farouk
Member
Free: ...so often it's chunks that people want to remove, though, as if the were superfluous....This is the real difference; not lost parts that have been recovered.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
Wearing the right shoes, and properly clothed spiritually?
Join Elected By Him for a devotional on Ephesians 6:14-15
https://christianforums.net/threads/devotional-selecting-the-proper-shoes.109094/
KJV-onlyism?
- Thread starter evenifigoalone
- Start date
Free: ...so often it's chunks that people want to remove, though, as if the were superfluous....This is the real difference; not lost parts that have been recovered.
netchaplain
Member
Hi QD and God's blessings to your Family! No translation is perfect but the word of God within it is perfect, which the Minority text omits much of the Greek in the NT. You're on the right track by keeping with the King James versions, esp. NKJV for easier comprehension and any translation produced from the Majority Text which are't many, because nearly all of the modern translations since the middle 1800's do use the Minority Text, which numerous advanced scholars from the preceding three hundred years have wrote books exposing it as a corrupted source.
The Minority Text is mostly comprised of the Codex Vaticanus (codex B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (codex Aleph) and are entire copies of the Bible. Dr. Hort, a modern-day scholar, contended that the Vaticanus was abandened on a shelf at the Vatican library and a past scholar named Tischendorf found the Sinaiticus in a wastepaper basket in the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai on Feb. 4th, 1859.
Both codexs are the oldest manuscript copies (3rd and 4th century) because the scholars claim that they were to inconsistent with the Majority Text for scribes and copiests to find any use for them and so were discarded and therefore did not wear out as most copies did, before recopying them.
This is why most of the modern translations have appeared around the middle of the 1800s.
This Minority source has been attributed to being produced by Gnostic scholars who mixed their philosophy with the Scriptures. "Beginning shortly after the death of the apostle John (around 100 AD) , four names stand out in prominence whose teachings contributed both to the victorious heresy and to the final issuing of manuscripts of a corrupt New Testament. These are (1) Justin Martyr, (2) Tatian, (3) Clement of Alexandria, and (4) Origen." - Which Bible, David Otis Fuller, D.D. page 191.
The quickest way to check for use of the Minority text is viewing 2 Samuel 21:19. It will contain the errant reading "Elhanan killed Goliath", which contradicts 1 Chronicles 20:5. It's suppose to read that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath.
V
Vanguard
Guest
Classical Hebrew does not have "the brother of" in that verse. The KJV scribes added those words to make it match 1 Chronicles 20:5 Also, Goliath is not a singular person. It is a name, just like John. I personally know seven different guys named John. It is the KJV that does not agree with the Hebrew. At least modern translations give you the footnotes to explain both references.
netchaplain
Member
Hi Vanguard and God's blessings to your Family! As you have indicated, there are no extant Hebrew manuscript copies that contain the phrase "the brother of" because the scribes and copyists mistakenly omitted it. The KJ translators indicate words and phrases in italics to inform the reader they are not in the manuscripts, but it must be added to make the translation read consistently throughout Scripture, which is the goal of a translation.
They did this for the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT. Every word in italics indicates its absence in the manuscript to inform others that they were not adding to the manuscript but to the translation. The footnotes are of little use when they do not correct the reading to avoid contradiction of other Scripture in its rendering.
Fuller points out in his book "Which Bible" that this issue caused quite a stir in one of our prominent publications in the winter of 1928 from an article entitled, "Who Killed Goliath?" and in the spring of 1929 an article named, "The Dispute About Goliath." Attention was called to the fact that in the American Revised Version II Samuel 21:19, we read that Elhanan Killed Goliath.
A special cablegram came from the "most learned and devout scholars " of the Church of England said, in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath; that there were many other things in the Bible which were the product of exaggeration, such as the story of Noah and the ark, of Jonah and the great fish, of the Garden of Eden and the longevity of Mathuselah.
Not to challenge your comment, but I'm not sure what you mean by "Goliath is not a singular name." All six references to the name Goliath in the Bible are attributed to a man who was from Philistine. Some have attempted to explain that Elhanan represented an alternative for David, but it was quickly refuted when it was pointed out that the two names were not the same due to the fact that they had different fathers. David's father was Jesse (Ruth 4:17, 22) and Elhanan's was Jaareoregim (2 Sam 21:19) or Jair for short (1 Chro 20:5).
The most significant issue with the Minority Text, which I believe will soon be more commonly addressed, is that of the omitions, transpositions and interpolations.
The details concerning the contradiction of Lahmi, the brother of Goliath (which are not italicized in 1 Chronicles 20:5) aren't doctrinally significant but the principle of their use is pertinent to the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, esp. concerning numerous omitions in the Greek of the NT.
K
King James
Guest
Authors of the New New Testament
http://orthodoxlutheran.org/pdf/Modernbibleversions.pdf
Westcott Hort. Spiritualists, not christians. Supporters of Darwin's work and
this woman Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. One of her works is in the link below.
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/luciferreprints.htm
http://orthodoxlutheran.org/pdf/Modernbibleversions.pdf
Westcott Hort. Spiritualists, not christians. Supporters of Darwin's work and
this woman Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. One of her works is in the link below.
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/luciferreprints.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
Nick
Member
In your link's conclusions, the pastor says to check the NIV to the KJV in a few passages. He says Revelation 1:11. I can see where he's coming from, but the meaning is still there. But I cannot see differences in Hebrews 2:16 and Colossians 2:9. Perhaps you'd care to explain?
I've got a parallel Bible going on all three passages: NIV-KJV-ESV-HCSB
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 1:11&version=NIV1984;KJV;ESV;HCSB
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews 2:16&version=NIV1984;KJV;ESV;HCSB
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col 2:9&version=NIV1984;KJV;ESV;HCSB
Nick
Member
Yes, it's a study area.
K
King James
Guest
I had to fix one of the links. I just had the same link twice.
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/luciferreprints.htm
As far as the differences in the verses you mentioned, my feeble mind cannot see a big difference. It looks like splitting hairs if you ask me.
That is a part of the erroneous reasoning used by KJVOists--it's a circular argument. They begin with the premise that the KJV is perfect and the only inspired version, etc. They then proceed to argue that other versions remove Scripture and are therefore not to be trusted. They conclude that because other versions remove Scripture, only the KJV is perfect and inspired and to be trusted.
In using such fallacious reasoning, KJVOists are not open to the reasonable suggestion that there very well could be portions of the KJV which were added in and were not a part of the original texts. So, indeed, some of the KJV could be not only superfluous but erroneous. To them it's always the other versions that are in error when it very well could be the KJV.
farouk
Member
farouk
Member
questdriven:
Well, you'll be able to remember a lot of what he said, won't you, and at least think about it and give it thorough consideration. In a sense you've been blessed that he lived long enough at least for you to be able to have serious and sensible conversations with him, including about this issue which can be contentious sometimes but need not be.
Blessings.
Trying to do some reading up on this and just ending up confused. I'll keep on reading, but I'm seeing that this is not a black and white issue. (Is anything? *sigh*)
Basically, in my view, if it was true that there would be only one correct translation in the future and it was vital you got the right one, then the Bible would have actually addressed this directly. I mean, as the Bible is one of the ways God speaks to us, it's pretty darn important, right?
I think that God knew what the future held, and He provided what people would need in the future. Maybe some things are debatable and maybe the translations themselves are not totally perfect. But God and His Word is. I'm sure He's provided us with what we need to hear from Him, KJV or not.
Basically, in my view, if it was true that there would be only one correct translation in the future and it was vital you got the right one, then the Bible would have actually addressed this directly. I mean, as the Bible is one of the ways God speaks to us, it's pretty darn important, right?
I think that God knew what the future held, and He provided what people would need in the future. Maybe some things are debatable and maybe the translations themselves are not totally perfect. But God and His Word is. I'm sure He's provided us with what we need to hear from Him, KJV or not.
Here is some further reading, in case you haven't come across this already:
http://vintage.aomin.org/kjvo.html
I've only read the "New Age Bible Versions Refuted" article but it is very good.
Obadiah
Member
Consider this, If God had actually said in his word that in our times He would give us one and only one perfect Bible for all of the world and it would be called the King James Bible (assuming that the various versions that use that name didn't exist, and there was actually one true and infallible translation that hasn't in itself had to go through numerous corrections and revisios), how would people react to that? They would venerate and worship the book as if it was god in itself. Didn't God say "You shall have no other gods before me"? Even though the translators of the KJV admitted themselves that the work they produced was not perfect, there are already people in the KJV cult (as opposed to people who just prefer the KJV over other translations) who worship and venerate the actual paper and ink book. I've had personal contact with more than one of them, and they have told me that the physical book they hold in their hands is literally god himself! (This is one of the qualifications of a cult, by the way.) If this kind of idol worship can occur now, can you imagine how much worse it would be if God had actually said one particular translation would become His one and true perfect word for us? The book would probably be in a glass case in the Vatican only to be bowed to and worshiped by the highest of the highest priests, never to be seen or read by the average person.
I think God had very good reasons for not letting us have one absolute perfect Bible today. He knows how we are! What he has given us is close enough for learning about salvation and establishing doctrine if it is read and studied properly.
I think God had very good reasons for not letting us have one absolute perfect Bible today. He knows how we are! What he has given us is close enough for learning about salvation and establishing doctrine if it is read and studied properly.
farouk
Member
questdriven:
It's interesting that in the original 1611 preface (what most people use today is the 1769 King James edition) the translators themselves say that just as the King's speech, whether written in various languages, is still the King's speech, so, too, with having various translations of the Bible, they are still the Word of God. The King James translators themselves said this.
Blessings.
Haven't read them all, but it looks helpful. Thanks.
Came across this article last night: http://www.kjv-only.com/doctrinalcontradiction.html
It was basically saying what I said about the Bible saying nothing about this.
Also, from the examples given by KJOists, I honestly don't see how the differences between the different, commonly used versions affect the doctrine at all as is claimed. Does it really make much difference if one version says "Lord Jesus" and another says "Lord Jesus Christ"? I mean no disrespect, but I just don't see it.
Last edited by a moderator:
So far searching on Google, I came across only two sites advocating KJV-onlyism. (Granted, I haven't dug too deep in the google search.) One (jesus-is-savior.com) was run by a guy who has since been arrested for having sex with a minor. I just skipped over that one, not interested in anything he has to say. From what I've seen by reading other articles on his site in the past, it'd wouldn't be anything worth my (or anyone's) time, anyway.
The other article I found ( http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html ) starts off by implying that the NKJV must have occultic influences because the symbol for it is similar to some occult symbols. Nothing to actually back it up, because apparently having a similar symbol is proof enough. I'm sorry, but I had to mentally facepalm.
For things like the KJV using "hell" and other versions using "hades", they make it sound as if there's some conspiracy to remove the doctrine of hell out of the Bible or something. From what I've read elsewhere, "hades" and "sheol" are simply words with a broader meaning than "hell". (Which, "hell" means specifically a place of torment after death, whereas according to what I read, the others mean simply "the place of the dead". It seems hell would fit in that category, even if it's definition is more broad, don't you think?) And from the verses given, their usage seems to make sense with the context used. (Although I didn't look up the verses that they only gave a reference for here.)
The article goes on to show where quite a number of verses in the NKJV (and other versions) differ from the KJV. Most of the differences they point out seem incredibly petty and incredibly poor arguments to me.
Others can be explained through translation errors and differences in the documents used for translation. Anyway, from what I see, the examples they gave are all minor and don't actually change any doctrine. (Although they seem to think it does.)
Yeah, having grown up being taught KJV-only and thus being somewhat familiar with their arguments and literature, I have to admit that it does seem that the KJV-only supporters often seem to use shock value to promote their POV, and they seem very quick to vindicate and accuse people as well. Not a very Christ-like attitude.
I hate to say that, because I like to give people the benefit of a doubt. I know several KJV-onlyists, obviously, and they aren't bad or mean people in general. They are people whom I have nothing against.
My dad seems to have been one of the more rational KJV-onlyists. He was a great guy, taught me a lot. We had discussions on a variety of topics.
I don't agree with him on everything, though. I think he had a tendency to adopt unpopular opinions. He would often talk about subjects that would be considered conspiracy theories. Maybe not always taking the side of the conspiracy theorist, but being very open to it at any rate.
There were plenty of things he said that made good sense, though, and still make good sense.
The other article I found ( http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html ) starts off by implying that the NKJV must have occultic influences because the symbol for it is similar to some occult symbols. Nothing to actually back it up, because apparently having a similar symbol is proof enough. I'm sorry, but I had to mentally facepalm.
For things like the KJV using "hell" and other versions using "hades", they make it sound as if there's some conspiracy to remove the doctrine of hell out of the Bible or something. From what I've read elsewhere, "hades" and "sheol" are simply words with a broader meaning than "hell". (Which, "hell" means specifically a place of torment after death, whereas according to what I read, the others mean simply "the place of the dead". It seems hell would fit in that category, even if it's definition is more broad, don't you think?) And from the verses given, their usage seems to make sense with the context used. (Although I didn't look up the verses that they only gave a reference for here.)
The article goes on to show where quite a number of verses in the NKJV (and other versions) differ from the KJV. Most of the differences they point out seem incredibly petty and incredibly poor arguments to me.
Others can be explained through translation errors and differences in the documents used for translation. Anyway, from what I see, the examples they gave are all minor and don't actually change any doctrine. (Although they seem to think it does.)
Yeah, having grown up being taught KJV-only and thus being somewhat familiar with their arguments and literature, I have to admit that it does seem that the KJV-only supporters often seem to use shock value to promote their POV, and they seem very quick to vindicate and accuse people as well. Not a very Christ-like attitude.
I hate to say that, because I like to give people the benefit of a doubt. I know several KJV-onlyists, obviously, and they aren't bad or mean people in general. They are people whom I have nothing against.
My dad seems to have been one of the more rational KJV-onlyists. He was a great guy, taught me a lot. We had discussions on a variety of topics.
I don't agree with him on everything, though. I think he had a tendency to adopt unpopular opinions. He would often talk about subjects that would be considered conspiracy theories. Maybe not always taking the side of the conspiracy theorist, but being very open to it at any rate.
There were plenty of things he said that made good sense, though, and still make good sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
farouk
Member
questdriven:
I'm sure you miss your dad very much and yet it's a blessing now as an adult to be able to look back and remember a lot of helpful and profitable conversations about all sorts of subjects. (I do the same; and my father has been gone for decades now.)
The King James is a good version, but it's good reputation isn't helped by some of the ahistorical claims sometimes made about it.
Some people, as you suggest, say things for shock value, and when it isn't actually accurate, then they undermine their own position.
Blessings.