King James Bible Inspired

[neal4christ]

Looking, don't see "icus." What's your game?

Ecclesiasticus is in the original 1611 KJV; it is an apocryphal book (aka Wisdom of Sirach, I believe???). Those who claim to use the KJV 1611 should have this book (and the rest of the apocrypha) in it; or else, they are not really using the 1611 KJV. More likely, it is the 1769 KJV that they are using, much like my Cambridge KJV that I use, I believe.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[timothy 1769]

Scott - according to the OED in 1611 the word 'easter' could be used to refer to the Jewish passover.

This is much ado about nothing, IMO.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Scott - according to the OED in 1611 the word 'easter' could be used to refer to the Jewish passover.

That simply doesn't answer my objection.

The writer of scripture used one word with a specific, understood meaning. The readers of the original knew that the word meant passover. It is doubtful that they knew anything of "Easter".

The KJV translators used two different words that carry two different meanings. If this had been the NIV, you folks would be going nuts about how they had introduced pagan heresy into the scriptures. But somehow since it is the KJV then to deviate from this term with clearly pagan origins amounts to a perversion of God's Word.

This is wholly inconsistent on your part.

This sort of reminds me of the apparently arbitrary use of "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" to translate hagios pneuma. While Ghost and Spirit are similar, they do not carry the exact same meaning and even if they did the use of both introduces unnecessary confusion.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Not sure what book you are talking about.

Your statement was:

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

Again, you have been misinformed.

I assume Ecclesiastes 1:5, but mine says The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

That is due to the inaccuracy of your assumption. The Book of Ecclesiasticus is in the 1611 Authorised Version.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
So your saying that God's pefect word only existed in the original mss and therefore does not exist today?

It is interesting how persistently you must put words in people's mouths in order to respond to them. Pastor Larry didn't say that. I don't say that. You cannot deal with the actual response so you engage in patent dishonesty by arguing against what we don't say.

The problem isn't with what we say or believe. The problem is with your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "perfect".

A translation can be perfect (whole, complete, lacking nothing) in its essential character and message. However it can never.... never be perfect in its words.

Why? Because the words are different!

For instance, "Lord" is a perfect translation for "kurios". But "Lord" is not and can never be "kurios". They are two different words meaning the same thing.

The various faithful versions of the Bible in English are perfect not because they have identical wording but because they communicate the same message/doctrines.

 

[timothy 1769]

That simply doesn't answer my objection.

OK.


The writer of scripture used one word with a specific, understood meaning. The readers of the original knew that the word meant passover. It is doubtful that they knew anything of "Easter".

For sure they knew nothing of Passover or Easter - two words in a language that didn't yet exist.

The KJV translators used two different words that carry two different meanings.

No, in 1611 they could mean the exact same thing - the Jewish Paysach.

If this had been the NIV, you folks would be going nuts about how they had introduced pagan heresy into the scriptures. But somehow since it is the KJV then to deviate from this term with clearly pagan origins amounts to a perversion of God's Word.

This is wholly inconsistent on your part.

You imagine, with no basis, how I might react and then accuse me of being inconsistent with your expectation. Hardly sporting.

This sort of reminds me of the apparently arbitrary use of "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit" to translate hagios pneuma. While Ghost and Spirit are similar, they do not carry the exact same meaning and even if they did the use of both introduces unnecessary confusion.

Really? They mean exactly the same thing to me and have never caused me any confusion. Let, prevent, froward, reins, bowels, etc. are a different story...

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:
Even tho I am looking into whether or not the KJB is inspired or not, I don't think it is worthy to be thrown out, either.

We actually agree on something?
Yes, you are absolutely correct: the AV should NEVER be "thrown out" (utilizing your phrase). I haven't seen anyone make this statement, but totally agree with you.

I regard this version as a very good translation. I have had this Bible all of my saved days. I have heard preaching out of different Bibles, and I think the other Bibles sound a little watered down.

Once again, you are absolutely correct: the Authorised Version is not only God's Holy Word, it is a literary work of art. Thee's, thou's and thine's possess such fluidity and so much more eloquence.

I still prefer the KJB over other versions.

Although the Authorised Version is my preferred translation, I love the 1599 Geneva Bible (I have the 1557 Geneva Bible - but only the New Testament), the Tyndale and the Wiclif translations as well.

[ September 22, 2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Baptist in Richmond ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:

The KJV translators used two different words that carry two different meanings.

No, in 1611 they could mean the exact same thing - the Jewish Paysach.

Are you claiming that if someone said "easter" in 1611, folks would automatically think of the Jewish passover rites? I would be interested in seeing that proof.

If this had been the NIV, you folks would be going nuts about how they had introduced pagan heresy into the scriptures. But somehow since it is the KJV then to deviate from this term with clearly pagan origins amounts to a perversion of God's Word.

This is wholly inconsistent on your part.

You imagine, with no basis, how I might react and then accuse me of being inconsistent with your expectation. Hardly sporting.

You may be right so I apologize for being guilty of what I so often condemn. I should say that "some folks" rather than "you folks."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Looking, don't see "icus." What's your game?

That's becuase you don't have a 1611. You have a modern edition of it. Look it up and you will see what I mean. (It's really simple.)

[qbSo your saying that God's pefect word only existed in the original mss and therefore does not exist today? [/QB]

No, that is not what I am saying. In fact, I am saying what I just said. Read it this time and give it some thought. Don't just spout off about it. Here is it again. This time I have bolded a portion that you should have seen earlier. Apparently you did not.

Don't you listen and learn?? I have told you many times that perfection is measured by fidelity to the original language texts, not some set of English words that never existed anywhere on earth until 1611 and can be found only rarely today. In fact, you do not even have one I imagine.

Now, as I say, read and start learning. YOu have been here long enough to stop playing these little games.

 

[timothy 1769]

The aprocypha were included in the 1611 translation because they were considered profitable reading by the Anglican Church, and were included in their scheduled scripture readings. They were not considered to be inspired however.

From the Anglican 39 articles of religion, 1571:

Article VI

Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for Salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the names and number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy
Joshua.
Judges.
Ruth.
The First Book of Samuel.
The Second Book of Samuel.
The First Book of Kings.
The Second Book of Kings.
The First Book of Chronicles.
The Second Book of Chronicles.
The First Book of Esdras.
The Second Book of Esdras.
The Book of Esther.
The Book of Job.
The Psalms.
The Proverbs.
Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher.
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon.
Four Prophets the Greater.
Twelve Prophets the Less.

All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical.

And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras.
The Fourth Book of Esdras.
The Book of Tobias.
The Book of Judith.
The rest of the Book of Esther.
The Book of Wisdom.
Jesus the Son of Sirach.
Baruch the Prophet.
The Song of the Three Children.
The Story of Susanna.
Of Bel and the Dragon.
The Prayer of Manasses.
The First Book of Maccabees.
The Second Book of Maccabees.

--

Again, much ado about nothing.

 

[Askjo]

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

Naturalistic website!

 

[timothy 1769]

Wow. Except for the bit about 1st and Esdras. What's up with that?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Again, much ado about nothing.

Alas, that would be directly proportional to the intensity of one's love and espousal of the 1611 Authorised Version. If the claim is "1611 KJV Only" with such vehemence as to dismiss all other translations, then it is a very substantive point.

 

[timothy 1769]

I think that's just their name for Ezra and Nehemiah. Anyone know for sure?

 

[timothy 1769]

OK, the 1611 has the only translation of the uninpsired Tobit I trust. Just kidding. I still don't see the big deal. Does anyone here claim the 1611 translators were knowingly making a perfect version? God was using them providentially.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Does anyone here claim the 1611 translators were knowingly making a perfect version?

This is a joke, right?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Looking, don't see "icus." What's your game?

Ecclesiasticus is in the original 1611 KJV; it is an apocryphal book (aka Wisdom of Sirach, I believe???). Those who claim to use the KJV 1611 should have this book (and the rest of the apocrypha) in it; or else, they are not really using the 1611 KJV. More likely, it is the 1769 KJV that they are using, much like my Cambridge KJV that I use, I believe.

In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I use the same King James as you do, 1769. The apocrypha is not scripture, if I'm not mistaken, it was placed in between the old and new testaments for history sake, not to be part of God's infallible word.

 

[timothy 1769]

No joke. Maybe I don't get out enough, but I've NEVER seen a KJVO present that argument. So far it's always been the opposition introducing that as a straw man.

So I repeat: Does ANYONE think the KJV translators were KNOWINGLY making a perfect translation?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Yes, I use the same King James as you do, 1769. The apocrypha is not scripture, if I'm not mistaken, it was placed in between the old and new testaments for history sake, not to be part of God's infallible word.

.........but somehow it is here in my 1611 Authorised Version.......

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
No joke. Maybe I don't get out enough, but I've NEVER seen a KJVO present that argument. So far it's always been the opposition introducing that as a straw man.

So I repeat: Does ANYONE think the KJV translators were KNOWINGLY making a perfect translation?

It was once stated on this board (a few months ago) that King James was specifically mentioned in the Old Testament.