KJV Onlyest 1611 Psalm 12:7 note, question.

[JD731]

That is evidently your misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the KJV. Perhaps by eisegesis you are reading your own human opinions into verses that do not actually teach what you may read into them or add to them.

Examples, please.

The text of the KJV clearly teaches that it is the process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles that is by a direct miracle of inspiration of God.

The text of the KJV does not teach that the process of post-NT translating is by a miracle of inspiration of God. The text of the KJV does not teach that the translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England priests proceeded directly from the mouth by God by direct inspiration. The KJV was made by the same processes by which the multiple, varying pre-1611 English Bibles were made. The text of the KJV does not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revisions decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England men in 1611. The text of the KJV does not suggest that God would contradict His wisdom from above by showing partiality or respect to persons to one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

My arguments have never been about new inspiration in new Bibles but about preservation of the inspired record and testimony of God across languages and progressive revelation through the passing of time and fulfilled prophesy. You seemed to purposely missed that.

 

[Logos1560]

But what is one of the main reasons for a continuous line of new Bibles? It is so people can understand God better in modern English and it is accomplished through new Bibles. They are not commentaries, they are Bibles with the title "Word of God. That is a desire for more and better revelation, is it not?

Wanting the word of God in present-day standard English instead of 1500's English is not a desire for more and better revelation.

Desiring that the word of God be more accurately translated is not a desire for more direct revelation from God. Many believers recognize the truth that Bible translations are what they are--translations. Translation involves interpretation. Interpretation is not the result of a miracle of direct new revelation from God. Believers realize that Bible translations can be improved just as the original 1611 edition of the KJV has been revised and improved many times.

In his prologue to the Christian reader in his 1535 Bible translation, Miles Coverdale wrote: "Whereas some men think now the many translations make division in the faith and in the people of God, it is not so." In their comments to the brethren of England, Scotland, Ireland, etc. in the 1560 edition, the Geneva Bible translators acknowledged that “some translations read after one sort, and some after another, whereas all may serve to good purpose and edification.“ In their preface to the 1611 KJV, its translators themselves argued that "variety of translations is profitable for finding the sense of the Scriptures."

 

[Logos1560]

Examples, please.

The text of the KJV says it is the words of God, not the words of the KJV translators.

You did not say which verse or verses in the KJV lead you to your above assertion.

Nevertheless, your own assertion indicates or reveals that by eisegesis you are reading your own human opinions into verses that do not actually teach what you may read into them or add to them. The text of the KJV does not suggest that it is new or additional revelation or that its words are directly inspired of God.

 

[David Lamb]

Well, okay but what do you think the mystery is that Paul is revealing?

Now who am I to argue against the great minds of Palmer Roberton and Author L Johnson? But what is one of the main reasons for a continuous line of new Bibles? It is so people can understand God better in modern English and it is accomplished through new Bibles. They are not commentaries, they are Bibles with the title "Word of God. That is a desire for more and better revelation, is it not? So, to claim a further revelation is to deny the sufficiency and completeness of what has already been given. Obviously the given revelation has not worked for them or they are under the assumption that it has not worked for others.

And BTW, I am nor advocating for more and better Bibles, you are. I am sure we have God's revelation preserved for us in the KJV. It makes me wonder why you named yourself after the Geneva Bible.

Is it a desire for a better revelation that causes people like the Wycliffe Bible Translators to translate the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures into languages which don't yet have the bible? How is that different, in principal, to translating the Hebrew and Greek into the Engish we use today? Many words have gone out of use since 1611, and many others have changed their meaning since 1611.

 

[JD731]

Wanting the word of God in present-day standard English instead of 1500's English is not a desire for more and better revelation.

Desiring that the word of God be more accurately translated is not a desire for more direct revelation from God. Many believers recognize the truth that Bible translations are what they are--translations. Translation involves interpretation. Interpretation is not the result of a miracle of direct new revelation from God. Believers realize that Bible translations can be improved just as the original 1611 edition of the KJV has been revised and improved many times.

In his prologue to the Christian reader in his 1535 Bible translation, Miles Coverdale wrote: "Whereas some men think now the many translations make division in the faith and in the people of God, it is not so." In their comments to the brethren of England, Scotland, Ireland, etc. in the 1560 edition, the Geneva Bible translators acknowledged that “some translations read after one sort, and some after another, whereas all may serve to good purpose and edification.“ In their preface to the 1611 KJV, its translators themselves argued that "variety of translations is profitable for finding the sense of the Scriptures."

When I read this quote that expresses your attitude toward the eternal word of God I thought of this verse that puts your views into context, at least for me.

Jud 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Paul said these words about it;

Ga 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world <165>, according to the will of God and our Father:

Thank God for that!

 

[David Lamb]

When I read this quote that expresses your attitude toward the eternal word of God I thought of this verse that puts your views into context, at least for me.

Jud 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Paul said these words about it;

Ga 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world <165>, according to the will of God and our Father:

Thank God for that!

But translating the bible isn't "doing what is right in one's own eyes." That is only true if someone deliberately mistranslates the Hebrew or Greek to fit their own ideas. Also, Logos1560 was writing about translations of the eternal word of God, so I am not sure how you were able to detect from his post what his attitude toward the eternal word of God might be.

 

[Logos1560]

When I read this quote that expresses your attitude toward the eternal word of God I thought of this verse that puts your views into context, at least for me.

Jud 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

You show that you jump to a wrong conclusion and that your opinion is wrong. That is not at all my attitude toward the eternal word of God.

The 1611 KJV is not eternal, and all of it has not been kept 100% eternally the same in typical post-1900 KJV editions. Words in English do not keep the same meaning or even just the same spelling eternally. Editions of the KJV can decay, can lose pages, can be torn, can be burned or destroyed so that those editions are not eternal.

While travel and travail may have been spelling variations of the same word, they became two different words with different meanings.

Eccl. 4:6 travel [1611 edition] travail [today's KJV editions]

Eccl. 4:8 travel [1611 edition] travail [today's KJV]

Eccl. 5:14 travel [1611 edition] travail [today's KJV]

Numbers 20:14
travel (1675, 1679, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1729, 1746, 1747, 1749, 1753, 1754, 1758, 1760, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1769, 1772, 1774, 1777, 1784, 1787, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1808, 1810, 1812, 1813, 1819, 1821, 1823, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1853, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1873, 1876, 1880, 1885, 1890 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1769, 1773, 1775, 1778, 1792, 1794, 1800, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1842, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1887 Cambridge] {1614, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1648, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1693, 1698, 1703, 1705, 1706, 1711, 1712, 1723, 1728, 1730, 1735, 1741, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1772, 1795, 1811, 1813, 1817, 1820, 1824, 1825, 1827, 1838, 1839, 1849, 1860, 1870, 1877, 1880 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1715, 1716, 1722, 1729, 1751, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1806, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1834, 1842, 1843, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1743, 1762, 1782 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1696, 1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1774, 1777 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) 1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1785 Wilson) (1790 Bolton) (1790, 1804, 1808 MH) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1792, 1831, 1859 Brown) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1815 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Gower) (1807, 1813 Johnson) (1809, 1810 Boston) (1810 Woodward) (1815 Walpole) (1816, 1836 Hartford) (1827 ABS) (1834 Coit) (1836 Stebbing) (1859, 1868 RTS) (1873 Cooke) (1876 Porter) (1895 NPC) (1897 ABU) (1905, 1945 World) (CB) (1908 TCRB) (Nave’s) (1923 NIB) (1985 Open) (1989, 1991, 2003 TN) (KJVCB) (2024 FGWB)
travail (1722, 1770, 1778, 1783 Oxford, SRB, 1996 SSB, Oxford Classic, NPB) [1783, 1795, 1817, 1873, 2005 Cambridge, CCR, CSTE, DKJB] {1611, 1613, 1617, 1743, 1747, 1879 London}

Would you suggest that the actual errors in the original 1611 edition of the KJV should have been preserved eternally in present post-1900 KJV editions?

The KJV translators may have left uncorrected the error of the name of the wrong group of people “Amorites” (1 Kings 11:5) that is in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible, which could make them responsible for this error of fact being found in the 1611. At 2 Kings 24:19, the 1611 edition has the name of the wrong king “Jehoiachin,” introduced from the 1602 edition’s “Joachin.” If the KJV translators had noticed this error of fact at 2 King 24:19 in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible, they failed to make sure that the printers at London corrected it since it remained in editions of the KJV printed at London in 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, and 1698.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Well, okay but what do you think the mystery is that Paul is revealing?

The gospel. the same mystery that was given to him on the road. the same mystery that the Apostles spread forth..

Now who am I to argue against the great minds of Palmer Roberton and Author L Johnson? But what is one of the main reasons for a continuous line of new Bibles? It is so people can understand God better in modern English and it is accomplished through new Bibles. They are not commentaries, they are Bibles with the title "Word of God. That is a desire for more and better revelation, is it not? So, to claim a further revelation is to deny the sufficiency and completeness of what has already been given. Obviously the given revelation has not worked for them or they are under the assumption that it has not worked for others.

actually we need new bibles because language is always changing

No one speaks in old English anymore. I would not give a new believer a KJV, I tried to read my moms a few years ago and I was tongue tied (trying to understand some words) And I spent the 1st 15 years of my Christian life full KJV

I prefer NKJV today. But I do not fully trust it, again, that pesky english language

And BTW, I am nor advocating for more and better Bibles, you are. I am sure we have God's revelation preserved for us in the KJV. It makes me wonder why you named yourself after the Geneva Bible.

Well again, ALL English bibles by practice are faulty to an extent. because of the faulty language.

I am not advocating for more or better bibles. you have falsly accused me. I am advocating for whatever english bible you read. Understand you may need to go deeper to get a better understanding, or purer understanding.