King James Only and Jehovah

And perhaps he could answer one further; (as noone else has)

Was the 1611 original KJV also the "perfect preserved Bible", as it included the deutercanonicals? (those seven books included in Catholic Bibles and excluded in subsequent KJV)

Or did it evolve to be perfectly preserved?

Was the Holy Spirt involved in the committee to establish the canon of the original version or the last committee to change it, or both and was seemingly confused? Or neither, and then where did the authority come to either include or exclude?


How do we know if the current KJV is complete in what it includes as perfectly preserved?

Don't waste our time with debate on whether the books should or should not be included, just answer the questions as they are.

 

sure i'll answer. although may i suggest in the future if you start a topic and expect one person to know about it you should let them know instead of leaving it to chance that they'll just happen by. i almost didn't see this one in which my presence was requested.

Yes it was. I assume by deutercanonicals you are talking about the apocrypha. The apocryphal books were inserted BETWEEN the testaments as uninspired, historical reading. They were not in the OT canon as with Catholic "bibles".

nope, the translators did their job the first time.

The Holy Spirit was not confused and I would recommend you be very careful in word choices when talking about the Holy Spirit in such a manner.
The canon of the KJB includes 66 books. As I stated above the apocrypha was in between the Testaments as uninspired writings and was never considered by the AV translators to be part of the canon. So when it was taken out it didn't change the perfection of the inspired texts of the 66 books.

Because God promised to preseve His word.
Ps 12:6-7
Matt 24:35
Mark 13:31
Luke 21:33

ok. there ya go.

 

Couple of things here...

1. Are you an expert in Hebrew? If not, how can you correct the nearly 70 men who were experts in Hebrew that translated the AV?

2. When going from one language to another sometimes names will change a little. The same is true when going from English to Spanish.
Matthew is Mateo
Mark is Marcos
Luke is Lucas
John is Juan

I don't see any reason to stop believing the AV is the word of God because of your reasoning here.

 

oops, double post

 

Remember those who translated the KJV were pedobaptists. Also they did not have a manuscript any older than the eleventh century.

 

do you have documentation for this?

doesn't matter how old the manuscripts were. the ones they had were the perfectly preserved words of God. the manuscripts used on the modern english versions are different from those of the AV1611 and are the same used to translate the catholic bibles.

 

"Remember those who translated the KJV were pedobaptists."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"do you have documentation for this?"

This one is easy.
King James Version. King James was an English king. England had in those days and still has a official state church (no seperation between state and church for the British).
This is the Anglican Church. Of all churches produced by the Reformation it is the one closest to Rome. Yes they baptize infants.
The KJV or AV (Authorized Version) has those names because it was translated by Anglican scholars working for the Anglican Church of which king James was the head. That same Anglican church persecuted baptists by the way.

 

Why are so many Baptists King James Version Only when, doctrinally speaking, the KJV condemns so many Baptist teachings? You would think the Baptists would be reading the Baptist-slanted NIV. Now that's a version written by and for Baptists!

 

the NIV was translated from catholic manuscripts. it's NOT a baptist version.

also...can you give me some examples of the KJB condemning baptist doctrine. i've never heard anyone say that before.

 

my earlier statment still stands. if you are not perfectly fluent in the Hebrew language, you have no right to attempt to correct nearly 70 men who were.

 

what if the sky falls? what if the pope dies? what if arnold wins the race for California governor? the universal language of the world today is english. and it's only growing. more and more countries are teaching their people english.

the overwhelming majority of missionaries in the world today are from the USA. you think that's going to change anytime soon?

nope. it was preserved in other forms. first the originals, then copies of the originals and then it was translated into different languages. it has always been around just as God promised in Ps 12:6-7

 

again this is just speculation. you have no evidence, only your own reasoning.

here is a portion of "The Answer Book" by Dr. Sam Gipp that will help you with your problem here.

"The company of men who did the translating of the Authorized Version was made up of Bible believing men from both the Anglican and Puritan churches. Their character and qualifications have been attested earlier.
Such a statement as, "The King James translators were nothing but a bunch of Episcopalian baby sprinklers," is one of those statements which is sadly not based on fact nor conviction. It is made with the hope of character assassination and an ultimate hope of overthrowing the authority of the King James Bible in the minds of believers.
It might be beneficial at this point to note what the King James translators were NOT.
They were not adulterers, as David. Nor were they murderers as Moses and David. Nor had any of them sacrificed any of their children to Chemosh or Molech as Solomon had in I Kings 11. Nor had they vehemently denied the Lord as Peter.
These short comings are not pointed out to bring disrespect on any of the writers of scripture. But are noted so that we should be a little more gracious in our description of the men whom God has chosen to use."

here's a link to the rest of that book which you can read for free online.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp

 

ok well nice talking to you.

i don't like talking to people who think they know more than God.

God said He would preserve His word in Ps 12:6-7. Now either He is a liar or YOU are. And I tend to believe that God is not a liar.

Rom 3:4 yea, let God be true, but every man a liar

 

my earlier statment still stands. if you are not perfectly fluent in the Hebrew language, you have no right to attempt to correct nearly 70 men who were. </font>[/QUOTE]TheHarvest,

If this is really your argument, then I will withdraw from any further discussion with you, because I don't talk to brick walls. </font>[/QUOTE]why is it ok for anyone to correct the Bible that feels like it but it's not ok for anyone to conduct open heart surgery that feels like it. how is that any different?

if you are not qualified to do something, then you are not qualified to do it. ESPECIALLY when we're talking about God's word!

 

Yes, a bible written by Baptists using Catholic manuscripts. And I suppose they taught you from one of those new Catechisms instead of the old 1943 LCMS Catechism?

No wonder you turned Catholic. You could have just as easily become Baptist. You were never given a chance to be Lutheran!