|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/6/2008 10:34:41 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 843
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mr.scripture
i do not know where in the KJV where it tells me
that the bible is not inspired by GOD
2 timothy 3:16 tells me that:
all scripture is given by inspiration of GOD........
i believe in the Bible from cover to cover
i believe it is the inspired word of GOD
i believe it is also the complete word of God and that there is no
error in it
look for yourself and compare other translations to the KJV
scriptures such as:
colossians 1:14......why is " through his blood " removed
matthew 18:11 where is the verse and why is it removed
1 timothy 16:22 why is " in christ " removed
others to compare:
galatians 3:17, 4:7, and especially 1 john 5:7
revelations 22:18 and 2 timothy 3:16 see what these scripture tell you
 JESUS...MAN!!! 
Why is "by the Holy Spirit" removed from the King James Version?:
Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy Servant, didst say, WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS?" (Acts 4:25 NASB)
"Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?"
(Acts 4:25 KJV)
The King James Version is “attacking“ the doctrine of Holy Spirit inspiration. It must be corrupted!
Of course I’m being sarcastic, this doctrine is covered elsewhere, and we don’t know which manuscripts added or subtracted from the original.
Why does the KJV remove "through Jesus Christ our Lord"?:
"To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now forever. Amen." (Jude 25 NASB)
"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." (Jude 25 KJV)
If I was intellectually dishonest like the KJO’s I would claim that Satan was trying to deny His Lordship by corrupting the King James Bible, but I’m not. This whole argument is contrived and a waste of time.
SealedEternal
PS. Jesus doesn't have long hair:
1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
KING JAMES VERSION
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/7/2008 3:02:02 AM
|
|
|
TJO5
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/1/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello Benelchi,
quote:
A book similar to this one written by Geza Vermes is "The Dead Sea Scrolls in English"; however, for more serious study their is a two volume interlinear by Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar called "The Dead Sea Scrolls study edition"
Thank You. I will have to check them out.
While I primarily use the KJV,it is only because it is easy to use in word study. I much prefer things the way they were originally given.All translations can give some insight.But we should always endeavour to know why a certain translation is given,and not just accept the translation.
Alot of misunderstandings come ,not from a wrong translation,but from a doctrine built on a translation that the original reading would not support.
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/7/2008 10:09:08 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TJO5
Hello Benelchi,
quote:
A book similar to this one written by Geza Vermes is "The Dead Sea Scrolls in English"; however, for more serious study their is a two volume interlinear by Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar called "The Dead Sea Scrolls study edition"
Thank You. I will have to check them out.
While I primarily use the KJV,it is only because it is easy to use in word study. I much prefer things the way they were originally given.
This one of the primary reasons that I still use the KJV myself, but almost all of my newer study tools are tied to the NASB rather than the KJV, so the KJV's link to study tools is becoming less of an issue. However, for those of us who have older tools on our shelves though, it is still a necessity even once in a while.
quote:
All translations can give some insight.But we should always endeavour to know why a certain translation is given,and not just accept the translation.
Alot of misunderstandings come ,not from a wrong translation,but from a doctrine built on a translation that the original reading would not support.
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
I agree with you!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/7/2008 12:53:00 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 202
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Alot of misunderstandings come ,not from a wrong translation,but from a doctrine built on a translation that the original reading would not support.
Many of the more well known cults were built by those who use only the KJV, such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, and I believe the Moonies also used the KJV. A perfect translation does not keep false doctrine from occuring. And, I know a number of Christians who use each of the mainline translations, and as far as I can tell have not fallen for false doctrine based on that translation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/7/2008 1:06:02 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
Alot of misunderstandings come ,not from a wrong translation,but from a doctrine built on a translation that the original reading would not support.
Many of the more well known cults were built by those who use only the KJV, such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, and I believe the Moonies also used the KJV. A perfect translation does not keep false doctrine from occuring. And, I know a number of Christians who use each of the mainline translations, and as far as I can tell have not fallen for false doctrine based on that translation.
Yes, this is true; however, I thought I would point out that Jehovah's Witnesses actually have their own "translation" called the "New World Translation". However, it is really not a translation, but rather just a version made by making editorial changes to the KJV portions they didn't like. I have no idea what the Moonies use but there clearly have been many other cults that have used the KJV.
Overall though, the KJV is really a good translation, and the fact that cults gravitate to it shouldn't be seen as anything negative against the translation. What should be an important consideration before choosing to use though is that the English is very dated, and often understood quite differently then modern English. Many of the cultic beliefs derived from the KJV often have nothing to do with an improper translation, but rather an improper understanding of middle English.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/7/2008 5:11:58 PM
|
|
|
TJO5
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/1/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello Benelchi,
quote:
Yes, this is true; however, I thought I would point out that Jehovah's Witnesses actually have their own "translation" called the "New World Translation". However, it is really not a translation, but rather just a version made by making editorial changes to the KJV portions they didn't like. I have no idea what the Moonies use but there clearly have been many other cults that have used the KJV.
As a veteran of debate with Jehovahs Witnesses and their doctrine I can tell you that they will accept the translations of just about anybody that will agree with their translations ,no matter how far from scholarly the bulk of their work is. The translators of the New World Translation are not listed-the purported reason is that they do not wish to glorify themselves for their work- which I find shouldn't be a problem anyway. They will also claim they can prove their doctrine in any version,but this is mostly a witnessing claim,as their proof consists of trying to prove other versions inferior by the numbers of scholars they use to support their version.
quote:
Overall though, the KJV is really a good translation, and the fact that cults gravitate to it shouldn't be seen as anything negative against the translation. What should be an important consideration before choosing to use though is that the English is very dated, and often understood quite differently then modern English. Many of the cultic beliefs derived from the KJV often have nothing to do with an improper translation, but rather an improper understanding of middle English.
I find that you are correct. I think cults gravitate towards it because it has a reputation for quality scholarship and some of the Older English terms are hard to comprehend and so are easy to misconstrue.
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/7/2008 6:14:09 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 843
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
What should be an important consideration before choosing to use though is that the English is very dated, and often understood quite differently then modern English. Many of the cultic beliefs derived from the KJV often have nothing to do with an improper translation, but rather an improper understanding of middle English.
The more the English language evolves (or better stated devolves), the more the King James translation itself requires translation, which sort of defeats the whole purpose of its existence. A "translation" into English or any other language , is the inspired Word Of God to the extent that it properly translates the languages in which the Scriptures were first written to the people who are reading it . The whole PURPOSE for having a Bible translation, the very reason for its existence, is to convey in words which people understand the meaning of words (in the Greek and Hebrew originals) which people do not understand. The degree to which an English Bible translation fails to accurately, clearly, and fully convey the meaning and content of the originals, to that degree it fails to attain to its very reason for existence. Seventeenth Century English isn't so far removed from modern English that an average person can't read or understand most of it, but like you said there are subtle changes that can alter the meaning of a sentence so that it may be completely misapplied. For that reason I believe it's wise to compare different translations and use other resources availiable to find truth, rather than creating a doctrine around one "perfect" translation.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/7/2008 7:15:19 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2321
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TJO5
As a veteran of debate with Jehovahs Witnesses and their doctrine I can tell you that they will accept the translations of just about anybody that will agree with their translations ,no matter how far from scholarly the bulk of their work is. The translators of the New World Translation are not listed-the purported reason is that they do not wish to glorify themselves for their work- which I find shouldn't be a problem anyway. They will also claim they can prove their doctrine in any version,but this is mostly a witnessing claim,as their proof consists of trying to prove other versions inferior by the numbers of scholars they use to support their version.
T.J.
And where the KJV contradicts their translation, my experience has been that they prefer their own to the KJV. Typically, they prefer a discussion with someone who is not as well-versed in scripture as they are. For example, John 1:1 contradicts their translation.
_____________________________
Larry
Why is it when we talk to God we're said to be praying -
but when God talks to us, we're schizophrenic.----Lily Tomlin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/7/2008 7:43:35 PM
|
|
|
TJO5
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/1/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello GrahamCraker,
quote:
And where the KJV contradicts their translation, my experience has been that they prefer their own to the KJV. Typically, they prefer a discussion with someone who is not as well-versed in scripture as they are. For example, John 1:1 contradicts their translation.
Yes. I have spent quite a bit of time discussing the anarthrous predicate nominative in John 1:1 ,and the How can Jesus be "a" God ,when scripture clearly shows there is only "one" God?
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/7/2008 8:44:31 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2321
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TJO5
Hello GrahamCraker,
quote:
And where the KJV contradicts their translation, my experience has been that they prefer their own to the KJV. Typically, they prefer a discussion with someone who is not as well-versed in scripture as they are. For example, John 1:1 contradicts their translation.
Yes. I have spent quite a bit of time discussing the anarthrous predicate nominative in John 1:1 ,and the How can Jesus be "a" God ,when scripture clearly shows there is only "one" God?
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
And you didn't chase them off? Once I had a discussion at the door with one. When we disagreed, he asked me if I had a Greek NT. I replied I did. Then he immediately had something else to do. I should add that I live in Dallas, some 10 miles from Dallas Seminary. For all he knew I might have been a graduate.
_____________________________
Larry
Why is it when we talk to God we're said to be praying -
but when God talks to us, we're schizophrenic.----Lily Tomlin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/7/2008 8:55:41 PM
|
|
|
TJO5
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/1/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello GrahamCracker,
quote:
And you didn't chase them off? Once I had a discussion at the door with one. When we disagreed, he asked me if I had a Greek NT. I replied I did. Then he immediately had something else to do. I should add that I live in Dallas, some 10 miles from Dallas Seminary. For all he knew I might have been a graduate.
I never had a chance to talk to them in person. They came to the door a couple weeks ago but my sister was there and answered and told them we weren't interested. I used to debate them on-line.
If you really don't want them coming to your door the best thing to do is tell them you used to be a JW. Former JWs are considered "apostates" and they aren't even allowed to talk to you-even if you are a family member. I'm not an "apostate" myself,just an"opposer".
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/7/2008 10:36:12 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 10648
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
While this discussion about JW's is interesting, it's down a rabbit trail. Can we get back to the main topic?
Thanks!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/5/2008 8:03:12 AM
|
|
|
Christophilos
Posts: 11
Joined: 2/4/2008
From: London
Status: offline
|
yuck, I find that the more I hear of KJVO arguments, the less I want to actually read the KJV.
However, the point I wanted to make was that I have often heard people say that the non-KJV versions are wrong, heretical, satanic or whatever because they are under copyright, and therefore were created for money, whereas the KJV is not.
I just wanted to point out that, as those of us from the UK and Commonwealth all know, the King James Version is under copyright, specifically under Crown Copyright (the Queen gets the money).
_____________________________
Faith must not be slow to reason, nor reason to adore.
-Lakdasa J de Mel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/21/2008 4:42:18 AM
|
|
|
BibleL7
Posts: 247
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline
|
After spending several days reading this thread I did not see the post which originally led me here which in my opinion did not belong here I guess it was removed. Oh well.
As for the subject I can only say that being one who has 20+ English versions of the Bible, and a publishing background not linguistics, I do not see that many of the KJVO arguments have any weight. Where they say that newer versions take out verses or words, this is only true if the translators were using the same originals and the KJV itself. The other versions simply used different originals or found the translating to read otherwise. In checking many of the claims of taking out Jesus, or God or the Holy Spirit, I can only say that using a pronoun instead does not take it out. And in some cases where the previous text makes it clear who is speaking I dont believe that is taking Jesus out of the Bible just because they did not say and Jesus said unto them.
The first version I read cover to cover was the NIV and I very much got the doctrine of the Trinity, Faith, God's Sovereignty, Jesus being fully man and fully God, Jesus absolutely claiming deity and all the other doctrines that are mentioned in this thread that the NIV is accused of taking out. It might be a good idea if the KJVOs would read the version before making such judgments against it.
I do not know about NIV churches treating KJV people badly or anyone saying that the KJV is not a valid or good translation. But then till reading this thread I did not know that any churches used the NIV. Most that I have been involved with use NASB, NKJV or KJV. In my few years of being born again I have only encountered those who have said that the KJV is better or best but never the only, yet they have all said that that the important thing was people knowing the Lord and His Salvation, and reading the bible no matter which version.
I am not saying that all newer versions are good there are some I would not suggest anyone use. The church I currently serve at uses the KJV as the congregational version simply because it is better to have one version used so everyone can follow the same reading. Particularly necessary for responsive reading. Though I had not used the old KJV till I came to this congregation, I have come to know much better the differences. I do not however see that any doctrine is affected by using the NKJV, NASB, ESV, or NIV.
Oh as to the use of LORD or GOD in place of YHWH or YHVH most prefaces say YHWH it is usually what printers call small caps in which the first letter of a word is larger yet all letters are capitalized. Most of the English versions do this other than ones that will actually use either Jehovah, Yahweh, Adonai or Yehovah. When I read cover to cover I include the preface and all other beginning inserts. It sometimes helps to understand why some things are used. It is also good to know when a new paragraph begins with the versions that follow the seps by verse. This could help in keeping in context.
Just the opinion of a small town preacher
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/21/2008 5:29:53 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2321
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
BibleL7
You are right on several counts. One KJVO I spoke to earlier objected to the newer versions by saying that the KJV was "first". In his mind, no other translations came earlier. The fact that 3-4 versions (Bishop's, Geneva etc.) came earlier was entirely lost on him. His understanding of history was based on the fact that the KJV was America's most common version for some 150 years.
Older and earlier manuscripts simply did not enter the picture.
My younger brother (I shall call him "B") attends a small southern KJVO church and asked me why my older brother accepted the NIV. B's objection was that the newer versions removed "the blood." Of course, he had never researched it. He was only referring to things he had heard and apparently never checked.
The fact that newer versions did not erase all mention of the "the blood" was nothing he had considered either.
_____________________________
Larry
Why is it when we talk to God we're said to be praying -
but when God talks to us, we're schizophrenic.----Lily Tomlin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/21/2008 1:16:00 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 589
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
I'm not sure I would have a problem discussing th scriptures with a KJVO person as long as thery believed in the whole council of Adonai. That is they believe that the scriptures must be internally consistant and are substantiated line upon line precept upon precept. The later meaning that the writings of the prophets are evaluated in light of the Torah(Pentatuch) and the Apistolic Scriptures(New Testiment) are evaluated in light of the Tanach(Old Testiment). In this way most misunderstandings can be clarified by noting the inconsistancies that would result if a particular verse were interpreted improperly.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
figmentPez: "You(bluethread) don't believe in Christian doctrine, and don't follow the same Jesus Christ that the Apostles taught."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/21/2008 1:39:55 PM
|
|
|
Tawanna92008
Posts: 31
Joined: 1/28/2008
Status: offline
|
Thou shalt be hid from the scourge of the tongue neither shalt thou be afraid of destruction when it cometh. Job chapter 5 verse21
_____________________________
Laceacha T Fauntleroy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 3/25/2008 7:42:58 PM
|
|
|
Friarbob
Posts: 12
Joined: 11/2/2005
Status: offline
|
I have waded thru this entire thread. my reaction? HO HUM (YAWN )nothing here to convince me to either give up my KJV,NIV or NKJV.
_____________________________
Bob Fryer AKA Friarbob
This is the day which the LORD hath made;we will rejoice and be glad in it.(Ps118:24 KJV)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/17/2008 3:14:44 AM
|
|
|
1DISCIPLE
Posts: 3
Joined: 4/14/2008
Status: offline
|
I spent the last few days searching the facts and found the large majority of the supposed differences to be largely semantics. But I did find an interesting difference in Matthew 18:26 where the NKJV omits the part where the servant fell and worshipped the Lord. That seems to be the only real difference so far, other than small word changes which I find largely to be similarly defined words. There may be more upon further inspection though. This seems to be such a heavy time consuming study.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/17/2008 10:54:28 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2321
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1DISCIPLE
I spent the last few days searching the facts and found the large majority of the supposed differences to be largely semantics. But I did find an interesting difference in Matthew 18:26 where the NKJV omits the part where the servant fell and worshipped the Lord. That seems to be the only real difference so far, other than small word changes which I find largely to be similarly defined words. There may be more upon further inspection though. This seems to be such a heavy time consuming study.
Some of the differences include entire phrases and in a couple places at least, whole verses. I couldn't tell you what they are off hand. Some differences include entire sections.
_____________________________
Larry
Why is it when we talk to God we're said to be praying -
but when God talks to us, we're schizophrenic.----Lily Tomlin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 4/21/2008 9:38:12 PM
|
|
|
gmc4Jesus
Posts: 102
Joined: 5/21/2006
From: Torrance, California
Status: offline
|
It is sad to see the good, but misguided intentions on both sides of this issue.
There is something that those who hold to the King James Version of the Bible need to consider.
1. Jesus always used the contemporary language of the people.
2. The Apostles, likewise, used the contemporary language of the people.
3. When the King James Version was tranlated, it was translated into what was then the contemporary language of the people.
4. If we are going to effectively reach today's world for Christ, we must speak in the contemporary language of our day.
The King James Version, as beautifu as it is to read (if you understand the "thee's" and "thou's" of the old King James English), does not communicate in today's world. The only people that talk like that are a few religious groups, and then usually only when talking about Scripture or religious issues. No one, in modern society uses King James English phraseology in normal conversation.
If the King James Version is so important because it was the "authorized" English tranlation, then why don't these groups insist on the koine Greek for the New Testament and the Hebrew and Arabic for the Old Testament. To carry this logic on one step further, why didn't the Apostles insist on writing in Hebrew instead of Greek? Why did some of the latter Old Testament prophets write in Arabic instead of Hebrew?
Way too much fuss is given to holding on to a language that is almost as lost as latin. No matter how beautiful it may be or what other reason one may cite for using the King James Version of the Bible, we must realize that if we are to reach today's world, we must use today's methods.
Look at us, we are using the Internet to communicate on this issue. You won't find that "translation" in the Bible anywhere. You won't find automobiles, electric lights, computers, trains, airplanes and a million other things in God's Word, but we still use them today. Why not translate the Bible into the language that people use today so they can read it, understand it, obey it and be saved from their sins?
I still have my first Bible (a King James Version) from when I got it in 1959. However, if I were to read it to my granddaughter, she would not understand a lot of it and would soon become bored with all of this religious talk. If I read a modern translation to her, then she can understand and ask questions and learn.
God bless you all in Jesus' name,
_____________________________
Let's talk about Jesus, His life and teachings at the www.gettingtoknowjesus.org Gospel Study Forum.
Home of "Getting To Know Jesus", a complete Bible study on the life and teachings of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 4/23/2008 9:52:02 PM
|
|
|
JordanW
Posts: 611
Joined: 4/23/2008
From: Bakersfield, California
Status: offline
|
My personal opinion on this issue is that I don't think it's the only true version of the Bible. Ever since it was translated the KJV has been translated over many different times, it isn't the original 1611 KJV anyway. Lately I prefer the NKJV, but God's word is God's word.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 4/23/2008 10:08:23 PM
|
|
|
NomadMan
Posts: 15
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Greetings all:
One of the problems with the KJV is that it is so old it doesn't have all the facts that have been uncovered over the last 400 years. What alot of people don't know is that the meaning of quit a few Hebrew words of the Old Testament are vague and even completely unknown | | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
