Anyone want to discuss KJVO ?

[Dansiph]

For the record. I'm not against the KJV; it's an excellent translation that's led a lot of people to Jesus.

What I AM against is the false doctrine that the KJV is the only valid English Bible translation out there. Even though some say it's not a doctrine, it IS a doctrine, as it's actually taught in some churches

Unfortunately, some think more of trying to spread the KJVO myth than they do of spreading the gospel of Jesus. Sorry, Sportzz Fanzz, the KJVO myth is phony as a Ford Corvette. It's entirely the PRODUCT OF MEN, without one quark of Scriptural support.

We don't point out the goofs & booboos in the KJV to discredit it; we do so to prove the KJV is NOT perfect, as many KJVOs claim.

A basic fact that makes the KJVO myth false is its total lack of Scriptural support, even in the KJV itself. NO doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture is true, and the KJVO myth has none. Christians should abandon that false doctrine ASAP !

I'm not agreeing with you and I doubt I ever would on the KJV but I think I can suggest a different approach? Instead of trying to bring the KJV down... Why not show the merits (in your opinion) of the modern versions. Show why you think they're good Bibles.

As for the KJVO viewpoint not being found in Scripture. I feel we're defending the Scripture itself. Some big questions for me are: Why would God leave us without an accurate Bible? Why would the text handed down be wrong? Why isn't an accurate translation possible?

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

I’m not “KJVO” which means I can say “the KJV is a valid translation” but I don’t say “the KJV is the only valid translation” but I know that people at my church teach this.

It’s actually a bit hard because just as an example, I found a daily bible podcast that is really nice to start the day hearing scripture but can’t actually share it with anyone out of the fear that it will turn into a complaint about how it doesn’t use the “right” version.

I also find it awkward when “thee” and “thou” are used in prayer but then “you” is used in conversation because my understanding is that “thee” is an intimate familiar term and “you” would have been a more formal respectful term so it really comes across more like “thee” has acquired a sense of tradition and religiosity rather than what I believe was intended to be a reflection of a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

I'm not agreeing with you and I doubt I ever would on the KJV but I think I can suggest a different approach? Instead of trying to bring the KJV down... Why not show the merits (in your opinion) of the modern versions. Show why you think they're good Bibles.

As for the KJVO viewpoint not being found in Scripture. I feel we're defending the Scripture itself. Some big questions for me are: Why would God leave us without an accurate Bible? Why would the text handed down be wrong? Why isn't an accurate translation possible?

I’ve actually heard it said that the known copies of the Hebrew Tanakh have fewer anomalies in reproduction than can be found in human DNA, and I believe the point being made was that if people criticise the Tanakh as “not being from God” because scribes misread a vowel or changed the Tetragrammaton to Adonai in a place out of habit, then they might as well say that genetic anomalies are “proof” that God didn’t make man which obviously doesn’t make sense at all.

It might be a matter of trusting God to guide you more than the priests or scribes, that he is stronger than even their mistakes.

 

[Radagast]

but then “you” is used in conversation

"You" is actually the plural. It meant what "y'all" means now.

But people began to use it in the singular to be polite, and the true singular (thee and thou) faded from view.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

"You" is actually the plural. It meant what "y'all" means now.

But people began to use it in the singular to be polite, and the true singular (thee and thou) faded from view.

That is true but it seems that when the KJV was translated it was considered a formal singular.

From the 1611 dedication:

“[...]that which hath so bound and firmely knit the hearts of all your MAJESTIES loyall and Religious people unto you, that your very Name is precious among them, their eye doeth behold you with comfort, and they blesse you in their hearts, as that sanctified person, who under GOD, is the immediate authour of their true happinesse.”

 

[Radagast]

That is true but it seems that when the KJV was translated it was considered a formal singular.

The plural was used as a formal singular, yes.

In fact, I've heard people use "y'all" as a formal singular in the same way.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

So the reason it’s jarring is because at the time, people would have said “thee” to their closest most intimate family members (Quakers, Puritans, I believe Amish still do this for their Christian brothers and sisters but I’m not certain about that) which is at least internally consistent, but switching to “you” for the ecclesia is not.

 

[John Helpher]

many people don't commit adultery or other sexual sins for money.

Look again at the interpretation I offered for Paul's assessment regarding the love of money being the root of all evil; greed is the root of all evil and it can take many shapes. Money is the most easy, most commonly recognizable shape that greed takes in practical, day-to-day life.

Think about Jesus trying to explain the vastness of God's creation; he tells them that there are many mansions in his father's house. If he had tried to tell them about solar systems, galaxies, the universe and who knows what other dimensions God has access to, it would have only detracted from the message; he phrased the concept in terms they could understand. God is huge; way bigger than what you can imagine, like mansions within mansions.

Paul is doing the same in 1 Timothy 6:10; the pursuit of money (i.e. the love of it) is an incarnation, a physical manifestation of greed in practice, though even with such a bold assessment it's still so easy to assume that it is only the wealthy people, and then non-Christian wealthy people, and even then only those wealthy people who build literal pools of diamonds, gold coins, and cash in which to swim who are truly the lovers of money.

Many Christians are quick to point out that it is the love of money which is evil, and not the money itself. This is because they themselves are usually busy chasing after money. They don't love it, no. They just spend the majority of their time and effort to get more of it. God can have one day out of seven to demonstrate our love is really for him...

ISIS doesn't commit its evils for money.

How do you know this? What do you think their motives are for what they do? If you're suggesting their motives cannot be traced back to greed/profit in some manner, then perhaps you're saying their motive may be quite noble?

Actually, "a" root is correct in 1 Tim. 6:10 & here's why. In Greek, there's an article for the specific "the", while there's none for the non-specific "a". Had Paul meant "the" root, he woulda used that article in his writing.

This is one of the problems with legalistic interpretation. I don't know the Greek in order to correct you on this (though I suspect you're seeing it the way you want to, as can be the case with any issue of interpretation), but neither do I need to, because I'm interpreting the passage sincerely. I don't need to know the Greek to know that Paul wasn't a foolish person. There's no sense in referring to "a" root of a tree. You'd just say the root; or the roots when referring to the way that they branch out (though you'd still be referring to a singular, over-all root system). But Paul was clearly not delving into the biology of how plants grow; he was making a point about a central, singular cause behind a problem which branches out up from the root in a myriad of directions. The root of the tree is what gives life, or purpose to the branches.

Remember when Jesus referred to himself as the vine? Do you think he meant that he is only one of many vines? Even IF some translator waaaay back inaccurately used this Greek article which implies more than one vine, no sincere person interpreting this passage would conclude that Jesus meant that he's just one of many, (though certainly a person with a vested interest in diminishing Jesus' role as savior would have a strong motivation for using the same argument you've used when diminishing the role of money as a motivating factor in how we humans perform evil).

The spirit of how you've interpreted Paul's assessment of the love of money being a root of all kinds of evil would rightly then translate Jesus' reference to himself as the vine as something like, "I am a vine among all kinds of vines".

Think about it; if the love of money really is the root of all evil, then it makes sense that those who love money will do everything they can to discredit or at least diminish the import of this passage.

 

[Radagast]

greed is the root of all evil

This is patently false.

It would be more accurate to say that there are 7 roots of evil: pride, envy, anger, acedia, greed, gluttony, and lust.

I don't know the Greek in order to correct you on this

Well, in that case you shouldn't take it upon yourself to "correct" the expert translators of the NKJV, CSB, ESV, NASB, and NIV. They know a lot more about it than you do.

 

[John Helpher]

Well, in that case you shouldn't take it upon yourself to "correct" the expert translators of the NKJV, CSB, ESV, NASB, and NIV. They know a lot more about it than you do.

How do you know robycop3 is an expert in Greek translation?

This is patently false.

Nah, The NIV is one translation out of many. You get this kind of thing in any story or situation; watch judge judy and you'll see people translating the same information in a variety of contrary ways. It's her job to discern which of the translations most accurately fits the spirit of what's being communicated.

That's the same job we all have. Someone translated "the root", which is clearly meant to communicate a singular idea, as something that could mean many different things. In spiritual, biblical parlance, we'd call that watering-down. If the love of money really is the root of all evil, it's makes sense that the money lovers would try any thing they can think of to take focus away from that singular concept. Translations make a pretty convenient way to do that.

It would be more accurate to say that there are 7 roots of evil: pride, envy, anger, acedia, greed, gluttony, and lust.

Neither Paul, nor I, are saying these other manifestations of evil don't exist or have their place. I mean, you may as well advocate for just leaving Paul's comments about the love of money being the root of all evil out of the Bible all together, or maybe something a little less extreme, where you translate it as, "these 7 things are the root of all evils". I mean, if that's what Paul meant to say, I'm pretty sure he would have said that; from what I can see he was a pretty intelligent guy, yet here you are 2000 years later suggesting that he didn't really mean what he said.

The root of all evil, indeed...

 

[Radagast]

How do you know robycop3 is an expert in Greek translation?

Whatever @robycop3 knows, I myself read Greek.

Nah, The NIV is one translation out of many.

But on this point, the NKJV, CSB, ESV, NASB, and NIV all agree.

In spiritual, biblical parlance, we'd call that watering-down. If the love of money really is the root of all evil, it's makes sense that the money lovers would try any thing they can think of to take focus away from that singular concept.

Throwing that accusation at the translators of the NKJV, CSB, ESV, NASB, and NIV is beneath contempt.

 

[John Helpher]

Whatever @robycop3 knows, I myself read Greek.

I disagreed with his interpretation of the greek, and you said I shouldn't contradict the experts. Now it sounds like you're saying you don't know if he is an expert, but hey, you yourself, "read the Greek". It sure does sound like you're implying you believe you are an expert, and that you back-up what robycop3 said about there being many roots of all evil, quite contrary to the spirit of what it means for there to be a root, as though trees don't have one root-system which feeds the branches, but rather many different kinds of roots. It makes no sense to interpret the verse that way. Regardless of how expert you think you are, the only interpretation that makes sense is that Paul was referring to a singular concept.

While an engine is comprised of many parts (much like a root system which branches out through the soil) you would never say, "The power which makes this car run is an engine of all kinds". You would just say, "the power which makes this car run is the engine". That's the context, (i.e. spirit) of Paul's comments here.

It's you money-lovers who pretend that you have some kind of special language- knowledge which overrides the common sense of the passage who are distorting the spirit of the passage, which makes sense in the context. If the love of money really is the root of all evil, it makes sense that the money-lovers will do anything they can to distort that message.

 

[Radagast]

It sure does sound like you're implying you believe you are an expert

I have sufficient expertise to realise that the translators of the NKJV, CSB, ESV, NASB, and NIV are right.

On the other hand, the opinion of someone ignorant of Greek has little value in this regard.

as though trees don't have one root-system

What makes you think that Paul was talking about trees? Are trees mentioned?

If the love of money really is the root of all evil, it makes sense that the money-lovers will do anything they can to distort that message.

Once again, throwing that accusation at the translators of the NKJV, CSB, ESV, NASB, and NIV is beneath contempt. It reveals a problem even worse than the love of money.

I see no point in further discussion.

 

[John Helpher]

What makes you think that Paul was talking about trees? Are trees mentioned?

Yeah, because it's weird to think that trees have roots. The point was never about trees; the point was the root of a problem. It's a metaphor; a root is the cause, or source of problems which branch out from that source. It would be pointless to attack the branches as they'll just grow back. If you want to deal with a problem, you go to the source, or the root of the problem. That is the lesson Paul communicates with his comments about the love of money being the root of all evil; greed is that root; money is the most common means by which that root feeds into the branches. The lesson really is quite simple.

But, for money lovers, look at the kinds of arguments you use; "who's talking about trees here"? Seriously; what spirit are you arguing from right now? I mean, just take a moment to slow down and think about what you're saying.

The love of money; how do you know when it's happening? How do you discern its existence in the real world? Spending 40 hours a week trying to get more of it because you believe you'll die a miserable death if you don't seems like a pretty good description of money-loving in action.

And here you are, a defender of money-loving legalistically spitting out a defense that somehow invalidates the argument on the basis that your expertise in Greek language leads you to conclude that the word "tree" was never mentioned, as though that somehow invalidates any use of the word root; a scribe caught in the act of using his scribliness as an argument against honest, sincere interpretation.

"...by saying so, thou also accuse us!"

 

[Strong in Him]

As for the KJVO viewpoint not being found in Scripture. I feel we're defending the Scripture itself. Some big questions for me are: Why would God leave us without an accurate Bible?

Doesn't it depend on the nature of the inaccuracy?
I mean, the NWT (JWs bible) is mistaken when it translates John 1:1 as "in the beginning was the Word ...... and the Word was A God". They are saying that Jesus was either a lesser god, or one of many. That has serious implications and diminishes the person of Christ.
But then, it was proved in a court of law that, far from being an accurate translation of the Greek, the founder knew no Greek at all - in other words, they lied.
The edition of the KJV that was printed in 1631, which became known as the wicked Bible because the printers missed out a vital word, so that the commandment read " thou shalt commit adultery", clearly could not have been allowed to remain in circulation.
That was an honest mistake on the part of the printers, which resulted in a fine, but it caused distress to the community.

Errors like that, which fundamentally change the Gospel, or message of the Bible, are serious, and I think that leaders of many denominations would brand those Bibles as inaccurate and not use them.
But, for me, writing "Easter" instead of Passover", or writing the wrong name, or making a mistake with numbers so that they write, eg 25,000 instead of 250,000, is not a problem. Such discrepancies do not change the Gospel or the revelation of the nature of God.

Why would the text handed down be wrong?

I don't think it's a matter of the text being handed down wrongly.
I think it's a matter of language, which is constantly changing. For example, I've noticed footnotes in a number of places in the Bible which say "the Greek/Hebrew meaning is unclear". Supposing a translator, in all good faith, translates such a word/phrase as best they can, and then several years later someone else translates it another way, maybe because another discovery has been made in the meantime?
And then there are Greek words which may need several English words to portray the meaning. The most famous of these is "love". There are 3, or 4, different words for "love" in Greek - someone could tell at a glance whether the writer meant "brotherly love", "sexual love" or "God's divine love". It's not so easy to understand this in English; we use the same word whether talking about our spouse, parents, a favourite song/hymn or a bar of chocolate. So Bible translators may need to use extra words to convey which kind of love is meant.
But this may lead to some purists (not you) claiming that extra words have been added and therefore the Bible has been changed.

Unlike the Mormons, we do not believe that our sacred text was dictated by an angel or written in heaven, handed down to men and nothing can be altered. The Bible was written by a number of human authors, all speaking different languages and having different levels of education (or none). Yet all these authors, writing at different times and in different places, consistently tell the same story or God, his creation, his interaction with people and his salvation.

Why isn't an accurate translation possible?

I would guess because language changes, and new manuscripts etc are discovered.

But, for me, the main issue is as mentioned above; that many people were involved in writing Scripture, they wrote in different times, places, styles and languages. Yet all tell the same story and Gospel. Prophecies given to some were fulfilled hundreds of years later; a character who may have done something relatively small, is later held up as an example of faith; a decision by one person to trust God led to a great victory, had far reaching consequences and is still seen as an example today. Scripture speaks of love, faith, marriage, divorce, disobedience, greed, pride, and is just as relevant in 2020 as it was in 300 AD, or earlier in the case of the OT.
I see these things in ALL translations of the Bible. The Good News Bible contains this message and Good News about God, just as much as the KJV does; the KJV is every bit the word of God as the NIV, NASB, Amplified, ESV and so on. And no, the KJV isn't my translation of choice, but I'd certainly read it if no others were available.

 

[Radagast]

Why isn't an accurate translation possible?

Accurate translations are possible (the ESV and CSB are accurate translations).

Perfect translations are impossible, because perfect translation between two different languages cannot be done. Every bilingual person knows this. Traduttore, traditore, as the Italians say.

That is why the original Greek and Hebrew must always be the touchstone, and why pastors should be able to read at least the Greek.

There is also the fact that target languages change. Even if the KJV was a perfect translation into the English language of 1611 (which it wasn't), that language is now nobody's mother tongue. Christians today need a translation into the language of today. If you are going to demand that Christians read a foreign language, let it be Greek.

 

[robycop3]

I'm not agreeing with you and I doubt I ever would on the KJV but I think I can suggest a different approach? Instead of trying to bring the KJV down... Why not show the merits (in your opinion) of the modern versions. Show why you think they're good Bibles.

As for the KJVO viewpoint not being found in Scripture. I feel we're defending the Scripture itself. Some big questions for me are: Why would God leave us without an accurate Bible? Why would the text handed down be wrong? Why isn't an accurate translation possible?

Easy enough.

1.) Modern versions are in the English we use every day.

2.) Modern translators have advanced tools such as these PCs & many more mss. to work with.

3.) MVs correct many of the goofs & booboos in older versions.

We "tear down" the KJV to disprove the KJVO assertion that the KJV is perfect.

 

[robycop3]

Look again at the interpretation I offered for Paul's assessment regarding the love of money being the root of all evil; greed is the root of all evil and it can take many shapes. Money is the most easy, most commonly recognizable shape that greed takes in practical, day-to-day life.

Think about Jesus trying to explain the vastness of God's creation; he tells them that there are many mansions in his father's house. If he had tried to tell them about solar systems, galaxies, the universe and who knows what other dimensions God has access to, it would have only detracted from the message; he phrased the concept in terms they could understand. God is huge; way bigger than what you can imagine, like mansions within mansions.

Paul is doing the same in 1 Timothy 6:10; the pursuit of money (i.e. the love of it) is an incarnation, a physical manifestation of greed in practice, though even with such a bold assessment it's still so easy to assume that it is only the wealthy people, and then non-Christian wealthy people, and even then only those wealthy people who build literal pools of diamonds, gold coins, and cash in which to swim who are truly the lovers of money.

Many Christians are quick to point out that it is the love of money which is evil, and not the money itself. This is because they themselves are usually busy chasing after money. They don't love it, no. They just spend the majority of their time and effort to get more of it. God can have one day out of seven to demonstrate our love is really for him...



How do you know this? What do you think their motives are for what they do? If you're suggesting their motives cannot be traced back to greed/profit in some manner, then perhaps you're saying their motive may be quite noble?



This is one of the problems with legalistic interpretation. I don't know the Greek in order to correct you on this (though I suspect you're seeing it the way you want to, as can be the case with any issue of interpretation), but neither do I need to, because I'm interpreting the passage sincerely. I don't need to know the Greek to know that Paul wasn't a foolish person. There's no sense in referring to "a" root of a tree. You'd just say the root; or the roots when referring to the way that they branch out (though you'd still be referring to a singular, over-all root system). But Paul was clearly not delving into the biology of how plants grow; he was making a point about a central, singular cause behind a problem which branches out up from the root in a myriad of directions. The root of the tree is what gives life, or purpose to the branches.

Remember when Jesus referred to himself as the vine? Do you think he meant that he is only one of many vines? Even IF some translator waaaay back inaccurately used this Greek article which implies more than one vine, no sincere person interpreting this passage would conclude that Jesus meant that he's just one of many, (though certainly a person with a vested interest in diminishing Jesus' role as savior would have a strong motivation for using the same argument you've used when diminishing the role of money as a motivating factor in how we humans perform evil).

The spirit of how you've interpreted Paul's assessment of the love of money being a root of all kinds of evil would rightly then translate Jesus' reference to himself as the vine as something like, "I am a vine among all kinds of vines".

Think about it; if the love of money really is the root of all evil, then it makes sense that those who love money will do everything they can to discredit or at least diminish the import of this passage.

I appreciate your effort to make a point, but remember, poor people commit sexual sin, same as rich people, with no money involved.

And ISIS was already well-funded with petrodollars. And I cannot see how blowing oneself up can be done for love of money !

As for the Greek of 1 Tim. 6:10, simply consult any Greek expert to see what I said is true or not.

And other members here have said the same thing I did - that there are many evils not done for money or love of money. Sexual sin is a prominent one.

I believe most modern Bible versions have correctly worded this verse by saying that love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil. While it's a big one, it's not the ONLY root.

 

[robycop3]

I disagreed with his interpretation of the greek, and you said I shouldn't contradict the experts. Now it sounds like you're saying you don't know if he is an expert, but hey, you yourself, "read the Greek". It sure does sound like you're implying you believe you are an expert, and that you back-up what robycop3 said about there being many roots of all evil, quite contrary to the spirit of what it means for there to be a root, as though trees don't have one root-system which feeds the branches, but rather many different kinds of roots. It makes no sense to interpret the verse that way. Regardless of how expert you think you are, the only interpretation that makes sense is that Paul was referring to a singular concept.

While an engine is comprised of many parts (much like a root system which branches out through the soil) you would never say, "The power which makes this car run is an engine of all kinds". You would just say, "the power which makes this car run is the engine". That's the context, (i.e. spirit) of Paul's comments here.

It's you money-lovers who pretend that you have some kind of special language- knowledge which overrides the common sense of the passage who are distorting the spirit of the passage, which makes sense in the context. If the love of money really is the root of all evil, it makes sense that the money-lovers will do anything they can to distort that message.

For the record, I'm no Greek expert at all. But I don't hafta be a formally-educated meteorologist to see when a storm's coming.

 

[Radagast]

love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil. While it's a big one, it's not the ONLY root.

The really big one is pride, of course.