Featured The KJV Update Project

You are not an expert theologian and you know little about what the Scriptures teach. You do not commonly present things the scriptures teach and rarely quote them. Occasionally you will post references as if that is convincing to anyone. Your occupation here is to teach what men say about the scriptures, some of whom are outright heretics and false teachers.

There is only one source for the word of God and that is from God the Father. It is expressed in three ways thus having the trinitarian signature of God on it. It is expressed first of all as the person of the word of the LORD (Jehovah) and he shows up in the scriptures visibly with this title in Ge 15:1. He has a name that is also revealed for the first time in Ge 15. It is "Adonay Jehovah" (Lord GOD). This is in the beginning of the third Millennium. This is how he will manifest himself to the prophets in the OT and in the NT) from this point forward. You can do a phrase search on your computer if you have the KJV program on it and see that I am telling the truth. The reason he is the word of the LORD is because every word he speaks comes from JEHOVAH, because he is Jehovah.

The second manifestation of the Word of the LORD is when the prophets give voice to it. They speak the very words they are given by the Lord GOD. If they speak different words they have a warning;

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The third manifestation is the written word of God. I 1 John 5 it is called the record of the Father. and he says that "ALL" scripture is given by inspiration of God. God is eternal and timeless. If his words were ever given then they still exist because it, the WORD, is part of him. Since it is seen, spoken and written, we can be convinced that we have the very words of God that can be manifested in the various ways and still be one. One in three and three in one, a trinity. Praise our wonderful God and his Son, Jesus Christ who makes it possible for us to know him.

 

Got it, but shouldn't even a hypothetical be correct in its facts?

 

You are not an expert theologian, and you are especially not a doctrinally-sound Bible theologian as seen in your non-scriptural KJV-only opinions. I may know as much about what the Scriptures teach as you do. I have read and studied the KJV over 50 years.

I do commonly present things that the Scriptures teach in contradiction to your bogus assertion. You dodge and avoid actual facts concerning KJV editions.

According to the Scriptures themselves, there is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations just as there is the possible omitting of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly and legitimately concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Dut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, and Rev. 22:18). According to clear scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God. Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since by definition perfection would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the absolutely perfect words of God given directly by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4), since the word of the LORD are pure (Ps. 12:6, Ps. 119:140), and since the words of the God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2). Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption, of impurity, or of error.

According to what the Scriptures teach, words added by men are not inspired words of God. You seem to suggest that words added by the Church of England makers of the KJV are inspired words of God, contradicting what the Scriptures teach. A consistent, just application of your KJV-only opinions would seem to suggest that errors introduced by men in editions of the KJV should be accepted as being inspired words of God.

 

I am sorry but I am not reading your comments. Reading a list of scripture references is too tedious and wears me out. I figure the reason you will not quote the verses is because if you did it would be the KJV and would make you look like a hypocrite after all your bluster of how it is not accurate and after you have titled yourself after the Geneva Bible.

You can carry on alone.

 

I appreciate your Christian attitude and hope I could be like that.

 

It's the lineage of the KJV that makes it what it is but if a preacher of our Baptist denomination went to the pulpit and said I'm going to be taking my text from the new updated version of the KJV, the congregation in mass, would head for the exit... I too shall bow out... Brother Glen

 

Does that suggest that hypocrisy would be on display? The KJV was the new updated and revised version of the English Bible in 1611. If updating and revision of the KJV is wrong, likewise the updating and revising in the KJV would also be wrong.

The Church of England makers of the KJV changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles that favored congregational church government to renderings that were more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government. Thus, some of the revising in the KJV was intentionally biased towards Church of England doctrinal views. In addition, the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. The 1582 Rheims is part of the lineage of the KJV.

There are many differences between KJV editions printed in the 1600's compared to KJV editions printed in the 1700's. The post-1900 edition of the KJV from which you likely preach would be a new updated or revised edition of the 1611 and of the 1769. There would be over 400 differences between a typical post-1900 KJV editions and the actual 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. The edition of the KJV from which you preach may have several differences if compared to one of the other varying post-1900 KJV editions in use today.

 

You again demonstrate that you figure and reason incorrectly. I think that readers of the KJV would already know what the important verses that I cite state. I have not claimed that the KJV is not an overall accurate English Bible translation so your accusation or assertion would bear false witness.

The 1611 KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles such as the revised editions of the KJV and as the 1982 NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

The KJV is overall an accurate English Bible translation, but it is not a perfect English Bible translation given directly by a miracle of inspiration of God. In at least some places, one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles would be more accurate than the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

"Them" is the sheep, plain n simple !

 

You have misjudged Logos 1560. He uses the KJV! Also if you ever read the Geneva you know that the KJV copied from their Bibles just as from many others. All you have to do is compare them. They are from the same lineage of the Bible.

 

He knows. It is just a topic starter.

 

To whoever is interested, I have read the NKJV through several times, and compared much of it to the TR Greek text. I'm here to tell you it is extremely accurate and very, very close to the KJV. The opposition die-hard KJVO types is uneducated, IMHO. When the KJVO advocate opposes the NKJV (sometimes nastily), they are simply clinging to the KJV without principle, only from habit.

 

Ah, that makes much more sense! Thanks!

 

Most of the time one must guess at what this poster means. I am never really sure. It seems like you are having the same problem. Where did I even address what I think of the New Testament in this quote and how did his answer turn the light on for you? I only addressed the fact that God only is worthy of our praise and most often he uses common men who are willing to do his purposes. If I did not make my point clear so I will clarify now. I do not think Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and other Bible writers, including the KJV translators, were inspired men. I think words are inspired.

Chances are, if you are saved and are walking with the Lord and doing his will, you have had an inspired word or two from God. They just did not become scripture. That part of inspiration is finished. In eternity when Christians have a new body and are glorified, we will have the word written on our hearts and they will be the same words for us all.

 

That is not what the KJV tells you. The adjective "inspired" is not actually used in the KJV to modify words.

The KJV used the noun "inspiration" in the phrase "given by inspiration of God" to indicate the process of how all Scripture is given to the prophets and apostles.

The KJV uses five English words "given by inspiration of God" to translate one Greek adjective.

Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops' Bibles [five of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision] rendered Mark 12:36 as follows: "for David himself inspired with the Holy Ghost."

Lancelot Andrewes, a leading and important KJV translator, used this early Bible terminology when he preached that Christ "inspireth them [the apostles] with the Holy Ghost" (Ninety-Six Sermons, Library, V, p. 83). Andrewes stated that “the Prophet did nothing but as inspired by the Holy Ghost” (Ninety-Six, III, p. 317). Concerning 2 Peter 1:19, Lancelot Andrewes commented: “The apostle teacheth us that we have the Law from God immediately, and all other scripture by the ministry of men, but yet as they spake nothing but that which the Spirit of God commanded them and inspired into them, and therefore that which they delivered we must hold for a most sure and infallible truth” (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 46).

KJV translator John Overall wrote: “For we hold it resolutely, that whatsoever the Apostles did either write, teach, or command, they wrote, taught, and commanded it as they were inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost” (Convocation Book, p. 120).

Thomas Bilson, co-editor of the KJV, wrote: “The prophets were inspired from above” (Perpetual Government, p. 136).

 

None of the NT scriptures were written before the Holy Ghost was sent down from heaven. All the writers of NT scriptures were filled with the Holy Ghost. Inspiration comes from God only. Jesus Christ says in John 12, and I have already quoted it, that he spoke no words that God the Father did not give him to speak.

To demonstrate the KJV saying this truth, see here;

1 Cor 2:1 ¶ And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 ¶ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (in the words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Where do you see an inspired man in these verses? If there is a greater definition of inspiration of the words of God in scriptures I have not seen it.

God gave the Spirit to dwell in the believers and he gave his words and no one can understand spiritual things unless he has both the Spirit and the words of God. That is what this passage says.

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

God does not infuse understanding into a person, truth rides in on his words. One must put them into his consciousness.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Since all the words that God gave to this age has already been spoken , he has written them so we will have them and can be sanctified. Sanctification is our calling as Christians.

1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

I think you need to rethink your position on inspiration.

 

You need to rethink your inconsistent and non-scriptural modern KJV-only position on inspiration.

All the words that God gave to this age has already been spoken and given long before 1611 and had been translated into English before 1611. The 1611 edition of the KJV did not have over 180 whole English words that are found in a typical post-1900 edition of the KJV.

It was early English Bible translators and the KJV translators who used the adjective "inspired" for the writers of the New Testament. Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops' Bibles [five of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision] rendered Mark 12:36 as follows: "for David himself inspired with the Holy Ghost."

Do you inconsistently suggest that the words in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision were not inspired but supposedly became inspired when in the KJV? According to your position, were the words that the makers of the KJV borrowed from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament not inspired when in the 1582 Rheims but inspired when placed in the KJV?

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611.