Why the KJV?

Because it is the most attacked;everything from 1881 on has ALWAYS compared itself to one Book/standard,the AV1611.

Prehaps you should look into the 'pedigree' of the bibles from 1881 to present.Devote a little time looking at the texts that are behind the 'better' versions.

That is just hearsay produced by people who were angry with him.

Maybe,but was not David a murderer and immoral? God still used him.

Anglican,yes RC,no.However,W&H had RC tendencies.

[ March 18, 2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Translations can be objectively assessed without resorting to "guilt by association" arguments. Some KJO advocates bring up similar "data" to argue against the NIV (homosexuals did some proof reading)..or Westcott and Hort (High Anglicans..or low..or middle..or whatever).

Some relevant questions to consider in assessing the AV or any translation:

Is the Authorized version a faithful translation of the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts?

Is the textual basis for the translation sound?

Some of the KJO I know believe the AV is the best English translation available and is based upon the best hebrew/greek manuscripts. DA Waite is one example. DocCas is another (used to moderate this board).

-kman

 

Dear JYD,
"Attacked" is your preception. Actually most MV supporters are trying to defend it from what is preceived on their part to be heresy.

Now if God did not give this power of translational inspiration (for lack of a better term) to the KJV translators (themselves heretics by Baptist standards) as claimed by the radical KJVO then the radical KJVO are perpetrating a very serious error (imo).

This is nothing less than the very same doctrine of the Church of Rome, that when the "Pontifex Maximus" (in this case King James) is elevated to "ex cathedra", all that is said in this state is the "infallible" word from God sent to His Vicar of Christ on earth.

What does this make the Church of England?
Do you believe in the sprinkling of children?
Do you believe in baptismal regeneration?
This is just one of the "infallible" beliefs of King James who considered Baptists heretics and persecuted them. Do you now claim He is/was the "Vicar of Christ" on earth and the Church of England the true Church to receive such power from God?

Do you know that the first editions of the KJV were shot through with Anglo-Catholic doctrine in the Apocrypha (included in the KJV1611), Anglo-Catholic ritual prayer calendars for the "feasts" of the Catholic Church and many other popish things?

I and many others here are KJV prefered because of the underlying Greek and Hebrew text.
This is the Word of God every jot and tittle (of which English has none).
The KJV and other faithful translations are the Word of God by derivation from the copies of the original mss.
As the KJV transltors themselves said even the "meanest" translation contains the Word of God, nay "is the Word of God" by virtue of their source.

So we actually defend and not attack.

Please try to understand this, otherwise you bring a false witness against your brother, another very serious offense.

HankD

 

Two reasons:

1. God is perfect, therefore he inspired his word perfectly. However, he also promised to preserve his word - even magnifying it above his name. Therefore it follows that the perfectly preserved words of God must be somewhere. If God did not preserve his word perfectly, there is absolutely no reason why he should have inspired it perfectly in the first place (the Bible does not say he inspired it perfectly), and the "innerancy of scripture" is just a hypothetical idea with no firm basis in reality. Looking at the pedigree of the AV, and how God has used it, it seems like the best candidate to me. If you honestly have another candidate, let's compare the evidence in their favour.

2. The best translators translated the best texts.

P.S. Some of the things you aledged in your first post are not true.

 

Because it [the KJV] is the most attacked;everything from 1881 on has ALWAYS compared itself to one Book/standard,the AV1611.
Seems to me just the opposite. Every time other versions are brought up, it seems to be the KJVO crowd that compared the KJV to nonKJV versions. I think by doing so, the KJVO's simply turn a lot of people to a version that is, frankly, a good and inspiring read to some.

Prehaps you should look into the 'pedigree' of the bibles from 1881 to present.Devote a little time looking at the texts that are behind the 'better' versions.
Better yet. I've looked at the text used by the KJV authors, and found some translational and contextual errors. I didn't even look at other versions to come to that conclusion. But I don't claim that any translation is the inspired word of God, so maybe that makes me more objective.

[King James' homosexuality] is just hearsay produced by people who were angry with him.
On the contrary, it's fairly well documented historically. Not that I feel it makes a difference one way or another in regards to the KJV.

was not David a murderer and immoral? God still used him.
Wait. I thought King James wasn't immoral Now he is??? It matters not. Comparing King James of England to David is like comparing the Moses to Mo Vaugn. There ain't none.

God is perfect, therefore he inspired his word perfectly. However, he also promised to preserve his word - even magnifying it above his name.
The arguement may hold water if the only language in the world is English, and if the only version of English is KJ English. But the stance that a "version" is more the word of God than the text it came from is, imo, heretical. Versionology is nothing more than literary idolatry. Additionally, it discounts any bibles printed in Hebrew, Greek, Dutch, German, Spanish, Italian, Arabic, Portuguese, Latin, etc etc etc. If an English version is the only true word of God, then are alll non-English speakers hellbound??

 

Here is a link to a very recent article which criticizes the KJV Only position, and that in quite strong language. In case any be interested. The man who wrote it is named Marc C Carpenter, and those familiar with him know he is a hard man in many ways, I come to think of Diotrephes of 3 John when I think about him. I am no endorser of his ministry nor his writings in general and thus I don't recommend any secondary links, but on this one issue I think he has come up with some strong arguments against the KJV Only position, and his article is quite thought-provoking. And what makes him worthy of listening to as respects this matter is that he is a proponent of verbal equivalency when it comes to Bible translation methods and theory. Also he is not pro-Alexandrian Greek texts, but I understand he is pro the Textus Receptus. Neither does he give much for modern versions in general. He says in the end his version of choice is the LITV, a formal equivalency translation based on Scrivener's 1894 TR and the classic Bomberg Masoretic Text of 1524-25, the same texts the KJV is claimedly based on. In other words, the man is no liberal or modernist as respects the versions issue, but disdains dynamic equivalency. He also makes reference to the KJV translators and some of their ungodlinesses which are on record in history books.

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/kjvonly.htm

Harald

 

Why?? You have provided no good reason for this. The fact is that he did inspire it perfectly because God cannot lie. The fact that no two "preserved manuscripts" perfectly agree is irrefutable evidence that he did not preserve it perfectly. He never promised to.

You have no way to compare the translators to know if the old guys were better than the new guys. It can be demonstrated that there is much about the langauge that teh old guys did not know. Additionally there has been ample demonstration that they did not use the best texts. So your objection falls short on both counts.

 

No sir, Larry. There is not ample proof that the modern Greek editions are superior to what the KJV translators had available. This is a throw of yours which some others also keep on making, without any backing up in reality. Pickering has shown some irrefutable errors in the UBS text, such as do not occur in e.g. the Scrivener TR as far as I know. In Romans chapter 5 I found the other day a thing in the UBS-3 which I think is a clear error. I refer to v. 14, where the Alexandrian edition says "alla ebasileusen". The TR says "all ebasileusen". The UBS-3 has a grammatical error unless I am mistaken. God never made a grammatical error when inspiring the Scripture. This is a scribal error which has been included in the UBS text, and the biased editors of it were foolish to include it. Apparently they put more trust in "the oldest and best" MSS even when they have grammatical errors, because of some mysterious hatred for the TR reading and the TR in general.

I would think we agree that the KJV translators were probably not better than the best of today's translators. I think they were superior to today's DE translators, which are manifestly worthless men when it comes to translating God's inspired and holy word due to their practical denial of verbal and plenary inspiration.

Harald

 

"If an English version is the only true word of God, then are alll non-English speakers hellbound??" (Johnv)

Johnv. What if an English version was the only true word of God on earth? If it were so, do you think all who are not able to read or understand English would go to hell? I do not know your answer. But your question which I quoted, viewing it I cannot help asking in my heart if you have an erroneous understanding of the intent of God's giving the written word. The written word of God has no part in determining who go to hell or who don't. The written word does not create spiritual reality such as going to hell or to heaven, it informs about existing realities of eternal and temporal nature. Reading or hearing, or believing the written word does not bring about regeneration, the new birth. If it did then in case only the English had the only true word of God no people of other tongues could avoid hell, for if the English written word brought about the new birth only those knowing English would see and enter the kingdom of God, and those unfamiliar with English wouldn't enter it but would enter hell.

Whatever you believe herein I would like to put people in mind that bible regeneration and gospel regeneration is heresy. The same goes for sermon regeneration and decisional regeneration and baptismal regeneration. The only regenerating word is the living Word, the Lord Christ Jesus. The written word testifies about Him, but does not contribute anything in or towards the thing it refers to as "quickening".

Harald

 

You realize, Harald, that I believe the answer to my question in "no". The point I was trying to make is that, if there is a preserved word, it IN the text, it is not the text itself. I don't have a problem accepting the KJV sources as valid. I simply don't accept the any translation as anything more than a translation of God's inspired word, but I don't accept the translations themselves as God's literal word. I don't believe a translation in English is any more God's word than my Dutch Bible or my German Bible. If one asserts that the KJV is "perfect", then one implies that any other translation is "imperfect". Therefore, there can be no "perfect" Bible in another language, including Greek and Hebrew. I believe that type of assertion to be heresy.

The only perfect Word of God is Christ Jesus Himself.

 

While I do not see this KJVO "re-inspiration" of the Scriptures into 1611 Elizabethan English. I do revere the KJV (all editions and revisions) as a translation that God has used to bring His Word to the English speaking people in a most powerful way.

The Word of God however is being lost litle by little to the common man by use of the 4 centuries old English of this Bible.

the only solution so far is to retranslate into modernised English (some have tried) or perpetuate these old words which bring confusion to the mind of the 21st century common man (anon, husbandman, bowels, quick, etc, etc...).

I believe the KJVO "re-inspiration" theory is a naive and unscriptural approach.

That the KJV is a giant among the translations does not preclude me from using an English MV (especially the NKJV) where faithful to the Traditional Text. Some of the MVs offer insight to the original meaning of the text and the nuances snd differences of certain words and (heaven forbid!) figures of speech used by the original writers.

HankD

 

Why?? You have provided no good reason for this. The fact is that he did inspire it perfectly because God cannot lie.</font>[/QUOTE]And the same perfect God who cannot lie also preserved it. If God's originally inspired word can have no error, then his preserved word cannot, either. This is particularly apparent when we consider that "every word of God is pure", and that God magnified his word above all his name, even though these two scriptures were written long after the originals they refer to. Also, what's the point of God inspiring the originals perfectly if they were just going to get irreversibly corrupted? Why not just inspire it 98% perfect, and preserve this level of perfection? As I stated, without a perfect Bible, "innerancy" is just a therotical construct, and really becomes "almost innerancy" in practice.

No; many manuscripts DO agree, even if they don't have identical wording. Also, most manuscripts are not available any more (even many of those that exist are hardly studied), so you cannot know if this used to be true. Finally, my position requires there to be at least ONE perfect Bible somewhere; so differences with others don't matter. I would point out that unbelievers use similar arguments about different passages "disagreeing" to "irrefutably prove" that the originals weren't inspired perfectly.

Well, he never said "I will preserve my word perfectly". But then he never said "I will inspire my word perfectly", either.

But I don't have time for an argument. I was asked "why the KJV", and I have answered. I hope, Matt, this at least helps explain why some of us hold to our position.

 

Why do you doubt Him? Psalms 78:41, Jeremiah 32:27.

 

Psalm 78:41 and Jeremiah 32:27 have nothing to do with KJV preservation, or any other version preservation, for that matter.

 

No,but it has EVERYTHING to do with doubting that God can do anything;including preserving His word for us to have in the universal end times language of English,despite what men say,or think;period.That is what being a Bible believer is all about.....

 

No disrespect here, but that sound like a slippery slope, like debating over whether or not God can make a rock so big that he can't move it.

Equally, you could say that it's possible for God to preserve his word in several translations of the Bible, and in non-Elglish translations as well.

That's not a matter of faith, per se, it's a matter of opinion.

What's the difference, really, between believing that the KJV translators received a unique revelation and saying that Joseph Smith received a unique revelation? Aren't they both equally incorrect in places where they altered scripture?

 

The same thing can be said of the KJVO position. Why do you doubt and limit God and say that He can't give us His Word in modern English?

Neal