Questions for those holding an extreme KJVO position

[Pastor Larry]

I do not limit it to the translators of the KJV. Any scribe or copyist who accurately reproduced a reliable copy of the original was used by God to providentially preserve His Word.

In my opinion, the KJV translators were used by God to translate into English, a version that is based upon extant mss that accurately reflect the originals. This is no way implies double inspiration, but rather providential preservation. I do not believe that the translators were inspired as were the writers of the autographa. I do, however, believe that their work was a result of God's preservation, and that the KJV, above all other English translations, holds that distinction.

Thanks for clarifying. I quite agree.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

The KJB and the Hebrew

Quote:
The KJB follows the Hebrew texts in every instance.

No, not entirely. The Hebrew text is actually in worse shape than the Greek text in some respects. Of course, you probably can't read Hebrew either, and so discussions about Hebrew variants would go further over your head than discussions about Greek variants.

Hi Larry. I know I am but a poor, uneducated rube, and it is obvious from your posts that you are head and shoulders beyond me in natural graces, intelligence and learning, but why not give me a shot at playing with you big dogs? Perhaps you could show us one specific place in the King James Bible where it clearly does not follow the Hebrew texts. I know I can do so many times for such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman stuff, but I have yet to see one provable instance so far in the KJB.


Thanks,

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

theological errors in the modern versions

Show me one significant theological flaw that reading an MV will give me versus reading the KJV (and since I use both, this should be doubly hard).
*crickets*

Hi r, go ahead and tell me which version it is you think is closest to those non-existent originals you have never seen and I will gladly point out a theological error in it. The King James Bible will be right and your modern version will be wrong.

Go ahead, tell me which version you personally prefer.

thanks,

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

DHK's "authority"

My authority in all matters of faith and practice is the Word of God.

Hi DHK, Yes, we know what your "authority" is. You have already told us. It's those non-existent, never seen by you or anyone else living today "originals".

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

The perfect Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
I do believe the King James Bible is the final product of the purification process God used to give the world a perfect Bible.

Exactly! This is what you, personally, choose to believe - nothing more and/or nothing less.This is purely, flatly, and simply bunk!

Hi Ed. Well, at least I do have one. You clearly do not. So who do you think is the better off? (Rhetorical question; no need to answer with a meaningless tirade)

Will

 

[Pastor Larry]

I know I am but a poor, uneducated rube

Perhaps, but I don't know that about you. I know in this particular area there are some significant gaps in both your knowledge and your thought processes. That's not bad, and it can be improved.

[quote...and it is obvious from your posts that you are head and shoulders beyond me in natural graces, intelligence and learning[/quote]Again, I don't know, but perhaps. In some areas, I am sure you know more than me, and in other areas not as much. In this particular area, again, it appears that I am better informed than you are.

Perhaps you could show us one specific place in the King James Bible where it clearly does not follow the Hebrew texts.

Exodus 20:14 says "Thou shalt commit adultery." It left out the "not."

 

[RAdam]

Hi brother. Another reasonable question. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God in history and all eternity. God put together the book of the LORD ( I without shame equate this with the KJB) and we defend THE TEXT, not the marginal notes nor the Preface nor the Anglican church or Puritans who were the instruments God used to put together His book.

We see the human element of occasional uncertainty in the margins, and the TEXT God wanted in the Bible right where it should be. The text is always superiour to the margin.

Good question though.

God bless,
Will K

Really? So this, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" is superior to this, "Whom God hath foreordained to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the passing over of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God"? Or is this, "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held" - is that better than this, "But now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we were held"? Or perhaps you dislike the explanation in the center column of what "not inhabited" means in Leviticus 16:22 - the translators there say that the Hebrew literally means "a land of separation".

To contend that God inspired the translation but at the same time the translators were unsure is to really contradict yourself. The original authors never seem unsure to me when they were inspired to write the texts. I fail to see any margin notes or question of how to write a text. I still say, logic dictates that if the translators were inspired there would have been no question about how to render a certain text. That isn't undermining the KJ, that's telling the honest truth.

You also say you defend the text and not the margin notes, or the preface, or anything else. In other words, if it doesn't fit your argument (in fact those things disprove your argument) you just write them off and continue in blissful defense of the text. I'm not here to correct the KJ bible, nor am I here to say it is faulty and should be discarded. I believe it is the best english translation. However, the existence of the margin and the preface demand that we come to the conclusion that these translators were not inspired.

 

[EdSutton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
I do believe the King James Bible is the final product of the purification process God used to give the world a perfect Bible.





Hi Ed. Well, at least I do have one. You clearly do not. So who do you think is the better off? (Rhetorical question; no need to answer with a meaningless tirade)

Will

Actually, I well suspect you do not know what I personally believe, given the general tenor of your own posts says you have likely never bothered to read anything other than threads that were in 'response' to your own posts. Or should I say in 'response' to your own "meaningless tirades", considering you are the one who mentioned this phrase?

I just choose not to publish my own opinions and beliefs (when Biblically unsubstantiated and/or Biblically unsubstantiable) as purported fact, for I have posted many times what I do believe, but admit when it is only my personal belief or opinion.

Certainly, you would be undoubtedly familiar with "meaningless tirades", I agree.

Ed

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
I do believe the King James Bible is the final product of the purification process God used to give the world a perfect Bible.





Hi Ed. Well, at least I do have one. You clearly do not. So who do you think is the better off? (Rhetorical question; no need to answer with a meaningless tirade)

Will

Who has the truth is better off. No matter how well intentioned an idea is if its not truth; its not truth. And despite your view of the rhetorical question its not reasonable to presume that the fullness of Gods word was not evident until the English Translation of the bible was complete.

 

[rbell]

Hi r, go ahead and tell me which version it is you think is closest to those non-existent originals you have never seen and I will gladly point out a theological error in it. The King James Bible will be right and your modern version will be wrong.

Go ahead, tell me which version you personally prefer.

thanks,

Will K

Obviously, every person will have very minor differences doctrinally from thers.

Sorry...but there are no discrepencies in essential doctrine b/t valid MV's and the KJV.

<---nice dodge, though.

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK, Yes, we know what your "authority" is. You have already told us. It's those non-existent, never seen by you or anyone else living today "originals".

Will K

Instead of giving a smart-alec answer, and avoiding the questions I asked you in post #114, why not be a decent fellow and answer the questions one by one that I asked you. Are you unable to? Why do you continue to avoid the posts, the questions that I ask you? Why the smart-alec (and rude) posts? It only shows the ignorance, not the intelligence of your posts. You can do better. I know you can. Use the KJV and answer the questions I have asked of you.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Larry's prime example of the KJB not following the Hebrew

Perhaps you could show us one specific place in the King James Bible where it clearly does not follow the Hebrew texts.

Exodus 20:14 says "Thou shalt commit adultery." It left out the "not."

Larry, with all your seminary training and expertise in Hebrew and Greek, surely you could have mentioned something just a little bit better than this. You're kidding, right? Is this the best you can come up with?

When the original KJB came out it read correctly "Thou shalt NOT commit adultery." That is what all King James Bible have read and still read today, except for one notable exception. There was clear printers error in the 1631 printing. It was caught right away and the printer was fined for his obvious mistake.

If this is the best you can do, your case against the King James Bible as not following the Hebrew texts is pathetic and desperate at best. Do you have anything of substance or just more silliness like this prime example you just gave us?

Apparently you did not read my article on the Printing Errors Ploy. But why should you? You already have your mind made up and "facts be damned".

Throughout the history of Bible publishing there have been some rather humorous examples of printing errors . It should also be noted that there have been printing errors, even with today's advanced technology, in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV as well. Here are a few of the printing errors that have occurred in various King James Bible editions.

A 1631 edition became known as the “Wicked Bible” because the seventh commandment read, “thou shalt commit adultery.” The printer was fined 300 pounds.

The printer of the "Fool Bible" had to pay 3,000 pounds for this mistake in Psalm 14:1: “The fool hath said in his heart there is a God.”

In 1653, there was a misprint in I Corinthians 6:9 that read, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” and one in Romans 6:13 that read, “"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto sin." This Bible became known as “the Unrighteous Bible.”

In 1716, the “Sin On Bible” commanded, “Go, and sin on more” in John 8:11.

In 1717, there was a misprint in a heading for the “parable of the vineyard,” which called it the "Parable of the vinegar." This Bible was called “the Vinegar Bible.”

In 1801, Jude 16 stated, "these are murderers" instead of “murmurers”, and Mark 7:27 stated, “let the children first be killed” instead of “filled.” This Bible was nicknamed “the Murderers Bible.”

In 1820, Jesus says, "Who hath ears to ear, let him hear" in Matthew 13:43, and this was called “the Ears to Ear" Bible.

In 1823, Genesis 24:61 states "Rebekah arose, and her camels", instead of "her damsels," in “Rebekah’s Camels Bible.”

The cause for all of these defects may be found in “the Printers' Bible” (1702), which states in Psalm 119:161, "printers have persecuted me" (instead of “princes.” have persecuted me). If ever there was a misprint that carried a lot of legitimate meaning, this is it. "Printers have persecuted me."

The whole "Printing Error" complaint the biblical relativists bring up, is really a non issue. What I mean by this is that if every single copy of the King James Bible that has ever come off the presses read exactly the same with no minor printing errors found in any of them, it still would not change their opinion that the KJB is not the inspired, inerrant word of God. It is brought up as a smokescreen and is not a serious issue concerning the ultimate truth of Scripture and its preservation.

Most people who reject the King James Bible as being the inerrant, preserved words of God in English, do so for other reasons than printing errors. They have done so because they went to a seminary where they were taught that no Bible in any language and no text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the inspired words of God. Or they visited some anti-KJV only website where they were told something like: "The KJV is not based on the best texts", "God forbid" is wrong, or "1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible." They most likely assumed that all KJB Bibles read the same since the very beginning. It wasn't till later they learned of the minor printing errors and now they toss this up as a smokescreen. Like I said, if someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact. The alleged "revisions" and "hundreds of printing errors" is a non-issue of no significance at all.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Every man for himself Bible versionists in action

Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi brother. Another reasonable question. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God in history and all eternity. God put together the book of the LORD ( I without shame equate this with the KJB) and we defend THE TEXT, not the marginal notes nor the Preface nor the Anglican church or Puritans who were the instruments God used to put together His book.

We see the human element of occasional uncertainty in the margins, and the TEXT God wanted in the Bible right where it should be. The text is always superiour to the margin.

Good question though.

God bless,
Will K

Really? So this, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" is superior to this, "Whom God hath foreordained to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the passing over of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God"? Or is this, "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held" - is that better than this, "But now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we were held"? Or perhaps you dislike the explanation in the center column of what "not inhabited" means in Leviticus 16:22 - the translators there say that the Hebrew literally means "a land of separation".

Yes, really. The text is always better. Next time, please include the references please. Romans 5:25 - perfectly accurate and many other Bible translators agree. Romans 7:6 You have the wrong text in your modern versions. The TR followed by the KJB reads that way and is correct and makes more sense.

Your last example is exceedingly ridiculous. Have you actually looked up how other translators have done this section in Lev.16:22? All you do is reveal your mindset of "Everybody thinks he's a scholar and nobody is right except him", or as the Bible puts it "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Not only does the KJB correctly have "wilderness" but so do the RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, NIV (desert) and even the Jewish translations.

Yep, you "No bible is the inerrant words of God" guys are doing a bang up job of proving the KJB to be wrong.

Will K

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, with all your seminary training and expertise in Hebrew and Greek, surely you could have mentioned something just a little bit better than this. You're kidding, right? Is this the best you can come up with?

Does or does not the KJV read that? Of course it does. You admit it. And now you are trapped. You can’t claim the KJV has no errors, because we have shown undeniably that it does (and you admit it). Second, you can’t claim the KJV is the final authority because it isn’t. When you say that the KJV’s “Thou shalt commit adultery” is wrong, you are reaching back behind the KJV for something to compare it to. You can’t simply compare it to the previous version (which was different) because it may have been wrong. You have to reach back farther for a more objective standard.

And so you have been caught.


Yes, I could come up with other examples, but why? You have no answer for this one that doesn't appeal to something other than the KJV to settle it. And once you do that, you have admitted by your action that my position is right. The only way you know that the KJV is wrong in that particular version is because you have a prior text to appeal to ... namely, the Hebrew text.

There was clear printers error in the 1631 printing.

So you admit the KJV has at least one error that was caught and corrected. (There are many more as you know). How many errors are in your KJV that simply haven’t been caught and corrected yet? And what led to the catching and correcting of these errors? A standard other than the KJV.

Do you have anything of substance or just more silliness like this prime example you just gave us?

So you think it is “silly” when it has an error of such magnitude? I don’t. I think more highly of the Bible than you do.

Apparently you did not read my article on the Printing Errors Ploy.

I haven’t read your article, but I am well familiar with the tactic. But you defeat your own proposition. You say “It has no errors” but then you admit it has errors. You can’t have it both ways. Errors of printing are still errors, just like errors of copying for 1500 years before the printing press, and errors of translation. They are errors. Which is why they are called “errors.”

You already have your mind made up and "facts be damned".

I have dealt with the facts. You have not.

The whole "Printing Error" complaint the biblical relativists bring up, is really a non issue.

It is actually a huge issue because you admit that God is not big enough to prevent printer’s errors. Furthermore, as I pointed out, you have to admit that the KJV has errors between the editions (or revisions) of it because “things that are different are not the same.” Furthermore, in order to resolve the issue between two versions of the KJV, you have to appeal to an authority outside the KJV, which means that the KJV is not your final authority.

There are so many traps that you just walked into that you are DOA.

Most people who reject the King James Bible as being the inerrant, preserved words of God in English, do so for other reasons than printing errors.

Yes, it’s called believing the Bible. We reject your doctrine because we believe what God said. It has nothing to do with printing. It has to do with revelation.

And you have yet to show us where God said what you say … that the KJV is without error. You have yet to tell how us to identify which KJV is without error. You have yet to tell us how you would know whether the KJV has an error in it.

You are full of holes.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Then show us the Book please

Who has the truth is better off. No matter how well intentioned an idea is if its not truth; its not truth. And despite your view of the rhetorical question its not reasonable to presume that the fullness of Gods word was not evident until the English Translation of the bible was complete.

Hi T. Well if you know where the perfect, complete and infallible Bible was in any language before 1611, then please tell us what it was called and where we can get a copy of it to compare to what we are using now. Do you have anything of substance or are you just creating more doubt and uncertainty because that is all you have to work with?

Please let us know what the perfect Bible (66 inspired and inerrant individual books combined into a single volume) was before 1611. If you cannot, then consider that you may in fact be mistaken, and there really IS an inspired and 100% true Holy Bible and it is the King James.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

theological errors

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi r, go ahead and tell me which version it is you think is closest to those non-existent originals you have never seen and I will gladly point out a theological error in it. The King James Bible will be right and your modern version will be wrong.

Go ahead, tell me which version you personally prefer.

thanks,

Will K

Obviously, every person will have very minor differences doctrinally from thers.

Sorry...but there are no discrepencies in essential doctrine b/t valid MV's and the KJV.

<---nice dodge, though.

Very interesting r. You issue a challenge to show theological errors in the MVs as compared to the King James Bible. I take you up on this challenge, and what do you do? You back out running scared and then accuse ME of "dodging" the issue.

Now that is a classic!

Will K

 

[Logos1560]

So you admit the KJV has at least one error that was caught and corrected. (There are many more as you know). How many errors are in your KJV that simply haven’t been caught and corrected yet? And what led to the catching and correcting of these errors? A standard other than the KJV.

.

The KJV translators themselves regarded the original language texts as the standard for the making and evaluating of translations. The later editors of KJV editions used that same standard of the original language texts in their editing and correcting.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hi T. Well if you know where the perfect, complete and infallible Bible was in any language before 1611, then please tell us what it was called and where we can get a copy of it to compare to what we are using now. Do you have anything of substance or are you just creating more doubt and uncertainty because that is all you have to work with?

Please let us know what the perfect Bible (66 inspired and inerrant individual books combined into a single volume) was before 1611. If you cannot, then consider that you may in fact be mistaken, and there really IS an inspired and 100% true Holy Bible and it is the King James.

Will K

From your very own reasoning this is what you've created:

Autographs are no longer extant so referrences to them is a non sequitur
The oldest copied texts that are extant are erroneous therefore not the "word of God"
There are issues with the TR and errors with the document so it also not the "word of God".
God inspired the translators of the KJB AV 1611 to correctly determined from flawed texts the actual intent God and there by "discovering" the "word of God".
Thus reasoned the word of God was not exant until the AV 1611.
Jesus quotes of the OT is not quoting the Word of God since there were flaws in the document he was quoting (jesus didn't have the Autographs either).
Christianity therefore could not have existed before 1611 since their authority in the "word of God" was misplaced in erroneous documents. And the truth of the Gospels not fully revealed.

So in essence you've come to believe that two wrongs do make a right.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Will,

Where in the KJV does it say that the KJV is THE inspired Word of God?

Please and thanks.

 

[RAdam]

Yes, really. The text is always better. Next time, please include the references please. Romans 5:25 - perfectly accurate and many other Bible translators agree. Romans 7:6 You have the wrong text in your modern versions. The TR followed by the KJB reads that way and is correct and makes more sense.

Your last example is exceedingly ridiculous. Have you actually looked up how other translators have done this section in Lev.16:22? All you do is reveal your mindset of "Everybody thinks he's a scholar and nobody is right except him", or as the Bible puts it "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Not only does the KJB correctly have "wilderness" but so do the RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, NIV (desert) and even the Jewish translations.

Yep, you "No bible is the inerrant words of God" guys are doing a bang up job of proving the KJB to be wrong.

Will K

Are you really accusing me of trying to prove the KJB to be wrong and of attacking it based on the "modern versions"? Have you not read anything I've written? I prefer the KJ, and I'm not out to correct or attack it. I was not comparing the KJ to anything but the KJ. The comparisons were made between the text and the alternate renderings, both in the KJ. The fact is, those alternate renderings at the very least give a better understanding of the text, and are sometimes better than what is in the text. In Romans 7:6 Paul is saying that we are now dead to that wherein we were held, the law. The alternate rendering helps one to better understand that.

In Leviticus 16, "a land not inhabited" could mean several different things. Thankfully, the translators put in the margin that the Hebrew literally means "a land of separation", thus we can better understand what is being conveyed here. The fit man, here picturing Jesus, takes the scapegoat into a land of separation, thus separating the sins of Israel from them in a figure. Christ, at the cross, totally separated our sins from us in a legal sense.

The point is, the translators weren't inspired. I believe the translation is the superior english translation, I use it. But it is totally against logic and without merit to state that the translators were inspired. The existence of the alternate renderings at all disprove your claim.