What is lacking?

You are begging the question.

What was the final authority in 1605? What was it lacking, that it had to be replaced by the KJV?

 

1 Thessalonians 2:13
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye 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.
KJV

1 Thessalonians 2:13
13 For this cause also thanke we God without ceasing, that when ye received the worde of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the worde of men, but as it is in deede, the word of God, which also worketh in you that beleeve.
Geneva,Beza version ,1583

Since my version came many years before yours, why is mine not the word of God.
Why is mine not correct, why do you prefer the “new” version.

Since we do not have the original manuscripts we judge the remaining early manuscripts by the same method we would judge any Bible, that is, by their message. And to confirm this we would use any other existing manuscripts in comparison to see if principles and doctrine were changed. This is how the Textus Receptus texts were formulated and is also how the King James Version of the Bible was written. No one text existed before King James in any language which matched it verse for verse. The translators of the KJV looked at the historical record, earlier English Bibles and earlier Greek/Latin/Hebrew /Aramaic Bibles to determine what the best text was for the KJV.

Most of the people I have talked to who support the view that Modern Versions are the Word of God also believe that the English Versions printed before the KJV are also the Word of God (and they readily admit that the KJV itself represents the Word of God). This is easily demonstrated by comparing the doctrines and principles of the earlier versions to those contained in the KJV and also by comparing the doctrines and principles of the Modern Versions to those of the Tyndale/KJV Bibles. It seems that KJVO supporters are the ones who have trouble with the question of what was the word of God before 1611. It’s obvious why they would not like to address this matter. If they say that versions before King James were the Word of God, then, since these versions do not match verse for verse the KJV their argument for a perfect Bible is unsubstantiated. And if they claim these versions were not God’s Word then this would say God did not preserve His Word, which we all know He did.

You can claim the KJV is your Bible of choice or the best for you and no one can argue, but claiming most others to be in some way corrupt is totally unfounded.

 

Clear communication to the 21st century reader. Words ahve changed meaning, even opposite meaning in some cases that leads the KJV to give the opposite meaning of what God's intended (2 Thess 2:8 - Let). Sentence structure is very difficult and stilted because the language of 1611 is not the language of today. Most of us here love the KJV and grew up on it. We have switched because we desire to have the word of God in our own language.

You mention 2 Tim 3:15 where Paul called something other than the originals the Holy Scriptures. It must be noted that he called something other than the KJV the Holy Scriptures. That is a proof text that disproves the KJOnly position. Something that is not the KJV can rightly be called the Holy Scriptures. That is why I, with authority, hold up my NASB week after week and say, "Thus says the Lord" though I usually phrase it "This is what God says." There is no conflict of authority. As the KJV translators said, there is benefit in getting a "variety of senses" from many translations, all of which, "even the very meanest" are the word of God. I simply believe what the KJV translators said, both in their preface and in their text.

 

Bob, to emphasize what Pastor Larry just said so well, there is nothing lacking in the KJV, it is God's Holy Word. Equally, there is nothing lacking in the ASV, NIV, World English Bible (my favorite), Chinese Union Bible, the Bible in Croatian, the Bible in Cherokee, the Bible in Basic English, the Latin Vulgate, ad infintum. The Bible, any BIBLE, gives us God's plan for OUR salvation.

One should use the Bible they understand best. ... In my case, I would get little from the Latin Vulgate as, unlike Saint Jerome, I know little of Latin. A Bible in Cherokee would, also do me little good, as I've never learned the language that some of my ancestors spoke. A Bible in archaic English, does me some better because I've been exposed to it all my life. BUT a Bible in MY language (contemporary Southern English) would do me best, because I know that speech the best. However, not finding any Bibles with "y'all" in them, I have settled for the World English.

God is love. He's not gonna get down on us just because we read a different version Bible from what King James read. This is, assuming King James actually read the KJV, eh?

--Ralph

 

Great question. Thanks for showing interest.

The final authority in 1605 was in the available Antiochian manuscripts, and was lacking nothing.

</font>[/QUOTE]Then why does the KJV deviate occasionally from the Antiochian manuscripts? Have these manuscripts stopped being the "final" authority?

It IS a concern of yours, because it shows that the definition and application of the concept of "final authority" must be consistent throughout history. If it cannot be shown to be consistent, then the KJV-only foundational understanding of "final authority" breaks down, and KJV-onlyism's "final authority" in the NOW is shown to be built on a misconception.

I notice that, when compared to the NIV, the KJV is lacking "through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages" in Jude 1:25, "God" from Phil 1:14, "the Holy Spirit" from Acts 4:25, " The LORD is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made." in Psa 145:13, etc. Obviously then, there are instances where the KJV has some text that the NIV doesn't have, and the NIV has some text that the KJV doesn't have. When you say things are "lacking" in the NIV because it is present in the KJV, it is a double standard not to say the same thing about the KJV when something is not present in it. If those things are not "lacking" in the KJV, then how can you say other things are "lacking" in the NIV?

 

Oh boy, here we go again!The versions from Wycliffe to Geneva are what are known as "reliable" translatons. In other words, they were good translations made from the right text, and God chose to use them. But all of the time God was providentially moving toward a perfect text in English: the AV. The way we know that God stopped at the AV is because although each subsequent version readily replaced the previous one from Wycliffe to Geneva (with the Geneva being the most authoritative in the hearts of the laity) the KJV was not & will not be surpassed despite numerous attempts after 1611 to produce other versions that were "better."The Holy Spirit witnessed through the Body of Christ (not scholarship or marketing techniques) which version was the authority.And therefore your question is just a strawman argument to try & trip up bible believers.The KJV & bible believers are here to stay....

[ December 23, 2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Pastor Bob, you have been asking for someone who admits that Bibles prior to 1611 weren't the perfect word of God. Here it is in black and white. They were only "reliable" while God was workign towards a perfect English translation in 1611 ... no wait -- 1613, no wait again -- 1631, no wait yet agian, 1679. You see all these revisions were God working towards a perfect translation in English. Of course, my jesting points out the problem with the assertion that is I cite here. It simply is incompatible with the facts. People today do not use the 1611. Most use the 1769. Some use the Cambridge and some use the Oxford. Both are different.

There are a couple of problems though that shoot holes in this theory. First, God does not work towards perfection. He is perfect and all his revelation is perfect. If the KJV is perfect, which one is and why did it take so long to perfect it? Second, God did not deny 1500 years of church history his perfect word to bring it about. God's word has always been inspired and inerrant. It will be long after the KJV is gone just as it was before the KJV got here.

The Holy Spirit does witness through the body of Christ and the body of Christ at large has never accepted the exclusivity of the KJV. This is because a large portion of the body of Christ doesn't even speak English. The English speaking body of Christ is moving away from the KJV because it is language we no longer speak.

Let's have some civility here and use arguments that are reasoned and thought through. The danger in this type of discussion, as it always has been, is that emotions run high whenever someone "questions" the KJV. Let's back off the emotions and resort to discussing the issues.

[ December 23, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Oh boy, here we go again!The versions from Wycliffe to Geneva are what are known as "reliable" translatons. In other words, they were good translations made from the right text, and God chose to use them. But all of the time God was providentially moving toward a perfect text in English: the AV.

</font>[/QUOTE]So the prior versions *were* lacking, and it took God several tries to get it right? The previous "final authorities" were not actually "final" at all?

It is not a strawman. It deals with the very concepts of "final authority" and "preservation" that KJV-onlyism is built on. If the concept is not consistent, the concept is not true, and KJV-onlyism today is built on a falsehood. Surely you can understand this, even though you avoid it.

 

No,no,no. Psalms 12:6-7 is not him *attempting* to preserve his word;typical Alexandrian response.The KJV & it's supporters will never go away from this board or the world..

 

No,no,no. Psalms 12:6-7 is not him *attempting* to preserve his word;typical Alexandrian response.

</font>[/QUOTE]JYD, don't you get it??? Was Psalm 12:6-7 a lie in 1605? You yourself said prior versions were only "reliable", but not "perfect". Do you not understand that you are arguing both for and against "perfect preservation" at the same time????

Good. I hope not. For I am one of them.

 

Actually Ps 12:6-7 is not about the preservation of his word or any attempt thereat. It is about the preservation of the godly man who appears to be ceasing from the earth. VV. 1-2 make clear what the psalm is about. Vv. 6-7 appeal to the promises of God as proof that the godly man will be preserved from this generation onward.

I think however you are missing the point. If the KJV you have in your hands today is the perfect word of God (as you use perfect), then it did not exist prior to 1769 because there has never, in the history of humanity, been anything identical to what you have in your hand. Since "things that are different are not the same" then God's word cannot have existed before 1769. If you admit that it did exist, then you must admit that something other than the KJV is the word of God. Then you are a dreaded "alexandrian," aka a Bible believing Christian who holds the biblical doctrine of soteriology.

I think you are too quickly glossing over this issue of changes. You complaint with the MVs is that they changed things. Yet the KJV itself was changed 4 major times and many more minor times. The KJV was a change from everything that existed before it. If your standard is the KJV, then to be consistent you must admit that God's word did not exist prior to the KJV, specifically as it stands today, not as it was translated.

 

Psalm 12:6-7 has NOTHING to do with the preservation of God's word. If so, please point me to the original Hebrew manuscripts (which David must have been talking about).

 

With all the verses missing it kinda seems like a
person gets more for their money buying a King James.

Everyday king james bible user,
Heidi

[ December 23, 2002, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: H.R.B. ]

 

</font>[/QUOTE]You know, a bible verse can have more than one meaning;I'm sure all of you fine"bible students" knew that already.

(edited to remove insult)

[ December 24, 2002, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]