Finally, an answer to the KJV issue!

I don’t question him. I do believe him. I don’t need to hear Bro Mitch L. Canupp. I have probably read and studied more about this than he has. The question for you is, Where did God tell you that the KJV is the only word of God? I have missed that somewhere. I have several KJVs, including the Oxford and the Cambridge (which are different) and can find no verse where God identifies the 1611 as the only word of God. Since he hasn’t said it, I do not see why I should be held to your standard.

When I read Scripture, I do not doubt whether I have the word of God or not. IF there is any doubt, it is yours. In fact, I preached from 1 John 5:5-12 this morning (my 28th message in the book of 1 John) and explained to them how 5:7-8 got added into the KJV. In fact, after studying this passage this week, I wonder how anyone can believe it is authentic. It makes no sense whatsoever in the passage. It is certainly a true statement; it simply has nothing to do with what John was talking about.

I am glad that you know you have God’s word in your hand when you read your Bible. I am also glad that I know that I have God’s word in my hand. I baptized a lady this morning after being a Catholic for 57 years who was saved and discipled out of the NASB and NKJV. I have been discipling her and another lady who brings a KJV to discipleship studies and I constantly have to explain things that are perfectly clear in the NKJV and the NASB. That is why I switched. I want to spend my time preaching God’s word and applying it to our everyday lives rather than explaining English that we do not use anymore.

To KJV1611Only, I read your list (which is only partial) and I have a few questions:

1. Every single one involves an addition or a deletion or a clear change in God’s word. Now who appointed anyone to change God’s word?

2. And you say they are small changes – who appointed you to decide what is insignificant and small?

3. And why do you continue to claim that the 1611 is the perfect Word of God when these changes are all clearly after 1611? If it was perfect, why did it have to be changed?

4. Why couldn't God keep the printer's errors, the spelling errors out of it and why didn't he get the language right the first time?

You speak of Matthew 8:2. If you get out your lexicon you will find that the word means to kneel or bow low. Therefore, the NIV is exactly right. And what is the difference between kneeling at his feet and worship. After all, Phil 2:10-11 says that one day, every knee will bow. Is that wrong to? Or is the NIV within the meaning of the word?

In John 13:23, again if you study, you will find that the word means to be seated at a table as a dinner guest or to recline. So again, clearly the NIV is right. The KJV's translation is an interpretation, something that Thomas always reminds is not the role of a translator.

In Acts 2:27, the NIV likely followed closer the idea of the OT quotation in Psalm 16:11 where ‘grave’ is clearly the meaning. Since we believe that the NT use the OT authors accurately, “grave” is indeed the idea. It was the issue of life and death, of the eternal resurrection vs. being left in the grave, not heaven and hell.

I can quite well conceive of this. What I can’t find is the theological and historical proof of it, something you have yet to offer.

Which is why I ask you again which KJV is the Word of God? They can’t be from the same God because they don’t all read the same. This is so obvious, it is hard to imagine you won’t answer it. It is a simple question: Which KJV is the Word of God and how do you know? And why did God leave his people without his word for 1600 years (since every version prior to the KJV doesn't read the same and therefore can't be from teh same God)?

All I am asking you to do is apply your logic to the KJV. Be consistent, that is all.

 

After 14 PAGES - isn't it time to close this thread down??

 

Yes, let's try it again...let's wrap this up. 12 hour notice is in effect. If there is a desire to continue on a particular topic brought up in this forum (among the billions brought up), do it in a specific thread. The mishmash isn't working.

 

Tom Vols, THANK YOU!!!!
Maybe I can start reading this forum again.
Enough is enough.

 

Brother Glen gives a hearty AMEN!... Brother Glen

 

KJV an "interpretation?" Most definitely it is. In Romans 3:4 and 9 other times in Romans and also elsewhere, the KJV changes the phrase "May it not be" to "God forbid." It throws in the name of God where it is not, apparently to strengthen a point-- known otherwise as cursing.

 

ChristianCynic, the false charge you are making against the translators of the KJV has been rather thoroughly refuted in several other threads.

 

I would like to end this discussion with something that Thomas Cassidy said on page two of this 14 page debate...

Nothing more need be said!... Brother Glen

[ May 20, 2002, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

i'm astounded. which one of these isn't Substantially different? which doesn't involve more than the twisting of a jot or tittle?

wld KJBOs argue that seeking good is the same as seeking God? this itself shd seal the case against KJBOism.

 

Hi HankD. The reason for saying that was that earlier I'd written that there are several thousand existing Old Latin Manuscripts that are completely unstudied to this day. (I don't claim my source of information is inerrant, but since everyone on here is very quick to speak up if they think someone's made a factual error, I'm confident that statisitic is accurate). So how can we be sure that the majority of Old Latin Bibles do disagree with the AV if nobody's ever studied them? That was the reason for making that point. I also said in my earlier posts that I don't deny some bibles have been corrupted; and nor am I even sure that the Old Latin was ever perfect - it's an educated guess seeing as I'm not living in that time; and how would we even know now? Most of those Bibles have surely fallen apart! The reason for me saying all this is that those who disagreed with me demanded I tell them where God's word used to be. People are now using this against the AV being perfect, but as I keep showing, it actually proves no such thing!
What makes me sure that the AV Bibles don't contradict each other? Well, THEY'RE BEING USED AND STUDIED, which means contradictions would be comparatively easy to find. Not so in the Old Latin where nobody knows what most of them say!

OK - I'm inclined to agree with your interpretation of that verse (though I think you could probably make a good case to say that's not what he meant at all), but all that proves is that God didn't allow spelling changes in that particular language which already contained the perfctly preserved word of God, and who's spelling and grammar would have had no need to change. The verse only speaks agianst Hebrew speeling changes, not English. Which is the inerrant AV? All of them. But did God preserve the printing mistakes? No. He preserved the 1769. I'm arguing for that which God preserved.

We've already answered this point. The 1769 was about spelling changes.

This is another fallacy. Where is the Biblical evidence that men were ever inspired??? SCRIPTURE is inspired. Not men. God can and did translate his scripture into English. The same God who contolls the deaths of sparrows can die can make sure men translate his Bible!
If God needed to keep things in the original languages, are you saying Jesus spoke Greek? Did the speaking in tongues on Pentecost have errors in it? In fact, if God would only stick with the original languages, why write some of the OT in Aramaic? He had a perfectly good Hebrew language, which he'd written the rest of it in. And why change to Greek in the NT? If the only languages God could preserve his word in perfectly were the original ones, the WHOLE Bible would have been in Hebrew.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Several points in my last post.

1. KJV1611Only did a masterful job of once again avoiding identifying which KJV is the Word of God. He has clealry stated that things that are different cannot both be the word of God. He has criticized the NIV editors for "making changes" (though his charges do not stand up under scrutiny). But even granting all that, granting that the KJV is worded exactly the way God wanted it in English (to use his words), which KJV? The Cambridge or the Oxford? I have both on my shelf and both are different. Which one should I use? Which edition of the KJV should we use? From 1611 through 1769 there were changes that involve more than spelling. It involves the same type of thing that the MVs are accused of. Which one is the Word of God and how do we know?

KJV1611Only, in your world, you may get away without being challenged about your beliefs. You won't do it here. You accuse me of denying the Word of God yet you won't even tell me what the Word of God is. You have never heard me preach or teach. YOu have never sat down with me to talk about Scripture. I daresay if you would, you would change your opinion in a heartbeat becasue you would know better. The things that we are talking about here are not issues that have been revealed in Scripture. They are areas that require the understanding and application of biblical teaching and we must grant latitude for those who disagree with us while still holding biblical doctrine. The inspiration and inerrnacy of Scripture is a biblical doctrine. TRanslations are not and we must not forget that distinction.

If you like the KJV, then read, love it, memorize it, study it, and preach from it. But do not question the love of others for Scripture and truth simply because they prefer a different translation of God's word than you have chosen.

Bartholomew asks Where is the Biblical evidence that men were ever inspired??? SCRIPTURE is inspired. Not men. The biblical evidence that men were inspired in is 2 Peter 1:21 2 Peter 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. While Scripture is inspired to be sure, it is inspired because the men were inspired.

And by the way, the 1769 differences are not just about spelling. There are word changes and content changes, something that would seem to be incompatible with your belief.

 

But which KJV? The "he" or "she" bible? That difference is neither spelling nor punctuation nor typeset. There is a clear difference between "he" and "she" and the KJV at times in history has read both. Which is the word of God and how do you know?</font>[/QUOTE]Hiya Larry. "he" and "she"? Yes, I know where that is: Ruth 3:15. Some early editions of the AV read, "and he [i.e. Boaz] went into the city", though this reading was not preserved: it now reads "and she [Ruth] went into the city". Well, if that's the most contradictory passage you can find, my point is proven!!! There are three points: 1. How do you know this wasn't a printing error? It seems very likely to me - the difference is only one letter. 2. I'm arguing for that which God has preserved. He did NOT preserve the "he" reading. 3. And most impotantly, BOTH STATEMENTS ARE TRUE!!! How? Well, they BOTH went into the city!!! (Read Ruth 4:1) Please, Larry, find us something that's actually contradictory, and then you might have a point. But until then, your argumet is a house of cards.

I can't comment on something I don't know about. But even if this correct, how do you know both readings aren't true??? The ressurection accounts in the four gospels are all different. Does that mean only one of them is correct?

And finally, I'd point out you haven't answered many of my other points. Like how is it illogical to believe God preserved the exact WORDS that make up the Bible, and yet still believe he preserved the exact BOOKS of the Bible - especially when the books are made up of words?! How can AV-onlyism be absurd and yet 66-books-onlyism is reasonable? Why not just a reliable number of books? Why can't "scholarship" show us that some of the books actually aren't God's word, or that we need a few more? And you still haven't told me where this "bible" you believe is inerrant actually is....

 

Well, what do you know? Things different are the same!

 

How strange... You know, I have an AV and a NKJV... however, in neither of them can I see any verse that says the only Gospels that are the word of God are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So if I pull out the "gospel of James", or the "Gospel of Paul" or the "Gospel of Bill Clinton", why can't I decide that they're the word of God? Why should I be held to your standard? In fact, I can see no place at all that the book of Acts claims to be the very word of God. Why should I be bound to your standard? How on earth can you tell me what books are and are not in the Bible? How do you know? Jesus didn't say, "and the Bible thou shalt have shalt be from Genesis to Revelation, and shalt not include the appocrypha." So why bind me to your narrow and closed definition of what the word of God is? You see, the proof you demand before you will accept that God has preserved his word perfectly in the AV is much less than you require for the "66 books" you say make up "the bible". Who told you that the Bible was only 66 books? God? As I pointed out before, the church through history has not been unanimous about what sections of scripture really are scripture. Yet that doesn't stop you simply believing God would have preserved the correct ones for us. However, when it comes to the words that make up those books - WOW! - suddenly we need absolute proof before we accept them!!! If we trust God about the books, why not the words? Sounds good to me...

Aha!!! Eureka!!! So that's how we decide! If you don't understand why Jesus could have said something, THEN HE DIDN'T SAY IT!!!???
Look Larry, I don't doubt that you're trying your best to do that which is right, but let's not go messing with God's preserved word.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

[ May 20, 2002, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]

 

Well, what do you know? Things different are the same!</font>[/QUOTE]ChristianCynic - if you read any of my previous posts you'll see that I've never used the "things that are different can't be the same" argument. However, for some bizarre reason, people keep trying to use it against me with regard to the Old Latin Bibles. But I'm glad we both agree on this one.

 

Just because men were moved by the Holy Ghost, doesn't mean they were inspired. Perhaps it rests on what you think "inspired" means; so why am I being pedantic here? Well, it's just that people say that no translator can be inspired. Well, translators can be moved by the Holy Ghost. The AV being perfect doens't require "double inspiration". Just the power of God.

Only if you can show me how they contradict what we have now.

[ May 20, 2002, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]

 

Dear Bro Bartholomew,

After reading your response to my last post addressed to you concerning differences between the 1611/1769 versions of the KJ Bible, I must agree with another who observed - things not equal to each other are actually the same.

Since the thread is still open I'd like to make one more observation.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If we take Jesus at His word then we must believe that not just the words but the very spelling and choice of letters and even their graphical shape are important to God. KJVO folk are now denying the Perfect Word of God by saying that spelling doesn't count when Jesus EMPHATICALLY says that it does.

Those who talk about the KJV1611 seem not to know that they are endorsing the 1769 revision which they quote from and use.

There are at least 983 significant spelling differences in the use of one word in the 1611/1769 editions - JESUS.

In the 1611 version His name is spelled IESUS. So If you truly believe the 1611 to be the One and Only Bible of which not one JOT (letter) or TITTLE (dot over an "I") shall pass then you would use IESUS as His name. If the 1769 then JESUS. So now all KJVO must chose. 1611 or 1769 (things not equal to each other are different) the shiboleth now becomes the spelling of His name.

Another point in your response, you deny that the 1769 revisers had the "inspiration" of God over their translation, however KJVO folk give the work of their hands (1769 revisers) those qualities of inspiration (calling it the PERFECT Word of God). If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, well it’s a duck.

Dear Brother then you make the statement that the NT is written in Greek and ask the question as to why it wasn't written in Hebrew. Because the Koine Greek language was chosen by the Holy Spirit as the representative language of the New Covenant in which the gentiles were to participate.
That it has stayed the same does not defy logic as does the transubstantiation of koine Greek into 1611 Elizabethan English.

Again, I believe your efforts would be better spent concentrating on the texts of origin in the original languages rather than the shifting sands of the English language.

I hope you realize that a great deal of my response is "tongue-in-cheek" irony to prove a point.

HankD

[ May 20, 2002, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

You don’t believe that “he” and “she” are contradictory? You have to be kidding me. If you want to call this a spelling error, then all errors are simply spelling errors. And even though they are both accurate, the author only wrote one and if we are to have a perfect Bible, then we must have what the author wrote, not what may be true of a given sitution.

This is not the most contradictory passage by any means. It is simply a place where you have to decide what the word of God is. You have denied at least one edition of the KJV to be the word of God. You no longer have a sound basis for your argument that the KJV is the perfect preserved word of God since you have admitted an error.

I think the resurrection accounts, though different, are all correct. On the one hand, it proves my point ... that correctness is not determined by identity. Therefore, things that are different can be the same. On the other hand, you are comparing apples to oranges and so your analogy is not of much use in this discussion.

You say I'm arguing for that which God has preserved. He did NOT preserve the "he" reading If God didn’t preserve it, then how did we get it? And how do we know the difference between what God preserved and what he didn’t? Start giving some answers here. Don’t just avoid the questions.

My point still stands though: If God could preserve his word perfectly, then why are there printer’s errors? Were there not likely copyist’s errors as well during the hand copying? And if there were copyist’s errors, how do you know which is the right reading? How do you make these decisions?

How do you not know about this? I thought you had studied this issue???? I say that partly in jest (not meaning to ridicule you) and partly to prove one of the points I am making. Quite often, people get involved in this discussion without really knowing what the issues are. They repeat a few things that they have heard but have never listened to the other side. Here is a prime case in point. None of your teachers ever told you that the KJVs that are available today are different and since “things that are different are not the same” both cannot be the word of God.

Jer 34:16 reads two different ways. In the Cambridge it reads, “Whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure.” The Oxford reads “Whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure.” Now you might argue that is a small change, but there is a clear difference in meaning. They do not mean the same thing and both readings aren’t true because Jeremiah only wrote on of them. (He wrote “you” by the way … 2nd person plural). The point is that if you have an Oxford, such as a Scofield Bible, you do not have the Word of God. It is the wrong translation, otherwise known as an error. This is only one example of the differences between these two.

The point is that the various editions of the KJV through the years have been admissions on the part of the publishers that it was not without error. The editions served to correct errors. And again my question stands: Why couldn’t God get it right the first time and why can’t God get it right now? Is it possible that your understanding of preservation and the issues involved is misguided? I think it has to be because of some of the very reasons I have given here.

It is not illogical to believe one and not the other if history bears that out. But what God has preserved for us (which is what you are arguing for) disproves your point. God has preserved manuscripts with differences. That is the reality.

Because that is not the way history now bears it out. But you bring up an interesting point. As you well know through church history, there was some debate about the canon. In fact, there a large branch of “Christianity” who believes there are more than 66 books. Yet God did not expressly set out the 66 books. He worked through providence to establish that so that we accept it. So scholarship has shown us that 66 books are God’s word and not any more than 66. And lastly, I have told you time and again where the inerrant Bible actually is. It is in the original autographs and in the copies and translations of those autographs inasmuch as they are faithful to the original autographs.

[ May 20, 2002, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]