Is God, God?

[Van]

Hi Stilllearning:

1) What scripture says or suggests Jesus was reading from a Greek translation? Actually the NT text matches neither the LXX, missing one clause, nor the Hebrew text, missing a different clause. Whether Jesus was reading in Hebrew and including references from other Hebrew passages, or reading a text in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek but now lost, is unknown.

2) There was never a time when all Christians, or even all English speaking Christians, believed the TR was God's perfect word.

3) You did not change the typo "a accurate" to something, i.e. accurate or inaccurate." I have no interest in nonsense.

4) Your assertion the KJB is "perfectly preserved word" has no basis in scripture. It is a man-made doctrine. My assertion is the NASB95 is the best available English translation is also a man-made (Van-made) doctrine, that has no basis in scripture. I would certainly be willing to consider a KJV translation of a given verse or passage as better than the NASB, but those who dogmatically claim the KJV is always better seem to me to be throwing the baby, the inspired text, out with the bath water.

God Bless and goodbye.

 

[convicted1]

Someone needs to go and throw the original texts out, because the KJV corrected all their mistakes.....

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Someone needs to go and throw the original texts out, because the KJV corrected all their mistakes.....

Be tough to throw out since we don't have them

 

[InTheLight]

I have got to go now, but I am anxious to see, how I am going to respond to them.

So am I. Me too.

 

[Yeshua1]

Be tough to throw out since we don't have them

Those holding to extreme Kjvo would hold that in the 1611 version, God gave us in English a perfect copy of those originals, so we still have them!

 

[stilllearning]

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.

Hello Logos1560

Your response reveals something about this entire debate.
I see the source of a lot of “bad feelings” people have toward those of us who exclusively use the KJB.
Here is something you repeated over and over again....
“a KJV-only view”, “according to a KJV-only theory”, “A KJV-only theory” “A KJV-only theory”

I do not subscribe to any “view” or “theory”. I simply read the KJB, because I want to expose myself to ALL of God’s Word(including 1John 5:7 & the last part of Mark 16); I do this because I don’t want to miss something that God might want to say to me.
For all of us who live in America; For a person to exclusively study a MV, would be like watching the nightly news on CBS or CNBC and thinking that your getting all the news.

I do however want to be careful not to ever use a “a false argument”(straw man): So thank you for the warning.

 

[stilllearning]

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.

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

You are right. So I use the 1769 edition.

 

[stilllearning]

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?

Good morning C4K

You said........
“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?”

We should go to the KJB, because the NKJV was created in 1982.
(About 80 years too late.)
------------------------
You also asked.......
“And even then would God really deprive the world of His word until 1382?”

Throughout history(and even today), God deprived and is depriving His Word from millions of people. This is probably where “Natural Revelation” comes in to play.

 

[stilllearning]

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.

Hi

You said........
“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.”

Not really. Because the present English translations, have all been effected(influanced by), the “present age”. Today, God and the Bible are under a greater attack, than they were 200 to 500 years ago.
Certainly there are not as many people being killed and Bible’s being burned today, as there were then(maybe), because today’s deceivers are more deceptive.....
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” (2 Timothy 3:13)
------------------------
Next you said........
“You evidently have never carefully compared the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV.”

Your right I haven’t.

 

[Logos1560]

At the bottom of the KJBonly argument, is Greek New Testament. Back when all Christians everywhere agreed that the “Textus Receptus” was God’s Word for the New Testament, there was NO ARGUMENT about what God said to us in the New Testament.

You have not demonstrated that all Christians everywhere agreed that the twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus were God's perfect word for the New Testament. You are merely assuming what you want to believe without demonstrating that it is historically accurate.

Even Erasmus's own five editions of the Greek New Testament had some textual differences and variations, and they had additions where Erasmus added readings from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome that were not found in any known Greek New Testament manuscripts and where Erasmus introduced conjectures.

Erasmus's first two editions of his Greek text did not have at least three or four whole verses that are found in some later TR editions [Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, 1 John 5:7, Revelation 21:26], and his later three editions still did not have at least two of those verses

 

[Logos1560]

present KJV editions are not the 1769

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

You are right. So I use the 1769 edition.

Likely you do not use the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV since no publisher today publishes a KJV edition that is identical to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1769 edition is said by a number of Bible scholars to have had over 100 errors.

In my partial examination of over 400 editions of the KJV, I have found that over 400 changes have been made to the KJV since 1769, some as late as the 1870's to the early 1900's. You likely use a post-1900's KJV edition, not a 1769.

For one example, the 1769 Oxford edition had "LORD" [Jehovah] at around 90 verses where most present KJV editions have "Lord" [Adonai].

Besides the over 100 differences involving LORD/Lord and GOD/God and over 100 spelling differences, some places were the 1769 Oxford would differ from most present editions include the following Old Testament examples: “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe“ (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2). In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “lifted“ (Luke 16:23), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and 17 missing words at Revelation 18:22.

 

[Logos1560]

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

You are right. So I use the 1769 edition.

Are you suggesting or admitting that English-speaking believers did not have a completely trustworthy printed edition of the Bible until at least 1769?

The 1769 edition of the KJV still had some errors in it or introduced some new errors.

Since the 1980's when some publishers of the KJV starting printing their editions from a computer-based text, over 100 new variations and errors have been introduced into a number of present KJV editions.

Joshua 13:14
the tribes of Levi (1985 VB) (1987, 2001, 2002 TN) (EB) (JVIPB) (2004 World) (2005 ICC) (2006 PP) (2008 Pilot) (2010 Baker) (2010 BRO) (1979-2, 1996, 1998, 2010, 2013 Holman) (APB) (2011 AMP) (2011, 2012 Barbour) (2011 PJB) (HKJVSB) (2012 F-S)

the tribe of Levi (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Logos1560]

I do this because I don’t want to miss something that God might want to say to me.

Your KJV edition is missing or does not have three whole verses found in one psalm in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible and in the editions of the Bishops' Bible that had the book of Psalms from the Great Bible.

Your KJV edition is missing or does not have many words found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the KJV is adding some words that God did not say or give to the prophets and apostles?

Most present editions of the KJV add over 140 words that are not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV, and they omit or are missing over 40 words that are found in the 1611 edition.

 

[prophet]

Likely you do not use the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV since no publisher today publishes a KJV edition that is identical to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1769 edition is said by a number of Bible scholars to have had over 100 errors.

In my partial examination of over 400 editions of the KJV, I have found that over 400 changes have been made to the KJV since 1769, some as late as the 1870's to the early 1900's. You likely use a post-1900's KJV edition, not a 1769.

For one example, the 1769 Oxford edition had "LORD" [Jehovah] at around 90 verses where most present KJV editions have "Lord" [Adonai].

Besides the over 100 differences involving LORD/Lord and GOD/God and over 100 spelling differences, some places were the 1769 Oxford would differ from most present editions include the following Old Testament examples: “Heman” (Gen. 36:22), “thy progenitors” (Gen. 49:26), “Zithri” (Exod. 6:21), “travel’ (Num. 20:14), “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2), “thy tithe“ (Deut. 12:17), “thy earth” (Deut. 12:19), “the widow’s” (Deut. 24:17), “Beer-sheba, Sheba” (Josh. 19:2), “children of Gilead” (Jud. 11:7), “all the coast” (Jud. 19:29), “in a straight“ (1 Sam. 13:6), “Shimei“ (1 Chron. 6:30), “whom God alone” (1 Chron. 29:1), “on the pillars” (2 Chron. 4:12), “thy companions’ (Job 41:6), “unto me“ (Ps. 18:47), “my foot” (Ps. 31:8), “feared” (Ps. 60:4), “in the presence” (Ps. 68:2), “part“ (Ps. 78:66), “When there were” (Ps. 105:12), “gates of iron” (Ps. 107:16), “the latter end” (Prov. 19:20), “riches, honour” (Prov. 22:4), “king of Jerusalem” (Eccl. 1:1), “gone to” (Isa. 15:2), “travel‘ (Lam. 3:5), “a brier” (Micah 7:4), and “mighty is spoiled” (Zech. 11:2). In the New Testament, examples include “And in the same” (Luke 7:21), “ye enter not” (Luke 11:52), “lifted“ (Luke 16:23), “and the truth” (John 14:6), “Now if do” (Rom. 7:20), “not in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23), “the earth” (1 Cor. 4:13), “was done“ (2 Cor. 3:11), “about” (2 Cor. 12:2), “you were inferior” (2 Cor. 12:13), “those who” (Gal. 2:6), “the holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5), “broidered” (1 Tim. 2:9), “sprinkled likewise” (Heb. 9:21), “our joy” (1 John 1:4), and 17 missing words at Revelation 18:22.

I found no difference in my 1611, 1769 Oxford, and 1873 Oxford, other than spelling, at Rev. 18:22.

Care to elaborate?

I just checked all 3.

 

[annsni]

Hello Logos1560

Your response reveals something about this entire debate.
I see the source of a lot of “bad feelings” people have toward those of us who exclusively use the KJB.
Here is something you repeated over and over again....
“a KJV-only view”, “according to a KJV-only theory”, “A KJV-only theory” “A KJV-only theory”

I do not subscribe to any “view” or “theory”. I simply read the KJB, because I want to expose myself to ALL of God’s Word(including 1John 5:7 & the last part of Mark 16); I do this because I don’t want to miss something that God might want to say to me.
For all of us who live in America; For a person to exclusively study a MV, would be like watching the nightly news on CBS or CNBC and thinking that your getting all the news.

I do however want to be careful not to ever use a “a false argument”(straw man): So thank you for the warning.

My ESV contains all of the Bible as well. So you just prefer the KJV or are KJV preferred and not "only".

 

[Yeshua1]

My ESV contains all of the Bible as well. So you just prefer the KJV or are KJV preferred and not "only".

Since we do not have any of the originals around anymore, how can he be sure that the Kjv did not add in those 'extra verses", and that the MV actually got it closer to what was otiginally written?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Those holding to extreme Kjvo would hold that in the 1611 version, God gave us in English a perfect copy of those originals, so we still have them!

To be consistent it would have to be admitted that we don't even have those since all we have a printer copies.

 

[Rippon]

To be consistent it would have to be admitted that we don't even have those since all we have a printer copies.

Printer copies of what?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We don't have the handwritten KJV manuscripts. Only what the printer printed.

 

[Logos1560]

I found no difference in my 1611, 1769 Oxford, and 1873 Oxford, other than spelling, at Rev. 18:22.

Care to elaborate?

I just checked all 3.

Do you have an actual Oxford edition of the KJV printed in 1769 or a present edition that you merely assume is the 1769?

The renderings I listed are the actual ones in an Oxford edition of the KJV printed in 1769, and they differ from present Oxford editions.