Questions for those holding an extreme KJVO position

[rbell]

Here you reveal a fundamental ignorance about the issues. The KJV was translated from those “dusty manuscripts” that you complain about. The KJV never existed prior to its translation. By your own argument, the word of God never existed until 1611 because nothing prior to the KJV was identical to it and therefore was corrupt. Even now, the KJV you hold is not the 1611. It is either made better than the 1611 or made worse. Either the 1611 had errors and were changed to be right, or the 1611 didn’t have errors and the Bible you have now does because they are not the same. And don’t talk about printer’s errors because they are still “errors” as you can see from the name “printer’s errors.”

[jim carrey voice] DINGDINGDING, we have a winner! What do we have for him, Johnny?!? [/jim carrey voice]

 

[Will J. Kinney]

DHK's "the Bible"

1. I don't gamble. I am not that kind of person. I didn't know you stooped that low.
2. I am a missionary. I serve in nations you no doubt have never been in. The fact is they have only one Bible. It is translated from the Critical Text. If I were to get up in front of a crowd of Christians or a congregation of a church and declare that "this is not the Word of God," it would do irreparable harm to those believers. Some of them may even turn aside from their faith. It is the worst thing a person could do--to declare that the Bible is not the Bible.
3. I don't worship a Bible as you do. If I had the skills of a translator I would translate the Bible of the language of the nation that I serve in from the TR, but we work with what we have. We are fortunate enough to have a Bible at all. I go to one nation that doesn't have a Bible at all. Be thankful for what you do have..

Hi DHK. It is obvious from your own answer that there really is not a single "The Bible" that you believe IS the complete and inerrant words of God. I do agree with you that you should use what you have where you are as a missionary. The gospel is still there and they can learn many things that are true in their bibles. However even you said that you would prefer the TR as opposed to the Critical text.

But you never specifically named "the bible" that you believe is the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. This is simply because you do not have one nor believe that one exists. If I am wrong and guilty of false witness, then just tell us where we can get a copy of your "infallible Bible" and compare it to what we are reading now.

I also agree with you that you should not tell your foreign flock that their Bibles are not true and inerrant. Let them them enjoy what God has been pleased to give them so far.

However, such is not at all the case here in America. Here we are being told on every hand by the Seminaries, most pastors when you press them to the wall, and by several recent books out there by Doug Kutilek, James White, D.A. Carson, James Price, Rick Norris and Bart Ehrman that no Bible is the perfect words of God and "only the originals were inspired and infallible" (if that). Yes, they are even beginning to question the non-existent and never seen "originals".

Most seminarians openly admit that they do not believe the Scriptures are inerrant. The huge battle for the bible is going on in a big way and fewer and fewer Christians believe The book. Those are the simple and undeniable facts.

I and other King James Bible believers are NOT the ones who are spreading unbelief in the existence of a complete, inspired and infallible Bible - it is all those "bible agnostics" out there.

May God be pleased to use the bible version you have to work with on the foreign field to bring His people to faith in the Saviour. But God never promised that every nation or individual would have a perfect Bible.

Will K

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Note as Dr. Archer states inerrant does not mean impeccable. Are you sure you're using he right terminology? Can you believe something is inerrant yet not believe it is impeccable?

 

[Will J. Kinney]

The ol' Printing error Ploy once again raises it's hypocritical head

I won't bother quoting Will, because see no need to repeat drivel.

But you haven't told us...

Which version of the KJV is the "right one?"

Things that are different are not the same.

Golly r, I haven't heard this one before. I think you have me stumped. :tonofbricks:

This is actually one of the last ditch efforts by those who do not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. The King James Bible has never been "revised" nor have the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts ever been changed.

There were some unintentional printing errors that were soon caught and corrected, but nothing in the way of a "revision". In contrast to this, versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV are in a continual and deliberate state of changing not only their English texts but the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts they use as well. I can prove these allegations if you want me to.

Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

Now, rather than post the entire article about this "Which version of the KJV is the right one?" mantra, here is the article I wrote about this. Read what you want or don't, but here it is.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/PrintErr.html

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Thinking's non- existent "the Bible"

He has and did. Your assertion that the belief that the autographs themselves were 100% inspired is disingenous because 1) they weren't writen as the 66 books of the bible to begin with and 2) they are no longer extant; is ridiculous.

To the first opposition note how I said as they were writen no one has made the claim that the autographs were initially compiled into one book. It makes no difference to the autograph POV. When they were writen they are the inerrent word of God. To the 2nd opposition. It matters a great deal if you believe that God had a part or a whole with the writing of the initial autographs. DHK is right with regard to translations. I've lived in many countries most of them 3rd world. I know. I do not agree with either you or DHK with regard to the TR. I do not believe they are superior to the CT. Nor do I believe they are inferior. As I've noted before there is an issue with the Byzantine text.

Hi Thinking. We are talking about whether or not there exists right now today any "The Bible" (66 books combined into one volume) that you or anybody else really believes IS (present tense) the complete, preserved, inspired and 100% true words of God. So far, you have given us nothing.

Do you have such a Book? I have yet to see you tell us specifically where it is and what it is called, except perhaps in very vague and nebulous terms.

Blessings,

Will K

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK. It is obvious from your own answer that there really is not a single "The Bible" that you believe IS the complete and inerrant words of God. I do agree with you that you should use what you have where you are as a missionary. The gospel is still there and they can learn many things that are true in their bibles. However even you said that you would prefer the TR as opposed to the Critical text.

No, there is not a single translation of the Bible that I believe is the complete and inerrant word of God, totally infallible in every word, without any error whatsoever. If you really believed the KJV, why don't you use it? I have never seen you quote from it, not even once!

(Deu 33:16) And for the precious things of the earth, and fulnesse thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come vpon the head of Ioseph, and vpon the top of the head of him that was separated fro his brethren.
(Deu 33:17) His glory is like the firstling of his bullocke, & his hornes are like the hornes of Unicornes: with them he shall push the people together, to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

(1Jn 2:2) And he is the propitiation for our sinnes: and not for ours onely, but also for the sinnes of the whole world.
(1Jn 2:3) And hereby wee doe knowe that we know him, if we keepe his commandements.

Do you lie? I haven't seen you quote from the KJV yet. If it is a perfect translation it would never undergo any changes whatsoever, not one. But obviously it has undergone changes. The Bible says: "I the Lord change not." It tells us of God's Word, that,

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

But jots and tittles have changed. That is obvious. The KJV is not the inspired word of God. It is simply a translation that has undergone many revisions, and many changes. God never changes. His Word never changes. The KJV has changed many times over.

But you never specifically named "the bible" that you believe is the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. This is simply because you do not have one nor believe that one exists. If I am wrong and guilty of false witness, then just tell us where we can get a copy of your "infallible Bible" and compare it to what we are reading now.

You do bear false witness. God promised to preserve his word. He didn't promise to inspire his word in every translation. If I have a question about the translation I can go back to the Greek or Hebrew which I believe God has preserved his Word in. If you are not afraid of Bible study you can do the same thing. The KJV is not the KJB; it is a translation, a version. Yes it is a Bible, but more accurately a translation.

However, such is not at all the case here in America. Here we are being told on every hand by the Seminaries, most pastors when you press them to the wall, and by several recent books out there by Doug Kutilek, James White, D.A. Carson, James Price, Rick Norris and Bart Ehrman that no Bible is the perfect words of God and "only the originals were inspired and infallible" (if that). Yes, they are even beginning to question the non-existent and never seen "originals".

Only the originals were inspired. The Bible itself states that:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--The holy men of God were not the KJV translators, were they? They were Isaiah, Samuel, Jeremiah, and by extension Paul, Peter, James, etc. They were both the prophets and the apostles that wrote the MSS of our Bible. Their writings were inspired of God. None others were. Even if those writings are gone, God has seen fit to preserve his word in copies of those writings. Perhaps the reason we don't have those writings today is because man is prone to be an idol-worshiper. Even today we have Catholics worshiping pieces of the cross of Jesus. Think what they would do if the actual pages of the inspired word existed. It would lead to idolatry, which I fear is happening among the KJVO crowd. God promised to preserve his word; not to inspire each copy and each translation of it.

Let me ask you:
I have sufficient enough Greek knowledge to translate the prologue of John's gospel. I believe that my translation of the prologue of John's gospel would be just as good as the KJV translators'.
Would you accept my translation as inspired? Why or why not?
In the KJV is inspired why wouldn't mine?
Are you not showing partiality?
They that show partiality are partakers of evil deeds. God despises those that show bias. If my translation is just as accurate as the KJV why wouldn't it just as "inspired" if the KJV is inspired? The fact is that no translation is inspired. Only the original autographs are inspired. God used those men to pen his words--only those men and no others.

Most seminarians openly admit that they do not believe the Scriptures are inerrant. The huge battle for the bible is going on in a big way and fewer and fewer Christians believe The book. Those are the simple and undeniable facts.

I avoid those seminaries that do not believe that the Scriptures are inerrant. However your definition and my definition of Scriptures are different. Perhaps we are speaking past each other. I don't confine "Scriptures" to the KJV.

I and other King James Bible believers are NOT the ones who are spreading unbelief in the existence of a complete, inspired and infallible Bible - it is all those "bible agnostics" out there.

Would you say the same thing if you brought up in China and could only speak one of the many dialects of Chinese? What about in India and could only speak Hindi or Punjabi? You wouldn't be saying the same thing or taking the same position would you? You are illogical and inconsistent. You are ethnocentric in your position. If you were brought up in another nation you would be one of those "bible agnostics" wouldn't you?

May God be pleased to use the bible version you have to work with on the foreign field to bring His people to faith in the Saviour. But God never promised that every nation or individual would have a perfect Bible.
Will K

No translation of the Bible is perfect. You do not have a perfect Bible. I have already demonstrated that.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hi Thinking. We are talking about whether or not there exists right now today any "The Bible" (66 books combined into one volume) that you or anybody else really believes IS (present tense) the complete, preserved, inspired and 100% true words of God. So far, you have given us nothing.

Do you have such a Book? I have yet to see you tell us specifically where it is and what it is called, except perhaps in very vague and nebulous terms.

Blessings,

Will K

I've said nothing nebulous. I've been clear. First before I can even begin to answer your question you need to define your terms and what it is you mean when you say them. I believe my NIV is the inspired word of God as I do my copy of the KJB. As do I the NASB copy I have As I do the NKJB Copy I have. I would even say my copy of the LXX also is. But thats because how you define terms and how I define terms are different. Once we agree with definitions we might have grounds to discuss. We would also have to agree with aproaches to translations and that there could be multiple meanings with one hebrew word that is not sufficiently translated into english or with the Greek. I do not believe that there is any "golden tablet" bible similar to the Mormons or the Muslims if that is ultimately how you define terms.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Larry's 66 books 'Bible'

Quote:
What exactly is this "word of God" that you profess such great love for and that I allegedly hate and despise? Would you mind defining your terms, or showing me a copy of this "God's word" you refer to?
Again, the 66 books of the Christian Scriptures.

Hi Larry. I'm afraid you will have to do a little bit better than this to try to make us think you actually have a real and tangible Bible that you call the word of God.

Do you mean versions like the RSV that omit from their texts some 45 entire verses from just the New Testament? Or the NIV which omits 17 plus rejects numerous Hebrew readings? Or the ESV which omits even more whole verses than the NIV and also many Hebrew readings?

Where specifically can we all get a copy of these "66 books of the Christian Scriptures" that you really believe are the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God?

Apparently you have already discarded the King James Bible from your list, and yet it too has those 66 books of the Christian Scriptures. So it only seems logical and consistent to think that just the fact that a "Bible" has the 66 books isn't enough to qualify it as being The true words of God.


You aren't trying to play some sort of cagey word game with us are you? Have you really thought through your present position on this?

Show us "The Bible" which is "the words of God" please. Don't refer us to some undefined "66 books" which are often very different in both texts and meanings in literally hundreds of places as "the infallible words of God". It looks like your logic train just fell off the tracks.

Since the other poster basically ignored the little list, would you kindly tell us which of these portions of those 66 books you mentioned are the inspired and infallible words of God?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, ESV) or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).


Thank you,

Will K

 

[rbell]

I must commend Will. He does the best job I've seen in a while of absolutely ignoring posts for which he has no answer. Nice job.

And I must say...you are consistent. You pretty much question everyone's faith equally. At least you are an equal-opportunity "heretic" labeler...

 

[Will J. Kinney]

DHK's disappearing "bible"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi DHK. It is obvious from your own answer that there really is not a single "The Bible" that you believe IS the complete and inerrant words of God. I do agree with you that you should use what you have where you are as a missionary. The gospel is still there and they can learn many things that are true in their bibles. However even you said that you would prefer the TR as opposed to the Critical text.

No, there is not a single translation of the Bible that I believe is the complete and inerrant word of God, totally infallible in every word, without any error whatsoever. If you really believed the KJV, why don't you use it? I have never seen you quote from it, not even once!

No, there is not a single translation of the Bible that I believe is the complete and inerrant word of God, totally infallible in every word, without any error whatsoever. If you really believed the KJV, why don't you use it? I have never seen you quote from it, not even once!
...If I have a question about the translation I can go back to the Greek or Hebrew which I believe God has preserved his Word in.

Only the originals were inspired. ...
No translation of the Bible is perfect. You do not have a perfect Bible. I have already demonstrated that.

Hi DHK, your position on the inerrancy of "The Bible" appears to be getting more and more desperate. You tell us that there is "no single translation of the bible that is the complete, inerrant and totally infallible words of God. No translation of the Bible is perfect. You do not have a perfect Bible." Well, at least you admitted what you believe and I can respect that. Now, are you willing to be consistent, open and honest about your beliefs regarding how no translation is inerrant and infallible and tell those foreign language people you minister to the same things about their Bibles? Hellooooo?

Then you go back to your pratfall position that "only the originals were inspired" thus again leaving us with no inspired Bible NOW and affirming once again your belief in something you know does not exist. Remember, I had previously stated that I had hoped you would be able to come up with something a little better and more concrete than this. But, alas, you didn't.

Mercy and grace to you,

Will K

 

[Pastor Larry]

Hi Larry. I'm afraid you will have to do a little bit better than this to try to make us think you actually have a real and tangible Bible that you call the word of God.

We have already seen that your thinking is faulty.

Where specifically can we all get a copy of these "66 books of the Christian Scriptures" that you really believe are the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God?

Most bookstores, and a number of places online.

Apparently you have already discarded the King James Bible from your list

Really? I didn’t know that. I just checked my list and it is still there.

You aren't trying to play some sort of cagey word game with us are you?

Nope. I have been very straightforward.

Have you really thought through your present position on this?

Apparently more than you have.

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions.

Guess what? The KJV is contradictory here as well. When you compare the KJV to other versions, the KJV is different. By your standard, the KJV is wrong.

The problem is that you don’t even see the problem with your position. You don’t even get it. I guarantee you that you could not keep up with the conversation for three minutes, were you not able to type long-winded posts. In a real conversation, you would be turned around so fast your head would spin.

Why don’t you just do us one favor. Stop the long-winded posting and just tell us where God identified the KJV as the only word of God. Stop giving us your opinion, your thoughts, your honest beliefs, and just give us the Word of God where he says this.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Now I am going to veer off of the straight line just a little, but I think this thread presents the perfect opportunity. Does one have to wonder why! society is no longer impressed with the Church. Do you have to wonder why! there is no longer any influence on the World. I DON’T.

When the great reformation took place, there was a presence there beyond the men involved. One that insured great confusion would come out of it. As a result we have over 200 different denominations and sub-divisions today, and unsaved people and the World wonder, which one is right?.

When William Tyndale decided he would give the English speaking people a Bible, there was the same presence at work then. To insure confusion, and give the English 20 or 30 different Bibles, I really don’t know how many at last count.

There is an old saying in War, divide and conquer. Well satan may not have conquered, but he has blown us into so many pieces, we are no longer a threat to anyone. Not only over “which is the true Bible”, but over every other issue you would care to name. I think its time to do as the men did, when Christ said “let the one who has no guilt cast the first stone”.
We are a very sad and confused bunch of people, I think its time to kick a little dust up, and go home. And I feel we will be doing that very soon. Then we will have to stand before the great judge, our Lord Jesus Christ. How will you defend your position then?. How will you give an account for today?.

1Cor.1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Would that it were so.

 

[DHK]

Quote:

Then you go back to your pratfall position that "only the originals were inspired" thus again leaving us with no inspired Bible NOW and affirming once again your belief in something you know does not exist. Remember, I had previously stated that I had hoped you would be able to come up with something a little better and more concrete than this. But, alas, you didn't.

Mercy and grace to you,

Will

It is quite simple Will.
Even as I have to point out the mistakes in the KJV when I am here, I must point out the deficiencies in their translation when I am there. Tactfully, the best way, is: "Better translated, it would read something like this..." Or, "The Greek word used here has more this meaning..."
I don't have to hide behind the KJV or try to defend it.
There is no such thing as a unicorn. I can easily say that most translations translate it wild ox, and that is what the term means. The KJV translators made a mistake when they translated it. They were not accurate in their translation here.

Here is a good one.
Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
--We know that the word "conversation" in almost every case in the Bible means behaviour. Consistently the OE word conversation has been translated that, but it doesn't mean that now. However in this verse it says our conversation is in heaven. Now we know that neither our speech nor our behaviour is in heaven. It doesn't make sense. Could the KJV translators chosen a better word? Absolutely! But they didn't. This was a mistake on their part. The word means citizenship. Why they chose the word "conversation" is beyond me. You may defend them, but they could have used a different word and not have made the verse so confusing to others. It was a wrong choice.

The word Easter in Acts 12:4 was definitely wrong. It is the only time in the entire NT that the word "Pascha" is not translated "passover."
--Such things need to be explained to an English audience. What does the Greek say, and why the KJV is wrong.

The same goes for a foreign translation. In the above examples foreign translation are often better translated than the KJV, but in other places they have other weaknesses. Those places need a bit of clarity; they need explanation. This is not rocket science. It is the very purpose of expositional and exegetical preaching.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Do you have to wonder why! there is no longer any influence on the World. I DON’T.

Excellent point. The idea that God speaks only in language that is 400 years old is certainly going to limit influence on the world. People figure God is as outdated as his book.

1Cor.1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Would be nice wouldn't for all to agree on the Bible's doctrine. But when there are some who depart from the Bible, we must take a stand for the "faith once for all delivered to the saints."

 

[robycop3]

Brandplucked:If something is false, especially when it comes to the true words of God, then we should hate it with a passion.

Then you should hate KJVO, as it's as false as it can be. We have *PROVEN* it's man-made & therefore CANNOT BE A TRUE DOCTRINE OF WORSHIP. I'd liketa see your SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO, Mr. Kinney!

Where specifically can we all get a copy of these "66 books of the Christian Scriptures" that you really believe are the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God?

JUST PICK UP ANY VALID VERSION.

I can name several English versions, for starters.

NIV
NASV
KJV
NKJV
"Great Bible" (First "authorized" version)
Geneva
Bishop's
Mathews
HCSB

And that's just a short list of valid English versions.

Please note, Sportzz Fanzz, that Mr. Kinney doesn't even wanna TOUCH the goof I pointed out in the KJV's 1 Tim. 6:10. I know some of us have discussed it ad nauseam, but I wanted to see Mr. Kinney's excuse.

 

[Thermodynamics]

Hi Thermo. Thank you for responding. My question to the first part of your post is this. Where is this "God preserved word in perfect form" you talk about? Do you have a copy of it? Or is it "out there someplace" among thousands of variant readings in your "original language manuscripts" and nobody knows for sure which words are right and which are not? Obviously there are huge differences of opinions among all the men who put out the often contradictory NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard stuff. So which specific "preserved words" do you hold up as God's?

You have already told us that you don't believe there is an inspired Bible (66 books combined in one volume), so where are they?

Thank you for your response Will, I really do appreciate being able to debate this issue in a calm way.

It appears from your statments that you do not really believe God preserved His Word between c. AD 95 and AD 1611. You seem to believe that the translation of the AV was a Divine Revelation not dependant on the manuscripts used to translate it. It appears that you are denying the very Hebrew and Greek words that God inspired in favor of English words that were not inspired. To what degree is this the case?

 

[Thermodynamics]

There were some unintentional printing errors that were soon caught and corrected, but nothing in the way of a "revision".

If God intended for us to view the AV as perfect, why didn't He prevent the introduction of typos?

 

[Thermodynamics]

Hi Thermo. Again, this is merely your opinion and I'm sure there are a lot of facts you are probably unaware of.

Strain AT a gnat Matthew 23:24

"Ye blind guides, which strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel."

There are many who criticize the King James Bible reading of "strain at a gnat". Some confidently tell us this is a printing error. Yet I would ask, How do they know this? It is mere assumption on their part. Others have had no difficulty at all with the translation of "strain AT a gnat".

Will, thank you for your long and obviously well thought out reply. I am not going to attempt to deal with every source you cite, but in the case of many of those sources it is using circular logic to claim that they back up the translation found in the AV as they were written after the AV and no doubt used it as the basis for that rendering. Thus what you are saying in effect is that those sources back up the rendering in the AV when in fact it is the basis for that rendering.

What is more telling is to look at how other versions translated before the AV render that verse. I have access to two:

Bishop's Bible - Ye blynde guides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a Camel.

Geneva Bible - Ye blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallowe a camell.

 

[RAdam]

First let me state that I prefer the KJ bible, so do not accuse me of attacking it.

Now, with that out of the way, I'll prove very quickly that the KJ bible was not inspired in the same way, or a better way, than the original authors were inspired to write the scriptures. Why are there margin (now center column) alternate renderings, and why are these sometimes better than what is in the text? If the translators were inspired by God I must come to two conclusions - 1) they would have known how to perfectly express what a particular text says without having an alternate rendering (where basically the translators say it could be translated this way or that) and 2) the alternate rendering, which shouldn't exist in the first place, wouldn't be an improvement over what is in the actual translated text. However, I see that isn't the case. And before you say that the alternate rendering don't change the meaning of a text, allow me to point you to Isaiah 49:5. The translated text says, "Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength." The alternate rendering is, "That Israel may be gathered to him and...". Obviously, these are conveying different meanings.

I'm not attacking the KJV at all. As I said before, that is the version I prefer. However, that translation was not inspired. It does not represent something better than the manuscripts from which it was translated. The people of God have had the pure word of God for a lot longer than the KJV has been out. What the KJ is - my opinion is that it is the best translation of the word of God in english, and as such I prefer to us it over any other english translation. One may disagree with me on this position (that being that the KJ is better), after all it is subjective, but I cannot see proof of the inspiration of the KJ translation.

 

[Samuel Owen]

It was stated earlier in this long thread, not all KJV preferred people believe in or uphold "Double Inspiration". Which is what you are referring to.

The sensible ones are speaking of Gods Preservation, of his word. And believe that the KJV is the Bible that does that, above all other versions.