How I KNOW the KJB is the Word of God!!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:
If God preserved His Word, like He promised, then there is only ONE that is true. The MVs all differ from not only the KJB, but each other. One of them, and only one, is God's preserved word, be it the KJB, NIV, NKJV, NASV, or any other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shaun:

This Site lists 6,800 main world languages and 41,000 alternate names and dialects. Where is God's word for them?

 

&gt;&gt;I have posted several times defending the KJB as the only perserved word of God&gt;&gt;

Which one Bro Shaun, the 1611 version or the 1769 version?

There are several hundred differences between the two.

HankD

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:
In every language, God preserved His word. One word, not several that do not agree. There is a KJB in Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. They use a different language, but all agree. The NIV in English may agree with the NIV in Spanish, but it doesn't agree with the NASV in any language.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So ... there are archaic 17th century English versions of the Bible in Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. Really?

Well, if they are in English, then they're not in Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. And if they are in Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc., then they are not in English, henceforth they are not KJVs . Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. words are not English words, therefore they are different and not the same .

If however you mean there are Bibles based on the Hebrew and Greek texts of the KJV in Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc., then I agree with you. But you are now left with the problem that the KJV is not the only word of God in English, because there are other English versions of the Scriptures based on the same texts as the KJV, such as the NKJV, KJ21, MKJV, KJ2000, LITV, and so on.

 

I am sorry Bro. Shaun, but none of your support above demonstrate or prove anything about the textus receptus or the KJV. What you are fishing for and do not have is a verse like "...and it shall come to pass after the passing of about one-thousand and five-hundred years, a man will be called to print the Scriptures for the people to read in the original tounge. And when it hath been spread abroad to many brethren, a great king will be raised up to produce a translation for the common tounge for all peoples beyond Gaul and Spain, yea verily, for all the peoples beyond the great seas it shall be given. And this translation shall stand until the latter day upon the earth."
Unfortunately for your position, no such verse can be found in Scripture. In fact, God DID NOT TELL US HOW He would preserve His Word.

Chick

 

Bro Shaun said:

God Promised to Preserve His Words

Psalm 12:6-7 says

that God will promise to preserve the "poor" and the "needy," not the Scriptures. Even the KJV translators recognized that "them" in Psa. 12:7 as being people, not words, writing in a marginal note: "them from Heb. him, etc: that is, every one of them, etc." Clearly the "them" in 12:7 is the same as the "him" in 12:5.

God has preserved his Word, but Psalm 12 is not a proof-text for this teaching.

The Authorized Version Was Translated Under A God-Ordained English King . . .

Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel,"

Wow. Eisegesis, anyone?

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king.

By this argument, the Scriptures must not be truly Scriptures, because the New Testament was written under the Roman Empire, which was a republic, not a theocratic monarchy (if we discount the excesses of Caesars such as Nero and Caligula who pronounced themselves gods, and since they were pagans anyway their claim to "theocratic monarchy"
hardly counts!).

I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it was translated under a king.

Then presumably you have no problem with the Revised Version of 1885, the New English Bible (1970) and the Revised English Bible (1989), also translated under the British crown. Or The Message, translated by Eugene Peterson of Regent College, Vancouver (Canada's head of state is the British Crown).

Of course, this king thing is a complete non sequitur.

Because God Always Translates Perfectly

You have failed to make a logical connection between this and the King James Version, however. I submit to you that it doesn't exist.

Because the King James Translators Believed They Were Handling the Very Words of God

So do the translators of the NASB, as they state in their own preface.

Because All New Translations Compare Themselves to the KJV

So advertising copy is now an authoritative source of truth, is it?

The Good News Bible does not compare itself to the KJV. Does this mean that the GNB is a serious contender for the True Word of God in the English Language?

Because of the Time in History in Which It Was Translated

Another non sequitur.

The King James Bible was not translated during the apostate and lukewarm Laodicean church period, like the new translations.

In order for this particular point to hold water, you first have to prove the following assumptions:

1. 
   <LI>that Scofield Dispensationalism is the proper hermeneutic to use when handling the Scripture; then
   <LI>that the form of hyper-Dispensationalism that believes in seven "church periods" is the correct form of Dispensationalism; then
   <LI>that we are in the Laodicean "church period" and not another one; then finally
   <LI>that the KJV was translated in some other "church period" than the present one; as well as
   <LI>that no other Bible translation meets the same criteria.

In other words, in order to swallow your gnat of the KJV not being a product of the "Laodicean church period," you expect me first to swallow the camel of a specific interpretation of world events in light of a singular particular form of hyper-Dispensational hairsplitting. If you think I'm going to do that merely on your ipse dixit, you've got another think coming.

Because No One Has Ever Proven That the KJV is Not God's Word

No one has even tried. Straw man argument.

I'm not wasting my time with this nonsense article any more. I think I've given you your three strikes, and then some.

 

Shaun,

Now you say with some scorn that the KJV has never been proven to have any errors. Could you help me then? In 2 Kings 24:8 it says Jehoiachin was 18 when he became King. In 2 Chronicles 36:9 it says he was 8 when he became King. Are there no errors here? If not, how can you make that claim?

Now I personally believe that this reflects a copyist error. In fact if you look at the symbols that were used in the 5th century BC, you can see how the mistake could have easily occurred in copying. Isn't it more likely that the KJV is a very good translation, that was translated by fallible men and not the perfection you claim? If not, please explain the above.

Some of the newer translations change the 2 Chronicles citation to the age 18 based on some older discovered texts. Can you really claim they were wrong to deviate from the KJV here?

[ August 27, 2001: Message edited by: Will ]

 

Will said:

Now you say with some scorn that the KJV has never been proven to have any errors.

Well, what you have to realize is that when a KJV-onlyist says the KJV has never been proven to have any errors, what he really means is that the KJV has never been proven to have any errors to the satisfaction of the KJV-onlyists. Who, of course, have a vested interest in maintaining the lie that the KJV has no errors, and therefore are highly motivated to make some excuse up as to why the error isn't really an error. (I've heard some pretty lame ones!)

 

Bro Shaun,

IF you have taken the time to read all the threads in this forum, and still believe the KJV of whatever year to be the only God-ordained Word of God, then you do so by turning a blind eye to the truth. The only defense KJVonly has is based on emotionalism, not exegecism.

 

Shaun,
Since you assert that God preserved His Word only in the KJV (and you haven't yet pointed out which KJV), just how did God preserve His Word prior to 1611? Which translation of scripture was preserved til the KJV came along?

 

TomVols asked:

Which translation of scripture was preserved til the KJV came along?

Now you've done it! You're just going to make them mad.

[ August 27, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

And I have a very low level of respect for people who use vulgar language.
Colossians 3:8 ¶ But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.

Matthew 7:20 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

I think we know all we need to know.

 

Keep it clean gentlemen, keep it clean!

 

Mt 12:34b, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." KJV1769

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:
I have posted several times defending the KJB as the only perserved word of God. I was asked by Dr. Cassidy to prove not that the KJB and modern versions are different, but beyond a shadow of a doubt that the KJB is God's word, making the MVs the Devil's word. Well, here you go Dr. Cassidy:

God Promised to Preserve His Words

Psalm 12:6-7 says,...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As demonstrated several times on this site, preserved refers to the people not the words.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that ". . . . his truth endureth to all generations," and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God's WORD is truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only problem you have here is that neither of these verses identifies the KJV as immutable truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If God preserved His Word, like He promised, then there is only ONE that is true. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have not demonstrated "how" God promised to preserve His Word nor that your narrow (and incorrect) definition of what God's Word is valid. God's words are what He inspired in the originals plus many others that were never recorded. God's Word is what He chose to reveal of His will, character, and plan through the inspired writers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Authorized Version Was Translated Under A God-Ordained English King.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is possibly the worst KJVO argument I have ever heard. One of the battle cries for the American Revolution was "no king but Jesus." Were the Founders wrong?

... but since you have established a principle for yourself, I will play along for just a little. Erasmus collated the TR under the authority of the Pope, not a "God-ordained king." However, Westcott and Hort belonged to the Church of England whose earthly head is the English monarch. They were subject to the British crown in both their citizenship and religion. Therefore, by your rule the TR must be rejected and the WH critical text enshrined.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not sure that the worst JW, Mormon, Christian Science, etc. doctrines misinterpret and misapply scripture any worse than what you have done here. None of what you have written pertains to the translation of scripture in any respect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it was translated under a king.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Another point of interest, this same king and the archbishop who worked under him authorized the persecution of Baptist, Puritans, and other dissenters from the national church. I wonder...if his authorization of the KJV supports it as the only Bible for the English speaking world, does his authorization of the Church of England (to the absolute exclusion of all others) make Anglicanism the only religion acceptable to God for the English speaking world?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because God Always Translates Perfectly

The words "translate" and "translated" occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. (II Sam 3:10, Col. 1:13, Hebrews 11:5).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is an example of what is troubling about KJVOnlyism. The concepts presented in these verses have nothing to do with language translation. They have to do with changing from one state to another. This is a definition of translate but it is not the most commonly understood one in current English diction. A doctrine cannot be supported by applying the wrong definition of a word to the context. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Holy Spirit Who inspired the word of God through "holy men of God" (II Pet. 1:21) is quite capable of guiding His servants to KEEP the words which Jesus told us to keep (Jn. 14:23).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This pattern of misusing scripture and inserting incorrect definitions when it suits you is disturbingly cult like. Keep here does not mean to preserve the words but to obey them. Obedience is dependent on understanding the communication, not on the particular words used. This is my major point- nothing of what God wanted to tell us by special revelation has been lost in spite of the fact that we do not know what the exact original words were.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In essence, the KJV translators were merely INSTRUMENTS which God used in translating and preserving His word. In fact, they said this themselves in the Dedicatory to the Authorized Version: ". . . . because we are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people. . . " <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The same could be said of the translators of and by modern version translators. The KJV translators never claimed divine inspiration nor that they were creating a final authority in English.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because the King James Translators Believed They Were Handling the Very Words of God

One can see this truth by reading the Prefatory and Dedicatory remarks in the Authorized Version. These men didn't believe they were handling "God's message" or "reliable manuscripts." They believed they were handling the very words of God Himself. As I Thessalonians 2:13 says, they ". . . . received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here you have misapplied the words of the translators as well as the Bible. All indications are that the KJV translators new very well that their translation was not equivalent to the originals. Secondly, this scripture is refering to an understanding of God's communicated truth, not to a particular set of words.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because All New Translations Compare Themselves to the KJV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The KJV is a good translation and provides a worthy standard. This fact does not make it perfect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because of the Time in History in Which It Was Translated...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh? What you stated is both biblically and historically false.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because No One Has Ever Proven That the KJV is Not God's Word

Any honest American should know that innocence is supposed to prevail in our land until guilt is proven. The KJV should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Has anyone proven it guilty? No. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The KJV has not been charged with a crime. This is downright silly and without a trace of sober reasoning. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Has any scholar actually PROVEN that there are errors in the King James Bible? No.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is true only if you start from the premise that the KJV is the standard. If you start from the premise that the originals are the standard then several errors have been proven (to the reasonable man standard) on this board.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Enemies of the KJV delight in IGNORING the facts about the Authorized Version, while never PROVING anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sadly, you have been deceived and have this 180 degrees wrong. It is the KJVO's who ignore the facts and deny the truthful proof.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because of the Manuscript Evidence

Only a very deceived individual could believe that the new versions are equal to the King James Bible. Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is simply a false statement. The KJV was based on the TR and previous translations. The TR was based on less than 10 late manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate. The TR is not in 100% agreement with the MT (that 95% you refer to) and in some places it has little if any Greek support.

It is true that the critical texts give more weight to older mss but it is also true that they used evidence from several hundred manuscripts, not just the 5% you claim. Most scholars believe that the Nestle-Aland and UBS texts are superior because they considered more evidence and handled that evidence in a more scientific way. Therefore, most MV's that are not in some way a revision of the KJV use a CT not the TR.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The new "bibles" are supported by two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts, known as the "Vaticanus" and the "Siniaticus." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These two manuscripts were collated very shortly after the final acceptance of the canon of scripture. Being closer to the originals, they are considered more reliable. Even so, these two mss's are not the total support for MV's. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> These manuscripts are filled with many text alterations to meet the demands of Roman Catholic tradition. They also include the Apocrypha, which the Lord Jesus Christ EXCLUDED from the Old Testament in Luke 24:44.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is almost funny. The TR was specifically altered on the demand of the RCC to include the trinitarian formula in I John 5:7-8. There is an entire thread dealing with this verse and its lack of support. Also, the KJV originally included the Apocrypha. It was even once illegal to print the AV without it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Textus Receptus (received text) from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The other "bibles" do not come from Antioch. They come from Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1- The KJV cannot be traced directly back to Antioch- it is much more complex than that. 2- The existing Antiochan mss were copied several hundred years after his death. It is ridiculous to suggest that his preaching there has a direct relationship to the quality of that ms tradition. 3- The other Bibles do not come from Egypt or Rome. If anything, the Byzantine and Western texts were far more subject to RCC or Eastern Orthodox tampering than the Alexandrian texts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because It Exalts the Lord Jesus Christ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reliable MV's also exalt the Lord Jesus Christ...as does the truth. If the evidence demonstrates that the KJV is not perfect and that God did not preserve His Word in the way you wanted Him to and that KJVO's misuse and misinterpret scripture...then Christ is dishonored by perpetuating such a lie.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These are just a few of the reasons I KNOW the KJB is the preserved, perfect Word of God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sadly, it is apparent that you believe that you have presented proof for this conclusion.

[ August 27, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Bro. Shaun, as one who also believes in the KJV being superior to the modern versions, i hate to say it but your posts have not done our "position" justice. First off, most of the evidence you cite has already been said numerous times and been argued over. Secondly, your use of vulgar language not only ruins the reputations of other "KJV-onlyers," it also causes us to question your current relationship with the Lord. Of course, only the Lord knows your heart, but I've learned that even if others believe differently, don't look down on them; pray for them (I also make it a fact to pray that if i'm deceived, the Lord will reveal that to me.) I'll be the first to admit the KJV-only stance must be taken by faith. I believe the King James Version is superior to the newer versions because of the Greek text on which the newer versions are based, but I believe we all will agree (the Lord has taught me this, even though i still get in on the debates sometimes) that we should not look down on others or force our beliefs down their throats. I will pray for you and i hope that you will pray for me as we seek to follow God's will.

 

Shaun said:
I have more respect for a *** than I do for someone who says God didn't preserve His word.

Good for you! Let me know when you find one, and we'll go beat him up together, OK?

 

Thanks, Brother BJ, I have been out of the office most of the day and missed that one. Thanks for looking out for the forum.

Shaun (and I do not address you as "Brother" for you have not behaved in a very brotherly manner), if you use foul language again on this forum your future posts will be deleted without my even bothering to read them.

Thomas Cassidy
Baptist Board Administrator
Bible Versions/Translations Forum Moderator

[ August 27, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]