KJV-onlyism?

[farouk]

[MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION]:

The King James is a translation, and there is likely always to be some sort of translation inaccuracy in a translation as long as the Bible edition. This need not detract from the inerrant Word, for which the original language texts are the basic reference point.

Blessings.

 

[evenifigoalone]

@questdriven :

The King James is a translation, and there is likely always to be some sort of translation inaccuracy in a translation as long as the Bible edition. This need not detract from the inerrant Word, for which the original language texts are the basic reference point.

Blessings.

True.
If you want to be as accurate as possible, your best bet is to learn Greek and study the NT in that language. Even then, we no longer have the originals, just copies of copies of copies of copies of copies....of the originals. So there's still room for some human error in the copies themselves. But I trust that God preserved His word enough so that we learn from it what He wants us to, and that what He has us to learn from it is inerrant.
I trust that He can use an English translation to do the same.

 

[Sparkey]

In the past I've wondered why the Lord has allowed the original writings of the Apostles to have been lost. Is it possible that this is allowed because the Lord wants us to depend on His Spirit to understand Him? Without the original source documents our tendency to split hairs over the slightest things and to strain the gnat, so-to-speak, seems futile, doesn't it? Is it possible that the Lord allows such things and also keeps His word, that He will work in all things for the good of them who love Him? It must be so, has He not said this very thing?

 

[Obadiah]

I think too that if we did have the originals, handwritten by people like the apostles themselves, they would be locked away in some big church safe so no one could see or get near them, probably not even to translate them. People would worship and venerate the manuscripts instead of worshiping God. Some already do this with some of the translations we do have today!

 

[reba]

 

[farouk]

I think too that if we did have the originals, handwritten by people like the apostles themselves, they would be locked away in some big church safe so no one could see or get near them, probably not even to translate them. People would worship and venerate the manuscripts instead of worshiping God. Some already do this with some of the translations we do have today!

At best, someone would want to put them in a museum and then charge an entry fee...

(Whereas the text is dispersed among the whole of the manuscript evidence.)

 

[jasoncran]

I would NOT use either a scholfield commentary or a dakes! both are well off. the later is the worst of the two as he denies the trinity and believes in five reserrections and was defrocked by my denomation and also was a racist.

@jasoncran :

Actually I like Scofield; a lot of sound, Bible believing Christians use his notes (I never used Dakes; no particular link with Scofield, I don't think).

Blessings.

if it wouldn't derail this thread I would compare his comments on the tanach to the man adam Clarke and both to the jews. I take the jewish views often as Clarke has quoted them and used them in his commentaries and I see it! scholfield has very little on a lot of books.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Hey, @jasoncran
Do you happen to know anything about the old testament manuscripts? My research on the manuscripts has mostly involved the new testament ones.

One thing does confuse me--the modern translations use different NT manuscripts. Do they use different OT manuscripts, too? Just wondering, because any KJVO criticism I've seen of the modern translations compares verses from the OT.

 

[jasoncran]

I use kjv. it uses the Masoretic text and I have compared it my grandparents tanach which is also in Victorian English and its not that different.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Masoretic.html

 

[farouk]

Hey, [MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]
Do you happen to know anything about the old testament manuscripts? My research on the manuscripts has mostly involved the new testament ones.

One thing does confuse me--the modern translations use different NT manuscripts. Do they use different OT manuscripts, too? Just wondering, because any KJVO critcism I've seen of the modern translations compares verses from the OT, too.

May I just make some comments? I'm sure [MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION] will have helpful things to say also.

The basic Hebrew Text has little variation. The complexity of Old Testament textual studies partly revolves around the nature of Semitic languages; with the vowel pointing not being a formal part of the oiginal text, but having beed added centuries after Christ by the Masoretes: this has helped to distinguish word meanings, where otherwise obscure combinations of Hebrew letters might otherwise have been lost.

There is also the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, which clearly the New Testament writers quote from at times.

Old Testament Hebrew studies can be quite complex, with the result that people of a KJVO mindset often find it easier to avoid talking about.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

I am NOT a fan of the lxx. yick, theres a good reason why I don't and oddly no bible version of the protestants even use it! the man luke did use it and that is only where its found, the rcc uses it. but the tanach is from the Masoretic text and aslo all other versions of the good translation use it.

 

[farouk]

I am NOT a fan of the lxx. yick, theres a good reason why I don't and oddly no bible version of the protestants even use it! the man luke did use it and that is only where its found, the rcc uses it. but the tanach is from the Masoretic text and aslo all other versions of the good translation use it.

Clearly the Spirit of God used New Testament writers to quote from it; so I find it hard to dismiss it.

 

[jasoncran]

the reason the jews and I myself don't like its like this. I want to know something of the depths of the tanach. so do I go to the niv? or do I go to more literal rendering? jews admit they didn't translate Hebrew to greek literally they could have but they DIDNT. that says a lot. why? because for example.

YHVH is translated to the word kyrios. that is where we get Lord from but any Jew knows that is there for a good reason. the THIRD commandment! so they use Hashem which means Lord too or Elohim. that simply doesn't get the though and nature of god across. names in the bible have meanings ! God names means something and the only you could ever know this is that you had then to ask a jew what that name meant. he would say well its this(mercy and grace) the first being you see when take your first breathe and the last being you see when you take your last breathe. god is also breathe! a simple here is your bible and read it in greek would have never saw that!

next hades, hades is not fully like sheol. I suggest you study the greek myth on that and then read my sheol thread on that and you will see why.

 

[jasoncran]

for the record I never said it was so bad that it cant be used just that I don't like it. sheesh. if I was a Hebrew speaking jew I think you would damn me for reading both brit chadosh and the Masoretic text in my tounge.

btw they do have them its called the Jerusalem bible. I cant read it but its there. weird translation to English with a mix of Hebrew in it.

 

[Free]

it looks like they essentially say the same thing.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ~ KJV

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ~ NIV

These don't say the same thing. God had more then one son. Jesus was his only begotten Son but not his only Son.

Please explain what you mean by "God had more than one son." The NIV and KJV do say the same thing: "Begotten," the Greek word monogenes, can mean "one and only" or "unique."

Isaiah 14: 12

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! ~ KJV

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! ~ NIV

The key difference here is "Lucifer" and "Morning Star". Whats wrong with that?

Rev 22: 16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.†~ NIV.

These are just a couple of contradictions.

Where is there a contradiction? Is this also a contradiction:

Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. (KJV)

1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: (KJV)

Sorry but your argument has no grounds, just like the majority of KJVO arguments.

Also The newer perversions take out the name Jesus over 50 times and God over 500 times. Don't know about you guys, but this bothers me.

I agree with the other user that you need to stop using "perversions." It is a typical KJVO fallacious argument that really should be avoided. They are versions, just as the KJV is a version. As for allegedly removing "Jesus" and "God," you first have to prove that they are supposed to be there in the first place.

One more, That clearly waters down God.

Matthew 6: 13 -

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. ~ KJV

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. ~ NIV

Why such a drastic change?

What is the issue here? Simply because of the addition of "one"? If the "evil one" is essentially the source of all evil, then what is the problem? There is certainly no "watering down" here.

 

[farouk]

In the KJV, 'only begotten' means 'unique of a kind', which the NIV renders 'one and only', a similar idea.

 

[jasoncran]

one of kind, yea that would work but it takes the jewish view of the firstborn having inherentence out of it.

 

[josefnospam]

The KJV is a good translation that has stood the test of time. But the Bible cannot save you, although it speaks of him who can. If in an assembly, and there are many different translations being used this leads to confusion. If one book is used by all there is unity, so I endorse the KJV.

The purpose of many translation is to make the word of God more understandable. This men cannot do, only God can lead you to truth. In their attempt to make you see things there way they often change words or emit things and this should never be.

 

[josefnospam]

I don't know if my other reply posted due to tech problems.
The KJV has endured the test of time. But the Bible cannot save anyone although it speaks of the one who can. Men make new translations to try and make the bible easier to understand. They cannot do this as only God opens the eyes and allows you to see and hear.

In an assembly, if there are different translations there is confusion. If all are reading from the same book there is unity. The KJV is a good, proven
Bible and I believe is the one that should be used by all in an assembly. It has endured, and is the inspired word of God as recorded by men led by the spirit to pen the books. Use what you like but if you were to assemble together try to be sure all use the same translation for clarity sake. Ask the leader, Pastor or head of the assemblely you attend what they reccomend. If they don't care, they don't take the Gospil too serious and THAT is the power of God to save his people.

 

[reba]

You believe God does ALL the choosing why bother with a Bible at all... Real question not a snark...IF your chosen your chosen .