Featured KJV 2

Those verses do not state nor teach your KJV-only reasoning. I have read all those verses in the KJV and have read the entire KJV, and the KJV does not teach your modern KJV-only theory. You fail to demonstrate that those verses actually support your opinions and claims. You are reading things into the verses that they do not state. You are adding to the Scriptures your KJV-only opinions. You ignore, avoid, and dodge scriptural truths that would conflict with or contradict some of your opinions.

Those verses actually support my position more than yours.

 

You fail to apply those verses consistently and justly.

You ignore and dodge the proven fact that the KJV translators omitted providing any English word for many original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts. They gave examples of some of them in their 1611 marginal notes. In their 1611 marginal notes, they provided an English rendering for those original-language words of Scriptures but in the text of the verses they provided no English words for them.

Preservation: over 2000 missing words in KJV's NT? | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

 

Michael Hollner asserted: "Scholars are quiet about facts that do not fit their own narratives" (King James Only Debate, p. 97).

Evidently Michael Hollner may be guilty of what he accused others since he is quiet about facts that do not fit his KJV-only narrative. He keeps dodging and avoiding certain facts, including facts that prove some of his assertions in his book are not true.

 

James II? He was Catholic and got run off.

 

Michael Hollner, with all due respect, I (& others) await a response to the FACT that NO known ancient Greek mss. of Revelation contains the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, which proves they were ADDED my men to God's word in the KJV, thus proving its imperfection. (Not to mention the glaring "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4.) If you have no other valid, provable explanation, please do the Christian thing & admit the fact of addition of those words is right. Same for Easter in Acts 12:4.

 

So, you believe that the KJV is correct in telling us not to revile false gods? I find that sad. It could have very easily been translated, "Thou shalt not revile the judges," and it should have been. To anyone who hates idolatry as much as I do, the KJV very clearly is mistaken in that verse. The worst sin in the universe is idolatry since the first two of the Decalogue are against it. Yet you seem to think it's okay to let idolaters get by, simply because the KJV allows it. And Elijah, who reviled false gods, was then disobeying the Bible. And David, who reviled false gods in the Psalms, was disobeying the Bible even as he wrote the Bible! Again, I don't mean to be unkind, but yours is a very strange view. Even when the Bible itself clearly reviles idols, you would not allow it.

I am not in agreement with a lot that Wycliffe does. As for Isaiah 28:9-13, we would translate it with optimal literalism from the Hebrew into good modern Japanese. Other than that, I'm not sure what you are getting at.

We hope someday to have an OT, but I may not be the one to finish it. "Uncle Miya" and I did the first 30 psalms, but I am working on the rest and have a Japanese partner for the work. (Uncle MIya is in Heaven now.)

‘you have no standing whatsoever to give advice to a missionary translator.”

Language speaking and translating is a gift from God (1 Cor. 12:10). God gave me this gift to use for His glory. When he led me to begin translating, I didn't ask anyone for permission, I didn't fast and pray, I simply obeyed God's calling and gifting and started translating.

And here's an example of why you should not be giving advice to missionary translators. If we all obeyed your criterion of being fluent in the source and target languages since childhood, very few Bible translations would get done. By this criterion, the great missionary translators of history were not qualified: Ulfilas, Jerome, Adoniram Judson, William Carey (45 languages; his Bengali one is still printed--I saw it myself in Bangladesh), Henry Martyn (Persian), Karl Gutzlaff (Thai, Chinese OT, first Japanese effort), Robert Morrison (Chinese), Nathan Brown (Japanese) and so many others.

The way such men did their work is that they had good native speaking partners, and that is how we have done our Japanese NT--with Japanese co-translators and many helpers. It is God who gifts us to do this, but missionary and similarly gifted national translators do the work together.

Personally, I am happy for any Bible translation effort, while I know that some will completely fail, as one effort did in Japanese a few years ago. I'm familiar with GBS, and have the book by Steve Combs with them. It's much better (though I disagree with some things) than the book by H. D. Williams with the same outfit. Why? Because Combs has actually travelled to mission fields, did translation consulting, and knows what goes on there and how missionary translations are done, but Williams has not (at least when he wrote his book).

I don't think you are understanding my actual question. I am not asking about the Biblical doctrine of preservation or translation (and there is a doctrine of translation). I am asking how, practically speaking, the KJV became perfect. It was not perfect when the first draft was done, because another had to be done, and probably several drafts. The KJV did not become perfect after the translation work was done, because then it had to be proofread. It was not perfect when ready for the first printing, because that first printing had errors. (I have a facsimile copy.) It was not perfect when other printings were done, because revision was necessary, as you should very well know. So at what point in history do you believe the KJV became inerrant?

We were missionaries to Japan from 1981-2014, at which time the Lord brought me back to teach at Baptist College of Ministry, where I teach Greek, Church History, missions, theology, and Bible translation. God is so good--He also brought our son here, and we teach together. I'm approaching 70 this year, but plan to keep teaching and translating as long as I can stand and talk or sit and translate.

 

I also understand preservation just fine. It means I have a Bible that is inspired by God, perfect, pure, anointed (I John 2:20) NASB and never changing. I hold it high as the Monarch of all books, for it is the very Word of God!

It sits on my desk and it is called the New American Standard Bible.

 

Hello, Mikoo. Welcome to the Baptist Board. I hope you find it a blessing.

 

Thank you rlvaughn. I find it very interesting. It is definitely a blessing to be able to discuss the various topics.

 

He cannot admit that, as that would be denying KJVO!

 

Interesting that some claim that the Kjv has never changed, and yet there are hundreds of changes between various editions!
Which Nas edition do you use? As still using my 1977 Ryrie edition!

 

I feel the same about the NASV & several other English versions. GOD isn't limited to any one version, & neither am I.

BTW, WELCOME to this board!

 

Well, I intend to keep pressing him for an answer. Newer readers, seeing this, will realize the KJVO myth is false.

 

I use my NASB95, but I also have a copy of the 77.

 

I agree. Was Just proving a point. And Thank you.

 

I have looked at the 2020 Nas, but reads too much like the Csb/Niv to me!

 

I agree.

 

You are taking my response out of context and putting words in my mouth. I said in context it is referring to the rulers of the people and that Scripture tells us to proclaim “thou shalt have no others gods before me” (Exodus 20:3) KJV. Perhaps you see it as a contradiction, whereas our jobs as teachers is to explain the context of Psalms 82:1-8; John 10:34-35; II Chronicles 19:1-11 and many other Scriptures, ‘precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, and there a little’ lest we get snared in a lack of a proper interpretation of Scripture (Isaiah 28:9-13) KJV. Yes, it is contextually applied to rulers and ‘judges,’ so just explain that as a teacher rather than attempt to change what God said. If God wanted it to say ‘judges’ He would have said judges. Perhaps He wants us to ‘rightfully divide the Word of truth’ and explain these things. With all due respect, I personally would fear changing even one single Word of God. Fair warning.

I am a bit disappointed in that PERHAPS you misrepresented what I actually said and did ‘wrest’ my words a bit here. But I always give the benefit of the doubt and perhaps I did not clarify my own context.

‘Yet you seem to think it's okay to let idolaters get by, simply because the KJV allows it,”

No John, the KJV Bible does not allow for idolatry. You just seem to think it does by your failure to read the context of Scripture line upon line, here a Scripture, and over there a Scripture (Isa 28:9-13) KJV.

‘It could have very easily been translated, "Thou shalt not revile the judges," and it should have been.’

So you admit then that all modern versions have it wrong in reading “you shall not revile, blaspheme, or curse God”?

Thus in the context of Scripture it is clear that the true meaning of all these verses in context as found in the King James Bible, is that the word “gods” refers to earthly men who were given the divinely appointed office of judges who were to administer God’s laws to the common people.

I am thinking you possibly already knew this from your statement “It could have very easily been translated, "Thou shalt not revile the judges, and it should have been," but at the same time you made the statement, ‘Yet you seem to think it's okay to let idolaters get by, simply because the KJV allows it,” when you just admitted that this is not what the KJV is saying by mentioning ‘judges’ as a correct reading. Perhaps you do understanding the context of these Scriptures and I was mistaken.

““And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” Exodus 7:1 (KJV).

Blessings…..

 

Good for you! Hold it high and proclaim it. I am glad to see someone else on this board that has faith in something that they believe is perfect in the year 2021 other than the 'originals only.'

Just be careful not to use the NASB95 in John 1:18 though, you might not want to tell folks God was begotten. Seems the new update had to patch that one up.