For Those Who Love The KJV

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Really???

And that's GOOD! Faith, to grow, needs challenges!

Really???? Challenges to the accuracy of the Word of God are a good thing?? I think NOT. We ought to be constantly trying to find more and more reasons to reaffirm, support, and confirm the accuracy and authority of the scriptures (which is something that from my point of view and according to my convictions I have absolutely not ONE SHRED of doubt about) since those matters are under such constant attack in our generation....the Creation vs Evolution debate being one example in our day.....not to mention the Bible version debate....!
Now on the other hand...IF you are speaking strictly about the matter of FAITH, then the testing and trying of it is both good and scriptural and necessary to our spiritual growth as God's children.

Bro.Greg :type:

 

[annsni]

I don't know if "confused" is the right word, but I do know mutiple versions have caused QUESTIONS about the accuracy of the Word of God. We use various versions in our church, each member is free to use whatever version he likes, but our pastor preaches from the NKJV. Anyway, several times over the years, mostly during Sunday School classes or in Weds. night Bible study, questions were raised about the same things talked about here. Missing passages, included passages, different words, etc. So much so, that some actually doubted the Word of God. They weren't sure WHAT was actually supposed to be in the Bible. And if they "weren't sure about certain passages, how could they be sure of ANY of it"? Please don't stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening. It is.

Again, I've never experienced anyone questioning if the Bible is reliable. Yes, sometimes a new believer might ask about the different wording but a quick explanation is plenty to clear up any question they have about "why" but I've not seen anyone say "Well, I can't trust it." Ever.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Really???? Challenges to the accuracy of the Word of God are a good thing?? I think NOT. We ought to be constantly trying to find more and more reasons to reaffirm, support, and confirm the accuracy and authority of the scriptures (which is something that from my point of view and according to my convictions I have absolutely not ONE SHRED of doubt about) since those matters are under such constant attack in our generation....the Creation vs Evolution debate being one example in our day.....not to mention the Bible version debate....!
Now on the other hand...IF you are speaking strictly about the matter of FAITH, then the testing and trying of it is both good and scriptural and necessary to our spiritual growth as God's children.

Bro.Greg :type:

Yes, our faith in the word of God needs to be challenged to grow. Too many people accept at face value what their Bible says then are astounded to find out it does not say what they THINK it does.

 

[Amy.G]

Too many people accept at face value what their Bible says then are astounded to find out it does not say what they THINK it does.

What??

If we can't accept what our Bible says because it really says something else, then our Bible cannot be trusted and is of no use. Is this what you really meant to say?

 

[annsni]

What??

If we can't accept what our Bible says because it really says something else, then our Bible cannot be trusted and is of no use. Is this what you really meant to say?

I don't think that's what he meant.

I know so many just read and absorb the "good" parts of the Bible. God loves us. God forgives us. He wants the best for us.

Then when they read what it actually says, they either ignore it or decide that it must be wrong. When they hear teaching that says that God gets angry, God will judge us and stuff like that, they decide that the Bible is bad.

 

[Logos1560]

From the pen of Brother Knox:

From the pen of Brother Knox:


Quote:
By Definition
$8.00
Brother James holds earned degrees in English and Journalism and has used this background, along with his extensive library to put together a virtual text book on the language of the King James Version. BY DEFINITION takes on the most difficult words in the English Bible and sets forth their origin, meaning and usage in a clear and concise manner. Using humor and common sense the reader is guided into an understanding of the English language and thereby enabled to better enjoy the Holy Bible. In addition to the interesting word studies, there are fifteen appendices covering such subjects as thees and thous, grammar and spelling, words in italics, est and eth endings, etc. These clear lessons will help readers of all skill levels comprehend and enjoy their Bible as never before. Detailed enough for the advanced student, yet, plain enough for the most casual reader, BY DEFINITION will be one of the most oft-used resources in any library. (228 pages).



Does anyone else besides thomas15 see the irony with respect to the need for such a work as By Definition?

In the preface of the first edition of his book, Knox asserted "there are only 182 words in all of scripture which should pose any hardship" (p. 8).

In the preface to the second edition of his book, Knox stated: "we have added thirty-seven words brought to our attention by readers of the first edition" (p. 14).

The edition I have also has a preface to the third edition, and the copyright page indicates that it is the sixth printing--2005.

 

[Mexdeaf]

What??

If we can't accept what our Bible says because it really says something else, then our Bible cannot be trusted and is of no use. Is this what you really meant to say?

Not at all. What I am saying is that we need to be like the Bereans.

People place their faith in what they THINK the Bible says. For example, when I was a youth, I read in my mother's KJV Bible 1 Peter 4:5 "who shall give an account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead." As an assignment for Driver's Ed (remember those?) class I had to make a safety poster and I decided to use that verse. You know- drive too fast, you will face the judge and be dead. Of course I now know that is not what the verse says at all.

This is why I say it is silly for us to say that having various translations causes confusion. The KJV translators themselves quoted St. Augustine as saying "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures". Newer translations make things more clear and remove confusion due to changes in the meanings of words.

Even my first Baptist pastor, who preached only from the KJV and detested modern versions, would say while he was preaching that , "A better translation of this word might be...", and most of the time the translation he gave was in my more modern version (which was at home).

And Annsi hit the second nail on the head- when it comes to the Bible, people - Christians and non - hear what they want to hear.

 

[thomas15]

Of Course....but need you really ask? It would be the Masoretic Hebrew text for the Old Testament and the Greek Received Text or Textus Receptus for the New Testament.......but I'm sure everybody here already knows what my answer would have been on that. I don't pretend to be qualified to argue the technicalities of the matter but that is what I accept as true after examining the evidence that I have (both for or against) over the course of the 30 plus years since I became aware of this issue.

Bro.Greg

Kindly refresh my memory, what New Testament greek text was used by the 1611 KJV translators?

 

[Amy.G]

This is why I say it is silly for us to say that having various translations causes confusion....snipped.... Newer translations make things more clear and remove confusion due to changes in the meanings of words.

I am not KJVO, but please tell me how this does NOT cause confusion?

KJV
Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

NIV
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother* will be subject to judgment.

Now, are we in danger of hell for being angry? Or for being angry without a cause?



KJV
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

NIV
No text available.


Yes, that really makes it clear.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I am not KJVO, but please tell me how this does NOT cause confusion?

KJV
Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

NIV
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother* will be subject to judgment.

Now, are we in danger of hell for being angry? Or for being angry without a cause?



KJV
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

NIV
No text available.


Yes, that really makes it clear.

That's what footnotes are for- NIV Bible:

1. Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother or sister without cause

1. Acts 8:37 Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

And that's where the Berean part comes in. Not all the answers to our questions ABOUT the Bible are found IN the Bible.

We could play the same game with a comparison of the KJV and the English versions that preceded it. Or, just go right back to the Greek and Hebrew and see how many words are missing or have been added to the English version.

 

[Amy.G]

That's what footnotes are for- NIV Bible:

Yes, I am aware of the footnotes. But they don't do anything other than tell me what I already know. A verse is missing.

We could play the same game with a comparison of the KJV and the English versions that preceded it. Or, just go right back to the Greek and Hebrew and see how many words are missing or have been added to the English version.

I'm not aware of any missing verses in the older English versions. Could you point them out?

 

[Logos1560]

I'm not aware of any missing verses in the older English versions. Could you point them out?

Some whole verses are missing in some Byzantine manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus editions were based. Several of the Textus Receptus consulted the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, and they borrowed some readings from it. The Complutensian Polyglot Bible is said to be missing Acts 8:37 because evidently it was not in the Greek manuscripts on which it was based.

Tyndale's New Testament, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, and Luther's German Bible do not have Mark 11:26 as found in the KJV because that verse was not in the Textus Receptus edition of Erasmus from which they were translated.

Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, 1560 Geneva Bible, and Luther's German Bible do not have Luke 17:36 as found in the KJV because it was not in some TR editions.

There are also some whole phrases or clauses not in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles and in Luther's German Bible that are in the KJV because of the same reason.

The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible have three whole verses in one Psalm that are not found in the KJV.

 

[Amy.G]

Some whole verses are missing in some Byzantine manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus editions were based. Several of the Textus Receptus consulted the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, and they borrowed some readings from it. The Complutensian Polyglot Bible is said to be missing Acts 8:37 because evidently it was not in the Greek manuscripts on which it was based.

Tyndale's New Testament, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, and Luther's German Bible do not have Mark 11:26 as found in the KJV because that verse was not in the Textus Receptus edition of Erasmus from which they were translated.

Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, 1560 Geneva Bible, and Luther's German Bible do not have Luke 17:36 as found in the KJV because it was not in some TR editions.

There are also some whole phrases or clauses not in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles and in Luther's German Bible that are in the KJV because of the same reason.

The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible have three whole verses in one Psalm that are not found in the KJV.

Thank you.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

A Vote Of No Confidence....

Some whole verses are missing in some Byzantine manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus editions were based. Several of the Textus Receptus consulted the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, and they borrowed some readings from it. The Complutensian Polyglot Bible is said to be missing Acts 8:37 because evidently it was not in the Greek manuscripts on which it was based.

Tyndale's New Testament, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, and Luther's German Bible do not have Mark 11:26 as found in the KJV because that verse was not in the Textus Receptus edition of Erasmus from which they were translated.

Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, 1560 Geneva Bible, and Luther's German Bible do not have Luke 17:36 as found in the KJV because it was not in some TR editions.

There are also some whole phrases or clauses not in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles and in Luther's German Bible that are in the KJV because of the same reason.

The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible have three whole verses in one Psalm that are not found in the KJV.

Logos.....I seriously mean you no intentional disrespect because you sound like a VERY educated guy and that in itself is worthy of respect if you made that kind of effort to become that way. Study is hard work. However, for some time now I have engaged in reading your long, seemingly almost encyclopedic posts and I'm beginning to think that "much learning doth make thee mad"!!! If I followed the dictates of much of what you (and others) on this board posted (and I thankfully don't) I believe I would have long ago come to the conclusion that there is NO version of the Bible either among the editions of the KJV and its predecessors and certainly not among any of the MV's that I can place any absolute faith or confidence in. If all this stuff that spills forth from your keyboard is true (and I certainly don't believe so) then they are ALL full of errors, additions and omissions and/or mis-translations and have questionable authority that can ONLY be clarified by suitably "qualified" and properly trained "scholars". Sounds like something the Pope would have thought up to me. I'll pass......and keep on believing my Bible without question. That represents plenty enough challenge to keep me busy spiritually and otherwise from now til the Rapture.

Bro.Greg:tonofbricks:

 

[thomas15]

Logos.....I seriously mean you no intentional disrespect because you sound like a VERY educated guy and that in itself is worthy of respect if you made that kind of effort to become that way. Study is hard work. However, for some time now I have engaged in reading your long, seemingly almost encyclopedic posts and I'm beginning to think that "much learning doth make thee mad"!!!

May I restate your position? Early 17th century Anglican Biblical scholarship...good, modern evangelical Biblical scholarship....bad.

 

[annsni]

That's what footnotes are for- NIV Bible:

1. Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother or sister without cause

1. Acts 8:37 Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

And that's where the Berean part comes in. Not all the answers to our questions ABOUT the Bible are found IN the Bible.

We could play the same game with a comparison of the KJV and the English versions that preceded it. Or, just go right back to the Greek and Hebrew and see how many words are missing or have been added to the English version.

Well, THAT was hard. I was taught in school that when there is a footnote, you are to read it to more fully understand the text. I guess maybe others didn't learn that???

 

[Logos1560]

If all this stuff that spills forth from your keyboard is true (and I certainly don't believe so) then they are ALL full of errors, additions and omissions and/or mis-translations and have questionable authority that can ONLY be clarified by suitably "qualified" and properly trained "scholars". Sounds like something the Pope would have thought up to me. I'll pass...

Perhaps the problem is that you do not pass up such reasoning since it is your KJV-only view that actually implies what you suggest. It is the modern KJV-only view that in effect asserts that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages have to be clarified or determined by one exclusive group of "suitably qualified and properly trained" Church of England scholars in 1611.

One reason I reject the modern KJV-only theory is that in effect makes the KJV translators into supposed infallible popes who are not to be questioned concerning their textual criticism decisions and translating decisions.

The Scriptures do not state or teach a KJV-only view. KJV-only advocates even seem to reject scriptural truths and principles when they conflict with their own subjective opinions, inconsistent assumptions, or unproven claims. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611, but it should be obvious that the KJV-only view is not true before 1611.

Admitting the truth that fallible men can make errors in copying, translating, editing, and printing is not the same thing as saying translations are full of errors.

 

[robycop3]

Logos.....I seriously mean you no intentional disrespect because you sound like a VERY educated guy and that in itself is worthy of respect if you made that kind of effort to become that way. Study is hard work. However, for some time now I have engaged in reading your long, seemingly almost encyclopedic posts and I'm beginning to think that "much learning doth make thee mad"!!! If I followed the dictates of much of what you (and others) on this board posted (and I thankfully don't) I believe I would have long ago come to the conclusion that there is NO version of the Bible either among the editions of the KJV and its predecessors and certainly not among any of the MV's that I can place any absolute faith or confidence in. If all this stuff that spills forth from your keyboard is true (and I certainly don't believe so) then they are ALL full of errors, additions and omissions and/or mis-translations and have questionable authority that can ONLY be clarified by suitably "qualified" and properly trained "scholars". Sounds like something the Pope would have thought up to me. I'll pass......and keep on believing my Bible without question. That represents plenty enough challenge to keep me busy spiritually and otherwise from now til the Rapture.

Bro.Greg:tonofbricks:

Mr. Perry, all Bible translations, including the KJV, were made by...MEN. So, actually, U R placing your trust in one group of men. Now, while GOD caused all valid translations to be made, we still see human frailty in them, including the KJV. We have discussed several goofs in the KJV at length, in other threads, and we see, after all the wrapping is taken off and umpteen excuses made to justify them, that they're still GOOFS.

And again, there's simply NO Scriptural justification for the KJVO myth. And more than one KJVO has come away with a different point of view after reading the preface "To The Reader" in the AV 1611.

And again, the ONLY justification for KJVO is PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

 

[Mexdeaf]

May I restate your position? Early 17th century Anglican Biblical scholarship...good, modern evangelical Biblical scholarship....bad.

Exactly!:thumbs:

 

[Mexdeaf]

One reason I reject the modern KJV-only theory is that in effect makes the KJV translators into supposed infallible popes who are not to be questioned concerning their textual criticism decisions and translating decisions.

A position which the KJV translators, by their own admission, would reject.