Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Would B-hebrew discuss the name Jehovah with a KJBO Christian?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Hedrick Gary <GaryH AT cjfm.org>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Would B-hebrew discuss the name Jehovah with a KJBO Christian?
  • Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:18:43 -0500

KJVO ... now that's a term I haven't seen in a while!

This (that is, Matt. 1:22 and Isa. 7:14) is just one example of many. Just
look at the numerous quotes from the Hebrew Tanakh in the KJV translation of
the Book of Hebrews, for example, where the two (that is, KJV Hebrews and KJV
Tanakh) don't agree. Take Heb. 8:8-12 and compare it with Jer.
31:31-34—that's a really easy one because it's an extended quote. Just lay
them down side by side and compare them. If the KJV (that is, the Byzantine
text type) represents the "perfect" Bible, the two should agree perfectly.
(Otherwise, one or the other has preserved an imperfect text, which
ultimately leads to a reductio ad absurdum situation for the KJVO position.)
But they don't. It's obvious that Luke (or whoever wrote Hebrews) was using
something like the LXX text, not a KJV or Received (Byzantine) text. There's
no way around this if you're a KJV Only advocate. You can see it with your
own eyes. But most of the KJVO guys don't really care because they're not
terribly sophisticated to begin with, or even particularly well trained (with
only a couple of exceptions). They tend to "educate" themselves within their
own circles (in a sort of ingrown arrangement) and they bestow Ph.D.s on each
other from their own institutions (again, with a few exceptions), where the
main requirement is that they master the technique of walking and chewing gum
simultaneously (just kidding, sort of). More importantly, these folks have
convinced themselves that they are fighting the good fight and defending
"the" Word of God. So you can talk until you're blue in the face only to find
that they're not really paying attention.

You'll find lots of helpful info on this issue at www.kjvonly.org. Also, Bob
Ross at Pilgrim Publications (publishers of Spurgeon's works) used to publish
some interesting KJVO info. But the KJVO issue has been pretty quiet in
recent years, so I don't know if Bob is still involved. He may have moved on
by now to bigger and better things.

It would actually be amusing if it wasn't so sad. KJVO excesses are
particularly unfortunate because they reflect badly on perhaps the finest and
most majestic translation that has ever appeared in the English language (the
KJV). For instance, just read Psalm 23 in the KJV and then try to find any
other translation that comes close to it (my two cents).

Gary Hedrick
San Antonio, Texas USA

On Aug 22, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Steve Miller wrote:

> Dave,
>
> I do not personally know any KJBO Christians, but I do think KJB is an
> excellent translation, better than any modern Old Testament translation, but
> it is not perfect. Here is an argument I would use against the doctrine
> that KJB is a perfect translation:
>
> Foremost, it is extrabiblical doctrine.
>
> 2nd, an instance where KJB proves itself not perfect:
> Matt 1:22 (KJB) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth
> a son, and *they* shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is,
> God with us.
>
> This is a quote from
> Isa 7:14 (KJB) ... Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and **
> shall call his name Immanuel.
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page