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.

 

[JD731]

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.

I am going to quote Numbers 20:14 in it's context and suggest if you cannot discern the meaning and how you should process this then it your problem.

Num 20:11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.
12 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.
13 This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the LORD, and he was sanctified in them.
14 ¶ And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom (Edom is Esau), Thus saith thy brother Israel (Israel is Esau's younger brother, Jacob), Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:
15 How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers:
16 And when we cried unto the LORD, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt: and, behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border:
17 Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: we will go by the king’s high way, we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders.
18 And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword.
19 And the children of Israel said unto him, We will go by the high way: and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for it: I will only, without doing any thing else, go through on my feet.
20 And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand.
21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.

God took great offense at this and would have Obadiah to write a prophesy to them and this nation will not be allowed to go into the millennial kingdom because of it.

Ex 18:8 And Moses told his father in law all that the LORD had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, and all the travail <08513> that had come upon them by the way, and how the LORD delivered them.
Nu 20:14 And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail <08513> that hath befallen us:
Ne 9:32 Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble <08513> seem little before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the kings of Assyria unto this day.
La 3:5 He hath builded against me, and compassed me with gall and travail <08513>.


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]

Conclusion; You are straining at a gnat. There was a spelling error of men if there were an error, proving why we need a savior. it was not an error of God. It did not go into eternity.

My motto is, "believe the words," but don't be a fool. Study so you know the words. We are not as you intimate, flailing around in the dark!

I have never been confused by these words.

OB 1:10 ¶ For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
11 In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou [wast] as one of them.
12 But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.
13 Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; yea, thou shouldest not have looked on their affliction in the day of their calamity, nor have laid hands on their substance in the day of their calamity;
14 Neither shouldest thou have stood in the crossway, to cut off those of his that did escape; neither shouldest thou have delivered up those of his that did remain in the day of distress.
15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.

 

[JD731]

I prefer NKJV today.

Did I not say that God noted this philosophy as a problem. Men did that which was right in their own eyes.

But that is not the main problem between me and you and those who like what you say. We have a completely different view about God and his ways and because of this there will not likely be any agreement between us on any Bible subject, even salvation itself. Especially salvation, if you are Reformed in your views.

 

[Logos1560]

Conclusion; You are straining at a gnat. There was a spelling error of men if there were an error, proving why we need a savior. it was not an error of God.

I did not claim that it was an error of God. The truth remains that many editions of the KJV have had errors introduced by imperfect men. Acknowledging and advocating the truth is not straining at a gnat.

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.

David Norton asserted: “It should never be forgotten that there were genuine problems in the first edition text that the Cambridge editors contributed greatly to remedying” (Textual History, p. 92). Nevertheless, the 1638 standard Cambridge KJV edition and the 1629 edition did not fix all the errors, imperfections, or inconsistencies in the 1611 edition of the KJV. Concerning “man of activity” at Genesis 47:6, David Norton noted: “1611’s error comes from Bod [1602 Bishops’ with annotations]. Elsewhere the phrase is plural” (Textual History, p. 207). David Norton observed: “There are four good reasons for thinking this an error: the singular is inconsistent with ‘make them rulers,’ the Hebrew is plural, the same Hebrew is translated as plural in the other places where it occurs, and all the previous translations recognized that it was plural” (p. 36). The 1560 Geneva Bible translated it accurately and faithfully to the Hebrew as “men of activity.” Gordon Campbell wrote: “In Genesis 47:6, for example, he [F. S. Parris] observed that the singular form ‘man’ made little sense in the phrase ‘if thou knowest any man of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle’, and so changed ‘man’ to ‘men,’ which is what the Hebrew says” (Bible, p. 131).

The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV introduced a new error into KJV editions at Exodus 6:21. Cambridge Press would adopt the 1769 Oxford text as its standard for many years so that it even followed the printing error introduced in that edition at Exodus 6:21 [“Zithri”] from the last word of Exodus 6:22, perhaps beginning with its 1775 edition. This error remained uncorrected in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for over 100 years until corrected in the 1873 Cambridge edition.

 

[JD731]

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?

I do not acknowledge errors in the KJV words of God. I do acknowledge errors in copies and spellings and I am aware of an adversary that seeks to pervert the words of God.

For instance, I have had published copies of the KJV that had several errors and I had to discard them. The Bible Gateway website has many errors in the names of God in their AV or KJV and when I quote from it I often have a need to correct it before posting from it. If the names of God are not properly translated then one is going to have no way to understand certain biblical doctrines that are very important.

But, according to what I am getting from your posts, you know everything there is to know about the KJV translation and you speak of it negatively most of the time. You often refer to it as a church of England translation and you have posted the pedigree of some of the translators in a less than complimentary fashion. You have never admitted you could be wrong about anything and so I assume you think you can't.

Who besides you would spend the time on a single word or verse that you have on this one thread just to prove it wrong?

 

[Logos1560]

You have never admitted you could be wrong about anything and so I assume you think you can't.

I have nowhere claimed to be perfect. I have admitted to being imperfect and wrong about some things.

Your posts give the impression that you assume that you are superior to other believers in your understanding and interpreting of Scripture. I do not recall that you admit being wrong when you have made incorrect or non-true accusations against others.

 

[Logos1560]

You often refer to it as a church of England translation and you have posted the pedigree of some of the translators in a less than complimentary fashion.

Are you complaining about the presenting of the truth?
The truth is that all the makers of the KJV were members of the Church of England. The KJV was the third official authorized Church of England version or translation. Archbishop Richard Bancroft [archbishop in the Church of England] was overseer of the translating process. King James I as head of the Church of England along with Archbishop Bancroft approved the rules for the translating process. In his dedication to King James I in the 1611 edition of the KJV, Bishop Thomas Bilson may have indicated possible Episcopal bias when he noted the “great hope” that the Church of England would reap “good fruit” from the translation.

I have posted verifiable historical facts concerning some of the KJV translators.

 

[JD731]

Your posts give the impression that you assume that you are superior to other believers in your understanding and interpreting of Scripture.

I make no apologies for thinking that one who spends a life time of study from the KJV and believes every word of it is surely going to have a better grasp on the doctrines of the faith than someone who studies from a multitude of translations they say they don’t believe are actually the words of God and saying that many verses and words and even paragraphs should not even be included.

So yes, my KJV Bible and my dispensational approach to my studies are superior to modern versions and the Reformed and Arminian approach to studying them. This does not make dispensationalists better, just more informed.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Did I not say that God noted this philosophy as a problem. Men did that which was right in their own eyes.

But that is not the main problem between me and you and those who like what you say. We have a completely different view about God and his ways and because of this there will not likely be any agreement between us on any Bible subject, even salvation itself. Especially salvation, if you are Reformed in your views.

The difference it appears between us is that You think an english bible is perfect. And I think no one should render any English Translation as perfect. But to dig deep when something does not seem right. or if you need a deeper understanding.

But I do agree, if you keep thinking an English translation which even the authors say is not perfect. is perfect. we will never agree.

 

[Logos1560]

So yes, my KJV Bible and my dispensational approach to my studies are superior to modern versions and the Reformed and Arminian approach to studying them. This does not make dispensationalists better, just more informed.

You fail to demonstrate that you are more informed and that your biased approach is superior.

You are in effect trying to claim that KJV-only opinions and traditions of men are a doctrine of God when they are not. According to the Scriptures, it can be concluded that sound true faith would not come from believing or following opinions, speculations, or traditions of men (Mark 7:7-9, Col. 2:8, Matt. 15:9) or from following men’s inconsistent, unjust applications, misinterpretations, or twistings of Scripture (2 Tim. 2:15, 2 Pet. 3:16).

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition (Mark 7:7-9)

Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Matthew 15:6b)

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:9)

Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Matthew 15:3b)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men (Col. 2:8a)

 

[Logos1560]

For instance, I have had published copies of the KJV that had several errors and I had to discard them. The Bible Gateway website has many errors in the names of God in their AV or KJV and when I quote from it I often have a need to correct it before posting from it. If the names of God are not properly translated then one is going to have no way to understand certain biblical doctrines that are very important.

What you do use as your greater authority for claiming that certain editions of the KJV have errors? When you seem to dismiss the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, what sound basis do you have for claiming that the names of God are not properly translated in some KJV editions? Do you blindly or completely trust Strong's Concordance numbers to determine which Hebrew word underlies a KJV rendering?

Gordon Campbell incorrectly claimed: “In the Old Testament the only innovation since 1769 has been the change from LORD to ‘Lord’ in Nehemiah 1:11” (Bible, p. 141). The data collected from over 500 KJV editions shows that there are actually around 90 places where this same change has been made from the 1769 Oxford edition in most present KJV editions [besides The Companion Bible and perhaps a few others] [Gen. 18:27, Gen. 18:30, Gen. 18:31, Gen. 18:32, Gen. 20:4, Exod. 15:17, Exod. 34:9, Num. 14:17, Josh. 3:11, Jud. 13:8, 1 Kings 3:10, 1 Kings 22:6, 2 Kings 7:6, 2 Kings 19:23, Neh. 1:11, Neh. 4:14, Neh. 8:10, Job 28:28, Ps. 2:4, Ps. 22:30, Ps. 35:17, Ps. 35:22, Ps. 37:13, Ps. 38:9, Ps. 38:15, Ps. 38:22, Ps. 39:7, Ps. 40:17, Ps. 44:23, Ps. 51:15, Ps. 54:4, Ps. 55:9, Ps. 57:9, Ps. 59:11, Ps. 62:12, Ps. 66:18, Ps. 68:11, Ps. 68:17, Ps. 68:19, Ps. 68:22, Ps. 68:32, Ps. 77:2, Ps. 77:7, Ps. 78:65, Ps. 79:12, Ps. 86:3, Ps. 86:4, Ps. 86:5, Ps. 86:8, Ps. 86:9, Ps. 86:12, Ps. 86:15, Ps. 89:49, Ps. 89:50, Ps. 97:5, Ps. 110:5, Ps. 114:7, Ps. 130:2, Ps. 130:3, Ps. 130:6, Ps. 135:5, Ps. 136:3, Ps. 140:7, Ps. 141:8, Ps. 147:5, Isa. 3:17, Isa. 3:18, Isa. 4:4, Isa. 9:8, Isa. 9:17, Isa. 11:11, Isa. 21:6, Isa. 21:16, Lam. 1:14, Lam. 1:15, Lam. 2:1, Lam. 2:5, Lam. 2:7, Lam. 2:20, Lam. 3:31, Lam. 3:36, Lam. 3:37, Lam. 3:58, Ezek. 18:25, Ezek. 18:29, Zech. 4:14, Zech. 6:5, Zech. 9:4, Mal. 1:14, Mal. 3:1]. At four verses, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord” where present KJV editions have “LORD” [Gen. 30:30, Deut. 29:23, Jud. 2:23, Jer. 7:4]. The 1769 Oxford has “LORD God” where most present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” at some verses [Exod. 23:17, Exod. 34:23, 2 Sam. 7:18, 2 Sam. 7:19, 2 Sam. 7:20, 2 Sam. 7:28, Isa. 56:8]. At Daniel 9:3, the 1769 Oxford has “Lord GOD” instead of “Lord God” that is in most present KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford has “Lord God” at seven verses where present KJV editions have “Lord GOD” [Jud. 6:22, Isa. 3:15, Isa. 61:1, Ezek. 16:23, Ezek. 23:35, Ezek. 32:11, Ezek. 45:9]. The 1769 Oxford has “LORD GOD” at one verse [Amos 6:8]. The 1769 Oxford still has “God” at 2 Samuel 12:22 instead of “GOD.”

The 1611 edition rendering "God" at 2 Samuel 12:22 was not corrected to "GOD" in KJV editions for over 200 years until the 1829 Oxford KJV edition.

 

[Logos1560]

One possible explanation for these LORD/Lord variations may be suggested in Appendix 32 in The Companion Bible. This appendix claimed: “Out of extreme (but mistaken) reverence for the ineffable Name ‘Jehovah,’ the ancient custodians of the Sacred Text substituted in many places ‘Adonai’” (p. 31). This appendix in The Companion Bible listed “The 134 passages where the Sopherim altered ‘Jehovah’ to ‘Adonai’” and asserted that these 134 passages were preserved and given in the Massorah. Elias Levita (1468-1549) as translated by Christian D. Ginsburg referred to “the sacred name of the Lord, which is written [Adonai], and on which they [the Massorites] remark ’one hundred and thirty-four times’ (Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita, p. 233). Elias Levita asserted that the reason for this is that “the tetragammaton must not be read as it is written, for it must not be pronounced with the lips, but is to be read under the appellation [Adonai]” (p. 233).

The Companion Bible has “LORD” in its KJV text in all of these 134 passages, and a number of other KJV editions do in a good number of them.

 

[Logos1560]

Concerning one of these passages (Psalm 2:4), F. H. A. Scrivener noted: “Jehovah is read in at least 85 Hebrew manuscripts and five early [printed Hebrew] editions, so that the translators (who seldom err in this matter) probably intended to use capitals” (Authorized Edition, p. 223, footnote 3). Thus, there may be stronger textual evidence for the 1611’s “LORD” [Jehovah] at Psalm 2:4 than there is for “LORD” at Malachi 1:12 and than there is for some other readings in the KJV.

Concerning “LORD” at Job 28:28, E. W. Bullinger asserted: “Many MSS and old Editions read Jehovah, and the Massorah includes this among the 134 passages where Adonai is to be read, though it should be written Jehovah” (Book of Job, p. 146, footnote 3). Along with the evidence from the Massorah, there is also Hebrew manuscript evidence for the rendering “LORD” [Jehovah] at Job 28:28 in those KJV editions that have it.