The KJVO myth...

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, God does not want you to lie in a book all day and have a "superior" readings of old prophets that prophecised about events in Israel that are in no connection to you personally.

He wants you to help your neighbour, to take care of your family, to live in truth, to be just and merciful...

As somebody here in this thread said - the Christianity 101.

That’s actually my point I originally brought up at the beginning. If a person is on the hunt to find the Word of God in what He is trying to actually say (by digging in the original languages all the time)…. They can spend their whole lives in the Word and never get out to living the Word of God in practice. Having a perfect Word of God shortens the time span of studying whereby one can actually go out and live what God’s Word is telling us to do.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Let me give you an example of the problems behind relying on the Original Languages. A Calvinist or somebody who wants Calvinism to be true can change verses like 2 Thessalonians 2:10 to say whatever they want it to say to defend Calvinism (by pointing to the original languages) instead of just reading it and believing it in the English within the King James Bible. For if they believe that verse at face value, they cannot honestly believe that verse in the plain English without it demolishing their stronghold.

 

[Fervent]

Why does the genealogy of Christ start with Adam in Luke but it starts with Abraham in Matthew? Keep in mind that those genealogies DON'T MATCH whatsoever. If you can understand why they differ then you should be able to understand what I've been trying to tell you.

The text itself doesn't tell why they differ, but to me it seems it's primarily because they are concerned with two different aspects of Jesus' genealogy. Matthew is interested in Jesus the Jewish Messiah, and so his genealogy focuses on Jesus' legal claim to David's throne through his legal descent(so it gives the genealogy of Joseph through Solomon, and is not Jesus' physical heritage but the legal status within the Jewish state). Luke, on the other hand, is interested in Jesus the savior of all mankind and so he is concerned with his physical descent rather than his claim on the throne so he likely gives the bloodline of Mary who connects to David through Nathan. Of course, since Scripture itself does not fill in this gap entirely it is best left open rather than insisting that whatever hypothesis is proposed is the actual case.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The text itself doesn't tell why they differ, but to me it seems it's primarily because they are concerned with two different aspects of Jesus' genealogy. Matthew is interested in Jesus the Jewish Messiah, and so his genealogy focuses on Jesus' legal claim to David's throne through his legal descent(so it gives the genealogy of Joseph through Solomon, and is not Jesus' physical heritage but the legal status within the Jewish state). Luke, on the other hand, is interested in Jesus the savior of all mankind and so he is concerned with his physical descent rather than his claim on the throne so he likely gives the bloodline of Mary who connects to David through Nathan. Of course, since Scripture itself does not fill in this gap entirely it is best left open rather than insisting that whatever hypothesis is proposed is the actual case.

I believe it as you said, but I don’t think it is a hypothesis. It’s seems pretty clear based on the whole counsel of God’s Word, my friend. But we each have our own experiences and approaches to God’s Word that is different (of course).

 

[Bob_1000]

The text itself doesn't tell why they differ, but to me it seems it's primarily because they are concerned with two different aspects of Jesus' genealogy. Matthew is interested in Jesus the Jewish Messiah, and so his genealogy focuses on Jesus' legal claim to David's throne through his legal descent(so it gives the genealogy of Joseph through Solomon, and is not Jesus' physical heritage but the legal status within the Jewish state). Luke, on the other hand, is interested in Jesus the savior of all mankind and so he is concerned with his physical descent rather than his claim on the throne so he likely gives the bloodline of Mary who connects to David through Nathan. Of course, since Scripture itself does not fill in this gap entirely it is best left open rather than insisting that whatever hypothesis is proposed is the actual case.

Matthew traces the earthly lineage of Jesus back to the first earthly father Adam and Luke traces the spiritual lineage of Jesus back to the first spiritual father Abraham.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If anyone is interested, here is a really great episode by Dr. Sam Gipp on YouTube in defense of the King James Bible.

Here is a link on YouTube to all seven episodes + a bonus video.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdD7_B3zweu0qi_gUHA9W_0JxSM_jT0zj

Side Note:

Each episode is done kind of like a little mini movie. It is well produced.

 

[JSRG]

Let me give you an example of the problems behind relying on the Original Languages. A Calvinist or somebody who wants Calvinism to be true can change verses like 2 Thessalonians 2:10 to say whatever they want it to say to defend Calvinism (by pointing to the original languages) instead of just reading it and believing it in the English within the King James Bible. For if they believe that verse at face value, they cannot honestly believe that verse in the plain English without it demolishing their stronghold.

The fact there are Calvinist KJVOs would seem to disprove your assertion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The fact there are Calvinist KJVOs would seem to disprove your assertion.

Not at all. They would simply be KJVO Calvinists who are either ignoring verses in the Bible that refutes Calvinism, or they have came up with untenable odd ball explanation on verses that refutes Calvinism. But a person can call them out a lot more easily based on what the Bible plainly says in the English. I am saying that it is more likely that a person can easily hide behind the Original languages and sound like they know what they are talking about because they sound all scholarly. There is no reason for a person to not believe them because they claim to know the Original languages. There is no way a follower of an Original language teacher to disprove them because nobody truly knows these dead languages on the same level as an apostle Paul.

 

[Der Alte]

My problem with the KJVO premise is that there are about 800 words which have changed meaning or dropped out of use all together. I have served in Korean churches since '81 for people whose native language is not English the KJV is virtually unintelligible.

 

[trophy33]

I am aware of Nestle’ and Aland.
They used Westcott and Hort’s Greek NT text as the basis of their NT Greek text.
Could I be wrong on that? Sure.
For the truth is…. History is written by the victors. I am sure there are tons of religions who can claim their religion to be the true one by their pointing to history. It does not make them right or correct. So the only thing we can trust is the Holy Bible (or God’s Word) because we can actually prove that is divine in many ways in the here and now.

There is no other generally accepted authority on the New Testament manuscripts than the Institute that is behind the NA.
If you do not want to study it yourself, then this is the authority to go with.

 

[trophy33]

That’s actually my point I originally brought up at the beginning. If a person is on the hunt to find the Word of God in what He is trying to actually say (by digging in the original languages all the time)…. They can spend their whole lives in the Word and never get out to living the Word of God in practice.

There is no other generally accepted authority on the New Testament manuscripts than the Institute that is behind the NA.
If you do not want to study it yourself, then this is the authority to go with.

Having a perfect Word of God shortens the time span of studying whereby one can actually go out and live what God’s Word is telling us to do.

Its like saying that finding a perfect spouse shortens the time span of choosing which of the imperfect people you should live with.

Sure, hypotethically. But the real life is more complicated. Consider that its better not to be sure than to be sure and mistaken.

 

[robycop3]

Who's the authority on the booboos... who's the gatekeeper on which words are good and which messed up? The reader?

Translators other than the ones who made the version in question.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There is no other generally accepted authority on the New Testament manuscripts than the Institute that is behind the NA.
If you do not want to study it yourself, then this is the authority to go with.

Its like saying that finding a perfect spouse shortens the time span of choosing which of the imperfect people you should live with.

Sure, hypotethically. But the real life is more complicated. Consider that its better not to be sure than to be sure and mistaken.

Well, this is not my first rodeo. I have spoken on this topic for about 10 years on various Christian forums. In that time, Christians who are against a preserved Word of God for today have thrown insults, and attacks, and made very weak arguments to prove their case. I have not in that time ever even considered their position as one that was even remotely biblical or as showing the love of Christ. Now, does that mean there are no loving Christians in the OAO (Original Autograph Only) camp? No. It just means that my general experience in discussing this issue is them discounting the tons of evidence I believe supports the King James Bible as being the pure Word with them giving me nothing to offer in return. Their appeal is scholarship and older manuscripts are better. But Jesus said beware of the scribes (Which is the scholar today). Also, older manuscripts does not prove it is better in quality. We can find heathen religious documents that are old, but that does not mean they are correct because they are old. Truth is not determined by age or time. Doing a fruits test in the here and now is the way to test of something is true or not.

When we piece together a superior doctrine and a more pure and moral text, we can see which Bible stands above the rest. Does that mean I don’t use Modern Translations? No. I use them all the time. But my final Word of authority is the King James Bible because it is the pure Word of God (or the Word that is the most purest today).

Anyways, I can see that the lines have been drawn. You have chosen your side, and I have chosen mine. What I will say will not convince you.

So I think it is best we agree to disagree and move on in love.

May the Lord’s good ways shine upon you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

My problem with the KJVO premise is that there are about 800 words which have changed meaning or dropped out of use all together. I have served in Korean churches since '81 for people whose native language is not English the KJV is virtually unintelligible.

I am not of the standard KJV-Only position that we are not allowed to read Modern Translations. I fully understand that the KJV is very difficult to read at times and that it uses archaic English (that we have to study to update in our personal notes on God’s Word). This is why I encourage Christians to read Modern Translations but they should make the King James Bible their final Word of authority. I also discount the small possibility (1% chance) that I could be wrong that the KJV may not be the pure Word of God. But it is the most pure version of God’s Word we have today (if such were the case). But it is not up to me to say there is a mistake in God’s Word. I have to treat the Word of God as divine and perfect. I don’t have that kind of authority to make the kind of decision to say what is true or not. It’s God’s Word. But in Modern Translations, the mistakes by comparison to the KJV are obvious to see.

Anyways, what people are against is not the KJV, but they are against the idea of “Divine Preservation of God’s Word.” I believe many simply do not want to be under the authority of a perfect Word of God.

I mean, in the Modern Translation camp, or OAO (Original Autograph Only) position, I cannot defend the Trinity using the Bible. But if I have a King James Bible, I can defend the Trinity because it has the one and only verse (1 John 5:7 KJV) in the Bible for me to tell people about it. I know. I know. I heard the sad excuse story of people denying this verse hundred times over. You don’t need to tell it again. It’s just scholarly faith and not the faith in God’s Word. I trust 1 John 5:7 KJV, and I am able to use it against those who deny the Trinity with authority (Which you cannot do).

 

[Bob_1000]

I am not of the standard KJV-Only position that we are not allowed to read Modern Translations. I fully understand that the KJV is very difficult to read at times and that it uses archaic English (that we have to study to update in our personal notes on God’s Word). This is why I encourage Christians to read Modern Translations but they should make the King James Bible their final Word of authority. I also discount the small possibility (1% chance) that I could be wrong that the KJV may not be the pure Word of God. But it is the most pure version of God’s Word we have today (if such were the case). But it is not up to me to say there is a mistake in God’s Word. I have to treat the Word of God as divine and perfect. I don’t have that kind of authority to make the kind of decision to say what is true or not. It’s God’s Word. But in Modern Translations, the mistakes by comparison to the KJV are obvious to see.

Anyways, what people are against is not the KJV, but they are against the idea of “Divine Preservation of God’s Word.” I believe many simply do not want to be under the authority of a perfect Word of God.

I mean, in the Modern Translation camp, or OAO (Original Autograph Only) position, I cannot defend the Trinity using the Bible. But if I have a King James Bible, I can defend the Trinity because it has the one and only verse (1 John 5:7 KJV) in the Bible for me to tell people about it. I know. I know. I heard the sad excuse story of people denying this verse hundred times over. You don’t need to tell it again. It’s just scholarly faith and not the faith in God’s Word. I trust 1 John 5:7 KJV, and I am able to use it against those who deny the Trinity with authority (Which you cannot do).

Reading newer translations along with the KJV is like adding a little leaven to your beliefs.


Gal 5:9 (KJV) A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

 

[Isilwen]

I am so very happy that I know I have God's Word in my NRSV or the NKJV as it was God who lead me to these versions. First the NKJV years ago and now the NRSV within the past year. He did not lead me to the KJV.

Maybe he knows that I am unable to read the KJV or maybe this whole KJV is the pure words of God only is just a bunch of malarkey. Who knows other than God?!?!

I'll stick with the version I am lead to when I pray, I know that is what God wants me to read.

 

[Bob_1000]

I am so very happy that I know I have God's Word in my NRSV or the NKJV as it was God who lead me to these versions. First the NKJV years ago and now the NRSV within the past year. He did not lead me to the KJV.

Maybe he knows that I am unable to read the KJV or maybe this whole KJV is the pure words of God only is just a bunch of malarkey. Who knows other than God?!?!

I'll stick with the version I am lead to when I pray, I know that is what God wants me to read.

Do you really think God lead you to a bible that says Jesus had an origin?


New Revised Standard Version

The Ruler from Bethlehem
2 But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah,
who are one of the little clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to rule in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.

 

[trophy33]

Do you really think God lead you to a bible that says Jesus had an origin?


New Revised Standard Version

The Ruler from Bethlehem
2 But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah,
who are one of the little clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to rule in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.

Do you really think that his whole Bible is composed of these two verses? I bet there are many more, full of wisdom and of good modern English.

 

[Bob_1000]

Do you really think that his whole Bible is composed of these two verses? I bet there are many more, full of wisdom and of good modern English.

That’s just one easy to see example. These false bibles have thousands of problems.

 

[Isilwen]

Do you really think God lead you to a bible that says Jesus had an origin?


New Revised Standard Version

The Ruler from Bethlehem
2 But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah,
who are one of the little clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to rule in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.

I do. God lead me to that Bible and there is no mistake about that on my part. As I said to you yesterday, I am unable to read the KJV.

Are you saying at shouldn't read a Bible at all if I cannot read the KJV?