The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Bible_Highlighter]

Thanks. I'll have to look into Frank.

At the beginning of the popularization of the Modern Translation movement: One of the modern English Bible Translations to be accepted by evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians was Philips' translation. However, Mr. Philips sat in his living room and talked to the ghost of C. S. Lewis. Well, it would appear that Lewis' ghost did not do a very good job in assisting Phillips because J.B. Philips' diary contains a confession that he had perverted the Word of God and that the King James Bible was the superior Bible.

Later, Dr. Frank Logsdon, the chairman of the New American Standard translation committee, became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He renounced his own translation methods. He renounced his own Bible that he was the chairman of and he became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He said the following in his public statement of disassociation from the New American Standard:

I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception?

Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, [Mr. Lockman owned the publishing company that published the NASV] explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV.

To learn more about Mr. Lockman and the NASV, see this video here:



Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible. Kenneth Taylor told his psychotherapist years later that the reason why his life had been plagued was because he had perverted the Word of God. He died believing the KJV was the true Bible.

 

[Nehemiah6]

He renounced his own translation methods. He renounced his own Bible that he was the chairman of and he became an avid advocate of the King James Bible.

That should have been a wake-up call to all those using the NASB, and promoting it as the most accurate bible in existence. Instead, hardly anyone else saw the light. And we have a few on this forum who still prefer the corrupt over the pure (even after being shown the difference).

 

[Dino246]

That should have been a wake-up call to all those using the NASB, and promoting it as the most accurate bible in existence. Instead, hardly anyone else saw the light. And we have a few on this forum who still prefer the corrupt over the pure (even after being shown the difference).

The arrogance of your position astounds me. All I have seen is evidence of differences; never evidence of corruption. Differences do not necessarily constitute corruption, much as the KJV-only crowd thinks otherwise.

Show up with some actual evidence of corruption and it might be considered. Until then, the bleating and fearmongering will be tuned out.

 

[Sipsey]

Let me see. If one only uses the KJV, is it only permissible to quote it exactly as written, or can one put on their thinking cap and paraphrase a verse or verses for an individual audience?

 

[fredoheaven]

Gnostic teaching abounds during the time of the Apostles. 1 John makes a good sense of response to this false teaching. it says
"every spirit" which will not confess Jesus Christ "...is come in the flesh is not of God." Corruption is when we omit Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh.
1 John 4:3
King James Bible
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

[John146]

Let me see. If one only uses the KJV, is it only permissible to quote it exactly as written, or can one put on their thinking cap and paraphrase a verse or verses for an individual audience?

Jeremiah 26:2 Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:

 

[Blain]

I realize I am late to this thread and I haven't read any posts but simply by the title I have this to say if the version of the words of God has any merit to you then it isn't the word of God to you it is is ink and paper based on your own truth he spoke existance with one sentence if translation a man made thing decides what the word of God is to you then it isn't the word of God to you for his word is not affected by man what he says by the spirit is solid and cannot be changed no matter how much you think it can if man can have such power to make his word confusing then his word is not based on what his lips say it is based on you decide for yourself what the word of God actually is you call yourself a Christian you say you are listening you say you call it his word but lets be honest here you don't know what his word is if a matter of translation effects what you hear from him

Is he really so powerless that man can make his word divded and confusing? if translation is the issue your not listening and you don't value his word yes this is harsh but it is needed look at how his word is so casually used not for building and strengthining but prove your pown understanding with one word he can destroy existance you call the scriptures his word yet look at the division the confusion the debates the attacks how it ios cherry picked twisted it is disgusting

Tell me look inside what is thw word of God to you really? do you really believe it is his word? and if so how can you so casually use it how can you let a matter of translation dictate what he is saying? your doctrine your belief your understanding no matter how matter years you have studie4d if translation has any power at all then it is all in vain trash garbage What is the word of God to you?

 

[Sipsey]

Jeremiah 26:2 Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:

I guess you mean it is not ok to paraphrase a verse.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

At the beginning of the popularization of the Modern Translation movement: One of the modern English Bible Translations to be accepted by evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians was Philips' translation. However, Mr. Philips sat in his living room and talked to the ghost of C. S. Lewis. Well, it would appear that Lewis' ghost did not do a very good job in assisting Phillips because J.B. Philips' diary contains a confession that he had perverted the Word of God and that the King James Bible was the superior Bible.

Later, Dr. Frank Logsdon, the chairman of the New American Standard translation committee, became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He renounced his own translation methods. He renounced his own Bible that he was the chairman of and he became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He said the following in his public statement of disassociation from the New American Standard:

I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception?

Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, [Mr. Lockman owned the publishing company that published the NASV] explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV.

To learn more about Mr. Lockman and the NASV, see this video here:
View attachment 259818

Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible. Kenneth Taylor told his psychotherapist years later that the reason why his life had been plagued was because he had perverted the Word of God. He died believing the KJV was the true Bible.

That was an excellent part of that documentary. Do you know who produced it?

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

At the beginning of the popularization of the Modern Translation movement: One of the modern English Bible Translations to be accepted by evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians was Philips' translation. However, Mr. Philips sat in his living room and talked to the ghost of C. S. Lewis. Well, it would appear that Lewis' ghost did not do a very good job in assisting Phillips because J.B. Philips' diary contains a confession that he had perverted the Word of God and that the King James Bible was the superior Bible.

Later, Dr. Frank Logsdon, the chairman of the New American Standard translation committee, became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He renounced his own translation methods. He renounced his own Bible that he was the chairman of and he became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He said the following in his public statement of disassociation from the New American Standard:

I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception?

Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, [Mr. Lockman owned the publishing company that published the NASV] explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV.

To learn more about Mr. Lockman and the NASV, see this video here:
View attachment 259818

Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible. Kenneth Taylor told his psychotherapist years later that the reason why his life had been plagued was because he had perverted the Word of God. He died believing the KJV was the true Bible.

I don't remember if I ever shared New World Order Bible Versions with you. Have you ever seen it?
It was produced by Baptists.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

At the beginning of the popularization of the Modern Translation movement: One of the modern English Bible Translations to be accepted by evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians was Philips' translation. However, Mr. Philips sat in his living room and talked to the ghost of C. S. Lewis. Well, it would appear that Lewis' ghost did not do a very good job in assisting Phillips because J.B. Philips' diary contains a confession that he had perverted the Word of God and that the King James Bible was the superior Bible.

Later, Dr. Frank Logsdon, the chairman of the New American Standard translation committee, became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He renounced his own translation methods. He renounced his own Bible that he was the chairman of and he became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He said the following in his public statement of disassociation from the New American Standard:

I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception?

Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, [Mr. Lockman owned the publishing company that published the NASV] explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV.

To learn more about Mr. Lockman and the NASV, see this video here:
View attachment 259818

Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible. Kenneth Taylor told his psychotherapist years later that the reason why his life had been plagued was because he had perverted the Word of God. He died believing the KJV was the true Bible.

Here you go. Since you brought up the subject with the quote. This comes to mind.
Perhaps it will be a blessing to you and others. Playback resolution is adjustable.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I guess you mean it is not ok to paraphrase a verse.

This begs another question. Is it okay to quote just a passage from the KJV? I mean if you only quote part of it haven't you diminished the rest of it? And wouldn't it be corrupted since verses have been removed?

 

[Sipsey]

This begs another question. Is it okay to quote just a passage from the KJV? I mean if you only quote part of it haven't you diminished the rest of it? And wouldn't it be corrupted since verses have been removed?

That was exactly my point. Paul and the other Apostles quoted mostly from the Septuagint, as did Jesus. Why, because that was the common language of their time. Kinda makes sense, doesn’t it?

I love the KJV. I have used and studied it for many decades. I think often in the old English. However, words such as corn, among many others, don’t mean the same today as they did 400 years ago. Throw in the Hebrew idioms, and Greek translations and you need to be able to clearly understand more than the words on a page. That’s why we are commanded to study.

I have interlinears with the KJV, NIV, and Greek side by side. I have programs with every collection of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available, plus 29 English and an untold number of other languages. I compare other English translations to the KJV, and then the Greek for correctness. I find that often other translations are more clear as to the meaning of a verse, whereas if I quoted the KJV verbatim, I would have to spend time explaining and clarifying the language and ultimate meaning of the KJV.

What Satan means for evil, God can use for Good.

 

[John146]

I guess you mean it is not ok to paraphrase a verse.

It’s fine to paraphrase a verse but it’s better if you can quote the actual verse.

 

[Sipsey]

It’s fine to paraphrase a verse but it’s better if you can quote the actual verse.

Jesus was the best teacher. He used parables, idioms, and examples to explain what a verse meant. Seems a good way to convey the meaning behind a verse, rather than a rigid literal dogmatic approach.

 

[John146]

Jesus was the best teacher. He used parables, idioms, and examples to explain what a verse meant. Seems a good way to convey the meaning behind a verse, rather than a rigid literal dogmatic approach.

Absolutely, for teaching purposes, but one cannot consider a paraphrase scripture.

 

[John146]

That was exactly my point. Paul and the other Apostles quoted mostly from the Septuagint, as did Jesus.

This cannot be proven.

 

[Sipsey]

This cannot be proven.

Maybe not to your satisfaction. I have studied this issue for quite some time and trust some of the scholars that did the actual research.

Here is a summary of what I have found;
The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, plays a significant role in the New Testament. While the exact frequency depends on how "quoted" is defined, here's a breakdown:
Direct Quotes:

• Approximately 90 instances: The New Testament directly quotes the Septuagint verbatim, meaning the wording and phrasing are identical. These quotes span various Old Testament books and are used for various purposes, like fulfilling prophecies or establishing Jesus' lineage.

Indirect Quotes and Allusions:

• Around 80 instances: The New Testament authors paraphrase or allude to the Septuagint, often adapting the wording to fit their context or theological emphasis. These instances may not be exact word-for-word quotes but still clearly draw upon the Septuagint's language and ideas.

Overall Prevalence:

• Majority source: While there are some quotes directly from the Hebrew متن (Masoretic Text), scholars estimate that roughly 85-90% of Old Testament references in the New Testament come from the Septuagint. This reflects the Septuagint's widespread use among Greek-speaking Jews in the early Church.

Factors to Consider:

• Different assessments: Scholars may slightly differ in their counts of direct vs. indirect quotes or allusions,depending on their specific criteria.
• Underlying context: Determining whether a passage constitutes a direct quote or allusion can be nuanced, often requiring careful consideration of both texts and their historical context.

In conclusion: The Septuagint is extensively quoted and alluded to in the New Testament, shaping its language, theology,and interpretation of the Old Testament. While not every reference is a word-for-word quote, the Septuagint's influence permeates the New Testament, highlighting its importance in early Christian communities.

 

[iamsoandso]

Maybe not to your satisfaction. I have studied this issue for quite some time and trust some of the scholars that did the actual research.

Here is a summary of what I have found;
The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, plays a significant role in the New Testament. While the exact frequency depends on how "quoted" is defined, here's a breakdown:
Direct Quotes:

• Approximately 90 instances: The New Testament directly quotes the Septuagint verbatim, meaning the wording and phrasing are identical. These quotes span various Old Testament books and are used for various purposes, like fulfilling prophecies or establishing Jesus' lineage.

Indirect Quotes and Allusions:

• Around 80 instances: The New Testament authors paraphrase or allude to the Septuagint, often adapting the wording to fit their context or theological emphasis. These instances may not be exact word-for-word quotes but still clearly draw upon the Septuagint's language and ideas.
  
  

Overall Prevalence:

• Majority source: While there are some quotes directly from the Hebrew متن (Masoretic Text), scholars estimate that roughly 85-90% of Old Testament references in the New Testament come from the Septuagint. This reflects the Septuagint's widespread use among Greek-speaking Jews in the early Church.

Factors to Consider:

• Different assessments: Scholars may slightly differ in their counts of direct vs. indirect quotes or allusions,depending on their specific criteria.
• Underlying context: Determining whether a passage constitutes a direct quote or allusion can be nuanced, often requiring careful consideration of both texts and their historical context.

In conclusion: The Septuagint is extensively quoted and alluded to in the New Testament, shaping its language, theology,and interpretation of the Old Testament. While not every reference is a word-for-word quote, the Septuagint's influence permeates the New Testament, highlighting its importance in early Christian communities.

Have you ever found a translation that used LXX or do they all use the Latin Vulgate?

 

[Dino246]

Absolutely, for teaching purposes, but one cannot consider a paraphrase scripture.

Really? On what basis do you make this grand claim?