-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question on how KJVO Regard the 1611 Kjv?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Saved421
Member
Good day,
Hope doing well, I take it as a milestone in human history and with tons of printer errors.
And tons of translation errors
And tons of Greek textual errors
The Anglican 1611 was 85% copied (revising earlier English translations slightly). It was not "new" and certainly not "inspired" or "perfect". But you are correct in that it was a "milestone" in history and should be recognized as such.
They plagiarized earlier versions of the NT esp
Think was very much based off Tyndale and prior translations before it
Do you have the 1611 with Apocrypha included?
Is the King James Version Inspired?
I am republishing an article (with links, comments, and edits for spelling) I originally published November 27, 2009 on the old Jackhammer blog. You can view the original article, along with the 11…
davemallinak.com
The preface of the 1611 stated that it was not inspired as the originals.
In fact, the encouraged “further and better translations”
They also stated that “we have done the best we can”
In fact, the encouraged “further and better translations”
They also stated that “we have done the best we can”
Think was about 80% directly taking over from Tyndale NT translation
Yes, even the 1611 translations were not in the KJVO camp
Those into KJVOI that I have read would all fall under double inspiration, as to them God did in English with 1611 translators to produce a perfect translation as He did with Apostles on the OriginalsIs the King James Version Inspired?
I am republishing an article (with links, comments, and edits for spelling) I originally published November 27, 2009 on the old Jackhammer blog. You can view the original article, along with the 11…
Unbelief is unreasonable and unwise. I have found in my personal interaction with the Bible that most things in the New Testament are easy to understand but they are very difficult to believe. This is the reason very few people are willing to just haul off and believe them.
The Bible says of itself that it is the word of God in total, meaning it is his testimony and it says the words of God are pure words and are faithful words. Common logic teaches us that if words are not faithful and pure, then they are not the words of God. The only other option for us is to accept the belief that God is like us and sometimes says things that are not true. I do not accept that particular reasoning for myself, but I know that some, maybe you, do believe that and the immediate result is that we are divided into two different groups, both viewing God and his word differently. I cannot see much common ground between the two groups with such a profound division.
In Psalm 19, God has David the prophet saying, The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul." Now, David would not have known that unless he was told. If we did not know, God has Peter adding clarity to the idea of "converting the soul" by having him declaring that conversion of the soul is being born again of God when he writes, "being born again, not by corruptible seed but by incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever."
Now we know from nature the part the seed plays in producing a new creature. We know the seed of the donor produces after it's own kind. A duck produces a duck because of the seed of the duck in the receptor. The man produces a man because of the seed of a man in the receptor. A duck cannot produce anything but a duck and a man cannot generate anything but a man because of the seed. Put the seed of a duck in a man and it is corruptible seed in him.
Luke 8:11
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Now understand that God is dealing in metaphors, a common practice of his.
Understanding now that the seed that brings about a new birth is an eternal seed, meaning it cannot die like all other seeds. This seed lives and abides forever. Unlike the seed through which a man is birthed, this seed in not corruptible, like in Peter's case, Abraham's seed. The seed of the duck might have life in it but it is not an eternal seed, it can and will die in short order. This seed, the word of God, is not corruptible and it is in the man and so what does that make the man by means of the gospel of Christ? It make him a son of God because the seed is God and it is now like God is, eternal. Alive for ever. Never dying.
I could go on and tell you about the word of the LORD is a person and is the title of Jesus Christ in both testaments and that it is actually God , Jesus, the Holy Spirit whose presence in the body is the seed that ensures this conversion from corruption to incorruption and will abide with that person forever and forever.
What else could a man be if he is born by the seed of God? What else? Answer; he would be his seed and if he is living forever it is an incorruptible seed.
1 Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1 Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Can incorruptible seed produce eternal life in your theological world? There must be some sense in which the seed, the word of God, is perfect. Where am I wrong about this?
Not time to review this before posting. May come back for correction.
Last edited:
KJB1611reader
Member
Yes, I do.
There is a marginal notes in there that say is corrupt.
The marginal notes made me even more convinced KJB is perfect.
The 1611 did have printing errors.
The 1611 translators never claimed that their translation though was either inspired or perfect, as were agreeable to in the future further revisions and translations would come to improve their work, and in the margins they did practice textual criticism
KJB1611reader
Member
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Yes, but the bible doesn't mention particular translations of itself. The translators of the 1611 KJV were scholars - they had studied the original bible languages of Hebrew and Greek. As such, they acknowledged that their translation was not perfect, as JesusFan said.
Baptizo
Active Member
Our English Bible translations were put together by scholars, including the KJV. I can arbitrarily say that the NIV is inspired and defend my position using your same circular reasoning.
KJB1611reader
Member
So, the Bible isn't perfect. Got it.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I didn't say that. I said that translations of the bible are not perfect.