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

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott J:
[/qb] No. Actually, it comes down to an assessment of the facts and having beliefs that are consistent with those facts. The belief that either the KJV or the TR are somehow perfectly preserved is wholly inconsistent with biblical and historical facts.

[ September 04, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scott: I keep telling them that I have many pages and Bibles from the 17th century some of which are dated 1614 and they are NOT the same as today's KJV. They can try as hard as they want to, but that book has been modified extensively since then. I bet the KJV only people cannot even read the language from these books -- Yes--the writing is clear--it is the spelling, words and punctuation that is not!

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
qwerty askes: Spontaneous conbustion destroys things by fire, it does not give us anything. For me, the superiority of the KJV came after long and hard study of the issues of textual criticism and manuscript evidence coupled with the historical evidence for the primacy of the Byzantine text-form and the most probable reasons for the rise of the Alexandrian text-form and the most probable reasons for its gradual demise beginning about 350 AD.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sooooo, if you feel this way, how do you feel about the New King James Version that was supposedly written using the original Byzantine test-form--only in more modern English?

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
OK Davis you need some help, it seems you are getting crucified even in trying to make amends. This is a subject that will always be a big debate. I will never change my position and here is why, these verses bear repeating.

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

Verses taken out of the NIV, NASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NCV, and the LIV.

Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 28:29, Rom 16:24.

Just to name a few. There are so many more. I think this is exactly what Revelation 22:18, 19 are talking about. TAKE AWAY and ADD TO. I don't believe that God allowed the English speaking people to have a translation and then 400 years later God says, "Oops, I forgot to add some things I will allow new transcripts to be found". NOT. God is perfect and his word is perfect. The King James is a translation and it was translated by man, but I believe it is the closest to the Word of God that the English speaking people can get. I think it is heresy to say it is not easy to understand, that is an excuse. People have become lazy and LIBERAL. They want an easy book to read. No thank you I want to read the Word of God. I don't need to read a butchered book that has taken out several Scriptures.
And by the way I looked in my dictionary and guess what, the words, Thee, Thou are in there if you need the definition maybe you should look in your Websters. Although my 4 year old knows what they mean without looking.

Also for further information you may want to look at these web pages.
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
http://www.av1611.org/biblevs.html

PS: Thank you Thomas Cassidy, I was beginning to think that ddavis an I were the only people that still used the (English) Word of God.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Toolman: I admit that your quote that people are becoming lazy and liberal is VERY true and many churches are buying into it. However, on the issue of Bible translations I must disagree with you. When the book of Revelations was written it was just that: "a book". I have great difficulty in believing that the "copyright" used in Revelations refers to the entire Bible because it was much, much later that the book of Revelation was even accepted in the canon of scripture. If you will study ancient documents, specially those written in Greek by Hebrews and also specifically those written by prophets (real or otherwise) this was a typical boiler plate statement added to prevent tampering with the document, much as today's copyright. Yes, I believe that God inspired that copyright, but you must look at it for the book it was written for, not the whole Bible otherwise at the time it was written the Septuagint had the apocrypha and therefore removing it when the canon was finalized would have been against that statement. We know the Septuagint was a good source of Old Testament material because it was quoted so often in the New Testament, by authors and also, none other than Jesus himself.
Most of the stories told to support the KJVO position are either exagerated or taken completely out of context. The NIV or NASB are not completely derived from Alexandrian texts AND how do we know the Jews and Christians of Alexandria did not take as much care, if not more than those under the direct rule of the Roman Empire. Historically that is another story I won't get into here, but these outlying Jews were VERY careful in their text copy.

By the way, I am STILL waiting on someone to answer the following questions:

1. What English Bible was used from the end of the canon until 1611?

2. What Bible did Jesus read? (Uh, oh I answered that one.) But, if he did read it why did it contain the apocrypha? (I will make it clear he did not quote from any of those books.)

3. So, a Bible translated into any other language must be wrong because ALL translations require adjustments to sentence construction to make them coherent in the native tongue and the KJV cannot be translated word for word? Does this mean the Chinese are out of luck?

4. There were twelve texts placed together to make up the book of Revelations in the KJV; sections from different ones were used where they differed--was this divine intervention in 1611?

5. Why can I not read my 1614 King James pages because I can't even understand the words? (Yes, they are printed clearly and maintain their readability)?

6. What about the New King James Version, supposedly using the Byzantine text--is this an untruth or is it true--just the translators were not inspired?

7. Why was much of the KJV taken from the Bishop's Bible which was the forerunner of the KJV? Was it inspired?

8 Finally, and I ask this TWICE because I would like to hear an answer from somebody--WHAT BIBLE WAS USED BEFORE THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION BY ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE AND WHAT ABOUT A RUSSIAN BIBLE--IS IT INSPIRED?

 

[Phillip]

Uh, I have a question for your KJVO people. First let me make myself clear. I use the KJV all of the time, but I also make comparisons in other translations which help me understand many of the archaic words. Thee and Thou's are NOT the only words that have changed meanings--probably a good 10% have a different context.

My point here is that NONE of us have seen the original manuscripts as written by the original authors and neither did the translators of the 1611 KJV (or the 17th century version or the 18th century version). How do we know for absolute truth that verses were not added by well meaning scribes to make a point -- while in their minds helping the cause of Christianity? I have heard KJVO people literally say that the other translations are from Satan and I wish to say that if you want to take that leap of faith go right ahead. . . Many people have becomes Christians using the NIV and NASB. If this is the case, as Paul said, they are either for us or against us. All I want to leave you with is a thought. . . I would be VERY, VERY careful giving credit to Satan for a Bible that may very well be more accurate just because you don't think so. Let's take this very carefully -- I have read about God's wrath in the old testament and I for one do not wish to slander what very possibly might be his word. He said he would preserve his word--this is an excuse that is is preserved in the KJV because I go back to what about the Septuagint? What did we use BEFORE the KJV--the Bishop's Bible, among others? Did God give you a revelation that the KJV is the only correct translation? If he did then you need to write it down and canonize it because if you were given a revelation like this, it is as binding as the scriptures themselves. If nothing else, let us be careful who we credit these translations to, even if we have the opinion they may not be correct; if any one of us were correct at least 50% of the time we could be millionaires in the stock market.

 

[toolman]

First of all I wish we were all perfect spellers like Mr. Larry. I am so sorry I made a mistake, and I do believe if I had added to and misspelled on purpose, I would have had the plagues put upon me, like I said some of us are not perfect.
Second, I am not a scholar that is why I use the King James, the work is already done. I don’t have to dive into the Hebrew and Greek and learn that language.
The verses I mentioned have been removed from the original. Fact they were there then taken out FACT. Unless you are 400 years old then I don’t think you knew what was there and what was not. All I know is that the verses (God Breathed Words) are in the King James and not in the modern versions. You are trying so hard to disprove the Word of God. From what you are saying I will throw my Bible away, since there is no Authorized Version. I will use the book of Mormon, or the JW Bible. If it is ok for all denominations to change the Bible than all versions are ok. After all if we don’t know where the Perfect Word of God is, maybe Joseph Smith got the true revelation. Even though it was years later that Smith received the revelation it is the same as you telling me that we have newer manuscripts. Like I said I don’t think God made a mistake.
To Phillip: It is a silly question to ask what version the English people used before 1611, THERE WAS NOT A VERSION FOR THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE. That is why it was translated, but that was not good enough, we need more. What God gave us was not good enough.
Also, if Rev. 22:18 and 19 don’t apply to the whole Bible, the fact is that they still changed the meanings of some of the verses in Revelation.
Here are some examples taken from: http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
Rev. 6:17 CHG his wrath TO their wrath NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC
Rev. 8:13 CHG "angel" TO "eagle" NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC
Rev. 11:15 CHG "kingdoms" TO "kingdom" NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC
Rev. 11:17 REM "and art to come" NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC
Rev. 12:12 REM "inhabiters of" NI, NAS, RS, NRS, NC
Rev. 12:17 REM "Christ" NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC (SCARRY)
Rev. 14:5 REM "before the throne of God" NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC
Rev. 15:3 CHG King of saints TO King of the ages et al. NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC
Rev. 16:5 REM and shalt be (refers to deity of Jesus) NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC (SCARRY AGAIN)
Rev. 16:7 CHG And I heard another out of the altar say TO And I heard the altar respond NI, NAS, RS, NRS
Rev. 16:17 REM "of heaven" NI, NAS, RS, NRS, NC
Rev. 20:9 REM "from God out of" NI, NAS, RS, NRS, NC
Rev. 20:12 CHG "God" TO "throne" NI, NAS, RS, NRS, NC (I THINK GOD AND THRONE ARE DIFFERENT??????????????)
Rev. 20:13 REM hell NI, NAS, NKJ, RS, NRS, LB, NC (SON NOW NOT HELL???)
Rev. 20:14 REM hell NI, NAS, NKJ, RS, NRS, NC (AND AGAIN)
Rev. 21:24 REM "of them which are saved" NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC
Rev. 22:14 CHG "do his commandments" TO "wash their robes" NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC
Rev. 22:21 REM Christ NI, NAS, RS, NRS, NC
I have heard that argument before, and it don’t work.
Like I said before my 4 year old can understand these so called tough words. I would think such scholars could????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I am trying to defend the Word of God, not the Word(S) of God. There is only one, and the English speaking people have the closest to it, it is called the King James. I know that other languages are different, if they used the TR and did not take out God Breathed words than they are ok. I don’t think you understand I do not believe that the King James is more Authorized than the original. I believe it is the Word of God
for the English speaking people.
Like ddavis said you are getting your opinion from books that men have written, they make mistakes just like I did yesterday in my note. No one including Preacher Larry is perfect except God.
I can not use other versions because I believe strongly in Rev. 22:18, 19.

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
Sooooo, if you feel this way, how do you feel about the New King James Version that was supposedly written using the original Byzantine test-form--only in more modern English?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The NKJV is a lot better than the versions based on the Alexandrian text-form, but it is not yet of the caliber necessary, in my estimation, to replace the KJV. I have a couple of problems with it: 1. It obfuscates the case/number of personal pronouns, 2. It obfuscates the person of verbs, 3. It translates the present, passive, participle as an imperfect, thus obscuring a valuable truth concerning our salvation. See 1 Cor 1:18 in both versions for an example.

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
1. What English Bible was used from the end of the canon until 1611?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No English bible was used from the close of the canon untill 1611. Modern English did not exist until around 1500 AD. Prior to that Middle English dominated from about 1100-1500. Prior to Middle English, Old English dominated from about 500-1100. Prior to 500 no Anglo-Saxon language as we know it existed at all. The question is based on ignorance of the English language! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. What Bible did Jesus read? (Uh, oh I answered that one.) But, if he did read it why did it contain the apocrypha? (I will make it clear he did not quote from any of those books.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only record in the bible of Jesus reading from a sacred text was when he was in the temple teaching. He read of the Hebrew text. The Hebrew text never contained the Apocrypha. Jesus did not have to read a bible. Jesus spoke the words of God first hand. About 3800 times in the OT we see the words "Thus saith the Lord" or words to the effect. The prophets always gave credit to God for His words. But when Jesus spoke He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you!" He spoke the words of God in the first person! (This, by the way, is strong evidence for the deity of Christ!) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. So, a Bible translated into any other language must be wrong because ALL translations require adjustments to sentence construction to make them coherent in the native tongue and the KJV cannot be translated word for word? Does this mean the Chinese are out of luck?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it means that you have very little understand of the translational issues of grammar and syntax. There is no such thing as a "word for word" translation from one language to another, and this is especially true when translating a Synthetic language such as Greek into an Analytical language such as English. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. There were twelve texts placed together to make up the book of Revelations in the KJV; sections from different ones were used where they differed--was this divine intervention in 1611?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No. It was the practice of textual criticism just as is being practiced by every bible translator today. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>5. Why can I not read my 1614 King James pages because I can't even understand the words? (Yes, they are printed clearly and maintain their readability)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because you lack either good reading skills or a thorough classical education? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>6. What about the New King James Version, supposedly using the Byzantine text--is this an untruth or is it true--just the translators were not inspired?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See my answer just above this post dealing with this issue. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>7. Why was much of the KJV taken from the Bishop's Bible which was the forerunner of the KJV? Was it inspired?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Bishop's Bible was to be the basis of the KJV, but remember, the Bishop's Bible was mostly Tyndale. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! We can also find phrases from the Geneva and the Rheims bibles in the KJV. The translators tell us they used the "former translations" in their work. What is the issue here? Straw man? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>8 Finally, and I ask this TWICE because I would like to hear an answer from somebody--WHAT BIBLE WAS USED BEFORE THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION BY ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE AND WHAT ABOUT A RUSSIAN BIBLE--IS IT INSPIRED? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The pre-KJV bibles were the Wycliff of 1380, Tyndale of 1526, Cranmer of 1539, Great Bible of 1540, Geneva of 1557, Bishop's of 1568, Rheims of 1582, and a few other minor editions.

As to the Russian language, the Russian Synodal version has been around for a long time and is a very good bible.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:
Scott, I do beleive the JKV is God's Word, But I understand it's a translation. Something I guess you don't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely how did you draw this conclusion? I have never to my knowledge denied that the KJV is a translation nor do I deny that it is the Word of God... but let me qualify that statement: The KJV is not the words of God nor can it be called the "perfect" Word of God in a sense that excludes all other English translations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A fact to you is something that you have studied and read from someone esle just like the rest of us. Why? Becase you weren't there. So you base your "opinion" off of what YOU call fact. And what about your bibling beleiving views, thats my point to all of this, it's your views, just like it's mine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In effect, you are applying relativism to this debate universally. You imply that we all just have opinions based on what we accept to be facts therefore you feel legitimate in disregarding facts that contradict your conclusion. If it could be demonstrated by an unbiased presentation of fact that the KJV was God-ordained for the English speaking peoples then I would change my opinion. I believe the way I do because the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates this notion to be untrue.

Once again, a fact is a fact. When a lack of facts leave gaps in the evidence, opinions become relevant so long as they do not disagree with the facts. For instance, Dr. Cassidy consistently presents a well researched and thought out defense of his position. Many, if not most, scholars disagree with his conclusions while at the same time agreeing with him on many of the facts.

Example 1: Awhile back there was a lengthy thread on the phrase "God forbid" in Romans. It was disputed and defended on a number of bases. However, no one denied the fact that this phrase is not a literal translation of the Greek. The word Theos does not appear in these sections. Fact, not opinion.

Example 2: Another thread debated the inclusion of the Johannon Comma in I John 5:7-8. Dr. Cassidy provided fact based arguments from both Greek grammar and historical evidence to support inclusion. At the same time, others cited evidence to the contrary including the fact that the phrase has little manuscript except for the Latin versions and that it was not cited in defense against the arians.

Opinions do vary. Facts do not. The problem I have with KJVO's is not their Bible (it is my primary Bible also) rather it is their expectation that when the facts contradict their opinion then the facts should yield or bend.

 

[Chick Daniels]

Thomas,

You may wish to clarify what you said above on this thread. In one statement you "No English bible was used from the close of the canon untill 1611." Then you said, "The Bishop's Bible was to be the basis of the KJV, but remember, the Bishop's Bible was mostly Tyndale." So were the Bishop's Bible and Tyndale's Bible not in English, or were they Bibles in English that were used before 1611? Just hating for you to be mis-understood

Chick

 

[qwerty]

Question for the KJV only group:

What do you do with:

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER
Preface to the King James Version 1611

This is what the translators wrote about their translation. This is what the translators wanted people to know about this translation.

Does the preface support the arguments of the KJV only group?

I have read the preface, and from what the translators say themselves, they would, in my opinion, be very surprised that a KJV only group sprung into existense.

Following is part of an essay, with part of the preface. I urge you to read the whole preface, to find out what the translators wanted the readers of the KJV to know.

The New Testament itself sprang, much of it, out of controversy; I and II Corinthians, for instance. It is precisely this muting that has produced the impression that the version originated in some other, better world than ours. If the Preface shows its human background, let us have it, since it is a part of the truth.

The Translators were well aware that their work would have to encounter strong opposition:

"Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any thing ourselves, or revising that which hath been labored by others, deserves certainly much respect and esteem, but yet finding but cold entertainment in the world. ... For he that meddles with men's Religion in any part, meddles with their customs, nay, with their freehold, and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering [it]. ... Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment: Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? ... Was their Translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? ..."


Without these trenchant sentences, people are left with the impression that the King James translation descended like the gentle dew from heaven, amidst universal acclaim. The silencing of the controversial note of the Preface puts a false face upon the version, for which its original makers are not to blame.

 

[qwerty]

From: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_9.html

Previous Translations
Yet the King James Version is not a totally new work. In terms of literary units-phrases and clauses-the King James Version is about thirty nine percent new translation. Sixty one percent of the phrases are taken over from older English versions. In fact, the King James Version can be considered the fifth revision of the work of William Tyndale who first translated the New Testament into English from the Greek. Before Tyndale there was the translation (1380) of John Wycliffe (An English Reformer often called the Morning Star of the Reformation) and the translation of John Purvey (A Colleague of Wycliffe), but they were translated from the Latin Bible. Tyndale was the first to go back to the original languages.

The first revision of Tyndale was done by John Rogers (Rector of a London church and later chaplain to the English merchants in Antwerp) and is called the Matthew's Bible (1537). Under the auspices of Thomas Cromwell, Myles Coverdale (Tyndale's assistant) revised the Matthew's Bible to produce the Great Bible (1539). In 1560 the Protestants in exile at Geneva produced the Geneva Bible which was the third revision of Tyndale. Finally in 1568 the English bishops prepared what is known as the Bishops' Bible, which was the version from which the translators were to make their revisions, according to the command of King James.

In actuality they used all of these versions plus many other translations such as the German and French Bibles as well as many commentaries such as Calvin's and Beza's. In their own words, Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentaries, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch (German)... Of all the English versions used, more of the phrases and clauses found in the King James Version come form the Geneva Bible than any other-about 19 percent. While it is said that five sixths to nine tenths of the general literary style comes from the translation of William Tyndale.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First of all I wish we were all perfect spellers like Mr. Larry. I am so sorry I made a mistake, and I do believe if I had added to and misspelled on purpose, I would have had the plagues put upon me, like I said some of us are not perfect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point was not that I am perfect; I am not. My point was that your inability to properly copy a verse is proof that your understanding of “perfect preservation” is incorrect. If God perfectly preserves his word, you would not have been able to miscopy that verse. Your spelling was not the egregious error. You added a whole phrase by copying it twice, something that is known to have happened in textual transmission through the centuries. In other words, mistakes like you made are the reason why there are textual variants, even within the Majority text type. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any manuscript today was purposely added to or deleted from.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Second, I am not a scholar that is why I use the King James, the work is already done. I don’t have to dive into the Hebrew and Greek and learn that language. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this argument fit in the “lazy” category that you claimed modern believers are? I didn’t learn Hebrew for a long time because I was lazy. I am not saying you have to know Hebrew and Greek. However you should listen to those who do. Four hundred years of linguistic study have opened a lot of understanding. You have precluded yourself from that study.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The verses I mentioned have been removed from the original. Fact they were there then taken out FACT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have the original? Of course not. Without the original, how do you know what was added in or taken out? You are basing your whole doctrine on an unprovable (at best) argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Unless you are 400 years old then I don’t think you knew what was there and what was not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure what you are talking about here. You say your Bible is 400 years old so apparently we do know what was there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All I know is that the verses (God Breathed Words) are in the King James and not in the modern versions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not 1900 old so you don’t know that these verses weren’t ADDED in later. In short, you are taking someone else’s word for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You are trying so hard to disprove the Word of God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely false. I am showing your false views on the Word of God to be out of line with what Scripture teaches about itself and what history has shown us to be true. I absolutely believe and preach with conviction the Word of God and make no apologies for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Even though it was years later that Smith received the revelation it is the same as you telling me that we have newer manuscripts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your facts are wrong here. The only “newer” thing about the Alexandrian manuscripts is their discovery. They are older than the Byzantine text type. Furthermore Joseph Smith did not receive revelation. There has been no revelation since the close of the canon. What Joseph Smith said is shown to be false because it contradicts Scripture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If Rev. 22:18 and 19 don’t apply to the whole Bible, the fact is that they still changed the meanings of some of the verses in Revelation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you considered the 20 errors in vv. 16-22 and the 9 errors in vv. 18 and 19 that appear in the TR and KJV with NO Greek manuscript support? Do you believe God added to his word in the 1500s through Erasmus and his copiers?

Your following list of errors deal with textual variants. You cannot simply ignore the existence of these variants. The MVs follow them for a reason. You would do well to study why and then draw a reasoned conclusion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>you are getting your opinion from books that men have written,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All you have here cited has been the opinions of men. So why don’t you settle it and give us words from God that show the KJV to be the only Bible. Is it because you have no verse that shows us that?

 

[ddiscover]

If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then I am sticking with it till I die!

 

[Ransom]

Thomas Cassidy said:

No English bible was used from the close of the canon untill 1611.

and then he said:

The pre-KJV bibles were the Wycliff of 1380, Tyndale of 1526, Cranmer of 1539, Great Bible of 1540, Geneva of 1557, Bishop's of 1568, Rheims of 1582, and a few other minor editions.

Silly me, I thought all those 7+ bibles were English versions. Now I know better, I guess!

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
Thomas,

You may wish to clarify what you said above on this thread. In one statement you "No English bible was used from the close of the canon untill 1611." Then you said, "The Bishop's Bible was to be the basis of the KJV, but remember, the Bishop's Bible was mostly Tyndale." So were the Bishop's Bible and Tyndale's Bible not in English, or were they Bibles in English that were used before 1611? Just hating for you to be mis-understood

Chick<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Chick, you just gotta read what I wrote. No English bible was used from the close of the canon (which I believe happened in about 102 AD) until 1611 as English did not exist from 102-1611. English, as we would recognize it, came into existance around 1100 AD, so, as the language did not exist it was impossible for an English translation to have existed from 102 AD.

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
Silly me!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, you got that part right! It always amazes me how someone who thinks of himself as well educated can have so little understanding of the English language. "From the close of the canon until 1611" is an inclusive phrase. No English version existed "from the close of the canon until 1611" inclusively. 5th grade English.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
"From the close of the canon until 1611" is an inclusive phrase. No English version existed "from the close of the canon until 1611" inclusively. 5th grade English.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right; it is 5th grade English. However adult English would say " Uninterruptedly from the close of the canon until 1611"!

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Well, you got that part right! It always amazes me how someone who thinks of himself as well educated can have so little understanding of the English language. "From the close of the canon until 1611" is an inclusive phrase. No English version existed "from the close of the canon until 1611" inclusively. 5th grade English.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems pretty demeaning ... especially for someone who excoriated RobertLynn for it in another thread. There is no excuse for it here. Ransom understood your phrase in its common usage, the same way that Chick did and probably others. I know you do not particularly like me but I feel compelled to speak up here. Genteel behavior demands more than this.

When going to the doctor for a test and he says, "Do not eat for 12 hours before the test," he is using it in the sense of between. He does not mean that you can't have a 12 hour gorging session. He means you are to have no food for the duration of those twelve hours.

When you say that there was no English Bible in use from 102-1611 you are technically correct but easily misunderstood. There were English Bibles in use during that time period. Taken at face value, your writing contradicted itself and took another post or two to clarify it.

The essence of good writing is to be as clear as possible, not to obfuscate and then accuse someone else of not understanding the language.

 

[Eladar]

Bro Shaun,

Do the earlier text from which the KJB come from still exist? It is those texts that are preserved, not some translation. In order for what you are saying to be true, then God would have had to have inspired those translators. I don't remember the translators being held on the same level as the original authors.

I am not a great proponent of the 'it was good enough for my grand pappy' stuff. Jesus didn't say thou or thy, that is just what his words were translated into.

 

[Ransom]

Thomas Cassidy said:

English, as we would recognize it, came into existance around 1100 AD, so, as the language did not exist it was impossible for an English translation to have existed from 102 AD.

Well, luckily for us English-speakers, all the Bibles you previously listed (Wycliffe onward) are from after 1100, so there indeed were English Bibles in use before 1611.

I can't decide whether DocCass is confused or merely obscurantist. Opinions?