James, the KJV is not word for word - Robert Young's Literal Translation is word for word.

I am not arguing against the KJV, but pointing out that it was not accepted by the fundamentalists of its day, nor did its introduction have an immediate beneficial effect on the English speaking world. The fundamentalists preferred the Geneva version, until that ceased to be available.

My essential point is that what matters is reading the Word with the mind of Christ, as we are led by the Holy Spirit. It worked in power when it was believed, not simply because it was read. A Mormon or Jehovah's Witness will not be persuaded by reading the KJV. The sects came into being when only the KJV was available.

This is not a completely true statement. Even most of the KJVO's here at this forum recognize this (at least the ones I have discussed this with in length). The KJVO is "word for word" (no translation is completely word for word) at times AS WELL AS a thought for thought translation at other times. This is just to clarify any ad hominem arguments that are made.

{Oops...Ebenezer must have posted right when I hit the "reply" button. Sorry for the repitition.}

This post was last modified: Mon Jun 02, 2008 02:43 PM by Greektim.

Better put, the KJB is a "sense for sense" translation.

This is incorrect:

My guess is there have nearly always been false sects (e.g. Pharisees, Sadducees) that misuse and misinterpret the Scriptures. No doubt we will see new varieties (emerging* church, etc) come into being with the introduction and proliferation of the modern versions. (By the way JW's have their own version.)

* aka "submerging church"

This post was last modified: Mon Jun 02, 2008 03:38 PM by Brother Tim.

I know the KJV Only position has been labled as a cult and has caused division in Assemblies across the world.Some even go as far to say that if you was not saved under the preaching of the KJB you are not saved.

I have several translations but do my memorization from the KJB because it is way easier to memorize for me.

Also someone used this as an example.#1.The KJB is not infallible because Jesus was the Word made flesh {John 1:14}We know Jesus is infallible without error and He is the living Word.Someone said Jesus is the Word and since He is the only infallible Word that became flesh the only Infallible Word we have is in our hearts by the indwelling Holy Spirit who inspired the originals.

Its faith in the message that saves the preaching {i.e.message}of the Cross and we know that the preaching {i.e.message}of the Cross is the power of God.

I have set under the preaching of KJ Only preachers and have heard them quote the Bible and their own words were not a word for word quote of the very Bible they supposed to know so well.

I do think God has blessed and used the KJ Bible to bless His message as no other Bible and do believe that some translations are very dangerous.

I heard a preacher say that was a master in Hebrew and Greek say the reason he uses the KJB is because it is a Word for Word translation and thought for thought translations are really mens thoughts because the text`s they use to translate modern versions do not agree with themselves and the thoughts from one modern version to the next are totally different thoughts and ideas.

Also he said if you did not have a word for word translation like the KJB you only have a religious book with no power.

In Christ.

Brother Miller.

Here is an email I received.



Brother Miller,


The KJV A/V was translated out of the R/T - T/R. Textus Receptus . And to answer your question, yes the king James A/V is 100% the word of God. Satan is trying to destroy the word of God with all of these other corrupted and perverted Bibles.

Man seams to have this need to up date or change the Word of God when they feel the need, I think it is more for making Money than to help the people understand the Word of God.

Mark 13:31
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
KJV


Ps 12:6-7
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
KJV


Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
KJV


Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
KJV

We have the words of Jesus, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall never pass away." (Matthew 24:25). Also, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:1. The Lord commanded Jeremiah to "diminish not a word" that He gave him to speak. (Jeremiah 26:2). Jesus also said "If a man love me, he will keep my words." (John 14:23).



The King James is a word for word translation except for words that are in italics. the Translators did this so we would know the
words that they had to add. This was done so we would know the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek words.

I did not click on your link, not knowing where it would take me.

P.S. If you would like to see how the KJV 1611 was translated you can click on this link
Twenty Eight Witnesses

Love in the name of our LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Brother Glenn

glenn@kjveveryword.org
http://www.kjveveryword.org

In reality if the King James Bible were a word-for-word translation it would be very difficult for us English-speaking people to read.

According to my research the King James Bible is a word-for-word translation but it is of the Bishops' Bible of 1602 and not of any Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. The actual method of putting the translation into writing is one that is known as "sense paragraphs."
(The Journey from Texts to Translations [The Origin and development of the Bible], Paul D. Wegner; © Baker Academic,Grand Rapids MI, 1999)

There are those who are so bent on the importance of the King James Bible they are known as "version worshippers." I believe it of the utmost importance we not fall into that category but ever recall the importance is not in the Book itself but in the fact it is the very Word of God.

After all even the apostle Paul said that they preach Christ, and Him crucified.

In Christ,
George

Just so we understand, I want this to be absolutely clear - I am only doing this for clarity not to be divisive.

The KJV is not a word for word translation. A word for word translation would be difficult to read much less be understandable. It is a literal translation, however. To that, it has many advantages that I appreciate. But at times, the KJV was not exclusively literal but a paraphrase using common English phrases the communicated the same thought. One of the best examples is Romans 6:2 and "God forbid." Even the TR doesn't have the Greek word for God. A literal translation is "may it not be" but the thought is "God forbid."

I think, from the discussions we have had in the past here, that many KJVO's would agree.

Brother Tim where is the words God promised to preserve every jot and tittle?

I have to believe what God promised.

In Christ.

Brother Miller.

Mark 13:31
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
KJV


Ps 12:6-7
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
KJV

I am assuming this question is directed towards me, but I am not sure. James, if you would please clarify. There is another gentlemen on the forum whose handle is Brother Tim. But the answer is Matt. 5:18 .

Out of curiosity, do you know what a "jot" & "tittle" is?

Also, I don't think you have to comprimise your view on the KJV just b/c it is not a word for word translation. And, your view of the KJV doesn't make it a word for word translation.

Brother Greek Tim then.

I take it that you think every Bible is the Word of God and you do seem like a TR/RT Critic and favor the text behind the modern versions?

I dont call people TR/RT Critics I call them critics of the Word of God.Did you know that the text behind the Modern day versions is the very same text used to create the JW`s New World Translation?

GT What think ye of Wescott and Hort?

A jot and tittle is the smallest stroke of the inspired writers pen.

In Christ.

Brother Miller.

Just so all know, I am not trying to argue but to correct the misconceptions.

Actually, you should do some more research. The NKJV used the TR. The NIV used what is called the Reader's Greek NT (eclectic). The NASB, ASV, & ESV used the UBS4r/N-A27. None of those text are the W-H texts. There are many many differences between them. Not to mention, besides the TR, the other texts are extremely eclectic utalizing the greatest number of resources available today. W-H only used 2 mss primarily.

As for W-H and what I think about them, it depends on what you are referring to. I think they rejected major fundamentals of Scripture and are not a good source for theology. I don't think that necessarily played a part in the textual criticism philosophies but it might have. Since they limited themselves to primarily 2 mss, they were bound to leave things out that should have remained. But (and I know that I am going to get attacked on this one) they did make some advances in the field of textual criticism. Now that is my opinion so no one has to agree. But W-H & Burgon set a foundation for modern textual criticism to build from. Just because W-H were hairy ticks doesn't mean they couldn't come up with good textual criticism rules. Remember, textual criticism is not limited to the Bible. Those rules can be applied accross the board almost exclusively to all literature (minus of course the element of divine authorship to the Bible).

To be specific, a "jot" and a "tittle" refers to either a Hebrew letter or extra stroke-marks of a Hebrew letter to help tell the difference between similar looking letters. An example in English for a "tittle" would be an O & Q. The little stroke at the bottom of the circle distinguishes the letters. THe point Christ is making is that even down to the very letter, what was written was exactly what God wanted written.

And He wasn't referring to a particular writing or the "originals", but to the eternal preservation of the Scriptures themselves. In case you want to see a copy, I have several.

GT likes to deny the parentage of his UBS4r, but its bloodline carries the filthy DNA of those hairy ticks, W-H.

Greek Tim bet you dont attend a KJ Only Church?

Greek Tim are you saved or are you being saved?

You need to read over a book of a brother like minded as you now he is KJ Only and has a different view now.This dear brothers name is David H.Sorenson the book is called Touch Not The Unclean Thing {The Text Issue and Seperation}

God bless you Greek Tim.

In Christ.

Brother Miller.

If you were a betting man you would have won. I don't attend a KJ Only Church. Ironically, out of the few (and I mean few) IFB churches around me, most people assume that my church is KJVO becase we are IFB.

Praise the Lord I have been justified, in the process to be sanctified, and looking forward to the day when I will be glorified! Yes, brother, I am saved!

Frankly, I would rather have someone explain it to me in a conversation or something like this. I have enough reading to do for my sermon prep, SS lesson prep, required class reading, and just personal reading.

God bless you too, brother Miller.

Oh, and Brother Tim, I am not denying what is not true. The UBS & N-A are not second or third generations of W-H. As I have said before, they are extremely eclectic. Now I will admit that they lean towards what is referred to around here as the Alexandrian reading, but not exclusively. And they examine as much evidence as they can get their hands on. They don't limit themselves to any 1 or 2 mss or even a group of mss or even a specific region of mss. I know that the KJVO's love to accuse the UBS & N-A with these accusations of W-Hism, but it is not true. Actually, the UBS is one of the few texts that gives extremely thorough explanations for why they went w/ a particular reading over another and their degree of certainty of a reading in question. If anything, they are very honest and open with their opinions. I find that to be very insightful and helpful in my own study (remember, I don't always agree w/ UBS & N-A).

This post was last modified: Tue Jun 03, 2008 07:04 PM by Greektim.

God bless you greek Tim but if you really hold to your faulty view of the KJB you are not saved according to all others you are only being saved as of now.Compare {1st Cor 1:18} of the KJB against all others and tell me what it says.

Also you are not washed in the Blood of Christ either according to the modern versions.{Revelation 1:5}

What these two verses teach in modern versions if believed can send someone to hell.You cant believe what they say and go to heaven to.

Brother Miller.