KJV is in heaven

And then there is this scripture:

Isaiah 19

17 And the land of Judah shall be a terror to Egypt; everyone who mentions it shall dread to it, from before the counsel of Jehovah of Hosts, which He counsels against it.
18 In that day five cities in the land of Egypt shall speak the language of Canaan , and swear to Jehovah of Hosts. One shall be called, City of Ruin.
19 Then an altar to Jehovah shall be in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to Jehovah at its border.
20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness to Jehovah of Hosts in the land of Egypt. For they shall cry to Jehovah because of the oppressors; and He shall send them a deliverer, even a great one, and will deliver them.

S&T:

Would not the language of Canaan be Aramaic?
I personally believe, that because of the pollution of pagan words and terms that has infiltrated all languages, that He will give us a new language that is pure. Hebrew is not pure as it has words such as tamuz and others in it. Just my opinion.

 

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

I have often quoted this for the KJVO folks as to WHERE the "pure" Word of God is located "in heaven" and if "in heaven" then it is a heavenly language not found on planet earth (IMO).

But it it were per chance earthly language IMO they would be Hebrew and Greek.

HankD

 

Hopefully, we will hear the voice of God and not have to read it, but I do hope he makes whatever language simple enough for me to understand.

I have enough trouble with English.

 

That's at least as doctrinally important as whether or not Adam and Eve had navels, don't ya think??

 

Originally posted by ArcticBound:
Here we go again, the same old song: ATTACK the KING JAMES BIBLE AND LAUGH AT THOSE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORDS FOR EVERY GENERATION JUST LIKE HE SAID HE WOULD. THE ENGLISH BEING THE KING JAMES BIBLE!

Please tell us where anyone here has said he/she doesn't believe God has preserved His words. And please PROVE where GOD shows us it's ONLY in the KJV.

Obviously, if we are speaking English in Heaven, we will not need 50+ ---versions in Heaven, but One PRESERVED VERSION.

Obviously, if God's word is settled in heaven, so is the language, whatever it may be. And, since God's word is settled in heaven, then it must be WRITTEN in heaven, or preserved on God's DVD. and it will be in the unchanging language then used, and not in an archaic form. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever".

However, I don't think we will be speaking English in Heaven. I would say possibly Hebrew!

Yes, that IS one possibility.

You brought up that verse:
Psa 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.

Another slight mistranslation in the KJV. Before you start hollering "You don't believe the Bible",please take the time to study the Hebrew version of that verse. You'll see to should read,"thy word AND all thy name. There's simply NO Hebrew for "above" between "thy word" and "all thy name". This isn't something I just made up; you can easily verify it for yourself. You can ask any Hebrew-reader you know, or use a lexicon such as Strong's. You see, unlike the Onlyists, we can SUPPORT our assertions with EMPIRICAL PROOF.

Why would God magnify His Word even above His own name? I believe and what I have been saying on this board is that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Without God's Words we don't know a thing about Salvation (Psalm 19).

Agreed. that's why God has presented His word in English according to the style and vernacular of a given time. After all, God made the language itself, as well as His words within it. Just as He's allowed or caused English to change since KJ's time, He's presented his words accordingly, in the English He's willed to now be in use.

Don't down play the importance of God's Word. Imagine not having a copy of God's Word in our language. Aren't you glad that everyone has to compare their versions to the KING JAMES BIBLE!
I'm glad we have ALL the valid English translations available, from Wycliffe's to the NIV. I THANK GOD for each & every one of them.Too bad some people who have all these things from God just as available as I do have chosen not to use them.

 

Aren't you glad that everyone has to compare their versions to the KING JAMES BIBLE!

Actually, by scanning this board, it appears to me that most of the people who compare versions to the KJV are KJVO's. Most non-KJVO's seem to be doing their comparisons to the source Hebrew or Greek.

 

How could God give you MANY, MANY Books such as the NASB, the NIV, the CEV, the TEV and others when these books disagree each other a few thousand times?

When these Bible versions disagree each other, how true is God to you?

 

Just as true as he was in 1605, despite differences between versions then too. Unless you think God changed because more translations were done.

 

When the current KJV disagrees with the 1611 KJV, how true is God to you? There are over 400 word changes from 1611 to the current popular editions. So, insofar as the KJV has changed does that mean that God is no longer telling the truth?

 

When the current KJV disagrees with the 1611 KJV, how true is God to you? There are over 400 word changes from 1611 to the current popular editions. So, insofar as the KJV has changed does that mean that God is no longer telling the truth? </font>[/QUOTE]Which current KJV? Do you mean New King James Version?

 

GOOOOOOOOOD questions! kinda like why the chicken crossed the road, i'd say

to wit, let's try putting some KJBOesque answers (for extra credit, identify the original genius behind each of these):


1. all those "disagreements" r merely typos.

2. only a few thousand disagreements, compared to those betw the Vulgate n LXX, which number into many many zillions. so they're negligible.

3. actually, all those "disagreements" r true n the Words of God. see, when Ruth 3:15 says HE in one bible n SHE in another, the they're BOTH correct--both a he n a she entered the city.

4. it's the process of divine purification--the CEV is 7 times more purified than the KJB, cf. Ps 12:6-7.

5. there r only 136 Substantial changes betw the ERV of 1881 n the Message; the rest r merely orthographic (e.g. mere spelling changes, such as "Abraham" updated to "Quirinius")

6. folks, look at the GOOD FRUIT fr the GOOD TREE!!!

7. u're not a true Baptist! i'm the doctoral person, not u!

 

Since we can only speculate what language we will speak in heaven, my guess is that it will be something not currently spoken on earth. It may not even be verbal.

 

No, I mean currently published KJVs such as the Cambridge edition of 1762,the work of Dr. F. S. Paris, the Oxford edition of 1969, the work of Benjamin Blayney, or the Scrivener edition of 1873, the work of Frederich Scrivener.

Those three KJVs represent almost all of the KJVs presently in print (with the exception of a few specialty bibles), and all of them differ from the 1611 edition in over 400 places. So, did God stop telling the truth in 1762, or 1769, or 1873?

 

There are many spelling changes; they spelled words differently in the original KJV than they do today such as "wordes" to "words." There are punctuation changes.

I did not see how God is no longer telling the truth?

 

I am not talking about changes in spelling or punctuation. As I clearly stated, there are over 400 words which have been changed from the 1611 to the current KJVs. You must deal with those 400 words before you can even begin to defend your claim to verbal inspiration of the KJV or criticize other versions for changing words. If the KJV can change over 400 words, why can't the newer versions do the same?

 

ArcticBound,

I have not been around for a long time on the message board. Even then, I spend most of my time in the Calvinist/Arminian forum.

I did want to comment on your statement, quoted above.

I know many fans of the KJV and I have good relationships with them all.

Your position, however, is troubling. (no laughing implied here or in what is written after)

If one wishes to discuss Originality, the only answer to this is the Hebrew and Greek. What is more if you want to be a true "Origin-ist" (Not related to the theologian Origen) you'd have to hold to the Original Manuscripts, called autographs. The problem in this position is that we have no such autographs. We do have vast manuscripts which give evidence to the autographs. This is where textual criticism is helpful. Basically, we know what 95-98 percent of the Bible says. There are fuzzy areas, however.

Now to the KJV thing. One cannot rightly claim that the KJV is the only preserved translation. Why? Simply put it is because God never claimed it.

As for it reliability. (I would suggest that no translation is necessarily reliable. Again, Greek and Hebrew provide the best for understanding etc. the text). John 3:16, the verse we all know and love, is wrong in the KJV and most other translations.

The difference is over the word rendered "Only Begotten." The greek word is monogenh (pronounced: Mono-gen-aye) This word does not mean only begotten. For example, Hebrews 11:17 uses the word of Isaac, Abraham's son. Certainly Isaac was not Abraham's only son. He had Ishmael. The word cannot, therefore, mean only begotten.

The word actually means UNIQUE. In otherwords, it refers to the "Son of the Promise."

Why is this important? Much more research has been done in linguistics since the 1600's. We know that the "Only Begotten" translation was based on bad information. Mono, obviously meaning one, was thought to have been combined with something like Ginomai, or something closely related, (prounounced Gin-oh-mie) to mean only begotten. However the proper translation is Mono, again one, combined with the word that means kind. So the word Monogenh is best translated Only one of his kind. Therefore, the Idea of the MonoGeneh being the "son of the promise" is better than the idea of "only begotten."

And all this based on linguistic reasearch over the last 400 years.

This is an example of why it is not the best policy to hold to KJV only.

To be honest, I love the KJV. It reads beautifully and I grew-up with it. However, to hold to it exclusively is not good, just as it is not good to hold to ANY translation exclusively.

BTW, a better, more learned description of the above arguement can be found in D.A. Carson's book Exegetical Fallacies

Blessings!

Archangel

 

It sounds to me that most of you on this forum should translate a new version of the Bible in English since you admit ALL versions have Errors and you know where they ALL are!
God could sure use your help and genius in this area.

It's kind of funny, how you change every verse we use in the Scriptures to make it mean what you want it to. Remeber the King James Bible comes from a different Hebrew and Greek Text.

 

I am well aware that the KJV comes from a different text. It has become known as the Textus Receptus . Erasmus published it. Unfortunatly he used only about 6 manuscripts, none of them dated earlier than the 10th Century. These medival manuscripts contain an additional twelve passages not found any of the Greek manuscripts.

In the time the KJV was translated there were perhaps 25 New Testament manuscripts to evaluate as to textual variants. Now there are at least 5,358.

Only a few Hebrew texts and only one text of the Septuigint were available. Now there are about 800.

The so-called "Law" of translation is that the older manuscripts carry more weight because they are closer in time to the originals. Today we have many, many more older, thus more reliable, manuscripts than they did in the KJV time.

The vast majority of evidence points to the better reliability of today's translators. This is espically the case when examining some of the margin notes of today's translations. Textual variants are pointed-out in many good, modern translations such as the NIV (which I am NOT a fan of), the NASB, and the ESV (which I use for most everything).

As for changing the text. The Bible says only one thing. This notion of "it means this to me" is dangerous because it is reader-based not text-based.

True scholarship, which we should all engage in as Christians who seek to "Cut straight the word of truth" requires that we examine all available resources when studying scripture. The KJV only advocates, unfortunatly, do not take the last 400 years of scholarly research into account.

Only by studying, examining, and re-studying the Greek and Hebrew language for the meaning (implied and actual) of words will we get closer to knowing exactly what the Bible says. Sure we are closer now, but there is still much more to be done!

Blessings,

Archangel

Source: Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 1999) 337-340.

 

He doesn't need out help. You do. He understands these issues perfectly fine. You are the one who needs someone to explain and teach you what the issues are so that you will not have a faulty doctrine of Scripture.

Show us a Scripture that we have changed to make it mean what we wanted it to, and show us how we have benefitted from it.

The NT does. The OT Hebrew text is virtually identical.

 

I still believe if you know something that everyone else doesn't know about the English Bibles that it is your duty to Correct it. I think the wrong way is to correct it in Church or while discipling a convert which will only put doubts in the minds of men about God's Words being Pure. I believe you have a Mandate from God to put His Words in the Common Man's language.
Most people in our churches don't speak Greek or Hebrew nor can they read and understand it. The Roman Catholic church did this for years (not allowing the comman man to have God's Words.) Are we any better today if we make the comman man think he can't interpret the Bible for himself.