#2 Which KJV is your authority?

[HankD]

You are right,I believe that the KJV is my Final Authority because God promised to preserve His Word.He did not say that He would spread it all over and make us hunt for it which apparently is the anti-KJVO position. I believe that an almighty and powerful God can(and did) preserve His Word and I hold it in my hand today.I do not believe that He wants me to hunt for it among many conflicting versions.According to the anti-KJV side:if there is Gods Word on earth,we dont know what it looks like or where it is and it really doesnt matter because even if we could find it we couldnt interprate it.

You are absolutely correct, we wouldn’t even know where to begin to look for His Word and even if we found it we couldn’t rightly divide it without the leading and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.

Or they say that Gods Word is confined to "the Greek or Hebrew text". I cannot get ONE non-KJVO person to tell me what their final authority is.The closest I can get is that they will say that "God is my final authority"

That’s because God IS my final authority. No where in the Scripture does it say that every knee shall bow to the Scripture (written) but to the living Word, Jesus Christ.

But as to my final authority concerning the written Word of God I look to the ben chayyim Masora OT and the Scrivener TR NT as my final authority.

convenently ignoring explaining how they know what He says.If I want to know what my God says I can go to my KJV Bible and see His answer. I do NOT need to change the Bible to fit my doctrine,I change my doctrine to fit the Bible.

You have done well.

You anti-KJV peoples final authority is yourselves and your opinion. Why is it that very few christians today go out doorknocking and streetpreaching? Our churches today are going cold,teaching a variety of doctrines from a variety of bibles. If you dont agree with what one bible says then switch to another one that says what you want it to say.

You know of course that this happens in all churches KJVO as well as non-KJVO. The KJVO churches have doctrinal disputes, local church troubles, scandals and church hopping in spite on the King James Only.

When you answer this please tell me why christians and our churches arent on fire for the Lord like they used to be.

This has happened from day 1 for all the same reasons:

because thou hast left thy first love.

because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot

because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:


He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

Im afraid I dont have a original 1611 with original spelling. My Bible is with modern spelling(once again,note modern spelling not modern words.) Please post the differences.

Here are some selected examples of the differences between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV:


"And she laid up his garment by her, until *her* lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, 1611 KJV)

"And she laid up his garment by her, until *his* lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, today's KJV)

Whose lord came home -- hers or his?


"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the *names* of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, 1611 KJV)

"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the *name* of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, today's KJV)

One name or many names?


"And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be *an unleavened cake* of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, 1611 KJV)

"And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be *unleavened cakes* of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, today's KJV)

How many unleavened cakes are required here? Just one? Or more than one?


"Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the *houses* of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, 1611 KJV)

"Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the *house* of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, today's KJV)

One house or many houses?


"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, 1611 KJV)

"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep *all* my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, today's KJV)

Will it be well with Israel if they keep just some of God's commandments, or must they keep all of them?


"And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks *at* the time of harvest,)" (Josh. 3:15, 1611 KJV)

"And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks *all* the time of harvest,) (Josh. 3:15, today's KJV)

Does the water of the Jordan overflow at some point during harvest season, or does it overflow throughout the entire harvest season?


"Sing, O *heaven*; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *God* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, 1611 KJV)

"Sing, O *heavens*; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *the LORD* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, today's KJV)

Is it "heaven" or "heavens?" And is the Divine Name used here or not?


"Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit *God*, and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, 1611 KJV)

"Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit *Gad,* and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, today's KJV)

Have the Ammonites inherited both God and God's cities? Or merely the territory and cities of Gad?


"And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto *thy people*, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)

"And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto *the children of thy people*, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)

To whom is Ezekiel to go -- to his people, or to their children?


"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art *Christ*, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, 1611 KJV)

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art *the Christ*, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, today's KJV)

Just Christ? Or THE Christ?


"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *came* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, 1611 KJV)

"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *ran* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, today's KJV)

Did the man simply come to Jesus, perhaps walking? Or did he run to Jesus?


"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of *things* from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, 1611 KJV)

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of *all things* from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, today's KJV)

Did Luke have perfect understanding of only a few things, or of all things?


"Therefore his *sister* sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, 1611 KJV)

"Therefore his *sisters* sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, today's KJV)

Did only one of the two sisters send word to Jesus about Lazarus, or did they both send word?


"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, *helps in governments*, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, 1611 KJV)

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, *helps, governments*, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, today's KJV)

Is Paul speaking of one administrative gift known as "helps in governments," or is he speaking of two different gifts, a gift of "helps" and a gift of "governments?"


"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than *edifying* which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, 1611 KJV)

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than *godly edifying* which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, today's KJV)

So is it merely edifying, or is it a particluar kind of edifying, namely, godly edifying?


"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual *sacrifice*, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, 1611 KJV)

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual *sacrifices*, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, today's KJV)

Is Peter telling us to offer one single spiritual sacrifice, or many different spiritual sacrifices?


"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, 1611 KJV)

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son of God* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, today's KJV)

So is it "the Son" or "the Son of God?"


These are but a few of the numerous examples of differences in wording *and meaning* between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV. The differences raise some serious questions. Which version in each of these cases is correct? And since the "original" translators' copy no longer exists, how do you *know* which version is correct? Which version has God's "pure, preserved words?" How can you *know* this for certain? </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for posting these.

I will examine and answer them as soon as I can. I dont have the time right now to do it as I just had my 16th birthday and am going to be studying for my license. And I am still working on my answer to DeclarHim and its taking longer then I thought it would because of all the information I have to go through. But ill get to it and start a thread on it as soon as posssible.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

Thanks for posting these.

I will examine and answer them as soon as I can.

You are most welcome.

BTW, I have a simple answer to the questions I posed -- you go to the original language texts to determine which KJV is correct.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

Thanks for posting these.

I will examine and answer them as soon as I can.

You are most welcome.

BTW, I have a simple answer to the questions I posed -- you go to the original language texts to determine which KJV is correct. </font>[/QUOTE]But,which text do you use?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Use the Majority Text (now refered to at the TR) that was used in 1611. Don't confuse the issue saying the differences were from different Greek or Hebrew texts and therefore different.

These are changes in ENGLISH only. The original texts haven't budged an inch!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Ziggy:
ScottJ referred to: "the Critical Texts (you inaccurately call them Alexandrian due to being taught dishonest information)."

Why would it be "dishonest information" when the current critical texts (regardless of the eclectic method used in arriving at their result) remain 99.5% in agreement with Westcott-Hort's 1881 text? As elsewhere noted, I have run an electronic comparison of NA27/UB4 vs WH to see this result; anyone else can easily do the same from publicly available sources.

Unless, of course, one were to claim that the W-H text itself was _not_ Alexandrian in character?

Because the texts are not purely Alexandrian and by calling them Alexandrian a critical distinction is obscured. The Alexandrian and Byzantine are family classifications of many mss that all differ from each other. The collated texts TR, MT, and CT are attempts to reconcile the variants to one extent or another.

The MT and CT both consider all of the mss evidence. They just weight it differently.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Use the Majority Text (now refered to at the TR) that was used in 1611. Don't confuse the issue saying the differences were from different Greek or Hebrew texts and therefore different.

These are changes in ENGLISH only. The original texts haven't budged an inch!

But...where are these "original texts" that are your authority?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
But...where are these "original texts" that are your authority?

The Lord is
my Authority, His Spirit is right here in me.

The original texts of the New Testament
are lost, as are the original texts of the
King James Version (the text made by
the translators).

 

[Ziggy]

Ziggy: Why would it be "dishonest information" when the current critical texts (regardless of the eclectic method used in arriving at their result) remain 99.5% in agreement with Westcott-Hort's 1881 text?

ScottJ: “Because the texts are not purely Alexandrian and by calling them Alexandrian a critical distinction is obscured. The Alexandrian and Byzantine are family classifications of many mss that all differ from each other. The collated texts TR, MT, and CT are attempts to reconcile the variants to one extent or another.”

Let me back up on that comment somewhat: *none* of the supposed “Alexandrian” MSS (as established on the basis of their textual affinity) agrees with any other Alexandrian MS to a degree as high as the amount of agreement between the W-H text and the modern critical NA27/UBS4 text. The closest approximation among MSS determined to be "Alexandrian" is between B (Vaticanus) and papyrus 75, and even that is not as close as W-H to NA27/UBS4, despite their being closely allied to MS B. So, on this basis, I think it is *very* appropriate to call the modern critical texts “Alexandrian” as regards their overall dominant texttype.

ScottJ: “The MT and CT both consider all of the mss evidence. They just weight it differently.”

I would again beg to differ. Kurt Aland specifically created 1000 test passages throughout the NT in which all available MSS were collated. By Aland’s own admission, the purpose of these test passages was to *eliminate* Byzantine MSS _a priori_ from any further consideration and thereby to establish the MSS which were the *least* Byzantine as the only ones worthy of further study and research. It’s not exactly like they examined every manuscript at every place of variation throughout the NT; rather, they summarily rejected 90% of the MSS *prior* to beginning their search for and determination of the best form of the “original” text.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
But...where are these "original texts" that are your authority?

The Lord is
my Authority, His Spirit is right here in me.

The original texts of the New Testament
are lost, as are the original texts of the
King James Version (the text made by
the translators).

</font>[/QUOTE]So your final authority is gone? How convenient, you can say anything you want about them knowing that we cannot examine them to prove you right or wrong.

 

[AVL1984]

Apparently, KJVBT, you didn't read Ed's response. The Lord is the final authority for us all. He has given us His word, preserved in many different translations.

AVL1984

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

Thanks for posting these.

I will examine and answer them as soon as I can.

You are most welcome.

BTW, I have a simple answer to the questions I posed -- you go to the original language texts to determine which KJV is correct. </font>[/QUOTE]But,which text do you use? </font>[/QUOTE]The one which most accurately translates the original language text.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

Thanks for posting these.

I will examine and answer them as soon as I can.

You are most welcome.

BTW, I have a simple answer to the questions I posed -- you go to the original language texts to determine which KJV is correct. </font>[/QUOTE]But,which text do you use? </font>[/QUOTE]The one which most accurately translates the original language text. </font>[/QUOTE]But answer the question and tell me which one it is and why you use it.

 

[AVL1984]

The KJV is accurate to it's underlying texts, as the MV's are to theirs.

AVL1984

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

Thanks for posting these.

I will examine and answer them as soon as I can.

You are most welcome.

BTW, I have a simple answer to the questions I posed -- you go to the original language texts to determine which KJV is correct. </font>[/QUOTE]But,which text do you use? </font>[/QUOTE]The one which most accurately translates the original language text. </font>[/QUOTE]But answer the question and tell me which one it is and why you use it. </font>[/QUOTE]Let me give you a specific example using the last item on the list I posted earlier.

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, 1611 KJV)

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son of God* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, today's KJV)

So is it "the Son" or "the Son of God?"

The reading in *all* Greek texts (whether TR or NA27/UBS4) is "the Son of God." So we know by comparing the two different revisions/editions of the KJV with the original language text that in this instance, the revised KJV we use today is correct and the 1611 KJV is incorrect.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
But...where are these "original texts" that are your authority?

The Lord is
my Authority, His Spirit is right here in me.

The original texts of the New Testament
are lost, as are the original texts of the
King James Version (the text made by
the translators).

</font>[/QUOTE]So your final authority is gone? How convenient, you can say anything you want about them knowing that we cannot examine them to prove you right or wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually what i said is that
YOUR Final Authority is gone. You do not have
any access to the original documents of the
KJV translators of 1605-1611. They are lost.
The printers made lots of errors.
Your KJV now is very disimmilar to the KJV
was supposted to be (the one you can't check)
in 1611. No final authority, so sad.

BTW, the only people around who are preaching
final authority are the KJVO#4s
and KJVO#5s. My personal line of authority
has been working beautifylly for 52 years
now. JOY = Jesus, others, yourself.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
But...where are these "original texts" that are your authority?

The Lord is
my Authority, His Spirit is right here in me.

The original texts of the New Testament
are lost, as are the original texts of the
King James Version (the text made by
the translators).

</font>[/QUOTE]So your final authority is gone? How convenient, you can say anything you want about them knowing that we cannot examine them to prove you right or wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually what i said is that
YOUR Final Authority is gone. You do not have
any access to the original documents of the
KJV translators of 1605-1611. They are lost.
The printers made lots of errors.
Your KJV now is very disimmilar to the KJV
was supposted to be (the one you can't check)
in 1611. No final authority, so sad.

BTW, the only people around who are preaching
final authority are the KJVO#4s
and KJVO#5s. My personal line of authority
has been working beautifylly for 52 years
now. JOY = Jesus, others, yourself.

</font>[/QUOTE]Ill add this to my already long list of "things that need to be addressed".

 

[Ed Edwards]

Add reading this to your list also:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1608.html

It talks about the KJVO#1, KJVO#2 (which I
am), KJVO#3, KJVO#4, and KJVO#% (which you are).

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

I would say im closer to KJVO#4. Its not the most clear definition but I think its the closest to what I am.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:

If you had your way the pastor and his congregation would all have different bibles and that would definently cause confusion,for instance, suppose the pastor has an NIV and part of his congregation has a Living bible. This would cause a LOT of confusion dont try and tell me differently. And according to the Bible who is the author of confusion?

Well, I am going to tell you differently.

First of all, you threw the Living Bible in there. The Living Bible is a paraphrase, not a translation. I have never seen anyone at my church with that one.

But actually, at my church, people do use different versions. The pew Bible is an NASB and this is what the pastor uses in his sermon. However, people in the pews are using NASB, NIV, King James, NKJV, Amplified (which I personally do not like), and others. I have read along in my NKJV or NET Bible and was able to follow fine.
Same in my 2 Sunday School classes.

I have gone to church at various times with an NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET Bible, and New Century. I change around and benefit from all (except I was not wild about New Century as it is too much of a loose translation for me). There about 1,000 attending the services each Sunday (in 3 services), yet, somehow, none of us are confused! In fact, people in our church are growing in the Lord, serving Him, going on missions, helping the poor, participating in tons of ministries, and we love the Lord. The use of different versions is hardly even noticed or remarked upon.