Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?
- Thread starter Bible_Highlighter
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No agenda was set out originally because the 1611 English translation in England was not even King James’ idea to begin with. The proposal was made by John Rainolds (also spelled Reynolds) at the Hampton Court Conference on January 16, 1604. If King James thought ahead of time to create such a Bible for that idea to begin with, then you would be correct, but that is not what happened. It was only later that King James enforced Anglican rule with the translation, and it was not even translated fully by him. Only a few word suggestions were made, and the KJV translators did not state that this was a violation of the originals. The 1611 English translation was not specifically created for that sole purpose alone. That is an entirely different thing from what Westcott and Hort did. Westcott and Hort worked on the bulk of the 1881 Westcott and Hort Greek and the English Revised Version, with a specific intent to overthrow the Textus Receptus. Fenton John Anthony Hort called the Textus Receptus villainous. Hort made that statement about 30 years before the publication of the 1881 Greek New Testament and the 1881 Revised Version. So he had an agenda going in, and he worked on the bulk of both his new, never-before-seen Greek text and his English translation of it in a supposed KJV update. The English Revised Version said it was "the version set forth in 1611."
If they just said it was just the 1611 compared with the most ancient authorities instead of saying it was the version set forth in 1611, they would have made a more accurate statement. But saying it is the version set forth in 1611 contradicts the following claim that they made. The Johannine Comma was removed, and they did not alert the reader that it was removed. You even admitted on another post that this was all done in stealth, and when people found out it was not the version set forth in 1611, it upset a lot of people.
Also, Textual changes were specifically put into the text of this KJV update, and the Revised Version involved a Unitarian named George Vance Smith, with whom Westcott and Hort had communion. George Vance Smith had written a book talking about how theological doctrines were changed, and he was happy with these changes because they favored his Unitarianism. You can check out Vance's book here: https://archive.org/details/textsmarginsofre00smit
So your whole Modern Bible Movement is based on deception. Why you don't see this as a problem is deeply troubling.
The KJV did not secretly set out to make changes that we now can see that those changes are heretical in many places. You can just look at my PDF of those changes in my 77 Changed Doctrines PDF at www.affectionsabove.com. You may be able to say that a few may not work because of interpretation, but you cannot honestly say all of them are wrong because I show patterns of evidence of the corruptions involved. That is harder to refute. Plus, there are just really bad and horrible readings in your Bible. I mean, our Bible does not tell us that we must marry our rapist. Our bible does not say that Jesus is the begotten God, suggesting that the "Living Word" is not eternal. These things are heretical.
However, at this point, gaslighting the truth of the real history of the KJV is what must be done in order to defend the Modern Bible Movement. Let's just ignore the deception that was a part of the origins of your movement. Let's just ignore all the heretics that helped shape your critical texts, like Unitarians, Catholics working on behalf of the Vatican, liberals, rainbow people, and a Mormon for your BHQ (coming to a future English Translation). Let’s just ignore all the really bad doctrines in the text of the Modern Bible Movement. You really think that they are the same? Not even close. You must put a blind fold on to ignore all the darkness and deceptions in your own movement to make it like your side is the true text (which is not even a real settled text for believers to trust because it keeps shape shifting every few years). Your movement has led to people falling away from the faith and has caused confusion over the differences between variants and differences in English translations. Contrast this with the KJV that has led to three of the greatest revivals, unity, and memorization over one text that has changed countless lives.
.....
A fake thing . . . I've heard this bandied about against people, I'm not buying it.
No one here is worshiping their Bible, I should say.
I don't have anything against anyone if they want to use the KJV exclusively. In my experience though it's the KJV onlyists who seem to have a problem with everyone else, claiming they're trying to deceive the world with their evil modern translations. Give it a rest already. If you're happy with the KJV and believe that it alone is exclusively God's word then, go, be at peace and enjoy your KJV and leave the rest of us alone.
Many Modern Bible believers accuse KJV-only believers of committing idolatry in that they worship a book.
So this is false slander by many in the movement.
Yes, this appears to be the case for most for those who are Protestant, like me.
....
Haha.. the last post I see here on page 1 "I have no interest in debates" to that amen brother.
If you like KJ only.. praise GOD... its His word.. His sweet sweet holy Spirit that leads us guides us into all truth. Your reading Gods word... I remember the Choir Dir.. always saying to us young kids.. "even if its a verse a day".
If you like KJ only.. praise GOD... its His word.. His sweet sweet holy Spirit that leads us guides us into all truth. Your reading Gods word... I remember the Choir Dir.. always saying to us young kids.. "even if its a verse a day".
Not all Modern Bible believers think this way of course. They do make it their mission to attack those who trust in the KJV exclusively. Granted, the English alone position is a bit anti-intellectual, or anti-knowledge, or anti-truth, but the KJV English alone believer has a higher percentage of knowing many of words of God vs. the Modern Bible Christians who flip from one English translation to the next or one variant to the next or who decide that this reading in the Bible should be in or out.
Note: For our other readers here: - I believe the KJV is without error, but believe that the original languages must also be consulted for fuller truth and to be accurate on what the KJV says.
It's more than just the Modern English translations having corrupt doctrines, which I consider evil and wrong, but it is the heretics shaping the text, the massive level of employed deceptions, and a mentality that treats the word of God like a piece of meat to be chopped up like a piece of meat at the butcher shop. What reading could be in for you, is out for the other guy. The longer ending of Mark? Could be in for you, but out for the other guy in your movement. That's what's dumb about the whole movement to begin with. There is no settled word of God that you all can trust. It's confusion and nonsense. So yes, Christians who care about truth, should expose dumb and stupid things. I really pray and hope that one day because of the increase of knowledge, the Modern Bible Movement will just one day crumble and be exposed for what it is. If not, here, I know our Lord Jesus will reveal all things will expose it.
....
Paul debated.
Acts 17:17 (KJV)
"Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons,
and in the market daily with them that met with him."
This occurred in Athens. The word "disputed" here refers to reasoning and debating.
If you were living then, and lived nearby, does that mean you would not attend because you don't like debates?
Note: LSJ Greek lexicon's citation on his "argue a question" sense (i.e. debate) is from Plato and related philosophical literature (which is B.C.).
....
I know this wasn't addressed to me, so I hope you don't mind if I reply. You start by saying that not all modern Bible believers think that way. But then you say that they (presumably all of them) have a mission against KJV users. By no means everybody who uses a newer English translation than the KJV "makes it their mission to attack those who trust in the KJV exclusively." I use the NKJV, and I certainly would think of attacking any other Christian for using the KJV. I have close Christian friends who use the KJV, and others who use other translations. Neither is it correct to say (or at least to imply) that everyone who uses a more modern translation "flips from one English translation to the next." Some people may do that, but it's wrong to say that all do.
I fellowship with a believer and his family during the Thanksgiving holiday season who is not TR/KJV-only. So I do realize that not all Modern Bible believers set out to attack KJB believers. In my experience, I have been on the receiving end of this attack. They banned this topic at another forum because of my passionate defense of the KJV as God's words. I was mocked, laughed at, and ganged up on another forum for defending the KJV alone. You can also have a field day on YouTube or reading articles on the internet that attacks those who trust in the KJV exclusively.
You said:
I would say most do on some level. Meaning, some may be more loyal to a particular Modern translation but they are not slavishly tied to it. They may sometimes look to another translation or look to the Greek to correct even that translation. That's my point. They are not bound by one Bible alone and they feel that they can pick and choose certain readings here and there from one translation or another. Some (not all do this with when looking at variants in the Greek, etc.).
Besides, do you even know what your NKJV has said over the years?
Except for maybe street preachers or a few others who do not get into the textual issues much, I have not met many in the Modern Bible Movement who do not question certain readings like the Comma, longer ending of Mark, or who slavishly follow one Modern Bible translation alone or take issue with others holding to another Modern English translation, except maybe the NIV. But there are others who are for the NIV and love it. Yet, they will not get as much flack as say a believer who holds to the KJV exclusively. Others who are for the Nestle and Aland Greek and see all English translations as having error, must then must become a Hebrew and Greek expert based on the shifting sands of Modern scholarship.
There may be a few odd ducks who think a Modern English translation is perfect like the KJV, but they do not represent the majority. In other words, there are not any ESV-onlyists, NIV-onlyists, etc. like the TR/KJV community.
.....
I do realize that there are believers who do not get into any of the textual issues whatsoever. They just read whatever Bible translation they happened to receive or gravitated toward and stick with it. They do not ask questions, think about the words in their translation versus another, look to the original languages, or consider that certain popular translations may be heretical.
No doubt, these types of believers really do not get deep into the textual issues. They have virtually no knowledge of the topic of Bibliology. So no, I am not stating that everyone in the Modern Bible Movement takes a multi-versionist approach. I am referring to those within the Modern Bible Movement (which are many) who engage more with the Bible, ask questions, and think more deeply about the text.
However, the person who does stick with one Modern Bible is generally not going to criticize another person for using a different translation. Why? Because they ignorantly think all Modern English Bibles say the same thing. That is how limited or bad their knowledge is on this topic.
....
....
To all:
For many in the Modern Bible Movement, if the words are close enough it's good enough for them. If this was not the case, then there would be a lot more infighting within the Modern Bible movement. Unless you are TR/KJV-only or KJV-only, generally, most do not get up in arms whenever you quote a translation that is NIV, ESV, etc.; They treat it as God's word in theological discussions online and in person. But they do not all say the same thing and this is confusion. You would not test fly a plane that is built on conflicting schematics, and so why do so with a book that deals with your very soul?
It's madness.
.....
For many in the Modern Bible Movement, if the words are close enough it's good enough for them. If this was not the case, then there would be a lot more infighting within the Modern Bible movement. Unless you are TR/KJV-only or KJV-only, generally, most do not get up in arms whenever you quote a translation that is NIV, ESV, etc.; They treat it as God's word in theological discussions online and in person. But they do not all say the same thing and this is confusion. You would not test fly a plane that is built on conflicting schematics, and so why do so with a book that deals with your very soul?
It's madness.
.....
For better clarification (on my previous post to you):
The Greek word underlying the KJV's "disputed" in Acts 17:17 is Διελέγετο (dielegeto), an imperfect form of διαλέγομαι (dialegomai). LSJ lists the verb under the headword διαλέγω and defines the middle form as including the sense "argue a question," citing classical Greek sources such as Plato. This supports the KJV's translation "disputed" as referring to reasoned discussion or debate rather than mere conversation.
....
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Jesus after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Jesus No More.
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Jn 12 32 the italicized word at the end note is Not what Jesus was saying ,But this is a good mistake. That should be understand in The Holy Spirit ."Its Draw All". Now go and see hear what Jesus was to claim! The whole chapter is awesome I'm just got something I need search out in there .About want not in that passage.
Interesting to remember to show in Jn 12 Jesus don't mention anything in his last HR As son of man About being lifted up for Sin ".
think many say Jesus died for your sin"? Actually it Not True! If read!
say hey anice example of how The Holy Spirit reveals to the inner Man.
See?
Interesting to remember to show in Jn 12 chapter
Jesus don't mention anything in his last HR As son of man About being lifted up for Sin ".**think many say Jesus died for your Sins"? Actually it Not True! If read!
say hey ,nice example of how The Holy Spirit reveals to the inner Man.
Here is the link to the Greek definition if you are interested:
….
I am truly sorry to hear that you have experienced such animosity. I hope I never come across that way in any of my posts. If I do, I assure you it is unintentional.