KJV is in heaven

Answer to your first question: In the same manner in which He gave us four Gospels that differ among them selves, and in which He gave us differing accounts of the same events in Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles.

Answering your 2nd question: Since the very Scriptures themselves, from the same "family" of mss vary among themselves, and these variances are seen in the translations such as in the KJV, God is JUST AS TRUE-100%-when the various English versions of His word that He's allowed or caused to appear, vary among themselves. There's ONE answer that covers both your questions-VARIOUS WRITINGS BY VARIOUS WITNESSES. The Jews of Jesus' time were well aware of the differences between samuel, Kings, & Chronicles, and simply accepted the fact that each of them were written by different people.

In police work, I've seen countless examples of how different people will narrate the same event. That's the way God made us, as individuals with different perspectives, memories, and writing abilities. I will venture to say that this fact takes in the people who wrote the different Scriptural mss at different times in different areas of the world.

 

Originally posted by ArcticBound:
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.

That's precisely what Archangel and some others have been doing here.

I also believe that when I see a Christian advocating a false doctrine, it's my duty to oppose him or her, just as paul did to Peter when Pete was avoiding eating meals at the same table with the Gentiles. The KJVOs may note that NOT ONCE did Paul cast aspersions upon Peter's FAITH.


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.

So do I, up to a point. However, have you not heard many a devout Baptist preacher read a passage from the KJV, then say, "Now THIS is what that passage REALLY means..."


I believe you have a Mandate from God to put His Words in the Common Man's language.

That's exactly what today's versions do. After all, the AV 1611 was in the latest and best English of its day.


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.

No, if we insist he use ONLY a 400-yr-old BV whose language is somewhat removed from that of today.

 

How they agree/disagree with each other is a complete non-issue. How the agree or disagree with their source text is the only pertinent issue. Some of the versions you list seem to agree with the source texts better than the KJV, some the same, some worse.

 

Askjo, does the fact you have not yet answered my question indicate that you either will not or can not answer it? And, if you cannot answer it, doesn't that destroy your entire thesis regarding the KJVO position you hold?

 

Askjo, in the event you are not familiar with the over 400 word changes from the 1611 KJV to the current KJVs I will post a few of them and you can tell us which KJV, the 1611 or the current one, denies the words of God.

Genesis 8:13 1611 "one" 1762/1769 "first"
Numbers 6:14 1611 "lambe" 1762/1769 "ram"
2 Chron 28:11 1611 "God" 1762/1769 "the LORD"
Isa 49:13 1611 "God" 1762/1769 "the LORD"
Mark 5:6 1611 "came" 1762/1769 "ran"

That should suffice for now. Please tell me which KJV denies God's words, the 1611 (the original) or the 1762/1769 (the one you currently use).

Thank you.

 

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? </font>[/QUOTE]The KJV -- 400 times!

The minimum is the best.

========================

NIV -- 6,500+ times!
NASB -- 4,000+ times!
New KJV -- 2,000+ times!

They are not minimum. Sorry!

 

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? </font>[/QUOTE]The KJV -- 400 times!

The minimum is the best.

========================

NIV -- 6,500+ times!
NASB -- 4,000+ times!
New KJV -- 2,000+ times!

They are not minimum. Sorry! </font>[/QUOTE]Can you prove which ones are RIGHT????

 

Oh I get it... Something doesn't have to be perfect to be perfect. It just has to be less imperfect than the things you predetermined to be wrong.

Just when I am tempted to think that KJVO arguments have gotten as bad as they can get.... you come up with something even less consistent/rational almost every time.

 

So, then, you agree the KJV denies the word of God at least 400 times, and is therefore, using your own terminology, a "per-version" of the true word of God?

 

My opinion:

If the NASB were based upon the Scrivener NT then it would be as close to perfection as humanly possible as a Greek-English functional equivalent. Please note the first sentence above.

The NKJV might arrive at that point in future revisions (another opinion).

Something else would be needed to bring this NASB TR based Bible to the common vernacular of the 21st century English speaker (Yet another opinion).

I know, I'm too opinionated.

HankD

 

I think that you have some excellent concepts about the NASB Hank. Also, I have no problem with a modern paraphrase as long as the terminology is carefully chosen as to not make the things of the world appear to be godly.