How important is the KJB?

[Logos1560]

tradition of men

------------------------
Oh, by the way the reason it can’t be updated, is because myself and millions of other English speaking Christians would not accept an updated version of the KJB, because we could not trust anyone, to simply update the old English words that have changed meaning.

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?

 

[robycop3]

Still Learning:

Sure enough, we don’t speak in “old English” any more and it really is a shame that the KJB can’t be updated to more reflect the way we speak today.

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.

Oh, by the way the reason it can’t be updated, is because myself and millions of other English speaking Christians would not accept an updated version of the KJB, because we could not trust anyone, to simply update the old English words that have changed meaning.

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.

God’s Word has already been delivered to us and nothing should ever be allowed to change “it” in any way.

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.

(The KJB, has no errors, to be corrected.)

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 ????????????????????????????

 

[Logos1560]

This is the price that has to be paid, because of the work of W&H!

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]

 

[stilllearning]

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?

As I said, “today” no one can be trusted to update the Bible;
Therefore no one should even trust my updated version, if I made one.......
2 Timothy 3:13
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

This deception has continued to grow worse and worse for 2000 years, to the point that the Church’s branches are full of birds(Matthew 13:31-32).
------------------------
Notice what interestingly follows this warning in 2Timothy 3:.......
2 Timothy 3:14-17
V.14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];
V.15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
V.16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
V.17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I am going to continue in the things that I have learned.
(That God’s Word is still inspired and is the only thing that can be trusted.)

 

[Yeshua1]

As I said, “today” no one can be trusted to update the Bible;
Therefore no one should even trust my updated version, if I made one.......
2 Timothy 3:13
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

This deception has continued to grow worse and worse for 2000 years, to the point that the Church’s branches are full of birds(Matthew 13:31-32).
------------------------
Notice what interestingly follows this warning in 2Timothy 3:.......
2 Timothy 3:14-17
V.14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];
V.15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
V.16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
V.17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I am going to continue in the things that I have learned.
(That God’s Word is still inspired and is the only thing that can be trusted.)

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?

 

[Logos1560]

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.

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.

 

[stilllearning]

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?

First Question.......

Did the translators of the 1611 KJV have the same inspiration that God granted the Apostles than to write?

No. The KJB was not newly inspired. It was simply an update of the other English Bibles that were around at that time.
------------------------
Second Question........

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

This is one place where the providence of God comes in to play, with a translation.
The so-called “older texts” were full of error, therefore the LORD kept them from being used.
------------------------
Third Question........

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

That could very well be true; Because they had no idea of the Spiritual cliff that mankind(including Bible scholars), were going to be falling off of, in the following centuries.
------------------------
Fourth Question..........

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

This is the BIG LIE that is part of that Spiritual cliff we have gone over.
And we know it is a lie, because Jesus Himself quoted from a Greek copy of the Old Testament.

If God’s Word loses it’s inspiration by being translated, than Jesus would not have used a translation.

 

[Logos1560]

As I said, “today” no one can be trusted to update the Bible;
Therefore no one should even trust my updated version, if I made one.......
2 Timothy 3:13
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

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.

 

[Logos1560]

Jesus Himself quoted from a Greek copy of the Old Testament.

If God’s Word loses it’s inspiration by being translated, than Jesus would not have used a translation.

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?

 

[stilllearning]

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.

------------------------
1st Question.........

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

I am.
------------------------
2nd Question.........

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?

For the most part, YES!
The Holy Spirit, will only Guide “believers”, that are willing to follow His leading.
------------------------
3rd Question.........

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

Yes it does.....
2 Timothy 3:13
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

“...shall wax worse and worse...”
That means, as time passes, people are going to become more and more wicked and deceived.

And even in 1611 it was almost too late.
The vast majority of “scholars” in 1611 DID NOT WANT the KJB to be translated.
This is why it was called the King James Bible: Because he(the king), overruled the wishes of this wicked group of scholars and got the ball rolling.
------------------------
4th Question.........

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.

This could be true, “IF”; God had not been blessing the KJB for the last “400 years”!
An era that witnessed some of the greatest world wide revival’s the world have ever known.

And what kind of a record do the MV’s have over the last 100 years or so?
(A declining Church and society.)
------------------------
5th Question.........

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.

You are right. I have often wondered why they kept things like “Easter” etc.
But maybe they were aware of the same warning in 2 Timothy 3:13, that all of us are and wanted to be careful.

 

[stilllearning]

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 asked........

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?

Yes I can.......
There are (red letter) examples in the Gospels, but I can’t bring them to mind right now.

But in Hebrews *Jesus said.........
Hebrews 10:5
“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:”

Psalms 40:6-8 (KJV)
V.6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
V.7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me,
V.8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law [is] within my heart.

Psalms 40:6-8 (LXX)
V.6 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.
V.7 Then I said, Behold, I come: in the volume of the book it is written concerning me,
V.8 I desired to do thy will, O my God, yea, thy law [is] within my heart.

Note: This is just one example, but it’s a good one.

* (I said “Jesus said this”, because He is the Word that was made flesh and all Scripture has the same author.)
------------------------
You also asked.......

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

Well “yes”: And this is an interesting fact.
Because most of us would call the LXX a bad translation, yet Jesus and the Apostels used it and quoted from it?!?

Maybe, this was done to assure us that “translations can be inspired”!?

 

[Logos1560]

3rd Question.........

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


Yes it does.....
2 Timothy 3:13
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

“...shall wax worse and worse...”
That means, as time passes, people are going to become more and more wicked and deceived.

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.

 

[Logos1560]

Acts 12:4

5th Question.........

Quote:
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.

You are right. I have often wondered why they kept things like “Easter” etc.

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.

 

[stilllearning]

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.

This is the rub.
Those people(scholars), who you call “Christian”, are clearly not born again.
(Roman Catholic priests, can not be saved; Because they preach a different Gospel.)

There are countless millions of pastors, evangelists, missionaries, Bible professors etc, etc. that are professing Christians, that reject the foundational doctrines of the Faith.

We even saw the start of this 2000 years ago.......
Acts 20:29-30
V.29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
V.30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Well, it has been a long time “since Paul’s departing”, and things have progressed just as God’s Word said that it would.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is the rub.
Those people(scholars), who you call “Christian”, are clearly not born again.
(Roman Catholic priests, can not be saved; Because they preach a different Gospel.)

There are countless millions of pastors, evangelists, missionaries, Bible professors etc, etc. that are professing Christians, that reject the foundational doctrines of the Faith.

We even saw the start of this 2000 years ago.......
Acts 20:29-30
V.29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
V.30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Well, it has been a long time “since Paul’s departing”, and things have progressed just as God’s Word said that it would.

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?

 

[robycop3]

Still Learning:

The vast majority of “scholars” in 1611 DID NOT WANT the KJB to be translated.
This is why it was called the King James Bible: Because he(the king), overruled the wishes of this wicked group of scholars and got the ball rolling

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.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

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:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Touche! :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Now He just makes me:tear:

Greg, need a tissue?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[franklinmonroe]

... The AV translators had already been chosen, 54 of them, with QE1's approval. ...

Would you please provide a reference or two? Thanks!