I Am KJVP!

SteveB

Well-known member
Well, I have not given a lot of thought about it but since we are in the Bible context I thought of this admonition by our apostle, Paul. It says this.

Col 1:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
Great passage.
It is now however Colossians 1:16. This is Colossians 3:16. Please make sure you provide the correct address. Otherwise it confuses things.



So how does it provide a definition of the word-- perfect?
Because what I read in the greek, and hebrew language for the idea which gets translated as the word-- perfect, are the words---
Complete
Whole

So, do I think the 120 different translations I provided show a "perfect" view of the passage?
Yes. I think that they do an excellent job of showing the complete, and whole picture.

Logic: If "in you" actually means in you, and Jesus Christ is perfect, meaning sinless and perfect in understanding, and in any other way that comes to mind, one would think the word of Christ is perfect.
What makes Jesus whole, and complete?

Where are we going to get that? I think your argument is the hand written manuscripts that are written in Hebrew and Greek. My idea is that since it is his command to us he surely has provided his word and it would do me no good to let these words in Hebrew and Greek, which I cannot read or understand dwell in me. What good would that do?





I agree with that.


If you can produce data that confirms your claim that Hebrew and Greek scholars are all in agreement doctrinally because they have the ability to do what you suggest I do, then I surely would want to do it. It is Hebrew and Greek scholars that are never satisfied with the number of translations we already have. They continually add more. Just wait, and you will have more translations than we have today because new Hebrew and Greek scholars are appearing on the scene that are better than the ones before, even though the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts do not change. One has to wonder when there will be enough translations from these same manuscripts in the same language and if the past practice of Hebrew and Greek scholars is any indication, the Lord Jesus will have to return to put a stop to it.

All the evidence that is available to us about Hebrew and Greek scholars is that they are all full of themselves. If you can point to one scholar who has changed his mind about the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith because they are Hebrew and Greek scholars, i will be more inclined to follow your advice. At this point though, I am satisfied with one translation that I have complete confidence in because I can read it and more importantly, I can believe every word that it says.

On a personal note, I do not believe there are many saved Hebrew and Greek scholars. Those who are producing new bibles do not have a proper fear of God. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Ok, so your unbelief makes you correct..... how?



It would not help me.
then I won't waste your time.
 

JDS

Active member
Great passage.
It is now however Colossians 1:16. This is Colossians 3:16. Please make sure you provide the correct address. Otherwise it confuses things.

Okay. We have definitely proven that I am not perfect. So, rule me out.


So how does it provide a definition of the word-- perfect?
Because what I read in the greek, and hebrew language for the idea which gets translated as the word-- perfect, are the words---
Complete
Whole
I don't have any problem with that but it does raise questions. Is that how you would define the life of Jesus Christ? He is whole and complete? Could you actually translate this following verse using these words and get the same sense?

Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Be ye therefore complete and whole even as your Father which is in heaven is complete and whole.


Does God really think it is a good idea to paraphrase him? That is like editing God, don't you think? That would be okay if you were writing a commentary and you prefaced your changes with a warning but it would be different if you wrote a bible and claimed "thus saith the Lord," or however you would express that in modern lingo, When God did not say that at all.
So, do I think the 120 different translations I provided show a "perfect" view of the passage?
Yes. I think that they do an excellent job of showing the complete, and whole picture.
You are expressing the point of view of a man, which counts little in the eternal view of scripture.

What makes Jesus whole, and complete?
The resurrection

Ok, so your unbelief makes you correct..... how?

Not believing the words God has given to reveal himself and his ways does not make me correct. I am sorry if I have communicated that to you.


then I won't waste your time.

Thanks. If I ever learn those languages I will try to look you up.
 

JDS

Active member
The KJV ADDS the words "and shalt be" to Rev. 16:5. Those words don't appear in any knows ms. of Rev.
What? The operative word here is "known." They probably don't appear in the critical texts but The KJV was not translated from them.
 

robycop3

Active member
What? The operative word here is "known." They probably don't appear in the critical texts but The KJV was not translated from them.
Those words don't appear in the Byz mss for Rev either. It appears the AV makers ADDED them outta thin air.
 

robycop3

Active member
The operative word here is "appears."
OK, then, quit making empty excuses & PROVE ME WRONG by showing us an authentic ancient ms. of Rev with those words in that verse. otherwise, do the Christian thing & admit those words were ADDED at the translators' whim.
 

JDS

Active member
OK, then, quit making empty excuses & PROVE ME WRONG by showing us an authentic ancient ms. of Rev with those words in that verse. otherwise, do the Christian thing & admit those words were ADDED at the translators' whim.
Make a definitive statement about those words first.
 

robycop3

Active member
Make a definitive statement about those words first.
The words, in Greek, "and shalt be" are not found in any known ancient ms of the Revelation in the verse we know as Rev. 16:5. Therefore we must conclude that the makers of the KJV ADDED them for reasons unknown.

You can prove me wrong by showing us an ancient ms. of Rev having those words in that verse. If you can't, it's time for you to do the Christian thing & agree the AV makers ADDED them !
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
Actually, I though the majority of the KJV came from Tyndale's translation....?

Did Tyndale's work have chapter and verse? Did Tyndale's edition have commentary?

Coverdale supplemented the work of Tyndale to produce what many call the "Tyndale Bible".
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
I know because I go to church am completely AWARE of which translation they're using (that's experience in case you didn't recognize it).

Keep looking!! you've just proven MY point since KJV Hebrews 13:7,8 = "Geneva" 13:8. if a re-numbering of verses is your only argument, you lose. God DOES set up worldly powers, and governments, and obeying their laws is intrinsic to being a good citizen. are you nothing more than a common anarchist??

Except all you're doing is exposing your IGNORANCE of the KJV, since it teaches no such thing. Another total failure.

So you're saying that rule and oversight are synonyms? Do you understand the English language?
 

robycop3

Active member
The KJV was largely a revision of the Tyndale & Geneva versions, making the mistake of carrying over some words & phrases whose meanings had changed between 1534 & 1604. Most of its changes from those 2 versions were due to the rules drawn up by Archbishop Richard Bancroft, the translators' boss & KJ's toadie.
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
Better than you do apparently. Your objection MEANS NOTHING. The BEST translation of the Bible is the one you'll actually READ.

You're one saying those two words mean the same thing and create no issues with understanding those verses. We know that isn't true. Reading a lie out of the KJV is BAD. It doesn't matter if you keep repeating you single anecdotal claim that it doesn't matter if you read a lie in your bible of choice. Just keep reading that lie. You will be fine.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
You will be fine.
And The REASON I'll be fine is dirt simple. The Holy Spirit is the one (THE ONLY ONE - not "Theologians" or "Bible Experts" who only creat confusion) Who leads into truth, and He didn't "Go Dumb" when the Bible was published, and STILL leads into truth as He always has. Your supposed "Issues" mean NOTHING in term of an "Excuse" to avoid one translation or another.
 

organgrinder

Active member
You're one saying those two words mean the same thing and create no issues with understanding those verses. We know that isn't true. Reading a lie out of the KJV is BAD. It doesn't matter if you keep repeating you single anecdotal claim that it doesn't matter if you read a lie in your bible of choice. Just keep reading that lie. You will be fine.
I disagree with you. Rule and oversee are essentially the same thing. I work part-time and I have a supervisor who has oversight over me. That means I take directions. He/she has authority. What that person says goes. When one has rule over you, it is really no different. Yes, King James wanted that specifically used because he adhered to the diving right of kings to be above the law and everything else. However, we know the word means to have oversight which can mean rule.

It isn't a problem and created really no misunderstanding with the verse. I have no issue with banjo Bob on this. Much about nothing here. My primary translation of choice is the NKJV. Second is KJV. I also use NASB, ESV and interlinears and sometimes thought-for-thought (NLT) or paraphrases when studying. On occasion, I refer to the Vulgate.

The best translation truly is what you read and study from every day. It allows God to speak to you as you learn from Him. If there appears to be a problem in the text such as pascha being translated as Easter in the KJV and every other instance it is used as Passover, then you make the correction. Not exactly rocket science.
 
Last edited:

praise_yeshua

Active member
I disagree with you. Rule and oversee are essentially the same thing. I work part-time and I have a supervisor who has oversight over me. That means I take directions. He/she has authority. What that person says goes. When one has rule over you, it is really no different. Yes, King James wanted that specifically used because he adhered to the diving right of kings to be above the law and everything else. However, we know the word means to have oversight which can mean rule.

Rule includes oversight but it is much more. This error in the KJV has created a sense of entitlement among those who are placed among God's church. There is only one Ruler. His name is Jesus Christ. Replacing Him with a servant, has created a very real and lasting problem in these last days we live in. There isn't any authority apart from the Scriptures. None. What your "overseer" says can be wrong and often is just that, wrong. As you rightfully acknowledged, Rulers are not to be questioned. Overseers. Sure.

It isn't a problem and created really no misunderstanding with the verse. I have no issue with banjo Bob on this. Much about nothing here. My primary translation of choice is the NKJV. Second is KJV. I also use NASB, ESV and interlinears and sometimes thought-for-thought (NLT) or paraphrases when studying. On occasion, I refer to the Vulgate.

Refer to what you want to refer to. If it is wrong. It is wrong. I find no joy or lasting peace in believing that something that is wrong, is okay. You've "brushed aside" a obvious error. You've "missed the mark". I hope realize what those words mean.

The best translation truly is what you read and study from every day. It allows God to speak to you as you learn from Him. If there appears to be a problem in the text such as pascha being translated as Easter in the KJV and every other instance it is used as Passover, then you make the correction. Not exactly rocket science.

No. It is more important than rocket science. Do you remember the words "A little leaven". Do you remember what the Scriptures say that a little leaven does?
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
And The REASON I'll be fine is dirt simple. The Holy Spirit is the one (THE ONLY ONE - not "Theologians" or "Bible Experts" who only creat confusion) Who leads into truth, and He didn't "Go Dumb" when the Bible was published, and STILL leads into truth as He always has. Your supposed "Issues" mean NOTHING in term of an "Excuse" to avoid one translation or another.

Yeah. The Holy Spirit has you going around saying that a mistake in a late English translation from a despot king is just fine. The Holy Spirit I know doesn't like mistakes. I know who I believe. You're saying mistakes are fine. That leaves you out.
 

organgrinder

Active member
Yeah. The Holy Spirit has you going around saying that a mistake in a late English translation from a despot king is just fine. The Holy Spirit I know doesn't like mistakes. I know who I believe. You're saying mistakes are fine. That leaves you out.
You are being ridiculous. The translation mistake is there. We know it. If you think you will find a perfect translation, you will be looking until the Second Coming. Translations are not error free because men are involved in the process. and hence marginal notes for alternative readings. Language changes so words that meant one thing a hundred years ago mean something else now. Same in the 1611 time.

This is why we use multiple versions. but there is certainly nothing wrong with using the KJV or any other translated Bible in the vernacular.

And your "a little leaven" means nothing here. You seem to say the entire version is corrupted. What would you then have us read since most of us read neither Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek? You must know where the pure word of God translated into mistake-free error free English exists we can read today.

We know the KJVO movement is wrong and unbiblical. You, however, seem to be leaning to a different kind of "onlyism". What is it?
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
You are being ridiculous. The translation mistake is there. We know it. If you think you will find a perfect translation, you will be looking until the Second Coming.

Why use a translation as a source? You shouldn't. You have access to the derivative copies of the originals. English people are so proud that they'll accept a mistake rather than do what it takes to know the Truth.

Translations are not error free because men are involved in the process. and hence marginal notes for alternative readings. Language changes so words that meant one thing a hundred years ago mean something else now. Same in the 1611 time.

Which is why I've spent decades learning. You've settled for someone doing the work for you. Such methods produce exactly where you're at. Willing to accept a very BIG mistake as being fine.

This is why we use multiple versions. but there is certainly nothing wrong with using the KJV or any other translated Bible in the vernacular.

That isn't what you're saying. You're saying they say the same thing. They don't. That is what you said. Are you going to admit the Truth now?

And your "a little leaven" means nothing here. You seem to say the entire version is corrupted. What would you then have us read since most of us read neither Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek? You must know where the pure word of God translated into mistake-free error free English exists we can read today.

There are tons of accurate references to the Greek and Aramaic sources. Use them. They are better than the KJV. Much better. Translations are nothing more than word choices of men. Copyrights and etc have made the average English translation a joke. The Geneva Bible is the best TR edition there is.

We know the KJVO movement is wrong and unbiblical. You, however, seem to be leaning to a different kind of "onlyism". What is it?

Now that is ridiculous. Where have I said to "only" use anything? You're the one willing to accept a mistake because someone is willing to just read it.
 

organgrinder

Active member
Why use a translation as a source? You shouldn't. You have access to the derivative copies of the originals. English people are so proud that they'll accept a mistake rather than do what it takes to know the Truth.



Which is why I've spent decades learning. You've settled for someone doing the work for you. Such methods produce exactly where you're at. Willing to accept a very BIG mistake as being fine.



That isn't what you're saying. You're saying they say the same thing. They don't. That is what you said. Are you going to admit the Truth now?



There are tons of accurate references to the Greek and Aramaic sources. Use them. They are better than the KJV. Much better. Translations are nothing more than word choices of men. Copyrights and etc have made the average English translation a joke. The Geneva Bible is the best TR edition there is.



Now that is ridiculous. Where have I said to "only" use anything? You're the one willing to accept a mistake because someone is willing to just read it.
So your solution is for everyone to learn and read Greek and Hebrew? Just trying to be clear here. Or use the Geneva Bible instead? You have the same issues with other versions such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc?

And it is fabulous that there have been scholars God has used to bring the Bible into the vernacular so all may read it. Glad you spent decades learning. Your posts smacks a little of elitism with a dose of pomposity. I am glad we can read in the vernacular and compare translations. God's Holy Spirit will lead to the truth and the nuances.
 
Last edited:
Top