KJV-onlyism?

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I completely agree. NASB seems to be a superb translation, even compared to the ESV.

1 verse in the KJV that stands out is Rom 8:1 the KJV adds “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,†But the original language says....There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

That is a typical copying error found in the latter transcripts. This one is obvious: The monk copying that transcript was probably tired, or being overcome by carbon monoxide from all the lanterns or torches burning in the room, and inadvertently copied part of v. 4 into v.1

 

[gr8grace]

That is a typical copying error found in the latter transcripts. This one is obvious: The monk copying that transcript was probably tired, or being overcome by carbon monoxide from all the lanterns or torches burning in the room, and inadvertently copied part of v. 4 into v.1

Now aren't you suppose to put one of those smiley faces on your post?;)

 

[farouk]

I see Jerome's Vulgate has at verse 1, ...qui non secundum carnem ambulant.

I don't have in front of me, though, any copy of Erasmus's Greek text, which was basically prepared to reinforce his revision of Jerome's Vulgate.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Now aren't you suppose to put one of those smiley faces on your post?;)

Why? I was there. I know it to be true! :D

 

[EdenBorn]

Again I must take issue with such statements as they fail to take into account that the KJV was translated from only 400 late transcripts -- "late" meaning, copied several generations after the first copies were made in the first century -- "late" representing the worst of copying errors, given that they were so far removed from the originals. The other translations are more accurate because they rely on older transcripts supported by duplication throughout the early generations of copies and are in complete agreement with one another. The KJV is an excellent translation, but it is not the best. That could be argued among the NASB, ESV and Holman. The KJV is very close in reliability to all of them despite the lateness of the transcripts upon which that version relies. That speaks volumes about the reliability of all the transcripts -- over 5,000 in number -- as opposed to the reliability of the KJV itself.

I'm Roman Catholic; my canon is different then all of them. While the Church and myself embrace Protestants equally as Christians, we do not find other canons to be correct. This includes the KJV- the King James Version is the official translation derived from the Vulgate and Tyndale's concordance, but all the same it does not interpret like the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (Orient) translations do. They do not even have the deuterocanonical books such as Tobit or Maccabees.
Because of that, things such as Purgatory are alien to non-Catholic denominations. All the same, thing such as that do not factor into appropriate baptism, church order, and salvific doctrine.

If it seemed I was defending 'KJV-only', I apologize. My belief is that Scripture is of great and invaluable importance, but that it must be considered that they didn't magically fall out the sky. They were written by men, and it is God's message to us through us.

 

[Mitspa]

It's repeated in verse 4.

Is it "repeated"? or is it stated in verse 4. because if you add it to verse one, it puts a condition upon what Paul is saying.
Legalism and heavy yokes are satans tools, when one looks at the scriptures and considers the conflict of the mss. When one understands the gospel, these points of scripture that add religious yokes into the text, are points where religion and mans attempts to control others, seems to be at work.

Like I said before, a chain of religious bondage, does not need to pervert all the scriptures, but just certain ones. This may very well be the most important truth that Paul reveals in all the bible? If a group has attempted to change and put a condition upon this scripture that was not intended, they are in fact trying to pervert the gospel.

Like I have also said that when one has a basic understanding of the Greek, the KJV is shown to have used english words that make no sense unless one was trying to hide the truth of scripture in some degree.

The gospel is learned "here a little there a little" a line here and a precept there. Likewise I see an attempt in the KJV to hinder the truth "here a little there a little"

 

[farouk]

Is it "repeated"? or is it stated in verse 4. because if you add it to verse one, it puts a condition upon what Paul is saying.
Legalism and heavy yokes are satans tools, when one looks at the scriptures and considers the conflict of the mss. When one understands the gospel, these points of scripture that add religious yokes into the text, are points where religion and mans attempts to control others, seems to be at work.

Like I said before, a chain of religious bondage, does not need to pervert all the scriptures, but just certain ones. This may very well be the most important truth that Paul reveals in all the bible? If a group has attempted to change and put a condition upon this scripture that was not intended, they are in fact trying to pervert the gospel.

Like I have also said that when one has a basic understanding of the Greek, the KJV is shown to have used english words that make no sense unless one was trying to hide the truth of scripture in some degree.

The gospel is learned "here a little there a little" a line here and a precept there. Likewise I see an attempt in the KJV to hinder the truth "here a little there a little"

Again, I think you are over-stating things, and putting your own judgment ahead of that of many Godly translators and readers over the past centuries.

 

[Mitspa]

Again, I think you are over-stating things, and putting your own judgment ahead of that of many Godly translators and readers over the past centuries.

I think you are "under-stating" what is rather clear to some who understand the Greek text. Also I think you are way too dependent upon the traditions of the religious esablishment, that has brought us to a place of a powerless gospel.

Again I find you seem to think your judgment of my understanding has some value or weight that I do not accept or am i willing to accept.

You think I am wrong? I think you are wrong on this issue.

So I suggest to you that many great teachers of Greek and bible teachers have seen this same issue in the KJV translation. Thus we have those who have attempted better translations. No serious bible teacher I know of does not go into the Greek to correct these issues, even If they use the KJV to teach. My point is and was that those who first translated this bible covered it in masonic signs to show all the world that they had indeed controlled the translation to some degree?

 

[farouk]

I think you are "understating" what is rather clear to some who understand the Greek text. Also I think you are way too dependent upon the traditions of the religious esablishment, that had brought us to a place of a powerless gospel.

Again I find you seem to think your judgment of my understanding has some value or weight that I do not accept or am willing to accept.

You think I am wrong? I think you are wrong on this issue.

So I suggest to you that many great teachers of Greek and bible teachers have seen this same issue in the KJV translation. Thus we have those who have attempted better translations. No serious bible teacher I know of does not go into the Greek to correct these issues, even If they use the KJV teach. My point is as was that those who first translated this bible covered is in masonic signs to show all of us that they had indeed controlled the translation to some degree?

I don't suscribe to such conspiracy theories, neither do many Godly teachers and writers to whom I look up.

The fact that the King James has been means of huge blessing to people over many years is not open to question, in my humble view. Whether in places it could be rendered differently and maybe even better, is a separate matter.

 

[Mitspa]

I don't suscribe to such conspiracy theories, neither do many Godly teachers and writers to whom I look up.

The fact that the King James has been means of huge blessing to people over many years is not open to question, in my humble view. Whether in places it could be rendered differently and maybe even better, is a separate matter.

Do you deny that these masonic signs cover the first of these bibles? Of course you cannot!

The KJV is nothing but where it represents the truth Gods Word, and it has been proven to have many errors. So maybe the world would have been better off if more honest men had taken up this job of translating Gods Word.

You claim a "conspiracy" ? did Rome conspire to keep the truth of scripture hidden from others? Of course they did!

Did they change scripture to match there own desires and for their own purposes? Of course they did! That you believe Rome would do this, but not this group of Free-masons and former catholics? Well you say some are willing to do such things, but I believe there is evidence that these man also did the same. So you may believe what you are told and according to own traditions and I will believe what God shows me.

 

[farouk]

Do you deny that these masonic signs cover the first of these bibles? Of course you cannot!

The KJV is nothing but where it represents the truth Gods Word, and it has been proven to have many errors. So maybe the world would have been better off if more honest men had taken up this job of translating Gods Word.

You claim a "conspiracy" ? did Rome conspire to keep the truth of scripture hidden from others? Of course they did!

Did they change scripture to match there own desires and for their own purposes? Of course they did! That you believe Rome would do this, but not this group of Free-masons and former catholics? Well you say some are willing to do such things, but I believe there is evidence that these man also did the same. So you may believe what you are told and according to own traditions and I will believe what God shows me.

Don't judge a book by what you think you may see on a 400 year old volume's cover.

The untold blessing of God upon the King James over very many years is without question, in my humble view.

I'm not King James Only, but I'm certainly not anti-King James. Even if in places the wording either could be improved or has changed its meaning in English over the years, which is an entirely different matter.

 

[Mitspa]

Don't judge a book by what you think you may see on a 400 year old volume's cover.

The untold blessing of God upon the King James over very many years is without question, in my humble view.

I'm not King James Only, but I'm certainly not anti-King James. Even if in places the wording either could be improved or has changed its meaning in English over the years, which is an entirely different matter.

"The untold blessing upon the King James" ?
You see it is not a translation that God blesses, it is the truth of Jesus Christ. Any man or group of men that would cover the Word of God with masonic signs, are far from the truth of God. Anyone who thinks God has blessed a translation is in great error.

I have made the point that those who put together the KJV are no better than any other group of men, and worse than most. Many have found great errors and only those who think "God has blessed this translation" seem blind to what is clear to others.

So others can have false motives in their use of scripture? but you are unwilling to accept that this group of "free-masons and ex catholics could practise that which you admit others practise? They must have put some kind of spell on this translation to get folks to ignore what is so clear?

You can believe whatever you want? As long as its written in the KJV im sure you will accept it.

 

[farouk]

"The untold blessing upon the King James" ?
You see it is not a translation that God blesses, it is the truth of Jesus Christ. Any man or group of men that would cover the Word of God with masonic signs, are far from the truth of God. Anyone who thinks God has blessed a translation is in great error.

I have made the point that those who put together the KJV are no better than any other group of men, and worse than most. Many have found great errors and only those who think "God has blessed this translation" seem blind to what is clear to others.

So others can have false motives in their use of scripture? but you are unwilling to accept that this group of "free-masons and ex catholics could practise that which you admit others practise? They must have put some kind of spell on this translation to get folks to ignore what is so clear?

You can believe whatever you want? As long as its written in the KJV im sure you will accept it..

[Edit by Sparrowhawke]: NOTE Your request has been heeded. I've modified the quote above to omit the offending portion and conform it to the edited version.
Please moderate your terminology so we can have a rational discussion.

Again, it's beyond question, in my humble opinion, that the preaching from and reading from the King James has been of immense blessing to many people over a very long time. Even if in places its wording could be improved sometimes.

 

[Mitspa]

Please moderate your terminology so we can have a rational discussion.

Again, it's beyond question, in my humble opinion, that the preaching from and reading from the King James has been of immense blessing to many people over a very long time. Even if in places its wording could be improved sometimes.

Farouk, i intended to edit that out but i think the point still is valid? That some respect a "book" more than the truth? It is not the KJV that saves anyone! It is Jesus Christ. He is the object of our faith, not a translations but a Person. Now if another translation or the Greek brings me closer to His Person, then I will seek that which shows me more clearly, who He is. Now I believe that an honest look at the formation and the people who put together the KJV, shows that they made many of the same mistakes that those before them made. I believe it is every Christians duty to question and to test all things. I carry a small KJV in my pocket every day I go to work. I have studied most every word of its translation and I know those points of error. I like it, because I have had to study it so hard to get past certain things in it. Now I believe that a certain attempt was made to hinder parts of that translation. I believe that I have earned the right to have that opinion, and to express that opinion. I believe what I have learned can help others get past these same issues. I do not believe that God has blessed this translation above any other.
I like it because I have wrestled with it, and I know it.

The Greek is available to us all, there is no excuse for not searching out the truth, in the name of tradition.

 

[farouk]

Mitspa:

Okay and basically it seems to me to be a good translation. Some of the 'ecclesiasitical' words reflect the background of the translators, but these need not be a great obstacle.

For example: John 1 in the King James is a masterpiece of simplicity and clarity, it seems. Interestingly, verse 14 of John 1 is exactly the same in the New King James as in the King James.

The translation is fairly formal as opposed to 'dynamic' or paraphrastic, which means that there has been a fairly good attempt to stick closely to the underlying Greek in the New Testament.

The King James substantially contains the work of Tyndale, albeit revised.

I don't know of one central doctrine of the faith that is supposedly obscured seriously in the King James.

That being said, I'm not King James Only.

 

[WIP]

I won't force it by closing the thread but respectfully ask that maybe we should step back and take a little breath before things get out of hand. Thanks.

 

[farouk]

Sounds good, WIP.

The OP mentions about the context of questdriven's enquiry.

On the one hand there seems to be material which is basically the historical background to the King James. Such factual matters can be read up and researched with some accuracy.

Then there is the matter of how one interprets the history, in the light of one's presuppositions and convictions.

So on the one hand it is possible for heartfelt lovers of the Word of God to have been somewhat misled by less than accurate historical information.

On the other hand it's also possible for people with a high degree of factual knowledge to put that knowledge to uses that are less than constructive.

So I guess it invites patience and understanding all round as people gradually peel away the strands of these often complex matters. The Lord knows people's hearts, anyway.

Blessings.

 

[Mitspa]

Then there is the matter of how one interprets the history, in the light of one's presuppositions and convictions.

So I guess it invites patience and understanding all round as people gradually peel away the strands of these often complex matters.

Yes, but just dont come to a conclusion that conflicts with others traditions.

I have had my say, I have made points that are honestly held and that I believe God has shown to me. It seems that the Holy Spirit and the gifts can be mocked, grace can be replaced by law. Even the epistles themselves can be brought into question? But if you want to stoned by the keepers of tradition? Just mention the folks who translated the King James, who put their masonic signs all over the outside and the inside of the book, might have dared to put part of there doctrines into the translation? I think that is just blindness to the nature of man.

I will back off from this thread, farouk is honorable and has made many good points, as have I. lol

 

[Sparkey]

... [H]ere is a chart outlining the "strength" and "weakness" of different Bible Translations

http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

 

[evenifigoalone]

So, the person preaching at church today mentioned Mark 16, how it originally ended at verse 8. He was not discounting verses 9-20 or claiming them to be innaccurate, merely stating that they were added later. Sounded like he was saying they were passed on through oral tradition, I believe?
This guy attends Bible seminary, so I tend to think he knows what he's talking about. Plus he has good sermons.

Still, I had never heard of this before, so I decided to look it up when I got home and read more on it.
So, the first few pages I find read to me like KJVonlyists who are pointing fingers and going, "See, proof the modern translations are trying to take away from the gospel!" (One claimed that it took away the resurrection, but no--it doesn't. It just doesn't. Read verses one through eight. It has the angel appearing to the women saying Jesus was risen. Just how is that omitting the resurrection? Granted, it does omit some parts where the disciples and others actually saw Jesus after His resurrection.. But the verses are still included in the modern translations today, so obviously the translators aren't discounting the validity of them. They're merely being honest by making a note that the earlier manuscripts do not have those verses. From what I've read, the history behind which manuscripts are most accurate are not so cut and dry as some make them out to be, even to Bible scholars.)
Which kind of annoys me, TBH. I don't like it when people jump to conclusions in order to promote an agenda. I'm gonna do some more research, so hopefully I can find some sources that actually try to be helpful. But anyway.

Thoughts on this?