Is the KJV the "restoration" of God's words?

This assessment is fine for Shakespeare or Milton but It is unacceptable for the Word of God which is promised to be inspired and preserved by the working of the holy Ghost through history. (In the same way all of you accept that the 66-Book closed canon has been preserved.) And what is God's revealed method of preservation. As soon as someone comes up with a Biblical precedent for "preservation by atrophy" I'll be listening.

Lacy

 

Ok, I thought I might have been losing my mind so I reread the article. I'm pretty sure that it never mentions anything about an "1873". Did you put the wrong date or am I missing something?

If you had read my article (top of thread) you would see that I answered your question there years ago. I think you just get so much mileage on these posts with that "stumper question" that you forget when someone does answer you. Is it meant to be a hypothetical question? Is it more condescending middle school sarcasm?

And who brought up Jack Chick anyway? You are in a serious rut. You need some new material. Come sit with my class of 8th graders and re-learn how to "cap on people" or how to sco'ne ('score on' or 'scorn', I'm not sure the 8th graders really know)them.

Lacy

 

What was the final authority for the early church?? Say the church at Colossae or at Ephesus? What was their "final authority"?

What was the final authority for all those living before 1611?? Did they not have one??

What did the KJV translators consider as the final authority?

So you would say that Christ, the apostles, and the early church till 1611 had no accurate translation since they could not compare it to the KJV??? Surely you jest.

Why don't you tell us and tell us where (chapter and verse) God revealed it. If you do so, you will be the only person who has ever managed to find this verse. If you don't, you will have to explain why you talk of God's revealed method of preservation when in fact God has not revealed his method of perservation.

The NT quotes of the OT give us the precedent for the manner in which God preserved his word across languages and time. Those who use MVs follow that precedent. The KJVOs deny that precedent and in so doing deny the pattern the Scripture has revealed to us.

Perhaps you should go back to eighth grade with your students and learn the discipline of critical thinking and logic.

 

Whatever it was, it changed in 1611. "final" means "not final", remember???

 

Why? I believe the same as you. The original autographs were inspired. You just don't believe that "scripture" (which Biblically includes copies and translations) can also be inspired.

HUH?

Again you are arguing poodles and artichokes but I am one of the brave souls. You already slammed my position and you only get one slam per thread!
You tickle me. You press me to be brave (as opposed to being a coward I suppose)and state which edition is the "perfect" one. then when I display the "courage" you say, "AH HA! I caught you!" I honestly don't care about your "Ex Cathedra" remark.
The "Revisions"-of-the-KJV argument is, at best, a sorry argument, because you are comparing the changing of spelling and printing errors to the leaving out of Mark 16:9-20.
If it is the best you have, I suggest you adopt my position.

Have you been listening? [shouting alert] MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT GOD IS NOT BOUND BY ORIGINALS! Again this is a sorry argument since it is much easier to determine if my KJV looks like the "archetype master" that it is to tell if an NIV looks like a Moses autograph! (Just apply your principals of textual criticism.)
You can't fall back on the Greek either because it's "archetype masters" are much more lost. What is extant is 5000 fragments of copies of copies of copies.
If you want to know where the "real" Word of God is, follow the fruit.

Lacy

 

Here is the link i'm speaking of:

http://www.kjv1611.co.uk/The%20Myth%20of%20Early%20Revision.htm

Lacy Evans: "Ok, I thought I might have been losing my mind
so I reread the article. I'm pretty sure that it never
mentions anything about an "1873". Did you put the
wrong date or am I missing something?"

My bad, he doesn't speak of the 1873KJV.
(but his not speaking of the 1873KJV also
speaks volumes)

Here is my test difference:

Ruth 3:15D (KJV1769):
... and she went into the city.

Ruth 3:15D (KJV1873):
... and he went into the city.

Ruth 3:15D (KJV1611);
... and he went into the citie.

Did Ruth or Boaz go into the village
to see Naomi?

Lacy Evans: "Is it meant to be a hypothetical question?
Is it more condescending middle school sarcasm?"

Sorry, i forgot to document with "[sarcasm]" and "[/sarcasm]"

 

Either it is impossible for any English translation to be perfect simply because a translation loses information (none can capture the full meaning because the semantic range of the words in the two languages merely overlap but do not entirely coincide), or God did miraculously re-inspire His Word in a translation--which means He gave more and better information in the original, and then chose to give less information in translation (yet somehow, with all this lost material, the translation is "perfect").

The KJVO position is based on ignorance in so many different areas, that it's staggering. Beyond being indefensible rationally and biblically, it simply cannot stand up for anyone sufficiently trained in linguistics or languages. It truly is one of the causes for fundamentalists in general (obviously including the vast majority, who are not KJVOs) to get a bad rep.

 

Sigh! You ask me a questiom, I answer it and then you turn around and ask me the same question again. So let me ask you one so you can not answer it and then I can ask you again.
According to your view, where was the final authority before 1611? How much real difference is ther between your answer and mine.
A better question. According to your view, where is the final authority now?

No, you said that. I said that if the originals are lost, God can raise them up perfect. ("Surely you jest", that's a Bugs Bunny cliche' right?) Cool!

This thread started with ScottJ taking a look at my article and subsequent criticsm of the article. So if I answered the question about my position in the article why ask it again. I give many scriptures in support of my precedent.

This would be very interesting to discus and compare to my position.

I can use sarcasm too if you want. I was quite good at it in my younger, more immature days. Does it make you feel holy to take a swipe at me after I was very kind to you? At least Ed Edwards is honest about his sarcasm (and HE is funny!)

Lacy

 

Finally someone gets my point! (See the Ten Commandment tablets and Jeremiah's rolls.) Which premise is the Biblical one? It is impossible? or God performs a miracle of preservation?

Lacy

 

This assessment is fine for Shakespeare or Milton but It is unacceptable for the Word of God which is promised to be inspired and preserved by the working of the holy Ghost through history.
Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]My comment is true for *any* translated document, including the Bible. And this can be proven by pointing out specific examples of what an English translation like the KJV has lost in the translation process. For example, Psalm 37 in Hebrew is an acrostic (namely, a psalm where the first section begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the second section begins with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and so on in sequence). This is perfectly evident in the original Hebrew text, but completely missing in the English translation of Psalm 37 in the KJV. In other words, the KJV fails to "preserve" the acrostic feature of Psalm 37 in translation, even though the KJV translators demonstrated elsewhere (in Psalm 119, another acrostic psalm) that they could have done so.

This fact alone disproves any claim that the KJV as a translation is superior to the original language text.

 

No, it's not impossible. But 4 points come to mind:

1) just because something is not impossible, doesn't mean it happened.

2) similar to #1, your position reminds us of the position of the Mormons and reinspiration.

3) you have *no way* of know if this happened, nor any way of proving it. Faith in this position is without merit.

4) the selection of the KJV as the fulfillment of this "possibility" seems entirely arbitrary. Why not the Geneva? Why not the Bishop's? Why not the NIV? One of these being the re-inspired perfect Bible is just as "possible".

KJV-onlyism has enough problems of logic and unsupported and unprovable assertions, without you having to add to it.

 

Pastor Larry,

I just realized that that was your 1st post here on this thread. I got you mixed up with someone else. You threw me when you used Matt Black's post to jump in from. I thought it was his reply. (I have answered a lot of posts lately.) Please accept my humble apologies for the mix up.

Lacy

PS Nevertheless, I still think Ed Edwards is funnier than you.

 

What are you talking about here BrianT? Did you read the post you took my "quote" from? I never asked rhetorically, "It is impossible?" It was stated asTaufgesinnter's (and your)position. Ie.
1) Either it is impossible for any English translation to be perfect simply because a translation loses information.
2) or God performs a miracle of preservation?
So scratch 1 & 2.

As for 3, I have a promise that God would preserve his Word so I look around to see the fulfillment of the prophecy. You have "no way" of knowing for sure that the 66-book closed cannon is perfect but you accept it don't you. Why? [Note: Whatever your answer, put that in the blank for everyone's question to me as to why I think God preserved the actual words too.]

As for 4, Make a list of the revivals that occurred between 1611 and 1850. Then take any other similar length of time and make a list. Then weigh the two and see the fruit.
The Bible says we know prophets by their fruit.
Lacy

 

What fruit?
The KJV fails every point that the KJVO claim for "corruption" of the MVs.

The translators of the MVs are/were "heretics" or "corrupt" say the KJVO.

The Church of England were paedo-baptist and believed (at the time of the translation) in baptismal regeneration, ordained "priests" who alone celebrated a form of the mass (The Holy Eucharist) including much of the Roman liturgy , including prayers for the dead.

The Church of England included the Apocrypha of the Church of Rome sandwiched inbetween the testaments and included readings in the Apocrypha in the official Church calendar of saints (elevated by the Church of Rome).

I won't go into some of the scandal concerning King James. Yes, similar scandals are rumored about the MV translators as well. I say this because the KJVO made a stink about the life style(s) of one or more of the MV translation commitee members.

The Church of England persecuted and imprisoned our Baptist fore-fathers just as their mother Chruch, the Church of Rome.

John Bunyan was jailed for 12 years because he preached and practiced believe's baptism and was not an Anglican "priest". He was the father of 5 children one of them blind, The Church of England made a virtual widow of his wife because he preached the truth. This is one sorry story among many of their persecutions of our fore-fathers.

The KJV has a history of Church of England "corrections" over the centuries and while the disagreements and differences between the revisions of the KJV are "refinements", changes and corrections in the MV's are "satanic" according to the KJVO even I suppose those which are more faithful to the TR than the KJV.

"things which are not the same are different".
According to the KJV Only this works Only one way, their way. The several KJVs although different according to their own definition are "still the same" nonetheless.

If the 1611 KJV is "inspired" why did God see fit to include the heresy teaching Roman Catholic Apocrypha right in the middle of the Testaments?

If God has given such power ALONE to these men of the Church of England then surely this must of necessity make THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND theTRUE Church in that inspired Scripture flows from their lips and quills as it did from the apostolic Church. I suggest for conscience sake that you immediately join this Church.

If GOD IS NOT BOUND BY ORIGINALS! then you have no more proof that the KJV is the "pure" Word of God than those who prefer the NASV or NIV (or Alice In Wonderland for that matter) and call it The Word of God since the matter is up to how you feel about a certain version in a certain language simply because it is "regal" or "dignified" (for instance) whereas God in the giving of the originals used "koine" Greek, the language of the common "koine" man.

The KJV IS NOT in the language of the common man. Has God changed His mind about this as well as the Apocrypha?

I admit that this matter is subjective and prejudicial and in my estimation and prejudice I believe the koine TR (Scrivener) is the inspired text of the Word of God and not the 1611(or 1769 or 1853) English. It is a translation of the Word of God. It is the Word of God by derivation not inspiration.

In actuality, you can no more prove your thesis that the 1611 (or whatever year) KJV is the "inspired" text than I can prove the TR is the inspired text.

So have your view, it is your right of Soul Liberty. Love and live the KJ Version of the Bible as I do. But remember my point, it is an English version (translated by heretics) of the original languages of Hebrew and Greek.


HankD

 

Sorry about the confusion about your quote.

Let's assume your understanding of what form the fulfillment takes is correct. Why do you assume it has already been fulfilled? You seem to be saying it wasn't fulfilled in 1605, so it doesn't have to be fulfilled today either.

My answer is "the church accepts it as such". That answer doesn't seem to work for the issue of "the actual words", for the church has never accepted the actual words of the KJV as being perfectly preserved.

Revivals = textual perfection? I don't see how. Revivals depend on people's response to the Holy Spirit, regardless of what version are reading. The Holy Spirit is not limited to word-perfect translation, thus "revivals" is not proof of a word-perfect translation.

I'm interested in your comments about the word-changes between the 1611 and later editions, as per the other thread.

 

Ed sticks a thumb in each ear,
spreads out his fingers,
and acts like a moose.

 

Finally someone gets my point! (See the Ten Commandment tablets and Jeremiah's rolls.) Which premise is the Biblical one? It is impossible? or God performs a miracle of preservation?

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]And such a miraculous translation could not and would not perserve all the information contained in the original--because something is always lost in translation by the nature of language. So even if it's "perfect," it's still not preserving the same content as the originals, because it's in a different language with different connotations, loss of subleties and nuances, correct verb tenses, precise equivalents, and any unique literary and linguistic characteristics like acrostics, alliteration, rhymes, puns, and sometimes allusions. It would mean that the translation would be incomplete compared to the original: but if it were not, it would mean that the originally inspired text only contained the Word of God, since there was extra meaning that could be safely omitted from the translation (because it was)--and thus since the original only contained the Word of God but the full meaning of each of the words in it were not inspired, since they weren't passed on into the KJV, then how could, why could, anyone believe the KJV didn't also only contain the Word of God because each word's full meaning wasn't inspired?

 

Apology accepted although I wasn't trying to be funny. You are the one who brought eighth grade into it, not me.

You didn't answer the question. Your "answer" was (as it still is) "What difference does it make? There is no difference between your view and then." The reality is that the answer to this question shows a major flaw in your argument. Your unwillingness to give us an answer shows us that you have not truly reckoned with the problem your position has created.

The final authority is the word of God, faithfully translated. It has always been that, whether in AD500, 1000, 1500, 1605, 1611, or 2003. My answer is consistent with history and theology. Yours is consistent with neither.

No, you said that. I said that if the originals are lost, God can raise them up perfect.</font>[/QUOTE]You said that a translation is perfect if it is favorably compared to the KJV. Since it was impossible for the KJV to be used as a standard of comparison in teh time of Christ, they could not have had a perfect translation. Again, you have failed to think through this argument before you made it.

I have no idea. I never watched him.

But not one of those Scriptures tell us how God preserved his word. Yet you tell us that God has revealed how he preserved it so I asked you to defend that from Scripture. Why is that hard? Are you admitting that God really didn't reveal this and you just made it up??

This has been done many times before you got here. It shows your position to be wrong.

 

Brother Lacy, HankD made some jolly good points about the 1611 KJV. Do you have any answers to them?

Yours in Christ

Matt