KJV Only...which one!
- Thread starter Nancy
- 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!
This is your opinion. One can still rely on the original languages. Yes without being puffed up, since you asked. I myself do study the original languages and cultures. Now am I a scholar no. I do however sit under professors who teach the languages and those extremely gifted ones who have dedicated their lives to teaching the languages such as some Rabbis who have long passed. As a teacher I try and make every effort to understand these things. As there are way to many preachers and pastors that are peddling lies and disinformation by simply not understanding the original author's intent and culture they lived in. Which is very different to our own. I used to be one of those but by the mercy and grace of Yahweh I repented and have moved on Blessed be His Name.
One needs to also understand that scholars do not agree on many interpretations, how grammar works, word order, syntax, constructions, discourse analysis, what is narrative what is non-narrative, prose, poetry etc, etc.
Our English mindsets, language fall miserably short when weighed against the original. For this reason I cannot in good conscience teach from the modern-day perspective. Let me give you some examples the word faith is connected to a nursing child, and a tent peg driven into the ground. Grace is directly related to pitching your tent and living within the camp. The word light is connected to being in order. Biblical author's who where Hebrew's think in cycles unlike us Greek thinkers who think in a linear fashion for example a timeline we plot history by a point on a line Hebrews do not. I could go on and on and on.
Most doctrines within most denominations are erroneous simply because of not understanding most of what has been said above. I know I used to be one of those. I heard a true story from someone who teaches Hebrew at one of the big seminaries. Hebrew and Greek are not compulsory in most bible seminaries or colleges they are electives which is an absolute disgrace in and of itself. For the ones that do, do them they mostly forget about them in a very short period of time which is evidenced from what and how they preach.
Anyway back to the professor's story he would usually have a class of around 30 students, and more times than not only 2 - 3 of them would even bring their bible to class. On top of that he would run into students years later and they had completely forgotten about the language studies. No wonder the churches are compromised, preach a half - baked powerless message, allow what the bible calls abominations within their midst. My Bible says to be Holy for I am holy!!! Yahweh words not mine.
So going back to what was challenged yes I will stick with the original languages and culture to better understand what our creator is teaching who by the way chose predominately the Hebrew language to communicate His words and who by the way chose that culture and people to use and who by the way chose to manifest Himself as a Jew in the person of Yeshua Hamashiach (Jesus the Messiah)
Shalom
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Being cryptic really does not mean you are correct. Again, if you are correct, then please show us a verse that explains the Trinity point blank like 1 John 5:7. If not, then we simply will know you cannot produce the goods and you are just acting like you have an ace up your sleeve when you really don't.
For I am not new to studying the Bible, and I am not new to this topic. So I believe your claim that there is another actual verse that point blank teaches the Trinity is simply false. Sure, you may have verses that imply it, but there are no other verses that directly teach (or describe the Trinity) like 1 John 5:7.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Not when the actual Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus are manuscripts that originate from Alexandria (Which is the birthplace of Anti-Trinitarianism). Just Google the origin of Arianism. It's Alexandria. Just look up the source text of these two manuscripts at Wikipedia. It's Alexandria. Then there is more. You got Westcott and Hort defending an Arian to be on their committee to butcher the Bible. They threatened to quit if this Arian was kicked off the team. More Arian (Anti-Trinitarian) nonsense. It just keeps piling up and you gotta ignore it (because it does not align with what you want to be true).
In addition, the word “Godhead” is changed in Modern bibles to divinity. Again, this is yet another attack on the Trinity because Godhead means Trinity. See, what you fail to get is that Rome does not really want you to get your belief of the Trinity from the Bible (Although I believe they may put up counter deceptions to such a thing). Mother church ultimately wants you to believe the Trinity from believing the scholar (or priest) instead. So while the Trinity is true, Rome does not want you to trust the Bible for that belief. They ultimately want Mother church to be your source. So if they get you to trust the scholar or Pastor over what the Bible actually says, Rome has won. They just got you to not believe the Bible for truth (Sola Scriptura) but... they got you to think of believing in oral tradition as the source for truth (Which is what they want).
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Compare what you just said to the poor guys who could not understand the Bible without the Roman Catholic priests telling them what the Bible said because the priests were speaking in the Latin tongue. At one point in history in Rome: Only the Catholic priests knew what the Bible said. They could only get their interpretation of the Bible from the priests. How is that really different than what you mentioned here? I don't see much difference. You do realize this was all a part of Rome's deception and tactics right? They want you to trust the holy men and not just read the Bible plainly. Westcott and Hort started the Modern Scholarship movement that got people to question the Bible with serpent hissings that said, “Yea, hath God said,...?” Westcott and Hort were into Catholic practices. Today, the Critical Text of Westcott and Hort has shapeshifted to being the Nestle and Aland Critical Text (28th edition as of the date of this writing). If you were to look at the 27the edition, it says that it was under the supervision of the Vatican. Meaning, the Greek text used for most all Modern English bibles is supervised by the Catholic church. That to me is unsettling and is all the reason for me to run in the other direction.
Side Note:
Back in the day in Rome: If a person was a Catholic and they decided to take and read the Scriptures for themselves, and they were not a priest, they would have been killed. Today, Rome has simply changed it's tactics. Instead of killing a person they took away the Bible (Sola Scriptura) without having to take any life. With Westcott and Hort, (and Nestle & Aland) they got a person to believe the priest or scholar over what the Bible says. That's what Rome did. It's one of the greatest deceptions of our times.
Last edited:
I didn’t intend to be cryptic. Let me be more clear. You say 1 John 5:7 is the clearest statement of the trinity in the Bible. Yet it is almost universally considered by modern Bible scholars to be spurious. How regrettable for trinitarians that your best verse is at best highly controversial.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Your talking about Modern scholars who favor the corrupt Westcott and Hort Critical Text that was based upon Alexandrian manuscripts that were in the minority and have lots of problems. There is only like apprx. 50 manuscripts for Alexandria. The Textus Receptus (Antiochian Syrian texts) is like 5,000. It's the majority text and is most doctrinally pure. I have already demonstrated that so far in this thread several times. Why would God want to cripple you with a butter knife when you are up against a JW. In Modern Scholarship: It's only a Bible that is mental club with men sitting around in fancy suits that smoke cigars and it's not an actual sword that is practical to use to actually save souls.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Your missing the point. Alexandria is the birthplace of Arianism. It's also the fountain head of Gnosticism. What is also ironic is that an Alexandrian cult had written in their creed as one of their final statements, states this: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH. No wonder Critical Text / Westcott and Hort Modern Bible followers believe this way. It all stems from that place. It's a spirit that has carried those false ideas from that place and has traveled on to Modern Scholarship because it favors the Alexandrian texts.
To make matters worse, we know that Egypt is predominantly mentioned as being negative in the Bible, as well.
Actually I am talking about you. You said 1 John 5:7 is the best scripture to establish the trinity. Yet it is at best highly controversial. To almost all Bible scholars outside of the KJ only crowd, the Johannine Comma is spurious.
You object to the Greek manuscripts modern Bible scholars use because they were found in Alexandria. Yet you have no objection to Athanasius being from Alexandria.
Thankfully Bible truth can be found in many, many translations including the KJV. It just might be a little harder.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
That's right. The meanings of words sometimes depend on the historical context. And every few years, Biblical Archeologists discover ancient writings and artifacts that shed new light on the meanings of words. This alone is a good reason to publish a new Bible, replacing misinterpreted words and ideas with the correct ones.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
This is not true. Your argument against modern translations is based on ad hominem attacks against Wescott and Hort, which your previous post demonstrates. Can you not see your error? Really?
False. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
Suppose Joe was looking for THE Best Surgeon because his wife needs a complicated, delicate operation and the skill of the surgeon or his lack, will mean life or death for her. Certainly Joe will look for a surgeon that went to all the best schools, has many years of experience, has performed this procedure many times, and never lost a patient. Joe is look for skill, and success rate. Now suppose Joe finds the best surgeon but the doctor isn't married, he is a womanizer; he has Nazi friends; He is an atheist; He votes democratic; and he learned to be a doctor from a Catholic school. Does any of that matter? No. Joe isn't looking for a savior, a friend, a buddy, a husband for his daughter. He is looking for the best surgeon and this doctor is the one. The doctor's prior associates and his social history are irrelevant with regard to his or her ability to perform surgery. The ONLY thing that matters to Joe is whether or not the surgeon has above average skill level, training, experience and desire to save the life of his wife.
Hopefully you can see from my example above, those who hire skilled people are interested in their skills, not their personal life. What a skilled professional does in his or her personal life isn't relevant to the task at hand. This is no less important when it involves the product of scholarship. Those who purchase the services of a scholar, aren't interested in his or her personal life. The only things of interest are skill, education, training and experience in the area of study of interest.
The talk in this thread is split between two related subjects: 1. Translation of a Greek New Testament into English, and 2. the production of a Greek New Testament Edition. Those who purchase or make use of any New Testament Greek edition are NOT interested in the personal lives of those who created it. The most salient focus of interest should remain on the product itself. Does it represent ALL known manuscripts? Was it assembled by scholars and experts in their field of study? Is the Edition accepted by other scholars who are also experts in New Testament manuscripts? How many people have purchased the Edition? Is the work accessible and easy to use? Does it contain helpful references such as a lexicon? Do the authors explain the strategy and goals of the product and are the strategies likely to achieve the goal?
What the scholars do in their spare time, where they take a vacation, who they associate with, who they call friends etc. are all irrelevant to the goals and end product of a scholarly work.
None of that matters. All that matters is the quality, integrity, and reliability of the Greek New Testament Edition.
None of that matters. Who cares what Catholics do? Our concern is the quality, integrity, and reliability of the Greek New Testament Edition. Who made it or how it got made is irrelevant. All that matters is the skill, training, education and experience of the scholars who produced it and whether other scholars accept it as factual and accurate. THAT is all that matters. Period.
So what?
So what? How is this relevant? It isn't.
Again, so what? It doesn't matter. Even if Satan himself were to produce a Greek Edition of the New Testament, we would evaluate according to the same criteria as before.
May I ask a question? Do you own a copy of the "Novum Testamentum Graece?" Have you even seen a copy? Have you ever held a copy and looked inside? I wonder
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
And?
Have you not read what these two heretics did to the scriptures?
They will have much to answer for at Judgment Day!
Would you call the below an “ad hominem” attack?:
“And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10)
That was the Apostle Paul calling out an heretic!
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
They haven't done anything to the scriptures.
There are differences between the KJV and other translations, but these differences aren't necessarily incorrect or erroneous. It is just as likely that the KJV contained errors that needed correction.
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
“Likely”?
Why do you accept the narrative that the KJV contains errors but not the narrative that the enemies of God (Wescott & Hort) sowed doubt in the word of God with their imaginary anti-faith theories?
Satan’s work is easy these days because of them!
But many men fall for Wescott & Hort’s fair speeches and swelling words:
“For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Romans 16:18)
“For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.” (2 Peter 2:18)
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
For a book that was published in 1611, it's amazing how influential and widely read the KJV still is today. Though there are hundreds of versions and translations of the Bible, the KJV is the most popular. According to market research firm Statistica, as of 2017, more than 31% of Americans read the KJV, with the New International Version coming in second place, at 13%. Five large denominations of Christianity — Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Latter-day Saints and Pentecostal — use the KJV today.
Even casual religious observers or nonbelievers are affected by the prose of the KJV Bible in ways they may not realize. Its poetic language has influenced generations of artists and activists, with many biblical phrases becoming part of our everyday language. A few examples include "the blind leading the blind," "the powers that be," "my brother's keeper," "by the skin of your teeth," "a wolf in sheep's clothing," "rise and shine" and "go the extra mile," according to Wide Open Country. Even the famous opening line "Four score and seven years ago" from President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was inspired by language used in the KJV.
Even casual religious observers or nonbelievers are affected by the prose of the KJV Bible in ways they may not realize. Its poetic language has influenced generations of artists and activists, with many biblical phrases becoming part of our everyday language. A few examples include "the blind leading the blind," "the powers that be," "my brother's keeper," "by the skin of your teeth," "a wolf in sheep's clothing," "rise and shine" and "go the extra mile," according to Wide Open Country. Even the famous opening line "Four score and seven years ago" from President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was inspired by language used in the KJV.
Similar threads
