YeshuaFan1
Active Member
One can be Kjv preferred, holding that the Tr is better Greek text, but cannot be KJVO!
King James Version Only...?
- Thread starter LC627
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
YeshuaFan1
Active Member
No essential doctrine is affected or changed any way in the modern versions!
YeshuaFan1
Active Member
While I argue against King James Onlyism, the King James is my clear favorite, because of it's translation style. It's what I like to call, "simple". Perhaps the least interpretation I see in translations. I think there are some others that follow it's style pretty much, the NASB, for instance, though it's from the Critical Text, and I think the MMS is what we should be reading, which is extremely similar to the TR.
Much love!
YeshuaFan1
Active Member
They also hold that then Kjv can correct errors in Hebrew.Greek texts, and that missionaries should translate off the Kjv itself!
YeshuaFan1
Active Member
YeshuaFan1
Active Member
YeshuaFan1
Active Member
I have no problems with those who prefer the way the Kjv reads and sounds, nut do with those who say its Kjv or nothing!
I'm not sure exactly where you mean, but yes, the Holy Spirit, grammatically, is a Neuter Gender noun, and associated pronouns would likewise be neuter gender, 'it'. The Holy Spirit is also sometimes written in masculine gender, and in those cases, the correct pronouns are used.
The KJV follows these distinctions well, so far as I've found.
Much love!
YeshuaFan1
Active Member
Though it might be allowed by the Greek rendering, the Holy Spirit should always been used as He!
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
This is a short list to go along with the others. Mostly verses that appear in the King James Version that are not in scriptures or in the older manuscripts. The NIV Bibles do not include them and the NASB puts them in brackets and notes the discrepancy. Of course the Comma Johanneum Addition leads the list.
The Comma Johanneum as it is referred to, originated as a common literary explanation or formula for the Trinity. It first appeared in the 3rd century in some of the literature which debated the oneness concepts of the Trinity. Even though this formula would become very popular, at the time, very few Church Fathers agreed with it.
At some point this short summary of the Trinity made its way into the margin notes of some of the Bibles that were written after the 5th century. Unlike other examples of popular margin notes that made their way into the scriptures, the Comma Johanneum found its way into the verses of the Bible by way of another avenue. After the 6th century, the Byzantines begain to recopy and retranslate the available Greek texts of the New Testament. At this point some of these copies became known as the “Textus Receptus.” It was in some of these that the formula was added and then later included in some of the Bibles. Most notably the King James Version, which relied heavily on these texts. As it happened the Comma Johanneum Addition was much more than a retranslation, or an addition, but rather a replacement of the original scriptures with a popular theological statement. They kept the verse numbers in sequence so that it would not be as noticeable.
The scriptures involved are 1st John 5:7&8. The original scriptures read as follows... (Quoting 6 through 8, so it can be read in context)
“6. This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8. And it is the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”
This was replaced with what came to be called the Comma Johanneum Addition. Verses 7 and 8 are the added lines.
6: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7: For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
As one can see there is no chance that these are simply a different translation, but rather a removal of the scriptures and an insertion of a theological statement for an intended purpose. Of course and again, there is no question that the Trinity exists, just that the Bible does not support the commonly explained formula or description of it.
Then here is the list of other additions to the KJV bible. If you have a NASB, and you notice the verses with brackets around them…and there are a lot of them. The following are verses that do not appear in the earlier tests. Most were added centuries after the canon. The problem is that they have formed their own variant religion. Those that develop this variant fight vigorously to up hold these verses….beyond all reason. It is like a separate Christian denomination and not to unlike the New World Version of the Jehovah's Witnesses, except there is definitely no intent to deny that Christ is a God. And this list does not address the dozens of incorrect translations.
1. “There are three that bear witness in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy spirit, and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7) THE ONE LISTED ABOVE.
2. “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” (Matthew 17:21)
3. “Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery… said to Him… the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do you say?… Jesus said “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
4. “And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground.” (Luke 22:44)
5. “These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons and they will speak with new tongues.” (Mark 16:17)
6. “And they will take up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any poison it will not harm them, and they will lay their hands on the sick and they will become well.” (Mark 16:18)
7. “For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.” (Matthew 6:13)
8. “And in the same way after supper Jesus took the cup and said, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:20)
9. “And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.” (Mark 16:15)
10. Many (not all) passages relating to the Substitutionary Atonement are interpolations.
ThePuffyBlob
Well-Known Member
i witness that kjv is not perfect there are some translations that are wrong and when you read the new kjv or kjv2000 it's more make sense than kjv1611 but i still use kjv1611 just that not only kjv but other version of bible as well i even want to use hebrew bible but it's better to not do it else i'll also rely on a machine translator
Here...read this:
Johannine Comma - Wikipedia
(Apologies for all my transliterations...when I do foreign languages I am atrocious at spelling)
Before Erasmus it simply wasn't in any Bible and they can date it's insertion into the scriptures.
It has been included...but it's not exactly good.
But...what does the comma Yohanim say?
Do you know what was added and why it's contested?
I'm not an advocate for what was originally argued...but I am an advocate for every jot and tittle being precious.
And I have my own reasons for it's exclusion instead of inclusion.
Mostly because of the source and John's particular writing style demanded of the time period. It flies in the face of all of that and is an obvious addition.
It, of course, requires for John's other writings to become written at a particular date. And at the root of all that there is another theology that becomes heavily debated due to timing.
One little thing like this and many things are instantly affected...so there's going to be a TON of pushback for everything.
Look at Jesus' thing about hand washing.
The Jews really got into this...there was a whole cottage industry off of selling ladles that precisely measured the water used in the practice and certified by a Rabbi as being the correct measurement for hand washing. And everyone checked out the materials used to ensure that they were indeed the proper materials certified and everything.
Jesus comes along and bypasses the whole thing. He got a TON of pushback for his decision. He wanted to change one little thing and by the way the religious leaders acted you would think they believed Jesus to be a heretic of some sort. They believed hand washing was integral to the whole of their faith.
And just to let me be clear...
I like many different translations. I lean on the NIV (first edition) heavily because I'm familiar with the work that the translators did with the translation...it was a good bit of work.
But that doesn't stop me from liking and enjoying the RSV in places, the ESV, or the ISR 98 in various places too.
Special mention for the HCSB goes out at well...(study bible) Where they do make an effort for accuracy there are locations where that dedication did wane a bit to fit into the normative beliefs of the SBC.
The ESV tends to stay true to its Calvinistic roots...
The RSV usually doesn't...but it's got it's it's pro as well.
The NASB (update) has many issues from the get-go. Where it claims to be a word-for-word translation...it really is not. I sometimes find the word-for-word translation to be arbitrary at times and its especially annoying when a double entendre is intended in a spot where the idiom of speech is translated out.
But they still get kudos for making the effort.
The biggest problem with scriptures today is that no one can read them or understand the writing style. A day and age when paper and pen were a day's to a week's wages...
Things were written in a very compressed style with no wasted words.
Today paper and ink are given away...and on electronic medium...*sigh*
I like many different translations. I lean on the NIV (first edition) heavily because I'm familiar with the work that the translators did with the translation...it was a good bit of work.
But that doesn't stop me from liking and enjoying the RSV in places, the ESV, or the ISR 98 in various places too.
Special mention for the HCSB goes out at well...(study bible) Where they do make an effort for accuracy there are locations where that dedication did wane a bit to fit into the normative beliefs of the SBC.
The ESV tends to stay true to its Calvinistic roots...
The RSV usually doesn't...but it's got it's it's pro as well.
The NASB (update) has many issues from the get-go. Where it claims to be a word-for-word translation...it really is not. I sometimes find the word-for-word translation to be arbitrary at times and its especially annoying when a double entendre is intended in a spot where the idiom of speech is translated out.
But they still get kudos for making the effort.
The biggest problem with scriptures today is that no one can read them or understand the writing style. A day and age when paper and pen were a day's to a week's wages...
Things were written in a very compressed style with no wasted words.
Today paper and ink are given away...and on electronic medium...*sigh*
Hi John,
So then either with or without the Comma, do you find there to be a difference in doctrine?
Much love!
I think the biggest problem is that so many don't believe what they read.
You make a good point here, there are no wasted words in Scripture. Not even a single wasted letter. People may read a verse, and form a thought, and walk away from it. I think we need to consider ever last little bit as fully and seriously real and true.
I've never ceased to be impressed by Jesus proving to the Sadducees, from the only part of Scritpure they accepted, the resurrection of the dead from the verb tense of "is".
Much love!
And millions of Christians were edified by the original Greek text for 1500 years before that! And after that!
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
English is the language that God has chosen to be prevalent in the world at just the time the Gospel will be preached to the world just before He comes to gather His elect. That's got to mean something. Every earthly language is insufficient to fully represent God's glory. I used to believe that the King James Version of the Bible was the purest and only acceptable translation for English speakers. Although I still prefer it in many cases, I haven't believed that for the last 25 years, largely as a result of reading the very publications that promote KJV-only-ism. But to claim something that amounts to barring the common man from understanding God's word to them is nearly as ridiculous as it is unfortunate. Whatever the intentions of those who make these elitist claims, the effect is the same. Impressionable novices are discouraged from attaining their highest level of spiritual understanding. Contrary to popular belief, the greatest men and women of God over the past several centuries knew nothing of ancient Hebrew and Greek languages. More power to those who have the capacity and facility to concentrate on these things. But it is irresponsible to claim that we can understand God better if we learn the languages of people subject to like passions as we are.
Similar threads
