A new King James Bible defense book

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Just because Skan is a better scholar does not necessarily make him right, but he has a much better chance of proving something to us if we open our minds and look at the evidence he is laying before us.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

The ONLY thing that I keep my mind open to is the word of God! I do not keep my mind open to the opinions and wisdom of men. This is your first error concerning me. I do not need to know what Skan's personal interpretation of the origional Greek and Hebrew languages is for my understanding of God's word that HE HAS ALREADY PROVIDED FOR ME AND OTHERS for hundreds of years. This is very dangerous and could cause blind followers of these men, based upon thier own private interpretations. The key to understanding the scriptures in our own language, is not refering to the origional languages, but by rightly dividing the word of God, reading precept upon precept, and praying to the Lord for understanding and relying and trusting the conviction that the Holy Spirit has given us concerning his words. God has provided this for me and all people, and I do not need to know the origional language for my understanding. The words of God were translated accurately for us over 400 years ago, and are available today. Please do not tell me, I need to keep my mind open to some man that says he understands and knows the origional languages. God has already provided for me in my own language and accurate translation of his words of truth, by a committee of 47 scholarly men, not just one or two less scholarly men. You will err, if you follow these men blindly, with the exuse of keeping your mind open to them, because if the blind follow the blind, they both fall into the ditch. I am using my brain, and I am also using my spiritual discernment and trusting the Lord Jesus Christ in all of this. I do not need some man, who claims to know the Hebrew and Greek languages as my authority, nor do I trust all they have to say with an open mind. Especially when the person is trying to debunk the truth, which is that God promised to preserve his words for EVERY GENERATION.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[HankD]

Please do not tell me, that I have my own private interpretation of this verse of scripture, for this is not true.

But you do michelle and I happen to agree with you concerning this passage.
Since there is more than one opinion then each has their "private" interpretation.
You cannot prove the passage is speaking of God's Word (I believe it does but I can't prove it either) but believe it by faith.

You believe one thing by faith someone else believes another.

However, everyone here that you have been debating with believes in the promise of God to preserve His Word and indeed He has for 1000's of years. They just don't feel that the original language text of the Psalms passage is speaking of words but people.

BTW, Your ad hominem responses and appeals to emotion are escalating or haven't you noticed?

HankD

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Hank quoted:
But you do michelle and I happen to agree with you concerning this passage.
Since there is more than one opinion then each has their "private" interpretation.
You cannot prove the passage is speaking of God's Word (I believe it does but I can't prove it either) but believe it by faith.
--------------------------------------------------

Hank,

Please read this, and then tell me if private interpretation is supported by the scriptures:

2 Peter 1

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 2

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

Does the Holy Spirit of God guide one to understand the scriptures in truth?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
God never preserved His words in a translation but in the original languages. By doing this the original standard is available for any country of any language to translate from. The manuscripts are not KJV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gb,

God has promised he would preserve his words for EVERY GENERATION, and HE has also told us that man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD. This is scripture. No where do I read that God would ONLY preserve them in Hebrew and Greek languages. love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Where do you read that God would ONLY preserve them in English?

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Where do you read that God would ONLY preserve them in English?
--------------------------------------------------

I NEVER said God would "ONLY" preserve his words in English.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Now, how does Skan go about determining if I am correct? The first thing he must do is go to those documents which are closest to the original autographs to make a determination if they say what I tell him it says. He has no other choice, because he is reading the same Bible I am, but he is seeing something different and he believes God has told him that he is right.

By looking at original manuscripts that the King James was translated from, he is capable of reading that Greek and determining what it says.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

I cannot believe you are now telling me, that now because someone has knowledge and understanding of the Hebrew and Greek language, which also can be interpreted in different ways, much more freely than in our english language, has now become my authority in what the interpretation is of the plain english language? This is highly circular, and dangerous at best. Christians for hundreds of years believed, and still do believe that Psalm to mean EXACTLY WHAT THE TEXT SAYS. Read the context Phillip. The context explains the verse. NOt only the context, but other scriptures concerning God's words affirm it. We are commanded to rightly divide the word of truth. It is not some private interpretation that I personally have regarding this. YOu all twist the scriptures to make it say something it doesn't in order to prove the lie you believe. Then you must refer back to the origional Greek and Hebrew languages, to confirm your already false belief, which is contrary to the whole of scriptures themselves. Please do not tell me, that I have my own private interpretation of this verse of scripture, for this is not true. YOu are all making up a new understanding of this verse of scripture in order to prove the importance of the very words of God are not true. IT is contrary to the whole cannon of scriptures. You are not rightly dividing the word of God for your interpretation, and you are not looking at the context of the passage either. You are guilty of wresting the scriptures.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

You have your own private interpretation of this verse of scripture.

Do not accuse me of being guilty of wresting the scriptures. Would you also explain what, exactly you mean by "wresting" the scriptures? Your sentence makes no sense to me.

Where do you get the notion that Greek can be interpreted in more ways than the English language. If this applies to Skan, it also applies to those who translated the KJV, because obviously they too made mistakes; therefore we wouldn't need revisions to correct and clean up those mistakes.

Just as Skan also mentioned, this process will also occur with the NKJV, as I do predict that it will become the New accepted revision of the KJV once this generation is gone (should God decide not to return first).

There is no NEW understanding for that verse. It is as clear as day whether or not it is read in the Greek, KJV, NKJV or NIV. There is no individual interpretation here. The reason Skan must go to the Greek is to determine what was meant by the original authors who did write it in Greek. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? I can tell you why...because you have accepted the KJV as the ONLY infallable word of God and you do not understand the difference between "preservation" and "translation". You are giving powers to people who have not been given those promises.

Now, as I said before, the last revision of the KJV was ONLY 125 years ago. To you, the KJV you hold is 100% accurate with NO mistakes in the wording. Then I repeat for the fifth time that you must throw away the Oxford revision, the Cambridge revision, the 1611 revision and all of the languages in between. Otherwise, those word changes MUST be incorrect in one or the other. I refer to the 2% rat poison that you yourself used. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either the KJV 19th century version is 100% word-for-word accurate and the other revisions have "word" mistakes or they are all human translations with the possibility of error.

But, you keep twisting God's Word into saying the individual "Words" are kept. THis cannot be true if you translate from Greek to English because English is a DIFFERENT language and therefore has DIFFERENT WORDS than those God inspired. Look at the first few verses of John. Is he talking about "individual words, periods and punctuation marks?" NO.

Punctuation was not even added to the Hebrew until several hundred years AFTER the canon was closed. Does this mean that adding punctuation is adding to what God preserved? No, because God's Word is not the individual words, periods and commas.

There is absolutely NO PLACE ON THIS EARTH that God said He would preserve "word-for-word" anything in English. You cannot show it. It does NOT exist.

What is your complaint with the NKJV? It was translated from the TR? How do you go about testing a translation? You compare it to the best manuscripts available, you do NOT compare it to another translation that has been revised at least 25 times.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


I do not need to know what Skan's personal interpretation of the origional Greek and Hebrew languages is for my understanding of God's word that HE HAS ALREADY PROVIDED FOR ME AND OTHERS for hundreds of years. The words of God were translated accurately for us over 400 years ago, and are available today. love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Excuse me, Michelle, but you do NOT use the exact word-for-word Bible that was here for 400 years. It had to be modified to correct printers errors and translational errors. It has been cleaned up very nicely and is now more accurate than ever. The Bible you hold is only word-for-word accurate for around 125 years.

You yourself admitted the Geneva Bible was 100% perfect. It was in approximately the same style of English the KJV was. Why did the KJV need to be translated as a replacement? Why did the Bishop's Bible need to be replaced? Why did any of the English Bibles need replacement with the KJV if they were "preserved word-for-word, period-for-period, and comma-for-comma"?

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Either the KJV 19th century version is 100% word-for-word accurate and the other revisions have "word" mistakes or they are all human translations with the possibility of error.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

There is a vast difference between spelling and printers' errors, to those things that have eliminated verses, and words due to the underlying texts used and relied upon that do not include them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Either the KJV 19th century version is 100% word-for-word accurate and the other revisions have "word" mistakes or they are all human translations with the possibility of error.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

There is a vast difference between spelling and printers' errors, to those things that have eliminated verses, and words due to the underlying texts used and relied upon that do not include them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Okay, let us assume you are true and take this one step at a time. Then you must agree that the NKJV is a good translation because it has been shown to be a very accurate translation of both the OT and the TR?

Don't tell me you don't like the footnotes because there are some KJV footnotes I'm sure you won't like.

Now, we have completely eliminated the Alexandrian manuscript issue with "so called missing verses and words".

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
You yourself admitted the Geneva Bible was 100% perfect. It was in approximately the same style of English the KJV was. Why did the KJV need to be translated as a replacement? Why did the Bishop's Bible need to be replaced? Why did any of the English Bibles need replacement with the KJV if they were "preserved word-for-word, period-for-period, and comma-for-comma"?
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

I do not focus my attention upon these bibles, because first of all, they were in another era than my own. Secondly, they were all Bibles based upon the same underlying text, the Received Text which was the text that the believing churches had believed, lived, taught, preached, copied, memorized throughout the church age. This cannot be said of the text that underlines the modern versions, and to which is vastly different than the Received Text.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


Phillip,

To be very honest with you, I would not trust the NKJV, and the reason I say this is because I see how much apostacy there is in the churches today, and with the plethora of conflicting versions out there, and I believe that God has already provided for us a perfect and accurate translation for the English speaking people to which we do not need any other. I do not like the fact that they give credence to the critical text, which sows doubt to the reader, and gives the reader the impression the critical text is reliable and acceptable. This is deceptive. They might has well have used the critical text for their tranlsation. They have also changed the thee's, thou's and ye's to a blank "you". The thee's, thou's, etc. were not common even in the days of the KJV translators, but they chose to use them. Why? Because they give the best and most accurate rendering of the language and clarifies to whom is being spoken to. Now it is a blanket "you", with no indication of the plural or singular aspect of to whom is being addressed.

I am sure there are more problems regarding it, but these are only the few things that I am aware of, and I would not personally touch it, nor recommend it.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
You yourself admitted the Geneva Bible was 100% perfect. It was in approximately the same style of English the KJV was. Why did the KJV need to be translated as a replacement? Why did the Bishop's Bible need to be replaced? Why did any of the English Bibles need replacement with the KJV if they were "preserved word-for-word, period-for-period, and comma-for-comma"?
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

I do not focus my attention upon these bibles, because first of all, they were in another era than my own. Secondly, they were all Bibles based upon the same underlying text, the Received Text which was the text that the believing churches had believed, lived, taught, preached, copied, memorized throughout the church age. This cannot be said of the text that underlines the modern versions, and to which is vastly different than the Received Text.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

I'm not asking you whether you should use these Bibles or not I am asking you what the need for replacing them with a KJV is. These HAD to be the Bibles in English that preserved the words - word-for-word in your theory, so why replace them if they are 100% accurate? Read my question, I never asked you to focus on them, I asked you why they needed to be replaced?

 

[Phillip]

The NKJV is based on the TR. You have a problem with it?

 

[rsr]

Michelle said:

Christians for hundreds of years believed, and still do believe that Psalm to mean EXACTLY WHAT THE TEXT SAYS.

The interpretation you reject is not a new one; it has a long history, especially in Puritanism. Neither Matthew Henry, John Gill, the Geneva Bible translators nor C.H. Spurgeon interpreted it as applying to the words of God. They find their interpretation better rooted in the context of the entire Psalm, which is a promise that the wicked will not prevail.

They speak vanity and flattery, but the words of the Lord are pure words (v. 6), not only all true, but all pure, like silver tried in a furnace of earth or a crucible. It denotes, (1.) The sincerity of God's word, every thing is really as it is there represented and not otherwise; it does not jest with us, not impose upon us, nor has it any other design towards us than our own good. (2.) The preciousness of God's word; it is of great and intrinsic value, like silver refined to the highest degree; it has nothing in it to depreciate it. (3.) The many proofs that have been given of its power and truth; it has been often tried, all the saints in all ages have trusted it and so tried it, and it never deceived them nor frustrated their expectation, but they have all set to their seal that God's word is true, with an Experto crede--Trust one that has made trial; they have found it so. Probably this refers especially to these promises of succouring and relieving the poor and oppressed. Their friends put them in hopes that they will do something for them, and yet prove a broken reed; but the words of God are what we may rely upon; and the less confidence is to be put in men's words let us with the more assurance trust in God's word.

5. That God will secure his chosen remnant to himself, how bad soever the times are (v. 7): Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High, Dan. vii. 25. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. He will keep them from this generation, (1.) From being debauched by them and drawn away from God, from mingling with them and learning their works. In times of general apostasy the Lord knows those that are his, and they shall be enabled to keep their integrity.

Matthew Henry

12:5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set [him] in safety [from him that] puffeth at him.

The Lord is moved with the complaints of his, and delivers in the end from all danger.
Because the Lord's word and promise is true and unchangeable he will perform it and preserve the poor from this wicked generation.

12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

That is, yours though was only one man.

Geneva Bible notes

Verse 7. To fall into the hands of an evil generation, so as to be baited by their cruelty, or polluted by their influence, is an evil to be dreaded beyond measure; but it is an evil foreseen and provided for in the text. In life many a saint has lived a hundred years before his age, as though he had darted his soul into the brighter future, and escaped the mists of the beclouded present: he has gone to his grave unreverenced and misunderstood, and lo! as generations come and go, upon a sudden the hero is unearthed, and lives in the admiration and love of the excellent of the earth; preserved for ever from the generation which stigmatised him as a sower of sedition, or burned him as a heretic. It should be our daily prayer that we may rise above our age as the mountain-tops above the clouds, and may stand out as heaven-pointing pinnacle high above the mists of ignorance and sin which roll around us. O Eternal Spirit, fulfil in us the faithful saying of this verse! Our faith believes those two assuring words, and cries, "Thou shalt," "thou shalt."
C.H. Spurgeon

Verse 7. Thou shall keep them, O Lord,.... Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them; thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever; or "thou shalt preserve him"; that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, "keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them,"; and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request.
John Gill

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
I'm not asking you whether you should use these Bibles or not I am asking you what the need for replacing them with a KJV is. These HAD to be the Bibles in English that preserved the words - word-for-word in your theory, so why replace them if they are 100% accurate? Read my question, I never asked you to focus on them, I asked you why they needed to be replaced?
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

YOu are asking me to focus my attention upon these Bibles, because you are asking me why there was a need for a "replacement". Ask those people who petitioned the King, not me. I am not from that era of time. You are trying to have me focus my attention on those things that are irrelevant to this situation. YOu are trying to make a comparison from those Bibles and the KJB to that of the modern versions today and give a valid reason for them. I see what it is that you and others try to do, but it just is not the same issue, that you all try to make it to be. Those were different times, under different circumstances. We live in the era of today, and under different circumstances today, ecspecially concerning THIS ISSUE. We are talking about two different underlying texts, and the Bibles that come from them. The RT is that text has been the words of God for the believing churches throughout the ages. The CT has been a modern invention. The RT gives a strong testimony of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The CT gives the weaker testimony of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The KJV methods of translation were of formal equivalency and the faith in the preservation of God's pure words of truth within the churches. The CT methods of translation use the dynamic equivalency and disregard the preservation of the scriptures within the churches, and approach God's words as any other book. The CT adherents believe the older manuscripts must be the most accurate, and therefore give the credibility to the omittion of verses of scripture or words of scripture that have been long preserved within the believing churches. These manuscripts that do not include these verses/words are looked upon as more accurate, and the result is that God's preserved words of truth are omitted.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Why do you keep avoiding my questions?

Yes, changing from the Geneva to the KJV might be an answer to show you that the KJV is NOT "inspired" it is a translation of inspired words.

What about the NKJV, it is based on the TR, regardless of what the Only's try to say?

 

[Phillip]

You seem to have trouble with more than one question at a time that is the reason I hesitate to ask you more than one at a time. But, let me throw one more out and see if you can give me a real answer.

This is a hypothetical question, but I want you to give me an answer for it.

Why do YOU, Michelle, believe that the KJV was translated from the TR and how do you prove that?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


Phillip,

YOu are asking me to focus my attention upon these Bibles, because you are asking me why there was a need for a "replacement". Ask those people who petitioned the King, not me. I am not from that era of time. You are trying to have me focus my attention on those things that are irrelevant to this situation.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Michelle,

You have no idea if relevency exists in my line of questioning.

All too often, witnesses in a court of law will answer a lawyer's question based on what they think the path of the lawyer's questioning might lead them. When in reality the attorney has another path that he or she is taking the witness on.

I will prove the relevency of my questions if you will follow me to the culmination of my line of questioning. You will then see the relevancy and you will then, hopefully, see some evidence that you have yet to consider. But, in making assumptions that you know WHY I am asking these questions, you are going to miss out on the point I am trying to make.

I sometimes get the feeling that you do not want to get anybody elses point except for your own point. That puts you in the position of assuming that you are better than others. Wait until I am finished and then you can judge my evidence for validity.

Thank you,

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


rsr,

That was very interesting indeed, and to which I also agree. Now I must ask you, How does the Lord keep them in safety? How are we to know what it is that God has said and to trust in it, if he does not preserve his words for us to know? The whole context of the passage is the words of the wicked who caused the faithful to fall, but then God tells us he arises, and keeps them in safety, to which are trust and faith in HIM AND HIS PROMISES. How does one know the promises of God, and the words of the Lord, if he does not also preserve them? The context is speaking of the words of the wicked, verses the words of the Lord. The Lord preserves us through his words. The passage is speaking of BOTH. To which I have posted previously on another thread a few weeks ago. To tell me, or anyone else that God has not promised to preserve his words is a lie, for he has said, and he has also done it. Please do not forget, that the Word was manifest in the flesh, and the Word of God is Jesus Christ. How do we know the Lord, but by his words of truth? If he does not preserve them, how then are we to be safe from the words of the wicked? What is the armour we are to wear in the battle, that keeps us safe? If part of that armour is not preserved by God, how then are we to succeed? How then are we safe from the enemy? We are preserved, by the preservation of HIS PURE WORDS. If we cannot trust that we live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, then we have no armour for the battle.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

You are answering it yourself, Michelle; where is your proof that the KJV IS indeed the preserved "words"? Just because churches have used it a while?

Churches used the Vulgate for much longer, is it the preserved words?