-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Does the absolutely error-free KJV teach that Timothy was lost?
- Thread starter Harald
- Start date
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
What are the errors in the KJB?
None!!! NO one has ever proven,within a shadow of a doubt,any error in the KJB;why are you any better??I believe the latter.
JT. I will give concrete examples of the above 3 categories of errors which I listed. Emphasis to highlight differences between KJB and Textus Receptus mine.
1. Example of omission of definite article
Eph. 2:8 …are ye saved through __faith (KJB)
… are ye saved through THE faith (Textus R)
2. Example of addition of definite article without italicizing
Jude 19 ... having not THE Spirit (KJB)
... not having spirit (TR)
3. Example of rendering aorist in the Greek as perfect in the English
Rom. 5:12 ... for that all HAVE sinned (perfect) (KJB)
... for that all SINNED (aorist, i.e. point action tense) (TR)
Examples in each category could be multiplied.
MV-nerverist. Either the KJV is a translation of the Textus Receptus. Or there is no such thing as the Textus Receptus and the KJV (which one edition?) is the very original autograph which the Spirit of God inspired to the apostles and their co-workers.
Harald
1. Example of omission of definite article
Eph. 2:8 …are ye saved through __faith (KJB)
… are ye saved through THE faith (Textus R)
2. Example of addition of definite article without italicizing
Jude 19 ... having not THE Spirit (KJB)
... not having spirit (TR)
3. Example of rendering aorist in the Greek as perfect in the English
Rom. 5:12 ... for that all HAVE sinned (perfect) (KJB)
... for that all SINNED (aorist, i.e. point action tense) (TR)
Examples in each category could be multiplied.
MV-nerverist. Either the KJV is a translation of the Textus Receptus. Or there is no such thing as the Textus Receptus and the KJV (which one edition?) is the very original autograph which the Spirit of God inspired to the apostles and their co-workers.
Harald
Archangel7
New Member
I gave three specific examples in previous posts of poor translations that create errors, contradictions, and confusing references in the KJV.Originally posted by J.T.:
I hope I'm doing this right, this is my first time posting. I'm a new member and have an old question. What are the errors in the KJB?
The examples are:
(1) "Turtle" and "turtledove" --
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000734;p=5#000069
(2) The voice at Saul's conversion --
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000741;p=2#000020
(3) The heavens being "torn open" at Jesus' baptism --
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000725;p=3#000036
[ May 17, 2003, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]
P
Pioneer
Guest
Let's examine your argument:Originally posted by go2church:
"Error-lessness" is found in the originals not in the translations there of. But because there are so many manuscripts (copies) of the originals we can compare them to each other and we can rest easy at night that we have what God wanted us to have. Your argument is old, worn and in need of serious enlightenment.
1. You stated that "Error-lessness" is found in the originals not in the translations there of.
Who said? How do you know? Is it not possible for God to lead a translator in such a way that he does not make a mistake? Why rely upon the Holy Spirit at all if you can make mistakes while following his leading?
2.You stated that because there are so many of manuscripts (copies) of the originals we can compare them to each other and we can rest easy at night that we have what God wanted us to have.
I am no Hebrew or Greek scholar but I am a master at English. When I compare English translations to the King James Bible I find that most of them have changed what God wanted us to have.
neal4christ
New Member
Have you ever sinned since you were born again? Do you ever sin while you follow the Holy Spirit's leading?Why rely upon the Holy Spirit at all if you can make mistakes while following his leading?
Right there you have shown the problem with your argument. You have arbitrarily set up the KJV as your standard, so of course others are not what you see as "what God wanted us to have." But what of the one who has set up the Geneva Bible as the standard? Or the NKJV? Or the NIV? Your logic could be used for any other translation. Why is the KJV the standard?When I compare English translations to the King James Bible I find that most of them have changed what God wanted us to have.
Neal
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
Hey, we have a winner here!!! Look at the underlying texts on the MVs,they reak of corruption!!!You have arbitrarily set up the KJV as your standard, so of course others are not what you see as "what God wanted us to have."
OK,where is the Geneva Bible today??But what of the one who has set up the Geneva Bible as the standard?
It is the most hated Book on earth!!! It has been the goal of the scholars union to get rid of it since 1881,thats WHY!!!!Why is the KJV the standard?
Archangel7
New Member
The Geneva Bible is available today for anyone who wants one.Originally posted by MV-neverist:
OK,where is the Geneva Bible today??
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521507995/qid=1053348772/sr=1-21/ref=sr_1_21/104-9172966-3309549?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/158329001X/qid=1053348772/sr=1-28/ref=sr_1_28/104-9172966-3309549?v=glance&s=books
There are also less expensive copies available, as well as online copies and downloadable copies for your PC.
In many places, the Geneva Bible's translation is superior to that of the KJV. One example: Mk. 1:10, where the Geneva Bible properly translates the Greek participle as "cloven in twain" while the KJV completely misses the force of the verb with its weak rendering "opened." (See http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000725;p=3#000036 for a more detailed discussion).
It fell out of use after the Church of England using the authority of their prelate (the King) declared it illegal to bind, print, or distribute anything other than the KJV. You see, the Christians of that time who believed like us rejected the KJV in favor of the Geneva. They believed the KJV had subtle changes that allowed the CoE to better justify their false, romish doctrines. The CoE hated the Geneva since it undermined their ability to force everyone back into the state sponsored church.Originally posted by MV-neverist:
OK,where is the Geneva Bible today??
If the US Gov't decided to engage in a project to translate the Bible, would you approve or disapprove? If they came back later and passed a law making it the only legal version, what would you do? It was many times worse in the 1600's. Government was seen as a spiritual agent of God. They used the judicial system and harsh punishments to deal with dissenters against the official church.
neal4christ
New Member
Not my NKJV, it uses the same as the KJV. Say anything you want, that is a fact.Hey, we have a winner here!!! Look at the underlying texts on the MVs,they reak of corruption!!!
Is that really your reason for making the KJV the standard? Well, many hate the NIV. Or many hate the Catholic church. Many hate the Koran. Does that make all these things 'standards?' Also, how do you know it is the most hated book on earth? Have you polled everyone? Or is that just your 'feeling?' Who is the "scholars union?" Do you have a link or evidence of this supposed goal of theirs? I think you have read too many conspiracy theories. Time for you to wake up to reality.It is the most hated Book on earth!!! It has been the goal of the scholars union to get rid of it since 1881,thats WHY!!!!
Why did you ignore my part about you sinning? Have you never sinned since you were born again? Do you ever not follow the Holy Spirit's lead?
Neal
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
Why should I tell you that?? If you would get you a KJB,you would have known NOT to do that!!! Look up James 5:16 in a KJB,and then look up the same in any of 200+ MVs;including you're beloved New King Jimmy Version and tell me what you see..Sounds kinda familiar don't it??Why did you ignore my part about you sinning? Have you never sinned since you were born again? Do you ever not follow the Holy Spirit's lead?
Terry_Herrington
New Member
I looked up James 5:16 in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and the NIV. Here is the result:
James 5:16
16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
(NIV)
James 5:16
16 Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.
(NKJ)
James 5:16
16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
(NAS)
James 5:16
16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
(KJV)
I assume that the difference you were alluding to is the word "faults" as opposed to the word "sin" used in the MV's. If this is what you are referring to please note that the word translated "fault" in the KJV means, sin.
James 5:16
16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
(NIV)
James 5:16
16 Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.
(NKJ)
James 5:16
16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
(NAS)
James 5:16
16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
(KJV)
I assume that the difference you were alluding to is the word "faults" as opposed to the word "sin" used in the MV's. If this is what you are referring to please note that the word translated "fault" in the KJV means, sin.
Alex Mullins
New Member
Harald:
I am not KJV Only but I do believe we have a 100%reliable copy of God's Word in our language today and that is the KJV. I do use, on occasion, other versions to help clarify a passage of scripture, much as one would use a concordance.
Two questions for you before I get into the circumcision thing.
1. What would God's purpose be in inspiring the word and then not preserving it perfect? Sounds like a waste of time to me. That is not God's nature, wouldn't you agree?
2. Why would Satan, the most subtle deceiver and liar in all of history, not get into the word, tinker with it, pervert it in an effort to confuse and divide beleivers and to make it less effective? That is his nature, is it not?
Sorry, that was four questions but the point is, rather than attack men (and ladies) who are trying to find the truth, such as most "KJV Onlyists" try to understand why they are defending this precious word that is slowly being chipped away, as God said would happen.
Now to your question. I can find nothing in scripture that says circumcision is necessary for salvation. Gal 5:1 could be interpreted as saying "For freedom, Christ freed us. Therefore stand fast and do not again be subject to a yoke of bondage". The freedom mentioned here is freedom from the law. Paul is admonishing the Galations to "stand fast" and to retain their spiritual freedom.
Re Verse 2: Circuncision was the external ritual symbolizing acceptance of the law. In such a case, one depended on legal works rather than God's grace for salvation.
Re Verse 4: This could be rendered "You will be severed from Christ, if you try to be justified by law; you will forfeit the favor in God's eyes that Christ won for you." This does not teach the loss of salvation which one earlier possessed. rather, it teaches that, if the reader truly renounces grace, through faith alone, as the way of salvation, if they depend on legalism to secure divine favor, then they show that they never really knew God's grace in the first place.
We have, today, an entire denomination with headquarters in Rome, who are dependant on "works" for their salvation. They have been spiritually circumcised and they need to be warned.
Strange as it may seem, there is considerable evidence to indicate that this same organization was largely responsible for the perversion of the scriptures over the centuries.
Harald, I hope that this will help you in some small way to uncover the truth and to better understand that the "KJV only" crowd is not the enemy.
God Bless
Alex
I am not KJV Only but I do believe we have a 100%reliable copy of God's Word in our language today and that is the KJV. I do use, on occasion, other versions to help clarify a passage of scripture, much as one would use a concordance.
Two questions for you before I get into the circumcision thing.
1. What would God's purpose be in inspiring the word and then not preserving it perfect? Sounds like a waste of time to me. That is not God's nature, wouldn't you agree?
2. Why would Satan, the most subtle deceiver and liar in all of history, not get into the word, tinker with it, pervert it in an effort to confuse and divide beleivers and to make it less effective? That is his nature, is it not?
Sorry, that was four questions but the point is, rather than attack men (and ladies) who are trying to find the truth, such as most "KJV Onlyists" try to understand why they are defending this precious word that is slowly being chipped away, as God said would happen.
Now to your question. I can find nothing in scripture that says circumcision is necessary for salvation. Gal 5:1 could be interpreted as saying "For freedom, Christ freed us. Therefore stand fast and do not again be subject to a yoke of bondage". The freedom mentioned here is freedom from the law. Paul is admonishing the Galations to "stand fast" and to retain their spiritual freedom.
Re Verse 2: Circuncision was the external ritual symbolizing acceptance of the law. In such a case, one depended on legal works rather than God's grace for salvation.
Re Verse 4: This could be rendered "You will be severed from Christ, if you try to be justified by law; you will forfeit the favor in God's eyes that Christ won for you." This does not teach the loss of salvation which one earlier possessed. rather, it teaches that, if the reader truly renounces grace, through faith alone, as the way of salvation, if they depend on legalism to secure divine favor, then they show that they never really knew God's grace in the first place.
We have, today, an entire denomination with headquarters in Rome, who are dependant on "works" for their salvation. They have been spiritually circumcised and they need to be warned.
Strange as it may seem, there is considerable evidence to indicate that this same organization was largely responsible for the perversion of the scriptures over the centuries.
Harald, I hope that this will help you in some small way to uncover the truth and to better understand that the "KJV only" crowd is not the enemy.
God Bless
Alex
Do you believe that the KJV is the only 100% reliable copy of God's Word in our language today?Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
I am not KJV Only but I do believe we have a 100%reliable copy of God's Word in our language today and that is the KJV. I do use, on occasion, other versions to help clarify a passage of scripture, much as one would use a concordance.
Perfect has several definitions:1. What would God's purpose be in inspiring the word and then not preserving it perfect? Sounds like a waste of time to me. That is not God's nature, wouldn't you agree?
1- Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2- Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
3- Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
4- Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation.
Numbers 1 and 4 can apply to Bible translation and transmission. Number 2 can apply to transmission but if it does how could we ever know since all of the known mss differ from each other. Number 2 can never apply to translations by the very fact that different languages are different.
We do have God's Word perfectly preserved. By definitions 1 and 4, it is not necessary to limit it to one version.
He might and probably has... the NWT comes to mind as well as the Book of Mormon. We know from history however that he has used tradition to slowly, subtly take the Word away from the people- witness the 1000 year reign of the Latin Vulgate. Progressively, fewer and fewer people read or spoke Latin and progressively the RCC reached new levels of apostacy over that period.2. Why would Satan, the most subtle deceiver and liar in all of history, not get into the word, tinker with it, pervert it in an effort to confuse and divide beleivers and to make it less effective? That is his nature, is it not?
Sorry for horning in...
Alex M. Thank you for your thoughts and questions. Myself has only a problem when some claims the KJV contains no errors of whatever kind, because it ain't true. As for reliability, yes, the KJV is a reliable translation of the underlying texts. It has proven to be quite a sufficient version for many generations of Christians, I come to think of English particular Baptists and Gospel Standard Baptists right now, men like Gill, Brine, Gadsby, Philpot et. al. I assume those Baptists used the KJV, and they were faithful men, and evidently the KJV had contributed to making them throughly furnished unto every good work. And it is lamentable when I consider the flooding of inferior versions in the last decades, and especially all DE versions, all of which are based on Alexandrian texts. When I talk about errors in the KJV I am chiefly concerned with translational blunders and errors. I count any deviation from the TR an error of some kind, which proves the KJV is not on par with the underlying TR. This blows the KJVO argument to pieces, but it does not invalidate the KJV as a good Bible version.
As for your question #1. I will only discuss the NT here. I believe God inspired a perfect Greek Testament. And I also believe He has preserved that same Greek Testament. I believe it is the TR, or some of the editions called the TR. I would be an oracle if I could say which TR is closest to the originally inspired GNT. But as for me I have full confidence in the Scrivener 1894 TR, and do not need any better, because I think it will not be improved upon. It may be, I cannot tell, that it does not 100 % match the original GNT of the Lord Christ in its wording, but if it doesn't do so I nevertheless believe it is very very close to it. As for the NT the Scrivener TR I consider my absolutely final authority, above any translation in any language.
As for question #2. I agree with you. I believe Satan has had a hand in tampering with the word of God through the centuries, but God has overruled it for good in the TR.
I think we quite much agree in our views of Galatians 5. I will give my own woodenly literal rendering and some comments.
1. In the freedom, therefore, to which Christ liberated us, be ye standing firm, and be ye not again held by a yoke of bondage!
2. Behold, I Paul am saying to you, that if ye should persist in being circumcised Christ shall have profited you nothing.
3. Moreover I am testifying again unto every man being circumcised that he is debtor to do the whole law.
4. Ye were deprived of all effect from the Christ ye whoever are being justified in the sphere of law, from the grace ye fell off;
Comm.: In v. 1 the "yoke of bondage" I believe is legalism, or the law as a merciless taskmaster. In v. 2 the KJV (IMO) is ambiguous with its "be circumcised". The average reader would probably take it to mean either "get circumcised (in the flesh)", or, "if ye have been circumcised (in the flesh) and remain so". The TR has a divinely inspired present passive subjunctive, thus I judged best to render "should persist in being circumcised". By this I believe Paul did not refer to the physical circumcision in the reproductive organ, because such a thing can only be performed once. I believe he used Christian code language and meant something like "if ye should persist in a legalistic brand of Christianity". If he had meant "if ye get circumcised (henceforth, in the flesh)" he would no doubt had used aorist passive subjunctive. And to such who would persist in legalism he says in v. 2 that Christ shall have profited such nothing. The verb for to profit is a future active indicative, lit. "shall profit". However I believe in this context it is a future perfect.
In v. 3 Paul testifies to the same class of professors, "every man being circumcised". The verb is present passive participle, and the KJV misses the verbal aspect with its "is circumcised", which is IMO ambiguous. Paul repeats that every one "being circumcised", meaning such who persistently remain legalistic, is debtor to do the whole law. It is clear that such are not true converts. In v. 4 he continues to address such false converts. They are such who "are being justified" (present passive indicative) in the sphere of law. And as to such they were deprived of all effect from the Christ, sometimes in the past, aorist tense verb. They were deprived of effect from Christ in the past prior to their trying to become justified by law works now in the present. Some say these are such who fell from grace and lost the salvation by grace they once had. That is of course heresy. Paul is addressing non-elect false professors, who are legalists and who manifest their legalism in some way, chiefly by false doctrine. The main body of those Paul wrote to were true converts of his, and they could not fall off from the grace. The sense in which they fell from the grace who Paul charged was that they fell from the profession, having professed to have been saved by grace through Christ.
Thus my conviction is that the so called Judaizers of Galatia were legalists, and their main wickedness was not trying to enforce physical circumcision in the flesh, but they tried to get the Galatian converts into legalism by teaching perverted doctrine, legalism and conditionalism. Today's Christendom is full of Judaizers of all denominational colors. There are many kinds of legalistic (Judaizing) teachings rampant today. One of the most well known is the Arminian teaching of final apostasy, but a subtler one I might mention is the tendency of some to seek assurance of salvation by observing the ten commandments or seeking to conscientiously obey the commandments of the NT scriptures. Many more such like there exist.
As for the Church of Rome it has been hostile to the Scriptures, that is true. And it is a legalistic "church". As for the KJV Only crowd they are enemies of the truth if and when they elevate the KJV above the underlying texts from which it was translated, and everytime when they twist and falsify truth to get their point through to others.
Harald
As for your question #1. I will only discuss the NT here. I believe God inspired a perfect Greek Testament. And I also believe He has preserved that same Greek Testament. I believe it is the TR, or some of the editions called the TR. I would be an oracle if I could say which TR is closest to the originally inspired GNT. But as for me I have full confidence in the Scrivener 1894 TR, and do not need any better, because I think it will not be improved upon. It may be, I cannot tell, that it does not 100 % match the original GNT of the Lord Christ in its wording, but if it doesn't do so I nevertheless believe it is very very close to it. As for the NT the Scrivener TR I consider my absolutely final authority, above any translation in any language.
As for question #2. I agree with you. I believe Satan has had a hand in tampering with the word of God through the centuries, but God has overruled it for good in the TR.
I think we quite much agree in our views of Galatians 5. I will give my own woodenly literal rendering and some comments.
1. In the freedom, therefore, to which Christ liberated us, be ye standing firm, and be ye not again held by a yoke of bondage!
2. Behold, I Paul am saying to you, that if ye should persist in being circumcised Christ shall have profited you nothing.
3. Moreover I am testifying again unto every man being circumcised that he is debtor to do the whole law.
4. Ye were deprived of all effect from the Christ ye whoever are being justified in the sphere of law, from the grace ye fell off;
Comm.: In v. 1 the "yoke of bondage" I believe is legalism, or the law as a merciless taskmaster. In v. 2 the KJV (IMO) is ambiguous with its "be circumcised". The average reader would probably take it to mean either "get circumcised (in the flesh)", or, "if ye have been circumcised (in the flesh) and remain so". The TR has a divinely inspired present passive subjunctive, thus I judged best to render "should persist in being circumcised". By this I believe Paul did not refer to the physical circumcision in the reproductive organ, because such a thing can only be performed once. I believe he used Christian code language and meant something like "if ye should persist in a legalistic brand of Christianity". If he had meant "if ye get circumcised (henceforth, in the flesh)" he would no doubt had used aorist passive subjunctive. And to such who would persist in legalism he says in v. 2 that Christ shall have profited such nothing. The verb for to profit is a future active indicative, lit. "shall profit". However I believe in this context it is a future perfect.
In v. 3 Paul testifies to the same class of professors, "every man being circumcised". The verb is present passive participle, and the KJV misses the verbal aspect with its "is circumcised", which is IMO ambiguous. Paul repeats that every one "being circumcised", meaning such who persistently remain legalistic, is debtor to do the whole law. It is clear that such are not true converts. In v. 4 he continues to address such false converts. They are such who "are being justified" (present passive indicative) in the sphere of law. And as to such they were deprived of all effect from the Christ, sometimes in the past, aorist tense verb. They were deprived of effect from Christ in the past prior to their trying to become justified by law works now in the present. Some say these are such who fell from grace and lost the salvation by grace they once had. That is of course heresy. Paul is addressing non-elect false professors, who are legalists and who manifest their legalism in some way, chiefly by false doctrine. The main body of those Paul wrote to were true converts of his, and they could not fall off from the grace. The sense in which they fell from the grace who Paul charged was that they fell from the profession, having professed to have been saved by grace through Christ.
Thus my conviction is that the so called Judaizers of Galatia were legalists, and their main wickedness was not trying to enforce physical circumcision in the flesh, but they tried to get the Galatian converts into legalism by teaching perverted doctrine, legalism and conditionalism. Today's Christendom is full of Judaizers of all denominational colors. There are many kinds of legalistic (Judaizing) teachings rampant today. One of the most well known is the Arminian teaching of final apostasy, but a subtler one I might mention is the tendency of some to seek assurance of salvation by observing the ten commandments or seeking to conscientiously obey the commandments of the NT scriptures. Many more such like there exist.
As for the Church of Rome it has been hostile to the Scriptures, that is true. And it is a legalistic "church". As for the KJV Only crowd they are enemies of the truth if and when they elevate the KJV above the underlying texts from which it was translated, and everytime when they twist and falsify truth to get their point through to others.
Harald
Alex Mullins
New Member
Scott:
I have not seen another version (other than the KJV) that I could call perfect. "Perfect" ,to me is, every word exactly where God wants it to be meaning what he wants it to mean.
The same might be said for all versions derived from the Traditional Received, or Majority Texts such as:
The Peshitta Bible(150AD), Itala Bible (157AD), Erasmus Bible(1522AD), Tyndales Bible (1525), Luther's Bible (1534), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthews Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539, Stephensons Bible (1550), The Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible (1568), Beza's Bible (1604)The King James Bible (1611) and the three revisions to the KJB since 1611.
All others are suspected counterfeits because of who was involved in their translation (ie Westcott and Hort, RCC) and their obvious differences(ie - Matthew 18:11, Mark 7:16, Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8: 37, 1 John 5: 7) just to name a few. There are thousands of differences, many very subtle and some obviously more profound than others but all working together to pervert the scriptures and cause us to argue, doubt and get us off our main mission.
The King James Bible is the last version I am aware of that is derived from the Traditional Received or Majority Text but it would not surprise me if some "educated" Bible scholar will attempt to re-educate me. In the past 50 years the KJV has bcome the most hated, outdated, hardest-to-read book on the planet. IT MUST BE GOOD'S WORD!!
I believe that The Holy Spirit, who inspired "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21)was more than capable of guiding the KJV translators to "keep" the words which Jesus told them (us) to keep. The KJ translators said, "We are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people."
That is yet another indication that this is the kind of humility God uses to get his message out there.
Given the Mind of God as compared to the nature of satan, this is the only logical conclusion I have been able to reach on this matter.
The topic has nothing to do with salvation and should never divide us in any way for, if it does, satan has accomplished his purpose.
"Great peace have they which love thy law; and nothing shall offend them" Psalm 119: 165
After wondering about it for five or so years, then 25 years studying and searching, I believe I have the truth. Finding it was the easy part. Applying it to my life is much more difficult, due to external forces. I am thankful that I have God's pure inspired word. Why would He want me to have less?
One last point. I have a great Pastor. He preaches some of the most awesome, inspiring messages using the false modern versions and I love him anyway. Not one of his awesome messages would have been diminished in any way had he used the pure word, the KJV.
God Bless
Alex
I have not seen another version (other than the KJV) that I could call perfect. "Perfect" ,to me is, every word exactly where God wants it to be meaning what he wants it to mean.
The same might be said for all versions derived from the Traditional Received, or Majority Texts such as:
The Peshitta Bible(150AD), Itala Bible (157AD), Erasmus Bible(1522AD), Tyndales Bible (1525), Luther's Bible (1534), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthews Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539, Stephensons Bible (1550), The Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible (1568), Beza's Bible (1604)The King James Bible (1611) and the three revisions to the KJB since 1611.
All others are suspected counterfeits because of who was involved in their translation (ie Westcott and Hort, RCC) and their obvious differences(ie - Matthew 18:11, Mark 7:16, Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8: 37, 1 John 5: 7) just to name a few. There are thousands of differences, many very subtle and some obviously more profound than others but all working together to pervert the scriptures and cause us to argue, doubt and get us off our main mission.
The King James Bible is the last version I am aware of that is derived from the Traditional Received or Majority Text but it would not surprise me if some "educated" Bible scholar will attempt to re-educate me. In the past 50 years the KJV has bcome the most hated, outdated, hardest-to-read book on the planet. IT MUST BE GOOD'S WORD!!
I believe that The Holy Spirit, who inspired "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21)was more than capable of guiding the KJV translators to "keep" the words which Jesus told them (us) to keep. The KJ translators said, "We are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people."
That is yet another indication that this is the kind of humility God uses to get his message out there.
Given the Mind of God as compared to the nature of satan, this is the only logical conclusion I have been able to reach on this matter.
The topic has nothing to do with salvation and should never divide us in any way for, if it does, satan has accomplished his purpose.
"Great peace have they which love thy law; and nothing shall offend them" Psalm 119: 165
After wondering about it for five or so years, then 25 years studying and searching, I believe I have the truth. Finding it was the easy part. Applying it to my life is much more difficult, due to external forces. I am thankful that I have God's pure inspired word. Why would He want me to have less?
One last point. I have a great Pastor. He preaches some of the most awesome, inspiring messages using the false modern versions and I love him anyway. Not one of his awesome messages would have been diminished in any way had he used the pure word, the KJV.
God Bless
Alex
Alex. Myself is no scholar so called. But I shall mention some other versions in addition to those you mentioned, which are translated from the same texts as the KJV. I.e. from the Bomberg Masoretic text, and Textus Receptus.
YLT, LITV, MKJV, NKJV, VW-Bible 2003, all of them both OT and NT.
Then I come to think of two New Testaments in English which are translated from the TR. David Lawrie's NT, and Alexander Campbell's Living Oracles NT. The latter appears to me to be TR-based, yet it puts some words in brackets in the text.
I could've also mentioned Webster's Bible, but it is not a translation as far as I know, but an updating of the archaisms of the KJV. Then I think there is some version named KJ21, some update of the KJV. I assume it is based on the MT and the TR.
I know of two clearly Majority Text versions, ALT and EMTV. They have only the NT. WEB is also reportedly MT based, yet somehow it is a revision of the ASV.
Harald
YLT, LITV, MKJV, NKJV, VW-Bible 2003, all of them both OT and NT.
Then I come to think of two New Testaments in English which are translated from the TR. David Lawrie's NT, and Alexander Campbell's Living Oracles NT. The latter appears to me to be TR-based, yet it puts some words in brackets in the text.
I could've also mentioned Webster's Bible, but it is not a translation as far as I know, but an updating of the archaisms of the KJV. Then I think there is some version named KJ21, some update of the KJV. I assume it is based on the MT and the TR.
I know of two clearly Majority Text versions, ALT and EMTV. They have only the NT. WEB is also reportedly MT based, yet somehow it is a revision of the ASV.
Harald
I have no problem with this statement because you make clear that it is your subjective opinion. In fact, I use the KJV primarily myself and my church uses nothing else in its ministry. They are not KJVO by rule but only use the KJV in practice.Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
Scott:
I have not seen another version (other than the KJV) that I could call perfect.
I would differ with you here because attainment of this would require direct inspiration by God. And..."Perfect" ,to me is, every word exactly where God wants it to be meaning what he wants it to mean.
... none of these works were directly inspired by God. In fact, some of these were the works of people who probably weren't even saved, Erasmus for instance who remained in the RCC. He protested its corruption but not its doctrine.The same might be said for all versions derived from the Traditional Received, or Majority Texts such as:
The Peshitta Bible(150AD), Itala Bible (157AD), Erasmus Bible(1522AD), Tyndales Bible (1525), Luther's Bible (1534), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthews Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539, Stephensons Bible (1550), The Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible (1568), Beza's Bible (1604)The King James Bible (1611) and the three revisions to the KJB since 1611.
W and H were Anglicans like the KJV translators. Erasmus was RCC.All others are suspected counterfeits because of who was involved in their translation (ie Westcott and Hort, RCC)
Not trying to be argumentative but there is no proof that these things are true. In fact, I have never found anyone who hated the KJV. Even the liberals call it a "literary masterpiece." None the less, even if all of those things were true- it wouldn't prove it to be the exclusive version of God's Word anymore than our disdain for the Pope makes him the authentic Vicar of Christ.In the past 50 years the KJV has bcome the most hated, outdated, hardest-to-read book on the planet. IT MUST BE GOOD'S WORD!!
The problem is that some of these same men were guilty of persecuting Baptists, Separatists, Independents, and Puritans... some for practicing believer's baptism. This at the very least brings their spiritual condition into question.I believe that The Holy Spirit, who inspired "holy men of God" (2 Peter 1:21)was more than capable of guiding the KJV translators to "keep" the words which Jesus told them (us) to keep. The KJ translators said, "We are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people."
Another problem with the quote is that even in their day, the KJV was considered high English, not common English.
I agree completely and would like to compliment you on the spirit of your post.
The topic has nothing to do with salvation and should never divide us in any way for, if it does, satan has accomplished his purpose.
I would consider this a very strong testimony to the idea that he is preaching from God's perfect Word and not a false version.One last point. I have a great Pastor. He preaches some of the most awesome, inspiring messages using the false modern versions and I love him anyway. Not one of his awesome messages would have been diminished in any way had he used the pure word, the KJV.