KJV Only?

Here's a good one from the NASB showing the method of modern versions delaring to carry the message of the Word of God in a supposedly better translation so we can get a better idea what the message of the Word of God is......

1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV "when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it. ." NASB "And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe." NASB changes 'the Word of God' to 'word of God's message.' If the Bible isn't THE WORD of GOD, then we have no final standard.

You are quoting passages where either the Greek / Hebrew can be translated either way or in which the KJV translators added things that weren't there but we did not know that until we found the earlier MSS.

Mark 9:44, 46 KJV "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." This is a reference to hell. NASB "<where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.>

Click to expand...

This is what my NASB says in the margin of Mark 9:44 (v. 44 and 46, WHICH ARE IDENTICAL WITH V. 48 are not found in the best ancient mss. ) Here is Mark 9:48; "Where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." Perhaps you can tell me why you think repeating this three times is God inspired by once is not?

Mark 7:8 KJV "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." NASB ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.""

Click to expand...

Aha, here we are from Mark 7: 3 onwards in the NASB " 3 . . .(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;
4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)
5 The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"
6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me.
7 'But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'
8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. . ."

How exactly does this make any difference?

Romans 10:15b KJV ". . .How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and being glad tidings of good things." NASB ". . . HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!""

Click to expand...

In the Romans passage quoted by you the author of Romans is quoting from Isaiah 52:7 Here is Isaiah 52:7 from the KJV " . . .7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! . . ." How strange the phrase "Gospel of Peace" is not there either? Oh, and look in the marginal notes for the Romans passage in the NASB " . . .or. "preach the gospel." Deary me, much ado about nothing it would seem.

1 Pet.4:14 KJV "If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part He is evil spoken of, but on your part He is glorified." NASB "If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you."

Click to expand...

What doctrine exactly does the NASB wording change please?

Matthew 20:22 KJV "But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able." NASB "But Jesus answered and said, "You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" They said to Him, "We are able.""

Click to expand...

Umm, you do realise that in all the other passages you quote the NASB retains the idea of a baptism of suffering? So perhaps you can tell me again how this affects doctrine?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV "when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it. ." NASB "And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe."

Click to expand...

As the "Word of God" that they heard from Paul would have been originally aural rather than written. . . Moreover, Jesus is the Word of God not the Bible. You still have missed the fact that in the very passage you quote from the NASB it says: . . .3 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. . ."

In short this is simply more KJV-Onlyist nonsense.

kiwimac said:

In short this is simply more KJV-Onlyist nonsense.

[/font]

Click to expand...

I wonder how it helps the cause to spam so many posts in a row?

God Bless

Till all are one.

SaintJoeNow said:

The Bible says repeatedly that God's Word does not change and has been preserved without error exactly as He gave it.

Click to expand...

The Bible neither says nor implies that anything that God has said will be preserved.

SaintJoeNow said:

NASB vs KJB

Matthew 20:20 KJV "Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him." NASB "Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him with her sons, bowing down, and making a request of Him." The NASB changes 'worshipped him' to 'bowed down before him.'

There are dozens if not hundreds of these horrific changes and deletions in the NASB. The NASB is garbage.

Click to expand...

God says in His word,

Matt. 20:20 &#964;&#959;&#964;&#949; &#960;&#961;&#959;&#963;&#951;&#955;&#952;&#949;&#957; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#969; &#951; &#956;&#951;&#964;&#951;&#961; &#964;&#969;&#957; &#965;&#953;&#969;&#957; &#950;&#949;&#946;&#949;&#948;&#945;&#953;&#959;&#965; &#956;&#949;&#964;&#945; &#964;&#969;&#957; &#965;&#953;&#969;&#957; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#951;&#962; &#960;&#961;&#959;&#963;&#954;&#965;&#957;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#945;&#953;&#964;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945; &#964;&#953; A&#945;&#960; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#965;

The NASB accurately and literally translates the Greek word &#960;&#961;&#959;&#963;&#954;&#965;&#957;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945; as “bowing down” (not “bowed down”). The KJV, however, interprets the physical act as a state of the mind. This is a valid interpretation—but it is an interpretation rather than a literal translation. The real problem in this verse in the KJV is that it says that the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus “worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him, but the Greek text says that the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus bowing down and asking something from Him. Jesus did not just desire something from her, he asked her for something. Readers of the KJV will not learn what God said here in His word, but readers of the NASB will learn what God said here in His word.

The NASB tells us what really happened, correcting the KJV.

The OP is in favor of the King James Bible being the only English translation of the Word of God today, implying that all other versions of translation are NOT the Word of God. The fact that only the King James Bible is consistent in all verses and passages upholding all of the fundamentals of the faith proves that only the King James Bible can qualify as the Word of God in English today. This is only one of the facts supporting the King James Bible as the Word of God from God for the English speaking world. I have given a few of dozens of corrupted, changed passages which show that either the Word of God is lost and cannot be claimed by anybody to be known, or it is preserved in the King James Bible. Verisions which differ cannot both be right, and claiming to have the Holy Spirit to guide you in all truth so you can find the middle ground and declare by your own intellect and mouth what God is saying in your language with no Word of God written in contract form that is legally valid and unchangable is nothing but a set up for fraud by which some can claim to be the leaders based on their own intellectual pride.

The NASB is the version mentioned by one of the posters who said they preferr to ignore the issue of what the Word of God really is. One thing the Word of God is not, and that is changeable. Many people think the Word of God is changeable for them to fit into their own understanding of their own language under personal guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It's sad that today, most Christians prefer the intellectual laziness of challenging the validiy of God's Word rather than accepting the fact that God said exactly what He wanted to say to men He entrusted to write it down and pass it down through the generations to us in our own language, and allowing God's Word to challenge them rather than put themselves over God's Word as the intellectual translators and interpreters who by their power can lead us to get closer to what the lost originals actually said.

When people resort to insults and whining rather than to address valid points contending for the faith of God in keeping His Word as He in His Word said He would, they are only showing how phony thier claims of high education really are because they have been ever learning and never able to come to the knowledged of the truth by their own addmission because they reject the Word of God saying it's lost and therefore the truth really cannot be proved by them or according to them by anybody else. This is the same argument used by atheists, agnostics, gnostics, wiccans, Confusians, Hindus...you name it...they all say God's Word is not clearly given to us in our languaed so it cannot be questioned. People who speak English and use English to fight against the Word of God given to us in English without error are helping the cause of the enemy who is the devil whose first line of attack in the Bible was as it is today "Yea, hath God said....".

SaintJoeNow said:

The OP is in favor of the King James Bible being the only English translation of the Word of God today, implying that all other versions of translation are NOT the Word of God. The fact that only the King James Bible is consistent in all verses and passages upholding all of the fundamentals of the faith proves that only the King James Bible can qualify as the Word of God in English today. This is only one of the facts supporting the King James Bible as the Word of God from God for the English speaking world. I have given a few of dozens of corrupted, changed passages which show that either the Word of God is lost and cannot be claimed by anybody to be known, or it is preserved in the King James Bible. Verisions which differ cannot both be right, and claiming to have the Holy Spirit to guide you in all truth so you can find the middle ground and declare by your own intellect and mouth what God is saying in your language with no Word of God written in contract form that is legally valid and unchangable is nothing but a set up for fraud by which some can claim to be the leaders based on their own intellectual pride.

The NASB is the version mentioned by one of the posters who said they preferr to ignore the issue of what the Word of God really is. One thing the Word of God is not, and that is changeable. Many people think the Word of God is changeable for them to fit into their own understanding of their own language under personal guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It's sad that today, most Christians prefer the intellectual laziness of challenging the validiy of God's Word rather than accepting the fact that God said exactly what He wanted to say to men He entrusted to write it down and pass it down through the generations to us in our own language, and allowing God's Word to challenge them rather than put themselves over God's Word as the intellectual translators and interpreters who by their power can lead us to get closer to what the lost originals actually said.

When people resort to insults and whining rather than to address valid points contending for the faith of God in keeping His Word as He in His Word said He would, they are only showing how phony thier claims of high education really are because they have been ever learning and never able to come to the knowledged of the truth by their own addmission because they reject the Word of God saying it's lost and therefore the truth really cannot be proved by them or according to them by anybody else. This is the same argument used by atheists, agnostics, gnostics, wiccans, Confusians, Hindus...you name it...they all say God's Word is not clearly given to us in our languaed so it cannot be questioned. People who speak English and use English to fight against the Word of God given to us in English without error are helping the cause of the enemy who is the devil whose first line of attack in the Bible was as it is today "Yea, hath God said....".

Click to expand...

We saw in post #330 in this thread that the King James translation of the Bible gives us an incorrect translation of Matt. 20:20, incontrovertibly proving that the King James translation of the Bible is not only far from perfect, but that the NASB gives us a precisely correct translation of the verse.

We saw in post #270 in this thread that the King James translation of the Bible gives us four incorrect and unreadable translations of Matt. 4:2&#8212;an hungered, an hungred, a hungered, or ahungered depending upon which publisher of the King James translation of the Bible one chooses to believe. In subsequent posts on Matt. 4:2 in the King James translation of the Bible we saw that such prominent scholars of early English as the editors of Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries disagree regarding the meaning of the construction because it is so archaic and rare. Furthermore, we saw in subsequent posts on Matt 4:2 that three of the four constructions: an hungered, a hungered, and ahungered are misspellings that are corrected in copies of the King James translation of the Bible published by the American Bible Society, but not in copies of the King James translation of the Bible published by the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford. Indeed, Cambridge and Oxford Universities have both kept the incorrect spelling found in the two 1611 editions of the King James translation of the Bible. Moreover, in other posts in other CF threads we have seen hundreds of examples where the King James translation of the Bible is in error.

When we look beyond CF, we find hundreds of examples where the King James translation of the Bible is in error and many thousands examples where the King James translation of the Bible is distinctly inferior to the best translations of the Bible. Nonetheless, advocates for the perfection of the King James translation of the Bible continue to say that the King James translation of the Bible is perfect and use it as a standard by which to measure all other English translations (and often translations in other languages).

SaintJoeNow said:

NASB vs KJB

Matthew 20:20 KJV "Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him." NASB "Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him with her sons, bowing down, and making a request of Him." The NASB changes 'worshipped him' to 'bowed down before him.'

There are dozens if not hundreds of these horrific changes and deletions in the NASB. The NASB is garbage.

Click to expand...

As Princetonguy said this is not a mistranslation on the part of the NASB. To elaborate on Princeton guy's comments, let's first look at the sentence in the KJV.

Mat 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.


The word used is, as was noted, a form of &#960;&#961;&#959;&#963;&#954;&#965;&#957;&#949;&#769;&#969; (proskuneo&#772. It means to prostrate yourself before something.

Let's take an example where the same word is used in the KJV for something other than truly worship as we think of it.

Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
Rev 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Rev 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
Rev 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Rev 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.


In context Jesus is speaking to the church of Philadelphia. But is he really wanting people to come and worship at the feet of these believers? No, he is going to prostrate the wicked who are making things difficult for the Christians before their feet. Now the church of Philadelphia is seemingly powerless at their hands, but then the tables will be turned.

Please understand that the word can be used for more than simply worship.

SaintJoeNow said:

The Word Of God is not open to varying translations. Either we do not have the Word of God or it is preserved as God said it would be. The only English translation that qualifies as the Word of God in consistency of all doctrines fundamental to the faith is the King James Bible.
If you say you can go back and determine for yourself what is closest to the originals, then you are saying the originals are lost, changed, gone and we do not have the Word of God and have no real standard for what the Word of God is.

Click to expand...

I am trying to understand your position here. Can you explain how the KJV is better than the Bishop's Bible for instance, in preserving God's word? The translation committee often followed its readings. Or how is it better than other English Bibles that were made before it? It was not the first English Bible. The Geneva Bible was also quite popular before the KJV. Why would the KJV preserve God's word more than it? Were the people who read these earlier English Bibles without God's word? The Geneva Bible was the first one to be mass produced in print, which greatly increased access to the word.

You are comparing to modern translations, and I can see where you are going with that. However, can you please try to spell out so I, and others reading, can understand, what is your basis for finding the KJV to be the preserved word of God if it was not the first English Bible?

This is part of the disconnect I am having. If God preserves His word, can you have a time where it is not preserved? What about folks before the English translations were made?

I believe the King James Bible is the pure words of God in English. I encourage reading material by Sam Gipp, William Grady, David Daniels, Laurence Vance, Gail Riplinger, Douglas Stauffer, Kyle Stephens and Jack McElroy.

Cody2 said:

I believe the King James Bible is the pure words of God in English. I encourage reading material by Sam Gipp, William Grady, David Daniels, Laurence Vance, Gail Riplinger, Douglas Stauffer, Kyle Stephens and Jack McElroy.

Click to expand...

I know that the King James translation of the Bible is the very thing that the translators of it claimed it to be—a revision of the Bishop’s Bible. I know that the British Revised Version of 1881 (the New Testament) – 1885 (the Old Testament) corrected and improved upon the King James translation of the Bible in thousands of places. Therefore, I also know that the King James translation of the Bible is NOT and could not possibly be “the pure words of God in English.”

We saw in post #330 in this thread that the King James translation of the Bible gives us an incorrect translation of Matt. 20:20, incontrovertibly proving that the King James translation of the Bible is not only far from perfect, but that the NASB gives us a precisely correct translation of the verse.

We saw in post #270 in this thread that the King James translation of the Bible gives us four incorrect and unreadable translations of Matt. 4:2—an hungered, an hungred, a hungered, or ahungered depending upon which publisher of the King James translation of the Bible one chooses to believe. In subsequent posts on Matt. 4:2 in the King James translation of the Bible we saw that such prominent scholars of early English as the editors of Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries disagree regarding the meaning of the construction because it is so archaic and rare. Furthermore, we saw in subsequent posts on Matt 4:2 that three of the four constructions: an hungered, a hungered, and ahungered are misspellings that are corrected in copies of the King James translation of the Bible published by the American Bible Society, but not in copies of the King James translation of the Bible published by the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford. Indeed, Cambridge and Oxford Universities have both kept the incorrect spelling found in the two 1611 editions of the King James translation of the Bible. Moreover, in other posts in other CF threads we have seen hundreds of examples where the King James translation of the Bible is in error.

When we look beyond CF, we find hundreds of examples where the King James translation of the Bible is in error and many thousands examples where the King James translation of the Bible is distinctly inferior to the best translations of the Bible. Nonetheless, advocates for the perfection of the King James translation of the Bible continue to say that the King James translation of the Bible is perfect and use it as a standard by which to measure all other English translations (and often translations in other languages).

Sam Gipp, William Grady, David Daniels, Laurence Vance, Gail Riplinger, Douglas Stauffer, Kyle Stephens and Jack McElroy cannot change these facts.

Aha, yeah right. . , Listen Codyman Gail Riplinger (among others) wouldn't know truth if she walked naked among truths in the truth mating season. Shall I post even a fraction of her known lies? You know I can!

I apologize for the delay in answering, I have been very busy. Please excuse the lengthy answer; sometimes these things are necessary.

tall73 said:

I was playing off of Dean's sarcasm.

Dean presented evidence that the KJV has what, to the modern reader, would be a less than accurate translation of the Greek term. The KJV says "study", when a better modern equivalent would be, "be diligent"or "be eager", or "be earnest", etc. The term study today is more specific than it was in KJV times, where it had more the meaning of being diligent.

Jack Koons attempted to counter this with the allegation that textbooks were corrupt. Assumedly he was saying this because Dean had posted a quote from a source that defined the greek term. Of course, Jack Koon's argument did not sufficiently address Dean's challenge. It was a diversion, as I indicated before, rather than an answer.

Click to expand...

I do indeed believe that many textbooks are corrupt, due to the wrong assertions of modern textual criticism. Much of the problem of this textual criticism stems from the fact that it was developed from German Rationalism, which was part of German Philosophy. It is my firm belief that proper Bible Philosophy is built upon proper Bible Theology. Because men like Semler, Griesbach, Westtcott, and Hort all had improper theology, their philosophy of the Bible suffered as well. When one denies the Divine Authorship of the Scriptures, as well as believing the OT and NT were not equally authoritative, this leads to improper philosophy (in this case love of Biblical knowledge).

This is why textual criticism teaches that 'classification' of scripture should only be taken according to its classification. For example, the 'poetry' books should only be taken poetically. Herein lies a problem.
We read in Psalm106: 32 They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes:33 Because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips.

We read also, Psalm 74: 14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Now the question we must pose to textual critics is simply this: God the Holy Spirit gave a historical record, which gives further clarification of a previously recorded historical event. Can this record be taken as a proper historical record, even though it is in a poetical book. Do we we take into account 2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
And, 2 Peter 1: 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If we follow the philosophy of textual critics, we deny the historical account. If we follow the scripture, we accept the historical account.

The KJV translators did something modern scholarship fails to do: they based their translation on proper philosophy of the Bible, because that philosophy was anchored in proper theology.

The argument posed by DeaconDean is predicated on only one possible rendering of &#963;&#960;&#959;&#965;&#948;&#940;&#950;&#969;. "diligent". We know this is not the case. Is it the primary meaning? Yes. But can the word 'study' be used as a alternative? Yes. What is the contextual significance of each? The answer lies in the following words: "rightly dividing the word of truth".

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

As both a former pastor of many years, a teacher of biblical studies for many years, together with much research (again, for many years), I have come to the realization that there is a huge difference between "diligence", and "study". I have had many people serve with me over the years that were very diligent. This diligence however, did not aid them in "rightly dividing the word of truth". I also have had many that would do a reasonable amount of study. This helped them somewhat. It is only when one takes the root meaning of &#963;&#960;&#959;&#965;&#948;&#940;&#950;&#969; (diligence), along with its secondary meaning (study), that one is able to rightly divide the word of truth. The problem here is that diligent is but an adverb, while study is the verb that shows where we are to be diligent, in order to rightly divide the word of truth.

In fact, one of the versions Jack presented in his own response showed a better translation than the KJV. And in three other places, two of which are in the same book, the KJV renders the word more appropriately as well. So not only did he not address the question of the rendering of the word in a way that would correct Dean, but it is also clear that the Roman Catholic conspiracy would have to extend back to the translators of the KJV themselves since they rendered it "diligent" elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Nowhere did I claim this was a "Roman Catholic" conspiracy. I HAVE repeatedly stated (elsewhere) that modern textual criticism is the offspring (if you would), of German Rationalism/Philosophy.

Long story short, I was agreeing with Dean that his point was not refuted.

Now if there truly is a conspiracy regarding a Roman Catholic take over of scholarly institutions Jack Koons can present that. Yet he would still need to address the specific challenge on the translation, rather than introducing the red herring of scholarly hijacking.

Click to expand...

Tall73, I would suggest that you 1) Make sure that what you say others say; is what they actually say; and 2) Consider that there may be more to a subject than you have been made subject to.

Jack

PrincetonGuy said:

I have in my personal library vastly better resources for translating the Bible than the resources available to the translators of King James translation of the Bible. Therefore, even without the help of the Holy Spirit, I could do a far more accurate job that they did. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is just as able today as he was in the early 1600’s.

Click to expand...

Allow me to recopy the good part ...

Therefore, even without the help of the Holy Spirit, I could do a far more accurate job that they did.

Click to expand...

Does this not qualify for the "Statement made by pride" award of a lifetime? I believe this was said so well, I need not make any additional comments.

Jack

Jack Koons said:

I do indeed believe that many textbooks are corrupt, due to the wrong assertions of modern textual criticism. Much of the problem of this textual criticism stems from the fact that it was developed from German Rationalism, which was part of German Philosophy. It is my firm belief that proper Bible Philosophy is built upon proper Bible Theology. Because men like Semler, Griesbach, Westtcott, and Hort all had improper theology, their philosophy of the Bible suffered as well. When one denies the Divine Authorship of the Scriptures, as well as believing the OT and NT were not equally authoritative, this leads to improper philosophy (in this case love of Biblical knowledge).

Click to expand...

What is “improper theology” but theology that is different from your person beliefs? Today’s textual critics come from a wide spectrum of theological thought but they are still more than able to come to a consensus of opinion regarding textual variants.

Jack Koons said:

This is why textual criticism teaches that 'classification' of scripture should only be taken according to its classification. For example, the 'poetry' books should only be taken poetically. Herein lies a problem.
We read in Psalm106: 32 They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes:33 Because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips.

We read also, Psalm 74: 14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Now the question we must pose to textual critics is simply this: God the Holy Spirit gave a historical record, which gives further clarification of a previously recorded historical event. Can this record be taken as a proper historical record, even though it is in a poetical book. Do we we take into account 2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
And, 2 Peter 1: 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If we follow the philosophy of textual critics, we deny the historical account. If we follow the scripture, we accept the historical account.

Click to expand...

This has absolutely nothing to do with textual criticism—a discipline which your posts very strongly suggest you know nothing about.

Jack Koons said:

The KJV translators did something modern scholarship fails to do: they based their translation on proper philosophy of the Bible, because that philosophy was anchored in proper theology.

Click to expand...

Please tell us how this is anything but gibberish.

Jack Koons said:

The argument posed by DeaconDean is predicated on only one possible rendering of &#963;&#960;&#959;&#965;&#948;&#940;&#950;&#969;. "diligent". We know this is not the case. Is it the primary meaning? Yes. But can the word 'study' be used as a alternative? Yes. What is the contextual significance of each? The answer lies in the following words: "rightly dividing the word of truth".

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Click to expand...

DeaconDean is right and you are wrong! The King James translation of the Bible is famous for its archaisms that now have very different meanings, including these:

"abased" (Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14) then meant "humbled"
"abide" (Acts 20:23) then meant "await"
"acquaintance" (Luke 2:44; 23:49; Acts 24:23) then meant "acquaintances"
"admiration" (Rev. 17:6) then meant "wonder"
"affections" (Gal. 5:24) then meant "passions"
"again" (Matt. 27:3; Luke 14:6) then meant "back"
"allege" (Acts 17:3) then meant present "evidence"
"allow" (Luke 11:48; Rom. 14:22; 1 Thes. 2:4) then meant "approve"
"amazement" (1 Pet. 3:6) then meant "terror"
"amend" (John 4:52) then meant "mend"
"answer" (2 Tim. 4:16) then meant "defense"
"approve" (2 Cor. 6:4; 7:11) then meant "commend" or "prove"
"assay" (Acts 9:26; 16:7; Heb. 11:29) then meant "essay" or "attempt"
"attendance" (1 Tim. 4:13) then meant "attention"
"base" (1 Cor. 1:28; 2 Cor. 10:1) then meant "lowly"
"behind" (Col. 1:24) then meant "lacking"
"bewitched" (Acts 8:9, 11) then meant "astonished"
"by and by" (Matt. 13:21; Mark 6:25; Luke 17:7; 21:9) then meant "immediately"
"careful" (Luke 10:41; Phil. 4:6) then meant "anxious"
"charged" (1 Tim. 5:16) then meant "burdened"
"charger" (Matt. 14:8, 11; Mark 6:25, 28) then meant "platter"
"charity" (1 Cor. 8:1; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13; etc.) then meant "love"
"charitably" (Rom. 14:15) then meant "in love"
"communicate" (Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:14, 15; 1 Tim. 6:18; Heb. 13:16) then meant "share"
"communications" (Cor. 15:33) then meant "companionship"
"concluded" (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22) then meant "shut up"
"conscience" (1 Cor. 8:7; Heb. 10:2) then meant "consciousness"
"convenient" (Rom. 1:28; Eph. 5:4; Phlm. 8) then meant "fitting" or "proper"
"conversation" (2 Cor. 1:12; Gal. 1:13; Eph. 2:3; etc.) then meant "manner of life" or "conduct"
"corn" (Matt. 12:1; Mark 2:23; 4:28; etc.) then meant "grain"
"countries" (Luke 21:21) then meant "country"
"country, a" (John 11:54) then meant "the country"
"damnation" (Matt. 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; etc.) then meant "condemnation" or "judgment" (1 Cor. 11:29)
"damned" (Mark 16:16; Rom. 14:23; 2 Thes. 2:12) then meant "condemned" or "judged"
"delicately" (Luke 7:25) then meant "luxuriously"
"deliciously" (Rev. 18:7, 9) then meant "wantonly"
"doubtful" (Luke 12:29) then meant "anxious"
"draught" (Matt. 15:17; Mark 7:19) then meant "drain"
"earnestly" (Luke 22:56; Acts 23:1) then meant "carefully" or "steadfastly" or "intently"
"ensue" (1 Pet. 3:11) then meant "pursue"
"entreat(ed)" (Matt. 22:6; Luke 18:32; 20:11; etc.) then meant "treat(ed)"
"estate" (Acts 22:5) then meant "council"
"estates" (Mark 6:21) then meant "men of nobility or rank"
"ever, or" (Acts 23:15) then meant "before"
"evidently" (Acts 10:3) then meant "clearly" or "openly" (Gal. 3:1)
"fame" (Matt. 4:24; 9:26, 31; 14:1; Mark 1:28; etc.) then meant "report" or
"feeble-minded" (1 Thes. 5:14) then meant "fainthearted"
"forward" (2 Cor. 8:10, 17; Gal. 2:10) then meant "ready" or "eager"
"frankly" (Luke 7:42) then meant "freely"
"furnished" (Matt. 22:10) then meant "filled"
"go beyond" (1 Thes. 4:6) then meant "transgress"
"good" (1 Jn. 3:17) then meant "goods"
"goodman" (Matt. 20:11; 24:43; Mark 14:14; etc.) then meant "master"
"governor" (James 3:4) then meant "pilot"
"grudge" (James 5:9; 1 Pet. 4:9) then meant "grumble"
"guilty" (Matt. 23:18) then meant "bound"
"hardly" (Matt. 19:23) then meant "with difficulty"
"instant" (Luke 23:23) then meant "insistent," or "constant" (Rom. 12:12), or "urgent" (2 Tim. 4:2)
"keep under" (1 Cor. 9:27) then meant "buffet"
"lade" (Luke 11:46) then meant "load"
"large" (Matt. 28:12) then meant "much"
"lewd" (Acts 17:5) then meant "wicked"
"lewdness" (Acts 18:14) then meant "villainy"
"listed" (Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:13) then meant "wished"
"listeth" (John 3:8; James 3:4) then meant "wishes"
"lively" (Acts 7:38; 1 Pet. 1:3; 2:5) then meant "living"
"loft" (Acts 20:9) then meant "story"
"marred" (Mark 2:22) then meant "destroyed"
"meat" (Matt. 3:4; 6:25; 10:10; 15:37; 24:45; etc.) then meant "food"
"minister" (Luke 4:20) then meant "attendant"
"minstrels" (Matt. 9:23) then meant "flute players"
"motions" (Rom. 7:5) then meant "passions"
"observed him" (Mark 6:20) then meant "kept him safe"
"occupy" (Luke 19:13) then meant "trade"
"other" (John 21:2; Acts 15:2; 2 Cor. 13:2; Phil. 2:3) then meant "others"
"other some" (Acts 17:18) then meant "some others"
"overcharge(d)" (Luke 21:34; 2 Cor. 2:5) then meant "over burden(ed)"
"particularly" (Acts 21:19; Heb. 9:5) then meant "in detail"
"pitiful" (1 Pet. 3:8) then meant "merciful"
"presently" (Matt. 21:19; 26:53; Phil. 2:23) then meant "immediately"
"pressed out of" (2 Cor. 1:8) then meant "oppressed beyond"
"prevent" (1 Thes. 4:15) then meant "precede"
"prevented" (Matt. 17:25) then meant "spoke first to"
"profited" (Gal. 1:14) then meant "advanced"
"profiting" (1 Tim. 4:15) then meant "progress"
"proper" (Acts 1:19; 1 Cor. 7:7) then meant "own" or "beautiful" (Heb. 11:23)
"quick" (Heb. 4:12) then meant "living"
"quit you" (1 Cor. 16:13) then meant "conduct yourselves"
"reason" (Acts 6:2) then meant "reasonable"
"record" (John 1:19; Acts 20:26; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8) then meant "witness"
"respect, had" (Heb. 11:26) then meant "looked"
"room" (Matt. 2:22; Luke 14:7, 8, 9, 10; Acts 24:27; 1 Cor. 14:16) then meant "place"
"sardine" (Rev. 4:3) then meant "sardius"
"scrip" (Matt. 10:10; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3; 10:4; etc.) then meant "bag"
"secondarily" (1 Cor. 12:28) then meant "secondly"
"sentence" (Acts 15:19) then meant "judgment"
"several" (Matt. 25:15) then meant "particular"
"shamefacedness" (1 Tim. 2:9) then meant "modesty" or "propriety"
"shape" (John 5:37) then meant "form"
"should" (Acts 23:27) then meant "would"
"sincere" (1 Pet. 2:2) then meant "pure"
"strange" (Acts 26:11) then meant "foreign"
"strangers of" (Acts 2:10) then meant "visitors from"
"string" (Mark 7:35) then meant "band"
"study" (1 Thes. 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:15) then meant "strive"
"tables" (Luke 1:63; 2 Cor. 3:3) then meant "tablets"
"take no thought" (Matt. 6:25, 28, 31, 34; 10:19; Luke 12:11, 22, 26) then meant "be not anxious"
"taking thought" (Matt. 6:27; Luke 12:25) then meant "being anxious"
"temperance" (Acts 24:25; Gal. 5:23; 2 Pet. 1:6) then meant "self-control"
"temperate" (1 Cor. 9:25; Tit. 1:8) then meant "self- controlled"
"translated" (Col. 1:13; Heb. 11:5) then meant "transferred"

Jack Koons said:

As both a former pastor of many years, a teacher of biblical studies for many years, together with much research (again, for many years), I have come to the realization that there is a huge difference between "diligence", and "study". I have had many people serve with me over the years that were very diligent. This diligence however, did not aid them in "rightly dividing the word of truth". I also have had many that would do a reasonable amount of study. This helped them somewhat. It is only when one takes the root meaning of &#963;&#960;&#959;&#965;&#948;&#940;&#950;&#969; (diligence), along with its secondary meaning (study), that one is able to rightly divide the word of truth. The problem here is that diligent is but an adverb, while study is the verb that shows where we are to be diligent, in order to rightly divide the word of truth.

Click to expand...

These anecdotes do not change the fact the meaning of the word ‘study’ was very different in 1611 from how the word is used today—and therefore, it is now a WRONG translation. Having been a pastor and teacher for many years is no indication of knowledge or expertise. I have met pastors with more than 40 years of experience who lacked both a university and a seminary education and who knew less about linguistics than some of the kids in my middle school Sunday school class.

Jack Koons said:

Nowhere did I claim this was a "Roman Catholic" conspiracy. I HAVE repeatedly stated (elsewhere) that modern textual criticism is the offspring (if you would), of German Rationalism/Philosophy.

Click to expand...

Modern textual criticism is NOT the offspring of German Rationalism/Philosophy. Indeed, textual criticism preceded German Rationalism by many decades, and modern textual criticism is simply textual criticism taking place in the modern era.