Did God Breathe Out (Inspire) Actual English Words

[sag38]

Those are my answers friends. You didn't ask for reasons. And I'm not obliged to give them, since no one here is willing to be taught.

The height of arrogance fully on display for all to see.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I challenged people to name “one Bible”(any Bible), that they could perfectly trust as being God’s Word...

I trust the KJV. I also trust the Geneva, NASB, Matthew's, NET, Young's, ALT and many other English translations. I even trust the translations in foreign languages that I can't speak or read. I trust that God will accomplish what He wants to do with His Word (an attitude I get from reading His Word, which could be considered circular reasoning).

Trust works in advance. I can not prove today that the KJV is perfect in every detail (and it seems that it isn't without some blemishes). I have studied the KJV for many years and will continue to do so, but I will not live long enough to completely eliminate the possibility that there may be a serious problem somewhere in the KJV; and my ability to detect errors is not comprehensive anyway (so I cannot put complete trust in my own ability). Neither can I prove right now that the Geneva, NASB or foreign language versions are perfect in every detail; in fact, what I have found is that all translations are flawed at least in some small way. I prayed and expected that God would use those Bibles (before I saw the results).

Trust involves an element of risk. I can take some comfort in that the KJV has been studied by so many faithful people and intelligent scholars and they have not found reason to condemn it for containing outright heresy after all these years. While most other English translations have not been around as long or scrutinized by as many folks, very few of them have false translations identified in them so far. But only allowing other humans to certify what is or is not God's revelation to me would be dangerous; thus my real trust is in the Holy Spirit.

Trust is not certainty. Some one could be wrong.

 

[Logos1560]

The 1611 KJV, was revised 4 times(correcting spelling and typos), and in 1769, the same Bible that I am reading today, came off the presses.

If you actually have a KJV edition that is 100% identical in text to the 1769 Oxford KJV edition, I would like to examine it. According to my research, there have been a number of changes made to the 1769 Oxford KJV text since that time.

All updating of the KJV was not finished by 1769. The 1762 Cambridge edition, a 1769 Cambridge edition, the 1769 Oxford edition, and even later Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1799, 1804, and even as late as 1810 still have a character shaped like “f” for long “s” in many words. A few examples of the use of this character in the 1795 Oxford KJV edition: “fin” (Ps. 32:5), “fee” (Ps. 34:12), “chafe” (Ps. 35:5), “wife” (Ps. 36:3), “flay” (Ps. 37:14), “feed” (Ps. 37:26), “fore” (Ps. 38:2), “foul” (Ps. 42:1), and “fake” (Ps. 44:26). The spelling of other words was also changed or updated after 1769, some after 1840, and some even after 1885. The change in several words may have been made after 1804 [“befel“ to “befell“ (2 Sam. 15:12), “Judea” to “Judaea” (Matt. 2:1), “Lebbeus” to “Lebbaeus” (Matt. 10:3), “Arimathea” to “Arimathaea” (Matt. 27:57), “Idumea” to “Idumaea” (Mark 3:8), “Alpheus” to “Alphaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Thaddeus” to “Thaddaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Bartimeus” to “Bartimaeus” (Mark 10:46), “Cesar’s” to “Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17), “vail” to “veil” (Mark 15:38), etc.] although some present KJV editions have gone back to the earlier spelling in same cases. Some words were changed after 1840 in Oxford editions [“houfhold” or “houshold” to “household” (Gen. 18:19), “houfholds” or “housholds” to “households” (Gen. 42:33), “houfholder” or “housholder” to “householder” (Matt. 13:27), “broidered” to “broided” (1 Tim. 2:9), “injoined” to “enjoined” (Heb. 9:20), etc.]. A few spelling changes were made after 1880 in Oxford editions: [“enquire” to “inquire” (Gen. 24:57), “ax” to “axe” (Deut. 19:5), “ancles” to “ankles” (Ezek. 47:3), “sope“ to “soap“ (Mal. 3:2), “ancle” to “ankle” (Acts 3:7), “enquired” to “inquired” (1 Pet. 1:10), etc.]. Some spelling changes were made after 1900 in present standard Cambridge editions.

Present Oxford KJV editions are not every word the same in text as the standard 1769 Oxford edition. The 1769 Oxford had a few renderings from the 1762 Cambridge that are not in present editions [Gen. 36:22, Deut. 10:2, 1 Sam. 2:13]. The 1769 Oxford edition had “LORD” [Jehovah] at several verses where present Oxford editions have “Lord.” Most of these changes of “LORD” to “Lord” were not introduced until after 1828. The standard 1769 Oxford edition had several other renderings that are not found in present Oxford editions [“thy progenitors” instead of “my progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri“ instead of “Zichri“ (Exod. 6:21), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” instead of “Beer-sheba, and Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” instead of “elders of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “coast” instead of “coasts” (Jud. 19:29), “hasted” instead of “hastened” (1 Sam. 17:48), “on the pillars” instead of “on the top of the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions” instead of “the companions” (Job 41:6), “unto me” instead of “under me” (Ps. 18:47), “feared” instead of “fear” (Ps. 60:4), “part” instead of “parts” (Ps. 78:66), “gates of iron” instead of “bars of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “mighty is spoiled“ instead of “mighty are spoiled“ (Zech. 11:2), “Now if do” instead of “Now if I do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” instead of “not still in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” instead of “the world” (1 Cor. 4:13), “about” instead of “above” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” instead of “ye were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), and “our joy” instead of “your joy” (1 John 1:4). Several of these 1769 renderings remained in Oxford editions over 70 years since they can still be found in a 1840 Oxford edition. At least one (Exod. 6:21) remained over 100 years since it is still in a 1872 Cambridge edition, a 1880 Oxford edition, and in many Oxford editions between 1769 and 1880. Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1799, 1804, 1810, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1857, 1859, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, and 1885 have “travel” instead of “travail” at Numbers 20:14 and Lamentations 3:5. Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1804, 1810, 1821, and 1828 have “the holy apostles” instead of “his holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5). Other differences could be given.

 

[Logos1560]

The 1611 KJV, was revised 4 times(correcting spelling and typos)

Revisions or changes have been made in more than just 4 editions of the KJV. The 2,000 plus changes between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the present Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible involve more than just the correction of spelling and "typos" [printing errors].

David Sorenson maintained: "There were also eight other revisions and editions of the King James Version between 1611 and 1769: 1612, 1613, 1629, 1631, 1638, 1717, 1762, 1745" (Touch Not, p. 17). KJV-only author Peter Ruckman referred to “seven revised copies of the AV (1611, 1613, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1769, and 1850) that result in a purified Book” (Differences in the KJV Editions, pp. 18-19). Ruckman indicated that “we have a list which gives fourteen [major editions] (1612, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1629, and 1630, with the King’s printers; then 1640, 1660, 1701, 1762, 1769, 1833, 1847-1851, and 1858)“ (Biblical Scholarship, p. 46). Ruckman referred to “the list of the fourteen principle editions of the Authorized Version” (p. 364). KJV-only author William Grady claimed that “other conscientious editions appeared in 1629, 1638, 1644, 1676, 1680, 1701, 1762, 1769, 1806, 1813, 1850, and 1852 changing legitimate human errors” (Final Authority, p. 170).

 

[Salamander]

Actually, I understood self-contradiction around age 5.

You're really pretty good at it.

Observing things from the convulsion of mind apprehends things and perverts them into what one wants them to appear to be contrary to what they actually are in their existence.

Congratulations on your expertise!

 

[Salamander]

Thank you. I did understand the reason behind the two numbers. Even logic says he couldn't be older than his father so he had to be 22. I have used my faithful KJV since 1945 for preaching, teaching, study and memorization.

Enough reason not to waste time with other versions.

Guess I was hitting at the KJ Bible people..They won't even admit it is just a version, another translation.

A blatant attack on the voracity of Scripture supposing anything that is similar to the Bible is also a valid version.

We also have words that have changed their meaning since 1611..completely reversed their meaning. Hardly infallible!

Cheers,

Jim

And just WHO reversed their meaning? Don't they retain their ROOT meanings?

Inflammatory language snipped - C4K

 

[Salamander]

What do you mean by snake? Are you calling someone a snake or what? I'm asking for a more specific explanation.

All I can see you doing is looking for something to pervert it into to make some sort of claim against my person, y'now, just like your accusation of arrogance against Lukasaurus.

A teacher tries to teach others something they don't know. When he realizes their willingness to remain ignorant, he has no other impression that the one he stated.

Want to KNOW what I mean by those large letters? Read Genesis. read how subtle the serpent is to present half-truths to beguile people.

Why, just read into anything I say to satisify your lust!

 

[Salamander]

I never said this. You are the one, I believe, saying that a certain English translation is the only inspired version.

You can stay wrong about this all you want. I never said anything of the sort, this is just evidence of how your bias against the KJB rules over your very being.

I never said this either. God inspired the original words of the Bible, which we have translations of.

You imply many things due to the lack of clarity. You say things and are yet controlled by youre suspicious nature.

I have the inspired translation of the original tongues diligently compared and in perfect harmony.

Which Bibles do you have that aren't inspired?

 

[Salamander]

If you want an interesting study, try reading the KJV in light of Church of England ecclesiology...works everytime. Then, the majority of those who worked on the translation were Church of England scholars.

I grew up in the Church of England and that is all we used, the KJV. Even the Prayer Book uses quotes from the KJV.

In my early days in Canada, the KJV was almost elevated to heaven. The premier of Alberta was a King James only Baptist, and his predecessor nicked "Bible" Bill Aberhart.

My Greek and Hebrew is ok for my private use, but not good enough to use in scholarly studies or lessons. I had to rely on the various translations. To this day I still transliterate from my own KJV from my sidenotes where I have corrected text.

Nice to meet a level headed chap. Blessings on you mate.

Cheers,

Jim

I love the way so many attack the Bible by attacking the translators.

I've asked this a few times: would you aslo object to a murder leading God's people out of Egypt!?

In retrospect to the ability to articulate verses the worth of one's walk with the Lord, as to have that divine ability to express what thus saith the Lord, I'll have to let the leader into idolatry aside and stick with the murderer!:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

Wow - how about all the millions of believers who have never picked up a KJV1769? God has also used them to put His stamp of approval on other versions.

The question of the thread is this.

Did God breathe out the words of the KJV1611 or did men translate the words into English?

That is hardly an attack on the KJV or those, like me, who love and trust it.

All anyone has to do is look into the question; "Did God breath" = inspiration?

If the KJ1611 isn't God breathed, then when did anyone accomplish this "un-inspiration"?

Just when did God's word become "UN-INSPIRED!"?

To suggest we don't have the inspired words of God in our English Bible is a BLATANT attack on the word of God! Yet it is allowed on BB.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Logos1560

You correctly quoted me..........

“The 1611 KJV, was revised 4 times(correcting spelling and typos), and in 1769, the same Bible that I am reading today, came off the presses.”

As you can see, I was talking about “revisions”:
But the extensive list that you supplied, is a list of “editions”:
(There is clearly a difference!)

“edition” e-di-tion (î-dîsh¹en) noun
a. The entire number of copies of a publication issued at one time or from a single set of type.
b. A single copy from this group.
c. The form in which a publication is issued: a paperback edition of a novel; etc.

--------------------------------------------------
Changing “Cesar’s” to “Caesar’s”, can hardly be considered a momentous discovery.

But totally removing or gutting 1John 5:7(as most other Bible’s do), is noteworthy.

 

[HankD]

Take a look at this site.

This person is serious.

This is what happens when insisting upon an every word inspired 1611 Elizabethan-Jacobian English language Bible.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

You have to choose one and only one year and edition of the King James Bible (or NIV or Douay-Rheims, etc) in order to make that claim.

Otherwise the differences can not be easily explained away (such as the hundreds of differences between the 1611 First edition and the 1769).

Some like to believe that God makes little mistakes (spelling, getting number and gender wrong, etc) but not big ones.

For instance (as this site addressed above shows) there are two different renderings of Genesis 1:1 in the dfferent KJV's.

As a side issue this is remarkable that the very first verse in the English KJV has differences (I won't say all but one is "mistaken", you decide).

In this site, the authoring individual claims that any KJV with this following rendering is a "counterfeit" and "heaven" is the "Real Bible".

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.​

The author claims (not sure who told him) that any Bible that calls itself a King James which says "heavens" (pl) is a counterfeit.​

In addition, the author has a lengthy list that you must check for "counterfeit" renderings in your KJV and get rid of it if you find them or don't buy it if you are shopping around.​

Here is the irony, the truly inspired Hebrew is dual plural (shamayim)
and "heavens" is actually correct.​

And according to the KJV translators Hebrew is one of the languages "wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles".​

So you choose, which is inspired the English or the Hebrew?​

HankD​

 

[robycop3]

Problem is, some actually BELIEVE that garbage such as Kizziah's. And another who promotes similar hooey is Matthew Verschuur, AKA "Bibleprotector", who insists the early-20th C. Cambridge Edition KJV is the ONLY pure Bible translation.

I hope no one HERE believes anything either of those kooks has to say.

 

[stilllearning]

This thread is an attack on the KJV and should be closed.

 

[Askjo]

In this site, the authoring individual claims that any KJV with this following rendering is a "counterfeit" and "heaven" is the "Real Bible".

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.​

The author claims (not sure who told him) that any Bible that calls itself a King James which says "heavens" (pl) is a counterfeit.​

In addition, the author has a lengthy list that you must check for "counterfeit" renderings in your KJV and get rid of it if you find them or don't buy it if you are shopping around.​

Here is the irony, the truly inspired Hebrew is dual plural (shamayim)​

and "heavens" is actually correct.

Modern versions said heavens. The KJV said heaven, but where is the KJV that said, "heavens? What are the heavens?​

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Modern versions said heavens. The KJV said heaven, but where is the KJV that said, "heavens? What are the heavens?​

Maybe the heavens in Genesis 2v1?

 

[EdSutton]

This thread is an attack on the KJV and should be closed.

Who, here, has made "an attack on the KJV" in this regard? I haven't seen one, except from a "web-site" where the individual would call my KJV a counterfeit, since it does not happen to be his preferred edition.

Incidentally, every "American" printed KJV is a counterfeit, in the sense that it does not give the true owners of the KJV (the Anglican church and the 'English Crown') the 'royalties' that are rightfully theirs, unlike my own 1967 Edition of the Oxford KJV, FTR, considering that the English owners have never given any permission to the first (all the way back to the late 1700s, or any subsequent) American printings of the KJV.

What is being "attacked" here is any "Only-ism" of any flavor, which incidentally, should have been permanently laid to rest for English speaking people, with the first appearance(s) of Wycliffe's Bible and then the Wycliffe/Purvey edition, in the 1380s. If not then, at least with the publications of Tyndale, Rogers, and/or Coverdale, et al., for more than one English language Bible was then available to Englsih speaking people.

BTW, I would be the modern-day equivalent to what Dr. Tyndale referred to as a "ploughboy" considering I am a farmer, and I now do have the Bible available to me in at least 20 versions and editions via "hard-copy" plus access via computer, to another 30 or so, making 50 versions, I can lay my eyes on. I consider most of them suspect, at times, especially the NWT , because of the obvious overt 'translator bias', to present a particular agenda, although no one can completely dissociate oneself with their various hidden (and even unknown) biases, IMO.

Ed

 

[robycop3]

This thread is an attack on the KJV and should be closed.

No, it's pointing out FACTS about the KJV, which is hardly an attack to most rational folx. it does, however, throw some heat against the KJVO doctrine.

Wanna tryta defend the KJVO theory with SCRIPTURE? We're waiting...

 

[robycop3]

Modern versions said heavens. The KJV said heaven, but where is the KJV that said, "heavens? What are the heavens?​

"Heavens" is the SKY, which is the meaning of the Hebrew word used here, "shamayim ", as well as the abode of God, depending upon the context. This same word is translated "heavens" in Genesis 2:1 & 4 as well as in other places in the KJV. Thus, your point is dead.

 

[Askjo]

Maybe the heavens in Genesis 2v1?

That is correct, Nothing wrong with Gen. 2:1. The site said Genesis 1:1.