Do KJVO place the KJV same par as the Greek NT?

[Winman]

God did NOT need top preserve theoriginals to us, he chose to preserve to us essentially those books, in the Greek/hebrew texts, and those are infallible, not perfect, so any version translated off them and done rightly are also infallible, not perfect though!

That is why no exactly correct/right greek/hebrew text available to us today, but ALl available to use are essentially same as ythe originals, just NOT error free/perfect!

One definition of "infallible" is incapable of error. From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary;

Definition of INFALLIBLE

1: incapable of error : unerring <an infallible memory>
2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain <an infallible remedy>
3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

If the scriptures are infallible as you say, then they are incapable of error, they cannot mislead, deceive, or disappoint.

It was about 3 years ago when a regular poster here wrote that she was troubled by Matthew 5:22 in one of the Modern Versions. I cannot remember exactly which version it was, but it rendered Matthew 5:22 very differently than the King James. The King James says;

KJV- But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

The version this person read omitted the words "without a cause" as the NIV does;

NIV- But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

The NIV says that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. This poster was also using a version that omitted "without a cause" and this rendering caused this poster a great deal of anxiety, as they thought they were sinning when they were angry at another person, even when it seemed their anger was just.

The KJB says something much different, it says that if a person is angry at his brother "without a cause" shall be in danger of the judgment. The KJB implies it is not sin to be angry at your brother if you have a legitimate and just reason for doing so.

According to the NIV, Jesus would have committed sin when he became angry at the money changers in the temple and overturned their tables. According to the KJB, Jesus would not be a sinner, as his anger was just.

The KJB and the MVs do not say the same thing. One of these versions MUST be in error concerning this verse, and one of these versions MUST be misleading concerning this verse. One of these versions is not infallible by the dictionary definition of the word.

This is the whole issue, it is impossible to hold a rational debate with people who constantly redefine words. Preserved does not really mean preserved, infallible does not really mean infallible. A person is really never certain what these people mean when they say something.

 

[jbh28]

So, if every single Bible in the world, and every single manuscript in the original languages was destroyed, until all that remained was one single document that showed the first chapter of Genesis only, and this was all that remained of the scriptures in the entire world, you would tell everybody that the Word of God is preserved?

Would you? I don't believe this will happen since God said his words would be preserved.

Is that what you mean when you say the word of God is preserved?

I mean that the words of God "shall not pass away."

Or, if someone adds hundreds of words and verses to the original scriptures in the original languages, would you tell everyone the Word of God has been preserved?

Yes, of course. the added words would not be Scripture, but the words of God are still preserved. They are still here.

 

[jbh28]

;

What I am trying to get from JBH28 is "his" definition of preservation as concerning the scriptures. If I understand him correctly, the texts in the original languages could have any number of omissions or additions, but if they contain ANY word from the original text he considers this preserved.

All of the words will be preserved. And I've quoted Scripture every time you've asked for my definition. So i would be more correct to say God's definition, not mine. I can't take credit for it. The additions would not be Scripture. No Scripture will be deleted as God promised to preserve his words. The words shall not pass away, so they cannot be deleted.

 

[Winman]

Would you? I don't believe this will happen since God said his words would be preserved.

You didn't answer the question.

I mean that the words of God "shall not pass away."

Again, you did not answer the question.

Yes, of course. the added words would not be Scripture, but the words of God are still preserved. They are still here.

Well, you finally said something. Now I see your view. A person could add entire books to the Bible and you would maintain that it is still preserved.

I don't know of anyone who would agree with this view, but who knows? maybe there are some.

Thank you for finally explaining what you mean by preservation.

 

[Winman]

All of the words will be preserved. And I've quoted Scripture every time you've asked for my definition. So i would be more correct to say God's definition, not mine. I can't take credit for it. The additions would not be Scripture. No Scripture will be deleted as God promised to preserve his words. The words shall not pass away, so they cannot be deleted.

OK, I understand your view even better. A person could add any number of words, verses, chapters, books, etc... and as long no words of scripture are deleted you would say scripture has been preserved.

Again, I don't know how God's word could be considered preserved if you added to it, but I understand this is YOUR definition of preservation.

So, you believe ALL scripture has been preserved, but words have been added to scripture?

The CT text has nearly 3000 less words in the original Greek than the RT text used for the KJB. Is it your view that the CT text is preserved and the RT text has added these nearly 3000 extra words?

 

[jbh28]

You didn't answer the question.

It will not happen because God promised to preserve his word. so, no, all the words will not pass away.

Again, you did not answer the question.

That's my answer according to the Bible. That's what is meant by preserved.

Well, you finally said something. Now I see your view. A person could add entire books to the Bible and you would maintain that it is still preserved.

Yes, it would be. Would the words have passed away? No. The books added would not be Scripture. Scripture would still be preserved. People have added books to the bible(the Catholics and the Mormons) Is the Bible still preserved? Yes, but those added books are not Scripture.

I don't know of anyone who would agree with this view, but who knows? maybe there are some.

What's to disagree with. The words of God have not passed away. me attempting to add something doesn't mean that the words have passed away. The words are still kept. They are preserved. The added words are just that, added words that are not Scripture.

Thank you for finally explaining what you mean by preservation.

I quoted Scripture. Do you have a better definition than my biblical one?

OK, I understand your view even better. A person could add any number of words, verses, chapters, books, etc... and as long no words of scripture are deleted you would say scripture has been preserved.

That's what preserved means, to never pass away. Do you have a better biblical definition?

Again, I don't know how God's word could be considered preserved if you added to it, but I understand this is YOUR definition of preservation.

The added part would not be Scripture. Do you have a better biblical definition?

So, you believe ALL scripture has been preserved, but words have been added to scripture?

No words can be added to Scripture. The Scripture, or the words of God will be preserved. If you took the book of Ephesians and added a 7th chapter, that 7th chapter would not be Scripture.

The CT text has nearly 3000 less words in the original Greek than the RT text used for the KJB. Is it your view that the CT text is preserved and the RT text has added these nearly 3000 extra words?

Yes, I believe that the CT texts are more accurate.

I've quoted Scripture every time you have asked me what preserve means. Now it's your turn. Please biblically give us your view of preservation.

 

[Winman]

It will not happen because God promised to preserve his word. so, no, all the words will not pass away.
That's my answer according to the Bible. That's what is meant by preserved.


Yes, it would be. Would the words have passed away? No. The books added would not be Scripture. Scripture would still be preserved. People have added books to the bible(the Catholics and the Mormons) Is the Bible still preserved? Yes, but those added books are not Scripture.

What's to disagree with. The words of God have not passed away. me attempting to add something doesn't mean that the words have passed away. The words are still kept. They are preserved. The added words are just that, added words that are not Scripture.
I quoted Scripture. Do you have a better definition than my biblical one?

That's what preserved means, to never pass away. Do you have a better biblical definition?

The added part would not be Scripture. Do you have a better biblical definition?

No words can be added to Scripture. The Scripture, or the words of God will be preserved. If you took the book of Ephesians and added a 7th chapter, that 7th chapter would not be Scripture.
Yes, I believe that the CT texts are more accurate.

I've quoted Scripture every time you have asked me what preserve means. Now it's your turn. Please biblically give us your view of preservation.

Well, this is a real cute view. Unfortunately, God gives serious warnings to anybody who adds or takes away from God's word.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God warns against both adding and taking away from his word.

How would a person know if scripture has been added? Explain that to me. I am not talking about the Apocrypha, but verses or words here and there added. Some scholars think the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are an addition.

And you say God's word cannot be taken away from, but God warns against that very thing. Obviously God thinks that men can take away from his word or this warning would not be needed. I do not believe God says vain and unnecessary things.

Now, the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are either an addition that should not be there, or they have been deleted from the CT, but it cannot be true that the scriptures should both contain and omit these verses.

Your view is clever and cute, but I do not think it is scriptural. God would not be fooled.

 

[jbh28]

Well, this is a real cute view. Unfortunately, God gives serious warnings to anybody who adds or takes away from God's word.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God warns against both adding and taking away from his word.

I would agree. Adding or subtracting is a very serious thing and totally wrong, as I said. I don't follow the "unfortunately" because that's what I said.

How would a person know if scripture has been added? Explain that to me. I am not talking about the Apocrypha, but verses or words here and there added. Some scholars think the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are an addition.

Comparison of the manuscripts, otherwise known as textual criticism.

And you say God's word cannot be taken away from, but God warns against that very thing. Obviously God thinks that men can take away from his word or this warning would not be needed. I do not believe God says vain and unnecessary things.

You know very well what I meant. I said that man couldn't totally remove portions of the Bible. Sure, one could take away from a place or two,(which God warns against) and one could add a place or two(which God also warns against) but God's word will abide forever. So no man can totally take away any portion. But you know what I mean.

Now, the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are either an addition that should not be there, or they have been deleted from the CT, but it cannot be true that the scriptures should both contain and omit these verses.

True, no one has ever said otherwise.

Your view is clever and cute, but I do not think it is scriptural. God would not be fooled.

I quoted Scripture to support my view. God's words will not pass away. There's nothing "clever and cute" about what I said. My view is 100% based on the Bible. That's why every time you asked what I meant by preservation, I quoted Scripture.

So, I've quoted Scripture every time you have asked me what preserve means. Now it's your turn. Please biblically give us your view of preservation.

 

[Winman]

I have stated my view probably dozens of times over the years. I believe God has always preserved his word in every generation, although his words were not always contained in one book called the Bible.

At the time of the KJB, those scholars compared the many manuscripts and translations available and determined what was scripture and what was not. I happen to believe that God was over this and that these men did an excellent job, whether they would ever claim to have done so or not. I think history supports the KJB, it became the predominate version of scripture just as England became the first true world super-power, taking the KJB to nearly every country on every continent. Many millions of people were saved under the KJB.

I believe the scriptures have always been maintained and preserved by faithful Christians that kept errors out. Were there minor problems such as typos or punctuation? Sure, but by careful comparison corrections were made until there was a pure version. That said, there was never a corrupt translation, a spelling error does not make a translation corrupt. Much of these changes were due to English as a language developing and being standardized over time.

I don't buy your definition of preservation. If your theory is true, I don't know when I am reading God's word or when I'm reading some addition a scribe made, or if whole verses are missing. God is not the author of confusion.

I actually believe we have the whole Bible and that it is not corrupt. I believe in the English language that Bible is the King James Version.

 

[jbh28]

I have stated my view probably dozens of times over the years. I believe God has always preserved his word in every generation, although his words were not always contained in one book called the Bible.

I would agree. And I believe that God will always preserve his word.

At the time of the KJB, those scholars compared the many manuscripts and translations available and determined what was scripture and what was not. I happen to believe that God was over this and that these men did an excellent job, whether they would ever claim to have done so or not. I think history supports the KJB, it became the predominate version of scripture just as England became the first true world super-power, taking the KJB to nearly every country on every continent. Many millions of people were saved under the KJB.

I agree mostly. I do agree that the translators did an excellent job with the KJV. They didn't really have "many" manuscripts, and they mostly used compiled Greek texts. They did give reference when there were variants like Luke 17:36, so they were familiar with the variants in the manuscripts. I also have no doubt that God helped them just like he helps us today with our tasks. God helps you lead your family, though I'm sure you would admit you have not been perfect as I have not either.

I believe the scriptures have always been maintained and preserved by faithful Christians that kept errors out. Were there minor problems such as typos or punctuation? Sure, but by careful comparison corrections were made until there was a pure version. That said, there was never a corrupt translation, a spelling error does not make a translation corrupt. Much of these changes were due to English as a language developing and being standardized over time.

They were as careful as they could be, but there were still errors. And errors more than just typos. Luke 17:36, I John 5:7 are two big examples of variants even with the manuscripts available during the KJV translating time.

I don't buy your definition of preservation.

I quoted Scripture....

If your theory is true, I don't know when I am reading God's word or when I'm reading some addition a scribe made, or if whole verses are missing. God is not the author of confusion.

God preserved his words, that's preservation. There are variants in the manuscripts. No two manuscripts are alike. Even you said that the KJV translators(more accurately it would be Erasmus and Beza) compared manuscripts. Was the Bible preserved then when they were comparing manuscripts? Of course it was.

I actually believe we have the whole Bible and that it is not corrupt. I believe in the English language that Bible is the King James Version.

Remember, my definition is based on Scripture. You didn't quote one single verse the entire post. My definition of preservation is that the words of God "shall not pass away."

Where in the Bible are you getting your definition? By the looks of it, you just made it up. And even worse, its inconsistent.

 

[Winman]

Wow, you accuse me of not quoting scripture? Now, that is hilarious, I probably quote scripture to support my views more than any other poster at BB. I don't just quotes lists of scripture like some do, but scripture that actually pertains to the point I am trying to prove. But very well.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

This scripture says God's words are pure words, they are not corrupt, and that he will preserve them from this generation forever.

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

God said his law is perfect, that is, without error. So I do not agree that all versions have error as you believe. His word is sure, there is no reason to doubt it.

Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

God's word is true, it is not mixed with error as you believe, and his word will endure forever.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

This is the verse that convinced me that God's word was in the world, and that all I need to do was find it many years ago. If Jesus expects us to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, then it is only reasonable to believe that God would provide every word for us. And God is not the author of confusion, so I refuse to believe God would mix his every word with words that weren't his.

That is what I believe. If you believe that God would allow his word to be mixed up and confused with non-scripture, then all I can say is that we do not believe in the same God.

 

[HankD]

When you preserve strawberries you don’t get blueberries when you open the jar.

Only the preserved original language text can fully retain the meaning which God intended.

The KJV translators knew this (from “to the reader”):

The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the olde Bookes (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to bee tryed by the Hebrewe Volumes, so of the New by the Greeke tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greeke. If trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues, therefore, the Scriptures wee say in those tongues, wee set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speake to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.

Example

John 11
33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came
with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,
34 And said, where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.
35 Jesus wept.

The “weeping “ that Mary and the Jews were doing is klaio – a kind of emotional wailing.
The word for what Jesus did is dakruo – a silent weeping evidenced by tears rolling down the cheeks pointing to His manliness and self control.

HankD

 

[Amy.G]

I actually believe we have the whole Bible and that it is not corrupt. I believe in the English language that Bible is the King James Version.

In other words, there was only one translation team that ever lived that was capable of translating the original languages into English. All translators previous to 1611 were inadequate as well as all translators after 1611, thereby producing "corrupt" bibles. No one else was or is able to accurately translate the scriptures into English except the KJ translation team of the Anglican Church.

Not.

 

[jbh28]

Wow, you accuse me of not quoting scripture? Now, that is hilarious, I probably quote scripture to support my views more than any other poster at BB. I don't just quotes lists of scripture like some do, but scripture that actually pertains to the point I am trying to prove. But very well.

I didn't say you never quote Scripture. I said, "You didn't quote one single verse the entire post."

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

This scripture says God's words are pure words, they are not corrupt, and that he will preserve them from this generation forever.

Agree, Very much in line with what I've said. God will keep his words.

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

God said his law is perfect, that is, without error. So I do not agree that all versions have error as you believe. His word is sure, there is no reason to doubt it.

Well, we were talking about the preservation of Scripture. God's words are perfect. no where does it say that man's translation of God's word is perfect. however, we have been talking about preservation.

Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

God's word is true, it is not mixed with error as you believe, and his word will endure forever.

Um, I believe God's words are true. But what errors are your referring to. Are you referring to the manuscripts which no two read alike? What are you referencing? I don't believe God's word has any errors. What I have said is that copies written by men and translations have errors, but God's words are true.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

This is the verse that convinced me that God's word was in the world, and that all I need to do was find it many years ago. If Jesus expects us to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, then it is only reasonable to believe that God would provide every word for us. And God is not the author of confusion, so I refuse to believe God would mix his every word with words that weren't his.

So you just deny reality. And also are very inconsistent with what you said. were the manuscripts that the KJV translators used free from error?

That is what I believe. If you believe that God would allow his word to be mixed up and confused with non-scripture, then all I can say is that we do not believe in the same God.

Were the manuscripts the KJV translators used free from error?

 

[Robert Snow]

Does anyone really believe that the differences between the original Inspired transcripts and the main versions of today make one bit of difference in salvation?

No, but when it comes to the non-essential mysteries hidden in the Word of God, I think it makes a great deal of difference.

A person can be led to Christ without the presence of a Bible at all, word of mouth and simply telling one what the Scripture says is sufficient.

For me, I will stay with the KJV. I have tried the others; I have many translations in my bookcase, but when I am looking for what God says, I am drawn back to the KJV.

 

[Robert Snow]

ALL were preserved by GOD for a reason.

How do you know any of them are preserved, where you there when God preserved them? You don't know, your just giving you opinion. So, why should anyone take your word for it when you can't even back up what you say with anything more than you mouth?

History proves the KJV is preserved, the others I will let you haggle about with your meaningless rants.

 

[Robert Snow]

Wow, somebody finally gets it. Yes, we believe by FAITH, not proof, just as I believe God parted the Red Sea by faith, and not by proof.

It just hasn't kicked in with you and a few others here how important faith is has it? That is all the Bible talks about from beginning to end, and it goes right over your head.

You guys all want proof, and all of you are doubters.

Very well put.

Many Christians don't want an infallible, preserved Word of God. That way it makes them the decider instead of allowing God to be in control.

If I had know when the NIV was first published that it, along with the other modern versions would slowly become gender neutral I would have discarded the NIV I bought back in 1980. I will now use only the KJV. In fact, I don't know exactly what to do with these NIV's, NLT's and the like. I don't want to burn them or give them away. I may use them in testing bullet penetration tests with some of my guns. After all, they are fairly thick and sturdy.

 

[Robert Snow]

Over the centuries after the KJV production we have had the high privilege of having access to thousands of ancient documents that the KJV team never even knew existed.

"Determined what was scripture and what was not"? They did no such thing.

So you think God lost these manuscripts until recently? How forgetful do you think God is?

 

[HankD]

So you think God lost these manuscripts until recently? How forgetful do you think God is?

Obviously your question is rhetorical, God can't lose anything.

But is He under any obligation to show us where it is?

He can withold and has withheld even the blessing of having His word readily available.

During the dark age as far as anyone knew the word of God was non-existant and even if it was to be found it was read under penalties of the church unless a formal dispensation was granted and that usually to church scholars. Many, most were illiterate anyway.

Even after the start of the Reformation and the invention of the printing press it was a rare person who had private access to a Bible for many generations.

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:​

Today His word abounds and is everywhere available in stores and at our fingertips.

But He could take it all away in an instant.

Just a reminder of how much He has blessed us in this last hour.

HankD

 

[Logos1560]

History proves the KJV is preserved, .

Where do the Scriptures teach that history or men's biased opinions of history determine what is correct Bible doctrine?

Is the KJV in presently used KJV editions preserved 100% identical to the 1611 edition with their over 2000 changes [excluding the 1611 reprint editions that are not commonly taught or preached from]?

Are the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV kept from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible the preserved Scripture according to your claim?

The text of the KJV is not 100% identical to any original language manuscripts or to any original language printed editions before 1611 so how does it show preservation from A. D. 100 until A. D. 1610 when it is not 100% the same?