KJV-onlyism?

[farouk]

Tying her heart to KJV through her love for her Dad, Farouk? I am sure that she will always love the fond memories reading the KJV will bring but I think when it comes down to it she is a bit more interested in making sure she is getting the best Wording from her Father in heaven when reading to find His Heart and Will..

J: I'm not even going to get into your preferences. Questdriven's father passed away only some weeks ago, and since she mentions him, my reference to him was by way of trying to be respectful.

I do like and prefer the King James, but I'm not King James Only. There is no point in anyone trying tar anyone who thinks in this way with the antics of the King James Only folk.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Questdriven, If you can find a copy of the "Thompson Chain-Reference Bible" which comes in KJV, NIV and I believe ASV ...

NASB too. It was my first Bible. It was in a briefcase that got stolen out of my pickup one night, right in front of my house. Really liked that Bible. Since then, I've been using the Key Word Study Bible in the NASB. What an awesome study tool! I'm on my third one. I've worn out the other two! :D

 

[watchman333]

I believe the KJV is the best because when it is used with the Strong's concordance you can take almost anything back to the original Greek & Hebrew parchments. In English, that is the closest we can get to what our Father wanted us to know.

 

[Mitspa]

When we consider the translation of the Greek into the English we should consider that the Greek is a much deeper language than the English? For instance in the Greek their are many different words used for English word "The" around 20. Some have masciline, feminine, and neuter. different tenses etc.. Most of those who have studied the Greek understand the limits of the english to capture the depths of the Greek. I have real issues with the KJV, most of the issues I have come from the fact that so many free-masons and half-catholics had so much impute into the translation. But I do use the KJV because of all the related study material that one can use to understand it. I personally use a Greek interlinear as the final authority. Along with strongs and some greek guides,one can get to the truth. As far as the "text" I have found no real difference in the truth of the gospel but do still have some questions I hope to some day get answered. I think that those who have the Holy Spirit have the truth within them and can learn to cut through many of these issues?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I believe the KJV is the best because when it is used with the Strong's concordance you can take almost anything back to the original Greek & Hebrew parchments. In English, that is the closest we can get to what our Father wanted us to know.

There are updated Strong's versions for every translation.

 

[watchman333]

There are updated Strong's versions for every translation.

Really? I did'nt know that. I use a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance for the original King James (not 1600, of course). How can there be 2 different Strong's for 1 book? Are you saying different languages?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Really? I did'nt know that. I use a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance for the original King James (not 1600, of course). How can there be 2 different Strong's for 1 book? Are you saying different languages?

No, translations. Strong's work remains in the family. Many of his descendents have become biblical language experts as was he. So they've issued works that use the word choices of the NASB, the NIV, the NKJV and (I think) the HCSB.

 

[Matthew G]

Personally, I use the KJV quite a bit (I have the Thompson Chain-Reference KJV) because, quite honestly, it just feels right to me. I am, however, aware that the Codex had been translated a few times by the time the original KJV came around, although in the reading I've done (granted, it hasn't been much), the updated versions have been translated from the Hebrew and Greek, although I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how accurate that is. That's why I also use the English Standard Version, which is essentially (again, as I understand it) another update on the KJV that's been translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts into "modern" english.

However, I am also of the mind that the Lord is going to give you whatever it is you need. Through the Holy Spirit, He will give you understanding of His Word, regardless of the translation you read. There is Truth in His Word, and the Spirit will reveal it to you.

 

[farouk]

MatthewG: There's a lot of useful information in the Thompson Chain Reference note system.

I use the King James, though I'm not King James Only.

 

[Matthew G]

MatthewG: There's a lot of useful information in the Thompson Chain Reference note system.

I use the King James, though I'm not King James Only.

Agreed on both points.

 

[farouk]

Agreed on both points.

 

[Matthew G]

:biglol

 

[watchman333]

No, translations. Strong's work remains in the family. Many of his descendents have become biblical language experts as was he. So they've issued works that use the word choices of the NASB, the NIV, the NKJV and (I think) the HCSB.

Thanks for the info. So, if I understand you correctly, as NEW Bible versions were made, his descendants wrote new concordances to explain the NEW wording? If so, I'm sticking to my original king James and my original Strong's which will get me the closest I can get, in English, to what our Father gave us in the original parchments. Would that be correct?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Thanks for the info. So, if I understand you correctly, as NEW Bible versions were made, his descendants wrote new concordances to explain the NEW wording? If so, I'm sticking to my original king James and my original Strong's which will get me the closest I can get, in English, to what our Father gave us in the original parchments. Would that be correct?

Actually, the NASB, ESV and HCSB are more accurate translations. They use words that are more common in usage now, as opposed to the words used in the KJV which in many cases no longer mean the same thing in English that they meant in 1611. The words the new translations use are closer to the meaning of many of the Greek words than the ones that those Greek words could be rendered in English back then.

You might find this article interesting and useful.

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/20...language-over-time-affect-bible-translations/

 

[YosefHayim]

Here's my input on this.

KJV is probably your best bet. Most versions have omitted verses and phrases. For example, the KJV says that Jesus is God's only begotten son whereas another version will say that Yeshua is God's only Son. We are all sons of god, but Jesus is God's only begotten son.

Try to stay away the NIV. "1988 – Zondervan becomes a company of HarperCollins, one of the world’s largest publishing companies." HarperCollins owns rights over Family Guy, Pornography, and even the Satanic Bible. There are many omitted verses and phrases in the NIV.

I would recommend using a parallel to KJV. Or another translation to compare.

My 3 would be:
King James Version - It's complete, from the TR, and so forth.
Complete Jewish bible - Good to get a Jewish feel, and a Hebrew feel.
New Living Translation - I believe it is a paraphrase, but it's easy to read.

You can't really fully trust any version completely. The translations are not god inspired. The original scriptures were. I'm sure God may have guided the translators.

There are things such as the bible classifying the bats as birds, which critics use to criticize the bible about alleged discrepancies. עוֹף (`owph) is the word that was translated into "bird" however it can also mean "insect" "flying animal" referring to anything that can fly.

The best thing you can do is to study the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Use strong's concordances and just question the passages and research them.

Also look up hebrew4christians dot com and ancient-hebrew dot org

I hope that helps.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Here's my input on this.

KJV is probably your best bet. Most versions have omitted verses and phrases.

Not true. The NASB an ESV do not omit the verses and phrases. They do note that some scholars quesiton their place in Scripture, but they do not remove them. The NASB, for example, brackets "[***]" them. The ESV italicizes them. The NIV uses those so-called questionable verses as footnotes at the bottom of each page.

For example, the KJV says that Jesus is God's only begotten son whereas another version will say that Yeshua is God's only Son. We are all sons of god, but Jesus is God's only begotten son.

Irrelevant. We are only spiritual sons. Jesus was His only True Son, conceived through the Holy Spirit. And do you know what the word translated in the KJV and the NASB as "begotten" means? The word is the Greek monogenes. It means "only." So the insertion of the world "begotten" is a redundancy.

Try to stay away the NIV. "1988 – Zondervan becomes a company of HarperCollins, one of the world’s largest publishing companies." HarperCollins owns rights over Family Guy ...

Actually, News Corp., which owns Fox News and is owned by Rupert Murdoch, conservative Christian, owns Harper Collins, which owns Zondervan. Fox Television broadcasts "Family Guy" but does not own the program. That is owned by Fuzzy Door Productions, through its subsidiary, Spotted Door.

... Pornography, and even the Satanic Bible.

Murdoch does not produce pornography. Harper Collins does not produce pornography. Anton LeVey published the Satanic Bible in 1969. He died in 1997. His family owns the rights to the book, which is currently out of print. End of discussion.

There are many omitted verses and phrases in the NIV.

See above refutation.

I would recommend using a parallel to KJV. Or another translation to compare.

Any of the popular major translation, such as the NASB, ESV, HCSB, and (despite your "warnings") the NIV or NLT are good Bibles to use, the latter two especially for the new believer who will have little trouble grasping God's word in the modern, straight forward and faithful presentations those Bibles provide.

My 3 would be:
King James Version - It's complete, from the TR, and so forth.

The TR, long claimed infallible by extremist KJV-Only advocates, is actually the more corrupted of the text collections. The Majority Texts, largely consisting of much older manuscripts, are the better source for translating God's word.

New Living Translation - I believe it is a paraphrase, but it's easy to read.

It being called the "New Living Translation" should tell you that it is not a paraphrase. It's predecessor, the Living Bible, was.

You can't really fully trust any version completely. The translations are not god inspired. The original scriptures were. I'm sure God may have guided the translators.

Taken as a whole, that paragraph is pretty much a big contradiction, isn't it? Especially the parts I emphasized with bold italics?

I am sorry for having picked apart your post. However, I want to point out that most of the silly things said about translations other than the KJV are made-up Internet fodder that does not hold up under the simplest of scrutinies. Unfortunately, many of these "facts" have been repeated so often that they are accepted as truth, even though there is nothing to back up any of these statement. There is nothing "perverted" about any of the translations. All, except the JW New World Translation and the Mormon KJV, are valid translations to use in studying God's word.

Obviously, most people are going to have a preference. So, have a preference. There's no reason to attempt to discredit anyone else's preference because it isn't the same as ours.

 

[YosefHayim]

Not true. The NASB an ESV do not omit the verses and phrases. They do note that some scholars quesiton their place in Scripture, but they do not remove them. The NASB, for example, brackets "[***]" them. The ESV italicizes them. The NIV uses those so-called questionable verses as footnotes at the bottom of each page.

Irrelevant. We are only spiritual sons. Jesus was His only True Son, conceived through the Holy Spirit. And do you know what the word translated in the KJV and the NASB as "begotten" means? The word is the Greek monogenes. It means "only." So the insertion of the world "begotten" is a redundancy.

Actually, News Corp., which owns Fox News and is owned by Rupert Murdoch, conservative Christian, owns Harper Collins, which owns Zondervan. Fox Television broadcasts "Family Guy" but does not own the program. That is owned by Fuzzy Door Productions, through its subsidiary, Spotted Door.

Murdoch does not produce pornography. Harper Collins does not produce pornography. Anton LeVey published the Satanic Bible in 1969. He died in 1997. His family owns the rights to the book, which is currently out of print. End of discussion.

See above refutation.

Any of the popular major translation, such as the NASB, ESV, HCSB, and (despite your "warnings") the NIV or NLT are good Bibles to use, the latter two especially for the new believer who will have little trouble grasping God's word in the modern, straight forward and faithful presentations those Bibles provide.

The TR, long claimed infallible by extremist KJV-Only advocates, is actually the more corrupted of the text collections. The Majority Texts, largely consisting of much older manuscripts, are the better source for translating God's word.

It being called the "New Living Translation" should tell you that it is not a paraphrase. It's predecessor, the Living Bible, was.

Taken as a whole, that paragraph is pretty much a big contradiction, isn't it? Especially the parts I emphasized with bold italics?

I am sorry for having picked apart your post. However, I want to point out that most of the silly things said about translations other than the KJV are made-up Internet fodder that does not hold up under the simplest of scrutinies. Unfortunately, many of these "facts" have been repeated so often that they are accepted as truth, even though there is nothing to back up any of these statement. There is nothing "perverted" about any of the translations. All, except the JW New World Translation and the Mormon KJV, are valid translations to use in studying God's word.

Obviously, most people are going to have a preference. So, have a preference. There's no reason to attempt to discredit anyone else's preference because it isn't the same as ours.

"Mega-pastor Rick Warren is being challenged by other Christian leaders for not disciplining a prominent member of his California Saddleback Church flock for being one of the world’s leading pornographers.That would be Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp., which, in addition to building a media empire on the chests of topless models and edgy, pushing-the-envelope Fox TV network shows, recently began building a stable of hard-core porn channels for its BSkyB subsidiary.“Rupert Murdoch is a born-again Christian and Rick Warren claims to be his pastor,” says Chris Rosebrough, head of the Christian Accountability Network. “As a Christian, Murdoch is committing an egregious sin by owning, expanding and profiting from pornographic channels, and Rick Warren, his pastor, has a biblical duty to call Murdoch to repentance and/or put him out of the church.”
--WND

Harper Collins: harpercollins dot com/books/Satanic-Bible-Anton-La-Vey?isbn=9780380015399&HCHP=TB_Satanic+Bible

NLT (wiki) Textual basis: Revision to the Living Bible paraphrase. NT: Greek New Testament (UBS 4th revised edition) and Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition. OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, with some Septuagint influence.

And how is that a contradiction? The original Hebrew scriptures were God-inspired, not the translations. I'm not saying it's absolute that God guided the translations; maybe, there's a possibility, but I don't feel they were because of flaws in different translations. Translations differ and omit different verses and change different phrases. I never said the KJV was infallible, but that it was most trustworthy.

 

[n2thelight]

he problem I have is the omissions in the newer versions,as shown in the below link

http://www.theseason.org/omissions.htm

 

[evenifigoalone]

he problem I have is the omissions in the newer versions,as shown in the below link

http://www.theseason.org/omissions.htm

If they wereactually trying to get rid of the doctrine of Jesus' blood, wouldn't anyreference to it be removed? The doctrine is still there.
From what I've been reading, the newer versions are simply translated from different, and older, manuscripts than the KJV. (The original Hebrew and Greek are no longer available, so all we have to go by are copies of the originals. The KJV was not translated from the originals, neither was any other version.)

 

[Free]

KJV is probably your best bet. Most versions have omitted verses and phrases. For example, the KJV says that Jesus is God's only begotten son whereas another version will say that Yeshua is God's only Son. We are all sons of god, but Jesus is God's only begotten son.

he problem I have is the omissions in the newer versions,as shown in the below link

As I have stated several times in these forums, and even in this thread, this argument uses the fallacy of begging the question.

As for "begotten," the Greek word there is monogenes and can mean "one and only" or "unique." For John 1:18, I prefer the NIV:

18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Try to stay away the NIV. "1988 – Zondervan becomes a company of HarperCollins, one of the world’s largest publishing companies." HarperCollins owns rights over Family Guy, Pornography, and even the Satanic Bible. There are many omitted verses and phrases in the NIV.

As I have posted elsewhere:

Does Zondervan itself publish the Satanic Bible? No. As far as I can tell, the International Bible Society (now Biblica) has the rights to the NIV; Zondervan has the rights to the NIV Study Bible they came up with. Zondervan publishes both the NIV and KJV.

http://zondervan.com/9780310421351

That really should put an end to this fallacious argument that is all over the Internet, commonly being promoted by KJVOists, but I'm sure it will still continue on.