The King James Version attacked from with in

[dmedicinus]

This has been coming up recently and it really has bothered me. Some IFB's are using word studies and unknowingly tearing apart the plain english of the KJV just to appeal to their desire to prove an issue. If it says it in plain english and you show me a complicated word study that says it really meant something else you are attacking the validity of the KJV, you are saying the translators got it wrong. Error enters in subtly. We need to be sure to check our hearts with these word studies, is it done to prove MY desires correct, or is it done to affirm GODS desires for me? Word studies that conflict are likely red flags... God is NOT the author of confusion. Word studies should only increase understanding of the context and the meaning of the passage as a whole. The KJV has never been under the attack it is now, and this attack is coming from with in the saints serving Him. 

This has been coming up recently and it really has bothered me. Some IFB's are using word studies and unknowingly tearing apart the plain english of the KJV just to appeal to their desire to prove an issue. If it says it in plain english and you show me a complicated word study that says it really meant something else you are attacking the validity of the KJV, you are saying the translators got it wrong. Error enters in subtly. We need to be sure to check our hearts with these word studies, is it done to prove MY desires correct, or is it done to affirm GODS desires for me? Word studies that conflict are likely red flags... God is NOT the author of confusion. Word studies should only increase understanding of the context and the meaning of the passage as a whole. The KJV has never been under the attack it is now, and this attack is coming from with in the saints serving Him. 

[dmedicinus]

This article shows the attack well: Most conservatives would be appaled by the article and flag it immediately, but when the same devises are used to make acceptable something they want acceptable they stay silent.http://religiondispatches.org/does-the-bible-really-call.../

 

[Genevanpreacher]

This article shows the attack well: Most conservatives would be appaled by the article and flag it immediately, but when the same devises are used to make acceptable something they want acceptable they stay silent.http://religiondispatches.org/does-the-bible-really-call.../

 

So are you saying you agree with the article or not?

I am not KJVO but I am not in agreement with 'perversions' either, and the Bible I use is older than the KJB but uses different words and wordings.

They, the KJB and my Bible, are based on the same TR Greek and the same Hebrew/Chaldee/Aramaic.

Or are you stating that some men use the same tactics?

[dmedicinus]

Completely disagree with the article, find it appalling, it makes me angry and sad.  It's the same use of the tactics to attack the KJV.  If we don't stand on the inspired Word of God how can we stand on anything?  What kind of a church do you attend?  Is it Independent Fundamental?  If so you would know the doctrinal issues surrounding the KJV.  It is the preserved Word of God in the English language. I would be surprised to find differences on that issue with in an IFB church.  

[John81]

Most IFB churches use the KJB. However, there are at least a few which also use some others along with the KJB and a few which have completely changed over to a MV.

IFB churches declaring themselves KJO is a relatively modern concept. Of course, prior to the second half of the 20th century there wasn't a myriad of versions out there with new ones and updated ones being published virtually every year.

Even that staunch IFB man of God, John R. Rice, wasn't KJO. He sometimes quoted from the RSV even tho he primarily used the KJB. Sumner and others were/are not KJO. Rice's paper, Sword of the Lord, didn't promote a KJO position until after Rice passed away. It's really been the Sword's current editor, Smith, who has used the Sword as an instrument to promote and defend the KJO position.

When a person breaks down IFBs to individuals, while most use and carry a KJB, there are many individuals within IFB churches who read, study and otherwise use other versions at home, alongside their KJB.

A lot has changed over the past several decades, both within and outside IFB churches.

For the newer folks here I will add that I use the KJB.

[Ukulelemike]

Once in a while I look at meanings of the Greek and get a little confused as to the reason a particular word was used, but I don't argue the validity of the word, it just drives me to look a little deeper as to why it might have been used.

For instance. we were just going through Rev 16 last Sunday, and it speaks of the noisome, grievous sore that would be the result of the first vial of wrath. I looked at the Strongs and I find that a majority of the times its used, it is translated 'evil', or 'troublesome'. This is the only use of 'noisome'. So it got me wondering why, how a wound could be noisome.

Now, I am kind of, of the opinion that the implantable microchip could either be the mark, or a precursor to the mark. After all, if you won't be able to buy or sell, what better way to control that than to have everyone have a chip implanted in their hand or forehead with all their bank info, and accept nothing else? Well, the current microchip is powered by a lithium battery encased in glass-if it was to burst, it would cause a terrible wound, infected with lithium, radioactive, and glass. And it would probably make a 'POP!" when it did. So it IS possible to have a noisome, grievous wound with such a thing.  Doesn't have to be that, but it shows how it is quite possible and probable, at least in this scenario.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

While the KJB is in English, word meanings change.  

 

For instance, the phrase "gay apparel"  does not mean today what it did forty years ago... much less four hundred years ago.  Ask a person younger than twenty today what gay apparel is, and you are sure to get the answer that it is what a sodomite wears.  And if no one looks up the original Greek, the youth of tomorrow will be preaching a message totally foreign to its original intent amd meaning WHEN PREACHING ON GAY APPARREL.

 

knowing Greek and Hebrew is not wrong, but helpful when reading the KJB.  There were many different words in Greek or Hebrew that, although translated as the same word, meant a certain class or a certain genre.  It is good to know when the Bible says 'man', whether it is speaking of a certain classification, i.e.; warrior, (geber) husband, (ish) or mankind in general? (adam)

[John81]

I would simply add "properly used", learning and studying Greek and Hebrew can be helpful and good. Used to enhance our understanding of the KJB this is beneficial.

However, and I think this is mostly what the OP is referring to, there are many who use the Greek and Hebrew to attack the validity and authority of the KJB. They will declare this word and that word and more words should have been translated differently. In doing so they are declaring the KJB to be in error while placing their opinion upon how these words should have been translated above the entire team of KJB translators of highly skilled men who spent years rightly translating the KJB and double checking each others work to ensure consensus and accuracy. Those who do this are men with an agenda to discredit the KJB.

There are also those who learn just enough Greek and Hebrew to think themselves more educated and wise than others and in their clumsy attempts to prove their wisdom and intellect, end up trying to correct the KJB even if that's not their actual intent.

Looking at the Greek and Hebrew to understand why the KJB translators chose a particular English word in the KJB can enhance our understanding and is supportive of the KJB.

Looking at the Greek and Hebrew to try and change or denounce the KJB is an evil act against the Word of God.

[dmedicinus]

Yes that is the intent of word study, but they are used to say abomination is not what the greek word was originally meant to mean.... that is using word studies to twist scripture. If it is in plain english and a word study show a completely different meaning it is likely that the word study has gone wrong. 

[Genevanpreacher]

Completely disagree with the article, find it appalling, it makes me angry and sad.  It's the same use of the tactics to attack the KJV.  If we don't stand on the inspired Word of God how can we stand on anything?  What kind of a church do you attend?  Is it Independent Fundamental?  If so you would know the doctrinal issues surrounding the KJV.  It is the preserved Word of God in the English language. I would be surprised to find differences on that issue with in an IFB church.  

I went to an IFB KJVO church for 21 years. I have been a minister since 1990. Until this past year I was the Pastor of a ministry called Jacob's Well, a Genevan Baptist Ministry. I currently do attend an IFB. I only minister as the Lord allows now, but have been used of God many times since using my non-KJV Bible. It does not attack the KJB, but reinforces the truth of what we have and do believe as Baptists. I have preached many times on the KJB issue, in support of it being the only one in English. Until the day I found this one. I now have preached and taught from the Bible I use now for 12 years. God is good.

[John81]

Yes that is the intent of word study, but they are used to say abomination is not what the greek word was originally meant to mean.... that is using word studies to twist scripture. If it is in plain english and a word study show a completely different meaning it is likely that the word study has gone wrong. 

Yes, if a word study is done and they claim their understanding is that something in the KJB is wrong, then they have made a mistake in some way, have decided they know more than the KJB translators and all those who have accepted the KJB as is for over 400 years, or they are actually intent upon declaring something wrong as a means of attacking the KJB. Those doing such should be avoided.

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

I believe my King James Bible is error free. It doesn't need any kind of correction. As soon as you say your Bible isn't perfect you put yourself in authority over God's words. Men love to be in control so believing in a perfect Bible isn't popular, even in IFB circles.

[John81]

I went to an IFB KJVO church for 21 years. I have been a minister since 1990. Until this past year I was the Pastor of a ministry called Jacob's Well, a Genevan Baptist Ministry. I currently do attend an IFB. I only minister as the Lord allows now, but have been used of God many times since using my non-KJV Bible. It does not attack the KJB, but reinforces the truth of what we have and do believe as Baptists. I have preached many times on the KJB issue, in support of it being the only one in English. Until the day I found this one. I now have preached and taught from the Bible I use now for 12 years. God is good.

The KJB, in part, comes from studying and comparing the Geneva Bible (and other pre-KJ Bibles), along with comparing the same line of ancient texts as the Geneva Bible was translated from.

Even when the KJB was being prepared, the Geneva Bible was considered a good translation. The only negatives I've read regarding the Geneva Bible from back then had to do with the notes contained within. Many non-Calvinists objected to some of the notes and some in authority objected to some of the notes as well. However, it's likely if the Geneva Bible had not contained notes many in England found objectionable, that Bible may not have eventually been replaced by the KJB.

The KJB and Geneva Bible are very similar and compatible, unlike the often vastly different MVs which often leave out entire verses or passages, change the meaning of verses by changing words around, etc.

[Genevanpreacher]

 However, it's likely if the Geneva Bible had not contained notes many in England found objectionable, that Bible may not have eventually been replaced by the KJB.

I agree. Although it did take about 60 years to overtake it in popularity.

[Ukulelemike]

I went to an IFB KJVO church for 21 years. I have been a minister since 1990. Until this past year I was the Pastor of a ministry called Jacob's Well, a Genevan Baptist Ministry. I currently do attend an IFB. I only minister as the Lord allows now, but have been used of God many times since using my non-KJV Bible. It does not attack the KJB, but reinforces the truth of what we have and do believe as Baptists. I have preached many times on the KJB issue, in support of it being the only one in English. Until the day I found this one. I now have preached and taught from the Bible I use now for 12 years. God is good.

I've mentioned before my disagreements with a fellow who is a big believer in the Gap Theory, (not someone here on the board), and its interesting in this discussion, because he was a HUGE KJV only person generally, EXCEPT for a few places where the translation disagreed with his theory, and they had to change the English word so it would agree, somewhat easier, with their theory, and in these places, he emphatically declared the translators were WRONG! All based on the teachings of ONE man, by the name of Younce, (Max, I think).

One of the things I did was to go to earlier translations, like the Geneva and Luther and others, the TR translations, and showed him how they all backed the KJV in these particular areas, and of course, well they were just ALL wrong, and his teacher was better studied and more knowledgeable than all these people. It's funny, too, because when you read about some of these translators who before they were adults, often spoke, read and wrote multiple languages, including Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often the ancient version of them, as well. These people were steeped in the old languages and had the manuscripts available for long-term study and use in the translations, while today these erstwhile scholars have nothing but an older Greek or Hebrew printed version, with no ability to actually search out what the old manuscripts said. Essentially they are having to trust that someone else wrote correctly what they are reading, which is no difference than when we read the KJV.