Chapter and Verse

[Ed Edwards]

Michael Hobbs: "Here is a way to increase your
reprtoire ... "

Acutally I only have one NIV.
But i physically have three different
KJVs. The following sentence does not
further my argument, but i like to tell
it anyway

I keep the three
different KJVs on my computer desk
so they will be handy instead of
in my library.

Michael Hobbs: "So, your reference
to the Maccabbees has ZERO revelanct
to the argument."

As does your slam dunk of Pastor Larry.

I was going to say when the week end came
and i had time:

The 400 years 400BCV-1AD toward the
Hebrew language was very different
from the years 1611-2011 toward the
English Language.

1. The Hebrew language was static:
fewer people in a smaller location.
English was dynamic: from a small island
to around the world

2. The Jewish scribes were careful
to assure that all copies of the
scripture were letter by letter accurate,
all letters the same, all words the same,
all meanings the same.
Nobody cared about the English language
1611-2011.

The U and V have traded places.
Ever wonder why a W (double U) looks
like a double V? Because the W (double U)
was made before the U and the V traded
places.

Anyway, the Hebrew letters 400BC-1AD
kept their shape, their history, their
meaning. The Hebrew Scribes were
proactive to do this. By constrast,
nobody seemed to care aobut Englilsh
1611-2011.

Thank you for your defense, Brother HankD.
But I did start the multiple version
thing. I really do have three KJVs
on my computer desk and they really
are different. There is safety in
a multitude of counselors.

Pr 15:22 (KJV1769)
Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.

So i ask whom so will answer:
Which KJV do you use?
The KJV1611?
The KJV1769?
The KJV1873?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

So i ask whom so will answer:
Which KJV do you use?
The KJV1611?
The KJV1769?
The KJV1873?

Yes!

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> So i ask whom so will answer:
Which KJV do you use?
The KJV1611?
The KJV1769?
The KJV1873?

Yes! </font>[/QUOTE]Y?

 

[HankD]

So i ask whom so will answer:
Which KJV do you use?
The KJV1611?
The KJV1769?
The KJV1873?

So A-A, you said yes to this list of three editions of the KJV (all different from on another).
Do you actually have a 1611KJV of the Bible with Apocrypha, marginal notes, RCC list of saints feast days which you take to church with you?

If not why not?

HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

My AV1611 (reprint) has in it a wonderful daily reading guide of the SCRIPTURES.

Included in the suggested readings are portions of the APOCRYPHA, so we certainly know what the Anglican Priests considered to be "scripture" in 1611.

I use my Scofield Reference KJV (1909) which is the AV1769 revision. Use the AV1611 and NKJV to research and look up variants, marginal notes, etc. All very useful in understanding God's Word.

 

[HankD]

Oh yes, I use the 1769 revision, the nKJV , Scrivener Greek, Masoretic Hebrew, occassionally other MV's which I have on my hard drive.

HankD

 

[Cope]

Ransom,

The logic you are refuting is bad...but but your argument is equally errant, though in a different way. In response:

"Can you give me a chapter or verse that says I'm not God?"

Yes, I can:

1. Did you exist in the beginning?
2. Did you creat the heavens and the earth?

Then Gen. 1:1 should suffice as chapter and verse saying you are not God.

 

[bryan1276]

Chapter and Verse for KJV only is as good as a chapter and verse for an NIV or NASV. I hear the originals are what we look for yet I can find chapter and verse several times where God destroys originals (Jeremiah 36, 51), redoes originals (copies) as with Moses on Mt. Sinai or order originals eaten in Ezekiel. God cares nothing about "the originals" and that christians have placed a higher priority on "the originals" than God did. God let them be destroyed and folks today just wont give them up. I do believe in the KJV to be the preserved words of God b/c God promised to preserve what he inspired (Ps. 12:6-7). I dont find any scripture to support the idea that God lost what he inspired. I do find that God promised to preserve his words without error, but I dont find that God would use errant manuscripts to piece together something we'd have to guess on. I see a promise of fruit from Gods words and watched history bear that out in revivals up until the modern versions came out and the evangelists slowly went away. I see claims that INTALICIZED words were added by the KJV folks yet i find Paul quoting italicized words in Romans 10:20 from Isaiah 65:1. Thats wild man. The italics arent in the original supposedly, but Paul quotes them? He does it again in 1 Cor.3:20, 1 Cor. 9:9. So the King James was good enough for Paul and he quoted the 'translators additions.' I find no Biblical support to reject my King James Bible.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
I find no Biblical support to reject my King James Bible.

That's great since no one here is asking you to reject your King James Version. All we are asking is that you have the same view of Scripture that Christ, and the apostles did ... the same view of Scripture that Scripture has of itself. They never believed that one English version was the only word of God. They constantly affirmed that things other than the KJV were the word of God. Therefore, we stand in line with the apostles and Christ and the Scriptures. It is you who has left the biblical position.

We do not need a chapter and verse for the NIV or the NASB (please start getting it right) because we are not claiming that they are the only version approved by God. You are making that claim for the KJV, attaching the name of God to a teaching that cannot be found in the word of God. That is a violation of the third commandment, to not use the name of God in vain.

 

[HankD]

I see claims that INTALICIZED words were added by the KJV folks yet i find Paul quoting italicized words in Romans 10:20 from Isaiah 65:1. Thats wild man. The italics arent in the original supposedly, but Paul quotes them?

Romans 10:20
But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

Isaiah 65:1
I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.

How can you tell what is the original and what is not since Paul seriously misquotes Isaiah 65:1. If the King James was good enough for Paul why did he substitute words, rearrange the order and change verb tenses from the KJV English of Isaiah 65:1?

HankD

 

[bryan1276]

Hank,
Scholars claim all the time to know what was in the original and say the italicized words in the KJV were NOT in the original. So i showed you where paul quotes italicized words from Isa 65:1 in Romans 10:20... the italicized words that "werent in the originals" in Isa is the "THEM THAT"... Paul quotes "THEM THAT"

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
Hank,
Scholars claim all the time to know what was in the original and say the italicized words in the KJV were NOT in the original. So i showed you where paul quotes italicized words from Isa 65:1 in Romans 10:20... the italicized words that "werent in the originals" in Isa is the "THEM THAT"... Paul quotes "THEM THAT"

The italicized words weren't in the Hebrew or the Greek... that's all that can be derived from those two verses. Neither Isaiah nor Paul wrote them, the KJV translators inserted them in both places.

 

[HankD]

I still would like to know from the KJVO folks how the OT is misquoted in so many places in the NT by the Apostles if the KJV English is the "inspired" text.

Could it possibly be that they were quoting from a Greek translation of the Hebrew or even a paraphrase?

If not, please explain what's going on here with the "misquotations".

Second issue:
Do I believe that the Scriptures are inspired in the originals, Yes, but those originals were codified in Hebrew and Greek. The copies are inspired in relationship to their faithfulness to those originals which for the most part is reducible through the historical witnesses to 98-99 percent of the text and in fact is 100 present (IMO) in the extant mss.

Can God clean up the 1-2 percent by any method He chooses? Of course. Will He before He returns? Who knows.

But IMO it is not the KJV of the Bible because (1) it is a translation and (2) and just as important, the KJ translators knew their work was not perfect because they issued so many revisions to their original publication to clean up both their translational errors (Ruth 3:15 among many) and the printer's errors and this is to their credit.

If you are of a different mind then which KJV edition is the correct and "pure" Word or Words of God, the 1611 or the 1769 publication since things which are different are not the same (unless one is given to double-think/double-speak/double-standard)?

HankD

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Pastor Larry wrote:
Look at the posts of Homebound, Askjo, Anti-Alexandrian, and some others to see this position.

Let me ask these guys to respond to your claim.

TO HOMEBOUND, ASKJO, ANTI-ALEXANDRIAN:

Which of the following best defines your position on MV's?
1. MV's, as a collection, contain 0% of the word of God.
2. MV's, as a collection, contain 100% of the word of God.
3. MV's, as a collection, contain some percentage of the word of God.

And which of the following statements do you believe?
A. The KJV is the only version of God's word that is acceptable for all people today.
B. The KJV is the only version of God's word that is acceptable for English-speaking people today.
C. The KJV is the best English translation available today.


For the record, my answers are 3 and C.
</font>[/QUOTE]Michael, you are right to answer these questions. I agree with you.

MV's, as a collection, contain some percentage of the word of God because almost 10,000 differences in modern versions are not the Word of God.

The KJV is the best English translation available today because the KJV superiority over modern versions is 99% reflecting the manuscript evidences.

 

[bryan1276]

Dear HankD,
Very good honest questions you have there. The first rule of thumb in answer to misquotes is the Bible is right and if i dont understand it then I need to ask the Lord about it not change it. Ive reconciled most of the misquotes in my own thinking with the Bible, but if you have particular instances you need to name them because there is not a general answer. As to the originals, I cant find anywhere in the Bible anything about originals being the ultimate authority. Furthermore I dont see anywhere where "scriptures" is EVER a reference to an original. Id rather have the same regard for "originals" that God does. And if God promised to preserve his words and I am to beleive that the originals are what he meant, then I must admit that God lied b/c there are no originals in existence. Or i could beleive God when he said he would preserve his words and find out where he preserved them without error. As regard to the 'editions' of the KJV, i read most of them and havent found any problem with believing them all while in good conscience. the word differences dont affect doctrine as you would claim for your new versions, but even less than that, they dont even affect the truth of the circumstance being spoken of. In other words, I dont have to pick one over the other b/c they say the same thing.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
As to the originals, I cant find anywhere in the Bible anything about originals being the ultimate authority.

And where do you find in the Bible wher it says something about the KJV being the ultimate authority?

Or i could beleive God when he said he would preserve his words and find out where he preserved them without error.

And where would that be in 1605, and why did the KJV deviate from it?

 

[bryan1276]

Scott,
your claim that these words were inserted without evidence is wrong. the trouble youll have is that some words in the OT in ITALICS are in the NT w/o ITALICS b/c they show up in Greek manuscripts... no one just inserted them otherwise they'd be italicized in the NT too. maybe that will help clear up what i was saying.

 

[bryan1276]

BrianT,
the trouble is that I find a promise of inerrant preservation in Psalms 12:6-7. Either God lied or else that promise is lying around somewhere and I need to get my hands on it. I believe Gods words have been preserved through a line of Bibles and the KJV is the end of that line--the 7th in fact. You asked what was before the KJV, Luthers German was what God used to produce the fruit before the KJV. I still dont find any claim anywhere in the Bible for the authority of the originals, so i have no regard for originals. they mean nothing because they dont exist. they are guesswork. you claim that the bible makes no claim for the KJV. But according to your own admission about "the Bible" all your versions are in error, according to you. if yoru errant manuscripts put together dont claim anything for the KJV, who cares what you can find and cant find. its all in error in one way or another.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
the trouble is that I find a promise of inerrant preservation in Psalms 12:6-7.

I don't see the KJV mentioned in that verse.

Either God lied or else that promise is lying around somewhere and I need to get my hands on it.

The third alternative is that you misunderstand something.

I believe Gods words have been preserved through a line of Bibles and the KJV is the end of that line--the 7th in fact.

But the KJV is different from everything prior to it. How is that "preservation"? Why did it change what was "preserved" in 1605?

You asked what was before the KJV, Luthers German was what God used to produce the fruit before the KJV.

Luther's Bible is different from the KJV. It doesn't even have 1 John 5:7. If it was the preserved word of God before the KJV, why did the KJV add that verse, and differ on so many others?

I still dont find any claim anywhere in the Bible for the authority of the originals, so i have no regard for originals.

That's nice.

I don't find any claim anywhere in the Bible for the authority of the KJV - yet I still have regard for it.

you claim that the bible makes no claim for the KJV.

Yes, and my claim is correct.

But according to your own admission about "the Bible" all your versions are in error, according to you.

All versions are made by fallible men. Do you believe in reinspiration of scripture? Maybe you do, if Luther's was the preserved word of God, despite not having 1 John 5:7.

if yoru errant manuscripts put together dont claim anything for the KJV, who cares what you can find and cant find. its all in error in one way or another.

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere." (The KJV translators) - in other words, a version need not be "perfect" to be the "King's speech" ("the word of God").

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
Chapter and Verse for KJV only is as good as a chapter and verse for an NIV or NASV. I hear the originals are what we look for yet I can find chapter and verse several times where God destroys originals (Jeremiah 36, 51), redoes originals (copies) as with Moses on Mt. Sinai or order originals eaten in Ezekiel. God cares nothing about "the originals" and that christians have placed a higher priority on "the originals" than God did. God let them be destroyed and folks today just wont give them up. I do believe in the KJV to be the preserved words of God b/c God promised to preserve what he inspired (Ps. 12:6-7). I dont find any scripture to support the idea that God lost what he inspired. I do find that God promised to preserve his words without error, but I dont find that God would use errant manuscripts to piece together something we'd have to guess on. I see a promise of fruit from Gods words and watched history bear that out in revivals up until the modern versions came out and the evangelists slowly went away. I see claims that INTALICIZED words were added by the KJV folks yet i find Paul quoting italicized words in Romans 10:20 from Isaiah 65:1. Thats wild man. The italics arent in the original supposedly, but Paul quotes them? He does it again in 1 Cor.3:20, 1 Cor. 9:9. So the King James was good enough for Paul and he quoted the 'translators additions.' I find no Biblical support to reject my King James Bible.

Where in the Psalms 12:6,7 does the Bible state that God promises to preserve his words? Please read carefully:

Psa 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.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psa 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

The word, "them" in verse 7 refers to the poor and needy in verse 5. Furthermore this passage (the whole chapter in context) is a promise that God will Preserve HIS PEOPLE. Quit taking verses out of context to prove a point. To do so is the same as taking and adding to the bible.