Your KJVO myth is false.

I believe [therefore it is ultimately a statement and position based in scriptural faith, Hebrews 11:6; Romans 14:23 KJB, though I do have foundational evidences historically and prophetically that strenghthen that faith] that the King James BIble, that I hold in my hand presently, is the [not 'a'] inspired and the preserved word of God in the English language, and is the final authority in all matters of Faith and Practice. I believe it is without error in its words, according to Psalms 12:6-7; John 10:35; Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33 KJB, etc, even as Christ Jesus Himself, is the word without error, Hebrews 4:15, etc KJB.

The OT is primarily in the singular common Hebrew language [a minor section in the Hebrew offshoot, Syriac/Chaldean of Daniel 2:4b-7:28, and in a few other minor places]. If others wanted to know what JEHOVAH Elohiym had to say they had to learn this language or have it extempore translated to them.

The NT is primarily in the singular Koine or common Greek language [some minor spoken words in syriac/ some call Aramaic, etc].

That the Bible, in its preserved state, on the whole should be in a singular, common and primary language, such as the global English [of England, since it is in Canada, Australia, England, Africa, China and Americas, as in other places also] is actually scriptural, following God's pre-establish pattern of working and dealings with men. It does not mean that God cannot translate His word into other languages [such as the Spanish Purifcada, or even certain edition of the Gomez, etc], as in the books of Acts, etc.

The Bible, whether OT or NT or in toto, has always been in the hands of God's people, though in certain instances, the numbers grew very few indeed, even a remnant.

I do quote, and have quoted on numerous occasions, even in this very forum, from other translations. such as the so-called LXX, the Bishop's, Tyndale, Geneva, Wycliffe, and from the GNT TR and the HOT, and other language texts, such as the German Luther Bibel, the Italian Diodati, and the French Olivetan, etc. and from the Stephanus, Elzivir, etc, and even from the catholic texts, of the Jerome's vulgate, the Douay Rheims, etc and from the eclectic and other text types [alexandrian, such as the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrius, etc], Westcott and Horts, and from the USB [United Bibles Society] and the NA [also called NU] [Nestle Alands, and Eberhard Nestles texts] and from the more recent texts of the RV, ASV, ESV, CEV, NIV, NKJV, Holman's and from the others such as the KIT [Kingdom Interlinear] and NWT [New World 'Translation'] of the WTS [JW; when necessary when dialoguing with them or for others information,citation], etc., etc.. However, I do believe, that there are issues with each of these in its words, examples upon request.

As stated previously, to you, in charity [1 Corinthians 13 KJB], I have read Benjamin G. Wilkinson's works, both on the common Bible, aka the King James Bible,

Our Authorized Bible Vindicated - http://www.present-truth.org/6-Library/Authorized Bible-all.pdf

Answers to Objections - http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-Resource Library/ANSWERS TBJECTIONS.pdf

Truth Triumphant - https://www.sabbathtruth.com/portals/20/documents/Truth_Triumphant.pdf​

I pray that this thread is not about Benjamin G. Wilkinson personally, but we can look at evidence and facts in textual matters?

I will recommend to all, the following helpful sources, which contains many sources, and if any would like to add to my sources, let me know, by posting them, and I will consider them for addition if worthy - KJV Bible Vindicated

As I stated before on several occasions, I believe you have a misunderstanding about my present position, but since you seem to be itching on this subject and desire most vehemently on having this discussion, so be it.

I apologize, but my responses may not always be swift in this, as recently my internet connection seems to be getting worse, I am piggybacking a signal about 1/2 mile away, without a router, through a borrowed connection, and therefore, please forgive me, if I am not always able to respond right away, as there are times when this will not work for several days, and currently I am re-routing through a limited phone data connectionm, which will shortly run out on its limit.

You call me a 'cult', fine I accept the label:

Acts 24:14 KJB - But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Acts 24:5 KJB - For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:​

My first question to you brother robycop3 is, since I have already provided mine own answer above:

What text or translation [in any language], if any in your position, is the perfect words of God, being without error in its words, being perfectly inspired and preserved by JEHOVAH Elohiym?​

My second question to you brother robycop3 is, since I have already provided mine own answer above:

What is your final authority in all matters of faith and practice?, if you have such final authority/ies, please list the singular or multiple source/s.
​

I do pray that you treat me with the same respect, and answer my questions, even as I answer yours in kind.

May God help us all, here, that His truth may be known, His word be magnified [Psalms 138:2 KJB], and that we submit humbly to His will. In Jesus', my Saviour's, name, Amen.

 

All translations are man's opinion. The KJV is a very bad translation, First of all it is English., a fery flexible language. Second the translators tried to use that English to express original ideas and expressions instead of a plain word for word or original meaning translation. Third , the original languages did not have punctuation but is used to the opinion of the translators, We then rely on the punctuation to pronounce a meaning and doctrine.

Consult Young's Literal Translation Preface notes for further explanation

 

This is a straw man. While there are some KJV defenders who hold to the belief that the KJV is the only pure bible period. I do not know personally any KJV defenders in my circles that believe that,I know many who believe that in ENGLISH the KJV is the only "pure" bible. Personally I believe the KJV is an accurate and faithful translation of the preserved Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek received text. In theory I am open to a revision of the KJV to update some of the archaic language, however I am not for dumbing down the translation by removing thees, thous, ye's etc. I am disappointed in the NKJV and the MEV in their attempts update the KJV.

I know most KJV believers do not believe the whole world did not have God's word until 1611, I mean there was the Hebrew text, Greek text, and other ancient translations.

 

Was King "James Onlyism" Invented by a Seventh-Day Adventist?

Defending the KJV predates Ben Wilkinson. Can you please stop using this argument?

 

Does the Bible teach preservation?

 

Here we go again.

There were two editions of the King James Bible - The Cambridge and the Oxford.

http://www.havenfwbchurch.org/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/KJV400.pdf

KJVO proponents are a divided camp as to which one is the "pure" text.

http://www.bibleprotector.com/THERE_IS_ONLY_ONE_PURE_KING_JAMES_BIBLE.pdf

Others claim the Cambridge edition is a counterfeit King James Bible

Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles

So the first order of business is to determine the "pure" text of the 1611 King James Bible.

Cambridge, Oxford or perhaps even the Nelson Edition.

What is the criteria of determination?

 

You've got to be kidding.Do you ever read Bible commentaries or even scholarly works of any nature? You won't find dumbed-down language. When a Bible translation does not use thee, thine, thou and ye it is not a sign of weakening the language. You don't speak using all of the afore-mentioned --why make that a standard?

Do you think that Bible translations in English before 1611 were all superior to modern translations?

How about English translations before 1511?

 

Yes, It was a mighty work done upon a mighty book!

I like Scrivener's Greek text of 1894-5. A TR as close to perfection as possible (IMO).

Still, the KJVO folks must choose a King James Bible Edition and offer their evidence of it's perfect text.

 

There are word for word translations.or commentaries. They are online.

The punctuation is supposed to determine the meaning. As an example JW's use Jesus statement :,Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. To add a comma after Today to change the meaning that Jesus is only saying to the thief today.
The original languages or the closest we can get, from whatever text, It should not be translated , them translated again to English. We do not need to determine the theological meanings, it should only be translated as close as possible to original language
The KJC translators ignored the Hebrew readily available from the current Jewish Rabbi's.

This is part of the criticism from Young

If a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verb for a noun, or a noun for a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.

Lax renderings change meanings "to give" nathan has 84 different rendering

Young's Translation: Publisher's Note & Preface (1898 )http://www.ccel.org/bible/ylt/ylt.htm

TCassidy, I believe read Hebrew, Please examine the Preface of the Youngs Literal Translation for a complete statement

 

I am not KJVO -- but reading that OP ..

my.. what vitriol... what acrimony... what a "spirit"

 

Much more reasonable IMHO than the extreme "The KJV is unbiblical" or "KJVO is unbiblical" --- just how many different "Septuagints" were in use in Paul's day? Would it be "unbiblical" to have "just one"??

 

Which TR Greek text, and which Kjv version would be the perfect one?
And Erasmus used some of the Vulgate in his greek text, is that also a reliable version?
God had no written word from him to us untill 1611 than?

 

There is NO credible reason to support the KJVO position!

 

One of the preachers here in town told me "Jesus used the 1611 and if it was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me." To that I responded "Sir, for that I have no answer that will satisfy you." He grinned. I laughed.