Is the King James Bible Infallible? King James Onlyism Exposed.

[Mocking You]

I suspect "appalled" would be a better term for Revelation 17:6 KJV, and Revelation 17:6 NIV, capturing a more negative connotation as I gather in the theme of this verse in Revelation.

The fact is that the KJV uses the word, "admiration". That is an archaic word and 21st century readers would take that word at face value, i.e. "great respect and approval".

You may think appalled would be a better word to use here, but it is nowhere near the meaning of the Greek. If "appalled" was the word used in the text it would be a gross mis-translation of the Greek. We can't go around assigning meanings to the words of the Bible as we see fit. Neither should old out-dated meanings be left in there as if they were valid.

 

[kayaker]

The fact is that the KJV uses the word, "admiration". That is an archaic word and 21st century readers would take that word at face value, i.e. "great respect and approval".

You may think appalled would be a better word to use here, but it is nowhere near the meaning of the Greek. If "appalled" was the word used in the text it would be a gross mis-translation of the Greek. We can't go around assigning meanings to the words of the Bible as we see fit. Neither should old out-dated meanings be left in there as if they were valid.

You hint at the notion meanings applied in history don't necessarily correlate with meaning of that word, today. Cool? She was hot, btw! I think Nazaroo and Dialogos oughta hook-up and work on some of these disparities!

If you had the option to select another word for "admiration" for todays' reader of the KJV, to appropriately convey your perception... do you think "appalled" would convey the more appropriate connotation to today's English speaking reader? I personally think "appalled" gets closer to the negative connotation of the theme than "astonished", and certainly closer than "admired." Does this not capture the notion of your preference for the NIV? Interestingly, maybe Bibles need to be translated to better reflect cultural dialect. Should Bibles be translated with cultural flair?

Genesis 4:23 KJV leaves the 'door open', so to speak, and I proffer intentionally so inviting the reader's curiosity about who Lamech's victim was. While Genesis 4:23 NIV depicts the translator's perception of what's beyond the door suggesting Lamech was assaulted. I never got that impression from the KJV. There is no remorse perceived in the NIV, but the door is open for the perception of Lamech's remorse in the KJV to my fallible understanding. I suppose there's no remorse for killing an assaulter. But, the notion of remorse is preserved in the KJV, whether perceived by the reader or not... and, I seriously doubt most KJV readers even capture this.

I suggest the translation depends more on the translator's inspired perception of the truth, than on the translators skill in both languages. Then, there's the reader's fluency in the language, and, more importantly... the reader's grasp of the theme to inspire the intended meaning of those words. This gets into the character of the translators as has been exhausted on this thread. But, this also gets into the inspiration of the reader. It's sorta like piecing a phenomenal puzzle together without ever having seen the entire box top... some see a few pieces fitting together and imagine the box top. Words are not necessarily stencil cut due to varying meanings even impacted by one's culture. So, in a sense... a translator cuts the pieces of the puzzle to fit akin to selecting words that fit the perceived box top.

I'm 'astonished' we have what we do!

I've gotta hit the sack... appreciate the dialogue, Mock.

kayaker

 

[Nazaroo]

"Bible scholar"

Translation: An "expert", who is so arrogant, he/she thinks they are so smart, they can correct a perfect God, and a perfect book, and thus call Him/the Holy Bible a lie/liar, respectively, who did the best He could, but lost His master piece to the all powerful, corrupting elements of the rain, sand, wind, heat, cold, even though He created those same elements, and the universe, and raises the dead.....and He must now rely/trust the "manuscript detectives" to "help Him out" in finding this master peace, as they rummage through versions, concordances, scraps of ms., lexicons, unicials, majuscules, cursives, miniscules interlinears, the funny papers....and hold rummage sales wherein they offer all sorts of scrawny, scruffy, scraggly, leftover, tacky, tossed out, trashed, secondhand, second class, second-rate, paltry, worthless, odds and ends of "better renderings" that reflect the "subtil"(Gen. 3 KJV) nuances of a dead language, versions, translations, "root words", etc., all spewed over their theological yards/driveways, and clogging their ecclesiastical garages, all while assuring us country hillbillies/bumpkins that their junk is the finest, most improved, latest and greatest, better/best, all brand name goods-at least until the next rummage/garage sale.

I enjoyed the sarcasm here.

"All experts agree that..." has become a mantra to prevent people
from thinking for themselves. The authority of 'experts' is indeed bogus.
Its worth no more than other authority,
and only as good as what its built upon.
Usually its sand.

... alleged "scholarship", can never find as much truth as a bible believer, because the first requisite for discovering the truth is a believing heart, and the next is a humble mind,

^ This! Nice work John. just a bit wordy.

Bible believers, in contrast to bible correctors/agnostics("scholars"), have a Holy Bible, which we believe.

The essentials.

It is perfect, because it is based on the faithfulness of God, not men, and on God's promise, not man's intellect. No one can prove otherwise, nor do they have to. Others are too ignorant to understand it. It's a heart problem-always has been, always will be.That is why they imagine the Holy Bible has errors, and they are too ignorant to believe the LORD God, and instead they believe sinful men, who also have found no errors in the Holy Bible, but, muse, "Here are my errors, from a corrupt bible, that corrects the KJB errors."

If you are not careful, bible correctors/agnostics/rummagers will "Greek/Hebrew" you out of faith in the Holy Bible, and into heathenism. If you are not careful, you can be drawn into their madness(Eccl. 10:13 KJV). I avoid this pitfall, by staying on topic.

And the bible corrector/agnostic's topic is:

Nobody has a copy of the scriptures, that is inerrant, that anybody can preach, teach, much less believe. And, to "prove" this, they appeal to "the scriptures", which do not exist=trying to convince the sheep, the gullible babes in Christ, that God did not preserve His word, by appealing to the scriptures, which God did not preserve. It is called anti-thinking. It is called insanity.

Wicked skepticism and arrogance, the planting of lies among the innocent,
these are crimes.

"My bad"("The Modern 'the' English")-"nuttin'" like a bible believer, to ruin a "bible" study...

You can 'ruin' any of my bible studies anytime, John.

I may not always agree with you,
but I will always appreciate your sincerity.

 

[everready]

People that use the KJV might find it useful to have a dictionary that included archaic definitions, but I don't see the need when reading the NIV.

They made the NIV easier to read so you won't notice the errors, changing words gives a different meaning to those words not to mention a vast quantity of missing text, but you already knew that.

everready

 

[kiwimacahau]

They made the NIV easier to read so you won't notice the errors, changing words gives a different meaning to those words not to mention a vast quantity of missing text, but you already knew that.

everready

There are no deliberate errors in the NIV nor is the text 'missing,' most of what is gone was ADDED by the KJV translators.

 

[journey]

There are no deliberate errors in the NIV nor is the text 'missing,' most of what is gone was ADDED by the KJV translators.

We also have to remember that the KJV is NOT the standard by which other translations are judged. Why? The KJV is JUST a translation.

 

[kiwimacahau]

We also have to remember that the KJV is NOT the standard by which other translations are judged. Why? The KJV is JUST a translation.

Indeed.atrol:

 

[freelight]

Props for the New King James

Props for the New King James

NASB, NIV, ESB, ASV, REB, NEB, RSV, NRSV, JB, I could go on. Any of these are better than the KJV.

Don't forget the fabulous New King James Version (NKJV), as we've been discussing in this thread here. The NKJV is defended in its comparison of the old KJ here.

There are also more interesting and some 'far out' there translations,...but like all things, do your own homework, study and research on all extant manuscripts. Honest investigation of any religious text, however inspired or exalted, includes no fear or manipulation, just honest research using one's own reason, intelligence, logic, and divine guidance. This goes for all religious texts, and not the Bible only, for those of us who are students of other religious traditions as well

It goes without saying, but "you cant put God in a box".

The far out extremists in the KJ Only cult retard themselves in an archaic translation, deeming it 'perfect', thereby making it a golden calf (idol), since no translation of language from one form to another can be altogether 'perfect'. Its worshipping the form, and not the substance,....the image, and not the meaning. The Father is ever seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and truth, not according to a particular bible translation.



pj

 

[journey]

The far out extremists in the KJ Only cult retard themselves in an archaic translation, deeming it 'perfect', thereby making it a golden calf (idol), since no translation of language from one form to another can be altogether 'perfect'. Its worshipping the form, and not the substance,....the image, and not the meaning. The Father is ever seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and truth, not according to a particular bible translation.



pj

I don't agree with you very often, but I agree with the above.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Don't forget the fabulous New King James Version (NKJV), as we've been discussing in this thread here. The NKJV is defended in its comparison of the old KJ here.

There are also more interesting and some 'far out' there translations,...but like all things, do your own homework, study and research on all extant manuscripts. Honest investigation of any religious text, however inspired or exalted, includes no fear or manipulation, just honest research using one's own reason, intelligence, logic, and divine guidance. This goes for all religious texts, and not the Bible only, for those of us who are students of other religious traditions as well

It goes without saying, but "you cant put God in a box".

The far out extremists in the KJ Only cult retard themselves in an archaic translation, deeming it 'perfect', thereby making it a golden calf (idol), since no translation of language from one form to another can be altogether 'perfect'. Its worshipping the form, and not the substance,....the image, and not the meaning. The Father is ever seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and truth, not according to a particular bible translation.



pj

Indeed, indeed.

 

[Mocking You]

You hint at the notion meanings applied in history don't necessarily correlate with meaning of that word, today.

I'm not hinting at it, I'm asserting it. "Admiration" today means 'respect and approval'. "Admiration" in 1611 meant 'wonder.' This is one of the many problems with the KJV--archaic words whose meaning have changed.

If you had the option to select another word for "admiration" for todays' reader of the KJV, to appropriately convey your perception... do you think "appalled" would convey the more appropriate connotation to today's English speaking reader? I personally think "appalled" gets closer to the negative connotation of the theme than "astonished", and certainly closer than "admired."

First off, I don't see a negative connotation with the word 'astonished'. There might be, there might not be. Secondly, we don't get to pick and choose which word we think fits our particular reading mood, we need to translate the Greek words to best fit the words that are in modern usage.

Interestingly, maybe Bibles need to be translated to better reflect cultural dialect. Should Bibles be translated with cultural flair?

Only if a particular cultural dialect is a known certainty, and translates into modern usage. Idioms are problematic. Take this verse from Amos:

Amos 4:6 And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD. [KJV]

Amos 4:6 “I gave you empty stomachs in every city
and lack of bread in every town,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the LORD. [NIV]

A literal translation might be "cleanness of teeth" AND it might make sense to someone in 1611, but in today's day and age it's senseless. God supplied dental assistants with tooth whiteners in all the cities?

I suggest the translation depends more on the translator's inspired perception of the truth, than on the translators skill in both languages.

The translation ought to depend on the translator's skill and personal beliefs should not prejudice the translation one way or the other. When that happens you get crazy stuff like The Queen James Version.

Then, there's the reader's fluency in the language,

People reading the Bible should not need to know middle ages English or carry around a dictionary with archaic word definitions in it to comprehend it.

 

[everready]

Attack On The King James Bible Continues.

Attack On The King James Bible Continues.

Are you on a mission Mocking You?


Do you know what the Jesuits think about the true Word of God? Here is a quote from The Jesuits in History , where he quotes from a Jesuit meeting in Cheri, Italy in 1825, and gives us shocking insight as to the Jesuits' true view of the Bible: "Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing, threatens us (the Jesuits) with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod as soon as we (the Jesuits) are able to seize it…for three centuries past this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us." (The Jesuits in History, Hector Macpherson, Ozark Book Publishers, 1997, Appendix 1).

Based on the above quote, how do you think the Jesuits and the Catholic church feel about the thousands of revisions in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codices, which have given rise to the corrupted modern bible translations? They are dancing in the streets!

Is that quote not enough for you? Here are a couple of quotes directly from the Catholic Catechism:

Question: What if the Holy Scriptures command one thing, and the Pope another contrary to it?

Answer: The Holy Scriptures must be thrown aside.

Question: What is the Pope?

Answer: He is the Vicar of Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and there is but one Judgment-Seat belonging to God and the Pope.

I don't know about you, but if the Catholics and the Jesuits accept the NIV and the NASB as the bible, then that is a HUGE problem for me. . .

If you want to learn more about the Jesuit Order and Secret Societies, click HERE to watch a video and click HERE to read about it.

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/catholic_jesuits.html/

everready

 

[Mocking You]

I don't know about you, but if the Catholics and the Jesuits accept the NIV and the NASB as the bible, then that is a HUGE problem for me

I don't know that they accept it. How do you know this?

If you want to learn more about the Jesuit Order and Secret Societies, click HERE to watch a video and click HERE to read about it.

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/catholic_jesuits.html/

everready

I'm not big on conspiracy theories and anyway, why would I care what the Jesuits think about the Bible?

I can play this sort of game as well. For example, did you know that the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, the New World Translation lines up with the KJV in how it treats the Holy Spirit? In at least four places the KJV refers to the Holy Spirit as "IT", stripping the person of the Holy Spirit out of the Bible, thereby weakening the Trinity. None of the modern versions use "It" or "Itself" when referring to one of the Persons of the Trinity.

John 1:32 "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and IT abode upon him."

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

Romans 8:26b "The Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

I Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow."

So, back at ya, everready--If the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible lines up with the KJV on the Trinity, then that's a HUGE problem for me.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

I can play this sort of game as well. For example, did you know that the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, the New World Translation lines up with the KJV in how it treats the Holy Spirit? In at least four places the KJV refers to the Holy Spirit as "IT", stripping the person of the Holy Spirit out of the Bible, thereby weakening the Trinity. None of the modern versions use "It" or "Itself" when referring to one of the Persons of the Trinity.

John 1:32 "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and IT abode upon him."

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

Romans 8:26b "The Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

I Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow."

So, back at ya, everready--If the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible lines up with the KJV on the Trinity, then that's a HUGE problem for me.

How does using "it" strip personhood in any way, especially in light of old vernacular, linguistic constructs?

Even now, it could go like,

"Boy you look terrible!" "Yes, my body, it is really weary."

"Who's there?" "Don't worry. It is me."

Far fetched? I think not.

John 6

19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
20 But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.

Here, our Lord Jesus confirms His it-dom, and clearly not by any stretch of the imagination as you imply "it" must be perceived.

 

[6days]

How does using "it" strip personhood in any way, especially in light of old vernacular, linguistic constructs?

Other translations also use words such as 'itself' in those verses and I don't think it has caused confusion.
(And...Almost unfair to called the JW Bible a translation...agree?)

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

(And...Almost unfair to called the JW Bible a translation...agree?)

So, you're maintaining there are no translators in hell?

Do I agree? It's a Christian forum, no old saying about bears and the woods, now...

 

[freelight]

The Spirit itself............

The Spirit itself............

I don't know that they accept it. How do you know this?



I'm not big on conspiracy theories and anyway, why would I care what the Jesuits think about the Bible?

I can play this sort of game as well. For example, did you know that the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, the New World Translation lines up with the KJV in how it treats the Holy Spirit? In at least four places the KJV refers to the Holy Spirit as "IT", stripping the person of the Holy Spirit out of the Bible, thereby weakening the Trinity. None of the modern versions use "It" or "Itself" when referring to one of the Persons of the Trinity.

John 1:32 "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and IT abode upon him."

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

Romans 8:26b "The Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

I Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow."

So, back at ya, everready--If the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible lines up with the KJV on the Trinity, then that's a HUGE problem for me.

I don't see a problem with calling the Spirit an 'it' if the rules of grammatical construct allows for it within the context, allowing for a proper interpretation of such within 'context'. The whole issue and emphasis on the 'personality' of the Holy Spirit is more complex, since 'God' also what is 'non-personal' since within the total of creation, there are both 'personal' and more or less 'non-personal' elements of His essence and form thru-out the cosmos, in both substance and form. 'Personality' itself is one of those unique things inherent within consciousness as a complex integrating dynamic which gives qualities and attributes to a particular soul or entity, enabling 'it' to relate to other personalities on various levels and so forth.

A Unitarian could just as well personalize or non-personalize the Spirit, depending on how the Spirit is relating itself to others. God is Spirit. This 'Spirit' does include 'personality', of course,....but the Infinite also transcends human definitions or comprehension of 'personhood', let alone the rest of the cosmos which is non-personal. When one is in rapture in the Holy Spirit, its an experience that may be happening on all levels, within the personality and beyond it,....as all-inclusive.

Insistence that the Holy Spirit is a person, to prefit its position in a company of persons, well,...that logic holds only within the context of such a 'company'. Otherwise, the Spirit as an active force, influencing power, all-pervading presence, is just that, and is not limited to being 'personal'.



pj

 

[Mocking You]

How does using "it" strip personhood in any way, especially in light of old vernacular, linguistic constructs?

"It" is a thing, an object. "It" is not a personal pronoun. It's a mistranslation, pure and simple.

John 6

19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid.
20 But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid.

Here, our Lord Jesus confirms His it-dom, and clearly not by any stretch of the imagination as you imply "it" must be perceived.

No, He calls himself "I". "I" is a personal pronoun.

 

[Mocking You]

I don't see a problem with calling the Spirit an 'it' if the rules of grammatical construct allows for it within the context, allowing for a proper interpretation of such within 'context'.

It doesn't allow it.

 

[Mocking You]

Other translations also use words such as 'itself' in those verses and I don't think it has caused confusion.
(And...Almost unfair to called the JW Bible a translation...agree?)

Two other versions do--the RSV and the NRSV, in John 1:32 and 1 Peter 1:11; and the NRSV in Romans 8:16and in Romans 8:32.

The New King James Bible, the English Standard Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Living Translation, the Contemporary English Version, Today's English Version, the New English Bible, Moffat's translation, the Common English Bible, etc. etc. etc. DO NOT USE "IT" when referring to the Holy Spirit.

It's a uniquely KJV and NWT issue.