suitman

why is there only 1 monopolies comission?

absolutly hilarious!

:lol:

I am an evangelists wife and have always used the KJV without question. I recently started a bible study in which the Scripture is from the NIV. What are a few of the problems in particular with this version?

How long do you have?

I'm not a KJVO and I even agree that the NIV is one awful translation. and I think most of the major ones have been dealt with.

If they aren't struggling' date=' they're probably dead. :smile[/quote']
lol I liked that

I think people need to change their attitudes rather than their actions. and when people have the right attuitude then the right actions come naturally out of love for jesus christ.
it is hard though

lol all I found was someone called "afishandherbicycle" asking the exact same thing

nothing else I'm afraid

Thank you Jerry and suitman!

I recall reading somewhere that Cambridge is best as well. Is this true to any extent? How can one tell if a particular KJB comes from the Cambridge publishing style?

I think if you are to be technical to the extreme then yeah I think it is right in its technicalitys but nothing that can really be used to say the others are corrupt

Oh, almost forgot, is this move towards Specific KJB-Only really growing, as it seems to be on the internet, or not? What's the driving force behind this?

Not in scotland but Maybe in america

^well I'll be looking into what you have said to make sure its right.

thanks for answering :smile

Jerry (and/or anyone, really), this may be off-topic, but I was wondering about your position on the differences between some of the KJBs. From what I understand, these differences mostly amount to the use of a slightly different word or a different spelling of some words, or even between some words being capitalized in some and not in others.

The reason I ask is because I've noticed a growing "movement" among some KJB-only folks proclaiming that certain KJBs are "frauds", "fakes", "counterfits", or even considered "corrupted" because of these (what I believe are) publishing differences.

Off hand (meaning without looking this up right now) Matthew 4:1 is the only "proof text" I remember as being one they use because in some KJBs the word "spirit" is written with a small "s" (as in, spirit); while in other KJBs, it's written with a capital "S" (as in Spirit).

Likely as not, at least some of you know what I'm talking about and are somewhat familiar with the other differences they site.

Anyway, I would like to know what you think of this and perhaps even why you think this is becoming such an issue among some KJB-only folks...meaning, why do some KJB-only folks now proclaim to be not only KJB-only, but SPECIFIC KJB-only.

Is there a "better" than others KJB or a "best" KJB?

Thank you.

Well I cannot give an opinion but I can tell you sme facts


these are what the others have in comparisson to the cambrige version(which I have been told by other IFBS is the true version)

1. ?or Sheba? not ?and Sheba? in Joshua 19:2
2. ?sin? not ?sins? in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. ?Spirit of God? not ?spirit of God? in Job 33:4
4. ?whom ye? not ?whom he? in Jeremiah 34:16
5. ?Spirit of God? not ?spirit of God? in Ezekiel 11:24
6. ?flieth? not ?fleeth? in Nahum 3:16
7. ?Spirit? not ?spirit? in Matthew 4:1
8. ?further? not ?farther? in Matthew 26:39
9. ?bewrayeth? not ?betrayeth? in Matthew 26:73
10. ?Spirit? not ?spirit? in Mark 1:12
11. ?spirit? not ?Spirit? in Acts 11:28
12. ?spirit? not ?Spirit? in 1 John 5:8


but looking at these I don't really see the big problem.

The other translations are not rejected because they are "imperfect" or because things might have been lost in translation. They are rejected because they are based on corrupt/tampered texts' date=' [b']because words/phrases/verses are added or taken away (when compared with the KJV and the Received Texts), because the meaning is changed in countless places, and because there are contradictions within themselves. Regardless of how "well" you may think they are translated or not translated - the issue is as much what they contain as how they are translated.

well then I have this question because it was this that convinced me last time that KJVO isn't right

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.#

I know this phrase is not wrong as all it teaches is the trinity which is a right doctrine but is it in the recieved texts?

P.S. Paraphrases and dynamic equivalency translations put man's opinions above the words God actually gave. God inspired literal, actual words - not ideas or concepts - therefore to change those words (in a way that changes meaning - not referring to using different/more modern words instead) is playing loose with God's Word and giving the people something other than what God gave us.

Translation is a bit trickier than that for if we were to translate every word exactly and literally the bible in english would make no sense as different sentence structure and word definitions vary greatly between the languages.

You don't agree with KJVonlyism - yet you acknowledge that there are corrupt texts. The KJV IS the only translation in English (in common use - yes, there are some precursors to the KJV - which for the most part we would not have a problem with others using) that is solely based on those preserved texts - therefore what other conclusion can someone become but KJVonly (in English)? How can anyone be for corrupt translations?

I did not say they were corrupt I said they were not perfect. I also think that while KJV is a great translation it is not 100% perfect because it has been altered through translation(I might change my mind on this based on the other points you have made). therefore in my mind its imprefect text vs the more imperfect texts. therefore I can honestly say that the KJV is the best english translation but still not perfect and so to condemn the others due to their imperfections is to condemn the KJV aswell.

Genesis and Exodus state that Joseph and the Pharaoh's spoke Egyptian, yet we have it recorded in Hebrew. Half of Daniel and part of Nehemiah is aramaic. The rest of the OT is written in Hebrew yet quoted many times in the NT in Greek. In the Gospels you will find the various times Jesus spoke Aramaic words and what their translation is. Immanuel and Psalms 22:1 are quoted in Hebrew in the NT and also translated/transliterated into Greek in the NT. Acts 22-23 contain Paul's conversation in Hebrew (see 21:40 and 22:2) though it is inspired and recorded in Greek.

thanks I'll be sure to look these up

There are translations within the Word of God itself. Parts of Genesis and Exodus were spoken in Egyptian and recorded in Hebrew with nothing lost in translation. Then we have many OT Hebrew and Aramaic passages quoted in Greek in the NT with nothing lost. Paul spoke Hebrew in Acts and it was recorded in Greek with nothing lost. We have several Aramaic words spoken by Jesus, recorded in Greek with nothing lost.

If God had no problem declaring these translations as inspired Scripture, why does anyone else doubt it? God is not limited by the language barrier. He inspired His Word, and if it is a faithful translation, it is still inspired and His exact words today.

Interesting thought

could you provide evidence for these instances or perhaps show me where to find them

Back up my friend, which Hebrew and Greeks texts are we talking about? Many differences took place (NIV and KJV) because the 2 different Greek texts alone differ 5300 times. The NIV was translated on corrupt foundation.

That seems like an ignorant statement' date=' I don't believe (and 99.9% of KJV folks here) in double inspiration. We believe that the KJV is preserved perfectly for only the English speaking people. God can also preserve it in other languages as He pleases.[/quote']

The AV texts are generally held as the inspired ones. the only people I know who think otherwise are KJV haters.
plus can I just state . I hate the NIV I think its a shoddy job at translation and the texts its translated from are not perfect. I also think that the KJV is the best english bible out there its just that I disagree with the onlyism and the condemnation that people get from IFBS when they are not KJVO.

And that statement was not out of ignorance and I am sorry you read it that way

my point is that if you beleive like I do in that once a manuscript in another language is translated it is no longer 100% perfect and you are right. then you need to learn greek and hebrew to read a perfect and inspired text.

If you believe that the KJV has been perfectly translated and is inspired then you do not have to worry about learning the second language to read a perfect and inspired text.

See, this is where I have some problems. I know some solid Christian men who use the NIV and stand for the truth as well and as consistently as anyone here. As I've stated previously, other than them using the NIV, there is no difference between them and Fundamental KJB users.

Its because people who use the NIV are not "NIV only" people( if they were then they need to look at it alot more) The belive that the original texts are the inspired word of god. And so when building the fundamental doctrines they use the hebrew and greek not the NIV. Now if you hold the KJB to be perfect and inspired it means you don't have to learn a second language(... mind you I don't read fluent ye olde english myself :frog )But in the end it is inspired text that both groups pull their fundamental doctrine on.

Ps. great posts so far kubel and I agree with you but bro matt was right about that quote being a bit misleading.

I grew up attending Methodist Sunday School until I was about 10. They gave me a RSV Bible in 1970 and that was the only Bible I had or ever read until about the mid-80s. For a few years I tried several different versions, but that got me very confused because they didn't all seem to agree. For a few years I read mostly the NASB until the Lord brought a good Christian friend into my life who led me to a great Baptist pastor and also to the Sword of the Lord. From that point on, I've read only the KJB and from the time I switched to the KJB the Word of God really came alive, Scripture memory became almost easy, and growth in the Lord took off by leaps and bounds.

I do know some people who, regardless of the effort, can't understand the KJB. I know some who can't understand the NKJV or even NASB either so they use the NIV.

I know some pastors, many Christians and several authors who use the NIV or other versions and they are remarkable Christians who take solid biblical stands and teach the same.

I can't explain it.

I think its due to the fact that the fundamental gist is still there. You may be able to say that there is some coruption in the NIV but you cannot say it is corrupt to the point where it denies jesus' divinity, or his death and ressurection.

There is still truth in it even if you want tio go as far as saying its corrupt

I have come to greatly like the KJV since I left here but I still disagree with condeming those who do not use it due to one verse unfortunatly which is

1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"

I think that all life's difficulties seem to eventually boil down to the single issue of "Final Authority" - if one accepts that the KJV Bible is the Final Authority, then that is all that is needed. If one needs to find out what God thinks about something, read the Bible, study and pray, that is as simple as it can get.

When one does not accept the KJV Bible as the Final Authority, and starts digging through several other MVs, things get all confused, because none of them will agree with each other. God is not the author of confusion.

Not all Baptists believe in the doctrine of Final Authority, but as an Independent Fundamental Baptist, I do. When God says it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Okay fair enough.

I see what you are saying. Usually i just use a simple translation for reading and compare translations and read the original texts when studying. I guess it would be easier to just have 1 translation that you can do all that from but as I have said before I have trouble understanding the KJB at some points and also question whether a word was used differently now as it was when it was written. Luckily Right now I am learning greek and then hoping to learn hebrew so i shouldn't need to worry about the KJB vs MVs situation after that.

but i shall get off this side track now for I know there are a million other threads to discuss this.

lol just making a statement that wont end up with another debate that will end up going in circles. :Green

So, if the Hebrew and Greek WERE complete, and the Bibles teachings ARE complete, do you have such a Book in any language you can show us?




Why forsake a 100% complete and inerrant Bible for something that is not. As some others have remarked about people who say they can't understand the KJB - "Either you're not reading it enough, or you need to get saved."

Will K

*holds up an interlinear*

this shows the greek and hebrew words as they are written originally then underneath the closest english word that fits. The most accurate bible in english possible. Why settle for the KJB when you have this?

and I have actually been putting some research into the KJB and tried reading it. the problems I faced were that when I read a passage I thought it meant one thing based on the translation. that went against what was written in the other versions. Now some would say "thats cause the MVs are of the devil" when actually it was because the usage of the word in the 17th centuary when it was written is different from what it is now. and so I will end up in greater error using the KJB than the MV. This does not bring down the KJB if you can read it easily and understand the words used then fine but to condem those who can't is not wise.

one last thing - Might I recommend that you do not call peoples salvation into question. You do not know me all you know is that I am here trying to defend what I know to be the word of god. and this view does not agree with yours. That does not give you any right to say I need to be saved.
I shall not do this to anybody here and I would appreciate it if people showed equal curtisy

Yeah ettiquete is a big problem in debates cause people dont see each other face to face and feel seperated. They forget that a human being is reading what they type and so lose control. and then when it starts the cant accept truth and instead argue away against the truth that is the bible(not just the KJB bible )

I think the actual act of feet washing in this case was something that was cultural to that time. as their feet would get dusty but the principal as john said is that we are to be humble and not think that any action is below us.

I really dislike KJB haters. I can understand why they do not like being told that their versions are wrong (cause I do). but to start to discredit the KJB in return is childish and silly. If it really is about what love is then it will most likely be 1 cor 13.

SOOOO I propose a little experiment. If someone can type up and post the KJB translation of chapter 13. and when I have time I will post the NIV translation of it. and either I or someone else could post a interlinear translation then we could compare and see if what he is saying as any truth behind It at all(of which I doubt).

Any takers?

You mean that no one bad mouths IFBs?! I am shocked!! Shocked I say!!! :Green

:frog

okay so I walked into that one but do you just accept that or do some of you try to stop this from happening?

Hi suitman. Sir, I do in fact read the modern versions and I do the research myself. I did not get this information from some other source. You are mistaken.

The main issue I am trying to show is that most Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language is now the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. I will wager that this is also your view. If I am wrong about what you believe, then please tell us where we can get a copy of what you think is the pure and complete words of God, so we can compare what you recommend to our beloved King James Bible.

Thanks,

Will K

first off thanks for a great post.

my belief is that the bibles teachings are complete, inspired and inerrant. and the words used in the hebrew and greek were complete, inspired and inerrant. but translating greek and hebrew into english is not easy and as such some of the 100% accuracy or the depth of meaning in words will get lost. this does not mean that what is taught in the translation is not inspired or wrong. it may have lost some(though very little) completeness and inerrancy but this is not essential unless a doctrine or teaching is to be built but for reading and meditation it is useful. I do agree that Many of the MVs are miles of the mark and there are not many I would recomend but when people say "all but the KJB is the devil trying to sneak in his lies and deicieve mankind." that I disagree with.

And my other point is that even if the KJB is 100% complete and inerrant... I still cant read it well. For the words in the KJB may have a different meaing or useage now than it did back in ...1611 I think... and so I would literally need to personally not only interpret but infact translate what the KJB says into a wording I understand easily. natually you will realise that this will bring about error. and so it is harder to interpret correctly by people who are not used to the way people spoke in the 17th century. and Ib honestly think that more error will come from the interpretation rather than the translation.

As I said I do not like ALL MVs infact I like very few and Though I do not use the KJB myself (as I explained) I do understand it to be a brilliant translation that is accurate and do not wish to stop any IFBs using the KJB and go to MVs.All I wish is that they would not make a mockery and judgements apon them.

as for the NKJV I do not use it never read it and as far as I know it is not a good translation but some of the footnotes are just stating fact and are not there to bring down the KJV... but I already said that so I'll shoosh now

Well what woyuld you do if you found lots of videos talking about IFBs saying they were wrong and false preachers, blah blah blah. Would you HONESTLY think "well they do have freedom of speech and so I shall sit here and just ignore them."?

so did he teach and prove what the true way was or just show the verses that disprove the other?

... ??? ...

I'm still amazed about how little IFBs know about how the KJV was translated. Whether the NKJV is right or not is questionable but many things that it says in the footnotes are facts. And no it wasn't put there to discredit the KJB.

seriously if you are going to hold to KJVOism then show the greatness of that version rather than making throw away statements about how the MVs are "of the devil" despite the fact you've never read them and got your information from a completly biased source.

lol catholics going about door to door evangelism. wonder if one of their leaflets will be

"Independant and fundemental baptists are a cult and a herecy and are all going to hell for they are of the devil" :Bleh