vicwestlad Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Have you guys come accross many King James only people? I just found out recently that one of my Christian friends is more freakish than ever about it. He's got so much info to back him up it's like a cult. Does anyone here know much about it? He's so sure of his "majority text" theory and even admits to being laughed at by some pastors in town, but he's utterly convinced he's right and they're almost in league with Satan. Personally, I thought those people had gone out with the dark ages but apparently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jun Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Last year I worked with an American guy who was one of those King James only people. "The King James Bible is the authentic and approved version of the bible," He told me. He was trying to start the American Christian Eagle Scout Group in Oz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 We don't talk about it (religion) anymore but when my wife and I were fighting big time a couple years back (right about the time I joined this site...maybe a little before) this came up and she told me that the KJV1611 was better than the material it came from because it was inspired by the holy spirit. I couldn't help but just laugh right in her face and ask if this meant that it was better than the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek sources and she said "yes." So any bible translation that goes to the critical texts are worse because they aren't inspired even though they are technically more accurate. Whether or not she still thinks this way I can't say but I can definitely say that there are people that are very much into a KJV1611 only world (a Google search will turn up quite a few websites as well) and it is basically bible worship (although they vehemently deny it). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Many people need extreme things to support. It somehow validates the rest of their belief if they can get a few issues to be extra-unbending about. What the KJV crowd lacks in sound reasoning they make up for in slavish zeal - and that of course means their entire position is completely emotional and without a shred of objective evidence. They claim the KJV is the only tr00 version, but lack anything to prove that or to prove that their book comes from a divine source - or anything to prove their divine source exists. Just a bunch of bullshit built on a foundation of horseshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 I've never understood how someone can look at obvious translation errors and say God intended them to be translated wrong. Like in the book of Genesis you have Cherubim (the plural signification of the singular Cherub by adding the "im" ending), yet the KJV translators wrote it as Cerubims. That's plural of plural, like saying deers, or sheeps. Interestingly enough the original book of Mormon copied this error into its own divinely transcribed text, only latter to clean this error up in later editions. Your average Mormon has no idea that their divinely transcribed and translated text from the golden tablets has thousands of later corrections in it. What a sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 That's how the King James Version was written - dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dummmmb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Bollocks! The only person it was approved by was King James and then they altered the text to support the divine right of kings... It's mostly lifted from the Vulgate so it's translations go: Aramaic oral tradition-> Greek (in numerous manually copied revisions)-> Latin -> English... Jack Chick is a KJV 1611 only chap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 That's how the King James Version was written - dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dummmmb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicwestlad Posted June 27, 2007 Author Share Posted June 27, 2007 If you delve very far into the KJV only bunch you will undoubtedly run into a character, Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. OH BOY, this guy gets interesting...here is some links: http://www.kjv1611.org/PSR.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm http://www.petersruckman.com/ Hey Burnedout, thanks for the info. My friend had mentioned a Preter Ruckman but I didn't know who he was. I've now spent some time reading letters he sent to James White. What a freak. My friend is in the Ruckman cult. He's a Ruckanite! You bet this guy's interesting. Anyway, I've picked up James White's The King James Only Controversy from the library. Don't you love when Christians argue so vehemently amongst themselves over what "God's" book says that they think each other are going to hell? I'm so glad I'm away from such petty, meaningless squabbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Bollocks! The only person it was approved by was King James and then they altered the text to support the divine right of kings... Interesting how many latin, hebrew or greek reading scholars ended up in the dungeon during the transcription and release. "Blimy! That's not what it says lad." "Off to the stretcher you go Lord Braughm. Perhaps after we add a few inches to your stature you will recall your latin lessons correctly, hmmm?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 I'm sure it was just coincidental... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 What made the translators of KJV decide to use the word "unicorn" for an animal they couldn't translate? Why not make something up, or to a transliteration of the word instead? My guess is that they knew the Bible was fiction and they could put anything they wanted in there because it wasn't real after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 One should never underestimate James' personal interest in Black magic and witch craft... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicwestlad Posted June 29, 2007 Author Share Posted June 29, 2007 Vicwestlad, Let me tell you alittle about Ruckman. Hey Burnedout, that's some great info. Thanks for that. This guy is one of the most interesting characters since I watched that CBC special on Benny Hinn. If Benny Hinn can get millions of supporters, it's hardly surprising this whacko gets lots too. I suppose faith is inherintly irratonal, that's why none of these people can see reason. I admit I get a perverse pleasure (although it's also disturbing) over seeing preachers squabble over which translation of the Bible is trustworthy. Obviously none can be trusted. This whole thing has reminded me of my favorite quote to give to KJV Onlyists: Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: 17Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 This whole thing has reminded me of my favorite quote to give to KJV Onlyists: Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: 17Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts. I'm confused. Are you saying that this verse isn't accurately translated in the KJV or that it is and you use it to annoy the KJV folks? If it's the former (it's not accurate) then let me direct you to this article specifically this page. Here's the important part (emphasis mine): Biblical Solution Also of great significance, experts say, is that the newly deciphered spells provide the first glimpse of the ancestor language to Phoenician and Hebrew. "This is a discovery of utmost importance," Bar-Asher said. "Almost all the words found [in these texts] are also found in the Bible." "It's not as different from biblical Hebrew as some people might have expected," Yeshiva University's Steiner added. "A lot of the characteristics of Hebrew that we know from the Bible are already present in these texts." The language of the newly deciphered spells is so similar to biblical Hebrew, in fact, that Steiner was able to solve a long-standing dispute over the meaning of the word "pot." Isaiah 3:17 reads, in regard to the daughters of Zion, "the Lord will uncover their pot." By the Middle Ages there was already a dispute among biblical scholars over whether the word referred to the females' genitalia or to a part of their heads, Steiner said in his lecture. But the use of this rare word in one of the Canaanite spells appears to settle the question. "From this text it is now clear the Hebrew term used by Isaiah refers to the female genitalia," Bar-Asher, of the Hebrew University, said. These texts also "provide the first direct evidence for the pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period," Steiner added. "Current theories of Old Egyptian phonetics are based on extrapolation and are the subject of controversy. These spells may help to resolve some of the controversies." So old YHWH was concerned with the female no-no area's. Score one for the KJV. Anyhow, if it was the latter, and your friends want to claim this should really be "head" instead of what is written then this is evidence that it is not. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lerato Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 One should never underestimate James' personal interest in Black magic and witch craft... King James I was also gay and had intimate relationships with several of his male courtesans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicwestlad Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 I'm confused. Are you saying that this verse isn't accurately translated in the KJV or that it is and you use it to annoy the KJV folks? If it's the former (it's not accurate) then let me direct you to this article specifically this page. Here's the important part (emphasis mine): So old YHWH was concerned with the female no-no area's. Score one for the KJV. Anyhow, if it was the latter, and your friends want to claim this should really be "head" instead of what is written then this is evidence that it is not. mwc Well mwc, I certainly didn't expect that! I've used the quote to make KJVOs gasp and wheeze trying to come to terms with how that affects their position. Obviously, people don't think that translation can be accurate. Turns out that's not true. That made my day. I'm happy to have the KJV have that one if Yahweh was really going to check out the girl's crotches. Thanks mwc, great article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts