King james bible only

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Gail Riplinger?  Oh brother...closing thread.

I trust her more than those defending new Bible translations.  I trust her as much as I do the sources used by the author of Shiloh's article.  I don't go along with all her doctrine, but she does have a lot of material clearly showing issues with modern English translations, so I couldn't care less if you like her or not. 

 

Gail Riplinger's book is based on a lot of misstatements and inaccurate claims.  Her book cannot be trusted and numerous KJV defenders have distanced themselves from her. 

[tigger two]

The Hebrew text used by the writers of the KJV uses the only personal name of God (YHWH) over 5000 times throughout the OT.  In nearly all of those places the KJV 'translated' it as LORD (Capital 'L' followed by ORD in smaller capital letters).

 

However, please look at Ps. 83:18 in the KJV (one of the many places where YHWH is found in the OT Hebrew text):

 

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH (YHWH in the Hebrew text), art the most high over all the earth."

 

Even when we disregard the fact that 'Jehovah' cannot be the original pronunciation of the name, we are stuck with the fact that the KJV is either incorrectly translating YHWH as Jehovah here and calling it the Most High God's only personal name - or the KJV is rendering this personal name of God incorrectly throughout the entire OT as 'LORD.'

 

How can KJO folks reconcile these important facts?

[Guest shiloh357]

The Hebrew text used by the writers of the KJV uses the only personal name of God (YHWH) over 5000 times throughout the OT.  In nearly all of those places the KJV 'translated' it as LORD (Capital 'L' followed by ORD in smaller capital letters).

 

However, please look at Ps. 83:18 in the KJV (one of the many places where YHWH is found in the OT Hebrew text):

 

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH (YHWH in the Hebrew text), art the most high over all the earth."

 

Even when we disregard the fact that 'Jehovah' cannot be the original pronunciation of the name, we are stuck with the fact that the KJV is either incorrectly translating YHWH as Jehovah here and calling it the Most High God's only personal name - or the KJV is rendering this personal name of God incorrectly throughout the entire OT as 'LORD.'

 

How can KJO folks reconcile these important facts?

Jehovah or Yahovah is not a real Hebrew word.  It was an attempt my modern scholars to add the vowels of the word "Adonai" to the consonants of YHVH.

[tigger two]

That ignores the whole point of my post.

[Fez]

The OP asked a simple question.  The person wanted to know why some people are KJV only.  I have tried repeatedly to answer the actual question being asked, only to have others hijack the thread by arguing as to why they are not KJV only.  You are wasting your time trying to convince me I am wrong.  There is one person in here whose argument against being KJV only is that the Holy Spirit revealed to him there were mistakes in the KJV Bible.  That is how absurd things have gotten. 

 

I don't care if anyone thinks I am in denial of "historical facts."  I don't care if anyone wants to accuse me of preferring to believe a lie.  None of those historical things can be proven.  Nobody can disprove Les Garrett's book.  It can't be done.  You can present evidence, but that is it, because none of us were alive when the epistles were written.  We didn't see how they were copied.  We weren't there to watch each translation take place.  As such, I am putting more weight on what I can see for myself.  What I can see is my KJV Bible, which was pretty much the accepted Bible till the 20Th century, has had large portions of the text discredited and taken out by modern translations, and their justification for doing so is to claim "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..."  Nobody I have asked can explain to me what makes on manuscript more reliable than another to these translators.  Even if you want to nit pick all day over what I consider stupid concerns over a word like unicorn being in the KJV Bible instead of ox, or corn being in the Bible, those arguments mean nothing to me.  My biggest concern is over deletions of the text because the manuscripts don't contain portions of the original text.  Nobody here can get away from that fact.  I don't need historical records to prove this.  All one needs to do is compare translations.  That trumps everything else, so basically, if I pick up a modern translation, if every verse in my KJV Bible isn't in it, I will reject it.  The OP wanted reasons why I, or anyone else is KJV only.  Now you have it, and I would challenge Shiloh or anyone else to prove me wrong on that.  Also, while you are trying to justify verses being taken out, explain what makes one manuscript "more reliable" than another.  How can a manuscript be reliable? 

Brother, as one reading this thread, with a modicum of interest, because I really have no interest in proving or disproving the accuracy of the KJV. I have to say, based on presented arguments and other facts, Shiloh is leading this debate.  

 

But that's fine, if the KJV floats your boat stick with it. Nothing wrong with that. I will stick with the ESV becase it floats my boat..

[Guest shiloh357]

That ignores the whole point of my post.

No, it doesn't.  If anything I was affirming what you said in your post.

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't care if anyone thinks I am in denial of "historical facts."  I don't care if anyone wants to accuse me of preferring to believe a lie.  None of those historical things can be proven.  Nobody can disprove Les Garrett's book.  It can't be done. 

 

So if you can't refute any facts, and you can't offer up any substantive facts on your own, the only argument you can seem to rely on is to claim that nothing can be "proven."   I guess that depends on the standard of proof you are operating from.  You make textual arguments, but you fail to provide any textual evidence to show your claims are valid.

 

You can't provide an alternative to the historical evidence provided, but you try to claim that the history was revised.  History is what it is, and you are powerless to offer up any refutation of it.  If this debate were taking place in a courtroom, the preponderance of evidence would be against you. 

 

You can present evidence, but that is it, because none of us were alive when the epistles were written.  We didn't see how they were copied.  We weren't there to watch each translation take place.

 

 

We don't have to be there to see how manuscripts were copied because we can see in the manuscripts, themselves, how they were copied.  We have enough copies of the NT in Greek, over 5,000 of them, dating from the 2nd century to the 5th century that give us a good number of  manuscripts to compare.  We can look at later translations as well that are still in existence and we can see how they were copied through the manuscripts that are still accessible.  So the idea that not being there makes a difference doesn't really hold any water.

 

Nobody I have asked can explain to me what makes on manuscript more reliable than another to these translators.

 

Why is the Textus Receptus more reliable than any other source document used in translations?  What sets the Textus Receptus apart?

[another_poster]

God is not the author of confusion, and all these translations and paraphrases saying different things, and with people all saying they have errors creates confusion. 

I am always wary of that verse being quoted. If God is not the author of confusion why did he deliberately cause confusion? So we need to either conclude the bible contradicts itself or we can look at what it is talking about in the passage those words appear and discover it is talking about orderly worship.  To not accept that it is talking about orderly worship requires many other questions to be asked and answered if we are not to conclude scripture is not divinely inspired.

 

 

My parents bought a new translation that was recommended by one of the television preachers they like.  It wasn't the NIV, and it left out the same verses the NIV leaves out.  I was showing this to my Father.  You can start a separate thread on the NIV, but the problem goes much deeper than that.  The new translations start with a corrupt, or at best, incomplete majority text, and that is the biggest problem.  Any translation that begins with anything but the TR is not trustworthy. 

I'm personally not aware of any translation that comes from complete original texts. Even the KJV used the Latin Vulgate and translated backwards in small parts.

 

 

 

First of all, I do not believe this is tied to salvation.  Second, there has been no "bulletproof arguments to the contrary."  When there is some presented, try again.  The best thing anyone has done is say that they believe that certain words should have been translated to a better English word than what they were.  They were not wrong words, but so what?  Those who are trying to discredit the KJV Bible claim they know the translators didn't use the best word.  No proof there.  On the other hand, I can give absolute proof that most new translations have left out part of the text, which is what turned me against them.  Arguments over whether or not someone likes the word unicorn, which by the way is in the definition, pale in comparison to new translations discrediting portions of the text and taking some out entirely.  Where are your "bulletproof arguments?" 

 

 

 

However your view that they are wrong you are basing that on the fact they are in the KJV. This is where notes in other translations are useful. They point out that some include it. They let the reader decide. I accept that some would not see it as legitimate because of that but that is a problem with the reader not the translation.

Also you are partly right in saying some words would have been better translated as something else. What it comes down to is the meaning. If the meaning is the same then yeah who cares what word they use. If the meaning is different though then it becomes a problem. 

[another_poster]

 

The apocrypha don't belong in the Christian Bible for the following reasons:

 

1.  None of the authors claim Divine inspiration for what they wrote

 

2. None of the writers of the New Testament quote from the apocrypha or reference them as Scripture directly or indirectly.

 

3. The apocryphal writings contradict the Scriptures and contain historical errors, such as claiming that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Syria.

 

4.  There are unbiblical doctrines like praying for dead people and walking in total, sinless perfection.

 

5.  The Apocrypha is the basis for teaching works-based salvation, purgatory, the sinless birth of Mary.

 

6.  Another important reason that we know the Apocrypha shouldn't be included is that the world has no problem with the apocryphal writings.  The world and Satan attack ONLY the 66 books of the Christian Bible.  Every Satan-inspired BBC documentary meant to tear apart the Bible are aimed only that claims made in the 66 books of the true canon.  If anything they will use the apocrypha to contradict the Bible's claims, because the apocrypha is so unbiblical and contrary to genuine biblical doctrine.  Satan doesn't attack what isn't a threat to him.  Persecution comes for the Word's sake.

 

There is no reason why God would include the Apocrypha in the Bible.

 

Number 4 is not a legitimate argument. If the apocrypha belonged in the bible then it would not be unbiblical. You would accept it as biblical.

 

Imagine the BBC did a documentary that aimed at the apocrypha. What would be the protestant response to that? Thats not part of the bible is the response. So naturally they are going to aim at the parts that all christians accept. Its just logical if your aim is to tear down christianity to give people such an easy way to dismiss it.

 

 

 

That would only apply if someone tried to add English punctuation to the Greek manuscripts.  The English punctuation is there for English readers and it helps give the sense of the ideas from the Greek text.   That is not the same as adding the Apocrypha and the claiming that the 1611 edition is inspired. To say that God wanted it in there is essentially attributing a degree of inspiration to the presence of the Apocrypha and up to this point, you cannot provide a substantive reason why God would want a manuscript containing false doctrines and false teachings married to His Holy Word.

except where that punctuation goes changes everything. Of course people accept that punctuation as divinely inspired as well. Doctrines are built around where that punctuation goes. 

 

You also need to provide the translation your using for the apocraphya books as several verses do not match up. Some translations paint a very different picture to what you suggest. Just like specifying which bible translation one is using same applies here. 

[enoob57]

Do you think Shiloh it is the very fact that was what the majority began with and accepted

is why the KJV only people exist to the degree that they do?