Does authorized by a king mean authorized by God?

[utilyan]

Let's circle on down to the New Testament, Pardner:

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever,
And this is the word
which by the gospel is preached unto you.
1 Peter 1:25

Even when Peter said that he is talking about what was preached not a King James Bible. How does that statement disqualify any other extra book like the Cat in the Hat? How do you answer when a Mormon points to the same verse to justify the Book of Mormon in his New Testament?

 

[utilyan]

Here’s the thing that does not cross your mind and plenty of people want you to ignore > who decided officially what books do or do not belong. Who decided what works should even be considered for translation?

You don’t want to go down this rabbit hole.

 

[SGO]

Then are you saying our God is so unconcerned with His promise that men while translating goof it up and He does not care?

The word of our God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 40:8

The word of the Lord endureth for ever.
1 peter 1:25

 

[Logos1560]

Then are you saying our God is so unconcerned with His promise that men while translating goof it up and He does not care?

Your reasoning and allegation is wrong. You jump to a wrong conclusion about God. Your erroneous reasoning may be similar to the reasoning of those who claim that there is no God because God allowed suffering, sin, and evil in the world.

Because God may choose to permit imperfect men to make mistakes in copying the Scriptures, in printing the Scriptures, and in translating the Scriptures does not suggest that God is unconcerned and that God did not keep His promise. Because God chose to allow errors to introduced into the 1611 edition of the KJV, do you suggest that means that God does not care and is unconcerned with His promise?

Because God chose to allow suffering and evil in the world does not mean that God is unconcerned and does not care.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your reasoning and allegation is wrong. You jump to a wrong conclusion about God. Your erroneous reasoning may be similar to the reasoning of those who claim that there is no God because God allowed suffering, sin, and evil in the world.

Because God may choose to permit imperfect men to make mistakes in copying the Scriptures, in printing the Scriptures, and in translating the Scriptures does not suggest that God is unconcerned and that God did not keep His promise. Because God chose to allow errors to introduced into the 1611 edition of the KJV, do you suggest that means that God does not care and is unconcerned with His promise?

Because God chose to allow suffering and evil in the world does not mean that God is unconcerned and does not care.

Jesus is the Logos of the father, and he is perfect and complete, we do not need bible versions to be that !

 

[George Antonios]

Michael Hollner wrote: "'Where the word of a king (King James) is, there is power' (Ecclesiastes 8:4)" (The King James Only Debate, p. 75, 2021 edition).

Did this author add to the word of God by inserting King James into the verse? Does this verse limit a king having power or authority to only King James I of England? Does this verse say that everything authorized by a king is authorized by God?

KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted “the Great Bible was the first ‘authorized’ Bible” (King James, His Bible, p. 80). KJV-only author William Grady maintained that “the Great Bible had the distinction of being the first Bible to be officially authorized for public use in England’s churches” (Final Authority, p. 139).

Hannibal Hamlin and Norman Jones noted that “the Great Bible was officially authorized” (KJB after 400 years, p. 4). John Eadie affirmed that the Great Bible “had been formally authorized by the crown” (English Bible, II, p. 204). William Loftie wrote: “In the strict sense of the word the only version ever authorised was the Great Bible referred to specially in a proclamation of Henry VIII, dated in 1538” (Century of Bibles, p. 5). John King and Aaron Pratt contended that the Great Bible was “the only English Bible ever officially authorized by a monarch” (Hamlin, KJB after, p. 67). Andrew Edgar maintained that the Great Bible “bore on its title page the imprimatur of civil authority” (Bibles of England, p. 286).

Did the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible and the 1537 Matthew’s Bible cease to have any authority as an English Bible for readers after the alternative authorized Great Bible was printed?

Did the Great Bible cease to have any authority for readers after a claimed second authorized translation was printed or after a claimed third authorized translation?

If the first translation under royal authority such as the Great Bible really declared to us the Lord's will, then all title by conquest by another translation would be unlawful.

Eating you up, that ol' black book, ain't it? Keep'em coming.

 

[Yeshua1]

Eating you up, that ol' black book, ain't it? Keep'em coming.

was the Kjv any more "authorized" then the Geneva Bible?

 

[Logos1560]

Eating you up, that ol' black book, ain't it? Keep'em coming.

The KJV itself does not state nor teach the erroneous assertions in human KJV-only reasoning.

Whenever cornered by a consistent, just application of clear scriptural truths, do KJV-only advocates attempt to hide behind their subjectively chosen version?

 

[SGO]

Your reasoning and allegation is wrong. You jump to a wrong conclusion about God. Your erroneous reasoning may be similar to the reasoning of those who claim that there is no God because God allowed suffering, sin, and evil in the world.

Because God may choose to permit imperfect men to make mistakes in copying the Scriptures, in printing the Scriptures, and in translating the Scriptures does not suggest that God is unconcerned and that God did not keep His promise. Because God chose to allow errors to introduced into the 1611 edition of the KJV, do you suggest that means that God does not care and is unconcerned with His promise?

Because God chose to allow suffering and evil in the world does not mean that God is unconcerned and does not care.

Why attack me and lower yourself?

You are a big intellectual guy who cannot prove with scripture only the originals are inspired but have given a caveat that, yes there is preservation (Great!), but are you willing to say those preserved verses are inspired?

Please do not say "scriptural principles" with out providing the actual verse that says what you purport.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Timothy 3:16

Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.
Matthew 24:35

 

[Yeshua1]

Why attack me and lower yourself?

You are a big intellectual guy who cannot prove with scripture only the originals are inspired but have given a caveat that, yes there is preservation (Great!), but are you willing to say those preserved verses are inspired?

Please do not say "scriptural principles" with out providing the actual verse that says what you purport.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Timothy 3:16

Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.
Matthew 24:35

BOTH refers to the Originals!

 

[Dave G]

Your reasoning and allegation is wrong. You jump to a wrong conclusion about God. Your erroneous reasoning may be similar to the reasoning of those who claim that there is no God because God allowed suffering, sin, and evil in the world.

I realize you haven't posted this to me, as this is addressed to SGO,
But...

Logos,

To me, your reasoning and allegations are wrong.
You jump to wrong conclusions about God and His willingness and power to keep His promises towards them that know and love Him.

In addition, your erroneous reasoning seems to be similar to the reasoning of those who deny that God exists and that He does not reward those who diligently seek Him ( Hebrews 11:6 ) because they know whom they have believed in, and are persuaded that he is able to keep that which they have committed unto Him against that day ( 2 Timothy 1:12 ).

Because God may choose to permit imperfect men to make mistakes in copying the Scriptures, in printing the Scriptures, and in translating the Scriptures does not suggest that God is unconcerned and that God did not keep His promise.

I agree.

But I think you've overlooked something...
His promises.

Unless He has provided for His words to be transmitted to them so that they actually have them, then He does indeed permit men to not only make mistakes, but for those very men ( and Satan himself ) to have power over Him and His people.

But He does not.
God has preserved His words for His people to take comfort in, and in many languages.

Because God chose to allow errors to introduced into the 1611 edition of the KJV, do you suggest that means that God does not care and is unconcerned with His promise?

Are you suggesting that He has not preserved His words and does not work in the hearts and minds of men to give His people His words in their own languages?
If this is what you believe, then please tell the readers here the answer to this question:

Where are His preserved words kept for those of His children that do not know Greek and Hebrew?
For that matter, where are they preserved for those that do?

 

[Dave G]

BOTH refers to the Originals!

If all we can trust are the originals,
Then His words have indeed passed away ( at least here on earth ), contrary to what the Bible I read, actually says.

Which,
if God does not preserve His words somewhere,
then we really cannot know for sure that what any Bible does say are actually His words, and not man's words.

The originals are long since turned to dust...

Therefore, if His words are only contained in the originals,
then you have no Bible, Dave.
Don't quote it, because you cannot trust it 100% to be His words...

Unless of course you believe by faith ( as I do ) that He does indeed preserve His words for all of His people to take comfort in.

 

[Dave G]

Whenever cornered by a consistent, just application of clear scriptural truths, do KJV-only advocates attempt to hide behind their subjectively chosen version?

Respectfully,
I see a clear bias here, Logos.

Despite your claim to using the KJV for years, every thread that I've read from you on this subject seems overwhelmingly weighted in favor towards taking aim at one thing...
Tearing down the notion that there should be a standard in English that everyone who speaks it ( and has put their trust in the Lord ) can actually rely on to be the word of God.

When someone puts forth the AV as that standard,
you don't reply with what you believe should be that English standard.
Instead, it seems that your focus is more heavily on what it should not be.

I find that very strange behavior from someone who voices their concerns about all parties consistently and justly applying clear Scriptural truths ( which, thus far I have not seen you list and give the references for ) to their choice of a standard regarding English translations.

As I've stated in past threads on this issue,

When you address the claims of those who tell believers that "older is better" ( despite sometimes massive differences in just the manuscripts themselves, such as "Sinaiticus" compared to "Vaticanus" ) regarding Greek manuscripts,
and that we can actually trust a never-ending cycle of English ( and other world languages as well ) translations that are based on an ever-changing NA / UBS textual apparatus for their Greek foundations,
then I'll believe that you're interested in coming to a resolution on this subject.

Until then,
Every thread that you create trying to get "KJV-Only" believers ( and anyone who resembles them ) to doubt their convictions,
will only confirm what I've suspected since I joined this board:

You're not interested in discussing what should be the standard...
You're only interested in convincing people what should not be the standard.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Respectfully,
I see a clear bias here, Logos.

Despite your claim to using the KJV for years, every thread that I've read from you on this subject seems overwhelmingly weighted in favor towards taking aim at one thing...
Tearing down the notion that there should be a standard in English that everyone who speaks it ( and has put their trust in the Lord ) can actually rely on to be the word of God.

When someone puts forth the AV as that standard,
you don't reply with what you believe should be that English standard.
Instead, it seems that your focus is more heavily on what it should not be.

I find that very strange behavior from someone who voices their concerns about all parties consistently and justly applying clear Scriptural truths ( which, thus far I have not seen you list and give the references for ) to their choice of a standard regarding English translations.

As I've stated in past threads on this issue,

When you address the claims of those who tell believers that "older is better" ( despite sometimes massive differences in just the manuscripts themselves, such as "Sinaiticus" compared to "Vaticanus" ) regarding Greek manuscripts,
and that we can actually trust a never-ending cycle of English ( and other world languages as well ) translations that are based on an ever-changing NA / UBS textual apparatus for their Greek foundations,
then I'll believe that you're interested in coming to a resolution on this subject.

Until then,
Every thread that you create trying to get "KJV-Only" believers ( and anyone who resembles them ) to doubt their convictions,
will only confirm what I've suspected since I joined this board:

You're not interested in discussing what should be the standard...
You're only interested in convincing people what should not be the standard.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

I've read books that vehemently defend the "Authorized" 1611 KJV of the Bible, and those that do not necessarily hold to such a position on our Bible versions/translations, and I read some not so (Eph. 4:1-3 & 31) in their accusations of those who would as much as think about thinking about their "Directly from heaven to use here on earth" 1611 KJV O N L Y!! ..... AND about the same as those who don't hold to such a position in their so-called divinely inspired "Test(s) of Fellowship." Why such a divisive attitude exists among people who claim to have personally received in their hearts & minds the very personification of Peace: Jesus Christ Himself, "THE Prince of Peace." If "... and ye shall know them by their fruits, or, as Galatians 5:22-23 indicates, maybe some of their (both pro & con the "Divinely Inspired 1611 KJV" issue). Sesms to me that one or more of our fruit baskets might just be a tad smelly. .... YA THINK??

 

[Logos1560]

,
You jump to wrong conclusions about God and His willingness and power to keep His promises towards them that know and love Him.

Your biased opinion is incorrect. You do not demonstrate from the Scriptures that I jump to any wrong conclusions about God and His willingness and power to keep His promises. I believe that God keeps and has kept His promises so how is that supposedly a wrong conclusion?

Are you trying to smear my belief with your very negative innuendos, distortions, and misrepresentations? It seems you may have adopted the very negative tactics that you claim to avoid and reject. You are the one jumping to wrong conclusions with your negative, unproven suspicions.

Any bias I have is for the KJV and for the truth.

 

[Logos1560]

A copy of Scripture should have the exact, same words as the source from which it was copied, and it could be tested or evaluated by its source (Exod. 34:1, Deut. 10:2, 4, Deut. 17:18, Deut. 27:8, Jer. 36:28, John 17:8, Jer. 23:28, 2 Tim. 2:2). Jesus gave the exact same words to the apostles or disciples that God the Father gave to Him (John 17:8, John 14:24, John 12:49-50). The same words or things spoken by the apostle Paul were to be committed to faithful men (2 Tim. 2:2).

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21-22, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28, Isa. 8:20, 1 John 4:1). Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? According to the Scriptures, there is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations just as there is the possible omitting of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly and legitimately concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to clear scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God. Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since by definition perfection would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. According to scriptural truths, it can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2). Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption.

Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the preserved original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Do the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36)? Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47). Unless the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the authority, norm, and standard for Bible translations, there would be no sound, true criteria for distinguishing between a good, accurate translation and a poor, inaccurate translation. Would not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration of God and preserved by God be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing? Do the Scriptures suggest or teach that some original-language words of Scripture would be lost and would need to be recovered and restored in the 1500’s based on the secondary, derived authority of the imperfect copies or imperfect printed editions of a Latin Bible translation— the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?

Considering the whole counsel of God, the scriptural truths concerning righteous judgments and just measures would provide sound guidance in determining how to know which words the LORD has or has not spoken or given as part of Scripture. The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent, sound application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9). The scriptural principles of using just measures and not using unjust measures would be timeless and edifying, and they would not be limited to a specific situation or time period. Just use of these scriptural principles would aid in proving all things, in proving what is acceptable to God, and in holding fast that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21, Eph. 5:10, Rom. 12:9). These instructions to use just measures and not use unjust measures are not in conflict with other scriptural teaching, but instead they are in agreement with other scriptural teaching and are part of all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27, Prov. 19:21). Applying scriptural truths justly would agree with and become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1, 2 Tim. 4:3). The use of inconsistent, unjust measures or double standards could be soundly connected to being double-minded (James 1:8). Use of unjust divers measures are an abomination to the LORD (Prov. 20:10, 23).

 

[Dave G]

Your biased opinion is incorrect.

That is your own opinion and I respect your right to it.

Regrettably and in regards to walking together on the subject,
I also happen to disagree with it.

You do not demonstrate from the Scriptures that I jump to any wrong conclusions about God and His willingness and power to keep His promises.

Respectfully and from my own perspective,
You are not demonstrating, from the Scriptures, that those whose opinions that you differ with are jumping to any wrong conclusions about God and His willingness and power to keep His promises to those who love Him, either.

That said:

I strongly encourage you to step back and re-approach the subject with a more neutral posture,
and address the advocates of the CT and the MT ( and their respective and favorite translations ) with the same questions and concerns that you continually pose to those who believe that the TR ( or the KJV or even both ) are God's preserved words in their respective categories.

In my opinion,
Continuing on in your present course only seems to be giving people the idea that you're attacking them, and not in any way trying to get them to step back, weigh the evidence for themselves from many angles, and to re-evaluate their beliefs and conclusions more.

 

[Dave G]

I believe that God keeps and has kept His promises so how is that supposedly a wrong conclusion?

I'm glad to see this.

Now, if you are inclined to answer this question, where ( in your estimation ) has He actually kept the promise to preserve His words?
In Heaven alone, or on the earth as well?

If on the earth, then where is this contained?
In what manuscripts and in what translations ( if any ) can God's preserved words actually be found?

Are you trying to smear my belief with your very negative innuendos, distortions, and misrepresentations?

Not one bit.
But I have a question in response:

Are you trying to smear the beliefs of those who differ with you, by continually insinuating that they are being dishonest and are engaging in applying unjust measures to their preferences of what they believe should be the standard for God's words?
I hope not, and I'd also like to point out that if you are not, then there are better ways to make your case.

I respect that you see things differently,
and I am not interested in making innuendos, distortions and misrepresentations in order to bring your motives into question...
But I am starting to question them.

In addition, continuing to ( apparently ) paint those who hold that believers already have a standard ( and that standard, for the time being is the AV in English, or the TR or even both ), has its own set of negative detractions that I happen to believe that you may not be aware of.

Perhaps if you were to adopt a more neutral approach in your writing style,
then people like me might not get the wrong ideas.

 

[Dave G]

It seems you may have adopted the very negative tactics that you claim to avoid and reject.

My apologies for coming across in a way that offends,
but it seems that no matter what I say on this subject or how I say it, you will most probably take offense to it... one way or the other.

So I thought it best to simply get it out in the open and see how you addressed it,
while maintaining that I personally do not have any ill will towards you.

You are the one jumping to wrong conclusions with your negative, unproven suspicions.

I'm sure that it can be taken that way,
but that is not my intention towards you.

Any bias I have is for the KJV and for the truth.

Then why don't you simply state it out in the open more,
so that people like me won't get the wrong ideas regarding your threads on this subject?

Can you not see that I must not be the only one who might be misunderstanding the purpose of them?
Let me put it another way so that my perspective is clearly understood:

If someone like me who is well-read on the subject can misunderstand your position,
what does that say about those who are new to it?
Do you think that they might get the wrong ideas about it, as well?


I do.