Have KJVO's prayed to God and asked if the KJV was the only valid version?

[yogosans14]

If so what was your answer?What did the Holy Spirit reveal to you?

 

[DeaconDean]

I have not prayed over this, but it has been my experience on the forums, that the KJVO crowd feels that God not only has perserved His word, but that the KJV is better than the originals.

Here is a classic example that has come up in the Fundamentalist area:

While looking for the definition of "ultra-Fundamentalist" I stumbled upon this from the KJV Onlyists:

3. The Bible – The KJV is the only Bible one should use as a Christian – it (KJV 1611) is inerrant above and beyond the original translations in the original languages of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Anyone who believes otherwise is decieved.

Sadly, there is nothing you can say or show to prove otherwise.

God Bless

TIll all are one.

 

[SoulBap6]

This controversy is about the claim of who believes that Gods Holy word is wrong, and who's interpretation is closest to being right. I have never prayed over this issue, maybe I should have, I have read may threads on this issue by many different people, Liberals and Conservative views. Today we have those that love the New versions of the Bible that many have so much scripture taken out it does not resemble the text in the King James version and some of the Text does away with Hell and many other things.

The point I am trying to say is that Satan is the author of Lies, Cheats and deceits. If you don't like what the Bible tells you rewrite it your way so it says what you want it to say. The most Ignorant statement I have ever heard is Man wrote the Bible it must be wrong, everything that was ever written was written by Man except the ten commandments, I myself have not studied Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. My preference is KJV 1769 it was the most widely used in the USA.. The canonized version of the Bible, is as close as the Bible in the English language gets, and there our a few Bible Scholars that would love to argue about that, but it boils down to what you believe, out of the 66 Books that we do have there is lot to understand, and a lot God has given us to understand, if only I could digest and glean out the truth out of the scriptures what a understand we would have of God, Jesus and the Holy spirit

 

[torcot]

KJV onlyism is idolatry. To place a particular translation (and that is what it is) above the others is idolatry. I have seen Sam Gipp actually say that in order for a Russian to understand God's word, he would have to learn King James English. I was once a KJVO by birth. But as I grew in my relationship with Christ I have learned many things about the KJV and modern translations. As such I chose the modern ones, particularly the ESV.

 

[AppleMelon]

Have faith in God's word, the KJV for English speakers.

 

[torcot]

In your little, extra-message, you apparently quote Jesus as saying

"look at the height of the sky, my love is higher. Look at the depth of the ocean, my love is deeper that that. Look at the stars, the sun, and the moon, my love outshines them. Look at the universe in all its vastness. My love encompasses and fills it, and you are the focal point of it all."

Could you please tell me what verse that is.

Its a little bit of Arminianism left over from my charismatic days. I still like the quote, but I find it wrong theologically. Its not a verse, its just something I liked to think. I have changed it to be more theologically accurate.

 

[98cwitr]

I have not prayed over this, but it has been my experience on the forums, that the KJVO crowd feels that God not only has perserved His word, but that the KJV is better than the originals.

Here is a classic example that has come up in the Fundamentalist area:

While looking for the definition of "ultra-Fundamentalist" I stumbled upon this from the KJV Onlyists:



Sadly, there is nothing you can say or show to prove otherwise.

God Bless

TIll all are one.

Not even the KJV contradiction of Genesis 22:1 vs James 1:13?!

 

[SeventhValley]

What is the difference between test and tempt in those verses? Both are the same process. You can tempt in the testing process.

 

[98cwitr]

What is the difference between test and tempt in those verses? Both are the same process. You can tempt in the testing process.

And yet James 1:13 says that God does not tempt anyone...interesting:

So does that make the writer of Genesis incorrect or the writer of James? Maybe the translators! I digress to say this....

It's a contradiction founded on semantics, nevertheless, a complete contradiction based on an errant translation...emphasis on errant

 

[Legionwrex]

This debate confuses me. I hear some people say that the KJV is the only one that should be used because it's the original or whatever, but wasn't the KJV just the original translation?

It seems to me that if you're so fixated on finding the original you should read the stone tablets written in Hebrew (or whatever they used to translate from, I don't really know much in this area). As to the question, I myself use the KJV, but I don't think there is anything wrong using the NIV or any other translation as long as they are accurate.

 

[98cwitr]

This debate confuses me. I hear some people say that the KJV is the only one that should be used because it's the original or whatever, but wasn't the KJV just the original translation?

It seems to me that if you're so fixated on finding the original you should read the stone tablets written in Hebrew (or whatever they used to translate from, I don't really know much in this area). As to the question, I myself use the KJV, but I don't think there is anything wrong using the NIV or any other translation as long as they are accurate.

Original *English translation...and yes, when confused, I try to refer back to the Greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT)...neither of which I am any good at A lot of Google translating going on there.

 

[SeventhValley]

I bet I could find bad translations and contradictions in any Bible.

The NASB or NKJV are good translations for those who like the KJV source material.

 

[SeventhValley]

Youngs literal translation and the Darby Bible are good literal english translations.

 

[Keachian]

Original *English translation

It's not even the original English translation;

John Wycliffe (and possibly also Nicholas Hereford) translated the whole of the Bible into English for the first time in the 1380s

Then there was Tyndale's (~1523), Coverdale's (1535), Matthew's (1537), The Great (1538 Government Propaganda I), Taverner (1539), The Geneva (1560), The Bishop's (1572 Government Propaganda II) and the Douay-Rheims (1610 Catholic Propaganda I) all preceded the King James Version (1611 Government Propaganda III)

 

[98cwitr]

It's not even the original English translation;

John Wycliffe (and possibly also Nicholas Hereford) translated the whole of the Bible into English for the first time in the 1380s

Then there was Tyndale's (~1523), Coverdale's (1535), Matthew's (1537), The Great (1538 Government Propaganda I), Taverner (1539), The Geneva (1560), The Bishop's (1572 Government Propaganda II) and the Douay-Rheims (1610 Catholic Propaganda I) all preceded the King James Version (1611 Government Propaganda III)

Maybe I should have included the phrase "mass produced"

 

[98cwitr]

I bet I could find bad translations and contradictions in any Bible.

Please do. I'd love to see anything quite as stark as those two KJV verses. I havent found any yet from my NIV except the following

Deuteronomy 31:6
Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.”

2 Kings 21:14
I will forsake the remnant of my inheritance and give them into the hands of enemies. They will be looted and plundered by all their enemies;

2 Chronicles 24:20
Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you disobey the Lord’s commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’”

I guess it could be argued that the context of the audience in question is different, and therefore no contradiction exists...at least that's what I tell myself.

My [old] thread on the topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7616332/

 

[Keachian]

Maybe I should have included the phrase "mass produced"

The Geneva outsold the KJV by a large margin until it was outlawed and publication of all Bibles other than the KJV was stopped.

Tyndale's was the first printed English Bible. The Geneva also was the first "Study" Bible and the first with verse numbering.

The KJV only gets an honourable mention for "firsts" in that it was the first to be published without the Apocrypha.

 

[HantsUK]

The KJV only gets an honourable mention for "firsts" in that it was the first to be published without the Apocrypha.

But was orignally published with the Apocrypha.

 

[SeventhValley]

Please do. I'd love to see anything quite as stark as those two KJV verses. I havent found any yet from my NIV except the following

Deuteronomy 31:6
Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.”

2 Kings 21:14
I will forsake the remnant of my inheritance and give them into the hands of enemies. They will be looted and plundered by all their enemies;

2 Chronicles 24:20
Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you disobey the Lord’s commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’”

I guess it could be argued that the context of the audience in question is different, and therefore no contradiction exists...at least that's what I tell myself.

My [old] thread on the topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7616332/

I found this

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata

One example.

"Place-makers' Bible" 1562: the second
edition of the Geneva Bible , Matthew 5:9
reads "Blessed are the placemakers: for
they shall be called the children of God"; it
should read "peacemakers".
In its chapter heading for Luke 21 it has
"Christ condemneth the poor widow" rather
than "commendeth".
The 1589 Geneva Bible, Chapter 24:15 in
the gospel of Matthew that reads, "When ye
therefore shal se the abomination of
desolation spoken of by David the
prophet..." It should read, "Daniel the
prophet." [

 

[sisgood]

...I find it discouraging that there is such a topic here, phrased in the way that it is. Aren't we supposed to be abiding in love, building each other up, and NOT causing one another to stumble? Troll topics do not belong here.

Personally, I would encourage everyone to get a greek to english bible, I have learned sooo much from mine, also, darn you germanic language for taking away so many of our specifications for things! Love, pride, and many other words suffer so much because we don't have other words for the word!