Take the KJV only challenge

[bibletotingunslinger]

Rather that make this take to much room,
AMEN to Jerry's first Post.
More AMENS to come later.

If this was not a KING JAMES BIBLE BELIEVING FORUM I WOULD NOT BE HERE.

[John81]

If this was not a KING JAMES BIBLE BELIEVING FORUM I WOULD NOT BE HERE.

Every "Christian" forum I've been on that wasn't KJB centered was nothing but a big mess. In fact, those of us who would quote from the KJB would often find ourselves under attack for quoting from that "outdated, hard to understand, error filled old book"!

Even though most disliked or outright hated the KJB, the mob would fight among themselves about the meaning of various verses quoted from a dozen different versions. Of course, with so many of those versions contradicting one another or saying something that seemed very different than the others, there was no way they could come to an agreement.

Even for those who don't want to use the KJB for whatever reason, can't they just pick one version and stick with that instead of reading a half dozen versions or more and picking and choosing from each on various subjects? Ugh!

[chiara]

Wasn't lumping the TR with the corrupt Greek texts. Was saying that W&H supplied the corrupt Greek texts and the corrupt lexicons to confuse people.

As for the King James Bible, it does have a built-in dictionary. Riplinger points that out in her book "In Awe of Thy Word", and instructs you on how to use it by looking at the context and repetition. Yes, I have the Webster's 1828 also. But I am always suspicious when a preacher says, "in the original Greek..." First of all, if it was a W&H Greek text, it is already suspicious. Secondly the meaning of the Greek might be from a corrupt lexicon. My ears prick up and I listen for the supposedly contradiction that invariably follows the "in the original Greek...".

Give us some real men that preach the Word of God anyday, and not Bible critics who doubt what they're preaching about.

[Will]

Wasn't lumping the TR with the corrupt Greek texts. Was saying that W&H supplied the corrupt Greek texts and the corrupt lexicons to confuse people.

As for the King James Bible, it does have a built-in dictionary. Riplinger points that out in her book "In Awe of Thy Word", and instructs you on how to use it by looking at the context and repetition. Yes, I have the Webster's 1828 also. But I am always suspicious when a preacher says, "in the original Greek..." First of all, if it was a W&H Greek text, it is already suspicious. Secondly the meaning of the Greek might be from a corrupt lexicon. My ears prick up and I listen for the supposedly contradiction that invariably follows the "in the original Greek...".

Give us some real men that preach the Word of God anyday, and not Bible critics who doubt what they're preaching about.

Most KJV people who use the phrase "In the original Greek" would be referring to the TR, not the W&H. Logical fallacy on your part.

The second logical fallacy here would be that the KJV has a built in dictionary. There are some phrases and words that cannot be understood without outside aids.

[Calvary]

The second logical fallacy here would be that the KJV has a built in dictionary. There are some phrases and words that cannot be understood without outside aids.

I find that a built in dictionary is simply reading context and looking for cross references of subject matter.

But I would be interested in a list of those words that can't be understood unless we have that outside source or aid.

Thanks in advance,

God bless,

Calvary

[Will]

I find that a built in dictionary is simply reading context and looking for cross references of subject matter.

But I would be interested in a list of those words that can't be understood unless we have that outside source or aid.

Thanks in advance,

God bless,

Calvary

How about "And we fetched a compass?" I did an informal survey among KJV users, and found that the majority had no clue when I put them on the spot and didn't allow them to look it up in a dictionary.

[Kubel]

Do MV's say "and we got a GPS?". [/bad joke]

Compass means around, and acompass means something is surrounding something, so that's what "a compass" probably means, but what's stumping me is the word fetched. I know its a verb but I also know it probably doesn't mean to go get something like a dog. If I had to guess, I'd say it means to... walk... or maybe march... ride? jog? crawl? lol i have no idea.

::cheats and looks it up::

[Will]

Do MV's say "and we got a GPS?". [/bad joke]

Compass means around, and acompass means something is surrounding something, so that's what "a compass" probably means, but what's stumping me is the word fetched. I know its a verb but I also know it probably doesn't mean to go get something like a dog. If I had to guess, I'd say it means to... walk... or maybe march... ride? jog? crawl? lol i have no idea.

::cheats and looks it up::

"Travel in a circle."

In Southern venacular, we'd say: "We done went 'round 'bout the town today."

[dwayner79]

"Travel in a circle."

In Southern venacular, we'd say: "We done went 'round 'bout the town today."

I think the better southern translation would read... "We had Billy Joe spit the direction we were wantin to go and it came right back and hitem in da head. We figured then we were gonna hafta sail sideways back and forth if we was ever going to git anywhere."

(of course that would be a dynamic equivalent)

[Calvary]

How about "And we fetched a compass?" I did an informal survey among KJV users, and found that the majority had no clue when I put them on the spot and didn't allow them to look it up in a dictionary.

That's the trip of Paul.

What does the context say?

They were in a ship. The words "and from thence" appear twice in the immeadiate context. And when the south wind blew... (is when they plotted a course.) Therefore, I would surmise by the context that "fetch a compass" is to follow along the coast until the wind came to fill the sails. Now, that's about what it means too.

Not to mention the obvious, but "fetched a compass" appears to be a nautical term, hence, no matter if it be found in a MV or the KJB, one might find trouble with that phrase. It's not due to the "archaic English" language of our KJB beloved.

If some KJB only'er you asked about it couldn't come up with your understanding of it after you looked in a book, blame it on the public school system, not the KJB! :smile

The other versions use the following.

we made a circuit.
(omit the phrase altogether) (CEV, The Message)
went up the coast. (which it seems mean)
weighed anchor. (which it does not mean)
compassing by the shore. (Darby)
set a compass.

How about scripture with scripture, that always helps, but in today's lazy, fast food Christianity, few really want to do the work to find out what their Bible says, be it an NIV or a KJB. So sad. I just looked up the word in my KJB and found two verses that helped me a lot. Not to mention another 15 verses or so that use the word "fetch" alone.

Jos 15:3 And it went out to the south side to Maalehacrabbim, and passed along to Zin, and ascended up on the south side unto Kadeshbarnea, and passed along to Hezron, and went up to Adar, and fetched a compass to Karkaa:

2Ki 3:9 So the king of Israel went, and the king of Judah, and the king of Edom: and they fetched a compass of seven days' journey: and there was no water for the host, and for the cattle that followed them.


This is interesting from Lawrence Vance.

Num 20:10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?


Fetch developed from the Old English feccan, a variant form of fatian, "to bring to, for, or simply to go and get something". The expression 'to fetch a compass" means to making a round or making a circuit (See Joshua 15:3; 2 Kings 3:9).

Although the MV's deemed this word archaiac and sought to eliminate it, the NKJV carelessly left "fetch" in one passage. The usual updated translation for "fetch" is "bring" or "get".

But is the word "fetch" archaic? Have you ever tossed a stick for your dog and said "Fetch it boy!"?


Still, I would still like to see some more of these hard to be understood phrases that one must have an outside source in order to understand them. Fetched a compass wasn't that obscure to me, and I am of average intelligence brother. Sorry, I didn't see the real problem with it. And by the looks of it, Kubel was right there as well. He's not even KJB "only" either. :smile
I think most of it is a refusal to actually dig a little and try to understand, sadly, most Christians these days want a spoon fed diet and care little for any serious study.


Any more?

God bless,

Calvary

[Will]

I think most of it is a refusal to actually dig a little and try to understand, sadly, most Christians these days want a spoon fed diet and care little for any serious study.


Any more?

God bless,

Calvary

I find that a bit of an arrogant statement Calvary. To state that it is a refusal to "dig a little and try to understand" is ascribing heart motives to people, and you really don't know what their motives are.
The entire purpose of the KJV was to put it into the vulgar or common language of the day. Why can't we do that today?

[Jerry]

There is nothing wrong with having the Bible in the common language - however, there is a problem when modern translators (who claim they are doing just that) change the meaning of the text, add to, and take away from God's Word.

P.S. Why do English-speaking people need an "updated Bible" every six months or so? There is an agenda there - and it is not simply to give God's people a Bible in their own language.

The problem is also with the source documents - what good is having a literal, modern, accurate translation of corrupt texts? There is none.

There are no accurate modern English translations that are true to the preserved Textus Receptus and the Massoretic Text. Some claim to be - but they fall short by attempting to change passages (ie. change the meaning of passages and question certain passages) to bridge the gap between the KJV and MVs.

[Will]

There is nothing wrong with having the Bible in the common language - however, there is a problem when modern translators (who claim they are doing just that) change the meaning of the text, add to, and take away from God's Word.

P.S. Why do English-speaking people need an "updated Bible" every six months or so? There is an agenda there - and it is not simply to give God's people a Bible in their own language.

The problem is also with the source documents - what good is having a literal, modern, accurate translation of corrupt texts? There is none.

There are no accurate modern English translations that are true to the preserved Textus Receptus and the Massoretic Text. Some claim to be - but they fall short by attempting to change passages (ie. change the meaning of passages and question certain passages) to bridge the gap between the KJV and MVs.

Well, I agree Jerry. We don't need an updated Bible every six months or so. I believe what we need to do is spend more time reading the ones we have(and toss out some of them too). And yes, Bibles based on faulty manuscripts might be good translations, but they are good translations of corrupted manuscripts.

However, I disagree with your statement about there not being any accurate, Modern English Translations that are true to the TR and Masoretic Texts. I'm currently checking out the MKJV(Modern King James Version), and plan to check out the KJV2000 as well. So far, the MKJV appears solid, and very true to the underlying texts. And from what I've heard of the KJV2000, it does as well.

[Calvary]

I believe what we need to do is spend more time reading the ones we have(and toss out some of them too).

Wait a minute! You mean that folks should spend more time actually reading the Bible? Is there an echo in here?

I showed you that your smoke screen is exactly that, some of this "hard to be understood" stuff is in my opinion a bunch of hot air. I asked you for some evidence and it wasn't all that hard really, so now you say I'm arrogant?

I guess it's all in who says it right?

Thanks brother.


I think that most would agree that we live in the most Biblically illiterate times to date. Mostly due to the Manhattan Avenue sales pitch that we can't understand the word of God in that old archaic KJB, we need another 15 updated versions to help us out. And as far as I can see, several of the brethren on this site have fallen for it.

So, what has the NIV really done for American Christianity?
Where is this enlightened new America I am still waiting for?

Since the American Christian (over all) has ditched the KJB, all I see is more confusion amongst them.

You foist a so called problem, intimating the need for a better Bible, but the old fashioned work ethic, called study more, is what was called for, I say as much and I am arrogant. :puzzled:

You say as much and you're educated and scholarly? :puzzled:

I guess I just don't get it.

Calvary

[Will]

Wait a minute! You mean that folks should spend more time actually reading the Bible? Is there an echo in here?

I showed you that your smoke screen is exactly that, some of this "hard to be understood" stuff is in my opinion a bunch of hot air. I asked you for some evidence and it wasn't all that hard really, so now you say I'm arrogant?

I guess it's all in who says it right?

Thanks brother.


I think that most would agree that we live in the most Biblically illiterate times to date. Mostly due to the Manhattan Avenue sales pitch that we can't understand the word of God in that old archaic KJB, we need another 15 updated versions to help us out. And as far as I can see, several of the brethren on this site have fallen for it.

So, what has the NIV really done for American Christianity?
Where is this enlightened new America I am still waiting for?

Since the American Christian (over all) has ditched the KJB, all I see is more confusion amongst them.

You foist a so called problem, intimating the need for a better Bible, but the old fashioned work ethic, called study more, is what was called for, I say as much and I am arrogant. :puzzled:

You say as much and you're educated and scholarly? :puzzled:

I guess I just don't get it.

Calvary

A: You've misunderstood me. Nowhere did I state that we merely need to read our Bibles more in order to understand difficult to read passages. My comment was aimed more towards the mentality of having a new Bible coming out every five or six months. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with our previous discussion. You can't read my conversation with Jerry into my conversation with you.

B: What has the NIV done for America? Well, if you really want to get into anecdotal evidence, we can do that. However, I'm heavily against anecdotal evidence. Just as I ignore comments about "my child can understand the KJV just fine," I also ignore comments I've heard stating the same about the NIV. Anecdotal evidence is self-defeating because it only can apply to individuals and is not emperical.

C: Biblically Illiterate is very true. But I wouldn't attribute this to the plethora of versions available. I would attribute it to so-called Christians who do nothing more than sit in the pew every week.

D: In response to an earlier comment about "blaming it on the public school system," none of the people I asked where public-schooled. Some were home-schooled, some were Christian schooled(in an IFB school) and some had gone to an IFB college.