Your KJVO myth is false.

Guess God had nothing to say to us in a salvation sense until 1611!

 

Those questions have a faulty apriori built in, which are designed to fail in the asking.

Where was the Bible before the book of Revelation and the Gospel and epistles of John were written? Does that mean that no one had God's word until then? Of course not.

Where was the Bible before the New Testament texts? Does it mean that no one had God's word until then? Of course not.

Where was the Bible before Moses and the OT books of the Torah? Does it mean that no one had God's word until then? Of course not.

Does it mean that any of these without the whole had a false Bible, a false word? Of course not.

Does it mean that the Hebrews had a false word without the Koine Greek portions? Of course not.

Let us ask serious questions please.

 

Based upon what evidence [ref. the so-called LXX]?

The Septuagint [LXX] as we presently know it, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century AD, and the mention by the so-called "Letter of Aristeas", based on an unfounded and mostly discredited "legend", is seriously problematic.

"... Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the “Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16 The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. ..." - http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf​

"... the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that much of it is unhistorical, in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705) ..." - The Septuagint, by H. St. J. Thackeray​

De bibliorum textibus originalibus - Humfredi Hodii linguae graecae professoris regii et Archidiaconi Oxon. De bibliorum textibus originalibus, versionibus graecis, & latina vulgata libri 4..

Other sources, identifying the same - The Septuagint

"... Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. ... Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. ..." - http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf​

"... [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). ...

... Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. ... [page 46]

... [Page 47] If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.

First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.

Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.

(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. ..." - The Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original.​

 

Really? "All translations [of God's word] are man's opinions?"

Therefore, all we have are man's opinions, since no one on earth has any of the original autograph's?

What of the following:

Acts 26:14 KJB - And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.​

Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, and spoke to Paul in the "Hebrew tonuge [language]". Was it inspired?

Luke was the one who wrote the book of Acts, see Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1 KJB, and he was a holy man of God who was also inspired and the book of Acts is scripture, according to 2 Timothy 3:16 KJB, yes?

Was the book of Acts written in the Koine Greek language, yes/no?

Questions to you:

Since Jesus spoke in Hebrew, and Paul heard him in Hebrew, and Luke recorded the events in Koine Greek, is that God's word to man, yes/no, is that a translation of the original language given, yes/no, and is it just "man's opinion" yes or no?

 

Foolishness [and a false apriori, and strawman], see Genesis 3:15 KJB, as well as Exodus 20:1-17 KJB.

 

Based upon what standards of criteria? and why is that the standard/s of criteria, based upon what standards of criteria? Do you see where I am going?

 

Jesus has indeed used the 1611 [aka King James Bible in English], look at the revivals, souls saved, lives converted, etc. That translation, contains all of the words which He has given from the beginning, for He promised to preserve all His words. Therefore, it is not as if the English 1611 existed in the time of Moses as it does today, for in Moses day it was in Hebrew on whatever material they had to work with, but it was preserved by God throughout the ages, and I have those words [in translation] today, none of them failing.

 

Ok. Your point?

 

Translations are not inspired. Jesus spoke Aramaic and probably Hebrew. Paul probably spoke many languages as you show.

Why would you not try to get close as you can to the first words instead of it being regurgitated by man.If Paul wasinspired to write in Greek, use Greek, not Greek to Latin to Old English. Use Greek to English.
The Septuagint (70) went from Hebrew to Greek and then to Latin? them to English? Why not use the Hebrew straight to whatever English were are using?

 

That it is not the medium that matters so much [example: since the original tables of stone were broken [Exodus 32:19, 34:1,4 KJB], God simply had re-written them on another set of tables, and even the original tables that were broken were simply copies of that which was in the Heavens [Exodus 25:9,40; Numbers 8:4; Hebrews 8:5, 9:23 KJB] [or we can look to the case of Jeremiah, in which the original autographs were destroyed by the king [Jeremiah 36:23 KJB] and by Seraiah on orders of Jeremiah by the angel by God [Jeremiah 51:63 KJB], but we still have the preserved words], and can be translated into other langauges even as they are found in the New Testament:

Matthew 19:17 KJB - And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Matthew 19:18 KJB - He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

Matthew 19:19 KJB - Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Romans 13:9 KJB - For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.​

It is not that God said He would preserve the language, or even the original medium upon which the words were written, but rather that he said He would preserve His words [He may use any language He desires, and any medium He desires to write it upon].

 

Is what Luke wrote in Acts 26:14 KJB, "inspired", yes/no? Was it a translation of what Jesus said in Hebrew, yes/no?

 

Forgive me but what exactly is the KJVO myth?

 

Show me a single authentically verified original autograph of anything Moses wrote.

 

Your KJVO myth is false.

Can a myth be true?

 

Jesus used the Tanakh

 

Moses did not write, scribes did. We do not have his copy as you know but at least use the closest Hebrew version possible ,, not a Greek OT

 

The Hebrew should be inspired. Should the Greek? I think so,, What about the Latin? Syriac? Gothic? Where does it stop? RSV ? Good news for Modern Man?

You cant say translations are inspired unless you can decide which are or are not

Acts 26:14NEV When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? You are hurting yourself by kicking against the goads.

See the problem?

 

So there were legit bible versions before the Kjv 1611?

 

what was inspired were the authors of the scriptures....

 

Is that required in order to have an infallible English translation?