Featured Is God, God?

Human reasoning, and faulty reasoning at that, on display here. Nothing to see, move on...

 

I think the OP assertion, that God did this or that, without support from scripture, is not truly sound.

1) Did God reveal His attributes through what He has made?

2) Did God reveal Himself by inspiring scripture?

3) Did God preserve His message in only one English translation?

Please go back and put some meat on those bones, and then perhaps you will realize you have no spiritual meat to back up #3.

 

So, God did not give His word to the world until 1611, and then only to speakers of one single language.

Is that a God who is God?

 

Not sure how Jesus reading Isaiah supports translation accuracy, but I will concur that the passage teaches the transmission of the inspired words of Isaiah had been accomplished such that they accurately reflected God's message in the 1st Century. Further, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that our copies of Isaiah today are almost exactly the same as those existing in the 1st Century. But transmission of the inspired text in the original language is not at issue.

You also recognized that any translation to a greater or lesser degree is inaccurate.

But then you said that to point out what we think are inaccuracies in the KJV disparages the character of God. For example, I believe the NASB95 is the best most accurate English translation of God's inspired word. Would it be Christ-like to say anyone who disagrees with me disparages the character of God? Nope.

 

Your argument does not hold up since a consistent application of it would condemn a KJV-only view. Your argument may actually be a form of a fallacy [a false argument], making it invalid.

The word of God was translated into English before 1611, but English-speaking believers before 1611 evidently did not truly have the word of God according to a KJV-only theory.

A KJV-only theory would leave God's people dependent upon some exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 to know what HIS WORD actually says.

A KJV-only theory would undermine or in effect deny the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages to be used as the standard for the making and trying of all translations.

 

Does a KJV-only view suggest that God was not able to see to it that English-speaking people were given a trustworthy Bible in their own language in the 1300's Wycliffe's Bible?

Does a KJV-only view suggest that God was not able to see to it that English-speaking people were given a trustworthy Bible in their own language in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible?

Does a KJV-only view suggest that God was not able to see to it that English-speaking people were given a trustworthy Bible in their own language in the 1537 Matthew's Bible?

Does a KJV-only view suggest that God was not able to see to it that English-speaking people were given a trustworthy Bible in their own language in the 1560 Geneva Bible?

Where do the Scriptures suggest that God would show partiality or respect of persons only to English-speaking believers after 1611?

Was the 1611 edition of the KJV actually completely trustworthy when it had several errors in it that later needed to be corrected?

The same greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages that was used to revise and change many many renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles and to correct some errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV can also be used to revise and change some poor or inaccurate renderings in present KJV editions.

 

So since the Wycliff and the KJV are different (they are far less then same than the KJV and NKJV) how do you know which one is perfect? When there is conflict which one to you go to?

And even then would God really deprive the world of His word until 1382?

 

There are more and greater differences between the Latin Vulgate-based Wycliffe's Bible and the KJV than there are between the KJV and the NKJV and perhaps even some other present English Bibles.

Along with its use at Matthew 3:2, this rendering "penance" is also found other times in Wycliffe's (Matt. 21:29; 21:32; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, etc.). Do KJV-only advocates agree with the rendering "priests" instead of "elders" in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 in Wycliffe's Bible? At Matthew 3:6, Wycliffe's Bible has "and they were christened of him in Jordan." It read "Jesus christened" at Luke 3:21 and “christened“ at Acts 18:8. The rendering "sacrament" can be found in Wycliffe's Bible at Ephesians 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; Colossians 1:27, 1 Timothy 3:16, and Revelation 1:20 and 17:7. It has “deacon” (Luke 10:32) instead of “Levite” and “bishops” (John 7:45, 11:47, 18:3) instead of “chief priests.“ Wycliffe’s has “Christ” (1 Sam. 2:10, 2 Sam. 23:1, Ps. 2:2) where the KJV has “anointed” and “Jesus” (Hab. 3:18) where the KJV has “salvation.“ Wycliffe's has "maiden" instead of "virgin" at Luke 1:27 and “old women in holy habit“ at Titus 2:3 instead of “aged women.” Wycliffe's Bible has the rendering "Calvary" from the Latin Vulgate's Calvariae at Matthew 27:33 and Mark 15:22 where the KJV does not. Wycliffe's Bible has “Isaiah the prophet“ (Mark 1:2), “fruit of light“ (Eph. 5:9), "dread of Christ" (Eph. 5:21), and “eagle“ (Rev. 8:13). The 1395 edition of Wyclife’s has “five thousand” at 1 Kings 4:32 where the KJV has “a thousand and five.“ At 2 Kings 14:17, the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s has “five and twenty years” where the KJV has “fifteen years.“ Clearly, many words or renderings in the Wycliffe's Bible are different from those in the KJV.


Wycliffe’s Bible omitted “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever“ (Matt. 6:13), "Jesus saith unto them" (Matt. 13:51), "wherein the Son of man cometh" (Matt. 25:13), “spoken by Daniel the prophet“ (Mark 13:14), “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work“ (Rom. 11:6), and “and in your spirit, which are God‘s“ (1 Cor. 6:10). It added: "taught them of the kingdom of God" (Matt. 21:17), "and he shall increase" (Luke 19:26), “and he saith to his disciples” (John 13:38 or 14:1), “of Jesus“ (Acts 16:7), and “after the purpose of God‘s grace“ (Rom. 4:5). At Matthew 24:41, this addition is in Wycliffe's: "twain in one bed, the one shall be taken and the other left." The following was added at John 7:28: "I know him, and if I shall say for I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar." At Acts 14:7, there is this addition: “and all the multitude was moved together in the teaching of them.“ At Acts 15:41, it added: “commanding to keep the hests of apostles and elder men.“ Wycliffe’s has this addition at Acts 18:4: “putting among the name of the Lord Jesus.“ At 2 John 11, it added: "Lo, I before said to you that ye be not confounded in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." At Revelation 9:11, it added the following: “And by Latin he has the name Exterminans, that is, a destroyer.“ Other differences (additions and omissions) in Wycliffe's could be given. For example, there are additions in the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s at Proverbs 4:27, 6:11, and 15:5.

Both the early edition of Wycliffe’s Bible and the later edition also have some additions that seem to be explanations of words used in the text. Glenn Conjurske observed: “The glosses in the early version are very plentiful, and most of them are simply definitions or explanations of words” (Olde Paths, Oct., 1994, p. 228). A few examples from the later edition are here offered as evidence. After “delium” at Genesis 2:12, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible added: “that is, a tree of spicerie.” At Exodus 17:13, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has the following rendering with explanation in the text: “in the mouth of sword, that is, by the sharpness of the sword.” At the end of Numbers 21:3 after “Hormah,“ several words were added in the later Wycliffe’s [“that is, cursing, either hanging up”]. After “great” at Deuteronomy 4:7, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has this addition: “not in number either in bodily quantity, but in dignity.”


In his introduction to a modern-spelling edition of Wycliffe’s N. T., Stephen P. Westcott pointed out that the earlier edition of Wycliffe’s followed the Latin word order and sentence structure at 1 Samuel 21:10 [reference should be 2:10] (p. xviii). Its rendering was “The Lord should dread the adversaries of him.” By following the Latin order, in effect this rendering reversed the meaning of the phrase. The later edition as seen in the 1395 Wycliffe’s changed the phrase to “Adversaries of the Lord should dread him.”

This Bible rendered the Latin Vulgate at Psalm 23:1a as follows: "Our Lord governeth me." At Genesis 36:24, Wycliffe's has "hot waters" as does the Douay-Rheims instead of "mules," the KJV rendering. Some of the examples in the earlier paragraphs showed that Wycliffe's Bible included some Vulgate readings in its text. MacGregor confirmed that the translation in the Wycliffe Bible follows the text of the Latin Vulgate “very closely” (Literary History, p. 79). This evidence also suggests that Wycliffe’s differs more from the KJV than does Webster's, the NKJV, the MKJV, KJ21, or KJ2000. H. T. W. Wood maintained: “There is much more difference between Wiclif and Tyndale, than between Tyndale and the Authorized Version” (Changes in the English Language, p. 55). Therefore, the fact that many KJV-only advocates can accept or commend Wycliffe’s Bible when it differs more from the KJV than some present English translations points out serious inconsistencies in KJV-only reasoning.

There would be basically the same only in the same sense that other present English Bibles would be basically the same.

There are the same type differences involving differences in number of words and in meaning of words between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV as there are between the KJV and present English Bibles.

You evidently have never carefully compared the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV.

 

Only a God of our own vain imagings, someone that we made up!

 

I'm just sad for all those non-English speaking Christians who have never had access to the truth of the King James Version. They all must be headed to eternal damnation.

 

If you believe the Word of God, you are not KJVO because the Word does not teach such.