Featured How important is the KJB?

tradition of men

Are you trying to invent a commandment or requirement that God did not make?

You are improperly clinging to the opinions or traditions of men. You are using the same faulty incorrect reasoning that Roman Catholics used in the 1500's for their Latin Vulgate-only theory.

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men

Mark 7:9 Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition

You had rather have many people read wrong meanings into some of the archaic words and archaic language of the KJV than have people have an English Bible in standard, present-day English.

Are you trusting yourself that you can supposedly update the words of the KJV correctly in your own mind but cannot update them in print for others to understand them?

 

Still Learning:

This is NOT lost on GOD. That's why He has caused newer English translations to have been made, to reflect the changes He has caused/allowed in the language over the years. he's done the same in many other languages.

Actually, the reason it can't be updated is that all those who made it are dead; it was frozen in time when the last of them died. The 1769 Blayney's edition is actually a re-make, almost a newer version. The KJV is what it is, and no attempt should be made to "update" it.

But remember what Paul said about delivering God's word in language understandable to the audience or readers. The KJV was perfectly understandable to 17th C. British, its target readership, but is NOT fully understandable to contemporary English-users. Again, God has seen to it that His word is in TODAY'S English.

Yes, it DOES. "Easter" in Acts 12:4 and "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10 are two very obvious ones, but not at all the ONLY ones.

And again....WHERE IS YOUR SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY FOR BELIEVING THE KJVO MYTH ????????????????????????????

 

It is merely your choice to follow your modern, man-made KJV-only opinions. Are you merely trying to make "the work of W&H" your excuse for clinging to your own opinions or to a KJV-only theory made by men?

Do you use a KJV that has an update at Lamentations 3:5 made after 1890 in most Oxford KJV editions and 1887 in most Cambridge KJV editions?

Most present KJV editions have "travail", but a few still have the old "travel."

Lamentations 3:5 [labour--1560 Geneva; travel--1602 Bishops] [see Num. 20:14]
travel (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1747, 1758, 1762, 1769, 1774, 1787, 1788, 1795, 1795e, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1810, 1812, 1819, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1853, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, 1885, 1890 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1778, 1790, 1800, 1833, 1837, 1842, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1887 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1750, 1759, 1813, 1814, 1817, 1824, 1825, 1860 London} (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1851 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Thomas) (1836 Hartford) (1897 ABU) (CB) (Nave’s) (1923 NIB) (1985 Open) (1989, 1991, 2003 TN) (KJVCB)

travail [most present KJV editions, a few earlier KJV editions updated this but they were not followed until the late 1880's]

 

Did the translators of the 1611 KJV have the same insopiration that od granted the Apostles than to write?

Wouldn't they have used the older texts if were available to them atthe time?

you do realise they did NOT regard their version as being perfect, nor the last one to come?

that NO MISTAKES ONLY applies to the original manuscripted penned by Apostles, and that for today that would mean the Greek/hebrew texts?

 

There is no one unchanged, unupdated standard edition of the KJV. The whole history of the printing of the KJV is a history of printers/editors making changes, corrections, and updates. The KJV was revised a number of times after the last of the KJV translators died, and those later editions are still the KJV. There are already twenty or more varying editions of the KJV in print today. The spelling of the KJV is already updated in the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV by David Norton. A good number of the other present editions of the KJV could be updated in their spelling or presentation or made more consistent in a number of places.

There would be nothing wrong with making a more consistently edited edition of the KJV with updated spelling that would be made in agreement with what Thomas Turton termed “the great principle of rendering the [English] text of the Authorized Version consistent with itself“ (Text of the English Bible, p. 37).

Only the original 1611 edition is sometimes printed unchanged, but likely no one today uses it as their edition to read and to take to church or to teach or preach from.

 

Who is suggesting that evil men and seducers should be the ones that update the KJV?

Are you saying that believers today cannot be guided by the Holy Spirit? Are you indicating a lack of confidence and trust in God's ability to direct English-speaking believers today?

The scriptures that you cite do not claim that believers today are any less trustworthy than biased Church of England scholars in 1611.

According to a consistent application of your faulty reasoning, the translators of the 1611 KJV should not be trusted as much as the earlier translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible since men were waxing worse in 1611 than in 1560. Perhaps you have been deceived by the KJV translators and should be using the 1560 Geneva Bible.

The KJV could be updated in many cases by more up-to-date English that is found in the 1560 Geneva Bible or in other of the pre-1611 English Bibles. In some cases the KJV followed or kept more archaic English from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible when the Geneva Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible already had clearer or more up-to-date English.

 

Many and perhaps most KJV-only advocates do not accept the view that Jesus quoted or read from a Greek translation of the Old Testament. They even claim that no complete Greek translation of the Old Testament existed at the time of Christ. Can you prove that Jesus quoted from a Greek translation or are you repeating what those "untrustworthy" Bible scholars that you usually condemn say?

Are you claiming that the Greek Septuagint with all its many textual differences from the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text was inspired?

 

You are clearly misinterpreting 2 Timothy 3:13 since it does not refer to believers. The verse does not say nor teach that believers will become more and more wicked and deceived. The verse does not say that believers will be deceived. 2 Timothy 3:13 is referring to those who are not believers, not saved and thus those who are natural men without the Holy Spirit indwelling them.

You seem to be misinterpreting and misapplying what the verse says in order to excuse your own subjective KJV-only opinions.

 

Acts 12:4

Actually there the evidence from the 1600's that indicates that the majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” at this verse. Instead they likely supported the Geneva Bible’s rendering “Passover.” Just as the KJV translators changed the Bishops’ Bible’s two other uses of “Easter” at John 11:55 to “Passover,” they may have also changed this third use at Acts 12:4. While Tyndale and Coverdale had used the rendering “Easter” several times for the Jewish Passover, the later English translators had increasingly changed this rendering to “Passover.“

In 1671, Edward Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life and Death of Mr. Henry Jessey, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25).

Was the goal of inserting the rendering “Easter” back into the text at this verse in order to present faithfully the meaning of the Greek word in English or was it intended to give the readers a different meaning? In his volume on Acts in his An Interpretation of the English Bible, B. H. Carroll observed: “Pious Episcopalians and Romanists use this verse of the A. V. to confirm their custom of celebrating Easter” (p. 184). James Woolsey asserted: “To support, from the Scripture, the idea of Easter-Sunday and Easter-day, they suppress the original word which the Holy Ghost moved the inspired penman to use, and employed the Saxon word Easter” (Doctrine, p. 93). Concerning “Easter” at Acts 12:4, James Edmunds and T. S. Bell commented: “The excuse is, that by this utter disregard of what the Holy Spirit really said, the solemn feasts of the Church are sustained” (Discussion, p. 33). The evidence that this rendering was inserted for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter should be an embarrassment to those who claim to be defending faithful and accurate translating.

 

Why would the KJV be seen as the Word of god to us instead of the Geneva/Tynsdale though?

And are you making that claim due to inspiration afforded the translators?

And how/when did the Greek texts get corrupted?

 

Still Learning:

Wrong.

The AV translators had already been chosen, 54 of them, with QE1's approval. After she died, the Anglican Church clerics waited to see who'd replace her, and what his religious outlook would be. After KJ was crowned, they asked him, as he was now head of the Anglican Church, if they could go ahead and make the new translation. He OK'd it, and work began, by 47 of the translators.

The head of the translators was Archbishop Richard Bancroft, who was at times a tyrant over the translators and his fellow clerics, but an absolute toadie to KJ. it was due to Banny that the translation was called the "AV" and "KJV". it was Banny who made the 14 rules for the translators to follow, and got permission from KJ to use his name on them, while, in reality, KJ had nothing to do with the translation except to give the Anglican officials the go-ahead to make it.

And you still haven't provided us with any SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY for the KJVO myth.

 

Just as I suspected.....!

Just as I suspected...just like in the movie...Robo...er...ah..Robycop never really sleeps....He stays plugged into that computer and there are probably flashing red lights and sirens that go off when one of us KJV guys logs on and begins posting. I will at least applaud his consistency.:laugh:

He used to make me:BangHead:

Now He just makes me:tear:

But brother...I still love ya! Have a Blessed Christmas.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Touche! :laugh:

 

Greg, need a tissue?:smilewinkgrin:

 

Would you please provide a reference or two? Thanks!