why do many fundamentalists think KJV is the only "true" Word? [Archive]

mwduke

17th December 2006, 01:27 AM

I don't understand why KJV is held by so many to be the ONLY ligitimate and inerrant Word of God. What is the problem with NIV, NASB, or any other more current translation, especially because most current translations are much easier to read and understand than KJV?

Also I wonder how one can consider KJV the ONLY true Word since it is simply a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation.... of a hebrew and greek original. So if NIV, NASB, etc. are illigitimate, then so is KJV, because it is a translation, and then the only true Word would be the original hebrew and greek texts.

Any translation that has been guided by the Spirit of God and reveals Jesus Christ in all his glory and inspires people to be born again is inerrant in my eyes.

jlujan69

17th December 2006, 01:38 AM

Of course, you are basically correct. I think the problem is that some of the differences in passages between KJV and the others are not insignificant. The most glaring example is 1 John 5:7. In KJV, it says who the three are that bear witness: Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, and these three are One-- a clear reference to the Trinity. With the exception of a couple, the other versions only state that "there are three witnesses" and then moves on to verse 8. Now, the reasoning for this discrepancy is that it's not an omission, rather an addition that KJV made. So, who got it right, TR or Horst-Westcott?

cubanito

17th December 2006, 02:03 AM

"Lying is the basic fault line in the foundation of the [translation], putting all the superstructure in jeopardy. All the believability a [translation] has, [it's] very integrity, totters on the shifting sand of one [addition]. Deceit holds hostage all other virtues."

In translations such as the NASB, and the New KJV, these important variant readings between the TR (textus Receptus) and others is made available in marginal notes. For that reason alone, the KJV has been surpassed.

I think this KJV only is often fed from a fear of the modern world. It's true root is an insecurity that the Word of God can indeed stand the harshest of true scholarship, and that admissions of those tiny islands of uncertainty does not jeopardize the continents of unshakable Truth. In a sense, I have some pity. They cover their fear with the bluster of many words, perceiving (though not admitting) that the modern world has in some fashioned triumphed over God.

I guess having come to Christianity as an agnostic who tried to find faults in the Bible, and succeeded instead in discovering the amazing solidity of these ancient texts to the latest of discoveries, I am somewhat immune of such fears. For me the KJV is a pretty good translation, even today. Certainly far better than the loosey-goosey "dynamic equivalence" of the NIV. But the KJV is not the Word of God, and both the English language and lower criticism have moved on in the past 400 years.

JR

arunma

17th December 2006, 02:50 AM

mwduke

17th December 2006, 03:34 AM

My guess is that the KJV-only movement was started by people who were highly accustomed to using the King James Bible. We must remember that for two-hundred years, King James was the English Bible. In some sense it is understandable. But ultimately, this doctrine is not Biblical, since it is a replacement of the commandment of God with a tradition of man.
thats true. i suppose it would be somewhat iconoclastic to change something as important as the bible when it has been unchanged in language for so long.

cubanito

17th December 2006, 03:40 AM

Ah yes, the traditions of men.

It always amazes me how quickly these traditions choke off the simple written Word of God in the minds of most.

I have tried to read some of the early Christian writers, the so-callled (gag me w a spoon) "Church Fathers". It is difficult because every other paragraph is just absurd traditions and fanciful (nearly delusional) interpretations.

I have also read many of the books that did not make it into the Bible (Pseudoepigrapha and others). Most of the time, the quality is just so obviously inferior to anything Biblical that it is truly encouraging to my Faith. For example, you have the longest fasts, from food, to be 40 days in the Bible. In the Book of Adam and Eve, they fasted for YEARS from both food and water.

The KJV is a decent translation, but infact it competed with an earlier one (the Geneva Bible?) which was pretty good too.

JR

TwinCrier

17th December 2006, 07:14 AM

If a person wants the scripture to be a guiding force in their life, they will seek out an accurate translation. From my own study and observation I find the KJV to be the infallible word of God in a language I understand (English). I also observe the direction the churches who choose the modernized translations are going, and I don't see that path as following the narrow way. When I become convicted of something from reading the bible, I choose to change my view rather than seek out a version that has been tampered with to support my sinful thoughts.

Logos1560

17th December 2006, 04:00 PM

I don't understand why KJV is held by so many to be the ONLY ligitimate and inerrant Word of God.

The KJV-only view seems to be based mostly on tradition, personal experience, and preference. The KJV-only view is not actually taught in the Scriptures.

1057

17th December 2006, 04:33 PM

I think this KJV only is often fed from a fear of the modern world.

My guess is that the KJV-only movement was started by people who were highly accustomed to using the King James Bible.

The KJV-only view seems to be based mostly on tradition, personal experience, and preference.

It's a good thing we don't have to rely on armchair-psychology conjectures to figure out the motives behind the KJV-Only movement. There's plenty of information that comes from the movement itself. And what they talk about are manuscripts: differences between the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Greek texts, and the ben Chayyim and ben Asher Hebrew texts.

lovelight1

17th December 2006, 04:36 PM

Adammi

17th December 2006, 05:45 PM

The KJV is a decent translation, but infact it competed with an earlier one (the Geneva Bible?) which was pretty good too.

True. I don't think that the KJV would have nearly as many fans had it been called what some would say it truly is, The New Revised Bishop's Bible.

mwduke

17th December 2006, 06:07 PM

1057

17th December 2006, 07:32 PM

True. I don't think that the KJV would have nearly as many fans had it been called what some would say it truly is, The New Revised Geneva Version.
It was a revision of the Bishops' Bible.

Logos1560

17th December 2006, 11:10 PM

It was a revision of the Bishops' Bible.

Yes, the 1611 KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible. The first rule given for the translating was as follows: "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit."

The fourteen rule was: "These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's [another name for the Great Bible], Geneva."

The KJV may have followed the Geneva Bible almost as much as it followed the Bishops' although it was supposed to be more a revision of the Bishops'. One way the KJV differed from both the Bishops' and the Geneva was in those places where the KJV followed a rendering in the 1582 Rheims N. T.

TwinCrier

18th December 2006, 11:43 AM

what modernized translations do you speak of specifically?
The NIV and NASB seem to be the very worse ihmo.

desmalia

18th December 2006, 05:02 PM

The NIV and NASB seem to be the very worse ihmo.
I can understand some issues against the NIV, but I'm curious what exactly about the NASB you don't like. It's nearly identical to the NKJV.

If people want to stick to the KJV, I have no problem with that at all. There's nothing wrong with it other than that it's old English and therefor harder to understand. Bottom line, so long as it holds true to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, it's still the Word of God regardless of what translation or language for that matter. The ones I really have a problem with are the paraphrased versions like the Message and Living Bible. Paraphrasing takes away so much of the real meaning and often even changes the message completely. That is dangerous ground.

I have also discussed God's Word with some who take the KJV to be the only true word of God and when they quote various verses, they take the words way out of context by trying to apply the meanings of modern English words to them. This gives a huge amount of room to create new and inaccurate doctrines. For instance, I knew a man who believed that "put away" (which is the term used for divorce in the KJV) means that he could put his wife away (ignore, forget her) for a time whenever he saw fit so that he could go and fornicate with other women. Seriously!

I'm not saying that all or even most who believe in only the KJV do this. Many do not do this, and would be horrified to know people are doing it. But when a lay person has to translate their own Bible from an old language into modern language, the risk is there. I don't have anything against the KJV any more than I would have issue with the Spanish translation. I just don't speak the language.

I strongly believe that the original texts should always be referenced in any circumstance of doubt or confusion, always, no matter what translation we use.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe the early English Bibles were translated from Latin text. I know some people who consider Latin to be a holy language, and that is why they will only read the KJV. I found this really interesting.

Logos1560

18th December 2006, 05:16 PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe the early English Bibles were translated from Latin text.

The handcopied 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was translated from the Latin texts.

The old 1380's Wycliffe’s Bible is included on the good line or preserved stream made by some KJV-only authors. KJV-only author Dick Cimino suggested that Wycliffe’s Bible of 1382 came “from the same type of Greek text” as the KJV (The Book, p. 14). KJV-only author David Cloud listed Wycliffe’s as part of the heritage of the KJV (Faith, p. 433). Cloud wrote that “the foundation for the English Bible was the Wycliffe Bible of 1384” (p. 532). Cloud noted: “In English, the Word of God was preserved prior to 1611 with some impurities in the Wycliffe version based on Latin from 1384” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). He described it as “a good Bible with plain, powerful language” (p. 96). Cloud commented: “Though Wycliffe translated from Latin rather than Hebrew and Greek, his translation was good” (pp. 170-171). KJV-only author Laurence Vance wrote that “Wycliffe did his translating from the only Bible then in use: the Latin Vulgate” (Brief History, p. 6; King James, His Bible, p. 78).

1057

18th December 2006, 05:21 PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe the early English Bibles were translated from Latin text. I know some people who consider Latin to be a holy language, and that is why they will only read the KJV. I found this really interesting.

Wyclif's Bible was completed in the 1380s, and was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Tyndale's (1520s-30s) was the first English Bible to be translated from the original languages. The KJV is in a line of translations coming directly from Tyndale, and it also is translated out of the original languages.

No Swansong

18th December 2006, 05:26 PM

Adammi

18th December 2006, 07:06 PM

It was a revision of the Bishops' Bible.
Sorry, I was thinking that it was the Geneva Bible.
I'll edit my post.

twistedsketch

19th December 2006, 05:26 AM

When I become convicted of something from reading the bible, I choose to change my view rather than seek out a version that has been tampered with to support my sinful thoughts.

The NIV and NASB seem to be the very worse ihmo.

So which verses in those translations support your sinful thoughts?

Logos1560

19th December 2006, 11:26 AM

I choose to change my view rather than seek out a version that has been tampered with to support my sinful thoughts.

Where is your evidence that all modern translations have been tampered with to support your sinful thoughts?

The KJV translators seem to have tampered with the text of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision in order to remove a rendering that King James I would probably not have liked.

Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”

Is it possible that King James did not want believers to read how God's Word condemns tyranny and tyrants? Did he think that some might regard some of his actions as being those of a tyrant? McClure referred to King James as "the tyrant" (KJV Translators, p. 50). Why did the KJV translators remove the words "tyrant,” “tyrants,” and “tyranny” from the text of the English Bible? According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded this change? Is it possible that the KJV translators agreed with the view of civil government held by King James? Did the translators avoid using the word "tyrant" to keep from offending King James? What was wrong with the use of the word “tyrant” in the English Bible?

No Swansong

19th December 2006, 05:52 PM

Where is your evidence that all modern translations have been tampered with to support your sinful thoughts?

The KJV translators seem to have tampered with the text of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision in order to remove a rendering that King James I would probably not have liked.

Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”

Is it possible that King James did not want believers to read how God's Word condemns tyranny and tyrants? Did he think that some might regard some of his actions as being those of a tyrant? McClure referred to King James as "the tyrant" (KJV Translators, p. 50). Why did the KJV translators remove the words "tyrant,” “tyrants,” and “tyranny” from the text of the English Bible? According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded this change? Is it possible that the KJV translators agreed with the view of civil government held by King James? Did the translators avoid using the word "tyrant" to keep from offending King James? What was wrong with the use of the word “tyrant” in the English Bible?
Or did they perhaps use a more accurate translation of the word? I am not arguing that they did, but simply because the word is used earlier and not later does not make a conspiracy.

TwinCrier

20th December 2006, 11:46 AM

So which verses in those translations support your sinful thoughts?

Where is your evidence that all modern translations have been tampered with to support your sinful thoughts?Those sins have been confessed to God put under the blood. If God refuses to remember them, I certainly do not want to drag them up here for your pleasure. :wave: It doesn't matter which sin anyhow. The modern bibles are soft on sin. I know of no KJV church that has women preachers or accepts homosexuality or abortion. Usually KJV churches are accused of being legalistic because the people dress modestly and don't act worldly. Modern bibles don't translate better words to be easier to understand, they use words that are more politically correct.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html

desmalia

20th December 2006, 02:25 PM

Those sins have been confessed to God put under the blood. If God refuses to remember them, I certainly do not want to drag them up here for your pleasure. :wave: It doesn't matter which sin anyhow. The modern bibles are soft on sin. I know of no KJV church that has women preachers or accepts homosexuality or abortion. Usually KJV churches are accused of being legalistic because the people dress modestly and don't act worldly. Modern bibles don't translate better words to be easier to understand, they use words that are more politically correct.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html
It's really unfortunate that you believe that about the more modern translations. DH and I use the NASB and we do not support women pastors, homosexuality or abortion because our Bible tells us they are wrong. I don't think it's the translation that causes people to side with political correctness instead of the Scripture. It's people who actively choose to be disobedient. This is generally due to spending too much time in the world and not enough time in the WORD.

I know many people who read only the KJV who lived together and had kids before they got married, who support homosexuality, etc. etc. It's not the translation that is the stumbling block. It's the reader's desire to hold on to their own sin instead of being obedient.

Logos1560

21st December 2006, 12:51 AM

Or did they perhaps use a more accurate translation of the word?

Did you check to see if the KJV rendering in the example verses was more accurate?

Job 6:23 tyrants (Great, Geneva, Bishops') oppressor (KJV)
Job 15:20 tyrant (Geneva) tyrants (Bishops') oppressors (KJV)
Ps. 54:8 tyrants (Great, Geneva, Bishops') oppressors (KJV)

If the KJV had had the rendering "tyrants" at any verses and later translations had changed it to "oppressors," it is very likely that KJV-only advocates would have claimed that the later translations toned down or weakened the KJV's rendering. One reason for bringing up this example was to indicate the inconsistency in KJV-only complaints about other translations.

No Swansong

21st December 2006, 11:26 AM

Did you check to see if the KJV rendering in the example verses was more accurate?

Job 6:23 tyrants (Great, Geneva, Bishops') oppressor (KJV)
Job 15:20 tyrant (Geneva) tyrants (Bishops') oppressors (KJV)
Ps. 54:8 tyrants (Great, Geneva, Bishops') oppressors (KJV)

If the KJV had had the rendering "tyrants" at any verses and later translations had changed it to "oppressors," it is very likely that KJV-only advocates would have claimed that the later translations toned down or weakened the KJV's rendering. One reason for bringing up this example was to indicate the inconsistency in KJV-only complaints about other translations.
You are comparing a translation to a translation what I want to know is how do you know that the translators of the KJV did not more accurately translate the passage? Again how do you know that they were not more accurate?

mooduck1

21st December 2006, 11:44 AM

Hey now! "If the King's English is GOOD ENOUGH FOR JESUS CHRIST, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!" 5 Blessings to the one who first tells me who ACTUALLY said this!

desmalia

21st December 2006, 01:57 PM

Hey now! "If the King's English is GOOD ENOUGH FOR JESUS CHRIST, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!" 5 Blessings to the one who first tells me who ACTUALLY said this!
Mel Gibson? ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ (Sorry, couldn't resist)

No Swansong

21st December 2006, 05:03 PM

Hey now! "If the King's English is GOOD ENOUGH FOR JESUS CHRIST, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!" 5 Blessings to the one who first tells me who ACTUALLY said this!
Sounds like it could be Ian Paisley?

Logos1560

21st December 2006, 09:32 PM

One important point that I forgot to mention was the fact that King James I had complained about some marginal notes in the Geneva Bible that condemned tyrants or tyranny. Since the KJV translators were aware of his complaint, they could have assumed that King James I would not like the condemnation of tyrants in the text any more than he liked it in the marginal notes.

Job 6:23 tyrants (Great, Geneva, Bishops') oppressor (KJV)
Job 15:20 tyrant (Geneva) tyrants (Bishops') oppressors (KJV)
Ps. 54:8 tyrants (Great, Geneva, Bishops') oppressors (KJV)

The KJV translates more than one Hebrew word with the rendering "oppressors" while the pre-1611 English Bibles distinguished somewhat between two of the several Hebrew words by using "tyrant" for one of them. The English word "tyrant" seems to be fit the definition of the Hebrew word used in the above verses better than the rendering "oppressor." The KJV translators themselves had sometimes translated this Hebrew word as "terrible" or "terrible ones."

twistedsketch

21st December 2006, 09:44 PM

No Swansong

22nd December 2006, 10:36 AM

TwinCrier

22nd December 2006, 11:04 AM

The issue isn't your sin, but these translations. Thus you dodged my question. Which verses support which sins? God's forgiven you, I don't care. I'm not asking you to go back into sin or "unforgive" yourself, just let me know which verses lead you to sin to back up your point. This little list you linked me to proves nothing.
It is a fact that several openly gay people worked on "translating" the NIV and there is a deliberate softening of the verses related to this sin. Other changes I commonly see is reducing Jesus' rank from Master or Saviour to teacher and healer. Not that Jesus didn't also teach and heal, but changing these words isn't translating, it's paraphrasing.
I don't want to use a bible Satan has tampered with. I don't want the confusion I see in those who use numerous versions. I'll use the one God told me to.

twistedsketch

22nd December 2006, 11:16 AM

It is a fact that several openly gay people worked on "translating" the NIV and there is a deliberate softening of the verses related to this sin.
Really. Let's look at the NIV's version of the verses on homosexuality.

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." - Lev 18:22

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." - Rom 1:26-27

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Cor 6:9

"We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." - 1 Tim 1:9-11

I don't see any break for the gays, do you? The NIV labels them perverts, their practices detestable. That's not in the gay agenda at all. Those who try to claim it is not a sin have to twist these very English words to do so.

Other changes I commonly see is reducing Jesus' rank from Master or Saviour to teacher and healer. Not that Jesus didn't also teach and heal, but changing these words isn't translating, it's paraphrasing.
And which verses are these?

I don't want to use a bible Satan has tampered with. I don't want the confusion I see in those who use numerous versions. I'll use the one God told me to.
You do that, but I'll have you know that Satan didn't tamper with the NIV.

TwinCrier

22nd December 2006, 11:20 AM

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm

twistedsketch

22nd December 2006, 11:34 AM

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm

You're going to have to give me something more specific than that. Which verses are you talking about specifically?

Logos1560

22nd December 2006, 06:04 PM

I don't want the confusion I see in those who use numerous versions. I'll use the one God told me to.

Are you basing Bible doctrine on your personal experience or observations? Are you suggesting that you are God's infallible spokesman so that everyone should follow what God tells you? Where in the Scriptures does God say that English-speaking believers are to use only the KJV?

The KJV itself was a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'). The KJV translators followed multiple sources and versions. Are you claiming that produces confusion?

TwinCrier

23rd December 2006, 05:24 PM

Are you basing Bible doctrine on your personal experience or observations?
No, I'm judging bible doctrine based on my own personal experience and observation. Study to show theyself approved....

Are you suggesting that you are God's infallible spokesman so that everyone should follow what God tells you? No, I am suggesting that the authorized KJV of the bible is God's infallible spokesman because the Holy Spirit directed me to it. Are you suggesting that God lied to me but gave YOU the right bible?

Where in the Scriptures does God say that English-speaking believers are to use only the KJV?It doesn't. Where does it say that English speaking people are to use the NIV? Your demanding proof of the KJV you don't seem to demand of any other version.

The KJV itself was a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'). The KJV translators followed multiple sources and versions. Are you claiming that produces confusion?No, I'm claiming that the modern translations, created by publishing companies for profit, do not have accurancy and truth as their main objective.

http://biblebelievers.com/jmelton/

mwduke

23rd December 2006, 10:45 PM

No, I am suggesting that the authorized KJV of the bible is God's infallible spokesman because the Holy Spirit directed me to it. Are you suggesting that God lied to me but gave YOU the right bible?

No. We both have the right bible. It isn't a matter of whether KJV is ligitimately inspired by the Spirit, because it is. Just like any other book that leads people to accept Christ as their savior. Any translated version of the bible leads to this conclusion, no matter what version it is. If the message is the same, the maker is the same.

Logos1560

24th December 2006, 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos1560 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30012284#post30012284)
Where in the Scriptures does God say that English-speaking believers are to use only the KJV?

It doesn't. Where does it say that English speaking people are to use the NIV? Your demanding proof of the KJV you don't seem to demand of any other version.

It is clear that the Scriptures do not teach that all believers must use only one certain translation. I am not asking for proof for the KJV different than for any other translation. Since the truth is consistent, it is clear that a consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. The KJV-only view was not true before 1611. My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and the translators of the KJV. All translations including all translations in various languages and all English translations should be compared to the same overall standard of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. No one translation should be implied to be greater in authority than its underlying texts from which the translation derives its authority.

I have not recommended the NIV; therefore, I clearly do not claim that all English-speaking believers should use only the NIV. Thus, your counter question was invalid.

mesue

25th December 2006, 12:34 PM

No. We both have the right bible. ...
If the message is the same, the maker is the same.
Things that are different are not the same.

Logos1560

25th December 2006, 11:50 PM

Things that are different are not the same.

Do you say that the 1611 edition of the KJV is not the same as the present-day Oxford KJV edition that has 2,000 differences that affect the sound when compared to the 1611?

mesue

26th December 2006, 01:25 AM

Do you say that the 1611 edition of the KJV is not the same as the present-day Oxford KJV edition that has 2,000 differences that affect the sound when compared to the 1611?
Are you saying the KJV and the NIV are the same?

JoyforJESUS

26th December 2006, 01:42 AM

TwinCrier

26th December 2006, 02:22 PM

If the message is the same, the maker is the same.
Very well. I do not see the message in the new versions of the bible as being the same. I see modern churches that follow modern versions as having a modern doctrine.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html

mesue

26th December 2006, 02:43 PM

No the KJV, The NKJV, The NIV, RSV, are all VERSIONS, King James Version, The New King James Version, The New International Version, The Revised Standard Version.

If you want the original tests, learn the languages of the original texts. Then you can translate it yourself. Now remember language is either living or dead, if it is dead it will not change in meanings, if it is living it changes.

I am reminded of when the word bad in the dictionary added another meaning (1990 i think) bad: to mean good.

All versions of the bible have been tested that they not add to or take away from the meanings of original texts. Look and see if your version shows those who helped in the translation. I know that the NIV does.

Read the one that you can understand.
they ARE not the same. Look at the manuscript evidence they don't even use the same texts. The NIV used different texts and dropped a whole lot of scripture.
Please, go to the KJV passage search first (the default is NIV, you'll have to click on the down arrow and scroll to KJV))
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/
And look up
Mark 7:16 and post the verse.
Then do the same with the NIV.
Then please explain the difference.

desmalia

26th December 2006, 04:55 PM

It is clear that the Scriptures do not teach that all believers must use only one certain translation. I am not asking for proof for the KJV different than for any other translation. Since the truth is consistent, it is clear that a consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. The KJV-only view was not true before 1611. My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and the translators of the KJV. All translations including all translations in various languages and all English translations should be compared to the same overall standard of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. No one translation should be implied to be greater in authority than its underlying texts from which the translation derives its authority.
If we could all keep this in mind, I think that silly arguments over versions/translations would be moot. We're talking about the Word of God here. People will use any version they like to twist it to their own doctrine if they want to. They can even use the English language itself to twist it into a false doctrine. But if we want to follow God's Word in its truest form, we simply need to reference the original text. There are so many sources to help us do that these days that we really have no excuse for doing any less.

The variations between translations are so minimal that it's a shame if we let them divide us. Everyone has their own preference, and that's fine. But do we have to let those preferences become a reason to argue with each other? Even within my own family we have different versions that we prefer. Some members prefer the NIV. I don't care for that one because of some minor issues, like the missing verses. But if they like it, that's OK. It does not steer them wrong in their faith.

Let's also please not forget that we're not just talking about words on paper. We are taught by the Holy Spirit of God, who not only works in us, but also wrote the Scriptures. God does not lead us to twist Scriptures into human doctrine EVER. Let us continue to pray for the truth to be revealed to us every day, and seek after it just as the Bereans did.

JoyforJESUS

26th December 2006, 09:20 PM

they ARE not the same. Look at the manuscript evidence they don't even use the same texts. The NIV used different texts and dropped a whole lot of scripture.
Please, go to the KJV passage search first (the default is NIV, you'll have to click on the down arrow and scroll to KJV))
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/
And look up
Mark 7:16 and post the verse.
Then do the same with the NIV.
Then please explain the difference.
Okay, I cant explain why some versions do not have that verse. I will do some investigation with my pastor.

My point is that if a Bible is difficult to understand because it uses language that is not easily read, are we not throwing roadblocks into a persons path? I switched to the NIV when my son who had severe learning disabilities could not understand the KJV. I will stand by that.

JoyforJESUS

26th December 2006, 09:26 PM

P.S. I never said they were the same My point were they are VERSIONS

mwduke

26th December 2006, 09:26 PM

Things that are different are not the same.
point out the differences please. especially those that prove NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc. were not written by the same God as KJV?

mwduke

26th December 2006, 09:34 PM

Very well. I do not see the message in the new versions of the bible as being the same. I see modern churches that follow modern versions as having a modern doctrine.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html
i strongly disagree. NIV using churches are definitely using a more modern set of vocabulary than KJV, but that is where the modernity gap b/w the two ends. what is a modern church doctrine? one that accepts abortion / gay marriage? no church or bible version that is true of God accepts such things, and there is definitely no foundation for such beliefs in ANY of the bible versions we have discussed in this thread.

TwinCrier

26th December 2006, 10:02 PM

P.S. I never said they were the same My point were they are VERSIONSAnd my point is the truth only has one version.

i strongly disagree. NIV using churches are definitely using a more modern set of vocabulary than KJV, but that is where the modernity gap b/w the two ends. what is a modern church doctrine? one that accepts abortion / gay marriage? no church or bible version that is true of God accepts such things, and there is definitely no foundation for such beliefs in ANY of the bible versions we have discussed in this thread.Now why did you point out those subjects when speaking of modern doctrine? Is it because it is well known that those are items that modern churches usually differ from classical fundamental Christian doctrine? I think if you go to the
Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal (http://www.christianforums.com/f401-whosoever-will-may-come-liberal.html) part of this forum and speak with those who hold to such doctrine they can clearly teach you from a modern bible how their theology is correct. My experience has been that churches that rely exclusively on the KJV never have any question of where they stand on important doctrinal issues.

mwduke

26th December 2006, 10:22 PM

And my point is the truth only has one version.

Now why did you point out those subjects when speaking of modern doctrine? Is it because it is well known that those are items that modern churches usually differ from classical fundamental Christian doctrine? I think if you go to the
Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal (http://www.christianforums.com/f401-whosoever-will-may-come-liberal.html) part of this forum and speak with those who hold to such doctrine they can clearly teach you from a modern bible how their theology is correct. My experience has been that churches that rely exclusively on the KJV never have any question of where they stand on important doctrinal issues.
so pretty much you're basing your chastising of NIV on anecdotes?

No Swansong

26th December 2006, 10:28 PM

so pretty much you're basing your chastising of NIV on anecdotes?
I'm sorry I don't understand how this applies to her post could you clarify your point please?

JoyforJESUS

27th December 2006, 10:49 AM

And my point is the truth only has one version.

Now why did you point out those subjects when speaking of modern doctrine? Is it because it is well known that those are items that modern churches usually differ from classical fundamental Christian doctrine? I think if you go to the
Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal (http://www.christianforums.com/f401-whosoever-will-may-come-liberal.html) part of this forum and speak with those who hold to such doctrine they can clearly teach you from a modern bible how their theology is correct. My experience has been that churches that rely exclusively on the KJV never have any question of where they stand on important doctrinal issues.
Then I hope you are reading ORIGINAL text, not the KJV
Sorry English was not the first language.

TwinCrier

27th December 2006, 12:35 PM

Then I hope you are reading ORIGINAL text, not the KJV
Sorry English was not the first language.No one ever said it was, and I know of no KJVO who believes it was. It is a common strawman used by bible correctors.

KJVB

27th December 2006, 07:06 PM

No one ever said it was, and I know of no KJVO who believes it was. It is a common strawman used by bible correctors.
Amen!

Logos1560

27th December 2006, 07:30 PM

My experience has been that churches that rely exclusively on the KJV never have any question of where they stand on important doctrinal issues.

Experience does not establish what is truth. Is it accurate to claim that holding a KJV-only view insures that a group will hold correct views of other important doctrinal issues?

A Christian Research Institute report entitled "The Branch Davidians" pointed out that David Koresh claimed that "the King James Version is the only true and uncorrupted translation of the Bible." Among his various strange teachings according to this report, Koresh claimed that in a godhead of four, the mother of the godhead is the Holy Spirit and the daughter is the Holy Ghost. H. Wayne House cited pamphlets by Tony Alamo of Alamo Christian Ministries that show that he taught a KJV-only view (Charts, p. 20).

TwinCrier

27th December 2006, 08:52 PM

Logos1560

28th December 2006, 02:00 PM

It is a common strawman

Books that advocate a KJV-only view often depend upon fallacies or strawman arguments.

desmalia

28th December 2006, 02:38 PM

We'll never really know what David Koresh really believed. All we have is the word of the main stream media to tell us. I'm certainly not going to forsake my perfect infallible bible out of fear of the ATF.

http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjckjv1s.htm
I don't think anyone here is asking you to abandon the KJV. The problem we're trying to point out is judgement and condemnation of modern translations that are still the Word of God. And more importantly, that we always rely on the original text, regardless of what version we use.

I use primarily the NASB, but I often cross-reference it with NKJV, KJV, and occasionally even the NIV. I find doing that helps me to gain a broader understanding of certain phrases used in Scripture. But in the end, if I have questions, I always end up going to the original text. blueletterbible.com is a great resourse for that.

TwinCrier

28th December 2006, 03:58 PM

Books that advocate a KJV-only view often depend upon fallacies or strawman arguments.Such as what?

I don't think anyone here is asking you to abandon the KJV. The problem we're trying to point out is judgement and condemnation of modern translations that are still the Word of God. And more importantly, that we always rely on the original text, regardless of what version we use.

I use primarily the NASB, but I often cross-reference it with NKJV, KJV, and occasionally even the NIV. I find doing that helps me to gain a broader understanding of certain phrases used in Scripture. But in the end, if I have questions, I always end up going to the original text. blueletterbible.com is a great resourse for that.Breaoder understanding usually means to find a version that words the verse to agree with what you already believe. The bible should change us, we shouldn't change the bible.

desmalia

28th December 2006, 04:23 PM

Breaoder understanding usually means to find a version that words the verse to agree with what you already believe.
With all due respect, that is quite an unfair accusation to make of someone you don't even know. If you question something about my morality, my desire to seek truth, or how I live my life, just ask. Don't assume please.

I have no interest in twisting the Bible to say whatever I want it to. I believe in interpreting the Bible with the Bible. That means making sure that the English language (which is quite different from ancient Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew) does not get in the way of the original intent of the Scripture.

The bible should change us, we shouldn't change the bible.I agree. I suspect everyone in this thread does as well.

Just because some of us don't consider the KJV to be the ONLY correct version, that does not make us a bunch of heathens.

No Swansong

28th December 2006, 06:12 PM

I don't think anyone here is asking you to abandon the KJV. The problem we're trying to point out is judgement and condemnation of modern translations that are still the Word of God.

Actually it was the original post that was made a false accusation. (That the KJV was a translation of a translation of a translation) And there are significant problems of translation which the different translations do magnify. I don't think it is inaccurate to say that simply based upon the methods and problems of translation there must be one that is most accurate. It is a matter of logic to say that if they all disagree even in a small way they are not all the same. If they are not all the same (which logically they cannot be) then can they all be the Words of God? I am not sure what the answer to that is but the logically response seems to be no.

I am not arguing KJVO I primarily read the KJV and also use the Holman Christian Standard and others but I do not believe it to be accurate to say they are all the same thing. If they were then there would be only one.

And more importantly, that we always rely on the original text, regardless of what version we use.
We don't know that since we do not have the original texts and since there are different manuscripts used. The manuscripts used to translate the NIV for example were not the same as those used by the KJV.

I use primarily the NASB, but I often cross-reference it with NKJV, KJV, and occasionally even the NIV. I find doing that helps me to gain a broader understanding of certain phrases used in Scripture. But in the end, if I have questions, I always end up going to the original text. blueletterbible.com is a great resourse for that.Again we do not have the original texts. If we did this would not be such a difficult issue.

Logos1560

28th December 2006, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Logos1560 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30159237#post30159237)
Books that advocate a KJV-only view often depend upon fallacies or strawman arguments.

Such as what?

Broader understanding usually means to find a version that words the verse to agree with what you already believe.

Your last statement is an example of a KJV-only strawman argument.

Many KJV-only books make use of the ad hominem fallacy and poisoning the well fallacy. Instead of dealing with the actual evidence and discussing statements, KJV-only books waste time in character assassination or personal attacks against other believers. For example, KJV-only author William Byers implied that the NKJV translators "are of their father the devil" (HISTORY OF THE KJB, p. 44). Charles Perkins, a KJV-only editor of THE FLAMING TORCH, referred to all English translations since 1880 as "Satanic comic books" (Octobor, 1980, p. 16). Peter Ruckman wrote: "Every Bible translated since 1880 is a Roman Catholic Bible or a Communist Bible" (CHRISTIAN'S HANDBOOK OF MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, p. 156).

KJV-only advocates sometimes use the fallacy of a false dilemma by claiming that believers only have two choices: their KJV-only view or a liberal Bible-denying view. Those are not the only two choices. Believers can still believe God and His Word without having to accept the inconsistent, man-made KJV-only view.

mwduke

28th December 2006, 08:56 PM

Such as what?

Breaoder understanding usually means to find a version that words the verse to agree with what you already believe. The bible should change us, we shouldn't change the bible.
do you believe that people who use other versions than KJV can be Christians?

TwinCrier

28th December 2006, 09:27 PM

With all due respect, that is quite an unfair accusation to make of someone you don't even know. If you question something about my morality, my desire to seek truth, or how I live my life, just ask. Don't assume please.

I simply made a statement, but your immediate offense makes it appear as though you believe it to be true of yourself.

Just because some of us don't consider the KJV to be the ONLY correct version, that does not make us a bunch of heathens.No, but it does make you wrong. :D

Your last statement is an example of a KJV-only strawman argument.

Many KJV-only books make use of the ad hominem fallacy and poisoning the well fallacy. Instead of dealing with the actual evidence and discussing statements, KJV-only books waste time in character assassination or personal attacks against other believers. For example, KJV-only author William Byers implied that the NKJV translators "are of their father the devil" (HISTORY OF THE KJB, p. 44). Charles Perkins, a KJV-only editor of THE FLAMING TORCH, referred to all English translations since 1880 as "Satanic comic books" (Octobor, 1980, p. 16). Peter Ruckman wrote: "Every Bible translated since 1880 is a Roman Catholic Bible or a Communist Bible" (CHRISTIAN'S HANDBOOK OF MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, p. 156).

KJV-only advocates sometimes use the fallacy of a false dilemma by claiming that believers only have two choices: their KJV-only view or a liberal Bible-denying view. Those are not the only two choices. Believers can still believe God and His Word without having to accept the inconsistent, man-made KJV-only view.It's not ad hominem to point out the liberal, sin-loving changes in the modern versions.

do you believe that people who use other versions than KJV can be Christians?I suppose there may be enough of the gospel not edited out in modern versions for a person to come to Christ, but once filled with the Holy Spirit, a believer will be drawn to the true word of God and forsake the false translations because Satan no longer has hold over their thoughts and they can be clearly lead by the Holy Spirit to truth.
Modern Bible Versions Are Dangerous (http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbcmodrn.htm). Watch Out For Them!

(http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbcmodrn.htm)

desmalia

28th December 2006, 09:33 PM

Actually it was the original post that was made a false accusation. (That the KJV was a translation of a translation of a translation)
OK, fair enough. But I think that issue has already been well covered here.

And there are significant problems of translation which the different translations do magnify. I don't think it is inaccurate to say that simply based upon the methods and problems of translation there must be one that is most accurate. Well that certainly would make it a lot simpler, wouldn't it? To some degree I think there will always be minor issues because translation from any language into English is tricky business. English is just not a literal or permanent language. It grows and changes daily, and many words and phrases can have multiple meanings. There are also Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew words and phrases that don't have an exact translation into English.

It is a matter of logic to say that if they all disagree even in a small way they are not all the same. If they are not all the same (which logically they cannot be) then can they all be the Words of God? I am not sure what the answer to that is but the logically response seems to be no.
Interesting point. And yes, certainly true if in fact the different English versions are truly in conflict. I will wholeheartedly agree with you that the Mormon Bible, for example, is in direct conflict with the Word of God. As to whether the KJV and the NKJV really disagree with one another, well that's more a matter of opinion than one of logic.

I am not arguing KJVO I primarily read the KJV and also use the Holman Christian Standard and others but I do not believe it to be accurate to say they are all the same thing. If they were then there would be only one.If there was such a thing as a perfect, exact translation from the original languages, and if the English language was static and unchanging, then I would agree with you on that.

We don't know that since we do not have the original texts and since there are different manuscripts used. The manuscripts used to translate the NIV for example were not the same as those used by the KJV.
OK... The modern versions were primarliy translated from earlier manuscripts which, more than anything else, actually gave even greater verification that Scripture has truly been preserved over the centruies, despite so many copies having been made. As such, they compliment each other beautifully.

Some interesting notes about a few versions...
KJV:
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=9
NKJV:
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=50
NASB:
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=49
NIV:
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31
HCSB
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=77

Again we do not have the original texts. If we did this would not be such a difficult issue.My bad. http://forums.mlbcenter.com/style_emoticons/default/sorry.gif I worded that really badly. What I meant was the earliest texts that we have available. And I do think this would still be a difficult issue even if we had the original texts, because translating to different languages is still very, very difficult.

For those who believe in only the KJV, how do you feel about translations used for other languages, such as Spanish, Dutch, French, etc? Do you feel that they should all be translated from the KJV?

Logos1560

28th December 2006, 09:35 PM

I
It's not ad hominem to point out the liberal, sin-loving changes in the modern versions.

(http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbcmodrn.htm)

Where is the documented evidence that supports your broad-sweeping generalization?

The NKJV was translated from the same underlying original language texts as the KJV, and its translators were not liberals. The executive editor for the NKJV's O. T. was an independent Baptist, fundamentalist professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at a fundamentalist seminary. The doctrinal views of the translators of the NKJV were probably overall more doctrinally sound than the doctrinal views of the Church of England translators of the KJV.

desmalia

28th December 2006, 09:40 PM

I simply made a statement, but your immediate offense makes it appear as though you believe it to be true of yourself.I don't believe "it to be true of myself", but I do believe you are making a gross generalization and inaccurate accusation. If I claimed that all people who read the KJV are reading false doctrine, would you not take any offense?

No, but it does make you wrong. :D You've yet to prove that. :D

It's not ad hominem to point out the liberal, sin-loving changes in the modern versions. You've yet to point out even one clear example.

Modern Bible Versions Are Dangerous (http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbcmodrn.htm). Watch Out For Them! (http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbcmodrn.htm)
The Bible is very dangerous! It can actually lead people to become CHRISTIANS! ^_^ ;)

mwduke

28th December 2006, 10:20 PM

i just want to ask this... is there anyone other than TwinCrier who believes KJV is the ONLY true Word of God?

mwduke

28th December 2006, 10:26 PM

It's not ad hominem to point out the liberal, sin-loving changes in the modern versions.

what "liberal, sin-loving changes"? and in what versions? and what verses support your claims?

i totally disagree and think that it isn't the Bible that determines whether a church is liberal or not, but its the people who determine that. i also think that "liberal" churches are not in line when they reject verses that may seem antiquated, the Bible outdates all things and is relevant at all times.

I simply fail to see how NIV, NASB, etc. have fomented the "liberal" church doctrine away from truth. please explain.

TwinCrier

29th December 2006, 12:30 AM

what "liberal, sin-loving changes"? and in what versions? and what verses support your claims?

i totally disagree and think that it isn't the Bible that determines whether a church is liberal or not, but its the people who determine that. i also think that "liberal" churches are not in line when they reject verses that may seem antiquated, the Bible outdates all things and is relevant at all times.

I simply fail to see how NIV, NASB, etc. have fomented the "liberal" church doctrine away from truth. please explain.You know, the general removing of stuff like the name Lucifer, stuff like substituting maiden for virgin and referring to Joseph as Jesus' father, (thereby casting doubt on the virgin birth and by proxy, the diety of Christ) removing reference to the blood of Christ, (Colossians 1:14) even the Lord's prayer is tampered with.
http://biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html

The common response to these revelations is that they don't matter. They matter to me, that's why I'll stick with the KJV. http://www.biblediscernment.com/
:clap:

Logos1560

29th December 2006, 11:06 AM

You know, the general removing of stuff like the name Lucifer, stuff like referring to Joseph as Jesus' father, (thereby casting doubt on the virgin birth

Did you know that the rendering Lucifer at Isaiah 14:12 came into the English Bible from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome? Are you aware of the documented evidence from the 1500's and 1600's that shows that "Lucifer" and "morning star" were used as synomyns in that period of time?

By the way, all present English translations have not removed "Lucifer" and do not have the other-type changes that you claimed. For example, the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ21, etc. still has Lucifer.

The KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'). These pre-1611 English Bibles are placed on the good tree, good stream, or good line of Bibles by several KJV-only authors. Are you aware of the fact that Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, 1557 Whittingham's, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles all have "his father" at Luke 2:33? Luther's German Bible on the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles also had "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. Are you claiming that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that cast doubt on the virgin birth?

mwduke

29th December 2006, 11:26 AM

You know, the general removing of stuff like the name Lucifer, stuff like substituting maiden for virgin and referring to Joseph as Jesus' father, (thereby casting doubt on the virgin birth and by proxy, the diety of Christ) removing reference to the blood of Christ, (Colossians 1:14) even the Lord's prayer is tampered with.
http://biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html

The common response to these revelations is that they don't matter. They matter to me, that's why I'll stick with the KJV. http://www.biblediscernment.com/
:clap:
my response is that its in the footnotes that "maiden" = virgin . check it out.

TwinCrier

29th December 2006, 12:46 PM

Did you know that the rendering Lucifer at Isaiah 14:12 came into the English Bible from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome? Are you aware of the documented evidence from the 1500's and 1600's that shows that "Lucifer" and "morning star" were used as synomyns in that period of time?

By the way, all present English translations have not removed "Lucifer" and do not have the other-type changes that you claimed. For example, the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ21, etc. still has Lucifer.

The KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'). These pre-1611 English Bibles are placed on the good tree, good stream, or good line of Bibles by several KJV-only authors. Are you aware of the fact that Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, 1557 Whittingham's, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles all have "his father" at Luke 2:33? Luther's German Bible on the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles also had "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. Are you claiming that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles that cast doubt on the virgin birth?Actually Lucifer is the name of Satan and Satan is the angel of light, whereas Morning Star is what Jesus calls Himself in Revelation 22:16, so they certainly are NOT the same.
I'm not claiming that all modern versions make all the changes at once, since Satan is more clever than that. The old frog in pot scenerio is taking place.

my response is that its in the footnotes that "maiden" = virgin . check it out.The bible needs footnotes? Maiden is Not the same as virgin. :doh: I pray you learn the difference.

Someone is trying to deceive bible readers into thinking Satan and Jesus are the same, and that Maiden (or young girl as some translations render it) are the same. Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same. If you cannot grasp this basic concept this converstaion will go no further.

Logos1560

29th December 2006, 01:45 PM

Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same.

The KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'), but it is different from them in a good number of renderings. Are you claiming that the KJV is not the same as the beloved 1560 Geneva Bible that God used and blessed before there was ever a KJV?
Do you claim that Luther's German Bible is not the same as the pre-1611 English Bibles?

Present-day editions of the KJV are different from the 1611 edition of the KJV [except the reprint edition of the 1611].

Logos1560

29th December 2006, 01:59 PM

Actually Lucifer is the name of Satan and Satan is the angel of light, whereas Morning Star is what Jesus calls Himself in Revelation 22:16, so they certainly are NOT the same.

Who is claiming that the Lord Jesus Christ and Satan are the same person? When the Lord Jesus Christ and Satan are both referred to as a "lion," do you claim that the Bible is saying that they are the same?

The 1534 Luther’s German Bible, which is on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, has “morgen stern” [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12. KJV-only author Mickey Carter indicated that Luther's German Bible "is the King James Version in a different language" (THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME, pp. 83-84). KJV-only author Peter Ruckman stated that he recommends "Martin Luther's German version" (SCHOLARSHIP ONLY CONTROVERSY, p. 1). In his lectures on Isaiah concerning this verse, Martin Luther indicated that the Hebrew word “denotes the morning star, called Lucifer and the son of Dawn” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 16, p. 140). According to this translation of his own comments, Luther’s rendering was likely the result of the influence of the Latin Vulgate or at the very least his rendering “morning star“ was intended to mean the same as “Lucifer.” Of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible first used “Lucifer” at Isaiah 14:12. Miles Coverdale is said to have translated primarily from the German with guidance from the Latin, and he is not known to have had a manuscript copy of the old Wycliffe‘s Bible. Is it possible that Coverdale’s rendering “Lucifer” was his translation for Luther’s German Bible’s “morgen stern?”

A 1672 edition of the KJV printed in London has the following marginal note at Isaiah 14:12: “for the morning-star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer.“ In the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators themselves put this marginal note for "Lucifer" at Isaiah 14:12 [Or, daystar]. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined daystar as following: "The morning star, Lucifer, Venus; the star which precedes the morning light." In her 1997-1998 catalogue, Riplinger claimed that the 1828 Webster's Dictionary "defines words as they were used during the writing of the KJV 1611."

mwduke

29th December 2006, 03:54 PM

Actually Lucifer is the name of Satan and Satan is the angel of light, whereas Morning Star is what Jesus calls Himself in Revelation 22:16, so they certainly are NOT the same.
I'm not claiming that all modern versions make all the changes at once, since Satan is more clever than that. The old frog in pot scenerio is taking place.

The bible needs footnotes? Maiden is Not the same as virgin. :doh: I pray you learn the difference.

Someone is trying to deceive bible readers into thinking Satan and Jesus are the same, and that Maiden (or young girl as some translations render it) are the same. Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same. If you cannot grasp this basic concept this converstaion will go no further.
actually i think the word "maiden" in hebrew has the connotation of "virgin", but semantically is translated from hebrew to english as "maiden".

and no, the Bible doesn't need footnotes. they are printed at the bottom of the page to assist readers with antiquated terms or expressions (i.e. shekel = 8.5 grams, etc.) to help them understand the Bible better.

staveoffzombies

30th December 2006, 04:55 AM

mwduke

30th December 2006, 08:42 AM

I've noticed that KJV onlyiers talk about the changes made from the KJV to more modern translations as proof that the newer versions are corrupt. However, to make that claim one must assume that the KJV is the correct translation in the cases in the first place!

Therefore by making those arguments, you're using circular reasoning...you're trying to prove something by using the thing in dispute as evidence.

The KJV "debate" should have been put to rest years ago. It's not a debate anymore...the argument that the KJV is the only bible we should use has been disproven left, right, upwards, and downwards...now it's dissolved into beating a dead horse and namecalling.
i agree. its ridiculous to think that KJV is the only Bible... so if someone asks "do you read the Bible?" , and the responder say yes, then should the next question be" what version do you read?". and if it isnt KJV, then tell them that the book you're reading isnt the real Bible? (TwinCrier, please respond)

TwinCrier

30th December 2006, 12:25 PM

The KJV ius the only accurate translation in English. Even modernists and liberals agree that "insofar as it is translated correctly." If Satan hasn't tried to alter the bible he has overlooked an excellent oppourtunity to weaken the faith of Christians and isn't as clever as the 'bible' makes him out to be. Of course, if he just convinces everyone that the bible isn't perfect anyway, then he has nothing to worry about. Most modern churches don't preach about the devil anyhow. Too archaic.

Logos1560

30th December 2006, 01:35 PM

The KJV is the only accurate translation in English. .

Where is the valid and consistent evidence that supports your stated opinion?

What greater authority and standard did you use to evaluate the various English translations including the KJV and the various editions of the KJV?

No Swansong

30th December 2006, 01:45 PM

actually i think the word "maiden" in hebrew has the connotation of "virgin", but semantically is translated from hebrew to english as "maiden".

You are absolutely correct about this, the problem of course is that the modern use of the term maiden no longer; at least in English; connotates Virgin. Therefore it is not accurate. The most popular understanding of the word 'maiden' in English is a woman who has never been married, but since society today no longer assumes that a woman who has never been married is a virgin it is an inaccurate translation.

and no, the Bible doesn't need footnotes. they are printed at the bottom of the page to assist readers with antiquated terms or expressions (i.e. shekel = 8.5 grams, etc.) to help them understand the Bible better.

I couldn't care for or against footnotes. I rarely, if ever, read them.

TwinCrier

30th December 2006, 04:56 PM

Where is the valid and consistent evidence that supports your stated opinion?

What greater authority and standard did you use to evaluate the various English translations including the KJV and the various editions of the KJV?Valid evidence to support an opinion? :scratch: I used the greatest authority there is; the Holy Spirit. Don't get me wrong, I did do research on other versions and manuscripts and such, but faith by definition doesn't need proof. If I used my own human wisdom alone I'm sure I would not have trouble convincing myself to accept every translation out there, but that is not my goal. I seek truth.

Logos1560

30th December 2006, 06:20 PM

Valid evidence to support an opinion? I used the greatest authority there is; the Holy Spirit. I seek truth.

Are you suggesting that the guiding of the Holy Spirit makes you perfect or infallible in your understanding of the Scriptures?

It is is interesting that the Holy Spirit did not guide the early English translators such as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and even the translators of the KJV to advocate a KJV-only view. The Holy Spirit does not guide any one to hold a view that is not taught in the Scriptures.

mwduke

30th December 2006, 06:53 PM

Are you suggesting that the guiding of the Holy Spirit makes you perfect or infallible in your understanding of the Scriptures?

It is is interesting that the Holy Spirit did not guide the early English translators such as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and even the translators of the KJV to advocate a KJV-only view. The Holy Spirit does not guide any one to hold a view that is not taught in the Scriptures.
wow. that is so true. especially the last sentence. How can God's Holy Spirit contradict His Holy Word??

TwinCrier

30th December 2006, 08:16 PM

Are you suggesting that the guiding of the Holy Spirit makes you perfect or infallible in your understanding of the Scriptures?

Of course not. The Holy Scriptures are infallible regardless of rather or not I understand them.

It is is interesting that the Holy Spirit did not guide the early English translators such as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and even the translators of the KJV to advocate a KJV-only view. Now don't be silly. Those guys died before the KJV was even printed.
The Holy Spirit does not guide any one to hold a view that is not taught in the Scriptures.But why would the Holy Spirit lead someone to scripture at all if it's not infallible? :scratch: For the record, the scripture certainly does teach that it is more than mythical tales and errors of men.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/knowkjv.html

Logos1560

30th December 2006, 09:26 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos1560 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30227217#post30227217)
It is is interesting that the Holy Spirit did not guide the early English translators such as William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and even the translators of the KJV to advocate a KJV-only view.

Now don't be silly. Those guys died before the KJV was even printed.

According to your own statement, you are saying that all the KJV translators died before the KJV was printed in 1611.

Here are some example facts that show your statement is incorrect. KJV translator George Abbot died in 1633. KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes died in 1626. KJV translator Andrew Bing died in 1652. KJV translator John Bois died in 1644. KJV translator Richard Brett died in 1637. KJV translator Laurence Chaderton died in 1640.

Did you know that some of the KJV translators preached sermons from the Geneva Bible after the 1611 KJV was printed?

No Swansong

30th December 2006, 10:11 PM

I would think it is pretty obvious that she was not including the KJV translators.

mesue

30th December 2006, 10:27 PM

i just want to ask this... is there anyone other than TwinCrier who believes KJV is the ONLY true Word of God?
me, Sue.

mesue

30th December 2006, 10:29 PM

point out the differences please. especially those that prove NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc. were not written by the same God as KJV?
I did
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30098273&postcount=47

No Swansong

30th December 2006, 10:34 PM

While I use other translations I defer to the KJV if something is in question.

desmalia

30th December 2006, 10:45 PM

But why would the Holy Spirit lead someone to scripture at all if it's not infallible? Exactly. He left us with miraculously accurate transcriptions of the original text. Believers should be seeking that above all else. That is certainly where the Holy Spirit has led me. All translations into another language should be conidered as such, with recognition that translation to other language could potentially leave things open to interpretation - including even the KJV. That is why it's so vital to consult the original languages. I'm not saying that we can't trust English translations. Just that we must always look to the source for clarification. As such, it shouldn't really matter whether we're using the KJV or the NKJV, etc. If we're really truly seeking God's perfect truth, He will lead us there. It will be found within the context of the entire Word, and will never change based on culture or society.

You clearly feel convicted to use only the KJV, and I wouldn't ask you to do otherwise. What I hope you can some day consider is that there are also more current versions that are very much the powerful, living Word of God (even if you decide to always use the KJV). Yes there are churches that will ignore context and twist the Scriptures into their own man-made doctrine. But that happens with all versions, including the KJV.

I would still like to know how you feel about translations into other languages.

BTW, I'm really enjoying this thread. Lots of excellent things being said here. And I'm so glad we can all remain respectful and discuss these issues with such grace. :thumbsup:

Logos1560

30th December 2006, 10:49 PM

I would think it is pretty obvious that she was not including the KJV translators.

My statement that to which she replied and which she quoted clearly included the KJV translators. That seems to indicate that she either did not read all the statement to which she replied or else her statement in response included the KJV translators.

Logos1560

30th December 2006, 11:02 PM

The Holy Scriptures are infallible regardless of rather or not I understand them.

But why would the Holy Spirit lead someone to scripture at all if it's not infallible?

That is the point. There is a very big difference in the giving of the Scriptures by the miracle of direct inspiration to the prophets and apostles and the guiding or leading of the Holy Spirit that is available to all believers. The Scriptures do not teach that the guiding or leading of the Holy Spirit in aiding the translators of the 1611 KJV in their understanding/interpreting/translating the Scriptures in the original language was any different than the same guiding or leading of the Holy Spirit given the translator(s) of the German Bible, the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators of the 1982 NKJV, or the believing translators of other Bibles.

Any errors made by copiers, printers, editors, and translators are not infallible. Since translators are not infallible, on which Scriptural basis can it be claimed that they do not make any errors in their translating?

The Bible does not say that "all Scripture is translated by inspiration of God." Instead, the Bible says that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Again, there is an important difference between those last two statements.

It remains clear that you do not seem to have any scriptural basis for promoting your KJV-only view.

Logos1560

30th December 2006, 11:10 PM

All translations into another language should be considered as such, with recognition that translation to other language could potentially leave things open to interpretation - including even the KJV. That is why it's so vital to consult the original languages.

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages should be accepted as the greater authority and standard for the making and evaluating of all translations. Translations including the KJV derive their authority from their underlying original language texts.
A translation is not a translation of nothing. A translation is not independent and underived. The underlying original language texts have greater authority than the translation from those texts.

The KJV-only view often seems to imply that one translation is at least equal to if not greater in authority than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

desmalia

30th December 2006, 11:20 PM

I did
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30098273&postcount=47
I think that is a really good issue regarding the NIV. I too have a problem with that. But it still doesn't expain why you have a problem with the NASB, NKJV, etc.

TwinCrier

30th December 2006, 11:41 PM

That is the point. There is a very big difference in the giving of the Scriptures by the miracle of direct inspiration to the prophets and apostles and the guiding or leading of the Holy Spirit that is available to all believers. The Scriptures do not teach that the guiding or leading of the Holy Spirit in aiding the translators of the 1611 KJV in their understanding/interpreting/translating the Scriptures in the original language was any different than the same guiding or leading of the Holy Spirit given the translator(s) of the German Bible, the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators of the 1982 NKJV, or the believing translators of other Bibles.

So in other words, God inspired the men who wrote "the original manuscripts" what ever that means, but He no longer has the ability to preserve His word? God sure is lazy!

The preserved Scriptures in the original languages should be accepted as the greater authority and standard for the making and evaluating of all translations. Translations including the KJV derive their authority from their underlying original language texts.
A translation is not a translation of nothing. A translation is not independent and underived. The underlying original language texts have greater authority than the translation from those texts.

The KJV-only view often seems to imply that one translation is at least equal to if not greater in authority than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.
The original languages are dead, and the original manuscripts are gone. If what you say is true, then there is no bible. Logos1560, almost thou persuadest me to be an atheist. ^_^

mesue

31st December 2006, 12:03 AM

I think that is a really good issue regarding the NIV. I too have a problem with that. But it still doesn't expain why you have a problem with the NASB, NKJV, etc.
I was saved reading a NASB.
I went to a Bible study on what the Bible says about the Bible. I found it very interesting what God said about His word. There is a big difference between the word virgin and maiden. There is also a big difference between the words sky and heaven. I prefer the purer words of the KJV
Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Logos1560

31st December 2006, 12:08 AM

So in other words, God inspired the men who wrote "the original manuscripts" what ever that means, but He no longer has the ability to preserve His word? God sure is lazy!

The original languages are dead, and the original manuscripts are gone. If what you say is true, then there is no bible.

Matthew 5:18 indicates that the preservation would be in the original languages. There are no Scriptures that state that the preservation was to be in one English translation. God was just as faithful to preserve His word before 1611 as after 1611.

If the KJV-only view is true, it is implied that God failed to preserve His word as faithfully before 1611 as after 1611 or 1769. It is implied that God failed to preserve as faithfully for German-speaking believers, for Spanish-speaking believers, for Dutch-speaking believers, etc as He did for English-speaking believers after 1611.

The Scriptures teach that God gave the Scriptures in the original languages to the prophets and apostles by inspiration. The Scriptures do not teach that preservation or translation was by inspiration. The Scriptures do not teach that a translation should be made in effect a greater authority than the existing, preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Logos1560

31st December 2006, 12:10 AM

I prefer the purer words of the KJV

Can you demonstrate that the words of the KJV are purer and more accurate at every verse when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

mwduke

31st December 2006, 12:18 AM

I did
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30098273&postcount=47
are you saying that KJV is the only Bible written by God? no other version is from God?

welcome to the thread, btw ;)

TwinCrier

31st December 2006, 10:39 AM

Matthew 5:18 indicates that the preservation would be in the original languages. There are no Scriptures that state that the preservation was to be in one English translation. God was just as faithful to preserve His word before 1611 as after 1611.
Nope, nothing about languages in that verse. God speaks all languages.

If the KJV-only view is true, it is implied that God failed to preserve His word as faithfully before 1611 as after 1611 or 1769. It is implied that God failed to preserve as faithfully for German-speaking believers, for Spanish-speaking believers, for Dutch-speaking believers, etc as He did for English-speaking believers after 1611.Nope, this is totally false. God can and has preserved his word in other languages, but I speak English, and the English translation of the scripture in found in the KJV. If these modern versions are as good as or better than the KJV, why is the church becoming such a nonentity in to the world? Great Evangelists and missionaries become more scarce with the addition of more versions. It's no wonder that so many are confused as to what is and is not sin. They have no reliable, infallible source to turn to.... or so they've been taught by the modernists.

mesue

31st December 2006, 12:03 PM

Can you demonstrate that the words of the KJV are purer and more accurate at every verse when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?
When you show me the original languages, I will.
are you saying that KJV is the only Bible written by God? no other version is from God?

welcome to the thread, btw ;)
Are you saying the KJV isn't from God and every other version is?
and
:) thanks for the welcome.

Logos1560

31st December 2006, 03:47 PM

If these modern versions are as good as or better than the KJV, why is the church becoming such a nonentity in to the world? Great Evangelists and missionaries become more scarce with the addition of more versions.

Your question and opinion seems to be based on the post hoc fallacy or the fallacy of false cause. You have not proved that having more than one translation in a language is the direct cause of the things you claim. It is wrong to make unequal and unfair comparisons and make causual connections where no such causual connection has been proven to exist.

There were already eight to ten English translations available before the making of the KJV. According to your reasoning, why was another English translation needed in 1611 when believers and the common people already had their good and beloved Geneva Bible?
Did the introduction of another translation in 1611 produce the effects you imply?

If the post hoc fallacy that suggests that what is first in time is necessarily the cause of what follows was valid, the KJV would be the cause of Joseph Smith copying several chapters and verses from the KJV into the Book of Mormon.

Logos1560

31st December 2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos1560 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30240695#post30240695)
Can you demonstrate that the words of the KJV are purer and more accurate at every verse when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

When you show me the original languages, I will.

I will give you evidence from the scholars and translators you trust.

According to its title page and its preface, the KJV professes to be translated from the original languages. According to its separate title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "These tongues [referring to Hebrew and Greek] therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface before the sentence just quoted, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“

mwduke

31st December 2006, 04:23 PM

Nope, nothing about languages in that verse. God speaks all languages.

Nope, this is totally false. God can and has preserved his word in other languages, but I speak English, and the English translation of the scripture in found in the KJV. If these modern versions are as good as or better than the KJV, why is the church becoming such a nonentity in to the world? Great Evangelists and missionaries become more scarce with the addition of more versions. It's no wonder that so many are confused as to what is and is not sin. They have no reliable, infallible source to turn to.... or so they've been taught by the modernists.
i dont understand your logic. so.. you believe that it is the newer versions of the Bible that is the corrupting factor of the church. what do the new versions have anything to do with the church being a "nonentity"? and with missionaries? where is the causation that links the new versions to those things? that argument is completely arbitrary. i think you have stereotyped everyone and every church that uses new versions as being "modernist". just because a church uses a more modern version like NIV or NASB it doesn't imply that they are confused and deluded "modernists" that support homosexuality, evolution, and other beliefs that are not Christian.

mwduke

31st December 2006, 04:25 PM

When you show me the original languages, I will.

Are you saying the KJV isn't from God and every other version is?
and
:) thanks for the welcome.
no. and i dont mean to be rude, but can you read my post alright? i have no doubt that KJV is of God, as are NIV, NASB, NRSV. and you didn't answer the question that you quoted.

please dont make accusations like that again.

TwinCrier

31st December 2006, 05:10 PM

There were already eight to ten English translations available before the making of the KJV. According to your reasoning, why was another English translation needed in 1611 when believers and the common people already had their good and beloved Geneva Bible?
Did the introduction of another translation in 1611 produce the effects you imply?
Definately! The Geneva Bible was made to support Calvinist doctrine, not to be an accruate transliteration of manuscripts.
If the post hoc fallacy that suggests that what is first in time is necessarily the cause of what follows was valid, the KJV would be the cause of Joseph Smith copying several chapters and verses from the KJV into the Book of Mormon.The KJ verses in the book of morman are the only light in that demonic writing.

i dont understand your logic. so.. you believe that it is the newer versions of the Bible that is the corrupting factor of the church. what do the new versions have anything to do with the church being a "nonentity"? and with missionaries? where is the causation that links the new versions to those things? that argument is completely arbitrary. i think you have stereotyped everyone and every church that uses new versions as being "modernist". just because a church uses a more modern version like NIV or NASB it doesn't imply that they are confused and deluded "modernists" that support homosexuality, evolution, and other beliefs that are not Christian.Perhaps, but I have yet to see any church that held to the KJV even consider such heresies. Show me one church that uses the KJV alone as their authority and accepts homosexuality, abortion and/or evolution. I've never seen one.

mwduke

31st December 2006, 05:15 PM

Definately! The Geneva Bible was made to support Calvinist doctrine, not to be an accruate transliteration of manuscripts. The KJ verses in the book of morman are the only light in that demonic writing.

Perhaps, but I have yet to see any church that held to the KJV even consider such heresies. Show me one church that uses the KJV alone as their authority and accepts homosexuality, abortion and/or evolution. I've never seen one.
ive never seen a church that subscribes to those beliefs that uses NIV either. the anecdotal accounts you make are insufficient evidence for the broad stereotype you seem to hold for NIV using churches.

Logos1560

31st December 2006, 05:18 PM

Definately! The Geneva Bible was made to support Calvinist doctrine, not to be an accruate transliteration of manuscripts.

The Geneva Bible was overall an accurate translation of the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts. The text of the Geneva Bible can not accurately be said to support Calvinist doctrine any more than can be said for the text of the KJV. There were a few marginal notes in the Geneva Bible that are said to be Calvinist. The text of the Geneva Bible could have been printed in England without the marginal notes made in Geneva.

William Bradley, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The translators changed virtually nothing from William Tyndale’s New Testament in the New Testament of the Geneva Bible” (Purified Seven Times, p. 87). Mickey Carter noted that the Geneva “differs from the King James Version only in differing English renderings of the same Greek texts” (Things That Are Different, p. 48). In addition, Carter asserted that the Geneva Bible “is from the same manuscripts as the King James” (Revival Fires, Sept., 1996, p. 17). Murray, another KJV-only advocate, claimed: "There is not one difference suggested in the Geneva and the KJ Bible" (Authorized KJB Defended, p. 160). Gail Riplinger maintained that the earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's and the Geneva are "practically identical to the KJV" (Language of the KJB, p. 5). Cloud suggested that the earlier English versions such as the Geneva Bible “differed only slightly from the King James Bible” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Loughran, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout” (Bible Versions, p. 11). If KJV-only advocates really believe that the Geneva Bible was the Word of God in English in 1560 and believe their own claims concerning the word of God, should they have been unwilling to have one word or even one syllable of it changed?

TwinCrier

31st December 2006, 05:18 PM

Do a quick internet seacrch for homosexual churches. Most use the NIV.

mwduke

31st December 2006, 05:26 PM

Do a quick internet seacrch for homosexual churches. Most use the NIV.
that's strange because NIV condemns homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

JoyforJESUS

31st December 2006, 06:32 PM

Do a quick internet seacrch for homosexual churches. Most use the NIV.
and your point is what? that homosexuals are not worthy of Christs Love?

No Swansong

31st December 2006, 06:38 PM

and your point is what? that homosexuals are not worthy of Christs Love?
I believe (and she will correct me if I am wrong) the point she is making is that most Churches that justify homosexuality do so using versions other than the KJV.

No Swansong

31st December 2006, 06:39 PM

and your point is what? that homosexuals are not worthy of Christs Love?
By the way none of us are "Worthy of Christs Love" that is why it is called amazing Grace.

mwduke

31st December 2006, 06:51 PM

No Swansong

31st December 2006, 06:58 PM

i really don't see how homosexuals using NIV proves something about KJV. besides, the only "evidence" TwinCrier provided that corroborates her conjecture that gays use NIV is doing "a quick internet search for homosexual churches."
I wouldn't know I was simply commenting that her comment had nothing to do with who may or may not "deserve" Jesus' Love. As for what difference it makes that she would have to explain.

desmalia

31st December 2006, 07:04 PM

The KJ verses in the book of morman are the only light in that demonic writing.I think we can all agree on that. But you're missing his point. You keep claiming that all distortions that are made by churches are done to the modern versions, suggesting that you somehow believe that the KJV is immune to this kind of evil. But the book of Mormon clearly proves otherwise.

Perhaps, but I have yet to see any church that held to the KJV even consider such heresies. Show me one church that uses the KJV alone as their authority and accepts homosexuality, abortion and/or evolution. I've never seen one.Really? Well I've seen many. For one, consider so many Catholic churches that have fallen into Mary worship, etc. but only use the KJV. I've visited Lutheran churches, Baptist churches, and numerous others that use the KJV and still follow all kinds of modern false doctrines. I know an SDA follower who only reads the KJV, and his doctrine barely resembles anything Christian.

So, while your experience is valid, it is only one person's, and not always the case in the entire world. Again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the KJV. Just that it's no more immune to these problems than any of the modern versions.

A few English translations cannot be blamed for the entire world falling deeper into sin.

No Swansong

31st December 2006, 07:04 PM

Thread being closed for review.

No Swansong

5th January 2007, 03:29 PM

I am reopening this thread;

I would like to take the time to remind the board to post in a manner in keeping with CF rules to which we all agreed to abide when we joined.

I will be more diligent in this and the other threads concerning this issue in making sure that CF rules are adhered to. I would especiially like to see the comments made about specific translations only address the translations. Please address the issues not those who hold specific ideals. For example if you support KJO ideaology please explain why. But do not flame those who do not agree. The same goes for those who disagree with KJO ideaology, please address the translations, problems of translations, resources etc. not those who are KJO.

TwinCrier

5th January 2007, 06:41 PM

I think we can all agree on that. But you're missing his point. You keep claiming that all distortions that are made by churches are done to the modern versions, suggesting that you somehow believe that the KJV is immune to this kind of evil. But the book of Mormon clearly proves otherwise.
The book of mormon isn't the KJV and has no effect on it.

Really? Well I've seen many. For one, consider so many Catholic churches that have fallen into Mary worship, etc. but only use the KJV. I've visited Lutheran churches, Baptist churches, and numerous others that use the KJV and still follow all kinds of modern false doctrines. I know an SDA follower who only reads the KJV, and his doctrine barely resembles anything Christian.No one is claiming man is perfect, only that the KJV is God's perfect preserved translation. Personally I;ve never heard of any of those denominations using the KJV at all let alone exclusively.

So, while your experience is valid, it is only one person's, and not always the case in the entire world. But it's MY experience and it's valid enough for me.

A few English translations cannot be blamed for the entire world falling deeper into sin.
Satan doesn't need the whole world to fall into sin, he already has the world. It's the Christians he wants to hinder. The spread of the gospel, the memorization of bible verses, the value and trustworthiness of the scripture. A little leaven is all it takes.

VCViking

6th January 2007, 04:21 PM

Has any KJO adcovates read the MKJV-Modern KJV and/or the LITV/KJ3?

Logos1560

6th January 2007, 04:53 PM

A little leaven is all it takes.

Was there any leaven in the doctrinal views of the KJV translators? Was there any leaven in the lives of the KJV translators? Was there any leaven in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision? Was there any leaven in the line, stream, or tree of Bibles leading up to the KJV?

TwinCrier

6th January 2007, 11:37 PM

Has any KJO adcovates read the MKJV-Modern KJV and/or the LITV/KJ3?I've read parts of the KJV21 when it was online.

Was there any leaven in the doctrinal views of the KJV translators? Was there any leaven in the lives of the KJV translators? Was there any leaven in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision? Was there any leaven in the line, stream, or tree of Bibles leading up to the KJV?Yes, yes, no, no.

Logos1560

7th January 2007, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by Logos1560 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30468850#post30468850)
Was there any leaven in the doctrinal views of the KJV translators? Was there any leaven in the lives of the KJV translators? Was there any leaven in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision? Was there any leaven in the line, stream, or tree of Bibles leading up to the KJV?

Yes, yes, no, no.

Thanks for answering my questions. From your answer to my first question, I assume that you realize that you would disagree with some of the Church of England doctrinal views of the KJV translators. Perhaps you may know that at least some of the KJV translators were involved in the persecution of other believers for their faith. I wonder if you have ever read any of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. Some of them can be found online at the following web address
www.studylight.org (http://www.studylight.org)

What is your definition of leaven or what kind of rendering in a translation do you consider leaven? By your "no" answer to my last two questions above, are you saying that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision did not have any errors of translation?