King James Bible Inspired

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Dallasdid:
every one who is for King James Onylism go to this website and read the information it has.

http://www.post1.com/home/amarillo/heresy.htm

Thank you.
I met Amarillo about 8 years ago
(same time as BrianT).
He is from Sinagapore.
He prefers the NIV which is written
in the English spoken in Singapore
over the Middle English used in
the KJVs.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This is worthy of thought. Homebound obviously didn't put any in it so I will help.

Originally posted by HomeBound:
According to Psalm 12:6-7,it was purified seven times.

1.Hebrew.

2.Aramaic.

3.Greek.

4.Old Syriac.

5.Old Latin.

6.German.

7.English(translated in the Church age that "kept God's word).

Someone tell me the problem here. Yes I see that hand ... Yes you are right. Numbers 1, 2, 3 were only partially the Bible and in fact Aramaic contains only a few chapters. Therefore they are not parallel to numbers 4, 5, 6, 7. Assuming that the "Bible" has been purified seven times by this scheme, then our Bible today does not qualify because the NT has only been purified 5 times, and parts of the OT have only been purified 6 times.

And on the same token:

1.Tyndale's English Bible-1525 A.D.

2.Coverdale's English Bible-1535 A.D.

3.Matthew's English Bible-1537-1549 A.D.

4.Great Bible-1542 A.D.

5.Geneva Bible-1560 A.D.

6.Bishops Bible-1568 A.D.

7.Authorized version-1611 A.D.

And any student who can read will know that each of these "Bibles" are different and therefore, 6 of them have to be corruptions of the word of God. Remember we are told time and again that everything that is different from the KJV has been corrupted. Well here you have someone espousing a 6 corruptions as the Word of God.

All of the English Bibles listed were translated in the Church age that "kept God's word."All of the 1881 on "bibles" were not.

There is no "church age" that "kept God's word." There is only one church age (from Pentecost to the Rapture) and all translations were done in that church age by the church that "kept his word." That understanding of REv 3 is a raping of the text. It has nothing to do with church ages or with translations. It has to do with obedience, as seen by contrasting with teh Laodicean church whose great sin is not the destruction of the word but their disobedience. Again, simple failure to think biblically led to this travesty of an answer.

There is your "direct answer";believe it or not;take it or leave it;the ball is in your court.

We will have to leave it because this answer is so inadequate.

The date of the one I have is 1769, which matches the 1611 except for typo, grammar, spelling corrections.

This is untrue. You deliberately repeated something you have been shown to be untrue. There are differences in teh KJV editions which have nothing to do with spelling, typos, or grammar.

And you have yet to answer why a perfect Bible has any spelling errors in it anyway. How could God get the authors of Scripture to write perfectly by hand but couldn't get a typesetter to set type perfectly?? What kind of weak God do you serve??

 

[aefting]

HomeBound said:

I don’t know why the translators thought that what they were doing would not be without error. Maybe because they are humans and they didn’t quite understand that what they were doing was from God, not just King James.

You know, when the penmen of the Bible were carried along by the Holy Spirit as God breathed out His Word, they knew it. Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:40, "And I think I also have the Spirit of God." In 1 Cor. 14:37 he says, "If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command."

So now, you have the KJV translators basically denying the inspiration of their work and you think that somehow they were mistaken. Show me one place in the Bible where a Prophet or penman of Scripture expressed the idea that their proclamation of Scripture could contain errors.


Andy

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Shame on you, OliveBranch! You're not supposed to believe what the translators say, you're supposed to believe the KJV is perfect in spite of their statements to the contrary.

And despite their putting alternate translations AND alternate manuscript readings in the margins!

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Andy, you took the words right out of my mouth. This was my thought, exactly. The men in which God used to write what He breathed into them did not question how precise or exact the words were that they wrote. There was no fear of writing something wrong, nor did they fear the words were not exactly how God told them to write it. Those words were perfect and in order.

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Here is a list that Anti-Alexandrian put together:

According to Psalm 12:6-7,it was purified seven times.

1.Hebrew.

2.Aramaic.

3.Greek.

4.Old Syriac.

5.Old Latin.

6.German.

7.English(translated in the Church age that "kept God's word).


And on the same token:

1.Tyndale's English Bible-1525 A.D.

2.Coverdale's English Bible-1535 A.D.

3.Matthew's English Bible-1537-1549 A.D.

4.Great Bible-1542 A.D.

5.Geneva Bible-1560 A.D.

6.Bishops Bible-1568 A.D.

7.Authorized version-1611 A.D.

All of the English Bibles listed were translated in the Church age that "kept God's word."All of the 1881 on "bibles" were not.There is your "direct answer";believe it or not;take it or leave it;the ball is in your court.

Where does the Wyclif Bible (1382) fit into this list? Wasn't it used in the translation process for the Tyndale Bible? And since you included the German translators in the list, where is the Gutenberg Bible (1456)?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
That's right -- no translation is inspiried or breathed out by God. Inspiration only refers to the original autographs.

What a bush of hogwash. I believe that the King James Bible is inspired, infallible, perfect word of God. If you don't, then it is up to you to find God's preserved word. Why would God inspire only the originals and then allow them to be destroyed?

No translation is 100 percent accurate. There is no such thing as translation without interpretation. Ask a spanish speaking person to translate como estas and then como esta?

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
I don’t know why the translators thought that what they were doing would not be without error. Maybe because they are humans and they didn’t quite understand that what they were doing was from God, not just King James. I don’t know what really to say to convince you that the King James Bible is God’s perfect word, the Holy Spirit will have to convince you. I do pray though that I might say something from the Holy Spirit that might get you to think about it. They say that we don’t have prove, but I say that they don’t either. Here is what makes since to me, one sin, one God, one Saviour, one Bible.

Homebound,
I am thinking about this. Alot. I have begun an in depth study of Bibles, the history, the manuscripts, the men who wrote and translated. I believe that God gave them the desire to translate. I believe God wanted to preserve the Bible. But I cannot pass up the words taken directly from the translators humble belief that they just didn't know the words they translated would be without error.

 

[Gayla]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
HomeBound: "Here is what makes since to me, one sin, one God, one Saviour, one Bible."

You loose

since = stuff that happens after
sense = stuff you understand

You should have said:
Here is what makes sense to me, one sin, one God, one Saviour, one Bible.


I hate it when i loose an argument
on a technical (spelling) foul

I've noticed Ed correcting spelling errors for others. He goofed here while doing that very thing. oopsy!

loose=not tight
lose=not winning

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Gayla:
I've noticed Ed correcting spelling errors for others. He goofed here while doing that very thing. oopsy!

loose=not tight
lose=not winning

I guess that proves that nobody's perfect. It's not just the KJVO crowd that makes mistakes. Does that mean that we do not consider proper grammer usage and correct spelling as an indication of a well-thought argument? If so, I'd be in big trouble.

 

[Ransom]

HomeBound said:

I don’t know why the translators thought that what they were doing would not be without error.

Fortunately, there are plenty of KJV-onlyists out there who knew what the translators were doing better than they themselves did.

Maybe because they are humans and they didn’t quite understand that what they were doing was from God, not just King James.

Hold the phone just a minute here. KJV-onlyists would have us believe that these guys were the premiere scholars of their day, the paragons of Christian scholarship; they lived, breathed, and sweat Bible and practically spoke Hebrew before they learned English.

I expect they understood quite well what they were doing, and they are certainly in a better position to tell us than a bunch of KJVers 400 years later.

I don’t know what really to say to convince you that the King James Bible is God’s perfect word, the Holy Spirit will have to convince you.

Actual, real evidence would help too.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:
I found the quote from the Translators in the front of the KJB 1611 that states, from the translators, that they were not without possibility of error. This is an admission of the possibility of the KJB having errors. Therefore it cannot be infallible, unless someone has proven it to be.

I have been in a church teaching me what you believe. What can you say to show me what you believe is true?

I don’t know why the translators thought that what they were doing would not be without error. Maybe because they are humans and they didn’t quite understand that what they were doing was from God, not just King James. I don’t know what really to say to convince you that the King James Bible is God’s perfect word, the Holy Spirit will have to convince you. I do pray though that I might say something from the Holy Spirit that might get you to think about it. They say that we don’t have prove, but I say that they don’t either. Here is what makes since to me, one sin, one God, one Saviour, one Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]The Holy Spirit has been given a lot of credit for things straight from hell as James would say!

 

[Taufgesinnter]

I wish everyone on this board would read Goodrick, Edward W. Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God, Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1988. He explains logically how more than one Bible translation can be inspired and reliable, yet differ. It's a great, if short, book.


Oh, BTW, I found this quote on the bibletranslation website:

Another cherished belief of many, is that the King James Version of the Bible is the one error-free, preserved word of God for the English language. But for that to be true, the men who translated it would have to be inspired like the prophets and authors themselves, and workers of miracles, to some degree. Because it is humanly impossible for them not to have made any mistakes. And they did make mistakes. The Bible says that the original authors were inspired, not subsequent translators. The translators of the KJV had no extraordinary pipeline to God for inspiration to solve vexing translation problems, no more than translators today have. Here is an example of a problem they did not solve correctly.

The King James Version translators could not figure out what English word to use to translate the Hebrew word "pim." That was because there was only one known occurrence of it in any literature in the world, and that was in the Bible in 1 Samuel 13:21. So they took a guess, from the context of the Samuel passage, about Israelite farmers taking their farming tools to Philistine blacksmiths to be sharpened, that the word meant "file," the tool. But in the early 1900's, archaeologists found in Palestine some sets of weights, having Hebrew words inscripted on them. One of the words was the Hebrew word "pim." This revealed that a "pim" was the name for one of those measurements of weight, eight grams. So now, modern translations of the Bible correctly state that the Philistines charged the Israelites one "pim" in exchange for sharpening a plowshare or a mattock. And the King James Version is wrong in that verse. God did not give them revelation to prevent that mistake.

 

[timothy 1769]

Taufgesinnter,

My Strong's lists the word as "peh" and my Englishman's Hebrew Concordance shows it being used around 500 times in the Bible.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Gayla: "I've noticed Ed correcting spelling errors for others. He goofed here while doing that very thing. oopsy!

loose=not tight
lose=not winning "

Oops

 

[Trotter]

The KJV is just a translation, albeit one that has been around for a long time. I love the beauty of the prose, but lets be honest...it's pretty dog-gone hard to read!

The KJV itself is not inspired, or no more so than any other HONEST translation out there (by honest, I'm discluding the WatchTower editions, et.al.).

I personally do not understand the hooplah about the KJV. A lady I work with has a tag on her car that reads, "The 1611 KJV - God's Only Bible". Gee, what did generations of Christians and Jews do? Maintain orally the entire Bible in its original languages until King James got a notion to replace the "walking Scriptures" with a handy, leather bound version? Give me a break!

It is a translation . Let's all say it together...trans...lay...shun. Nothing inspired about it, in and of itself. The message it contains, the recorded words of God, now that is inspired. The translation is nothing, the Author is everything.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Taufgesinnter,

My Strong's lists the word as "peh" and my Englishman's Hebrew Concordance shows it being used around 500 times in the Bible.

Strong's was published before the archaeological discovery mentioned in the quote and thus untrustworthy regarding that particular word.

I didn't consult a concordance yet to verify the number of its occurrences, but I did check e-sword and saw he was right about the definition and usage of the word as a unit of money, and its improved translation, or rather, transliteration. In the verse, it is generally transliterated "pim" or described as a certain fraction of a shekel.

 

[RaptureReady]

Question here, when did the Bible become not perfect? And why?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Question here, when did the Bible become not perfect? And why?

Question here, why do you keep saying that the Bible is not perfect?? You know that we do not believe that. Only someone who can't read or someone who is dishonest could make such an accusation. Which are you?

 

[HankD]

How about KJV Acts 12:4 and the use of the word "Easter" for the Greek word "pascha"?

We are told by some KJVO that the KJV translators used this English word derived from paganism in this place ONLY (rather than its usual translation of "Passover") because they (KJV translators) had privy inspirational information from God concerning this holiday.

This they did (according to the KJVO) even in spite of the bonding of this word with Judaism and "the days of unleavened bread" in the preceding verse

Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Which is bonded to the Passover in the Word of God at:

Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover (pascha).

John 6:4 And the Passover (pascha), a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

So, now (post-1611) we have a confused Scripture because of the plain statement in the Book of John and several other places that this particular holiday was “a feast of the Jews” bonded to the Days of Unleavened Bread”.

Somehow now (we are told) that “Easter” and the “Days of Unleavened Bread” was being kept by the Jews in Acts 12:3 (but only after 1611).

I guess I/we just can't see the Emperor’s new clothes.

HankD