Finally, an answer to the KJV issue!

God can preserve your soul but not his word? You profess to be a Christian loving the Lord yet scoff at the fact that God could and did put his word in to ONE book?

Why is there so many people against KJV "onlyism"? the more people attack the 1611 the more i am convinced that it is in fact the true word of God. What does the devil hate most? God's word..Which Bible comes under the most attack by churches and educated scholars?? the AV 1611..i wonder why that is?

Pastor Larry said that we have God's word in all the Bibles..I agree..you can find the words of God sometimes in a NIV or NASV or RSV ..but you can find food in a trash dump too.

The amount of Manuscript evidence against the perversions is extensive..to try to post all the information would take pages upon pages which I am not going to do. Instead, for those who are truely interested in the History of the Manuscripts, along with other material about the NIV and the more modern translations go to:

http://biblebelievers.com/

click on Bible versions..there you will find a good deal of information dealing with this subject. From there you can read and hopefully see the truth about the more modern and easy to read versions.

The Bible says:

psalm 12:6&7

The words of the Lord are pure words: tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

If you have a NIV, sadly you don't have this promise..how can you have the PURE word of God when you don't even have this promise in the bible you read?

God has magnified his WORD above his name:

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified THY WORD above all thy name.

Sadly though, you don't get that in your NIV..the NIV says
"for you have exalted above all things your name and your word"

that isn't what God said at all..He said he put his WORD above his name..

Which means his Word is pretty important.

I could care less what Bible you use..you want to cut your own throat by laughing and dismissing the 1611 as the perfect word of God that's your buisness however, you shouldn't be ignorant to the devil and his subtilty..check out what you think is true and look at ALL the evidence not just what you would like to believe or what you have been taught at seminary or Bible college.

God bless

 

I wanted to correct my self, i typed Psalms 12:6&7 wrong..it should read:

" the words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever"

I apologise for the mistake, God bless

 

Let's define words.

Inspiration is the original giving of the words of God to man in the form of the autographa, or "original manuscripts" which no longer exist.

Preservation is the supernatural maintaining of the existance of those inspired words in the textucopia, or, the plurality of the manuscript evidence.

Derivation is the translation of those inspired, preserved, words of God into a receptor language such as English.

Thus, the copies are the "inspired" words of God by preservation, and the English bible is the "inspired" words of God by derivation.

Can we all agree on that?

 

While I realize that for many, my post will be old information already given, for the sake of KJV1611Only, allow me to address again some of the things said here.

He can do both as we have argued all along. And he does do both. He did preserve his word as is testified to by the fact that we have it. The question is, Did he preserve his word as you think he did? We contend, based on the Everest of theological and historical evidence that he did not.

Where was this word before 1611? Since there is no version that is identical to the 1611 before 1611, did people not have the word of God?

Because we love truth more than we love men.

This evidence has been soundly and accurately refuted by many people in many places.

And who is the "them" referring to? It is clearly referring to the godly man whose existence is the theme of the Psalm. To make "them" refer to the words involves changing of the issue that the Psalm addresses. There is also a textual variant and a translation issue. Check the apparatus of your BHS to see what it involves. I could use this verse to show that the KJV is not at reference. Yet that would be a misuse of the Psalm. These verses do not even address the issue.

Your confusion stems from a basic lack of understanding.

Psalm 12:6 And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. 7 O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever. (NIV).

Clearly, the promise is in the NIV. But because you don't understand the promise, you missed it.

Actually what God said was (roughly transliterated): ki higdalta al ka shimka imrateka. The point is that you have no idea what God said. You know only what a translator has told you he has said. Which is fine. You should not doubt it because there is no reason to. But neither should you misuse it to make it say something it doesn't. You can get a better idea by seeing what several translators said. Literally translated it says, For you have exalted according to your name, your word. The word translated "above" in the KJV is "'al" meaning, according to BDB 9that gives four pages of discussion) "As prep. upon, and hence on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against." Now obviously it doesn't mean all that. However, when we understand the significance of the name of God, we then understand that God has not magnified his word above his name but rather according to his name. In other words, his word is as important as his name is.

If you don't care, then why the vehemence over it? Why are you attacking us who like to have the word of God in the common language?

Why is this good for us but not good for you? Why should you not check out the evidence (all of it, not just some of it)?

I don't really want to rehash a bunch of stuff that has already been said, both here and other places. However, so long as these misunderstandings of doctrine, history, and exegesis continue to be espoused, there will be a continuing need for rebuttals.

[ May 17, 2002, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

KJV:

Do me a favor: get on your knees, look to heaven, address God, and see if you really want to call his word in the NIV, NASB or RSV "trash dumps" and "perversions".

 

I stongly disagree. The Masora notes an anomaly in this verse. The Psalmist gives thanks to Him, Whom he does not name, for His mercy, His truth, and for having magnified His promise (He gave His word) above all His Name. That must be understood in the context of praising God using memorials, as the Jews did all over their land. God has given a promise which infinitely surpasses everything by which He has previously established as a name and memorial for Himself.

 

No, Pastor Larry, that's not the problem. As you very well know, the AV isn't even translated from the same manuscripts (or even the same family of manuscripts, a lot of the time) as many of the new versions.

Well, where is it now???

Of course the word of God is contained within the NIV, etc. But is the NIV absolutely innerent??? You do believe the Bible is absolutely inerrant, don't you? Then WHERE IS IT??? What I say is that the Bible has been perfectly preserved such that an ordinary man can pick it up and read the absolutely perfect, infallible, innerant word of God. And I know where it is.

I find this interesting: WHAT do you think the "bible" is? You say the AV is a translation of this "bible"; you say the NIV is a translation of this "bible". So what is this "bible"? And where is it? Do you believe this "bible" is innerant? If so, please consult it and tell me how many chariots the Philistines had in 1 Samuel 13:5. I don't want to know what the NASB says; or what the AV says; or what manuscript #3,462 says; or what fragment 370p says; or what papyrus beta-gamma-4 says; or what any of the other things say that YOU told me to distinguish from the "bible". I want to know what "THE bible" says in this passage. And after you've done that, please publish it so that we can read it. We won't need this debate, and we'll all have a final, absolute authority.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Don't you see, after the numerous times we've pointed it out to you, that you're begging the question? Who says there has to be a "perfect, infallible, innerant word of God" for you to pick up and read in the first place? The KJV came out in 1611 - was there a "perfect, infallible, innerant word of God" for people to pick up and read in 1601? If the answer is "Yes", then the KJV is a deviation from this perfect Bible, and unneeded to fulfill the promis of preservation since one already existed. If the answer is "No", then the promise of preservation was fulfilled despite your additional requirements, and again the KJV does not have to be "perfect" for God to not have lied.

Before you go asking the question *AGAIN*, 1. establish that a "perfect, infallible, innerant word of God" for you to pick up and read is indeed a requirement for "preservation" to be true, and 2. explain how KJV-onlyism can be true when the very act of producing it broke the very rules you insist are necessary?

God bless,
Brian

 

ChristianCynic, I must say, you have a very "nice" way of putting things. I wanted to tell you I enjoyed reading your reply, even if I don't agree with your veiws. I had a good laugh over the one about God not breathing on Adam and Eve.
But I don't think you understood what I meant by a lot of what I wrote. I did not in any way mean that an uneducated person could not be saved. ANYONE can be saved! What I meant was that a saved person needed a foundation without contradictions or confusion. I beleive that the KJV has answers for everything. Including how to live your life, moral values,and anything else.I beleive it dose not contain confusion.
What I wrote, was myself stating my opinion and giving biblical references to suport my beleifs.
I know that you and a lot of other people may not agree with my beliefs. That dose not, however mean I will change.
I know I'm narrow minded and old-fashioned, but that will not change my beliefs. [by the way, I consider narrow mindedness a complement. }
By the way, you said something to the effect of the KJV having "problems" and "confusion". I have yet to see a contridicting verse, or find confusion. would you please explain what you meant? I'd apreciate it if you would.
You also spoke of anglicans beliving they had the true Bible,and that they burned people who believed differently? Could you give me a srcripture verse that suports their belief of killing those who did not beleive as they did?
Thanks for reading this.
saved by grace 1999

 

But you miss the point. You are still failing to distinguish between the Bible and translations of the Bible. It doesn't matter what manuscripts we are talking about here. There is not a significant difference between them.

In the same sense in which the KJV is inerrant. Thomas made a very good point about derivative inspiration and the same would apply to inerrancy.

Then you would be wrong technically speaking.

The Bible is the written word of God, the canon of 66 books as originally given and preserved in the multitude of manuscripts throughout church history. It is both inspired and inerrant.

What you are referring to here is a textual variant. These occur where the different manuscripts have different readings. They are all throughout the Scripture and are exactly why the Word of God cannot be so precisely identified as you have. You make some fundamental mistakes in such an assertion. Without looking at the evidence, my suspicion is 30,000 although it is possible that it is 3,000.

I am not the final absolute authority. I have the same access as you do. I simply have taken my position in light of the evidence and not in spite of it. And there really is not much of debate on this particular topic among most Christians. There is a very small minority with loud voices who are being used to confuse God's people into thinking they can't trust their Bible because it is written in the common language. It's sad.

You have yet to identify where the Bible was before 1611. Why??

 

Apostles (Original) Apostates (Corrupted
Originals)

Received Text (Greek) Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
Bible (Greek)

Waldensian Bible (Italic) Vulgate (Latin).
Church of Rome's Bible.

Erasmus (Received Text Vaticanus (Greek).
Restored)

Luther's Bible, Dutch, French, Spanish, and
French, Italian, etc., Italian (from Vulgate).
(from Received Text).

Tyndale (English) 1535 Rheims (English) from
(from Received Text) Vulgate (Jesuit Bible
of 1582).

King James, 1611 Oxford Movement.
(from Received Text) Westcott & Hort (B and
Aleph). American
Revised 1901.

Here is the information you requested... Brother Glen

 

Not at all. I love the truth. That is why I contend for it. If you would come and listen to me preach and teach, you would know what I love.

I can read as is evidenced by the fact that I understand what you are saying and write back. And if you understand grammar, then you will understand that the difference between the NIV and the KJV is whether it is a first person plural as the NIV or a third person plural as the KJV. Either way, it does not refer to the word of God, it refers to teh godly man as studying the context will plainly show. The psalmist is not concerned with the preservation of God's word; he is concerned with the preservation of the godly man. Therefore, he appeals to the truth of God's word as evidence that the godly man will be preserved.

However, assuming for the sake of argument that you are right, that verse cannot be referring to the KJV because it is in the BHS and every translation that has ever been translated. So which of those versions does it refer to and how do you know that? The reality is that you (and a few others) have jumped to a conclusion without considering the doctrine of Scripture and its implications.

I have affirmed in many many places that I believe strongly in the preservation of God's word. I disagree with you, not Scripture.

Which textus receptus? There were several and they were all different. You can't simply get off that easily. Follow through here and answer some questions. Which Textus Receptus was the word of God in and how did it get there?

Well why don't you find out because I think it would helpful in showing the inadequacy of your position. The "head in the sand" perspective you have is not shared by others of us who love the truth. If your position is a doctrine, then it must be true both before and after 1611 because doctrine doesn't change. The doctrine of Scripture is the same in all ages.

But how do you know that God spoke through the 1611 (1769 which is actually what you have in your hand) and nowhere else? Did he reveal that to you someplace? If so, please tell us where we can find that verse.

I do have God's word and I preach it and spread it because it is the life transforming message of God's grace.

I didn't waste my time in the least. What learning the languages did for me was help me to understand the fallacy of the position you hold. Translations are just that ... translations. I desire no authority in the matter at all.

Does God speak Elizabethan English? Where did you find that out from? I didn't know that. Of course, I am being facetious because you and I both know that the 1611 is not written in the language of God. I have no desire to be the authority. I have the word of God and that is all the authority that I need. And nowhere in that Word of God can I find any place where God (not you) tells me that only the KJV1611 is his word.

They have been refuted in many places. If you want to talk specific passages in a gentlemanly and decent way, I will be glad to do that. Not having a background in the languages will make it a bit more difficult but it can be done.

Your continued calling translations "perversions" is unacceptable however. You need to tone it down a bit and carry this on in a decent and orderly way.

 

Acually, it was answered all the way back on page 9 of this discussion.

So, unlike many of the questions I ask, this certainly did get an answer. The point is that I'm not living pre-1611. How can I know for sure where and what Bibles were used? If you think about it, the paper and ink by which the Bible was written has long-since fallen apart. Those that still exist now could not have been used as much as the ones that fell apart! So you can't go and dig up an Old Latin Bible that disagrees with the AV and say it disproves my point. But I bet you'll have a hard time finding many Old Latin Bibles that do disagree!
And BrianT: Did those Old Latin Bibles stop being the word of God in 1611? No. You don't seem to understand that God's word can be communicated in different languages. Of course the Old Latin was different from the AV - it was in a different language!!!

I think there's something you should note: I have NEVER argued that the NIV has errors because it says different things from the AV. I argue that it is in error because it contradicts the AV - as in the situation with the chariots of the Philistines. So, just because the Old Latin is different from the AV (because it is in a different language!), that doesn't mean they can't both be perfect and innerant. But like I said, I'm told (and it might be wrong) that there are 10,000 Old Latin manuscripts nobody has ever examined. I think it would be interesting to see what they say.

Conclusion: The AV being perfect is not a logical falacy. You will have to think up another argument against it.

 

Who defines "significant"? That word can mean whatever you want it to.

In the same sense in which the KJV is inerrant. Thomas made a very good point about derivative inspiration and the same would apply to inerrancy.</font>[/QUOTE]
So is it or not?

The Bible is the written word of God, the canon of 66 books as originally given and preserved in the multitude of manuscripts throughout church history. It is both inspired and inerrant.</font>[/QUOTE]
Well, now...that IS interesting... Firstly, this "Bible" doesn't really exist, does it? I mean, you can pick up a manuscript and say "this contains the word of God", or "this version has very few errors in it", or something; but you can't pick up ANYTHING and say "this is absolutely innerant," can you??? So all this about the "bible" being your supreme authority... Something you can never be quite sure what it says, and that's your final authority...
And secondly: you said the Bible was 66 books. Sorry, are you certain of that? You mean you believe God gave us 66 books which we could be absolutely cetain made up the Bible? Well, isn't that interesting... So why can't he give us the words that make up those books with absolute certainty??? Why didn't he just give us a "reliable" number of books? Why didn't he just preserve the real books "in the multituse of manuscripts", each with some books that were in error? And how do you know which books are the precise 66? Martin Luther excluded Esther, and doubted James; many have doubted Revelation; many Christians had appocryphal additions in Daniel. So you can't claim the church has always been unanimous. So why do you believe in these EXACT 66 books? Because of all the ones on offer, they are the ones that were preserved. Why do I believe AV-onlyism? Because of all the English Bibles, this was the one that was preserved. I will agree that AV-onlyism is in illogical as soon as you agree that 66-books-onlyism is illogical.
And anyway, what are these books? COLLECTIONS OF WORDS!!! You belive you have a Bible with EXACTLY the right books; these books have been PERFECTLY preserved; NON of those books are wrong. And yet you refuse the believe that the WORDS that make up those books are perfectly preserved???!!!

What you are referring to here is a textual variant. These occur where the different manuscripts have different readings.</font>[/QUOTE]
No. What I am referring to is that this "innerant, inspired bible" you tell me is your supreme authroity, ACTUALLY DOESN'T EXIST. If it did, you'd consult IT (not any of the manuscripts, all of which you say have errors in them), and tell me the answer.

Ah, so we don't know what the word of God really says??? Isn't that good! So God preserved his word so that we'd have it... but yet we'd never be able to be sure what it said!!! Well, I'm jolly glad that the Bereans lived before all these corruptions started, because "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11). Unfortunately for us, no matter how much we search the scriptures, we won't be able to be sure what God really says...

I am not the final absolute authority. I have the same access as you do. I simply have taken my position in light of the evidence and not in spite of it.</font>[/QUOTE] So where is the biblical evidence that we'd be able to be absolutely sure which books were in the Bible, and yet not absolutely sure what the words making up those books would be???

True. Just as there was a time when there was very little debate on the doctrine of transubstantiation. But that doesn't mean those who opposed it were wrong.

NOT AT ALL!!! I say the Bible IS in their language - the Bible is in English!!! But when I ask you questions about what the Bible says, like how many chariots the Philistines had, you say we'll have to wander off back to the Hebrew and Greek, and even then you can't be sure... So who's really telling people that they can't trust their Bibles???

 

Bartholomew,

Your answer proves your thesis about the KJV to be wrong. Since none of those Old Latin versions are identical to the KJV then one or the other, by your thesis, cannot be the word of God. Therefore, either you have it or they had it. Only under my view, can those be said to be the word of God. Additionally with the KJV, you have the problem of deciding which of the KJVs are the word of God because different versions of it contradict each other (as you said about the NIV). In the bottom line, as I was accused of, you have appointed yourself the authority to decide what the KJV. Of course, you really haven’t. You have submitted to some other man’s idea and have uncritically accepted it.

About inerrancy in MVs, you say So is it or is not?. I answered that question. I said it is in the same sense that the KJV is. So long as it is a faithful translation of the originals … You even cited it and still asked the question again.

Lastly I would say that we need to use good translations of Scripture in the English that we speak. The English of the AV is simply not it. I routinely disciple new Christians and evangelize unbelievers whose only Bible is generally the KJV. It is amazing how difficult a time they have with it. I have them turn to passages and read them. Quite often they have no idea what the AV means but as soon as I push a NKJV or a NASB over in front of them, the light comes on. Let's not continue to make it harder than it has to be. God desires for people to understand what he is saying. Let's not hinder that by hanging onto difficult, stilted translations with outdated language and constructions.

I am going to bow out of this discussion. There are some serious issues in the doctrine of bibliology that need to be understood and taken seriously. After 12 pages, we are not likely to accomplish that here. I would simply encourage to study. The arguments you bring up are old and well answered. There are some serious ramifications for doctrine in them.

 

Pastor Larry keeps wanting to know where the Word of God was before 1611 well here is a little bit of history in respone to the question

The Forerunners of the King James Version

Previous to the Reformation a number of translations were made of the Latin Vulgate into Anglo-Saxon and early English. One of the first of these translators was Caedmon (d.680), an inmate of the monastery of Whitby in northern England, who retold in alliterative verse the biblical narratives which had been related to him by the monks. Bede (672-735), the most renowned scholar of that period, not only wrote many commentaries on various books of the Bible, but also translated the Gospel of John into Anglo-Saxon. King Alfred (848-901) did the same for several other portions of Scripture, notably the Ten Commandments and the Psalms. And eclipsing all these earlier translations in importance was that made by John Wyclif (d.1384) of the entire Latin Bible into the English of his day, the New Testament appearing in 1380 and the Old in 1382. Not long after WyclifÕs death a second edition of his English Bible, more satisfactory in language and style than the first, was prepared by his close associate, John Purvey.

 

The first printed English version of the Bible was that of William Tyndale, one of England's first Protestant martyrs. Tyndale was born in Gloucestershire in 1484 and studied both at Oxford and Cambridge. About 1520 he became attached to the doctrines of the Reformation and conceived the idea of translating the Scriptures into English. Unable to do so in England, he set out for the Continent in the spring of 1524 and seems to have visited Hamburg and Wittenberg. In that same year (probably at Wittenberg) he translated the New Testament from Greek into English for dissemination in his native land. It is estimated that 18,000 copies of this version were printed on the Continent of Europe between 1525 and 1528 and shipped secretly to England.

 

I would not tolerate someone calling the KJV a perversion or trash, nor will I tolerate another translation being called such. Nor will I tolerate personal attacks that are blatently such. Let this be a warning to all who do this.

[ May 18, 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

After this Tyndale continued to live on the Continent as a fugitive, constantly evading the efforts of the English authorities to have him tracked down and arrested. But in spite of this ever-present danger his literary activity was remarkable. In 1530-31 he published portions of the Old Testament which he had translated from the Hebrew and in 1534 a revision both of this translation and also of his New Testament. In this same year he left his place of concealment and settled in Antwerp, evidently under the impression that the progress of the Reformation in England had made this move a safe one. In so thinking, however, he was mistaken. Betrayed by a friend, he was imprisoned in 1535 and executed the following year. According to Foxe, his dying prayer was this: "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." But his life's work had been completed. He had laid securely the foundations of the English Bible. A comparison of Tyndale's Version with the King James Version is said to indicate that from five sixths to nine tenths of the latter is derived from the martyred translator's work.

 

After the initial impulse had been given by Tyndale, a number of other English translations of the Bible appeared in rapid succession. The first of these was published in 1535 by Myles Coverdale, who translated not from the Hebrew and Greek but from the Latin Vulgate and from contemporary Latin and German versions, relying heavily all the while on Tyndale's version. In 1537 John Rogers, a close friend of Tyndale, published an edition of the Bible bearing on its title page the name "Thomas Matthew", probably a pseudonym for Rogers himself. This "Matthew Bible" contained Tyndale's version of the Old and New Testaments and Coverdale's version of those parts of the Old Testament which had not been translated by Tyndale. Then in 1539, under the auspices of Thomas Cromwell, the king's chamberlain, Coverdale published a revision of the Matthew Bible, which because of its large size was called the Great Bible. This Cromwell established as the official Bible of the English Church and deposited it in ecclesiastical edifices throughout the kingdom. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth two revisions were made of the Great Bible. The first was prepared by English Protestants in exile at Geneva and published there in 1560. The second was the Bishops' Bible, published in 1568 by the English prelates under the direction of Archbishop Parker.

There is an answer to the question of where was God's word before 1611..