Is the KJV the "restoration" of God's words?

Scott J · Sep 19, 2003

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Now, that's something I never heard before. Please can you tell me which Bibles preserve the content of the originals?

My opinion. I favor formal equivalency and in general Byzantine. However, I would include the NASB and ASV. I don't like the NIV but wouldn't necessarily condemn anyone using it. I don't know the ESV.

The longer list includes the NKJV, KJV, WEB, and LITV.

Oh, and BTW, it can't be both the AV and NASB, because they disagree, for example, on whether 1 John 5:7 was in the originals.

They most certainly can... and most certainly are. They agree far more than the hand copied mss and translations that the church used for more than 1300 years.

For the first 200 years of church history, the Bible had many different forms. Few had all of the books we accept as the NT. God moved in a mighty way among those Christians with a much less perfect (ie. complete) Bible than we have although what they had was possibly purer being closer to the originals.

The sound fundamental orthodox doctrines of the Bible do not hinge on one passage of scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity does not rise and fall on I John 5:7-8. If it did, either the NASB or the KJV would be imperfect. However, the Trinity can be proven from both versions with or without the Comma.

The NASB is perfect (ie. complete). There is no doctrine taught in either the KJV or the originals (from the evidence we possess) that is not taught in the NASB.

If you can prove that the originals and the KJV teach a doctrine not found in the NASB then you will do what no other KJVO has ever been able to do. Showing variants on some verses does not prove a doctrinal difference. The Bible is redundant on doctrines.

And besides, why do you say the perfect word of God is only found in faithful versions?

Because there are some clearly unfaithful versions like the NWT. Also, there are some versions that acknowledge being paraphrases. I wouldn't be comfortable basing doctrine on a paraphrase.

So the whole version isn't perfect? So it contains imperfection? But that which contains imperfection isn't perfect. Q.E.D.

By the definition you assume, ALL versions are imperfect. There are no perfect facsimiles of the originals that we know of.

However using the appropriate definition of perfect (which is-Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind) things do not have to be identical to both be considered perfect.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />What we do not have is an English Bible that is perfectly worded due to direct inspiration from God- which, BTW, is the only way to have a perfectly worded Bible in English.

What about perfect preservation?[/QUOTE] Perfect preservation applies to the content, not the specific wording.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />KJVOnlyism presumes against God by demanding that He provide that which He sovereignly determined not to provide... namely, a perfectly worded English translation.

Perhaps. But if God's preservation is not perfect, why do you assume his inspiration is??? The Bible does not explicitly teach either.[/QUOTE] Yes it does. It says that men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It does not say that copyists nor translators were directly acted upon by the Holy Spirit. Preservation is accomplished by God's providence, not a direct act of God. If God had been directly involved in preservation, all mss would be exactly the same with one and only one correct translation into a different language. The English Bibles prior to the KJV as well as all the KJV revisions preclude the KJV from being that one and only correct translation. The fact that all mss differ from each other demonstrates that God did not perfectly preserve the original wording.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The choice is between several faithful versions and an improper fixation on a single translation.

No. The choice is between "some" and "none". [/QUOTE]You can continue this line of reasoning if you like but you will always be wrong because the biblical as well as historical facts disprove your premise. There is evidence within the Bible that versions different from the KJV were used. The fact that the wording of NT citings of OT passages differ disproves you. The historical evidence is overwhelmingly against you to include the actual words of the KJV translators.

Lacy Evans · Sep 19, 2003

If you can prove that the originals and the KJV teach a doctrine not found in the NASB then you will do what no other KJVO has ever been able to do. Showing variants on some verses does not prove a doctrinal difference. The Bible is redundant on doctrines.

Brother, I can't "prove" anything to you if you assume that what I'm proving is wrong. I repeatedly stood up for the word "replenish", which, if correct, "proves" to me (when examined with the other evidence I cited) that the world was "plenished" before man. Instead of seeing a "doctrine not found in the NASB", you see a bad translation. If you are really interested, I (and many other KJVOers) could discuss many very crucial doctrines which are very difficult to support in the new versions. I fear that no matter what I bring up, you would defer to the "originals".

This is what started the whole conversation. Each time I cite evidence for a re-creation (almost any time I cite Biblical evidence for anything that a non-KJVOer diagrees with in a debate) I see people running into the "originals".

There are many posts here and I will try to answer as many as I can. But let me just answer in general. For the most part everyone has been very kind. For those who want to call me "ignorant", "uneducated", etc., I say this; I really doubt if the great scholars are hanging about the "Baptist Boards". Don't be too full of yourself. It makes Jesus unhappy!

And secondly, much of the material has been debated to death, so let's examine my premise. NVOs generally believe that God preserved his word in the original autographs and then let them fall into a mild state of disarray as the evil copyist and translators messed them up. But it really wasn't so bad. So the Whole world is left without a perfect Bible. (See James White)

I believe the same thing. Many of the "poor people" before the KJV and the "poor people" in outer Mongolia had imperfect Bibles.

How did this happen? Here is where we differ. I believe that the Word is "taken away", or hidden somewhat from a disobedient people. (Like during the Dark Ages and many times during Israels periods of apostacy) This principle is easy to support Biblically. When folks start to repent, then God opens the door of heaven and gives them a fuller revelation. (Also very easy to prove from scripture.) MVo's generally believe that it was not a judgment that caused the word to be obscured from sight but the "Normal processes of time". I call this Preservation by atrophy. (There is NO scripture to support that.)

MVO's send the poor folks in outer Mongolia to the "original Greek". I send them to the (much more accessable)"English" MVO's teach we should translate an "Imperfect" manuscript into an "imperfect" translation for the poor Eskimo's, then send them to cemetary to learn Greek. I teach that we should translate the "Perfect" English into an imperfect "Translation" for the "poor Eskimo's" and teach them English. (English is a bit more practical nowadays than Greek too!)

The only real difference is that my final authority is here in my hands in a ressurrected form whereas yours is still scattered about in 5000 manuscripts and hundreds of new versions.

My premise is this. God preserves things by ressurrecting/restoring them.

Isa 49:6
And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel:

So indirectly, ScottJ, the dry bones are related. How did God predict he would preserve Israel? How did he Preserve his only begotten Word? How did he preserve the Ten Commandments or Jeremiah's roll? Perhaps it is a stretch, but show me where God preserves by just letting things go.

More Later, Lacy

[ September 19, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Lacy Evans ]

Lacy Evans · Sep 19, 2003

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
As is typical of those who
revel in ignorance, no distiniction
is made between:

1. the Logos, the Living Word of God,
which is Jesus, the Messiah
and
2. the rhema, the written Word of God,
which is the Holy Bible

From that site: "Where was Jesus
before the virgin birth? (Where
was the word before 1611?) "

You are a veritable bastion of humility there aren't you friend.

No distinction need be made if the distinction has nothing to do with one's point. I gave ample Biblical examples of God reviving his "LOGOS", the argument about his "RHEMA" was only supplemental and supportive. (Man I hate debating in two languages, but I sure feel intelligent when I do!)

From that site: "He was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He was staying Abram's hand as he offered up Isaac. He was in the burning bush of Moses."

Lacy

Taufgesinnter · Sep 19, 2003

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
I don't speak for Matt but I do believe we have the perfect Word of God. It is found in faithful versions that preserve the content of the original message.

Now, that's something I never heard before. Please can you tell me which Bibles preserve the content of the originals? Oh, and BTW, it can't be both the AV and NASB, because they disagree, for example, on whether 1 John 5:7 was in the originals.

(Then all the imperfections and errors in the AV dictate that it must be neither.)

And besides, why do you say the perfect word of God is only found in faithful versions? So the whole version isn't perfect? So it contains imperfection? But that which contains imperfection isn't perfect. Q.E.D.

(That's bad news for the KJV, then.)

What we do not have is an English Bible that is perfectly worded due to direct inspiration from God- which, BTW, is the only way to have a perfectly worded Bible in English.

Click to expand...

What about perfect preservation?

(That we have--although no two Greek MSS are identical, among all 5400+ copies we surely have the complete NT Scriptures.)

KJVOnlyism presumes against God by demanding that He provide that which He sovereignly determined not to provide... namely, a perfectly worded English translation.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But if God's preservation is not perfect, why do you assume his inspiration is??? The Bible does not explicitly teach either. Again, pots and kettles and black...

(That confuses preservation and inspiration with translation, an entirely different thing and one not promised anywhere in the Bible. Believing in perfect inspiration and even preservation is not at all the same as "perfect translation"--an oxymoron that anyone with considerable foreign language experience knows is impossible.)
[/QUOTE]

Lacy Evans · Sep 19, 2003

Originally posted by HankD:
Neither then can it be both the 1611 and the 1769 versions of the KJV because they disagree.

HankD

This reminds me of the discussions I had on evolution. A Rottweiler (1611) evolved into a Poodle(1769) so that proves evolution. (ie a poodle(1611) evolved into an artichoke (NASV, NIV, NKJV, et al.)

The new versions are a different species. They have different underlying texts, different philosophies of interpretation, different theology, and much different historical fruit.

Was Jesus perfect? (When he was a baby?)
Which of Jeremiah's "originals" were perfect?

Jer 36:32
Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book; which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

My whole article claims that resurrection is sometimes a process Biblically speaking. (See Ezekial's dry bones {The resurrection of Israel in the last days.}, and Christ's resurrection.) The "Word" is purified 7 times.

see:
http://www.kjv1611.co.uk/The%20Myth%20of%20Early%20Revision.htm
for a pretty thorough rebuttal of this argument.

Lacy

Ed Edwards · Sep 19, 2003

Lacy Evans: "You are a veritable bastion of humility there aren't you friend."

You should have seen me earlier when i had
an ego problem

Let us cut to the chase.
Which of the three KJVs on my desk is
the resurrected/restored writen word of God?

1. The authorized version KJV1611
2. the unauthorized version KJV1769
3. the unauthorized version KJV1873

Until you suggest one of these, i shall assume that
all my 10 versions on my computer desk each
individually (and all collectively)
contain the inerrant written word of God.
BTW, the Living Word of God, Jesus THE CHRIST,
is the only way to understand the written word of God,
the Holy Bible.

Lacy Evans · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
You should have seen me earlier when i had an ego problem

Man I hate to admit when someone else but myself is funny, but that really made me chuckle.

Can you show me the difference between the 1769 and the 1873?

As for the 1611, see above post.

[SARCASM ALERT]

As is typical of those who
revel in ignorance, no distiniction
is made between:

1. A Correction, the words "mee, bee, and mooued" changed to "me, be, and moved"
and
2. A Revision, wholesale changes in wording, doctrine, and apparant fruit. A quantum leap based on an inferior underlying Greek family of manuscripts, inferior translation techniques, and inferior translators.

BTW, the Living Word of God, Jesus THE CHRIST,is the only way to understand the written word of God, the Holy Bible.

That is very profound! I agree. But can we not apply these wise words to the topic of preservation?

Lacy

[ September 20, 2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Lacy Evans ]

Lacy Evans · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by Scott Jrophets and Holy men of old wrote as the were moved by the Holy Spirit. All scripture is "given" by inspiration. Unless you claim that revelation is still being given and the word of God is evolving rather than being fixed then this "giving" occurred when God acted directly on the writers.

I never said anything about new revelation. But "Scriptures" are copies in the Bible and "Scripture" is given!

Scripture does refer to the content. God gave content and words to the original writers. The content is preserved. The words of the original in their precise form, are not.

Again, I ask for a Biblical precedent.

Psalms 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

BTW, the Biblical word "scripture" NEVER ONCE, in one single verse, denotes the KJV or any translation nor most importantly any perfect restoration.

Do you not believe that Timothy's (possibly the LXX in the universal language of the day) Greek Bible was a preserved translation?

He wasn't commanded to reject a Bible because it didn't have certain wording.

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Are you really willing to change your opinion? I think I am. Due to some very real personal concerns, my sincere prayer is that if I am wrong on this issue that God will show me. However, the more I prayer this the more I seemingly move away from KJVOnlyism.

That's fair enough brother and very honest. May God bless your studies. You seem to be a very stable and godly man. You have been very kind to me in your posts (and this is a rather difficult medium.)

Lacy

Askjo · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
I don't know whether there are perfect Bibles in other languages.

Look at Romans 16:26. Every nations including you and me have the Word of God. We can't have perfect Bibles, however we have accurate Bible translations such as the KJV (English), Luther Bible (German), Olivetan Bible (French) and others.

Askjo · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Oh, and BTW, it can't be both the AV and NASB, because they disagree, for example, on whether 1 John 5:7 was in the originals.

Correct!

Lacy Evans · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The main problem I have with KJVonlyism/ restoration of God's Word in 1611 is two-fold:-

1. What about all those non-English-speakers today?

2. What about all those Christians who lived prior to 1611?

The implication of KJVonlyism is that these two groups do not have access to God's Word and so perish; rather contradicts Jesus' words that He would build His church doesn't it?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Brother Matt,
These are very important questions and I appreciate you bringing them up.
I believe that the KJV is our final authority rather than the "Greek". Any translation is accurate only as it compares favorably with the KJV. Non-KJVO's have a bigger problem. Instead of just the non-English speakers and those who lived before the KJV translation not having access to a perfect Bible, NOBODY has now or ever has had access to a perfect Bible. In other words, for the non English speakers and Pre-1611 saints, I basically believe the same thing ALL non-KJVOers believe about us all.

I commend James White for actually saying (King James Only Controversy p. 36) what every one of his contemporaries believes:

"All of these things [scribal errors] contributed to the simple fact that there is not a single handwritten manuscript of the Bible, in Greek or Hebrew, that does not contain, somewhere, an error, an oversight, a mistake. To err is human."

I hope this helps

Lacy

Lacy Evans · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by HankD:
This "restoration" theory might have worked better for them (KJVO) had they focused on the Greek TR underlying the KJV English rather than the 1611KJV English itself.

HOWEVER, they burned that bridge behind them when they said "the English supercedes the Greek".

HankD

Why?

Lacy

Askjo · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by HankD:
So which version of the KJV is the “perfect” preservation of God’s Word?
Do you agree with the quote that it is the 1769 Oxford Edition? [/QB]

The 1769 Oxford and the 1769 Cambridge KJV can't be perfect because the 1769 Cambridge KJV is more accurate than the 1769 Oxford KJV.

Neither then can it be both the 1611 and the 1769 versions of the KJV because they disagree.

What? Please give me example between them.

Askjo · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by Scott J:
The NASB is perfect (ie. complete). [/QB]

What?? It disagrees with 5,000 MSS 4,000+ times. Can NASB be perfect?

Lacy Evans · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
i did look at the article,

take this claim for instance:

"If God can restore the absolute canon, and it can be proven by the witness of history and the testimony of the church, then He can do the same thing with the actual words that make up the 66 books in 1611 and we offer the same evidence for the establishment thereof"--

speaking of a "loose canon," this claim ignores the fact that KJBOs, having gotten their "absolute canon," go on to allow more than 136 SUBSTANTIAL changes in the KJB revisions that follow. just check this out:
[/QB]

I believe you looked at the article. (where else could you get that quote huh?) But I wonder if you missed some points. The term "Canon" refers to the closed canon of 66 books of scripture. My point was that every non KJVOer I've ever met believes in a "Closed 66-book canon" (You could call them 66-Book onlyists.)You believe that God was able to preserve the books but not the actual words.

Here is an excerpt from an article by Joey Faust

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>

Modern scholars often attempt to show historic, public pronouncements (before the 17th century) where our present Bible canon is given. Yet, they do this by dealing with the OT and NT separately. Those men who listed the correct NT Books, had erroneous additions in the OT (and visa versa). Certainly, many Bible-believing Christians throughout history knew the correct Books; yet the exact number was discovered in the mainstream only in the 17th century. It is the same with the words of the Bible themselves.
Notice the errors that were made in the past in regard to the Bible canon. None of the following professing Christian sources had the knowledge of the exact 66 canonical Books recognized by conservative Christians today:

Irenaeus (125-192):
Accepts the "Shepherd of Hermas", quotes "Wisdom", etc.

Origen (185-253):
Included "Epistle of Jeremiah", Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas.

Clement of Alexandria:
Included Revelation of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, Letter of Clement of Rome, "Preaching of Peter", and the "Teaching of the Apostles"

Muratorian Fragment (Lists Books accepted in Rome, A.D. 200): Includes Apocalypse of Peter

Cyprian:
No Hebrews, 2Peter, James or Jude

Eusebius (260-340):
Disputed 2 Peter, James, Jude, Revelation, 2nd & 3rd John, Hebrews, (and no Esther); He recognized 1 Clement

Athanasius Canon (298-373):
Listed Baruch as Jeremiah, along with the Epistle of Jeremiah. (Greek additions to Daniel). He had no Esther.

Council of Nicea (325 A.D.):
Included Book of Judith (see Jerome)

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389):
No Revelation

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (348-386):
Included Baruch in Jeremiah.

Chrysostom:
No Revelation, 2 Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude

Augustine (354-430):
Included Apocrypha.

Council of Laodicea (363):
No Book of Revelation. Baruch in the Canon.

Codex Sinaitic Manuscript (4th century):
Includes Barnabas & Shepherd of Hermas

Amphilochius of Iconium (d. 394):
"The Revelation of John some accept, but the majority call it uncanonical"

3rd Council of Carthage (397):
Included O.T. Apocrypha

Wycliffe's Bible (1382-1388):
Apocrypha scattered through it.

Luther (1483-1546):
No Esther; doubted James. F.F. Bruce claims he also doubted Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, giving them a secondary status.

Alexandrian Manuscript (5th century):
Includes Letters of Clement

Obviously, (as can be seen from the preceding list) a revival took place in the mainstream in the 17th century. As already noted, in 1647, the Westminster Confession of Faith listed the exact 66 Books (with no additions in Daniel or Jeremiah) now recognized by conservative, fundamental Christians.
http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article448.cfm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>

If the Canon wasn't restored perfectly until 1647, why do proponents of modern textual criticism accept it as closed rather than "reliable"
Faust continues,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
The majority of KJV critics do not believe there is a perfect Bible anywhere on the face of the earth. They believe God only preserved His Word partially; that is, less than absolutely perfect. But why then don't they apply the same logic to the exact number of Books that make up the Bible? They deride "One Bible Onlyism," yet they themselves advocate "66 Book Onlyism." How is it that they believe God worked through some men throughout history to preserve the knowledge of the exact, absolute number of Books for us today, yet God did not, at any time, work through men to preserve the exact, absolute words that make up those very Books? If God can work through men to know the right Books with perfection, then why is it so hard for the modern KJV critic to believe that God has worked through the KJV translators to find the right words that make up those Books?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>

Lacy

Ed Edwards · Sep 20, 2003

Lacy Evans: "Can you show me the difference between the 1769 and the 1873?"

Yes, but i won't. The very link you had above
shows the differences. You do read some material
at the link before you post the link - yes?

Anyway, whether or not there is a difference,
you failed to answer my question. I know you
were hinting, but for pedagogical purposes
i'd like a straight answer. Thank you.

I was reading my favorite comic philosopher
getting some good comic theology (Jack Chick, i'm talking
Jack Chick) and the philosophy said this:

The KJV1611 is corrupted, it contains the
non-inspired Apocrypha and the non-inspired
translator sidenotes. Fortunately we do have
the later slightly changed, cosmetic, corrected
spelling later editions like KJV1769 which
are NOT contanimated by the Apocrypha and
translator sidenotes. So here is my rephrased
question:

Which is the best, most inspired edition of
the King James Version?

1. my KJV1611 which has the Apocrypha and translator sidenotes
2. my KJV1769 which has neither
3. my KJV1873 which has the translator sidenotes
but not the Apocrypha.

BTW, i've been using the KJV1769 for my Sunday School
class teaching and home study. It may for a reason
other than it may be the best edition of the KJV,
but may be God had me there in the right place
for my wrong reason?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, the Living Word of God, Jesus THE CHRIST,is the only way to understand the written word of God, the Holy Bible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lacy Evants: "That is very profound! I agree. But can
we not apply these wise words to the topic of preservation?"

Actually I do, I believe God preserved His Holy written word,
the sacred scriptures in all ten of the Bibles i have
on my computer desk: NIV, NASB, KJV1769, NLT,
nKJV, NIV, New Century Version (NCV), KJV1611,
Amplified Bible, and KJV1769. Each contains the inerrant
Holy Written Word of God preserved for us in this age
and place by the very hand of God. All these Bibles
have Christ as their message. IF there is any preceived
variation in the message within one Bible or between
two Bibles, we must go back to the axiom (self-evident truth):
both these Bibles are the inerrant Holy Written Word
of God preserved for us in this age and place
by the very hand of God. So God isn't the problem if I
find an alledged variation within one Bible or between
two Bibles -- i just don't understand it right.

Fortunately I have right here on this very Baptist Board (BB),
in this very Forum (Bible Versions/Translations) many
expert teachers that are very saved and very knowledgeable
about variantions within particular Bibes that many
people seem to have problems with and between different
Bibles. But even this is not just "fortune" but part of
God's plan to provide NOW and HERE His perfect, inspired,
holy, message for us: which message is Iesus (KJV1611),
the Messiah. Amen!

HankD · Sep 20, 2003

askjo,
in response to my statement that there are differences between the 1611KJV and the 1769KJV you reponded:

"What? Please give me example between them"

1611 KJV Psalm 69:32 The humble shall see this, and be glad, and your heart shall hue that seek good.
1769 KJV Psalm 69:32 The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.

1611 KJV Matthew 26:36 Then cometh Judas…
1769 KJV Matthew 26:36 Then cometh Jesus…

Others with photographs of the 1611KJV can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/

Lacy,
you asked me why the KJVO have burned an important bridge behind them when they said "the 1611 English supercedes the Greek"

1) They can no longer refer to the Greek as "inspired" which BTW is the correct position in terms of lingustics (apart from scribal errors of the manuscript copies).

2) There is no agreement between the KJVO (with the exception of a couple of brave souls taking a "stand" concerning "refinements in a furnace of fire") as to which year and version of the KJV is the "perfect" Word of God and...

3) The English archetype master of the original 1611 KJV has been lost. Therefore the KJVO are unable to determine which version/year of the several different KJV's is the "real thing" since they don't have the "original autograph" of the "inspired" English text (welcome to the real world of texual criticism). They cannot fall back on the Greek, although, true to their multi-faceted double-standard, they do anyway for the correct wording.

HankD

[ September 20, 2003, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

BrianT · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by Askjo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by HankD:
Neither then can it be both the 1611 and the 1769 versions of the KJV because they disagree.

What? Please give me example between them. [/QUOTE]Again I directy your attention to:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001000

Archangel7 · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by Askjo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by HankD:
So which version of the KJV is the “perfect” preservation of God’s Word?
Do you agree with the quote that it is the 1769 Oxford Edition?

The 1769 Oxford and the 1769 Cambridge KJV can't be perfect because the 1769 Cambridge KJV is more accurate than the 1769 Oxford KJV.

Neither then can it be both the 1611 and the 1769 versions of the KJV because they disagree.

What? Please give me example between them. [/QB][/QUOTE]I offered numerous specific examples on another thread some time ago, and still haven't received a response from KJV-Only advocates:

Examples of Differences in the Text of the 1611 KJV and Today's KJV

Archangel7 · Sep 20, 2003

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by HankD:
This "restoration" theory might have worked better for them (KJVO) had they focused on the Greek TR underlying the KJV English rather than the 1611KJV English itself.

HOWEVER, they burned that bridge behind them when they said "the English supercedes the Greek".

HankD

Why?

Lacy [/QUOTE]There will always be idioms, nuances, connotations, wordplay, and other shades of meaning in the original language document that cannot be completely conveyed in a translation. For this reason a translated document can never be superior to the original language document from which it was rendered.

Is the KJV the "restoration" of God's words?

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

<img src=/Ed.gif>

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

<img src=/Ed.gif>

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member