially and permanantly saved - from hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNGqbnKk6Bc