i didn't know people still thought this.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7PF9-Z0mBc&feature=related

PS-- if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

The King James Version is obviously corrupted. The translators used wine during communion. What else do you need to know?

What about non-English speakers? Should they use the KJV in Germany too?

quote:

---

What about non-English speakers? Should they use the KJV in Germany too?

---

They'd better damn well learn english if they wanna get saved!

Wow.

I especially love the watercolor by number in the background.

1. Unity in the body of Christ - everyone should read the same thing.

2. The Bible is the most common way we hear from God - we do not lean on our own understanding. If he is speaking to us through these words, I don't see a reason to change them.

3. Easier to read doesn't mean better. You wouldn't go to the gym and lift the lightest weight in the room and call it a good workout.

4. The quote factor. It is easier to quote the KJV. (Not getting the logic there.)

5. "The most accurate translation that we have." That is, if you do not consider every other translations, many of which are much more accurate. He said the only pure scripture we have from the mouth of God is the KJV. You come down on one side or the other. You have to say I BELIEVE I BELIEVE I BELIEVE in the KJV.

6. KJV has already proven itself. NO support for that statement was given.

7. If we change the KJV, where do you stop in changing the Word of God?


Pretty ridiculous. Glad I wasted 10 minutes listening to that.

quote:

---

Easier to read doesn't mean better.

---

So why not take that logic all the way and insist on reading the scriptures in the original Hebrew?

It's easy to make fun of the dude because of his accent and stuff, but it makes you think.

What did happen to Matthew 17:21 in the NIV? I got mine out and opened it and found a footnote stating that in some manuscripts, "(21) But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting." It looks as if the people who put this translation figured the verse didn't fit because it didn't show up in many manuscripts. OK. It's there in a footnote, they figure I can read and use my common sense. I appreciate that.

Another of his arguments that won't hold water is that the Bible is not supposed to be easy to understand, that you should be willing to work to get the meat of the message. OK. So if you were around when the King James Translation we use was hot off the press you should have put it in a trunk to sit for a century or so in order that phrases will become archaic and have meanings opposite that of the translation?

He is right in that the King James Translation is easier to memorize, because we've got that in the back of our minds already. But that negates my third paragraph.

Interesting video, though. Although I missed hearing anyone whine about "them" taking away their King James Bibles.

[This message has been edited by ro828 (edited 2/23/2008 7:01p).]

the problem with the KJV is that it is not a translation of the best available manuscripts. there are older manuscripts that the translators had no knowledge of. so when you get verses like Matt 17:21 that show up in the later manuscripts but not in ANY of the older ones, what do you do? obviously the translators of the NIV (who are not being devious, no matter what this gentlemen says) decided to omit the verse and leave a footnote.

this man's belief is that the KJV is the inspired, God-breathed Word. i differ with him in that i don't believe the translation is inspired. i believe the original manuscripts are inspired, and what we have in our Bibles ispretty accurate translations.

[This message has been edited by discobrob (edited 2/23/2008 7:14p).]

If you are a King James Only guy you have to believe in unicorns...

Unicorns in the KJV

I wonder where they got "unicorn"?

Notice to KJV users...

"fruit of the vine" = WINE

quote:

---

I wonder where they got "unicorn"?

---

The translation I have just says "wild ox".

I love the guy saying "here are seven common sense reasons" and then proceeds to make no sense.

Classic KJV or the New KJV?

And if you were given a taste test, could you tell the difference?

NIV is a transliteration, not translation.

The KJV is a good translation, but by no means the only one. Like with any living language, words, and the meanings of them, change throughout time, and that is one of the problems some people have with the KJV. This does NOT mean that it is a faulty of bad translation.

The KJV didn't have the manuscripts we have now. It is based on very copied documents and lacks the insights into new fragments or unctuals found after the KJV's rendering.

It is very poetic, but it is a very inaccurate and poor translation in comparison to modern translations.

discobrob: "PS-- if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now that right there's some funny stuff. I don't care who y'are.

[/Texspeak]

OOPS!

DP



[This message has been edited by opk (edited 2/24/2008 8:58p).]

quote:

---

The KJV didn't have the manuscripts we have now. It is based on very copied documents and lacks the insights into new fragments or unctuals found after the KJV's rendering.

It is very poetic, but it is a very inaccurate and poor translation in comparison to modern translations.

---

I haven't seen many LDS admit that.

What do you make of this:
Stan Larson uses his training in textual criticism (he holds a Ph.D. in New Testament studies) to compare Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 with the almost identical sermon in the Book of Mormon passage, 3 Nephi 12-14.

quote:

---

Larson's thesis: If 3 Nephi is a translation of an ancient account of Jesus appearing in the New World, it wouldn't copy minor errors that occur in the King James Version (KJV)] that are the result of the late, inferior Greek manuscripts used by the KJV translators. While these minor errors affect no point of doctrine, they allow us to test the claim that the Book of Mormon is a translation of ancient scripture:

---

. . . if the Book of Mormon text sides with the later Greek text as seen in the KJV, this dependence would be strong evidence against its historicity. The reason for this is that the Book of Mormon on the American continent should know nothing of changes and additions to the Sermon on the Mount made in the Old World centuries after the original sermon, but should be a direct link to the real words of Jesus (New Approaches, p. 117).

quote:

---

For purposes of comparison, Larson takes eight verses from Matthew 5-7 in which scholars have detected minor errors in the Greek text that was used in 1611 to produce the KJV Bible. One example is the KJV rendering of Matthew 5:27, paralleled in 3 Nephi 12:27, where Jesus says, "You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery." The earliest Greek manuscripts do not contain the phrase "by them of old time," which indicates that these words were not a part of what Matthew wrote. Thus, the phrase is omitted from all modern scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament, and from modern scholarly translations of the Bible such as the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version.

All the modern scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament have identical readings of these eight verses, thanks to the superior — that is more ancient — Greek manuscripts of the New Testament now available. Larson selected these verses for his study because we can be confident they are identical — or virtually so — with what Matthew originally wrote. However, Larson found that in all eight test cases, 3 Nephi consistently follows the erroneous readings of the KJV, and never agrees with the original text or any known variant from the earliest Greek manuscripts. Larson's verdict: 3 Nephi 12-14 is not an ancient account of a sermon given by Jesus in the Americas, but instead was plagiarized by Joseph Smith from the King James Version:

"The Book of Mormon account of Jesus' sermon in 3 Nephi 12-14 originated in the nineteenth century, derived from unacknowledged plagiarism of the KJV" (New Approaches, pp. 131-132).

---

http://www.irr.org/mit/newapprs.html

I know Larsen's thesis, but it makes assumptions which I am not willing to make.

First, he assumes there is a pure text. I don't know that to be true.

Second he assumes something about the "revelation" process concerning the BoM, namely, Joseph Smith is purported to have been translating academically or word for word, phrase for phrase.

That assumption as best I can discern.

Joseph Smith would get impressions and dictate, but he would also refer to materials he had, i.e., the KJV, and cause those to be written, except where he engaged in some sort of midrash.

So I don't think much of Larsen's thesis and believe it is based upon false assumptions.

I know Larsen's thesis, but it makes assumptions which I am not willing to make.

First, he assumes there is a pure text. I don't know that to be true.

Second he assumes something about the "revelation" process concerning the BoM, namely, Joseph Smith is purported to have been translating academically or word for word, phrase for phrase.

That assumption as best I can discern.

Joseph Smith would get impressions and dictate, but he would also refer to materials he had, i.e., the KJV, and cause those to be written, except where he engaged in some sort of midrash.

So I don't think much of Larsen's thesis and believe it is based upon false assumptions.

So do you believe that something happened along the lines of God telling Joseph Smith to copy the Sermon on the Mount, because Jesus delivered it to the Jews in America as well?

No. That's far too simplistic.

I get the idea that revelation comes by impressions and that the receiver acts upon the impressions to the best of his abilities and training. JS relied upon his training since he had to bring into English. I don't believe it was an academic word for word translation.

I don't believe God told him to do it, but that JS saw it and did what he thought was best. It seems odd that people want God to dictate step for step. In my mind, God emits an impulse and the receiver expands upon the impulse.

There is a lot more room for human error in what you see there.

That's correct. And I believe the prophets of old and of new make a lot of error.

God tolerates error because to be human is to error. God is less interventionalistic in my mind, than many of my faith or outside my faith believe.

God coaxes, but does not lecture, sends impulses and lets us struggle with the impulses, to interpret their meaning.

Remember the lesson of Elijah, his voice was not in the loud winds, the earthquake, the fire, but in the still small voice. The thundering analogies in Hebrew scripture are for the most part Hebrew colloquialisms. Hebrew culture is not as analytical and we have super imposed our analytical mindset, i.e., precision and exactness, upon one that does not function in that manner.

The lack of precision in human interpretations explains for me the multitude of beliefs and creeds. We would like precision, but we don't always get what we would like.

quote:

---

Second he assumes something about the "revelation" process concerning the BoM, namely, Joseph Smith is purported to have been translating academically or word for word, phrase for phrase.

Joseph Smith would get impressions and dictate, but he would also refer to materials he had, i.e., the KJV, and cause those to be written, except where he engaged in some sort of midrash.

So I don't think much of Larsen's thesis and believe it is based upon false assumptions.

---

I would assume the testimony is based on the accounts of David Whitmer, one of the 3 witnesses to the BoM, who said, "A piece of something resembling parchment would appear [in Joseph's seer stone], and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English."

In other words, the BoM was written down character for character, word for word, sentence for sentence, exactly as it appeared to Joseph. 'twas an odd spirit that gave Joseph plagiarized errors from the KJV to copy down.

We have fragmentary information of the delivery process from Emma Smith, who even though she left the Church never denied its authenticity, Oliver Cowdery, Whitmer and others.

They only described what Joseph described, for they did not see what he saw. However, as these "devices" were not computers how did they interact with the brain waves?

Again, as a disbeliever, borrowing that term from the Qu'ran, you look at the fragments which only support your thesis. I'm willing to look at all the fragments and think, "I have no idea, there's enough here for disbelievers to be certain, but there's all this, the disbelievers are ignoring."

Again, in one respect, I believe all scripture is inaccurate and look to the concepts of Gadamer and Derrida in terms of scriptural hermeneutic.

quote:

---

That's correct. And I believe the prophets of old and of new make a lot of error.

---

2 Timothy 3:16 (New King James Version)
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

There are two words that are used in this text that give us an understanding of what the first century brethren thought when they read this passage. The first word is "Graphe," which means "writing," and the second word is "Theopneustos," which gives us the meaning "God-breathed." From the definition of these two words, we find that the writing, or the scriptures, are inspired, or "God-breathed."

So if they are "God-breathed" and there is error, then God is in error which is erroneous. But then again, you believe the Bible has been corrupted, therefore, the need for Joesph Smith arose.

the Greek you translate also relates to spirit.

It is my belief that anything man touches, including language, is corrupted. In reality, I do not believe God communicates through words exactly but instead through sensations and feelings and that mental telepathy occurs for God.

So the words of all scripture of inspired by God, but upon translation into human tongue become corrupted by touching humanity.

quote:

---

but in the still small voice

---

Pretty funny how much the KJV is still ingrained in many of us. You're arguing against it but you still quote it.

I still enjoy reading aloud from the NKJV when teaching, but make a point to have others read the same passage in their translations. I still wonder what back-woods mentality would lead to the nonsense that guy gives out. I bet he also thinks all seminaries are too liberal.

Well in my youth, I learned the KJV, and now during serious study, I read other versions. However, if I'm forced to remember without reference to materials, I remember the poetic language of the KJV. There are specific verses which I can remember from the NRSV, or internet e Bible.

Stephen McGee says the KJV is BULLCRAP!

Maybe the Bible should be read in its original written language like the Koran and Torah so you wouldn't have all these issues on what is the true Bible.

btw - It's rather convient to claim one true Bible and very convient that your church happens to use it....