Questions for those holding an extreme KJVO position

[Will J. Kinney]

DHKs "originals only" theory

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.

Hi DHK. I didn't see many questions and the ones I did see are super easy to answer, so since you insist, we'll take a look at what you presented.

By the way, the "smart-alec" answer is nothing more than pointing out the ridiculous and absurd position you have put yourself into. I was just pointing out the obvious. You already told us that No translation is perfect. You then went on the say that "only the originals were inspired and infallible" and then you said that your faith was in the word of God.

It all sounds very religious, but the simple and obvious fact is your "originals only word of God" doesn't exist and you know it.



Now let's take a look at some of your statements.

My authority in all matters of faith and practice is the Word of God. You said "I believe..." Show me from the Word of God where this belief comes from. Otherwise I shall conclude that it is just a passing imaginary thought based on nothing but imagination.

DHK, let's apply the same standard to your "originals only" view. Where in any Bible does it even mention the originals? Or even that God would preserve His words in the Hebrew or the Greek? Got any verses on that?



Quote:
However I do not believe the KJB is the only Bible in any language God intends for us to read. Spanish speaking people or Russians or Germans or Hutus should be able to read a bible in their own language, but the Standard for that Bible is the KJB.

You only speak theoretically, not practically. You follow ideas not truth. The truth is that more than 90 % of the world that does have a Bible has a translation of the Bible that is based on the Critical Text, not on the TR. You can holler all you want what should be; but that is not reality. The reality is that most of the world's Bibles are akin to the ASV, RSV, NASV, etc. They are nowhere close to the KJV or a text similar to the TR. One might conclude from that logic that since: from all the nations of the world that do have a Bible, over 90% are translated from the Critical Text, that perhaps it is God's will for the Critical Text to be the basis for the Bibles that we have today and not the TR. After all that is what God gave to 90% of the world isn't it? That is not my personal belief, but it is something to think about.

The Bible clearly says that there will be a falling away from the faith in the days before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. God says He will send a famine of hearing the words of the LORD. See Amos 8:11-12, and Christ Himself rhetorically asks in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

Even you yourself who has no perfect Bible and does not believe that one exists prefer the TR, and yet things are not going that way are they?

The gospel is still found in any bible out there and Christ will gather His sheep in spite of how messed up the modern versions are, but more and more people do not believe in the inerrancy of any Bible every day; their faith is being undermined and they actually read these mvs less and less.
Quote:



Quote:
God knew English would be the last days universal language, but not everybody has to learn English.
Will K
This is just nonsense--something that I would expect to find in the Book of Mormon. Where did you get it from? __________________
DHK

Well DHK, God does see the end from the beginning. Nothing takes Him by surprise and He did put His pure and perfect words into the English language. They certainly are NOT found in your long lost, imaginary "originals only".

Will K

 

[Logos1560]

The Great and Geneva bibles were part of this purification process, but they were not the finished product. The Geneva bible is inferiour to the KJB is several ways,

Will K

Can you prove from the standard of the original language texts that every rendering of the 1560 Geneva Bible is "inferior" to the rendering of the 1611 KJV for each word of every verse?

The 1611 KJV sometimes kept and followed "inferior" or "poorer" renderings in the 1568 Bishops' Bible when a better, clear, or more accurate rendering was already found in the 1560 Geneva Bible.

Gen. 1:21 according to their kind (Geneva, NKJV) after their kind (KJV)
Gen. 1:28 fill the earth (Geneva, NKJV) replenish the earth (KJV)
Gen. 2:13 Cush (Geneva, NKJV) Ethiopia (KJV)
Gen. 6:5 the Lord (Geneva) GOD (KJV) the LORD (NKJV)
Gen. 9:13 sign (Geneva, NKJV) token (KJV)
Gen. 10:20 according to (Geneva, NKJV) after (KJV)
Gen. 13:1 Then Abram (Geneva, NKJV) And Abram (KJV)
Gen. 16:5 Then Sarai (Geneva, NKJV) And Sarai (KJV)
Gen. 16:13 Then she called (Geneva, NKJV) And she called (KJV)
Gen. 17:1 When Abram (Geneva, NKJV) And when Abram (KJV)
Gen. 17:3 Then Abram fell (Geneva, NKJV) And Abram fell (KJV)
Gen. 18:5 And I will bring (Geneva, NKJV) And I will fetch (KJV)
Gen. 18:7 took a tender and good calf (Geneva, NKJV) fetcht a calf tender and good (KJV)
Gen. 18:19 righteousness (Geneva, NKJV) justice (KJV)
Gen. 19:1 in the evening (Geneva, NKJV) at even (KJV)
Gen. 19:9 So they pressed (Geneva, NKJV) And they pressed (KJV)
Gen. 19:15 punishment of the city (Geneva, NKJV) iniquity of the city (KJV)
Gen. 21:4 Then Abraham (Geneva, NKJV) And Abraham (KJV)
Gen. 21:12 But God (Geneva, NKJV) And God (KJV)
Gen. 21:16 of about (Geneva, NKJV) as it were (KJV)
Gen. 21:26 know (Geneva, NKJV) wot (KJV)
Gen. 22:1 God did prove (Geneva) God did tempt (KJV) God tested (NKJV)
Gen. 22:11 But the Angel (Geneva, NKJV) And the angel (KJV)
Gen. 25:7 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (KJV) seventy-five (NKJV)
Gen. 27:15 clothes (Geneva, NKJV) raiment (KJV)
Gen. 27:15 elder son (Geneva, NKJV) eldest son (KJV)
Gen. 28:11 And he came (Geneva, NKJV) And he lighted (KJV)
Gen. 28:20 clothes (Geneva) raiment (KJV) clothing (NKJV)
Gen. 36:26 the sons (Geneva, NKJV) the children (KJV)
Gen. 36:27 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Gen. 36:28 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Gen. 37:22 deliver (Geneva, NKJV) rid (KJV)
Gen. 39:8 knoweth not (Geneva) wotteth not (KJV) does not know (NKJV)
Gen. 41:42 garments (Geneva, NKJV) vestures (KJV)
Gen. 41:54 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
Gen. 46:27 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Gen 47:29 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Gen. 50:3 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Exod. 3:22 shall ask (Geneva, NKJV) shall borrow (KJV)
Exod. 5:19 diminish (Geneva, NKJV) minish (KJV)
Exod. 7:15 meet him (Geneva) against he come (KJV) to meet him (NKJV)
Exod. 9:31 flax and the barley were (Geneva, NKJV) flax and the barley was (KJV)
Exod. 10:8 So Moses (Geneva, NKJV) And Moses (KJV)
Exod. 10:24 Then Pharaoh (Geneva, NKJV) And Pharaoh (KJV)
Exod. 11:16 Then there (Geneva, NKJV) And there (KJV)
Exod. 12:35 asked (Geneva, NKJV) borrowed (KJV)
Exod. 12:37 Then the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Exod. 13:12 womb (Geneva, NKJV) matrix (KJV)
Exod. 13:15 womb (Geneva, NKJV) matrix (KJV)
Exod. 15:27 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Exod. 15:27 camped (Geneva, NKJV) encamped (KJV)
Exod. 16:18 did measure (Geneva) did mete (KJV) measured (NKJV)
Exod. 21:32 gore (Geneva) push (KJV) gores (NKJV)
Exod. 22:26 before the sun go down (Geneva) by that the sun goeth down (KJV) before the sun goes down (NKJV)
Exod. 22:27 garment (Geneva, NKJV) raiment (KJV)
Exod. 24:2 not come near (Geneva, NKJV) not come nigh (KJV)
Exod. 31:3 Spirit of God (Geneva, NKJV) spirit of God (KJV)
Exod. 32:1 know (Geneva, NKJV) wot (KJV)
Exod. 32:19 came near (Geneva, NKJV) came nigh (KJV)
Exod. 34:19 womb (Geneva, NKJV) matrix (KJV)
Exod. 34:30 come near him (Geneva, NKJV) come nigh him (KJV)
Exod. 34:32 came near (Geneva, NKJV) came nigh (KJV)
Exod. 35:29 hearts (Geneva, NKJV) heart (KJV)
Exod. 37:9 toward the mercyseat (Geneva, NKJV) to the mercy seatward (KJV)
Exod. 38:25 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (KJV) seventy-five (NKJV)
Lev. 4:30 Then the priest (Geneva, NKJV) And the priest (KJV)
Lev. 6:2 that which was put to him of trust (Geneva) in fellowship (KJV) about a pledge (NKJV)
Lev. 6:2 robbery (Geneva, NKJV) thing taken away by violence (KJV)
Lev. 8:15 and Moses (Geneva, NKJV) And he (KJV)
Lev. 8:16 Then he (Geneva, NKJV) And he (KJV)
Lev. 8:19 Moses killed it (Geneva, NKJV) he killed it (KJV)
Lev. 8:27 in Aaron’s hands (Geneva, NKJV) upon Aaron’s hands (KJV)
Lev. 9:8 killed the calf (Geneva, NKJV) slew the calf (KJV)
Lev. 10:3 come near (Geneva, NKJV) come nigh (KJV)
Lev. 10:14 they are (Geneva, NKJV) they be (KJV)
Lev. 10:30 So when Moses (Geneva, NKJV) And when Moses (KJV)
Lev. 11:16 ostrich (Geneva, NKJV) owl (KJV)
Lev. 11:16 the seameaw (Geneva) the cuckow (KJV) the seagull (NKJV)
Lev. 11:24 evening (Geneva, NKJV) even (KJV)
Lev. 12:6 to the priest (Geneva, NKJV) unto the priest (KJV)
Lev. 13:2 a swelling (Geneva, NKJV) a rising (KJV)
Lev. 13:3 on the sore (Geneva, NKJV) on the plague (KJV)
Lev. 13:4 But if the (Geneva, NKJV) If the (KJV)
Lev. 13:6 the sore (Geneva, NKJV) the plague (KJV)
Lev. 13:10 the swelling (Geneva, NKJV) the rising (KJV)
Lev. 13:16 to the priest (Geneva, NKJV) unto the priest (KJV)
Lev. 14:13 kill the lamb (Geneva, NKJV) slay the lamb (KJV)
Lev. 14:56 a swelling (Geneva, NKJV) a rising (KJV)
Lev. 17:2 to his sons (Geneva, NKJV) unto his sons (KJV)
Lev. 17:2 to all the children (Geneva, NKJV) unto all the children (KJV)
Lev. 18:22 with the male (Geneva) with mankind (KJV) with a male (NKJV)
Lev. 18:22 with a woman (Geneva, NKJV) with womankind (KJV)
Lev. 18:23 abomination (Geneva) confusion (KJV) perversion (NKJV)
Lev. 18:29 the persons (Geneva, NKJV) the souls (KJV)
Lev. 20:6 that person (Geneva, NKJV) that soul (KJV)
Lev. 20:13 male (Geneva, NKJV) mankind (KJV)
Lev. 21:3 is near (Geneva, NKJV) is nigh (KJV)
Lev. 21:7 divorced (Geneva, NKJV) put away (KJV)
Lev. 21:21 come near (Geneva, NKJV) come nigh (KJV)
Lev. 22:12 holy offerings (Geneva, NKJV) holy things (KJV)
Lev. 22:18 to all (Geneva, NKJV) unto all (KJV)
Lev. 22:18 to all (Geneva, NKJV) unto all (KJV)
Lev. 23:29 person (Geneva, NKJV) soul (KJV)
Lev. 23:30 person (Geneva, NKJV) soul (KJV)
Lev. 23:40 fruit (Geneva, NKJV) boughs (KJV)
Lev. 23:44 So Moses (Geneva, NKJV) And Moses (KJV)
Lev. 25:10 to all (Geneva, NKJV) unto all (KJV)
Lev. 26:14 obey me (Geneva) hearken unto me (KJV) obey Me (NKJV)
Lev. 26:18 obey me (Geneva) hearken unto me (KJV) obey Me (NKJV)
Lev. 26:27 obey me (Geneva) hearken unto me (KJV) obey Me (NKJV)
Lev. 27:26 firstborn (Geneva, NKJV) firstling (KJV)

Can you demonstrate clearly that the rendering of the 1560 Geneva Bible is "inferior" to that in the KJV in every one of the above examples?

 

[RAdam]

Yes, people had the true word of God prior to 1611. People in the 1st century AD had it. People in the 2nd century had it. 3rd, 4th, so on. I thank God that He has blessed us english speaking people with this translation. I also thank God that He never left at least some of His people without a reliable bible in all the years since the writing of scripture ended and this present day.

 

[Logos1560]

Hi DHK. I You then went on the say that "only the originals were inspired and infallible" and then you said that your faith was in the word of God.

It all sounds very religious, but the simple and obvious fact is your "originals only word of God" doesn't exist and you know it.


Will K

Are you implying that "the Hebrew," "the Greek," "the original Greek," and the "original languages" texts etc. which the KJV translators accepted as their standard and greater authority did not exist?

According to its title page and its preface, the KJV professes to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). In a sermon on Roman 1:16, Miles Smith referred to “the fountain of the prophets and apostles, which are the only authentic pen-men, and registers of the Holy Ghost” (Sermons, p. 75). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“ Earlier on the third page of this preface, Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven.“ D. A. Waite acknowledged that the preface of the 1611 "had the approval" of all the KJV translators (Defending the KJB, p. 64). William Savage asserted that “the preface was written and affixed by the king’s command” (Dictionary, p. 39). Laurence Vance indicated that Smith wrote the preface “in the name of all the translators” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Vance cited the report of the British delegates (including KJV translator Samuel Ward) to the 1618 Synod of Dort that included a reference to “the truth of the original text” (p. 47). John Eadie noted that the account of the Hampton Court conference written by Patrick Galloway, the king’s Scottish chaplain, [“an account revised by the king himself”] stated “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” (English Bible, II, p. 179).

 

[RAdam]

Where is it written that english will be the "last days universal language"? Now, I believe english will probably end up being the last major language we have on earth, but that's more of an opinion and certainly not something I'd bank a major thing like trust in the KJB on.

The problem with extreme KJO folks is they go so far out there they defeat themselves, and end up harming those of us who like the KJ, use the KJ, and beleive that it is the best english translation. There are many assumptions, many misuses of scripture, many circular arguments hurled out, and many times they simply close their eyes to anything that destroys their logic. I am questioning this position simply because I like the KJ and dislike the harm you are causing it, even though unintentional.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Larry's "best shot" just sunk my ship;-)

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.


I have dealt with the facts. You have not.


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


You are full of holes.

Yep Larry, you sank my ship. My beliefs are completely shot out of the water by this classic example of "staining AT a gnat and swallowing a camel". You got me. You are right. There really is no complete and inerrant Bible on this earth today.

Just a side note. My King James Bible does not read "thou shalt commit adultery" In fact, I don't know of anybody's KJB that reads that way. Do you happen to have in your possession a copy of the KJB that does read "thou shalt commit adultery"? No? Didn't think so.

Hey wait a minute. Didn't you say that any bible that has those 66 books of the Christian Scriptures is the infallible words of God? Why, Yes, I believe you did. Did that particular 1631 edition of the KJB have all 66 books in it? Yes, I think it did.

Are you now going to reverse yourself and now tell us that the "content" of those 66 books somehow matters?

Larry, if that was your crowning moment of triumph proving the King James Bible is full of errors and does not follow the Hebrew texts, then I congratulate you on a job well done. I'm confident God will take note of your scholarly efforts to prove to the world that there really is no such thing as a complete, inerrant and 100% true Bible and never has been, and you will receive the just reward of your labors.

Will K

 

[RAdam]

Basically, this type of extremism seems to me to be, ironically enough, a lack of faith in God's preservation of scripture. People invent the idea that God re-inspired (my term) the bible. If the translators needed to be inspired in order to accurately translate the bible into english, and the subsequent result is something better than the manuscripts from which they translated, that must mean that God hadn't preserved His word.

God said He would preserve His word. I believe He did. I believe Christians in all ages, in all sorts of languages, have had the bible in an accurate and reliable form.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Rick's "original languages" meaningless mantra

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.

Hi Rick Norris. I was wondering when you would show up. So good to see you again. As you well know, when you talk about "the original language texts" as being the standard, you are in a very real sense saying nothing.

You do not nor will you ever tell us what those original language texts actually say or said, will you?. Was 1 John 5:7 in those original language texts? Are the words "for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" in Matthew 6:13 found in your original language texts?

Or how about I Samuel 13:1. What does 1 Samuel 13:1 read in your "original language texts"? Any ideas, Rick. Can you tell us? Care to take a shot at it?

Hoping to hear from you soon about these three sections of Scripture.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Answer the question please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
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.

Hi Thinking. Am I the only one to notice that you never did get around to answering the question? Where was the perfect Bible before 1611? Do you know of one? Simple question. Shouldn't be too hard to anwer, right?

"Yes, there was a perfect Bible and it was called the _____ ." or "No, I don't think so." or possibly "I really have no idea".

By the way, I said nothing about Christianity not existing before 1611. I do not believe that for a moment. You aren't trying to make stuff up, are you? I just as much believe Christianity exists today even though most Christians no longer believe that any bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God.


Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Where does it say...?

Will,

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

Please and thanks.

Hi j. Where does the KJB or any bible out there in Biblelonia say anything about the KJV, or "the originals only", or that God would preserve His words in "the Hebrew and the Greek" or the CT, or the TR, or in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV, RSV, or Daffy Duck Revised Version? Short answer - nowhere.

So let me ask you a simple question. What is your view of the inspiration and infallibility of "the Bible"? Get that out of the way first with a clear statement. Then proceed to show us where your particular view is found in any Bible out there. Will you do that for us?

Thanks,

Will K

 

[Harold Garvey]

How is this not a claim for double inspiration that "their translation (the KJV) came from an infallible God."

Maybe you can explain when God became unable to inspire people to give us the word of God in our language?

Isn't God still able to move upon the hearts of men?

KJVO's don't claim double inspiration, but those who attack them use this sense of an anecdote alot.

Hint: let God out of your box before you kill him.:tongue3:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
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


Hi Thinking. Am I the only one to notice that you never did get around to answering the question? Where was the perfect Bible before 1611? Do you know of one? Simple question. Shouldn't be too hard to anwer, right?

"Yes, there was a perfect Bible and it was called the _____ ." or "No, I don't think so." or possibly "I really have no idea".

By the way, I said nothing about Christianity not existing before 1611. I do not believe that for a moment. You aren't trying to make stuff up, are you? I just as much believe Christianity exists today even though most Christians no longer believe that any bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God.


Will K

Well, since thats not really a responce I will say this. I believe that when the individual books which compile the library of books that are the bible, were writen they were (and are) the inerrant word of God. So when the Torah was writen originally you have a perfect word of God. Many years later though there may have been transcription errors in the Torah copies by that time, when the book of 1st and 2nd Kings were writen they were the inerrant word of God. And so to the compilation of the bible. Fortunately for the Judeans they found (not unlike our Qumran find) the book of the Law hidden in the Temple and could compare an earlier copy with the copies they had. Does that answer your question?

 

[Will J. Kinney]

When an individual corrects the Bible he says he believes

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.

Hi R. You may "prefer the KJ" but you still do not believe the text of the KJB is the complete and infallible words of God. You feel free to "correct" the text whenever you choose to do so. The example in Romans 7:6 is a different Greek reading. The Greek text followed by the KJB translators is the right one. Not only are we dead to the law, but the law is dead to us. That is the whole context of Romans 7.

I, unlike you, do not try to correct the TEXT of the KJB at all. I take it just as it stands.

On a personal note, are you willing to say that all those versions out there like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman etc. that reject the Hebrew texts, that omit anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses from the text of the N.T. are not the true bibles?

Thanks,

Will K

 

[Harold Garvey]

I read your statement in its full context. Rather than pick it apart, which I could have done, I asked a few simple questions to elicit an explanation from you about what you believe. Don't insinuate I am a liar. Just answer the questions.

Your response is why I don't carry on these little pish-posh arguements. Your type makes all these insinuations and get the moderators attention and ultimiately cause contentions that get good people reprimanded or even banned.

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK. I didn't see many questions and the ones I did see are super easy to answer, so since you insist, we'll take a look at what you presented.

By the way, the "smart-alec" answer is nothing more than pointing out the ridiculous and absurd position you have put yourself into. I was just pointing out the obvious. You already told us that No translation is perfect. You then went on the say that "only the originals were inspired and infallible" and then you said that your faith was in the word of God.

It all sounds very religious, but the simple and obvious fact is your "originals only word of God" doesn't exist and you know it.

Yourright almost all of know that the originals do not exist. The writings of Peter, Paul, Samuel, etc. do not exist today. They are the MSS. that were inspired of God. Why does that bother you so much? Does it bother you that we do not have the actual inspired MSS of the prophets and apostles when God promised to preserve his Word? Are you unable to have faith in God that we have His Word even though we don't have the inspired original autographs today? O faithless one! How long will it be until you come to the position that you are able to put your faith in the Word of God that exists today in its present form, without demanding that it be perfect and inerrant in every respect! How long will it be before you actually believe what the Bible says here:

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.
--It is evident to all on this board that you don't believe this verse.

Now let's take a look at some of your statements.

My authority in all matters of faith and practice is the Word of God. You said "I believe..." Show me from the Word of God where this belief comes from. Otherwise I shall conclude that it is just a passing imaginary thought based on nothing but imagination.

DHK, let's apply the same standard to your "originals only" view. Where in any Bible does it even mention the originals? Or even that God would preserve His words in the Hebrew or the Greek? Got any verses on that?

Where? Right here:
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.
--As noted, you don't believe this verse. You see: The writers of the NT wrote in Greek, and the writers of the OT wrote in Hebrew. It was their MSS that were inspired. We have copies of them. That is where the Word of God is preserved, not in translations. Translations lose meaning. You don't have experience in translating don't you. I am aquainted with six languages. Translating from any one to another loses meaning. There is no perfect translation. It cannot be done. It is an impossiblity. Thus the preservation must be in the Greek and Hebrew. That is why our standard is in the Greek and Hebrew.

However I do not believe the KJB is the only Bible in any language God intends for us to read. Spanish speaking people or Russians or Germans or Hutus should be able to read a bible in their own language, but the Standard for that Bible is the KJB.

So you have said. But this is an impossiblity. 90% of the world does not have a KJV, and you ought to know this by now. They have a Bible (if they have any), based on the Critical Text. So your "standard for that Bible is the KJB," is pure hogwash. It is not true. It, in fact, is a lie.

The Bible clearly says that there will be a falling away from the faith in the days before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. God says He will send a famine of hearing the words of the LORD. See Amos 8:11-12, and Christ Himself rhetorically asks in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

You take this verse or these Scriptures out of their respective contexts. Demonstrate that they refer to the KJV. They don't. What Amos said was inscripturated in Hebrew. What Jesus said was inscripturated in Greek. Jesus did not speak out of a KJV Bible. Neither did Amos. Are you that foolish? Thus the falling away is not from a translation. Only 10% of the world speak English, and far less than that use the KJV. The falling away is a falling away from the faith in general, not the Word of God in specific. That is what Jesus said. Will he find faith (not the KJV) on the earth. You do not rightly divide the word of truth!

Even you yourself who has no perfect Bible and does not believe that one exists prefer the TR, and yet things are not going that way are they?

You admit you don't have a perfect Bible and then contradict yourself, backtracking and say you do. Why the contradictions? You don't use the KJV 1611 because it is not perfect. It contradicts the one that you do use today. There were errors that needed to be corrected. It was not perfect.

The gospel is still found in any bible out there and Christ will gather His sheep in spite of how messed up the modern versions are, but more and more people do not believe in the inerrancy of any Bible every day; their faith is being undermined and they actually read these mvs less and less.

Of course you wouldn't say that if you were born in China or India or some other country. You would accept their Bible based on the Critical Text as the Word of God, because it would be the only Bible you would have. You have no good reason to be biased. You have no reasonable explanation for the other nations of the world that do not have a TR based Bible. In fact many of your group would demand those in a third world country which have an illiteracy rate as high as 80% in their own language to learn Shakespearean English first (not their own language) so that they can understand the "real Word of God."

God knew English would be the last days universal language, but not everybody has to learn English.

Chapter and verse please. How do you know "God knew"?
Demonstrate this God-given knowledge from the Bible

This is just nonsense--something that I would expect to find in the Book of Mormon. Where did you get it from? DHK

Well DHK, God does see the end from the beginning. Nothing takes Him by surprise and He did put His pure and perfect words into the English language. They certainly are NOT found in your long lost, imaginary "originals only".

Will K

But you don't take your beliefs from the Word of God. You don't quote the Word of God. You just stated: "They are not found in your long lost imaginary originals only," inferring that "they are found in your imaginary whatever. You use your imagination as your authority for your beliefs, not the Bible. What you said about me is not true. I take my beliefs right from the Bible.
I believe in 2Peter 1:21,22. You don't. That is the difference.

 

[Harold Garvey]

NOWHERE did God promise to preserve man's words, translations, or such.

The AV1611 translators were correct in their preface and realization that there was no "miracle" of God here. It is modern extremists who want to elevate them and their work to the level of God.

Foolishness.

So you think the translations lost inspiration as soon as they departed from the original autographs?

If that were the case, then salvation would be only in part due to the lack of inspired words which are able to save men's souls.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Rick Norris will never tell you

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney

The Great and Geneva bibles were part of this purification process, but they were not the finished product. The Geneva bible is inferiour to the KJB is several ways,

Will K

Can you prove from the standard of the original language texts that every rendering of the 1560 Geneva Bible is "inferior" to the rendering of the 1611 KJV for each word of every verse?

Rick, you have no idea what the "original language texts" said, or at least, YOU are never going to tell us, are you?

How about those verses I asked about? Are they or are they not in your "original language texts"? Not a peep from you, huh? Come on Rick. Don't keep it a secret all to yourself. Let us in on it, please, please, please. :smilewinkgrin:

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Ra's "true word of God"

Yes, people had the true word of God prior to 1611. People in the 1st century AD had it. People in the 2nd century had it. 3rd, 4th, so on. I thank God that He has blessed us english speaking people with this translation. I also thank God that He never left at least some of His people without a reliable bible in all the years since the writing of scripture ended and this present day.

And this "true word of God" consisting of the completed canon of 66 individual inspired and infallible books combined into the one volume Bible was called the....................................?

Let us know when you come up with a real answer.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Are you implying?

Are you implying that "the Hebrew," "the Greek," "the original Greek," and the "original languages" texts etc. which the KJV translators accepted as their standard and greater authority did not exist?

Hi Rick. I am saying that the true Hebrew and Greek texts did exist, but not in a single book or manuscript form. There was no pure text (except maybe the Hebrew which versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman now reject), but there was no perfect Greek manuscript or text in print. God had to sort it all out and that is what He did with the KJB translators whether you choose to believe it or not.

You do not have to agree with me at all, but I at least can confidently hold up a real and tangible Book in front of the world and tell them that this King James Bible IS the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible.

YOU, on the other hand, have no such Book and you know it. Now, before the other bible agnostics fly off the handle again and start calling me a false accuser or worse, all you have to do to prove my accusation wrong is to simply tell us where we can get a copy of your "original language texts" that you keep trying to make us think you actually believe are the inspired and 100% true words of God. Will you do that for us, Rick?

Not a chance. It won't happen. I double dog dare you:smilewinkgrin:

Will K

 

[RAdam]

Hi R. You may "prefer the KJ" but you still do not believe the text of the KJB is the complete and infallible words of God. You feel free to "correct" the text whenever you choose to do so. The example in Romans 7:6 is a different Greek reading. The Greek text followed by the KJB translators is the right one. Not only are we dead to the law, but the law is dead to us. That is the whole context of Romans 7.

I, unlike you, do not try to correct the TEXT of the KJB at all. I take it just as it stands.

On a personal note, are you willing to say that all those versions out there like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman etc. that reject the Hebrew texts, that omit anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses from the text of the N.T. are not the true bibles?

Thanks,

Will K

I'm not correcting the text of the KJ, I'm using alternate rendering given to us by the very same translators that gave us the rendering in the text. Again, what they said in a place like Romans 7:6 is that you could render this either way, so we'll give you one in the text and the other in the margin. You would do away with what is in the margin. Why didn't the translators? Because they thought it was useful for you to have both renderings to better understand the text. Saying that what the translators gave us, whether in the text or in the margin, is good is not trying to correct the text or reject the text. That's ridiculous. I'm not using another translation, or an extra biblical text. I'm using what the translators put in the KJ bible. There is one reading in the text, another in the margin, and either could give you a good reading of the particular scripture. Sometimes the rendering in the text is better, sometimes that which is in the margin. Both came from the translators. Are you really going to say what was in the text was inspired, but what was in the margin wasn't? It just doesn't make sense. They admit that there could be mutliple renderings at times in the bible, give us multiple renderings, and you reject that because it contradicts your position. Basically, you want the KJB, but only the text. Don't give me, say you, alternate renderings in the margin, don't give me the preface, don't give me anything that might disprove my position.

I say again, you put your hands over your eyes, fingers in your ears, and ignore the facts. Saying the truth about the KJ bible isn't undermining it. Proposing falsely extreme ideas about said wonderful bible is undermining it and all those that treasure it, argue for the preference of it, and defend unfounded attacks against it.