100% or 95-98%?

Then please tell me which KJV is 100% Frank.

Things that are different are not the same!

Is it the 1611? 1623? 1650-1769, 1982, 1998(KJ21??)

Proof that the 1611 is different from current KJV's:

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/revision.htm

Don't evade the question and slip and slide around the issue. Which KJV is 100%?

 

David,

I'm with you. Which KJV is 100%?

Whilt thou showest us, Frank?

 

That is an assumption, conclusion, or perhaps even a theory... it is not a proof. Thus saith Frank carries no intrinsic authority.

Amen.

You also don't have the original KJV manuscript. Prove that today's KJV is "the accurate translation" even as compared to the original KJV... you can't.

No it doesn't. It means that you aren't applying the correct definitions of "perfect" and "word". "Perfect" means "lacking nothing essential to its kind". "Word" means: "Something said, an utterance, remark, comment, an assurance or promise, sworn intention" and especially "a command or direction, an order."

With regard to the "Word" of God, it is synonomous with "scripture".

It does not mean "a single set of words" in any language. You are correct in recognizing that the originals are not exclusively the Word of God. But then somehow you miss the whole point and assume that the KJV is "the" accurate English version.

If the originals and the KJV are both the Word of God then by your very own method of reasoning other differently worded texts can also be the Word of God.

The originals and the KJV do not say the same thing. You want proof? No original language mss uses the Greek words for "God forbid" in Romans the way the KJV does.

The italicized words by everyone's admission are words added by the translators in an effort to make the text more clear... those words are interpretive in nature.

Truth is that there are no two mss that are facsimiles of each other. In fact, the mss used for the text upon which the KJV was based were not identical to each other.

Your argument if it were valid would disqualify the KJV as much as any other version.

I don't know about the person you were responding to but my authority is what the Word of God plainly says and gives examples of- no more, no less.

It is KJVO's who have assumed for themselves the divine authority to declare the KJV the only "accurate" English version. You simply think because you believe it and declare it to be true... that makes it true. I have never seen a KJVO argument that was scriptural, consistent with historical facts, or consistently reasoned. KJVOnlyism's "best", most convincing arguments virtually always contain flawed logic and double standards for proof.

Anything that I dogmatically assert I will always back up with either scripture or a scripturally consistent evaluation of the relevant historical facts- with consistent, logical, reasoning.

A) I accept the KJV and all other valid versions as the "Final Authority".

B) Since that is true, I reject KJVOnlyism since it is not to be found in any version including the KJV and also depends on dishonest "balances" for weighing the evidence.

C) By what standard do you contend that we deceive ourselves? By God's Word or Frank's? If you aren't trying to write Frank's word between the lines of God's Word, you should have a mountain of scripture that specifically identifies the KJV as the only valid English version.

 

So, you are comparing modern Bible translations to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_Yang That is outrageous. I have heard of KJVO's grasping at straws. WOW. I guess some KJVO's will do anything to malign anything but their favorite version.

Problem is: you cannot prove that the KJV is 100% right and that the Geneva (or any other pre-KJV) Bible has any error. If the Geneva Bible is 100% perfect, then the KJV did not have to be made and the KJV tranlators are the ones that have cast doubt on God's Word by changing it. You paint yourself into a corner.

 

FrankBetz: //If you are "trying" to point out the (supposed) error in the KJB for there not being 40 in number in the lineage of Christ ... //

I was not trying to point that out.
I mentioned it only in passing.
What i was trying to point out is that the
KJV Translators documentent in the KJB that
there are variations in the sources that they
had to translate. They documented the choice
they made as to which was best, and which
they thought to be second best. To deny this
in other other King James Versions is to deny
the truth. (Recall that if one denys the truth
willingly and wilh malice, this is LYING.)

I also showed it on the first page of the
New Testament. THe proof from the translator notes
of the KJV1611 goes through out the New Testament
and the Old Testament.

The translator notes in the the REAL KJB demolish
the stronghold of KJV-onlyism: there are textual
variants in the source material. The Textus Receptus
(TR) is a PLURAL document.

 

I testify that
Brother Icthus is less confused than 90%
of the people who post on this board.
(Not that i agree with every thing he says).
He has his act together.

Anyway, it is judgemental to apologize
for that over which you have no authority
and medlesome to point it out as you have
no matter over Bro. Icthus.

 

Scott J. // A) I accept the KJV and all other valid versions as the "Final Authority".

// B) Since that is true, I reject KJVOnlyism since it is not to be found in any version including the KJV and also depends on dishonest "balances" for weighing the evidence.//

Amen, Brother Scott J. -- Preach it!

 

Frank Betz: Second: for God to NOT be 100% in at least one translation makes Him to be a "liar" in preserving His Word, He is NOT!

No, it doesn't; God didn't make the translations...He allowed MEN to make'em.

And the KJV has PROVEN BOOBOOS, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.


he has preserved His Word, the KJB says so, the modern translations do not, else they would read the same. They do NOT!!

If you're talking about Psalm 12:7, the AV translators themselves disagree with that recent, man-made interpretation of that verse.


They rely solely upon 95-98% fo agreeable MSS, that is an a misnomer, 95-98% do not agree 100% or even consistently do they disagree the other 3-5%.

PROVEN FACT: the Textus Receptus, its source manuscripts, and the KJV all disagree with one another. Try THAT one on for size, Mr. Betz.

YOU ARE LOST IN THE TRANSLATION DILEMMA. The only authority you have is yourself.

Actually, that would be the KJVO who relies upon a man-made myth, begun by a cult official, having no Scriptural backing, based mostly upon guesswork and fishing stories.

We have the Final Authority in English, you have it too, you just argue against it, you decieve yourself, in so doing, you deceive others.

Poppycock.

 

Was God a liar in 1610? Think carefully about your answer.

 

I am so sorry you decide to reamin confused. </font>[/QUOTE]Frank, I am not at all sure why you think that I am confused?

It is well known by my many posts on this board, that I am a very strong defender to the KJV and TR, and have indeed attacked the MV's for their decisions to adopt certain readings, where I believe that their judgement is clearly wrong.

However, if I want to be able to learn, I simply cannot have a closed mind, but must be able to honestly examine any evidence that is before me, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, determine the Truth. I cannot in all honestly accept that ANY translation of the Holy Bible, is 100% the Word of God. As I have said before, this would then make the said version, the Word of God, and would therefore make it both Infallable and Inerrant in all that it says. This simply cannot be true of any version of the Bible, and I will have to include both the TR, and the KJV, as both these versions are NOT the original autographs of the Holy Bible, which is alone 100% without any error.

If you knew your history of the KJV. You should have known that the 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible, was used as the basis for the KJV. And that the KJV is really as "Revision" of the Bishop's Bible. Yes, the KJV also examined the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts that were available to them, as were some foriegn versions, like, Latin, Dutch, Italian, French, etc, were also consulted.

I think that you would only be deceiving yourself, if you have the approach in rejecting every other version of the Bible, simply because you are a KJVO person. While I believe that the KJV is the best of the pick of English versions. Yet, I cannot, (unless I reject factual evidence) say that it is without fault, or the only means that God has used to communicate His Holy Word to us. This would be foolishness, and make me an unreliable judge of what the Truth really is.

There is no doubt that I find that many of the accepted readings in the MV's are indeed inferior, and that the KJV has the original. For example, in Luke 1:35; John 3:13, 9:35; 1 Corinthians 10:9, 15:47; Colossians 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16, and 1 John 5:7; where the KJV, by the providence of God, has the original reading, against the accepted readings of the MV's. However, this does not mean that the MV's are wrong in all the decisions they took. I will give three examles, from the NIV, where I believe that they have got the correct reading.

1 Genesis 18:22, not that the main reading in the body of the text is the right one. But the footnote the NIV has is without any doubt the original. The text reads:

"...but Abraham remained standing before the Lord"

The NIV in a footnote says:

"...but the Lord remained standing before Abraham"

This is the reading as found in the Masoretic Text, and the right one. The difference is very important. The Lord here referred to, is none other than the Pre-Incarnate Christ, Who appeared to Abraham, by actually coming down from heaven. Now, the first reading can be taken that Abraham was standing in the Lord's "presence", and this would not have required the Lord to have been with Abraham. However, the reading of the MT, can only be taken that the Lord was literally on earth with Abraham, as He remained standing before Abraham. Thus, in Genesis 19:24, we have Two Persons called "YHWH", the Father and Jesus. The change was made by the Jews, who considered it unthinkable that YHWH should "stand before a mere man".

2. John 1:18, where the KJV has "monogenes huios" (Unique Son); whereas the NIV adopts the reading, "monogenes theos" (Uniqie God). Here the NIV has what I believe to be the original reading, which has the testimony of many Greek church fathers and Mss. In what sense could this be used? Simply this. John begins his Gospel by saying "and the Word was God". And, then in verse 14 he says: "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, adn we beheld His Glory, the Glory as of the Unique One of the Father, full of Grace and Truth". And in verse 18 John combines both "monogenes" from ver.14, and "theos" from ver.1. A strong testimony to the Deity of Jesus Christ.

3. Philippians 2:6,7. The phrase "morpeh theou", where the KJV has it "form of God"; and "morphe doulou", where it is, "form of a servant". This has been rendered by the NIV in both places by "nature". "morphe", according to the common meaning of the word, is seen as "that which strikes the vision, the outward appearance"; which has been given by most Greek lexicons. However, as has been demonstrated by Bishop J B Lightfoot, Dr Gifford, and Professor R Trench, in my opinion rightly so, the meaning as adopted by Paul here, is speaking about the "essential nature" of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the "outward appearance", which is found in the word in verse 7, "schema" (fashion, KJV)

May the Lord grant us understanding

 

Go on strike against those who post too much at one time!

 

I asked FrankBetz who on this board was saying God was unable to preserve his Word perfectly.

He accused me of so doing.

When I pointed out that I had said no such thing, he contradicted me.

I am now calling Frank out. You, sir, are a liar. And I will continue to call you a liar until you demonstrate that I have said what you claim I have said, or you repent of slandering a fellow child of God.

The choice is yours.

 

You canadians, man, always wanting to fight. You're just mad b/c hockey was cancelled.

 

Why? Don't you like discussing the Bible? His post was on topic and to the point.

 

I like discussing the Bible. That's all I do. But I, like you, do not read all the content of a post that takes up that much space! Obviously you like to "discuss" this too much!

 

His post was not overly long - I have seen ones much longer. Some technical content takes time to develope and I think he did a good job here. You are young and it seems that you have not been reading detailed technical papers. Once you do, you will come to appreciate the work that goes into it.

 

While I often disagree with some of the people here, I AM interested in what they hafta say, especially if it's INFO and not just rambling.

If YOU have much to say about one item, will you place it all in one post, or break it up into a number of posts, thus distracting us from what you've said in your earlier posts?

 

See, others agree with my point.

You have no idea my age, and that has nothing to do with it. You are not superior to anyone here. There is a difference between intellectual content, although when it comes down to real ministry it is all useless. I have heard all the KJV vs. All stance and am well studied in it.

From this point on, I would assume that you would not attack others to build your view. That is neither Biblical nor ethical. It merely makes you look worse!

 

As you post a lot in the youth forum, I assumed that you are young. I am not superior to anyone. You have bashed icthus for having too long of a post and I just disagreed with you. This is a debate forum and that will happen.