King James Bible

[Logos1560]

An Admin (named Bro Randy Ross) on a independent Fundamental Baptist teens board that I visit (They only use the KJV as well) Posted a message about the KJV which best describes what I believe.

That issue is in the translation - we will get to that in a moment
God has kept His promise to us to preserve His Word!

Despite the political curents of the day, these men went to great lengths to ensure that the translation was a pure translation.

The 1611 King James translators did not correct the Scripture, they only translated it.

God kept His promise to preserve His Word just as faithfully before 1611 as after 1611. William Tyndale and the translators of the 1560 Geneva went to such as great lengths to ensure that their translation was a pure translation as the KJV translators if not more so. The Church of England translators of the KJV may have been hindered by one or more of the rules that were given them for their translating, and they may have been hindering by the overseeing of Archbishop Richard Bancroft. Archbishop Bancroft or another prelate is said to have made at least 14 changes in the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV that were not approved by the majority of the KJV translators themselves.

The important fact remains that the KJV is a translation and is a revision of earlier pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'). At some renderings or verses, one or more of those pre-1611 English Bibles may have a better and more accurate rendering of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages than the KJV has. Your view or belief seems to ignore the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. What consistent and scriptural basis establishes that the Holy Spirit guided the KJV translators in any different manner or sense than the Holy Spirit guided the translators of the Geneva Bible? What scriptures state that God was any more involved in the preservation that led up to the KJV than God was involved in the preservation that led up to Luther's German Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists, the 1982 NKJV, the Modern KJV, or other translations made by believers?

 

[peperoni123]

I wouldn't consider the NIV God's complete preserved word. in Acts 8:37 in my KJV it says "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I can't find that verse in the NIV. In my KJV bible it says not to add or take away from God's word. Since that verse was taken away from God's word, the NIV isn't the complete preserved word of God.

 

[tinytim]

Or did the KJV add it...
YOu see it is just as bad to add as it is to take away.

So how do we decide which it is?
BTW, welcome to the board.

If I remember right the words you say are missing in the NIV are in the footnotes. The NIV translators wanted to be honest and point out that there are preserved copies that are closer to the time of the original writings that does not have that particular phrase.

To prove that the KJV adds words, check this out....
And Justin you do your own research.

Find a good KJV based interlinear Bible.
and look this verse up:
Romans 6:15
(15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Look for the word "God" in that verse in the Greek. It is not there. The KJV translators added "God" to the Bible.
Was that wrong?

They could of just said, "NO" as the original says, but nooooo, they added "God forbid"
That is just one example of the KJV adding to scripture.

So if we are warned not to add or take away, then the translators of the KJV were wrong, and the KJV is not perfect.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

That is comparing apples to oranges tinytim.

His example relates to the omission (or addition according to some views) of a whole passage of scripture.

Your example is a question of a word added to convey the sense of a particular word or passage.

Those things are quite different. Do you have a better example.

A.F.

Sorry: edited for clarity!

 

[peperoni123]

Here is the same verse, Romans 6:15 from the Geneva Bible which was translated in the year 1599. "What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Here is the link
http://www.genevabible.org/files/Geneva_Bible/New_Testament/Romans.pdf

 

[TC]

That is because in that time period, God Forbid was a euphymism for the strongest negative you could get. Today, we say never or as the NASB (if I remember correctly) says may it never be.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I wouldn't consider the NIV God's complete preserved word. in Acts 8:37 in my KJV it says "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I can't find that verse in the NIV. In my KJV bible it says not to add or take away from God's word. Since that verse was taken away from God's word, the NIV isn't the complete preserved word of God.

Nobody removed anything Justin. The NIV is primarily translated from a different body of texts and using a different translational philosophy than the KJV. THe translated from what they were using, but had the honesty to include the alternate translation in a footnote. I disagree with their choice of texts and their method of translation, but that is not the topic of this thread.

The KJV translating team used a different text body and they used a different method of translation. I agree with their choices and that is why I use the KJV and NKJV. The translating teams of both if these versions also included marginal notes or footnotes to present alternate translations of passages.

The NIV translators did not remove anything - they translated differently, thats all.

 

[Keith M]

An Admin (named Bro Randy Ross) on a independent Fundamental Baptist teens board that I visit (They only use the KJV as well) Posted a message about the KJV which best describes what I believe. This is what he posted below and the link to the original message is at the end.

Justin, this is just another article written by someone else. Are you not willing to put into your own words what you believe about the KJV?

 

[Keith M]

I wouldn't consider the NIV God's complete preserved word. in Acts 8:37 in my KJV it says "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I can't find that verse in the NIV. In my KJV bible it says not to add or take away from God's word. Since that verse was taken away from God's word, the NIV isn't the complete preserved word of God.

Justin, it seems you are falling into the trap of judging every other Bible version by what the KJV says. Since the NIV and the KJV are translated from different manuscripts, it stands to reason that there can be some differences in the two versions. However, the NIV is just as much God's preserved word as is the KJV.

The verse you must be referring to is also found in the NIV.

And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Revelation 22:19 NIV

This verse, which so many people use to claim a superiority for the KJV, is actually talking about anyone who takes away from the prophecies found in the book of Revelation. It is not referring to Bible versions translated from different manuscripts. Yet many folks make the mistake of applying this verse to mean any Bible version that is a little different than the KJV. John did not mean that this applikcation of what he had written would be applied to show the "superiority" of any particular English Bible version, yet it is being used in just that manner quite frequently these days.

Justin, here are a couple questions for you to think about.

1. If the KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God, then where was His perfectly preserved word prior to 1611?

2. If any Bible versions prior to 1611 were the perfectly preserved word of God, then why did these versions need to be revised and updated with the 1611 KJV?

Justin, we have heard over and over again what some of the writers say who support KJVOnlyism. We don't need to hear from them again. What are your thoughts on these questions?

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Justin, we have heard over and over again what some of the writers say who support KJVOnlyism. We don't need to hear from them again. What are your thoughts on these questions?

Keith, I think we have heard over and over again from your side. I agree that we need to hear more from Justin.

A.F.

 

[annsni]

I wouldn't consider the NIV God's complete preserved word. in Acts 8:37 in my KJV it says "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I can't find that verse in the NIV. In my KJV bible it says not to add or take away from God's word. Since that verse was taken away from God's word, the NIV isn't the complete preserved word of God.

I agree with Tim - the verse IS in the NIV - but is in the footnote. Please understand that it is not in some of the earlier manuscripts but is added in others - so the NIV is being correct in saying that there is an issue with this verse. In the KJV, you would not know that it is not in some of the manuscripts.

Again, you need to not just take someone's word for it - there are many false teachings out there. Be like the Bereans and test everything you learn against the Word of God. There is great software out there with original languages and it helps a LOT to really dig in depth. I'd recommend them.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Uh, Rufus, as has already been pointed out to you, I did not say that the belief that the KJV is the preserved word of God is a myth. Was this a deliberate misrepresentation on your part, or merely a case where you just didn't investigate the truth of what you were saying before you spoke? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you spoke in haste without checking out the veracity of your claim. The alternative is that you deliberately misrepresented what was said.

KJVO beliefs center around the Word of God being preserved in the KJV line exclusively. Calling this belief system a myth, over and over and over and over and over again, does not reinforce your argument but rather puts it on par with me calling your modern versions perversions of the true word of God. Neither of these methods add to the debate. However, yours is a rather mean-spirited tactic that uses hyperbole and a repeat of a lie in the hopes that if you repeat it enough times, people will actually believe you.

I merely pointed out the fact that the belief that the KJV is the only preserved word of God is a myth. Of course the KJV is the preserved word of God, but so is the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, etc. There is no foundation anywhere in Scripture for the belief that God is so weak that He can only preserve His word in a single English Bible translation.

There is no foundation in scripture for the belief that God isn't strong enough to do it right through a single line.

Yet that is exactly what the KJVO myth implies - that God is weak and that His ability to preserve His word can only encompass one single Bible translation.

The belief in hundreds of versionism implies that God is the author of confusion, which He is not.

That, sir, is a myth which errantly questions God's ability to preserve His word. I'll say it again - the myth is not the belief that the KJV is God's preserved word. The myth is the belief that the KJV is the only Bible version that is God's preserved word.

I don't believe sir, that you are using the word "myth" in a proper context to begin with. I stood against a humanist college teacher for calling the Bible a myth but at least she understood what the word meant. You are using the word in an innacurate context to disparage a group of people who revere a single translation in the English language as being the pure Word of God.

Justin, this is just another example of the false accusations the KJVO myth supporters use to try to focus attention away from their errant claims. I have not seen a single post on this board which says the KJV is not the preserved word of God.

It was not alleged that you believe the KJV is not the preserved word of God however, we do not share the definition of preservation. I believe His Word was preserved in the AV. You believe it was preserved in hundreds of "valid" translations. It is possible to disagree with each other and still respect each others views.

That is just another falsehood made up by supporters of the KJVO myth. Are you beginning to see that the KJVO myth and the tactics of misrepresentation that go along with it are totally wrong? Think about it - anything that is claimed to be truth should have biblical support and it should be honest, both of which are severely lacking from the KJVO myth. There's that word again - 10 more times. But it points to the truth that the KJVO concept is wrong in every way - it is truly a myth. Oops, there's #11.

So good of you to respect a brother's wishes.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The word "myth" is causing a lot of animosity, something we are trying to avoid on this thread. I am requesting that the word "theory" be used in its place on this topic please.

 

[tinytim]

I would agree with C4K on the use of the word "myth". While I firmly believe that KJVOism is wrong, I do not use this word, because I feel that it is a "loaded" word.

Theory is a good replacement.

 

[robycop3]

The word "myth" is causing a lot of animosity, something we are trying to avoid on this thread. I am requesting that the word "theory" be used in its place on this topic please.

Roger, could you make the same request of those KJVOs who say "Bible Believers" in a manner which implies that those who use other versions don't believe the Bible?

 

[robycop3]

I would agree with C4K on the use of the word "myth". While I firmly believe that KJVOism is wrong, I do not use this word, because I feel that it is a "loaded" word.

Theory is a good replacement.

Think I'll also use "doctrine", as a doctrine is a thing which is taught.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Roger, could you make the same request of those KJVOs who say "Bible Believers" in a manner which implies that those who use other versions don't believe the Bible?

Alright - fair trade. I guess I am so thick I never caught that one .

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Think I'll also use "doctrine", as a doctrine is a thing which is taught.

As long as you don't call it "false doctrine" I would find that acceptable.

 

[tinytim]

Maybe we are on to something here that will improve this forum..
Can we open a thread that asks for input on what terms offend them when discussing translations....

So far we have, "myth", and "Bible Believers", and "False Doctrine", and "perversion".

Would you like for me to open it, or would someone else like to?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

"perversion" is already against the rules. If you to open the thread Tim that is fine as long as folks know that any possible changes will be considered, but will be adopted only with the advice and consent of the Administrative Council (admin and mods).

We need to do our best not to openly offend those on the other side of the issue.