Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I don't see how it really matters seeing we know from the Bible that God can use people despite their beliefs or intentions. Joseph's brothers. Saul's men. Jonah.
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!
I don't see how it really matters seeing we know from the Bible that God can use people despite their beliefs or intentions. Joseph's brothers. Saul's men. Jonah.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I have given reasons and proper arguments but you refused to look at them before because you don't like clicking on links. You also failed to show how I am wrong to use emotions. Again, are you a robot or a Vulcan?
Jesus wept.
That's in the Bible.
Also, if I am using emotional manipulation that is wrong, then you have to really demonstrate that fact by actually quoting words of where I did that. Just saying so does not make it so.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17).
“But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth...” (Daniel 10:21).
“...and the scripture cannot be broken;” (John 10:35).
Now, this is Getting Interesting: "The Holy Spirit Guides us In All Truth," BUT:
Your (and others here) implication is that "The Holy Spirit DID NOT
Guide (your "God Superintended"?) the KJV translators In All Truth"?
Having a Very Difficult time with that one, but hey, but what do I know?
GRACE And Peace...
"they found a demon-possessed man, and, opened It in front of him, and he said:
"Light." Then, they tried a New Modern version, he said: "NO light." They said they Repeated it several times = same result."
Now, isn't that just grand, we now have some who are listening to demons as if prophets from God. Yikes, that is really too sad to be funny.
Last edited:
So, let me "Get This Straight," you're say you "Agree with a point of view"
that you HAVE NEVER Researched???
Can you quote where I said that I agree with that point of view?
If I do happen to look like I agree with it, it is merely coincidence. I don't have an opinion about modern scholarship beyond defending modern Bibles.
Excellent Evidence, once again. Appreciate so much those diligent Bible
students who "do their homework." Also shows me how "little I know."
Our "labor In The LORD is not in vain." Thanks again; will "add this" to
my own studies...
GRACE And Peace...
Sorry Precious friend, I just Did Not wish to Misrepresent you; thus,
I was just Double-Checking your words for Clarification. Thanks.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
No, that is not an implication of my view. My point is simply to say that whatever can be said of the KJV can be said of the ASV, NASB, NIV etc. From my perspective, Christian men and women of good will, did their best to be faithful to the Lord and the Holy Scriptures. Nonetheless, I am taking my cues from the apostle John who wrote,Now, this is Getting Interesting: "The Holy Spirit Guides us In All Truth," BUT:
Your (and others here) implication is that "The Holy Spirit DID NOT
Guide (your "God Superintended"?) the KJV translators In All Truth"?
Having a Very Difficult time with that one, but hey, but what do I know?
GRACE And Peace...
These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. 1 John 2:26-27
John let's us know that although men might come along to deceive us, we have the anointing that abides with us. In other words, even if it were true that a nefarious group of people came along and made a translation based on false teaching, the anointing would help us see through it. No one is going to lose their salvation because they purchased a bad translation.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Okay, so you just defeated your point about the Nestle-Aland. What you just said about the preface to the KJV can also apply to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. God can use people despite their beliefs or intensions.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Okay, we have two issues here: 1) the phrase "only begotten" and 2) Your interpretation of John 1:14.
Only begotten:
This phrase translates the single Greek word "monogenes." The same word is used in Paul's epistle to the Hebrews.
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your descendants shall be called.” He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type. Hebrews 11:17-19.
Here we see the same phrase "only begotten son", wherein Paul highlights the profundity of Abraham's faith. Abraham trusted God so much that he was willing to go through the sacrifice of Isaac, believing that God would raise him from the dead. And Abraham was right and wise to think this about God because he knew that God would never fail to keep his promise concerning Isaac.
In other words, in order for God to keep his promise concerning his son, Isaac needed to be alive. If Isaac was killed, then God's promise would fail. But with Isaac alive God's promise would come true. And if Abraham were to kill Isaac in a ritual sacrifice, Abraham knew that God would bring him, Isaac, back to life.
In order to see the depth of Abraham's faith, we need to bear in mind that Isaiac was NOT Abraham's only son. Isaiac had a brother, Ishmael. The difference between Isaac and Ishmael is the fact that Isaac, not Ishmael was the son of promise -- the son whom God chose to promise.
From this context we come to understand the meaning of monogenes:only begotten. Monogenes means "one-of-a-kind son" focused on the uniqueness of the son. Among all of Abraham's sons, Isaac was unique in that God chose Isaac to be the son of promise. Monogenes isn't focused on birth; it's focused on status. Isaac wasn't the only son born to Abraham but he was the only son whom God promised to bless.
John 1:14
Now we turn our attention to John 1:14. And let's use the KJV version.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. KJV
Does this verse talk about the birth of Jesus? Yes. At the beginning of the verse it says, "the Word became flesh". This speaks about his birth and reminds us of the fact that he was not a spirit or a ghost or an apparition. He was a living, breathing, human being, born to the Virgin Mary.
Does "only begotten" talk about his birth? No. John is making a new point. And to understand John, we need a little background. John intends to make a point about the status of Jesus. John is using the term monogenes the same way Paul did in his epistle to the Hebrews. Jesus isn't the only son of God. Rather he is the unique son of God by whom the Father would keep his promise to Abraham to raise up a son who would bring righteousness and salvation to his people.
Jesus is not the only son of God.
In this context "son of God" has special meaning based on a coronation Psalm of David. Refer to Psalms 2 In that context, we hear the decree of Yahweh, "You are my son; Today I have begotten thee." Bear in mind, he is saying this to a grown man. He is NOT saying, "Today you were born" since this doesn't make sense. Rather, he is saying "Today I declare that you are my son."
This language comes from David's experience with God as recorded in 2 Samuel 7. In that context, God speaks to David about his son Solomon. He tells David that Solomon will be the beginning of a Dynasty that will exist forever. From that moment forward, all the kings of Israel will not only be sons of David, they will also be sons of God.
13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. 2Samuel 7:13-16 KJV
God the father established a throne and a kingdom that would last forever. And each king of Israel from that moment forward, God would call "my son" And according to Psalm 2, these men became "sons of God" by decree at their coronation ceremony.
With this as background we can now understand John's point. Jesus is not only the Word of God made flesh, he is the unique and special king of Israel that will fulfill God's promise to David that his dynasty would never end. In that context, monogenes points to the uniqueness of Jesus among all the kings of Israel.
Now for the NASB
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Again, monogenes refers to the uniqueness of a son and in this context the focus is on the unique king of Israel, whom God declares to be his sons. Among all the kings of Israel, Jesus is the unique and special king, who will fulfill God's promise to both Abraham and David. In this context one might misunderstand the phrase "only begotten God" to mean "only God who was born", which is not what John means to say. Rather, in the Ancient Near East, the kings of great nations and empires referred to themselves as "God" and in that context the term "God" means, "A ruler that for all intents and purposes is God incarnate."
John's point is this. Although these ancient kings claimed to be God incarnate, there is only one God incarnate because Jesus is the monogenes God, i.e. decreed as God by the Father himself. Not only this, but everyone who ever met Jesus could testify that Jesus is truly God incarnate because of his behavior. In John's words, Jesus exegeted God. Jesus represented God so perfectly that it was impossible to tell them apart.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Just like the book of which we spoke, your argument assumes the point you are trying to prove. The claim above is a case in point. You claim that the modern versions are in error because a verse was "removed", but any claim that a verse was removed must, of logical necessity, assume that the KJV is perfect. Obviously, if the KJV is perfect, then to remove something from a perfect item is to break it or lessen it somehow.
But, you haven't established that the KJV is perfect. It is just as likely that the KJV contained statements which the original Bible didn't contain, and that removing the verse is a good thing. Removing 1 John 5:7 doesn't affect the doctrine of the Trinity at all. Anyone who has studied the Bible knows that the Bible gives the reader the same message over and over again, such that one missing verse won't make a difference.
In fact, if one were to follow John's argument, one would immediately see that 1 John 5:7 is out of place and doesn't belong there. Learn to follow along with the author and see how his ideas progress. 1 John 5:7 doesn't follow from what came before.
Here is the NASB:
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. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
These sentences flow together and make a point about the witness of the water, the blood, and the spirit. And without knowing what John meant by this, we can see that his statements work to make a complete thought. Verse 8 is a summary conclusion of verse 6.
Here is the KJV
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.
Here we have another thought, stuck in the middle of the passage, which seems out of place because John's point is focused on the role of the Spirit. "It is the Spirit who testifies", he says. Here the KJV translators introduce the Father and the Son, which is a complete non-sequitor. Secondly, the point of John's epistle is the human witness of John and the other apostles who witnessed "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life . . ." Whatever happened in heaven is beside the point and not relevant to John's argument.
I could say the same thing about your other objections. They all assume that the KJV is perfect and unimpeachable. But this can't be assumed. This you need to prove.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Right. As far as I know, the KJV is not perfect and those who created it understood that when new information came along, it would be wise to correct it.
No, I wouldn't draw that conclusion. Consider our unusual need for perfection, with regard to the Bible. Suppose that you and I wanted to play a game of checkers. We open the box to find that one of the checkers is missing. We could give up and do something else. But then, all we need is something else to be the missing checker, say, a quarter or a button.
The question is not whether we have a perfect Bible, but whether the Bible we have is reliable. Someone mentioned that we have thousands of manuscripts to support our New Testament. And among all these manuscripts we have thousands of variations. But in reality, 99% of these variations have absolutely NO impact on doctrine. One manuscript might read, "Jesus Christ our Lord" another manuscript might read, "the Lord Jesus Christ." To find out which is original is a task set for scholars, but the difference in readings is a difference without a distinction. Our Bible might not be perfect but they are reliable.
In discussions of this type, differences are noted and exaggerated beyond what might be considered reasonable. Not only this, but the differences are ascribed to nefarious motives. This results in appeals to emotion and loyalty. Those who don't agree are seen as traitors and disloyal to Jesus Christ.
We can have this discussion and talk about the differences in a calm and rational manner. But let's not give in to hysterical unfounded claims.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
The answer to your question (which is a good question) is complex and multifaceted. Bear in mind, we are talking about translations of the Greek and Hebrew text, not the texts themselves. And those who favor the KJV are also, inadvertently favoring the English language. Who is to say that a Spanish translation or a French translation is NOT the word of God? Should I tell my brothers and sisters living in Italy they don't have the word of God? Should we tell the Wycliff translators to give up and go home?
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I don't understand your objection. Was this a knee-jerk reaction to my statement concerning my experience? The subject of this discussion is the claim that modern translations can't be trusted. The argument is basically an attack on loyal, Christian men and women who serve the kingdom of God by making the Bible accessible to EVERYONE. In defense of such noble and glorious people, I make a statement concerning MY OWN experience translating the Bible. The best translations are those that convey the ideas found in the original writings, such that other brothers and sisters and even uncovered peoples of all nations can hear the gospel message. So please forgive me for my enthusiastic support of fellow brothers and sisters, know that Jesus said, "in the way you treat these you treat me."
Grace and Pease to you also.
if one can read and understand the Hebrew and Greek texts, would they not be in authority and superior to the Kjv?
And if the need to learn and use Hebrew and Greek all not that big of a deal, why do most churches requires the pastors to know and use them to rightly divide the Bible?
The Nkjv uses the same Greek and Hebrew sources as the 1611 Kjv team did, so ironic the Kjvo see it as a "bad bible"
Similar threads
