Featured Makers of KJV as Bible revisers

Your distortion, misrepresentation, and false claims about what believers believe about the Scriptures is wrong and is contrary to the Scriptures.

We do not say that the original autographs have been and are preserved. You are making a bogus, false claim and are putting in the mouths of others words that they did not say.

The Scriptures are preserved in the original languages just as the early English translators and the KJV translators noted. Are you actually claiming that the KJV translators lied when they maintained that the preserved Scriptures in the original language are the standard or authority for trying all translations and when they claimed to be translating from the original language Scriptures?

The printed editions of the original language texts used in the translating of the early English Bibles still exist. The original language manuscripts on which those printed editions were based still exist.

I have printed copies of original language texts of Scripture including reprints of some of the editions that the early English translators used.

For the exact, same words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles to be preserved, those exact same words would need to be preserved in the same languages.

According to the definition of preservation and according to what the Scriptures teach about preservation, how would different words in a different language supposedly be an actual preservation of the exact same original language words that God gave to the prophets and apostles?

Do KJV-only advocate argue for some type dynamic equivalency meaning preservation instead of exact word preservation?

It is the fallacies and the unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards] of a modern, man-made KJV-only theory that mislead some into making incorrect claims.

 

Are you claiming that the KJV translators did not know whatever it means to translate from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? Are you saying that the arguments and claims of the KJV translators concerning preservation of the Scriptures in the oriignal languages were illogical, absurb, and wrong? Are you implying that the KJV translators did not state the truth concerning what they had before them?

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).

In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then 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, not from earth.“

Laurence 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” (King James, His Bible, p. 47). In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ 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).

 

The KJV-only poster who responded did not address the actually scriptural truths presented. Evidently you do not know how to address what the Scriptures actually teach as you cling to your faulty, unproven, KJV-only opinions.

The Scriptures are the specific written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44) and not by means of human wisdom or scholarship including that of the KJV translators. The words that proceeded directly out of the mouth of God are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Exod. 9:16, Rom. 9:17). God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).

Along with the Old Testament, New Testament writings are also called Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:18). The apostle Peter asserted that the commandment of the apostles are connected with the words revealed and spoken by the prophets (2 Pet. 3:1-2). The apostle Paul noted that his writing or epistle was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Heb. 1:1-2). The words or word that Jesus Christ spoke were in the original language in which they were given by inspiration to the New Testament writers (John 12:48). Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses wrote them.

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The phrase “the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17) was used to denote the entire Old Testament Scriptures. The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Since the Scriptures indicated the positive that preservation would be in the exact specific words that were given by God in the specific original languages in which He gave them, it did not need to state the negative that preservation did not relate directly to different words that are used in translations. When the positive principle for the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages given to the O. T. prophets was indicated, there was no need to state again the same principle for the preservation of the additional Scriptures given to the N. T. prophets and apostles. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could also not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ’s comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also refer to Moses’ writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The Scriptures or oracles of God committed to the Jews or Hebrews were in the original language (Rom. 3:1-2). “The scriptures of the prophets” were in the original language (Rom. 16:26). The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Rom. 16:26). The actual languages in which God said or revealed His words are the original languages. The actual languages of the specific, precise, pure words given to the prophets and apostles by inspiration of God are the original languages.

 

problem comes from faulty reasoning

A consistent application of your faulty reasoning would condemn the KJV and all translations of the Scriptures. Third graders do not understand and grasp abstract truth and logic and do not know how to recognize the use of fallacies [false arguments].

The KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] which the KJV translators stated were "the word of God" "notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it." The KJV translators indicated that no translations [which would include their own] could be perfect and they yet suggested that those imperfect translations were still the word of God. Does your faulty reasoning condemn the KJV translators?

There were the same type differences between those earlier English Bibles and the KJV as between the KJV and later English translations. If simply compared to the KJV, those earlier English Bibles that were "the word of God" in English according to the KJV translators had many added words or many omitted words [including phrases, clauses, and whole verses]. Several of those early English Bibles did not have two whole verses that are found in the KJV, and yet the KJV translators asserted that they were the word of God. The Great Bible had over 100 words in the book of Psalms [including three whole verses in one psalm] not found in the KJV and also over 100 words in the book of Acts not found in the KJV. The Bishops' Bible had a good number of words and phrases that are not found in the KJV. If it is claimed that those earlier English Bibles were not the word of God, then when the KJV translators borrowed words, phrases, and even whole verses from them, they were taking what was not the word of God according to such faulty reasoning.

Even if the fact that the KJV is more a revision of earlier English Bibles than it is a new translation is ignored and the KJV was incorrectly considered only a translation, a consistent application of the same faulty reasoning would also in effect condemn the KJV. The printed original language texts from which the KJV was translated were based on original language manuscripts that had copying errors, including sometimes omitted words and phrases. Is it being suggested that the correctly copied parts of those manuscripts were not the word of God if any copying errors were included in them?

In addition, the same original language words and phrases in the original language texts are translated different ways in the KJV. The KJV sometimes added words or phrases for which there is no original language words and sometimes did not give any English word for some original language word. All those added words are not in italics. Thus, if translating differently the same original language words means that it is not the same, than the KJV could not be the word of God according to such faulty reasoning. According to unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures, is translating the same original language words differently OK when in the KJV but wrong when in other translations?

Is the fact that there are known errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV supposed to be proof that it could not be the word of God according to such faulty reasoning? Is the fact that over 100 words were added to later editions of the KJV a serious problem for such faulty reasoning? Is the fact that all the many varying editions of the KJV from 1611 until today a serious problem for such reasoning? Even all present editions of the KJV are not the same so is it being claimed that they all are not the word of God because they have differences?

If all or nothing reasoning and fallacies such as the fallacy of composition are applied to the making of all translations including the KJV, no translation could be considered the word of God.