How I KNOW the KJB is the Word of God!!!!!

[Psalm145 3]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Well let's try another one on for size. In 2 Kings 25:27 it says that Jehoiachin was freed on the 27th day of the month. In Jeremiah 52:31 it say that Jehoiachin was freed on the 25th day of the month. Which is correct?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John MacArthur,(who is a fine teacher, though he doesn't know which version to use), says, "Probably the decree was on the 25th day and carried out on the 27th."

I can agree with that.

The King James Bible is without error. Praise the Lord we have a Bible in English that we can fully and completely trust as His infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word!

 

[Rockfort]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:


John MacArthur,(who is a fine teacher, though he doesn't know which version to use), says, "Probably the decree was on the 25th day and carried out on the 27th."

I can agree with that.

The King James Bible is without error. Praise the Lord we have a Bible in English that we can fully and completely trust as His infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ain't this great? Because a guy who does not wade in the KJVO mire says "*Probably* the decree was on the 25th day and carried out on the 27th,"-- and this inconsistency is in the original text and is not a translation ambiguity-- that is further support that a particular translation, which has changed since its inception, is the "infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word." Sure can't get more convincing than that!

 

[Bro Shaun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
I would almost guess that Bro. Shaun may even be a new Christian because when Christ comes into our life we become a new creature, but our growth toward the likeness of Jesus is a much slower process and new Christians are usually given a little more leeway toward the worldly things they have not yet cleaned from their lives as evidenced by the hatred. His zeal for the KJV is also very strong to the point of argument which also points to a new Christian--so, let's see if we can minister to Bro. Shaun and help him in his Christian walk rather than make him angry -- as I probably did in my response to his letter, for which I appologize for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are a very poor guesser, Phillip. I have been saved for 5 years and in full time Christian service for 2 of those. Though 5 years may not be a very long earthly time, it matters not in our walk with the Lord. I know many Christians who have been save 40+ years and are still babes in Christ. And since when did having convictions indicate a weak Christian? Just because someone stands up for a cause does not mean they are babes in Christ, if anything it says they are strong Christians. You have to take a stand for something and stick to it, otherwise what good are you. But, if that is the indicator we are using, and we are making guesses, I guess your the strongest Christian here, by those standards. And just another guess, I probably have higher standards than you, if I'm wrong, sorry. But that doesn't make me a better Christian than you.

Now for everyone else, the word I used on Aug. 27 was not, in my oppinion, vulgar. I was just calling apples apples. And I was not calling anyone on this board that name. If it offended the more liberal posters, sorry, it was not my intent to offend. I do find it ammusing, however, that most Christians will allow Holloywood whores to come in their home and smoke, drink, fornicate, cuss, take the Lord's name in vain, practice homosexuallity and a multitude of other sins, but when a fellow Christians uses one of the less vulgar words, he is attacked like Hitler. Just a thought.

To HankD, Pastor Larry and wellsjs:
To say that God preserved His word ONLY in the original Greek and Hebrew texts is an obsurditity. If that were the case then we would have no true perfect Word of God today. How would we know what God expects of us. It may all be a lie then. We might as well go fishing on Sundays. God preserved His Word for every generation, and if He could make the world in 6 days, He could make sure it got through mans hands perfect. Try again.

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: Bro Shaun ]

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: Bro Shaun ]

 

[HankD]

Dear Bro Shaun,

you responded with... &gt;&gt;
To HankD, Pastor Larry and wellsjs: To say that God preserved His word ONLY in the original Greek and Hebrew texts is an obsurditity. If that were the case then we would have no true perfect Word of God today. How would we know what God expects of us. It may all be a lie then. We might as well go fishing on Sundays. God preserved His Word for every generation and if He could make the world in 6 days, He could make sure it got through mans hands perfect. Try again.&gt;&gt;

Then dear bro :

1) where was the perfect Word of God before 1611 or for that matter from 100AD to 1611AD.

2) Since there are hundreds of differences between the first and the last KJV revisions, which is the perfect Word of God the first version of 1611 or the last version of 1769 of the AV?


I repeat, the Hebrew and Greek has ALWAYS been there after the original writing and has NEVER changed.

HankD

 

[try hard]

If the King James Bible is not perfect then why do Bible scholars, like Jimmy DeYoung, who know the Hebrew like the back of their hand, say it is?

 

[Bro Shaun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
Dear Bro Shaun,

1) where was the perfect Word of God before 1611 or for that matter from 100AD to 1611AD.

2) Since there are hundreds of differences between the first and the last KJV revisions, which is the perfect Word of God the first version of 1611 or the last version of 1769 of the AV?


I repeat, the Hebrew and Greek has ALWAYS been there after the original writing and has NEVER changed.

HankD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I am not saying that the Hebrew and Greek has changed, I am saying God gave us a perfect translation for the world today. I know it is the KJB, if you say it is not, then what is it.

To answer your first question, I do not know. I did not live in that period and unfortunately have not studied it. I do know, however, if it was not the original texts, it was a perfect translation of them.

To answer your second question, the 1611 obviously. I do not know of the differences between the 1611 and 1769 that you speak of, but the 1611 KJB is the perfect, preserved, infallable Word of God.

 

[Bro Shaun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
If the King James Bible is not perfect then why do Bible scholars, like Jimmy DeYoung, who know the Hebrew like the back of their hand, say it is?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point.

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:
I have posted my answers, I'm waiting for YOUR answer. Which version is the preserved, perfect word of God? Prove it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Okay, Let's try it another way.

Definitions:
1- The words of God- the original autographs as inspired by God through human writers. These original were the perfect words for communicating God's special, written revelation.
2- The Word of God- the expression of who God is (John 1:1)- His character, will, and nature. It was perfectly expressed in the life, person, and ministry of Jesus Christ. It is preserved in the manuscript evidence and faithful translations of that evidence such as the KJV, NKJV, LITV, NASB, and (arguably) NIV.

What you seem to be demanding is that God give you a perfect set of words equivalent to the originals. He simply did not!!!

Look at your KJV. Do you know what the italicized words are? They are words added primarily for smoother reading. They are NEVER inspired in any sense of the word.

However, smoother reading is not always the reason. Look at Romans 1:7- "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:". Read the text without those words- "...beloved of God, called saints." The phrase "to be" is not necessary for a clear understanding of what Paul was writing. We are called saints- this letter was not written to those "to be" called but those who already were called.

This is one of the places where Anglican doctrine influenced a translation decision in the KJV. Anglicans believed that "saint" was a title reserved for especially good Christians- similar to the RCC. Baptist correctly believe that "saint" is a title for all true believers.

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:



I am not saying that the Hebrew and Greek has changed, I am saying God gave us a perfect translation for the world today. I know it is the KJB, if you say it is not, then what is it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where did God ever promise to give you a perfect translation?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To answer your second question, the 1611 obviously. I do not know of the differences between the 1611 and 1769 that you speak of, but the 1611 KJB is the perfect, preserved, infallable Word of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If the 1611 KJB is your answer then you have neither seen nor read one. You probably never will and probably couldn't read one if you had it.

You claim to "know" that the KJV is the perfect Word of God. Yet at the same time, you demonstrate your ignorance of its foundation, history, translators,...and yes, imperfections.

The charasmatics "know" that they are receiving direct revelation from God through 'tongues'. Ask "how?" and you will get two answers: 1) "my experiences" 2) "I just know". In actuality they are afflicted with the same problem as KJVO's, they are basing their theology on the feelings they experience.

Extreme KJVO's (which you have identified yourself to be) ultimately look to 17th century Anglicans to satisfy that need for some special sign from God. The charasmatics look to Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggert, et al.

Remember, an evil and perverse generation seeks a sign. The sign you demand from God is a perfect English translation of the Bible. This is presumption upon God.

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
If the King James Bible is not perfect then why do Bible scholars, like Jimmy DeYoung, who know the Hebrew like the back of their hand, say it is?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If they claim this, then they do not "know Hebrew like the back of their hand."

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
Look at Romans 1:7- "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:". Read the text without those words- "...beloved of God, called saints." The phrase "to be" is not necessary for a clear understanding of what Paul was writing. We are called saints- this letter was not written to those "to be" called but those who already were called.

This is one of the places where Anglican doctrine influenced a translation decision in the KJV. Anglicans believed that "saint" was a title reserved for especially good Christians- similar to the RCC. Baptist correctly believe that "saint" is a title for all true believers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NONSENSE! You have done violence to the reading then, based on your changing the reading, accused the translators of believing a Catholic heresy!

The KJV does NOT read "to be called saints" but "called to be saints." All the redeemed are called of God to be saints! If you were not called of God to be a saint, then you are unsaved!

This is not talking about calling somebody by a name or designation, but about our being called out of darkness into Light and Life! They are not just "called" saints, they are saints, because of the wonderful calling of God! Good grief!

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
NONSENSE! You have done violence to the reading then, based on your changing the reading, accused the translators of believing a Catholic heresy!

The KJV does NOT read "to be called saints" but "called to be saints." All the redeemed are called of God to be saints! If you were not called of God to be a saint, then you are unsaved!

This is not talking about calling somebody by a name or designation, but about our being called out of darkness into Light and Life! They are not just "called" saints, they are saints, because of the wonderful calling of God! Good grief!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point stands. There is no reason whatsoever to add these words. I know that you have a mastery of Greek so you must be aware that if Paul had wanted to say "called to be saints" he could have.

What violence? I did not add the words.

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[HankD]

Dear Bro Shaun,

You answered my question as to which KJV (1611 or 1769)is the Perfect Word of God and you answered:

&gt;&gt;To answer your second question, the 1611 obviously&gt;&gt;

I have not found a KJVO person yet who quotes from the 1611 version but the 1769 version as you do.
The 1611 version would be almost unreadable to you because of the old English.
There are upwards of 400 differences between the text of the 1611 and the 1769 versions.
In addition the 1611 included the Apocrypha, separate from the OT and NT, but it was included. Also included were notes in the margin.
I know that this is tantamount to telling you that there is no santa, but Shaun it is true.
You are to be admired for your tenacity and courage in the face of the scholarship and Bible knowledge here on the BB.

But you need to do your home work.

HankD

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
My point stands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We are called saints- this letter was not written to those "to be" called but those who already were called.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again I say NONSENSE! The Greek word translated "called" is the word kletos. It does not mean to call something by a name, I.E., Bob, Jim, butcher, baker, or saint, but means "invited" or to be "divinely selected and appointed." Your statement "not written to those 'to be' called" proves your total lack of understanding regarding this word. It is not future tense as you assume. They were already called (kletos, divinely selected and appointed) to be saints!

 

[Bro Shaun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
Dear Bro Shaun,

I have not found a KJVO person yet who quotes from the 1611 version but the 1769 version as you do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, Hank, but my Bible says in the front "1611 Authorized King James Version". It is not that hard to understand. The MVs are actually harder. According to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! In selected analysis, the KJB average grade level was 5.8 - the NIV was 8.4!

You are to be admired for your tenacity and courage in the face of the scholarship and Bible knowledge here on the BB.

I haven't seen much scholarship.

But you need to do your home work.

It all depends on which text books you study. While yours say one thing mine say another. I will admit, most of my convictions are based on faith, for without it, it is impossible to please God. Hebrews 11:6.

 

[Ransom]

Bro Shaun said:

Sorry, Hank, but my Bible says in the front "1611 Authorized King James Version". It is not that hard to understand. The MVs are actually harder. According to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! In selected analysis, the KJB average grade level was 5.8 - the NIV was 8.4!

The KJV more readable than the NIV? Too funny!

If this "research study" is the same one that is cited in Riplinger's abomination, then I could probably list four or five ways in which it fails to be a proper, controlled scientific test, and I could easily whip up a proper test that refutes it. Maybe I will.

 

[qwerty]

If a person wants to be in the KJV only camp, that is their choice.

Here is a web site showing some of the reasons why some don't think that they KJV is the only good English version.
http://www.post1.com/home/amarillo/heresytext.htm

One of clearest arguments against the KJV only position is made by the translators of the KJV themselves, in the Preface to the KJV.

Please take the time to read the Preface to the KJV sometime. You will find it very interesting.

 

[qwerty]

This is also a good read:

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER
Preface to the King James Version 1611
Thesis by
EDGAR J. GOODSPEED
http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/thesis.htm

 

[DocCas]

Goodspeed, of the University of Chicago Divinity School, was a thorough going Modernist, and anything he writes should be understood in the context of his unbelief.

 

[Wayne Rossi]

Bro Shaun,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Sorry, Hank, but my Bible says in the front "1611 Authorized King James Version". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh. It's a funny point about that 1611 bit. My KJV says

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Holy Bible
Containing The Old And New Testaments
in the King James Version
Translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised
Self-pronouncing
Red letter edition <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Note that "with the former translations diligently compared and revised" line--the KJV was not an original translation, but the culmination in its period of Tyndale's own work, combined with the influence of the popular Geneva Bible and the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate.)

It's funny because of what another Bible I have says on the title page:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Self-Pronouncing Edition
The Holy Bible
Revised Standard Version
Containing the
Old and New Testaments
Translated from the original tongues
Being the version set forth A.D. 1611
Revised AD 1881-1885 and AD 1901
Compared with the most ancient authorities and revised AD 1946-1952<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, in short, the only Bible that I have that says 1611 is my RSV. Somehow, I doubt that it's the one you're thinking of when you say 1611, but that is it.

-Wayne