King James Bible

[robycop3]

Ed said:

I'm firmly convinced that God has devinely preserved all
his message in all the valid English Version.

R J replies:

That's a good one, Ed. The only version that supports your declaration scripturally is the KJV. All modern versions of the bible have CHANGED Psalm 12:6-7 to read otherwise.

No, they haven't. The AV 1611...the FIRST KJV edition...has this marginal note for V7: "Heb. him, I. euery one of them. "

Psalm 12:7, from the Bishop's Bible of 1568: [Wherfore] thou wylt kepe the godly, O God: thou wylt preserue euery one of them from this generation for euer.

From the 1599 Geneva Bible: Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer.

From Young's Literal translation: Thou, O Jehovah, dost preserve them, Thou keepest us from this generation to the age.

From the NIV: O LORD, you will keep us safe
and protect us from such people forever.

From the NASB: You, O LORD, will keep them;
You will preserve him from this generation forever.

The AV men, knowing this passage was about plural PEOPLE, used the plural them, while placing the literal translation of the Hebrew into a marginal note. No, the AV 1611 & the other valid versions I quoted above, all have it right.

That verse is NOT about the preservation of God's words, as your source, most likely Riplinger, Ruckman, Vance, Watkins, or Kinney, incorrectly told you.

This thread was about showing a student that the KJVO doctrine is incorrect, and why, but it appears a few others need some teaching along this line also. also.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed said:

I'm firmly convinced that God has devinely preserved all
his message in all the valid English Version.

R J replies:

That's a good one, Ed. The only version that supports your declaration scripturally is the KJV. All modern versions of the bible have CHANGED Psalm 12:6-7 to read otherwise.

Tee hee, read the 14,000 posts here and you will find
the CHANGED Psalm 6-7 to be a deception.

But if your statement is true "All modern versions of the bible have CHANGED Psalm 12:6-7 ... "

Then I can prove the KJV is A MODERN VERSION.

Psalm 12:5-7 (KJV1611 Edition):
For the oppression of the poore,
for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise (saith the Lord,)
I will set him in safetie from him that puffeth at him.
6 The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes:
as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.
7 Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,)
thou shalt preserue +them, from this generation for euer.

Sidenote:
+ Heb , him every one of them

Obviously the first underlined them might pertain
to the Words of the Lord, but the second underlined them
referrs back to the poor & needy in verse 5.

BTW, this one side note not only explains shows that
the KJV1611 Edition is A MODERN VERSION
but that one side note shows that there were various
versions of the Greek souces available to the KJV translators.

So if you want to compare the KJV to a MV, find
another verse - That one sidenote blows the
whole KJVO premise right out of the water.
No wonder some KJVOs say "don't read the footnotes".

Caveat:
While Translator Footnotes are a natural part of
any translation/version there are other footnotes
that are NOT part of the translation/version at all:

1. cross reference footnotes
2. Comentary footnotes

I suggest reading the translator footnotes before posting
scripture in this Version/translation Forum. Thank you.
If your copy of the Bible doesn't have the translator footnotes,
you have a second rate Bible (not as good as the better Bibles).

Caveat: Most electronic copies of the Scripture don't
have the translator footnoes. It is still best to have a handy
paper copy or two :godisgood:

 

[Ed Edwards]

R.J. // ... foolishly debating whether to use a 1611 KJV or a 1769 KJV.//

I see no reason to debate them.
I use both. Using e-Sword
I have my own parallel Bible with:

Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition
KJV1611 Edition
KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers
e-Sword has a poor search engine
(no searching for phrases), but I can
search out a word spelled like i'm used to,
find it int the KJV1769 then I post the
KJV1611 Edtion on the Board.

TeeHee I use more KJVs than most
anybody around here.

 

[Keith M]

The context shows that Ps. 12:6-7 is a promise to preserve people. Some folks have misunderstood these verses to mean preserving words, and then have erroneously applied the verses to "prove" God's miraculous preservation of the KJV. If this application is true, then God didn't presaerve His words forever, but only after the original KJV was published in 1611.

 

[Keith M]

R.J. // ... foolishly debating whether to use a 1611 KJV or a 1769 KJV.//

I see no reason to debate them.
I use both. Using e-Sword
I have my own parallel Bible with:

Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition
KJV1611 Edition
KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers
e-Sword has a poor search engine
(no searching for phrases), but I can
search out a word spelled like i'm used to,
find it int the KJV1769 then I post the
KJV1611 Edtion on the Board.

TeeHee I use more KJVs than most
anybody around here.

Hey, Ed, have you tried http://www.studylight.org for it's search? You can search words, phrases, verses - almost anything you want!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Hey, Ed, have you tried http://www.studylight.org for it's search? You can search words, phrases, verses - almost anything you want!

Thank you Keith M - i've got it earmarked.

 

[bound]

Hi Everyone,

I recently picked up Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Bible (KJV) and I'm really enjoying it.

It's really been helpful to actually read commentary on each verse of the KJV Bible. :thumbs:

I'm really enjoying it. Can anyone give me any info on Matthew Poole? Thanks.

PS: I use MacSword (for my Apple Macintosh)... Is there anything better for Apple Macintosh?

 

[Bro Tony]

I certainly would not use the NEW King James Bible. [Attack on Bibles deleted]

I currently use the www.blueletterbible.org version which is based upon Stephen's Textus Receptus (1550).

I own a Dake's Annotated Reference Bible (KJV) and an Old Scofield Study Bible (KJV) but seldom use them for word studies as the Blue Letter Online bible's search engine serves me better.

I would NEVER consider any bible based upon the Westcott-Hort (1881) with Nestle/Aland Variants text as my final authority.

So, for me, it is a matter of knowing which versions NOT to use rather than foolishly debating whether to use a 1611 KJV or a 1769 KJV. I haven't investigated Noah Webster's 1833 version thoroughly but I would give it some consideration.

Interesting that you state that about the KJV and what it is based on. Since you made this statement we will assume that is part of what makes the KJV authoritative to you, you might be surprized to know that the NKJV that you slandered above is from the same text. I am always amazed that those who claim to love God and His Word seem to have no trouble slandering that which He has given us. The KJV is a beautiful translation of the Scripture, but God is not locked into the king's english and those who translated the Scripture then, as wonderful as they may have been, are no more committed to a good translation then those who have faithfully done it since.

Bro Tony

 

[Rippon]

Bound , Matthew Poole was a very learned fellow . He said powerful things in concise form . Matthew Henry was said to have borrowed a lot from Poole's commentaries . Spurgeon's Commenting On Commentaries goes into this .

 

[Mike Berzins]

This is the kind of thing that causes contention - misusing a Bible verse to get a point across. You have no basis for saying that someone is following a "false way" because they use the NKJV. All you have is opinion.

We cannot force our brothers and sisters in Christ to adopt our opinions as the true way. The word of God is the standard for doing that.

It is your opinion that I am misusing the bible verse. It is your opinion that I have no basis for saying using the NKJV is a false way. I disagree completely. Not sure why this preaching according to my convictions should cause contention, especially if what I am saying has no basis in fact.

If I quoted the following scripture would I be causing contention?

Psalms 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

Or maybe someone will say, "Offend really doesn't mean what you think. I looked in my Strong's, and whatever it says must be true (unless of course myself or some other men disagree)" (But is Strong's or any other lexicon the word of God?)

I am not, nor can I, force anyone to adopt anything. I am just stating what I believe the bible teaches.

In a number of places it is said that the KJO belief has no evidence, or as stated above has no "basis". I am trying to understand the nature of the evidence required. To such an end, I have asked a general set of questions. What books are in the canon of scripture? Why? Is there a canon of scripture ordained by God? Or is his truth found in all of the "valid" canons that are out there?

 

[Mike Berzins]

A good example overall, Mike. But there is a difference in the NWT and many of the legitimate Bible versions. The New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses), the Clear Word Translation (Seventh Day Adventists) and the Joseph Smith Translation also known as the Inspired Version (Mormons) are all versions that were "translated" so that heretical groups can have a bible which supports some of their errant teachings.

That said, I do agree with your view that the claims of exclusivity are what causes much of the trouble. But there is a difference - we know that Jesus Christ is the exclusive way to avoid an eternal separation from God, but the claims of exclusivity for any one Bible version are unfounded. We know without a doubt that the Bible is the word of God while the Koran and the writings of other false religions are not the word of God.

Yet it is understandable that, even though they follow another "god" that those of false religions can feel attacked by the suggestion that their religion and their writings are false. And that is one reason readers of modern Bible versions feel attacked when the KJVO claim of exclusivity is made, even though there is no foundation for that claim.

You "know" Christianity is true and other religions are false, and you "know" the bible is the word of God while other religious writing are not. Although I think have a different definiton of the "bible" and the "word of God ", I agree with you. The question now is, how do you know your claims are true?

 

[Mike Berzins]

Here we go again, folks using their misunderstanding of the KJV
trying to prove KJVO stuff.

Caveat: this writing will be found appearing elsewhere
for I have used it before:

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

CORRUPT

2 Corinthians 2:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
For wee are not as many which corrupt the word of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of God
speake we in Christ.

Strong's sez:
G2585
καπηλεύω
kapēleuō
kap-ale-yoo'-o
From κάπηλος kapēlos (a huckster); to retail, that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): - corrupt.

As usual, Strong's lists what the KJVs use last, not what makes the
most sense. But why do the KJVs use 'corrupt'. Here is
a text that preceeds the KJVs (i.e. NOT a MV):

2Co 2:17 (Geneva Bible, 1587):
For wee are not as many, which make marchandise of the woorde of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God in ye sight of God
speake we in Christ.

Do you think that anyone was corrupting (in the sense of adulterating, perverting or changing the words so as to hide the truth of God) the word of God in Paul's time? Do you think any are today?

 

[Mike Berzins]

Mike, check the OT citations made in the NT. You will find that many are not word-for-word exactly the same as the OT verse. This is "retranslating" the scripture.

(Note: I am aware that sometimes the difference is caused by the NT author citing the Septuagint, which does not match the Masoretic text (pointed) used by the KJV and most 'modern' English Bibles for the text of the OT. Also, sometimes it is becasue the NT author mixes, or combines, references.)

Sorry, I did not make the point clearly enough. Countless numbers of times, preachers will read a passage out of the bible, and then say something like. "God forbid, is not not the best rendering. You see, the word "God", is not in the original. A better translation would be "by no means"." This practice is so widespread now a days, I was wondering if an example of speaking like this is found in the word of God?

 

[Mike Berzins]

Mike Berzins: //I've never seen anywhere in the bible where
anyone ever gave a source for their scripture,
other than the chapter or book. Do you doubt my source is scripture?//

Yes. You could be a huckster - selling 'scripture' by hire.

Actually, God called me to this BB (Bapatist Board) and to
this Forum (Version/Translation) and God has called me to
check out every 'verse' that is posted to see if it really is there.
(BTW, this helps especially with Ruckman & Riplinger who
misquote the Bible from time to tome). So if you tell me which Bible
you were using ESPECIALLY WHICH VERSION OF THE
KJV you are using, it saves some of the time that God
owns in me.

However, you are free to put a stepping stone or a
stumbling block in my path. Be aware, however, that other readers will
be judguing your veracity. And you, like the rest of us, will have
to answer to God.

So I humble beseech you in the Name of our
Lord and Savior, Messiah Jesus, to put the Version,
Book, Chapter & verse when you post scripture.
Thank you for your kind consideration. I'll put a good
word in with the Boss for you.

Not sure how quoting the bible without referencing the publisher, etc has anything to do with selling scripture for hire.

I think it is highly likely that you will find the verses I quote in any of your KJVs. If you find it in the first version which you check, no time is wasted. And when it does appear in your KJV, then it must be the word of God, for I assume you believe that all KJVs are valid versions and hence are the word of God. It then being the word of God, what difference does it make who published it?

Psalms 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it

Just receive it as the word of God.

I Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

When you can't find the verses I quote in one of your versions of the KJB, please let me know. Putting the book, chapter and verse is already more than the example given in the bible itself.

 

[Mike Berzins]

Mike, on this board (and in any intellectual discourse, including books) where many sources might be compared or cited, it is necessary to specify which version you are quoting from. There are even differences between editions (year; for example 1611) and publishers.

Again, if the bible example differs from your standards of intellectual discourse, I am comfortable following the way of the bible. What exactly is the reason it is necessary? Is there a particular version or versions of the KJB that you consider not to be the word of God?

 

[Mike Berzins]

Mike Berzins: //Well, trying to prove something sounds more
powerful than something else is not an easy task.//

And a fruitless one as well. For the Bible says:

2 Corinthians 12:9 (KJV1611 Edition):
And he said vnto me,
My grace is sufficient for thee:
for my strength is made perfect in weaknes.
Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities,
that the power of Christ may rest vpon me.

The weakness being referred to is Paul's human weakness. Not the weakness of the scriptures. Paul the writer of scripture, though he was weak, produced perfect strength in the scriptures he penned, and so God's strength was made perfect in weakness. It does not say God's weakness was made perfect in weakness.

Again, the voice of the Lord is powerful. I'm sure you can find many scriptural examples where the Lord's words are powerful. Can you find one where they are said to be weak?

And do you think some versions sound more powerful and majestic than others, or do they all sound equally powerful and majestic to you?

 

[Mike Berzins]

Ed Edwards:
//4 The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty
is exactly the way Psalm 29:4 reads in the ESV.//

Mike Berzins: //I noticed that too. I can find word for word
quotes of the King James Bible in the book of Mormon as well,
what does it prove?//

It proves your point was NOT made.

Your point was: // Go read the same passage in the ESV and you'll see that it sounds a lot less powerful.//

But the bolded portion of your quote is THE SAME in the ESV
even down to punctuation. Sorry, you lost me in your argument
about the power of two books that are the same:
Both the KJV1769 and the ESV are individually and collectively
the Written Word of God.

By the passage, I meant the psalm not the just the verse. Just the one verse is the same (there are surely others also elsewhere in the book) . Read the entire Psalm and see that the KJB is more powerful, not just the one verse. Or better yet, read and compare each of the books in their entirety. The two books ESV and KJB are not the same. Do you think that Psalms 29 sounds equally powerful and majestic in the KJB and the ESV?

As far as them both being the written word of god, what is your scripture and evidence for this assertion?

 

[Mike Berzins]

Rufus_1611:
The belief in hundreds of versionism implies that God is the author of confusion, which He is not.

First, there are NOT hundreds of English versions. From Wycliffe onward, there are less than 50. And in every valid version, there are four Gospels that differ among themselves, and several historical narratives of the same events in the OT which differ among themselves...but have been accepted as Scripture for several thousand years. So much for the 'differences'.

This is interesting. You believe the gospels and historical narratives differ from each other. Is this because there are errors in them? If so, are the errors in the originals or just in the copies/translations? Or do you believe each narrative individually and collectively is absolutely true in every detail of its description of the events that occurred?

 

[Mike Berzins]

Mike Berzins:
Yes, the way the Lord's voice sounds is of utmost importance.

That aint the Lord's voice...it's a TRANSLATION, shaped by translators' opinions.


Go read the same passage in the ESV and you'll see that it sounds a lot less powerful. Part of the reason for this is the type of sound made by all the "eth"s; they convey a sense of strength.

Actually, the 'eths' are conveying a sense of ARCHAIC.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful...

IN EVERY VALID VERSION.

I thought that the bible I was reading was a "valid version" and therefore the word of God. So it does not seem a stretch to think that if what I am reading is the word of God, then God actually chose the specific words of which his word consists, and knew the effect of the sounds of those words on the reader. The scriptures are full of descriptions, characteristcs, and definitons of the phrase "the word of God". When you say every valid version is the word of God, how exactly do you define what you mean by "the word of God"? Any scriptures you would like to quote to explain what you mean by the phrase "the word of God" would be helpful.

In regards to the "eth" 's. Conveying a sense of the old paths? Yes. Archaic? Not a chance. These "arcahic" words have been preached for centuries and are still preached around the world on the streets today, to sinners and saints alike. And are working new life in those that receive them.

 

[Mike Berzins]

And He speaks in today's English in today's versions. You cannot even BEGIN to prove otherwise.

Praise God; He still speaks to us in older versions from which He spoke in the past...Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, "Great Bible", Geneva, Bishop's, AV 1611, to name a few. And that's just in English alone! WHO CAN PLACE ANY LIMIT ON THE GREAT AND ALMIGHTY GOD in how He can choose to speak to us?

God can choose to speak to us any way he pleases. He can speak to someone through one of the plagiarized scriptures found in the book of Mormon. He can speak to some one else through a tract. Just because God can speak through some particular book, does not make that book scripture. In scripture, God does not make errors and every word is spoken by him. One way to compare two differing books that each make the claim to be scripture, is by comparing which one sounds more majestic and powerful. So compare the King James Bible to a Koran, and one will find the KJB towers over the Koran in its majesty and power. If one were to perform this same test with a KJB and an ESV, what do you suppose the result would be?