1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured scriptural case for or against KJV-only

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 30, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 2 of 6
  1. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    5
    Winman, are you speaking from a King James only view or a TR only view?

    And...Happy New Year!
     
    #21 Amy.G, Dec 31, 2012
  2. thomas15

    thomas15 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    34
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The simple solution to the problem as you see it is to purge your shelves of any MV and then go on living your happy life. But before you do this kindly explain the psudo-biblical cults, the Roman Church, and all other unbiblical church doctrines that predate the 1611 translation in english.
     
    #22 thomas15, Dec 31, 2012
  3. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    I happen to believe the text the King James translators used was accurate.

    I believe the KJB is the correct translation for ENGLISH. If someone were to use the same text and translate accurately into another language, that would be the accurate word of God in that language.

    Why does anyone care what I and other KJO folks believe?
     
    #23 Winman, Dec 31, 2012
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It may be your incorrect opinion that nobody knows where they are, but it is not mine.
     
    #24 Logos1560, Dec 31, 2012
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Would you claim that the godly translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible did not translate accurately into English?

    Did the Bible-believing Baptists and other believers that revised the KJV in 1842 using the same texts on which the KJV was based translate more accurately than the biased Church of England scholars in 1611?
     
    #25 Logos1560, Dec 31, 2012
  6. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, do everybody a favor and bring these original manuscripts out for all to see.

    Everything we have is a copy. There is absolutely no way to know what the original manuscripts said. That is plain simple logic.

    Isn't that what all the fuss is about? Doesn't one group of scholars say the last 12 verses of Mark should be there, while another group says they shouldn't be there? And another group says something completely different from these groups?

    So, in the end, you must believe by faith. Either God preserved his word or he didn't, that is all there is.
     
    #26 Winman, Dec 31, 2012
  7. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    5
    It's fine what you believe. I'm not arguing with you. The reason I asked the question is because of other bibles like the Geneva and Tynedale. I'm currently doing some reading from the Geneva which was translated from the TR and was wondering if you place the older bibles on the same level as the KJV.
     
    #27 Amy.G, Dec 31, 2012
  8. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    I don't read them, I am satisfied with the KJB. I have never personally found error in the KJB.

    I could tell you what I do consider error in some of the MVs. But that is my opinion.
     
    #28 Winman, Dec 31, 2012
  9. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Please show us where we can find that EXACT text.

    I'll give you a few days. Aw, take a week.
     
    #29 Mexdeaf, Dec 31, 2012
  10. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    5
    There is one error in the KJV..(Acts 12:4) and I do read it and study from it everyday. But it wasn't an error in the manuscripts. It was a translational error.
     
    #30 Amy.G, Dec 31, 2012
  11. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    The King James wasn't translated from one single text, it was taken from many.
     
    #31 Winman, Dec 31, 2012
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How could you find error in the KJV when you blindly assume that there could be no errors in it and when you evidently reject the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the standard for trying the KJV and all translations?

    Are you unaware of the errors in the 1611 KJV that the KJV translators kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible and that later editors corrected using the Hebrew and Greek texts?

    How do you know that the particular edition of the KJV that you use does not or could not have any printing errors in it?
     
    #32 Logos1560, Dec 31, 2012
  13. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    I disagree, and this is an OLD argument.
     
    #33 Winman, Dec 31, 2012
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    actual errors in the 1611 KJV

    The 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible was used as the starting English text for the making of the KJV. The first rule for the making of the KJV stated: “The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.”

    Are some real errors in the English text of the 1602 Bishops' Bible found in the 1611 edition of the KJV?

    Did the KJV translators borrow some renderings from the 1602 Bishops' Bible instead of using the original language words of preserved Scriptures to determine the proper or correct English renderings?

    David Norton observed: “The KJB of 1611 reproduces peculiarities of the Bishops’ Bible, some of which are found only in the 1602 printings” (Textual History of the KJB, p. 35). David Norton also asserted: “That the KJB was printed from an annotated Bishops’ Bible--possibly from Bod1602--is almost certain from the presence of the peculiarities and errors that come directly from the printed 1602 text” (KJB: a Short History, p. 106).

    David Norton claimed: "Small mistakes can go unnoticed for nearly a couple of centuries in spite of the best efforts of translators and editors" (p. 130).

    How is it possible that those real errors in the 1602 Bishops' Bible were not noticed by the KJV translators and evidently were not corrected since they are also found in the 1611 edition of the KJV?

    Examples of those uncorrected errors from the Bishops' Bible that are found in the 1611 edition of the KJV are given below. These examples also are cases of real disagreements between KJV editions. Are the real errors found in the 1611 edition of the KJV supposedly self-authenticating?

    1 Kings 11:5 [Ammonites--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Amorites--1602 Bishops]
    Amorites {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644 London}
    Ammonites (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]


    The Hebrew word at 1 Kings 11:5 is the Hebrew word translated "Ammorities" in the KJV in all other places, and it is not the same Hebrew word that is translated "Amorites" in the KJV in other verses.

    2 Kings 11:10 [house of the Lord--1560 Geneva; the temple--1602 Bishops]
    the Temple {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617 London} (1843 AFBS)
    the temple (1675 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1817, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1640, 1644, 1672 London} (1638 Edinburgh) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1854 Harding) (2006 PENG)

    the temple of the Lord {1795 London} (1897 Mackail)
    the temple of the LORD (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1638, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    At 2 Kings 11:10, the preserved Scriptures in the original languages have the Hebrew word that is translated "Jehovah" or "LORD" at other places in the KJV. That name is omitted in the 1602 Bishops' Bible and the 1611 edition of the KJV.


    2 Kings 24:19 [Jehoiakim--1560 Geneva; Joachin--1602 Bishops]
    Jehoiachin [1817 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1634, 1640, 1644 London} (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1843 AFBS) (1854 Harding)
    Jehoiakim (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    The Hebrew name at 2 Kings 24:19 translated "Jehoiachin" in the 1602 Bishops' and the 1611 KJV is not the Hebrew name translated "Jehoiachin" in other verses in the KJV. The Hebrew name at 2 Kings 24:19 is the same Hebrew name translated "Jehoiakim" at other verses in the KJV.


    Genesis 47:6 [men--1560 Geneva; man--1602 Bishops]
    any man (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1765 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1782 Aitken) (1843 AFBS)
    any man [1873 Cambridge] (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
    any men (1768, 1968 Oxford) [1762, 1763B, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1795 London} (1769 Edinburgh) (1810, 1835 Scott) (EB) (2006 PENG) (2011 PJB) (NCE)
    any men (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1747, 1768, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]
     
    #34 Logos1560, Dec 31, 2012
  15. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    5
    The word pascha in Acts 12:4 is always translated into the English word passover. From what I can tell there is no Greek word for Easter.
     
    #35 Amy.G, Dec 31, 2012
  16. mont974x4

    mont974x4 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    You are correct on the translation issue. :thumbs:
     
    #36 mont974x4, Dec 31, 2012
  17. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    This issue has been answered many times. First, look at the scripture;

    Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
    2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
    3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
    4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

    Please note the scripture highlighted in blue. This phrase will prove that the KJB is correct and that all the MVs are in error.

    The passover was the 14th day of the month;

    Num 28:16 And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.

    Read that again, the passover is the 14th day of the month.

    The feast of unleavened bread begins on the 15th day of the month;

    Num 28:17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.

    Again, the feast of unleavened bread begins on the 15th day of the month and lasts 7 days.

    Now go back and read Acts 12:3-4 again;

    Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
    4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

    Peter was taken during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This was AFTER the Passover. The Passover had already taken place on the 14th day of the month. Peter was taken AFTER the 15th day of the month.

    Easter was a pagan holiday that was celebrated at this time, the KJB is correct, Peter was taken AFTER the Passover during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Herod wanted to wait until the pagan holiday of Easter was past.

    The KJB is correct, ALL the MVs are wrong.
     
    #37 Winman, Dec 31, 2012
  18. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Only if you believe that the English corrects the Greek, as Ruckman does.
     
    #38 Mexdeaf, Dec 31, 2012
  19. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    I am not a Ruckmanite, and I do not believe the English corrects the Greek. But the King James translators understood that Peter was taken after the Passover which occurred on the 14th, during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. They knew history and which celebrations took place and realized that Herod wanted to hold Peter until after the pagan celebration of Easter.

    If they had said Passover they would have been in error.

    The scriptures explain themselves if folks would read carefully.
     
    #39 Winman, Dec 31, 2012
  20. mont974x4

    mont974x4 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's an awful lot of work to distract people from the real issue being discussed right now concerning verse 4. The KJV is clearly wrong in its translation of pascha in this verse. In fact, even in the KJV this is the one verse where they do not translate it Passover.

    That dog don't hunt.
     
    #40 mont974x4, Dec 31, 2012
Page 2 of 6
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...