KJV-onlyism?

[evenifigoalone]

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.

I have a Zonderkids KJV study Bible that I used to use when I was younger.

 

[farouk]

I hadn't heard of the term Zonderkids, but I guess it's a memorable contraction of Zondervan and kids.

Blessings.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I hadn't heard of the term Zonderkids, but I guess it's a memorable contraction of Zondervan and kids.

Blessings.

It's part of Zondervan that makes things for kids is all I know. The study Bible I mentioned was made for children.

 

[farouk]

It's part of Zondervan that makes things for kids is all I know. The study Bible I mentioned was made for children.

questdriven:

Okay, ty. Blessings.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

"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.â€

Frankly, I'm perfectly willing to let Warren pastor his flock as he sees fit. Rosebrough has no clue as to whether Warren and Murdoch have discussed this or not, and because the source of the information is singular in nature and the only reason it is all over the Internet is because of multiple websites repeating the information from that singular source, I'm not willing to accept that Murdock is a porn mogul. Under British law, his network services have to be open to all seekers of broadcast outlets, which leaves him no choice in the matter. I note with interest that it is a subsidiary isolated from the rest of his empire that provides the satellite time for the material to be broadcast. It appears, by porn standards, it is pretty mild stuff anyway, which doesn't excuse its content, nonetheless.

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

Sorry, owe you an apology. I didn't think of searching HCs foreign subsidiaries.

harpercollins dot com/books/Satanic-Bible-Anton-La-Vey?isbn=9780380015399&HCHP=TB_Satanic+BibleNLT (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.[/quote]Which, as I said, makes it a translation.

And how is that a contradiction?

Really?? Let's see: You first said ... "The translations are not inspired." Then you completed the sentence by saying ... "I'm sure God may have guided the translators."You believe there is a difference in God's "guidance" and in His "inspiration"? Uh ... no.

 

[farouk]

I'm no longer convinced that the KJV is the only correct version, although I don't believe they can all be correct....

questdriven:

Stated differently, it's inherent to what a translation is and isn't that only one can't be the only 'correct' one. When it comes to something as blatantly fabricated as the JW New World, that calls the Lord Jesus 'a god' rather than 'God' in John 1, for example, this is different. But there is no one right way to translate; instead there are right and suitable ways (plural) and wrong and unsuitable ways (again, plural).

Blessings.

 

[YosefHayim]

Really?? Let's see: You first said ... "The translations are not inspired." Then you completed the sentence by saying ... "I'm sure God may have guided the translators."You believe there is a difference in God's "guidance" and in His "inspiration"? Uh ... no.

Again you are missing what I'm saying. I'm saying may in terms of that there is a slight possibility, but unlikely.

 

[Stone-yarder]

Hovind does a great job explaining why KJV only. Its all about where the other versions originally came from. Check it out: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5eM7nou1oI

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IoZBUY8atc

I had read the NIV for 16 years, but after hearing his compelling argument(along with some other research) I switched to the KJV, 3 years ago,I had to concede that I was wrong. The NIV has, errors/changes and missing verses... Because things that are different are not the same! Looking back I had noticed that my spirit man wasnt getting filled up anymore from the NIV, but after switching to the KJV that has drastically changed. The thee's and thou's are important...

 

[Stone-yarder]

Just found an amazing four part mini-series by Samual Gipp About the KJV, very powerful and definetly worth watching. Each video is about 10 minutes long...

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIOUN6GJlJI

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00naB28rJXw

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7sYIhLHtkk

4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZSuZZIjy0k

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Again you are missing what I'm saying. I'm saying may in terms of that there is a slight possibility, but unlikely.

Again, you didn't answer my question Do you believe there is a difference between God's guidance and God's inspiration?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Hovind does a great job explaining why KJV only. Its all about where the other versions originally came from.

No, they all came from 5,000 Greek manuscripts, copies of the original autographs written by the apostles -- 4,600 of which were unavailable to the KJV translators because they had yet to be discovered

I had read the NIV for 16 years, but after hearing his compelling argument I switched to the KJV, 3 years ago,I had to concede that I was wrong.

The error is believe the KJV is "special." It is not. There is nothing inspired or superior about the KJV. In fact, there are now three translations more accurate than the KJV, though the differences in all four a miniscule.

The NIV has, errors/changes and missing verses...

Provide some evidence, please. I've seen many try. They all fail to produce anything that actually represents an "error" or a missing verse -- by the way, the ones you think are missing are actually at the bottom of the page in the footnotes.

Because things that are different are not the same![

Only the language, which has changed considerably in 400 years.

The thee's and thou's are important...

Not really.

 

[Stone-yarder]

I firmly believe the videos answered all of your questions so for me to reiterate it would only be redundant. As a child of God its my job to share the truth and present the evidence as best I can,not to convince people of what they should do or beleive. Some people ask questions because they honstly are seeking an answer but some people ask questions so they can ask more questions. This is not directed at you but is just a statement in general. I mean this with all due respect when I say that I sense your shifting the burden of proof onto others, isnt it up to ourselves to find out whether we are right or wrong?

 

[evenifigoalone]

Hovind does a great job explaining why KJV only. Its all about where the other versions originally came from. Check it out: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5eM7nou1oI

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IoZBUY8atc

I had read the NIV for 16 years, but after hearing his compelling argument I switched to the KJV, 3 years ago,I had to concede that I was wrong. The NIV has, errors/changes and missing verses... Because things that are different are not the same! Looking back I had noticed that my spirit man wasnt getting filled up anymore from the NIV, but after switching to the KJV that has drastically changed. The thee's and thou's are important...

I like Mr. Hovind's Creation seminar videos, but I don't agree with him on everything.


As for the argument that the manuscripts the others were translated from were inaccurate--I'll have to do more research on that. (Does anybody have any suggestions?)
However, if he claims that the people who did those manuscripts didn't believe in the deity of Christ and the bodily resurrection--then why are those doctrines still in the modern translations? They most assuredly are there. In the comparisons between those translations, I have never seen how these doctrines are actually changed. Even the examples Mr Hovind gave don't really demonstrate this.
The Bible study I go to, most of the people there use modern translations, and none of them believe that Jesus isn't God or that He didn't really rise from the dead.
Also, the Vaticanus was used to some (small?) degree in the Byzantine manuscript, which was used to translate to the KJV.


None of the differences between the versions I have been shown are actually changing any doctrine--and it looks like the vast majority of them do say the same thing. (Including many of the examples Mr. Hovind gave.) The ones that are clearly errors do indeed seem to be very minor errors that affect no doctrine.


I will say that Mr. Hovind does make a much more convincing, much more well-represented case than the other KJV-only articles I have been reading.
Thank you for providing more sides to the coin for me to investigate, at any rate.

 

[farouk]

I like Mr. Hovind's Creation seminar videos, but I don't agree with him on everything.


As for the argument that the manuscripts the others were translated from were inaccurate--I'll have to do more research on that. (Does anybody have any suggestions?)
However, if he claims that the people who did those manuscripts didn't believe in the deity of Christ and the bodily resurrection--then why are those doctrines still in the modern translations? They most assuredly are there. In the comparisons between those translations, I have never seen how these doctrines are actually changed. Even the examples Mr Hovind gave don't really demonstrate this.
The Bible study I go to, most of the people there use modern translations, and none of them believe that Jesus isn't God or that He didn't really rise from the dead.
Also, the Vaticanus was used to some (small?) degree in the Byzantine manuscript, which was used to translate to the KJV.


None of the differences between the versions I have been shown are actually changing any doctrine--and it looks like the vast majority of them do say the same thing. (Including many of the examples Mr. Hovind gave.) The ones that are clearly errors do indeed seem to be very minor errors that affect no doctrine.


The KJV is an excellent translation that I plan to keep using because I have no reason not to.
I will say that Mr. Hovind does make a much more convincing, much more well-represented case than the other KJV-only articles I have been reading, though.

questdriven:

Well stated, as highlighted.

There is a vast difference, though, between appreciating and using the King James as you do and I do, too, and, on the other hand, trying to claim that it is supposedly the only translation that is God's Word in English.

Blessings.

 

[evenifigoalone]

questdriven:

Well stated, as highlighted.

There is a vast difference, though, between appreciating and using the King James as you do and I do, too, and, on the other hand, trying to claim that it is supposedly the only translation that is God's Word in English.

Blessings.

I must admit, this controversial subject has me very confused and more worried than I should be.
My pastor believes that any church that uses other versions have seducing spirits. And while I think this is an irrational argument--even if the KJVonlyists have it right, God clearly speaks to people even through the modern versions (to say that He can't would be limiting God, y'know? He can do anything)--I can't help but be worried that when I go to my Bible study that what I feel is not the Holy Spirit, but something else. But when I compare what is taught to the Bible--none of what is taught contradicts, and that is how you test the spirits.

 

[farouk]

I must admit, this controversial subject has me very confused and more worried than I should be.
My pastor believes that any church that uses other versions have seducing spirits. And while I think this is an irrational argument--even if the KJVonlyists have it right, God clearly speaks to people even through the modern versions (to say that He can't would be limiting God, y'know? He can do anything)--I can't help but be worried that when I go to my Bible study that what I feel is not the Holy Spirit, but something else. But when I compare what is taught to the Bible--none of what is taught contradicts, and that is how you test the spirits.

questdriven:

One only has to go to what the King James translators themselves said about their work to understand very clearly that they themselves were emphatically not King James Only.

I saw an interesting article from a conservative type of baptist source, communitybaptistchurch dot com/articles/kjvonly.htm which points this out very clearly.

Blessings.

 

[evenifigoalone]

This is true.


So, can anyone point me to some resources about the Alexandrian manuscripts?

 

[farouk]

This is true.


So, can anyone point me to some resources about the Alexandrian manuscripts?

Hi there again questdriven:

Regarding why some conservative New Testament textual scholars prefer printed texts based more on the Byzantine line of manuscripts (which greatly outnumber the Alexandrian), rather than on the Alexandrian, this book might be of interest; it's kind of written for scholars, really: byztxt dot com .

Fact is, the New King James is also based on the Textus Receptus which far more closely resembles the Byzantine type of text than an Alexandrian. Yet the King James Only people tend vehemently to denounce the New King James. This kind of begs the question: if the King James Only people really like to think of themselves as primarily defenders of the Textus Receptus, with its underlying Byzantine-type of manuscript base, why are they often so vehemently hostile towards the New King James. May I suggest it's because it's really maybe not about the Textus Receptus at all, but rather because in the end they are probably likely to fall back on denouncing anything, anything that isn't what they call the 1611. (It's not the 1611, actually; it's the 1769 revision of the King James; there were others also in 1629, 1638 and 1762. Some people also regard the New King James as a further revision, in the general line of the ones made in 1629, 1638 and 1762.)

Blessings.

Blessings.

 

[Mike]

This thread is being moved to the A&T, which is a more appropriate forum for a debate about KJ-onlyism. Since scripture isn't being discussed and sifted through, it needs to be moved from the Bible Study Forum anyway. The OP asked for a constructive and helpful discussion; not a defense of opposing sides.

You are now free to respectfully debate your position.

 

[Mitspa]

Hi there again questdriven:

Regarding why some conservative New Testament textual scholars prefer printed texts based more on the Byzantine line of manuscripts (which greatly outnumber the Alexandrian), rather than on the Alexandrian, this book might be of interest; it's kind of written for scholars, really: byztxt dot com .

Fact is, the New King James is also based on the Textus Receptus which far more closely resembles the Byzantine type of text than an Alexandrian. Yet the King James Only people tend vehemently to denounce the New King James. This kind of begs the question: if the King James Only people really like to think of themselves as primarily defenders of the Textus Receptus, with its underlying Byzantine-type of manuscript base, why are they often so vehemently hostile towards the New King James. May I suggest it's because it's really maybe not about the Textus Receptus at all, but rather because in the end they are probably likely to fall back on denouncing anything, anything that isn't what they call the 1611. (It's not the 1611, actually; it's the 1769 revision of the King James; there were others also in 1629, 1638 and 1762. Some people also regard the New King James as a further revision, in the general line of the ones made in 1629, 1638 and 1762.)

Blessings.

Blessings.

I agree with your post farouk, they denouce and denounce and most of them seem unable to grasp that the very version they are defending has been changed many times? They rage against the catholics and how they would not allow the truth of the Greek text to be known, yet they themselves restain any attempt to bring the fullness of the Greek to light. The reformation did not come from the KJV, but I believe one could argue that the KJV was a satanic attempt by free-masons to hinder the truth of the Greek Text from being futher understood. The fact that the first KJV was covered in hidden masonic signs seems to be ignored outright by these people! The fact that King James himself and the major organizers of the translation were ungodly men, seems to also be ignored?