G
gabba
Guest
if God preserved His Word, why then does he allow people to tamper with it? 
-
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!
How I KNOW the KJB is the Word of God!!!!!
- Thread starter Bro Shaun
- Start date
Psalm145 3
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In 2 Kings 24:8 it says Jehoiachin was 18 when he became King. In 2 Chronicles 36:9 it says he was 8 when he became King. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.
These two accounts refer to different aspects of Jehoiachin's reign. He legally became king over Judah when he was 8 years old, but his mother ruled in his place as queen until he was 18. (see Jeremiah 13:18)
The King James Bible is an accurate translation of the preserved Word of God.
2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.
These two accounts refer to different aspects of Jehoiachin's reign. He legally became king over Judah when he was 8 years old, but his mother ruled in his place as queen until he was 18. (see Jeremiah 13:18)
The King James Bible is an accurate translation of the preserved Word of God.
Shaun,
I dont really see the need to argue over the fact as to which translation is the correct one unless you changed what the original text says. You can never get an exact trasnslation from the ancient text. The Bible consist of Arimiac, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. How is any one culture suposed to get an exact translation. My pastor can speak thos languages, along with a few others and on occation, pulled out copies of the original text and translated it for us.He has said that he likes the NASB, that it has the closest translation. The KJV was translated because at that time only the educated could read the bible, who were mainly preist. So King James translated the Bible to English for that time and culture so that the common person could understand the Bible. Although the original text will not change, Our culture does. Its kinda like reading hamlet, you need to translate that english culture to our English culture.
I think that you are fishing for answeres from the Bible to defend your point. Ive seen people defend all kinds of sin finding verses to try to change our point of view. Not saying that your point of view is sin, just resurched in the wrong direction of an biast opinion.
A person can still come to know Christ and get saved through His Grace w/ the KJV, NIV, NASB, and other similar vertions.
I dont really see the need to argue over the fact as to which translation is the correct one unless you changed what the original text says. You can never get an exact trasnslation from the ancient text. The Bible consist of Arimiac, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. How is any one culture suposed to get an exact translation. My pastor can speak thos languages, along with a few others and on occation, pulled out copies of the original text and translated it for us.He has said that he likes the NASB, that it has the closest translation. The KJV was translated because at that time only the educated could read the bible, who were mainly preist. So King James translated the Bible to English for that time and culture so that the common person could understand the Bible. Although the original text will not change, Our culture does. Its kinda like reading hamlet, you need to translate that english culture to our English culture.
I think that you are fishing for answeres from the Bible to defend your point. Ive seen people defend all kinds of sin finding verses to try to change our point of view. Not saying that your point of view is sin, just resurched in the wrong direction of an biast opinion.
A person can still come to know Christ and get saved through His Grace w/ the KJV, NIV, NASB, and other similar vertions.
Psalm145 3
You really believe Jeremiah 13:18 says that? Please explain how. I don't see any reference to a 10 year reign for the Mother.
Are you claiming that the older texts which show his age at 18 in both instances are incorrect?
Also if you look at the other 2 verses side by side, you will see that they are parallel accounts. Please provide one credible authority that agrees with your interpretation that they are not.
While I await your answers, maybe you can help me with another set of verses. What is the correct number of horsemen that David took into his battle over Hadadezer, 1700 (2 Sam. 8:4) or 7000 (1 Chron. 18:4)?
You really believe Jeremiah 13:18 says that? Please explain how. I don't see any reference to a 10 year reign for the Mother.
Are you claiming that the older texts which show his age at 18 in both instances are incorrect?
Also if you look at the other 2 verses side by side, you will see that they are parallel accounts. Please provide one credible authority that agrees with your interpretation that they are not.
While I await your answers, maybe you can help me with another set of verses. What is the correct number of horsemen that David took into his battle over Hadadezer, 1700 (2 Sam. 8:4) or 7000 (1 Chron. 18:4)?
[edited]
If having a different mind-set than you makes me empty-headed, thank you. No one is perfect except Jesus. King James was not perfect but he feared God. If I recall correctly, King David was an adulterer and murderer, yet he was called a man after God's own heart. Paul started out as a horrible person who persecuted thousands of Christians before writing 14 books of the New Testament. King James wasn't perfect, he did things I do not approve of, but he feared God. [edited]
No one has yet to answer my question. I have stated how I know the KJB is the word of God. God promised to preserve His word (Mat. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). His word is out there somewhere and it cannot be all of the MVs, they differ from each other too much. So what is it? Prove it.
[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
If having a different mind-set than you makes me empty-headed, thank you. No one is perfect except Jesus. King James was not perfect but he feared God. If I recall correctly, King David was an adulterer and murderer, yet he was called a man after God's own heart. Paul started out as a horrible person who persecuted thousands of Christians before writing 14 books of the New Testament. King James wasn't perfect, he did things I do not approve of, but he feared God. [edited]
No one has yet to answer my question. I have stated how I know the KJB is the word of God. God promised to preserve His word (Mat. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). His word is out there somewhere and it cannot be all of the MVs, they differ from each other too much. So what is it? Prove it.
[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
Chick Daniels
Member
Shaun,
If you speak to a Mormon missionary, he will tell you to go home and pray for two weeks, asking God to tell you that the book of Mormon is genuine Revelation. It almost seems that you are asking the same of us. We should go home, ask God to zap us with the knowledge that the KJV is the only Bible that God ever intended. None of your support listed in your original post says anything to defend your claims. Then you went a step further, asking for proof that you are wrong in your claims! The burden of proof is on you to have evidence for your claims. Not even the Mormons attempt the old "prove to me its not true" argument. They at least they attempt to lead you in an existential "zap".
Furthermore, I haven't seen folks here denying that God preserved His Word. As I said earlier, God has NOT told us HOW He would preserve it, and to what extent He would preserve it from copying errors. He simply did not tell us this.
Chick
If you speak to a Mormon missionary, he will tell you to go home and pray for two weeks, asking God to tell you that the book of Mormon is genuine Revelation. It almost seems that you are asking the same of us. We should go home, ask God to zap us with the knowledge that the KJV is the only Bible that God ever intended. None of your support listed in your original post says anything to defend your claims. Then you went a step further, asking for proof that you are wrong in your claims! The burden of proof is on you to have evidence for your claims. Not even the Mormons attempt the old "prove to me its not true" argument. They at least they attempt to lead you in an existential "zap".
Furthermore, I haven't seen folks here denying that God preserved His Word. As I said earlier, God has NOT told us HOW He would preserve it, and to what extent He would preserve it from copying errors. He simply did not tell us this.
Chick
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:
King James was not perfect but he feared God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? Where did you get this information? If anything, King James used the name of God to consolidate power. One of the reasons he was interested in having the Bible translated was to get rid of the Geneva Bible which did not support his claim to prelacy. He has been accused of many things that probably cannot be proven (such as homosexuality). What we do know is that he was not theologically particular. He swore life long allegiance to the Presbyterian church until it was more politically expedient ("correct") to be Anglican. Also, King James endorsed the High Commission Court to try heretics...among the favorite targets were Baptists.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...King David ... Paul...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Bible deals extensively with the repentance of these two godly men. Show me a testimony that King James was publicly repentant for his sins. He should be never be mentioned together with David and Paul with regards to righteousness. He was a self serving monarch and little more. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...witches, Devil worshippers, whoremongers and (must be politically correct) "homosexuals" that paid for and translated your "bible". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess you have some proof...? If you want to compare notes, I am sure that many here can detail the sins of notable KJV icons such as Ruckman, Hyles, Marres, King James, Archbishop Bancroft, Archbishop Andrewes, Riplinger, et al. However, this exercise would be a waste of time since it would prove nothing pertaining to the issue at hand.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No one has yet to answer my question. I have stated how I know the KJB is the word of God. God promised to preserve His word (Mat. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). His word is out there somewhere and it cannot be all of the MVs, they differ from each other too much. So what is it? Prove it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have you in fact read the responses?
Here it is condensed. The Word of God is the information God has chosen to reveal directly to mankind about His character, will, and plan. It was manifested in perfection in the person of Jesus Christ. It was perfectly recorded in the original autographs. It is eternal and therefore not limited to the carnal devices of man. It existed in its completion before creation. The Word of God is conveyed to us through a multitude of manuscripts and associated writings as well as faithful translations based on that evidence.
NOTHING THAT GOD WANTED TO COMMUNICATE TO MANKIND HAS BEEN LOST IN 2000+ YEARS. Yet at the same time, the originals are gone and cannot be idolized...the way KJVO's attempt to worship the AV. God's ways are indeed not our ways.
King James was not perfect but he feared God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? Where did you get this information? If anything, King James used the name of God to consolidate power. One of the reasons he was interested in having the Bible translated was to get rid of the Geneva Bible which did not support his claim to prelacy. He has been accused of many things that probably cannot be proven (such as homosexuality). What we do know is that he was not theologically particular. He swore life long allegiance to the Presbyterian church until it was more politically expedient ("correct") to be Anglican. Also, King James endorsed the High Commission Court to try heretics...among the favorite targets were Baptists.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...King David ... Paul...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Bible deals extensively with the repentance of these two godly men. Show me a testimony that King James was publicly repentant for his sins. He should be never be mentioned together with David and Paul with regards to righteousness. He was a self serving monarch and little more. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...witches, Devil worshippers, whoremongers and (must be politically correct) "homosexuals" that paid for and translated your "bible". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess you have some proof...? If you want to compare notes, I am sure that many here can detail the sins of notable KJV icons such as Ruckman, Hyles, Marres, King James, Archbishop Bancroft, Archbishop Andrewes, Riplinger, et al. However, this exercise would be a waste of time since it would prove nothing pertaining to the issue at hand.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No one has yet to answer my question. I have stated how I know the KJB is the word of God. God promised to preserve His word (Mat. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). His word is out there somewhere and it cannot be all of the MVs, they differ from each other too much. So what is it? Prove it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have you in fact read the responses?
Here it is condensed. The Word of God is the information God has chosen to reveal directly to mankind about His character, will, and plan. It was manifested in perfection in the person of Jesus Christ. It was perfectly recorded in the original autographs. It is eternal and therefore not limited to the carnal devices of man. It existed in its completion before creation. The Word of God is conveyed to us through a multitude of manuscripts and associated writings as well as faithful translations based on that evidence.
NOTHING THAT GOD WANTED TO COMMUNICATE TO MANKIND HAS BEEN LOST IN 2000+ YEARS. Yet at the same time, the originals are gone and cannot be idolized...the way KJVO's attempt to worship the AV. God's ways are indeed not our ways.
Psalm145 3
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What is the correct number of horsemen that David took into his battle over Hadadezer, 1700 (2 Sam. 8:4) or 7000 (1 Chron. 18:4)?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
2 Samuel 8:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen,...
1 Chronicles 18:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen...
These two passages count the conquered military two different ways.
Matthew Henry says, "If they divided their horses by ten in a company, as it is probable they did, the captains and companies were 700, but the horsemen were 7000"
The King James Bible is the inerrant Word of God in English. Amen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
2 Samuel 8:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen,...
1 Chronicles 18:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen...
These two passages count the conquered military two different ways.
Matthew Henry says, "If they divided their horses by ten in a company, as it is probable they did, the captains and companies were 700, but the horsemen were 7000"
The King James Bible is the inerrant Word of God in English. Amen.
Psalm145 3,
So I see in one passage 700 horsemen means 700 horsemen and in the other 7000 horsemen means 700 horsemen. Interesting math.
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?
Now there are explanations for these variances, your doctrine of KJV perfection doesn't allow you to see them.
So I see in one passage 700 horsemen means 700 horsemen and in the other 7000 horsemen means 700 horsemen. Interesting math.
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?
Now there are explanations for these variances, your doctrine of KJV perfection doesn't allow you to see them.
Shaun,
How about you actually answering questions posed to you? And enough of the experientially based, felt knowledge. Let's have some truth and facts.
Then again, y'all have at it. I've seen this before. This is "shake the dust off your shoes" time.
[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]
How about you actually answering questions posed to you? And enough of the experientially based, felt knowledge. Let's have some truth and facts.
Then again, y'all have at it. I've seen this before. This is "shake the dust off your shoes" time.
[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]
Shaun,
One of the explanations to the variances is that the KJV is not perfect. Several have been corrected by older texts that were found ( I guess you missed that explanation earlier). If you look at the symbols used in the Old Testament you see others that are obviously copyist errors. A good source to these questions is the following book, http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=83150&event=SRC&item_code= , it was written in 1874 and contains scholarship from some of the great minds in Christian history. The book does a wonderful job of showing the errors and the markings used. Another good book is the following, http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=41464&event=SRC&item_code=
Now if you can't support your claim of KJV perfection by answering the questions posed to you, maybe its time to retract it.
One of the explanations to the variances is that the KJV is not perfect. Several have been corrected by older texts that were found ( I guess you missed that explanation earlier). If you look at the symbols used in the Old Testament you see others that are obviously copyist errors. A good source to these questions is the following book, http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=83150&event=SRC&item_code= , it was written in 1874 and contains scholarship from some of the great minds in Christian history. The book does a wonderful job of showing the errors and the markings used. Another good book is the following, http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=41464&event=SRC&item_code=
Now if you can't support your claim of KJV perfection by answering the questions posed to you, maybe its time to retract it.
RobertLynn
New Member
I just have one question.
If the KJV is the only preserved Word of God in English, and part of your reasoning is that it was authorized by a King under a monarch (which according to Bro. Shaun is God's way of doing things) then does that mean that the Church of England is the only true church of Christ on earth, since it is the only Christian church left headed by a monarch?
And can we also say that as Baptists, we are not the true church because King James banned us from conducting worship services or holding meetings?
Perhaps we should all do the right thing and take our King James Bibles and head on over to the nearest Episcopal church!
If the KJV is the only preserved Word of God in English, and part of your reasoning is that it was authorized by a King under a monarch (which according to Bro. Shaun is God's way of doing things) then does that mean that the Church of England is the only true church of Christ on earth, since it is the only Christian church left headed by a monarch?
And can we also say that as Baptists, we are not the true church because King James banned us from conducting worship services or holding meetings?
Perhaps we should all do the right thing and take our King James Bibles and head on over to the nearest Episcopal church!
>>I have posted my answers, I'm waiting for YOUR answer. Which version is the preserved, perfect word of God? Prove it>>
The Hebrew and Greek TR (the name it currently goes by), those underlying the KJV.
KJV Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Shaun, there are no jots and tittles in any English Bible, only the Hebrew.
You can't appeal to the English letters because there are several hundred differences between the 1611 and 1769 KJV Versions of the Authorized English Bible.
The underlying Hebrew has NEVER changed, and NEVER will.
God has preserved them FOREVER.
HankD
The Hebrew and Greek TR (the name it currently goes by), those underlying the KJV.
KJV Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Shaun, there are no jots and tittles in any English Bible, only the Hebrew.
You can't appeal to the English letters because there are several hundred differences between the 1611 and 1769 KJV Versions of the Authorized English Bible.
The underlying Hebrew has NEVER changed, and NEVER will.
God has preserved them FOREVER.
HankD
Actually Hank, there are a great number of places where the Greek and the Hebrew are in dispute.
There are some places where the Hebrew is greatly convuluted and requires outside information (e.g., versions) and in the end, conjecture to establish the text with reasonable certainty.
IMO, the TR is the least likely choice to be the most accurate Greek text because of a number of problems documented elsewhere. I prefer the eclectic text because, among other reasons, it is the only one that considers all the manuscript evidence.
However, you are at least on the right track in arguing for the underlying text.
Where has God preserved his word? In the multitude of the manuscripts.
[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
There are some places where the Hebrew is greatly convuluted and requires outside information (e.g., versions) and in the end, conjecture to establish the text with reasonable certainty.
IMO, the TR is the least likely choice to be the most accurate Greek text because of a number of problems documented elsewhere. I prefer the eclectic text because, among other reasons, it is the only one that considers all the manuscript evidence.
However, you are at least on the right track in arguing for the underlying text.
Where has God preserved his word? In the multitude of the manuscripts.
[ August 28, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
John Wells
New Member
Shaun,
Sorry, but my vote goes to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts being the preserved, perfect Word of God. The KJV is a good translation. It has obvious errors as ALL the MVs do as well. That's why none of them is the preserved, perfect Word of God. If you have read all the threads in all the "Translations" forum (which I doubt you have or will), errors are clearly pointed out in the KJV and admitted by most members on this board who stand by their loyalty to the KJV. It's fine to be loyal to it. If for you there is no other, then great. But don't make it out to be what it's not, the only choice for serious students of God's Word.
A side note, Shaun. It appears that you have extreme pent up anger. I'll pray for you about that. I have no idea what the source of that anger is, but coming across brothers and sisters in Christ who don't subscribe to KJVonly is certainly not worthy of your wrath.
You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you,
are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I
follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? (1
Cor 3:4 NIV) Would it not be appropriate to insert here: "For one says, KJVonly, and another says NASB only . . . "
And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape
from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. (2 Tim 2:24-26 NIV) Frankly Shaun, you don't qualify as "the Lord's servant" by your most recent actions, using profanity and such.
[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]
Sorry, but my vote goes to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts being the preserved, perfect Word of God. The KJV is a good translation. It has obvious errors as ALL the MVs do as well. That's why none of them is the preserved, perfect Word of God. If you have read all the threads in all the "Translations" forum (which I doubt you have or will), errors are clearly pointed out in the KJV and admitted by most members on this board who stand by their loyalty to the KJV. It's fine to be loyal to it. If for you there is no other, then great. But don't make it out to be what it's not, the only choice for serious students of God's Word.
A side note, Shaun. It appears that you have extreme pent up anger. I'll pray for you about that. I have no idea what the source of that anger is, but coming across brothers and sisters in Christ who don't subscribe to KJVonly is certainly not worthy of your wrath.
You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you,
are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I
follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? (1
Cor 3:4 NIV) Would it not be appropriate to insert here: "For one says, KJVonly, and another says NASB only . . . "
And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape
from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. (2 Tim 2:24-26 NIV) Frankly Shaun, you don't qualify as "the Lord's servant" by your most recent actions, using profanity and such.
[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro Shaun:
I have posted several times defending the KJB as the only perserved word of God. I was asked by Dr. Cassidy to prove not that the KJB and modern versions are different, but beyond a shadow of a doubt that the KJB is God's word, making the MVs the Devil's word. Well, here you go Dr. Cassidy:
God Promised to Preserve His Words
"Psalm 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that ". . . . his truth endureth to all generations," and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God's WORD is truth."
No problem here. I can take you back and show you many errors in the King James translation. . . does this mean God had to "Correct" the translators as it was written from old manuscripts? Remember, we do not have one single manuscript that is original, but due to the extreme accuracy of "different manuscripts" we assume that today's manuscripts are as close as we are going to come to the original.
"If God preserved His Word, like He promised, then there is only ONE that is true. The MVs all differ from not only the KJB, but each other. One of them, and only one, is God's preserved word, be it the KJB, NIV, NKJV, NASV, or any other."
Then we must consider the Chinese, Russian, Arabian, Hebrew, Greek and all the other hundreds of translations to bring the good news to the world because there is no possible way they can maintain every word and nuance of the KJV into another language.
. . . or do we teach them to read the KJV instead of the books from the Devil (as you describe them--and I SURE WOULD BE CAREFUL THERE)
"The Authorized Version Was Translated Under A God-Ordained English King"
OK--No problems there -- in 1611 most of it taken from the Bishop's Bible before, some from the Vulgate and three different and incomplete manuscripts of Revelations. I agree. (somewhat similar to today's translations)
"The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28)."
Boy, that is a stretch, do you also subscribe to conspiracy theories?--just kidding, but you are pulling a little bit out of context here.
"The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it was translated under a king."
As I said earlier -- actually pretty irrelevant to the argument.
"Because God Always Translates Perfectly"
Please quote the verse for this? and also quote the verse that a Bible copied from several sources in 1611 is quoted by God. Besides, I have several copies of 17th century Bibles and pages from the KJV and would you like me to show you how many words have been changed since then so that we can even read it now?
"The words "translate" and "translated" occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. (II Sam 3:10, Col. 1:13, Hebrews 11:5). The Holy Spirit Who inspired the word of God through "holy men of God" (II Pet. 1:21) is quite capable of guiding His servants to KEEP the words which Jesus told us to keep (Jn. 14:23). In essence, the KJV translators were merely INSTRUMENTS which God used in translating and preserving His word. In fact, they said this themselves in the Dedicatory to the Authorized Version: ". . . . because we are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people. . . "
Okay, you quoted about translators -- how does this fit with 1611 translators and not 1980 translators (Oh, yeah, the KING-----I think if you will read your Bible it is referring to the ruler of the Hebrew people at the time, but we won't go that deep here.
"Because the King James Translators Believed They Were Handling the Very Words of God"
I have no problem with that and I would imagine many of the writers of the NASB felt the same way -- some may have had some doubts, but I bet some of those ole boys in the early 1600's did too.
"One can see this truth by reading the Prefatory and Dedicatory remarks in the Authorized Version. These men didn't believe they were handling "God's message" or "reliable manuscripts." They believed they were handling the very words of God Himself. As I Thessalonians 2:13 says, they ". . . . received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
Oh, I get it: "One can see this truth by reading the Prefatory and Dedicatory remarks in the Authorized Version." If you believe this then it must (the Prefactory) have been inspired by God, therefore it is part of the Holy Scriptures. Oh well, if the Mormons can add . . .
"Because All New Translations Compare Themselves to the KJV"
This is totally irrelevant and means nothing.
"The new versions do not compare themselves with each other, because they're too busy comparing themselves with one Book--the King James Bible. This fact alone proves that there is something very special and unique about the KJV."
THIS is irrelevant too, but let me explain something about marketing 101. The KJV still sells better than all the other translations (and by NO means am I saying it is a bad translation -- it is wonderful and I use it all the time.) so, they compare themselves to the top seller -- they would not be very smart to even admit another versions exists. You see this in secular marketing all the time.
"Because of the Time in History in Which It Was Translated"
1611? Have you read a history book lately?
"The King James Bible was not translated during the apostate and lukewarm Laodicean church period, like the new translations. The Laodicean period is the last church period before the Second Coming of Christ. It is the last of the seven church periods in Revelation chapters two and three. One can clearly see that we are living in the Laodicean period today by simply comparing modern churches to the church of Revelation 3:14-22. This lukewarm period began toward the end of the 1800's and will continue until Christ returns. The new versions fit well into the lukewarm churches, because they are lukewarm "bibles.""
Well, now we know where you stand with your interpretation of Revelations. Good theory, but John was writing to actual REAL churches that existed in that time period and no one has proven to my satisfaction that these refer to time periods at all. Look down through history and you will see corruption in the churches-luke warm churches AND super evangelical churches. The U.S. and Europe are not even Lukewarm anymore they are COLD. We've even kicked God out of our schools and most of our churches spend their time on entertainment today. Therefore, I can't buy into that theory. sorry....just my opinion.
"The Authorized Version, however, was translated LONG BEFORE the Laodicean churches appeared. It was translated during the Philadelphia church period, which is the best church period of all. It was this church that the Lord Jesus COMMENDED for KEEPING HIS WORD( Rev. 3:8-10)!"
I DISAGREE -- SORRY - Read your history.
"Because No One Has Ever Proven That the KJV is Not God's Word"
Oh, it IS the WORD OF GOD. But, calling a newer translation as coming from the Devil is playing with fire -- literally.
"Any honest American should know that innocence is supposed to prevail in our land until guilt is proven. The KJV should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Has anyone proven it guilty? No. Has any scholar actually PROVEN that there are errors in the King James Bible? No. Enemies of the KJV delight in IGNORING the facts about the Authorized Version, while never PROVING anything."
Quit trying to use the excuse that people who use other translations are DOWNING the KJV. This is NOT the CASE. It is a GREAT translation with beautiful language (that is as long as you can understand it--and most people who haven't grown up reading it can't) The QUESTION is---are NEWER translations the Word of God.
"Because of the Manuscript Evidence
Only a very deceived individual could believe that the new versions are equal to the King James Bible. Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence."
Not Accurate--sorry. Would you like to tell me exactly what manuscripts were used in the KJV and exactly what manuscripts were used in the NIV? (I want the specific name and code number -- not just "authorized" or some other buzz word.) If you don't know, I could help you there.
"The new "bibles" are supported by two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts, known as the "Vaticanus" and the "Siniaticus." These manuscripts are filled with many text alterations to meet the demands of Roman Catholic tradition. They also include the Apocrypha, which the Lord Jesus Christ EXCLUDED from the Old Testament in Luke 24:44. All new versions contain readings from these corrupt manuscripts, and all new versions use their tiny five percent evidence to attack the ninety-five percent majority text of the King James Bible."
Okay, if you want to roll in the mud---Jesus quoted the Septuagint in almost every case in the New Testament -- so did almost every other writer of the New Testament. Funny, the Septuagint included the apocrypha. Yes, I do agree that Jesus probably did not accept the apocrypha; however, I will say that it nullifies your argument above and let me also say that the new versions are VERY CLEAR in using footnotes to note that some manuscripts did not include or did include certain parts. Now--don't say footnotes are not part of the Bible---because it is funny that the translators of the KJV (Authorized) also uses footnotes in this same effect. Would you like me to scan you copies of my 1613 KJV pages to show you?
"The Textus Receptus (received text) from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The other "bibles" do not come from Antioch. They come from Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome."
This statement is entirely false and misleading. The other "BIBLES" come from a combination of the Textus Receptus with comparisons to older documents found since the 1600's -- including comparisons with books such as the Septuagint (that Jesus quoted from? hmmmmmm) They footnote comparisons very well--and so does the KJV.
Some of the STRONGEST Christian Jews were in Alexandria and took great care of God's Holy Word. Just because it was an evil town does not mean that Roman rule wasn't either.
"Because It Exalts the Lord Jesus Christ
Jesus said, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: And they are they which testify of me." John 5:39.
A REAL Bible will testify of the Lord Jesus Christ. The true word of God will always EXALT Jesus Christ, and it will NEVER attack Hid Deity, His Virgin Birth, His Blood Atonement, His Bodily Resurrection, His Glorious Second Coming, or any other doctrines concerning His Person. However, the new versions attack ALL of the fundamental doctrines concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at one time or another."
WHERE? Give me quotes and DON'T pull from context. I'm so tired of people saying they used only 56 "Jesus Christ" quotes while another uses only 36 (while it uses "Christ Jesus" instead.) In all of the mainstream translations NASB, NIV, etc. I certainly don't see any attacks. Give us verses and we'll look at the context of each one!
"These are just a few of the reasons I KNOW the KJB is the preserved, perfect Word of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The KJV is only as perfect as its translators -- only the ORIGINAL manuscripts contained the EXACT inspired words. We are getting TOO specific about the meaning of "WORDS" Yes, these other translations are the Word of God as long as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is maintained along with the rest of the context. Just like a Chinese Bible can NEVER be a KJV because they use different words to mean different things than we do!
I am not attacking you as a person and I hope you do not take this that way, but I am getting tired of people calling the Word of God as being the Devil's work. There is simply NOT contextual difference to warrant such accusations. I do agree the KJV is a GREAT translations, but to give you an example, my daughter could not read it, but gave her heart to the Lord after reading an NIV which she could understand. Obviously, that was not the work of the devil.
Have a good day, my brother.
By the way, another Brother asked what version was used between 300 AD and 1600 AD, please answer that one question specifically. . . and was it the Word of God?
nullnull <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have posted several times defending the KJB as the only perserved word of God. I was asked by Dr. Cassidy to prove not that the KJB and modern versions are different, but beyond a shadow of a doubt that the KJB is God's word, making the MVs the Devil's word. Well, here you go Dr. Cassidy:
God Promised to Preserve His Words
"Psalm 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that ". . . . his truth endureth to all generations," and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God's WORD is truth."
No problem here. I can take you back and show you many errors in the King James translation. . . does this mean God had to "Correct" the translators as it was written from old manuscripts? Remember, we do not have one single manuscript that is original, but due to the extreme accuracy of "different manuscripts" we assume that today's manuscripts are as close as we are going to come to the original.
"If God preserved His Word, like He promised, then there is only ONE that is true. The MVs all differ from not only the KJB, but each other. One of them, and only one, is God's preserved word, be it the KJB, NIV, NKJV, NASV, or any other."
Then we must consider the Chinese, Russian, Arabian, Hebrew, Greek and all the other hundreds of translations to bring the good news to the world because there is no possible way they can maintain every word and nuance of the KJV into another language.
. . . or do we teach them to read the KJV instead of the books from the Devil (as you describe them--and I SURE WOULD BE CAREFUL THERE)
"The Authorized Version Was Translated Under A God-Ordained English King"
OK--No problems there -- in 1611 most of it taken from the Bishop's Bible before, some from the Vulgate and three different and incomplete manuscripts of Revelations. I agree. (somewhat similar to today's translations)
"The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28)."
Boy, that is a stretch, do you also subscribe to conspiracy theories?--just kidding, but you are pulling a little bit out of context here.
"The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it was translated under a king."
As I said earlier -- actually pretty irrelevant to the argument.
"Because God Always Translates Perfectly"
Please quote the verse for this? and also quote the verse that a Bible copied from several sources in 1611 is quoted by God. Besides, I have several copies of 17th century Bibles and pages from the KJV and would you like me to show you how many words have been changed since then so that we can even read it now?
"The words "translate" and "translated" occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. (II Sam 3:10, Col. 1:13, Hebrews 11:5). The Holy Spirit Who inspired the word of God through "holy men of God" (II Pet. 1:21) is quite capable of guiding His servants to KEEP the words which Jesus told us to keep (Jn. 14:23). In essence, the KJV translators were merely INSTRUMENTS which God used in translating and preserving His word. In fact, they said this themselves in the Dedicatory to the Authorized Version: ". . . . because we are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known to the people. . . "
Okay, you quoted about translators -- how does this fit with 1611 translators and not 1980 translators (Oh, yeah, the KING-----I think if you will read your Bible it is referring to the ruler of the Hebrew people at the time, but we won't go that deep here.
"Because the King James Translators Believed They Were Handling the Very Words of God"
I have no problem with that and I would imagine many of the writers of the NASB felt the same way -- some may have had some doubts, but I bet some of those ole boys in the early 1600's did too.
"One can see this truth by reading the Prefatory and Dedicatory remarks in the Authorized Version. These men didn't believe they were handling "God's message" or "reliable manuscripts." They believed they were handling the very words of God Himself. As I Thessalonians 2:13 says, they ". . . . received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
Oh, I get it: "One can see this truth by reading the Prefatory and Dedicatory remarks in the Authorized Version." If you believe this then it must (the Prefactory) have been inspired by God, therefore it is part of the Holy Scriptures. Oh well, if the Mormons can add . . .
"Because All New Translations Compare Themselves to the KJV"
This is totally irrelevant and means nothing.
"The new versions do not compare themselves with each other, because they're too busy comparing themselves with one Book--the King James Bible. This fact alone proves that there is something very special and unique about the KJV."
THIS is irrelevant too, but let me explain something about marketing 101. The KJV still sells better than all the other translations (and by NO means am I saying it is a bad translation -- it is wonderful and I use it all the time.) so, they compare themselves to the top seller -- they would not be very smart to even admit another versions exists. You see this in secular marketing all the time.
"Because of the Time in History in Which It Was Translated"
1611? Have you read a history book lately?
"The King James Bible was not translated during the apostate and lukewarm Laodicean church period, like the new translations. The Laodicean period is the last church period before the Second Coming of Christ. It is the last of the seven church periods in Revelation chapters two and three. One can clearly see that we are living in the Laodicean period today by simply comparing modern churches to the church of Revelation 3:14-22. This lukewarm period began toward the end of the 1800's and will continue until Christ returns. The new versions fit well into the lukewarm churches, because they are lukewarm "bibles.""
Well, now we know where you stand with your interpretation of Revelations. Good theory, but John was writing to actual REAL churches that existed in that time period and no one has proven to my satisfaction that these refer to time periods at all. Look down through history and you will see corruption in the churches-luke warm churches AND super evangelical churches. The U.S. and Europe are not even Lukewarm anymore they are COLD. We've even kicked God out of our schools and most of our churches spend their time on entertainment today. Therefore, I can't buy into that theory. sorry....just my opinion.
"The Authorized Version, however, was translated LONG BEFORE the Laodicean churches appeared. It was translated during the Philadelphia church period, which is the best church period of all. It was this church that the Lord Jesus COMMENDED for KEEPING HIS WORD( Rev. 3:8-10)!"
I DISAGREE -- SORRY - Read your history.
"Because No One Has Ever Proven That the KJV is Not God's Word"
Oh, it IS the WORD OF GOD. But, calling a newer translation as coming from the Devil is playing with fire -- literally.
"Any honest American should know that innocence is supposed to prevail in our land until guilt is proven. The KJV should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Has anyone proven it guilty? No. Has any scholar actually PROVEN that there are errors in the King James Bible? No. Enemies of the KJV delight in IGNORING the facts about the Authorized Version, while never PROVING anything."
Quit trying to use the excuse that people who use other translations are DOWNING the KJV. This is NOT the CASE. It is a GREAT translation with beautiful language (that is as long as you can understand it--and most people who haven't grown up reading it can't) The QUESTION is---are NEWER translations the Word of God.
"Because of the Manuscript Evidence
Only a very deceived individual could believe that the new versions are equal to the King James Bible. Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence."
Not Accurate--sorry. Would you like to tell me exactly what manuscripts were used in the KJV and exactly what manuscripts were used in the NIV? (I want the specific name and code number -- not just "authorized" or some other buzz word.) If you don't know, I could help you there.
"The new "bibles" are supported by two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts, known as the "Vaticanus" and the "Siniaticus." These manuscripts are filled with many text alterations to meet the demands of Roman Catholic tradition. They also include the Apocrypha, which the Lord Jesus Christ EXCLUDED from the Old Testament in Luke 24:44. All new versions contain readings from these corrupt manuscripts, and all new versions use their tiny five percent evidence to attack the ninety-five percent majority text of the King James Bible."
Okay, if you want to roll in the mud---Jesus quoted the Septuagint in almost every case in the New Testament -- so did almost every other writer of the New Testament. Funny, the Septuagint included the apocrypha. Yes, I do agree that Jesus probably did not accept the apocrypha; however, I will say that it nullifies your argument above and let me also say that the new versions are VERY CLEAR in using footnotes to note that some manuscripts did not include or did include certain parts. Now--don't say footnotes are not part of the Bible---because it is funny that the translators of the KJV (Authorized) also uses footnotes in this same effect. Would you like me to scan you copies of my 1613 KJV pages to show you?
"The Textus Receptus (received text) from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The other "bibles" do not come from Antioch. They come from Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome."
This statement is entirely false and misleading. The other "BIBLES" come from a combination of the Textus Receptus with comparisons to older documents found since the 1600's -- including comparisons with books such as the Septuagint (that Jesus quoted from? hmmmmmm) They footnote comparisons very well--and so does the KJV.
Some of the STRONGEST Christian Jews were in Alexandria and took great care of God's Holy Word. Just because it was an evil town does not mean that Roman rule wasn't either.
"Because It Exalts the Lord Jesus Christ
Jesus said, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: And they are they which testify of me." John 5:39.
A REAL Bible will testify of the Lord Jesus Christ. The true word of God will always EXALT Jesus Christ, and it will NEVER attack Hid Deity, His Virgin Birth, His Blood Atonement, His Bodily Resurrection, His Glorious Second Coming, or any other doctrines concerning His Person. However, the new versions attack ALL of the fundamental doctrines concerning the Lord Jesus Christ at one time or another."
WHERE? Give me quotes and DON'T pull from context. I'm so tired of people saying they used only 56 "Jesus Christ" quotes while another uses only 36 (while it uses "Christ Jesus" instead.) In all of the mainstream translations NASB, NIV, etc. I certainly don't see any attacks. Give us verses and we'll look at the context of each one!
"These are just a few of the reasons I KNOW the KJB is the preserved, perfect Word of God.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The KJV is only as perfect as its translators -- only the ORIGINAL manuscripts contained the EXACT inspired words. We are getting TOO specific about the meaning of "WORDS" Yes, these other translations are the Word of God as long as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is maintained along with the rest of the context. Just like a Chinese Bible can NEVER be a KJV because they use different words to mean different things than we do!
I am not attacking you as a person and I hope you do not take this that way, but I am getting tired of people calling the Word of God as being the Devil's work. There is simply NOT contextual difference to warrant such accusations. I do agree the KJV is a GREAT translations, but to give you an example, my daughter could not read it, but gave her heart to the Lord after reading an NIV which she could understand. Obviously, that was not the work of the devil.
Have a good day, my brother.
By the way, another Brother asked what version was used between 300 AD and 1600 AD, please answer that one question specifically. . . and was it the Word of God?
nullnull <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]
Brother and Sister Members,
I am stil learning how to use this message board and my answers are intermingled with the statements in the above message. I am sorry for that.
I am also sorry that I did not read the entire stream before posting because I probably would not have posted had I known the language and faces shown by Bro. Shaun in his letters of Aug 27; 4:55 and Aug 28; 4:51. He is obviously deeply disturbed about this disagreement and I feel that arguing facts or otherwise with him will not accomplish the goal of bringing him back to Christ in a Christian way. I suggest we keep this argument among Christians who can debate the facts without reaching emotional hostility, because I feel it will be detrimental to our outreach to such persons as Bro. Shaun. 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. My reaction would have been different with my original impression that he was a mature Christian. Paul says we work to become more Christlike. This can often be a good indicator of the length of a person's "new life".
I am stil learning how to use this message board and my answers are intermingled with the statements in the above message. I am sorry for that.
I am also sorry that I did not read the entire stream before posting because I probably would not have posted had I known the language and faces shown by Bro. Shaun in his letters of Aug 27; 4:55 and Aug 28; 4:51. He is obviously deeply disturbed about this disagreement and I feel that arguing facts or otherwise with him will not accomplish the goal of bringing him back to Christ in a Christian way. I suggest we keep this argument among Christians who can debate the facts without reaching emotional hostility, because I feel it will be detrimental to our outreach to such persons as Bro. Shaun. 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. My reaction would have been different with my original impression that he was a mature Christian. Paul says we work to become more Christlike. This can often be a good indicator of the length of a person's "new life".