KJV-Onlyism versus One Perfect Word of God Thru Out Time Ism.

[Jason0047]

While I do believe the KJV 1769 (1611) is the divinely perfectly preserved Word of God for our world language today (English) (Because that is the version that is used by KJV-onylists and Non-KJV-onlyists for the past hundred years), I am not against reading other translations (so as to help in updating the language) and I personally believe that the Word of God still exists in various ancient manuscripts within the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin perfectly, too.

In other words, I am not technically a proponent of "KJV-Only - Ism" but I am a proponent of "One Perfect Word of God Thru Out Time - Ism" (With the understanding that other translations are sort of like sifting thru the dirt to get to the gold that is in the version that I do plainly understand (i.e. the KJV). To put it to you another way, Modern Translations merely help me to update the Old English language and the Metonymy (or figures of speech); While I do not generally rely upon the Hebrew, or Greek (always), I do believe it is possible to know a lot of words within these languages by the fact that it lines up with the language that I am familar with). Perhaps I should call my position "Uni Sola Perfectus Enduring Scriptura - Ism." (To make it sound more offical Theologically).

Anyways, I hope this clears up any misunderstanding that people think that I am a part of some KJV-Only cult that says you should only read the KJV or your being deceived, etc. I do recognize the KJV 1769 (1611) is inspired or divine, but I do not ignore that the Word was perfectly preserved in other languages and I do not ignore other translations that has helped to update the Old English that can help me to understand God's Word better. The only difference is that I do not make Modern Translations my authority, though. I believe the 1769 KJV (1611) lines up with the Hebrew (OT), Greek (NT), and Latin.

Side Note: Also, I do realize that the English has words that do not appear to show up in the previous languages. But I believe less words conveyed the same thought with the many words that are within the English.

 

[dcontroversal]

I recognize the King Jim as a translation and transliteration of the INSPIRED original languages! And I use a Cambridge Berkshire Leather King James Black Letter Edition wide margin.......!

 

[Agricola]

Rather like Obama claiming he is not a Muslim.

 

[JackH]

Anyways, I hope this clears up any misunderstanding that people think that I am a part of some KJV-Only cult

You created your very own cult.

And now you are looking for members.

I think I'll pass.

 

[sacraig67]

I personally use the NIV because that's what I grew up with having. It's just easier for me to read. I will use other versions in study though to help me gain a better understanding. I think we just need to not get to a point where the REAL meaning is lost in our translations.

 

[JackH]

I recognize the King Jim as a translation and transliteration of the INSPIRED original languages! And I use a Cambridge Berkshire Leather King James Black Letter Edition wide margin.......!

What I can't figure out is whether it is the Cambridge KJV or the Oxford KJV that is perfect.

 

[wattie]

God did promise his Word would be preserved thru all generations. But I wouldn't call the KJV the inspired Word.. that is the original manuscripts. The KJV has Church of England influence that allows for sprinkling for baptism and universal church teaching. I would call it a reliable preservation of the original though, and it is what I use all the time.

I don't really get people who will chuck out the KJV because it is old English.. like I posted before, people don't chuck out Shakespeare because it is old English. Also I find it easier to read than a lot of modern translations because it is not paraphrasing, it is succinct and clear.

So ya I guess I am along the lines of God's Word being preserved throughout all time thru reliable translations.

 

[JackH]

God did promise his Word would be preserved thru all generations. But I wouldn't call the KJV the inspired Word.. that is the original manuscripts. The KJV has Church of England influence that allows for sprinkling for baptism and universal church teaching. I would call it a reliable preservation of the original though, and it is what I use all the time.

I don't really get people who will chuck out the KJV because it is old English.. like I posted before, people don't chuck out Shakespeare because it is old English. Also I find it easier to read than a lot of modern translations because it is not paraphrasing, it is succinct and clear.

So ya I guess I am along the lines of God's Word being preserved throughout all time thru reliable translations.

Exactly.

Reliable, not perfect, translations. The KJV is reliable, and so is the NASB. Neither is perfect.

And yes, it is the original manuscripts and the original manuscripts only that are the inspired Word.

Unfortunately, we don't have any of those. That does not mean that none of those exist. But none have been discovered to date. So we have to rely on the most reliable of those manuscripts that we do have.

 

[skipp]

I recognize the King Jim as a translation and transliteration of the INSPIRED original languages! And I use a Cambridge Berkshire Leather King James Black Letter Edition wide margin.......!

That sounds like a nice Bible.

About the topic at hand, what about the Geneva Bible? That was the original Bible of the Protestant reformation. The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the common people and one of the purposes of the KJV was to make sure that the commoners wouldn't be exposed to the anti-monarchy notes in the Geneva Bible. The KJV was a government Bible meant to stifle the heavily Protestant Geneva Bible.

 

[dcontroversal]

What I can't figure out is whether it is the Cambridge KJV or the Oxford KJV that is perfect.

Yeah I don't know, but I sure like my Cambridge HAHHA

 

[Angela53510]

So, just out of curiosity, what happened before 1611 or whatever date of KJVO you are using?

And what about the billions that don't speak or read English, let alone early modern, verging on Middle English?

Just to clear, I don't read the Bard, either, although Pilgrim's progress, edited in 1688, wasn't such a bad read.

"KJVO, putting barriers up to common people reading the Word of God!" A great new motto for your cult!

 

[Sec]

I use a Schofield KJV when I pick up the Bible, but most of the time I copy from a KJV version that I bought for $10.00 about 16 years ago. I write in Word, so I copy the text, and do my commentaries from there. The 47 or 51, I've seen both numbers, translators that worked on the translation, while trying to translate two dead languages that none were really skilled at, had to deal with the way they had learned the text, just as Luther did, not from a Bible, but memorized from papers, that had been approved from the pope and written in the Latin vulgate, so they had been indoctrinated with what the passages were supposed to say, through tradition, and when it came to a question of what a passage said, their memories always won out, and that is clear, to anyone who tries to translate a passage today, and wonders why it doesn't come out just like our English Bibles, in most cases that's impossible because they had memorized Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome's false theology from the Latin vulgate.

<><===><>
Gary Sechler
With knowledge on loan from God

 

[Nick01]

Is it really necessary to throw the 'cult' word around?

 

[Jason0047]

I can say believing that we don't have a perfect Word of God today is a cult, too. I can say that believing in all of the Modern Bible versions is the Word of God (despite them not all saying the same thing) is a cult, as well. I can say the denial of observable evidence of the KJV being superior over the Modern Translation is a cult. I can say looking to creating your own interpretation of Greek words (Within a Lexicon to re-write your own Word of God) is a cult, too.

For how easy it is for a person within a cult to make you believe what you want them to believe if you give them an interpretation of Greek words that neither of you truly understands. It's Greek to both of you. Unless you confirm it in a language you are familar with. I believe it is cultic to brain wash men into thinking they need to be Greek scholars instead of being a simple farmer or a common fisher man who just reads God's Word plainly and simply. For who was more condemned during Jesus' time? The scribes? Or the simple man?

 

[Jason0047]

For Paul said he would rather speak five words with the understanding than five thousand without the understanding. In other words, looking to Greek Lexicons (when one does not know what that Greek word means) is communicating without the understanding. It's asking the person you are talking with to shut down their brain and to listen to your supposedly great Greek knowledge (When you nor anyone else really speaks Greek). Everyone is guessing. For no Greek scholar agrees with each other. However, if I speak the Word of God in the preserved world language today (That they are familar with), then they can have the understanding and they are able to check out what the root of those words actually mean in confidence. There is no fooling people to believe whatever you want them to believe.

 

[Jason0047]

Also, not all Modern Translations say the same thing, either (And God is not the author of confusion). Many of them have the devil's name placed all over them, too. In addition, they have watered down doctrines, etc. They are not attacked like the KJV and are inferior by way of comparison to the KJV. In other words, all around, I believe one can be just as cultic as those who are KJV-only. For believing there is no perfect Word of God and or believing that there is a perfect Word of God does not mean they are a part of a cult or not. It is when a group takes their beliefs to the extreme in such a way that compromises God's righteousness or morality and or when they say something that is not even remotely even hinted at within the Scriptures.

 

[directline2iam]

It is when a group takes their beliefs to the extreme in such a way that compromises God's righteousness or morality and or when they say something that is not even remotely even hinted at within the Scriptures./QUOTE Jason0047

And what is that, fermented wine? Get a phase concordance and look up all the scriptures on wine before you decide it is evil, for what God has made clean call not unclean. If it makes your brother/sister weak don't drink it, if it makes him/her strong, share one. I said one.

 

[JackH]

Is it really necessary to throw the 'cult' word around?

Yes, it is.

Since Jason0047 obviously prefers English, here it is in English via Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

Cult: A great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book): esp: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad.

 

[JackH]

For Paul said he would rather speak five words with the understanding than five thousand without the understanding. In other words, looking to Greek Lexicons (when one does not know what that Greek word means) is communicating without the understanding. It's asking the person you are talking with to shut down their brain and to listen to your supposedly great Greek knowledge (When you nor anyone else really speaks Greek). Everyone is guessing. For no Greek scholar agrees with each other. However, if I speak the Word of God in the preserved world language today (That they are familar with), then they can have the understanding and they are able to check out what the root of those words actually mean in confidence. There is no fooling people to believe whatever you want them to believe.

Nonsense.

No Greek scholars agree with each other? An accurate statement might be that Greek scholars agree with each most of the time (95% or 99% or whatever).

There are over 5,000 New Testament manuscripts. They agree with each other most of the time. We can be confident that we have RELIABLE but not PERFECT manuscripts that reflect RELIABLY but not PERFECTLY what God communicated to people like Moses and Paul.

Now, where these manuscripts do not agree with each other is where you have English speaking people going to lexicons and such to try and figure what certain words translated from Greek to English really mean. Seems to me that they are trying to rightly divide the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15: "Study to shew thyself approved under God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (KJV) I think God is pleased with such people.

 

[JackH]

I can say believing that we don't have a perfect Word of God today is a cult, too. I can say that believing in all of the Modern Bible versions is the Word of God (despite them not all saying the same thing) is a cult, as well. I can say the denial of observable evidence of the KJV being superior over the Modern Translation is a cult.

The difference is you call the KJV perfect and nobody calls a translation like the NASB perfect. And you and others like KJV1611 (I wonder what that user name means) keep starting thread after thread about your perfections.

Yinz (you and KJV) are obsessed (great devotion - see definition of cult I posted) with this issue.

And, if you debated someone who is smarter than a 5th grader on the KJV vs. the NASB with respect to which translation is superior, I doubt you would win. But in any event, both translations would be determined to be very RELIABLE, but not PERFECT.

Do you think the translators of the KJV thought they were creating a PERFECT Bible? Do you think that they thought they were divinely inspired?