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

[Robert Snow]

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?

You use what you want and I'll use what I want. In the end, we will see who is correct. In my opinion, the modern versions are all slowly trending toward gender neutral language, which is a slap in the face of God. I will stay with the proven Bible God has blessed for centuries. You are free to wander around and look for God's Word.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally Posted by Logos1560
Do you understand what the word "preserved" means?

According to the definition of "preserved," how could different words in a different language be a preservation of the exact, specific original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

Do you oppose "word" preservation and are you actually claiming "meaning" preservation?

If a Greek or Hebrew text is properly translated and gives the exact meaning of the original text, then it is preserved.

That is your non-scriptural opinion that does not agree with the definition of preserved.

Different words in different forms and in a different language would not be a preservation of the specific original language words given by God to the prophets and apostles.

Understandable translations are not literal, word-for-word renderings of every word of the original text, and they do not preserve every word of what they are translated from and they add some words to it.

While KJV-only advocates usually argue for "word" preservation, you seem to be playing games with the meaning of "preserved" and seem to be claiming only some type of "meaning" preservation.

I have already shown that the Bible itself shows an example of this, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the book of Isaiah, and yet the scriptures themselves call the text he was reading "the scriptures". So obviously a translation can be preserved and scripture.

You have not shown that. You may assume or speculate that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation perhaps because some scholars may suggest that, but the text in the book of Acts does not say that he was reading from Greek.

The fact that the text of the verse is presented in Greek in the Greek New Testament is not proof that he was reading from Greek since the Holy Spirit could give the words to Luke to write in the book of Acts in a different language from what was being read.

With the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls, it is now known that there were differences in old Hebrew manuscripts in least some books with some of those Hebrew manuscripts have a different text from which some Greek translations may have been made.

You have not proven that the Ethiopian eunuch could not have had a Hebrew scroll of the book of Isaiah.

 

[Logos1560]

gender-neutral renderings in the KJV

In my opinion, the modern versions are all slowly trending toward gender neutral language, which is a slap in the face of God.

Your opinions are not scripture and may not be sound.

Are you using unscriptual, unrighteous divers measures [double standards] in your broad-sweeping, unproven accusations against all modern versions?

Gen. 10:22 The sons (Geneva, NKJV) The children (KJV)
Gen. 10:23 sons of Aram (Geneva, NKJV) children of Aram (KJV)
Gen. 36:22 And the sons (Geneva, NKJV) And the children (KJV)
Gen. 36:23 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Gen. 36:24 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Gen. 36:26 the sons (Geneva, NKJV) the children (KJV)
Gen. 36:27 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Gen. 36:28 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
1 Kings 3:19 woman’s son (Geneva, NKJV) woman’s child (KJV)
1 Kings 3:21 give my son suck (Geneva) give my child suck (KJV) nurse my son (NKJV)
2 Kings 4:14 no son (Geneva, NKJV) no child (KJV)
2 Chron. 33:6 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Ezra 2:42 The sons (Geneva, NKJV) The children (KJV)
Ezra 2:43 sons of Ziha (Geneva, NKJV) children of Ziha (KJV)
Ezra 2:44 sons of Keros (Geneva, NKJV) children of Keros (KJV)
Ezra 2:46 sons of Hagab (Geneva, NKJV) children of Hagab (KJV)
Ezra 2:61 sons of the priests (Geneva, NKJV) children of the priests (KJV)
Neh. 7:8 sons of Parosh (Geneva, NKJV) children of Parosh (KJV)
Neh. 7:10 sons of Arah (Geneva, NKJV) children of Arah (KJV)
Neh. 7:16 sons of Bebai (Geneva, NKJV) children of Bebai (KJV)
Neh. 7:59 sons of Amon (Geneva, NKJV) children of Amon (KJV)
Prov. 15:11 sons of men (Geneva, NKJV) children of men (KJV)
Eccl. 4:8 neither son (Geneva, NKJV) neither child (KJV)
Matt. 27:56 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Luke 20:36 sons of God (1560 Geneva Bible, NKJV) children of God (KJV)
Gal. 3:26 sons of God (1560 Geneva Bible, NKJV) children of God (KJV)


The words of the KJV are not identical in gender to all the words in the original language texts.

Dave Brunn asserted: "Every English version has replaced some masculine forms with gender-neutral forms" (One Bible, Many Versions, p. 175).

Brunn noted that Hebrew and Greek "have masculine pronouns in the plural forms" -- "for example, they (masc.) and they (fem.)" (p. 180).

 

[Logos1560]

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.

Is that in effect your definition of preservation since the KJV translators added words for which they had no original language word [not all the added words are in italics] and omitted or did not translate some words in the original language texts and you claim that the KJV is the preserved word of God?

 

[Logos1560]

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.

Have you ever actually compared a 1611 edition of the KJV to every word of a present day edition of the KJV?

Are you aware of the fact that over 140 words were added to the 1611 edition in most present KJV editions, that 45 words in the 1611 edition are omitted in present KJV editions, that over 60 times the number of words [singular/plural] was changed, that several times words were changed, the tense of verbs was sometimes changed, etc?

You cannot excuse all the errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV as being merely spelling errors.

The 1611 edition kept the wrong king's name at 2 Kings 24:19 from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.

2 Kings 24:19 [Jehoiakim--1560 Geneva; Joachin--1602 Bishops]
Jehoiackin (1813, 1815 Carey)
Jehoiachin [1817 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650 London} (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1843 AFBS) (1854 Harding)

Jehoiakim (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Again the 1611 edition kept an error from the 1602 Bishops' Bible at 1 Kings 11:5.

1 Kings 11:5 [Ammonites--1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops; Amorites--1602 Bishops]
Amorites {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644 London}
Ammonites (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Logos1560]

I would ask you the same question. If all the Bibles in the whole world were destroyed including every single type of scripture manuscript or text small or large, if there remained just one single page of scripture in the original languages, would you still say the scriptures are preserved because one single page of scripture remains?

Please answer that question.

The one single page of Scripture would be preserved, but the preservation of one page would not be the preservation of all of the Scriptures given by God to the prophets and apostles.

The KJV has readings found in no original language manuscripts, making a KJV-only theory an inconsistent view of preservation. An inconsistent, modern, man-made KJV-only theory conflicts with any consistent view of the preservation of the Scriptures.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

I have a question for both sides of this debate. What is your position on the status & definition of the preserved Word before the gospel accounts & epistles were organized into the book we call the New Testament? How much of it is needed for our daily walk with God? For centuries, believers only had portions, if any, of the Scriptures we have today.



BTW, I believe the Geneva Bible to be a superior translation to the KJV; though both are the Word of God.