King James Version

kern · May 28, 2002

It's funny that people still go for the ad hominems against Westcott and Hort, as if they were the *only* people to ever advocate a move away from the TR. It's sort of like attacking only Darwin for evolutionary theory......oh wait.

-Chris

Crono · May 28, 2002

Originally posted by kern
It's one of the most bizarre beliefs I've encountered in the Christian world. I would be interested to read a book on its history, but I'm fairly sure none exist (this issue seems to be mostly ignored by mainstream authors the same way the flat earth society is).

-Chris

Actually, I remember seeing a book on this topic when I was shelfreading at the library I worked at. It was a book on Bible versions in general, but a large section of it dealt with rebutting KJV-onlyism. It had some excellent points about the topic. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name, but if I find it again, I'll post it here.

filosofer · May 29, 2002

Originally posted by kern
It's funny that people still go for the ad hominems against Westcott and Hort, as if they were the *only* people to ever advocate a move away from the TR. It's sort of like attacking only Darwin for evolutionary theory......oh wait.

If you look at my post, I was not attacking W & H. The question arose about the origins of the KJO- movement. My point of mentioning them and Burgon was as an historical fact about the contention regarding manuscript priority and translation philosophy.

If you want historical information about earlier text critics, a good place to look is Johann Bengel.

If you want to know my views on textual critical matters, I will gladly share with you - that has been part of my work for the past 20+ years.

kern · May 29, 2002

Originally posted by filosofer

If you look at my post, I was not attacking W & H. The question arose about the origins of the KJO- movement.

I guess I didn't write enough in that post -- I wasn't accusing you of attacking W&R, I was just mentioning that as a random side comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

-Chris

Julie · May 29, 2002

Julie wrote on Today 04:52 PM:
quote:
The reason I say that is arrogance is that the KJV is NOT the original Word of God, the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are. The KJV is a translation, a good translation, but NOT the original.

Wow, do you know greek and Hebrew!?
How or Who told/taught you about the "originals", have you seen them? So can we know Gods words without scholars?
Do you believe God used these Greek and Hebrew scholars to give up His words?
Do you really know people who worship the KJV?
Just wondering, Julie

No, I do not know Greek and Hebrew. Yes, I do know that original manuscripts existed. Even the KJV didn't just float down from Heaven on a cloud-it was based on the manuscripts.
From some websites and tracts I have seen it looks like some people are only a few steps short of enshrining it as an idol of worship.
Could we move this discussion back to the thread please? I think that is the proper place for it.
BTW if you look at my profile I stick to literal Bible versions also. It lists the New King James Version (which I think is the best because the language is updated when necessary to avoid confusion) and the New American Standard Bible.
However in serious study (like when writing an essay on cults or something) I crossreference with the KJV, although I do not have an original 1611 copy (where Jesus is spelled "Iesus" and he is spelled "hee") but a later edition apparently.

Susan · May 29, 2002

I will look up more on this later and post it, as my computer time is almost up.

Maybe i will get my own computer soon.

filosofer · May 29, 2002

I wasn't accusing you of attacking W&R, I was just mentioning that as a random side comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Chris, sorry, it seems as if the misunderstanding was mine.

I agree that W & H are "easy targets" for opponents of manuscript/textual study. What's sad is that the approach they advocated is very different from most text critical studies today. Even the groups that favor the Byzantine manuscripts (rather than TR or MT or CT) would be closer to the approach of W & H than to the KJO crowd of today (ala Ruckman, Riplinger).

GreenEyedLady · Jun 6, 2002

Originally posted by Neo
The KJV Bible is filled with translation errors.

From the KJV Bible:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The KJV Bible is the only english bible that says God created evil.

Isaiah 45:7 _I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

If God didn't create evil then who did? Was it on the earth before God created the earth? Did it fall out of the sky one day?(hmmmmmmm) How did the tree get in the garden?? Was that NOT God's creation? Are you saying that Satan created evil? If so...Doesn't Satan need God's permission to walk the earth? Who created Satan??
Sorry, but i don't see the error in that verse.

I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.'
NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson

I am the one who creates the light and makes the darkness. I am the one who sends good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.
NLT Copyright 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity ; I am the LORD who does all these.
NASB copyright 1995 Lockman Foundation

I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things.
RSV copyright info

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. Websters

Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.' Young's

forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things. Darby

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things. ASV

I form the light, and create darkness; I make shalom, and create evil. I am the LORD, who does all these things.HNV

formans lucem et creans tenebras faciens pacem et creans malum ego Dominus faciens omnia haec "Vulgate"

Main Entry: ca·lam·i·ty
Pronunciation: k&-'la-m&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English calamytey, from Middle French calamité, from Latin calamitat-, calamitas; perhaps akin to Latin clades destruction
Date: 15th century
1 : a state of deep distress or misery caused by major misfortune or loss
2 : an extraordinarily grave event marked by great loss and lasting distress and affliction

Oh and one more thing..
The word EVIL means....in Hebrew
07451 ra` {rah}

from 07489; TWOT - 2191a,2191c

AV - evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13,
trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3,
harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34; 663

adj
1) bad, evil
1a) bad, disagreeable

What else do you suppose it should say?
GEL

kern · Jun 6, 2002

One thing I notice is that most modern editions of the KJV include the "epistle dedicatory" (that one page thing exalting King James), but omit the lengthy introduction to the reader. Among the things the translators say in that introduction is that no translation is perfect, that it is desirable to have a number of translations out at once (remember that there were already several widely read English translations at the time of the KJV), and that their translation would undoubtedly contain errors.

I have seen KJV-onlyists attempt to explain this away by saying that the KJV translators did not know they were making an inspired translation, but this seems like a strained explanation to me -- if they didn't know they were making an inspired translation then where do we get that from? How long was it before people figured out that the KJV was inspired, and the Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Thomas Matthew Bible, and Tyndale Bible were not?

-Chris

GreenEyedLady · Jun 8, 2002

What is the problem if one believes a bible to be the true inspiried word of God? How does that truley HURT them? Does it effect their salvation because they believe in ONE bible? NO Is it a sin for someone to think that the KJV is the the TRUE word of God? NO! What is the point to this discussion? Does it really matter who believes what bible is the true word of God? All that really matters is that YOUR NOSE is in it everyday reading it and filling yourself spiritually. If someone whats their nose in the KJV and thinks thats the BEST traslation out there, why are people putting a stumbling blocks infront of those who truley want to fill themselves spiritually? Is't a stumbling block a sin?
Just a thought
GEL

franklin · Jun 8, 2002

http://www.angelfire.com/pr/truth/bibles.html

Has anyone heard of these Bibles?
"The Septuagint with Apocrypha" Brenton's edition (Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton), by Hendrickson Publishers. Originally published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London, 1851.
"Interlinear Greek-English New Testament" (King James Version) with a Greek-English Lexicon and New Testament Synonyms, by George Ricker Berry, published by Baker Books. Originally published by Handy Book Company, Reading Pennsylvania, 1897

kern · Jun 8, 2002

Originally posted by GreenEyedLady
If someone whats their nose in the KJV and thinks thats the BEST traslation out there, why are people putting a stumbling blocks infront of those who truley want to fill themselves spiritually? Is't a stumbling block a sin?
Just a thought
GEL

If someone thinks the KJV is the best translation, that's fine. I disagree, and I'll debate them if they want, but they are welcome to that opinion.

However, if someone thinks that the KJV is the *only* inspired translation, I have to take issue with that. KJV-onlyism is not a cult, but it's a needless fragmenting of a body that is already fragmented enough. We have people telling others that they should not go to "non-KJV churches" because they preach from a flawed scripture. I just don't think statements like that should go unchallenged.

I also think that the KJV itself can be a stumbling block for some people. There have been several instances on this board where someone tried to use a quotation from the KJV to support a point, but they misunderstood the passage because of old meanings of words. Despite the "4th grade reading level" (or 3rd, or 6th depending on who you talk to), many people have trouble understanding the KJV. If you teach someone that the KJV is the only possible translation they can use, and they have trouble understanding it, that is a stumbling block for them.

-Chris

GreenEyedLady · Jun 8, 2002

I disagree. NOWAY could reading the bible with the help of the Holy Spirit EVER be a stumbling block to a believer.
That is about the craziest thing I have ever read on this site yet.
How can the Word of God be a stumbling block? Are you saying that one who is a babe in Christ that might NOT have the Maturity to discern the truth yet is stumbling? NO I don't think so.
i think you really need to re-think what you said there kern.
GEL

kern · Jun 9, 2002

No, I stand by what I said. If someone cannot understand the KJV completely, but you put it in front of them and say "This is the ONLY bible you may read because it is the only 100% correct translation", then you have put a stumbling block in their path. Which would you rather see, someone enjoying the Good News Translation or New Living Translation, or someone struggling to make it through the KJV? The Bible is hard enough to understand without language difficulties further compounding the problem.

I find the KJV difficult in parts, and I have a college education and an interest in archaic language. Not every Christian even has a high school education, and some know English only as a second language. To force everyone to read this book in 500-year old English (the KJV language was archaic even at the time it was written) is counterproductive.

I suppose it is not the Bible (even the KJV) that is the stumbling block, it's the insistence on using an old version that is.

-Chris

GreenEyedLady · Jun 9, 2002

I believe that God can teach anyone to read the bible. Saying that someone "struggles" to read ANY version and to go reading another version that is more watered down is like telling someone, don't educate yourself!
God gives us what we can handle and leads us where he wants us to be regarless of what version. Reading the KJV is not that hard. Once you start readin it, its like reading anything else. I like the KJV I think it is the best translation out there. You can have your opinion kern, thats fine and dandy for me. But it is just an opinion.
God Bless
GEL

franklin · Jun 9, 2002

Originally posted by Neo
The KJV Bible is filled with translation errors.

From the KJV Bible:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The KJV Bible is the only english bible that says God created evil.

neo, sounds about right, God is the creator of eveything including good and evil! There is plenty of evidence in scripture that says God creates peace and He creates evil, or disaster.... Thus God is the source of "evil" in the sense of being the ultimate permitter of the problems that we have in our lives.
Hebrews 12:6-11, "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth...If ye endure chastening...afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."

filosofer · Jun 9, 2002

Franklin, I went to the web site you include at the top of this page. Several things stood out about what the person was claiming.

The other articles under "Scripture And Bibles" topic will go into more detail on this, but basically, for the Old Testament books, the Septuagint is the scripture cited by Christ and by the Apostles. As far as the New Testament books are concerned, we should use the Interlinear Greek English New Testament, because it is a transcription, not a translation. A transcription is done word for word as close to the original as possible. But as soon as you start translating to a bible, you are interjection your own knowledge and your own opinions.

Two notes on this passage:

1. The Interlinear Greek English NT is not a transcription: transcription would involve taking the Greek letters and giving English equivalent letters, which the Interlinear does not do.

2. There are difficulties with claiming that the Septuagint (LXX) is what Jesus and the apostles used. Yes, in many passages there is clear evidence that the LXX is the base for an OT quote. However, there are other places where the base of the quote comes from the Masoretic Text (Hebrew), not the LXX. The reason I refer to the base for the quote is that any time a person translates from one language to another there is never one-to-one correspondence between words.

Gleason Archer and G. C. Chirichigno (Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey) have identified NT readings which reflect the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) rather than the Septuagint (Rom. 9:17; Matt. 22:24; Matt. 13:35, and many more).

Again, the web site offers:

The Berry's Interlinear is the most accurate. It has the Greek text, and under each Greek word is the English equivalent.

The problem with this statement is that it is impossible to match words from one language to another, word-for-word, especially moving from an inflected language like Greek to a non-inflected language like English. Try to translate a Greek perfect passive participle into English using only one word - can't be done.

It would appear as if this person has not done much translation, or at best has taken maybe a year of Greek and uses the Interlinear as a crutch to establish his/her point.

MissytheButterfly · Jun 9, 2002

Originally posted by Susan
I believe in the Rapture, and I believe that one is saved by the grace of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Baptism does not save, but neither does *our* holiness.
I used to be sort of KJV only but not anymore.

Hebrews 12:14 "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." (KJV)

So I have to say I think you are incorrect about your above statement. The bible clearly shows if you are not holy you will not see the Lord, which in turn means you will not be saved.

Believers need to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, we are to be holy and acceptable which is our reasonable service. We are not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds..we should be set ourselves apart from it..we are to be holy...(see Romans 12)

Just something to think about...

Missy

Susan · Jun 10, 2002

I don't really want to debate this here as there is probably a great discussion about this elsewhere (in Soteriology maybe???)
But I believe that Jesus died in my place for my sins and that His holiness was/is imputed to me because I believe in Him.
To reduce salvation to our works of holiness is to deny the grace of God to impute HIS righteousness to us.
Remember Isaiah's statement "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags?"
So as holy as we can ever be, it's still no good compared to the holiness of Christ. That is the holiness we must pursue, by trust in Him.
I'm not being antinomian and saying works don't matter in sanctification, I am simply saying that we are saved only by the imputed righteousness/holiness of Jesus Christ.

Susan · Jun 10, 2002

BTW we show our faith by our works. So works are important.
However without faith in Jesus Christ and His atonement first, no one is justified.

King James Version

Miserere Nobis

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Miserere Nobis

ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

Senior Veteran

My little Dinky Doo

Miserere Nobis

My little Dinky Doo

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

Miserere Nobis

My little Dinky Doo

Miserere Nobis

My little Dinky Doo

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

Senior Veteran

Back and Better than EVER!

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

Similar threads