King James vs the original Greek

[Dave G]

Considering the whole counsel of God, the scriptural truths concerning righteous judgments and just measures would provide sound guidance in determining how to know which words the LORD has or has not spoken or given as part of Scripture. The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent, sound application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9). The scriptural principles of using just measures and not using unjust measures would be timeless and edifying, and they would not be limited to a specific situation or time period. Just use of these scriptural principles would aid in proving all things, in proving what is acceptable to God, and in holding fast that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21, Eph. 5:10, Rom. 12:9). These instructions to use just measures and not use unjust measures are not in conflict with other scriptural teaching, but instead they are in agreement with other scriptural teaching and are part of all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27, Prov. 19:21). Applying scriptural truths justly would agree with and become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1, 2 Tim. 4:3). The use of inconsistent, unjust measures or double standards could be soundly connected to being double-minded (James 1:8). Use of unjust divers measures are an abomination to the LORD (Prov. 20:10, 23).

If you have a better solution than advocating the consistent, just application of scriptural truths, please present it.

Thank you for the above.
But in my opinion, you've not given a practical solution to the problem...

There are far too many variables at work just between who supports which collated Greek text, who supports which collated Hebrew text, and who supports ( or does not support ) introducing "lateral witnesses" from equally old translations including Old Latin, Syriac and others into the process.
As I see it, there is no viable solution as long as today's scholars keep disagreeing with "grass roots" believers in coming to a consensus regarding "which Greek" and "which Hebrew" to use as the basis for translations,
Especially when it comes to the common man's ( i.e. "non-scholar's ) preference for something that makes no sense to the scholar.

Are you following me?

Stated differently, there is no reason for "logical" people to accept the AV as the word of God,
when by all that seems "reasonable" to us as men,
today's scholars have given them sufficient reason to abandon it in favor of "continuous improvement".

In your above, you keep making reference to unjust measures and double standards, as well as divers measures and unscriptural standards.
These are all things that many of the "KJV-Only" groups are saying is happening from the other side.
Simply put, this isn't all one-sided and it never has been.

So, at the end of the day, we are at an impasse, aren't we?
With that said, I wish you well, Logos, and thank you for making your position plain to me.

As for me, I'll stay where I am,
Since I firmly believe that the "Textus Receptus" ( the one underlying the AV, Beza's ) is God's preserved word in the Greek,
While the "BenChayyim" ( not Kittel's work, sometimes referred to as the "Ben Asher" ) is God's preserved word in the Hebrew.

Call it, "faith"...which is the complete opposite of logical reasoning.
I've weighed all the evidence, seen all the arguments, and I'm convinced that there's no reason to abandon the AV;
It's God's inspired word, in English...there is none better.



May God bless you sir.

 

[Dave G]

@Salty:
My apologies for using your thread to hammer out something that should have been done elsewhere ( such as in one of Logos's threads ), but it seemed the thing to do and the right opportunity to do it.

If I make any further replies, it will be with respect to the OP...

Which is to say that, in my best estimation and belief,
the KJV does indeed reflect the original and the preserved Greek and Hebrew,
and it does so very, very well.


Thank you for the privilege of posting in this thread.

 

[Salty]

@Salty:
My apologies for using your thread to hammer out something that should have been done elsewhere .

Not a problem - In the OP I mentioned Anderson - and with him - anything goes!

the KJV does indeed reflect the original and the preserved Greek and Hebrew,
and it does so very, very well. ....

Keyword = reflects - and that I totally agree!

 

[Stratton7]

They had revised and made better prior translations, in the same fashion, we have made better and revised their work!

Who’s they?
Who’s we?

 

[Stratton7]

They were NOT Kjvo, in fact, they fully expected future scholars to revise, update, and better their Kjv work!

You’re focusing more on what man expected than what God has promised.

 

[Stratton7]

The Hebrew and Greek texts are more fully the word of the Lord to us then ANY tgranslation would be though!

Where are the originals?

 

[rlvaughn]

Puritan William Whitaker (1547-1595) wrote...We, on the contrary side, say that the authentic and divinely-inspired scripture is not this Latin, but the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New” (p. 135).

Does the context indicate that Whitaker is writing of specific "editions" of the Hebrew and the Greek?

 

[Logos1560]

In your above, you keep making reference to unjust measures and double standards, as well as divers measures and unscriptural standards.
These are all things that many of the "KJV-Only" groups are saying is happening from the other side.
Simply put, this isn't all one-sided and it never has been.

In my opinion, KJV-only and TR-only groups in effect undermine or discredit many of their own assertions and allegations against the Critical text when at the same time they accept and defend arbitrary and inconsistent textual measures/standards involved in the making of the textually-varying Textus Receptus editions. If they are going to accept blindly or arbitrarily as many as 1800 minority readings in the Textus Receptus, how do they have any consistent, sound basis for rejecting minority readings in the Critical Text? If they are going to accept and defend textual conjectures in the TR and KJV, how can they justly condemn textual conjectures in the Critical Text?

Why shouldn't I keep making reference to the scriptural truths and principles advocating the use of the same measures/standards and opposing the use of different or divers measures/standards which would be unjust measures or double standards?

Are you trying to suggest that the use of double standards or unjust measures on the TR side or KJV side is acceptable because you assert the Critical text side is guilty of the same thing? I do not find that the Scriptures suggest that the use of double standards or different measures should be excused and defended.

Perhaps you are wrong to suggest that applying scriptural truths consistently and justly would not be a practical solution to arbitrary and inconsistent assertions.

 

[Yeshua1]

Who’s they?
Who’s we?

the translators revised and made better prior English versions, and the Kjv has been revised updated and improved also!

 

[Yeshua1]

Where are the originals?

represented in the CT/MT/Tr greek texts, and the Hebrew Masoretic text!

 

[Stratton7]

represented in the CT/MT/Tr greek texts, and the Hebrew Masoretic text!

Going to take this response to the thread “Where are the Originals”

 

[Yeshua1]

Going to take this response to the thread “Where are the Originals”

Do we need to have A PERFECT BIBLE IN ORDER TO HAVE ONE?

 

[SavedByGrace]

The King James Bible is NOT a new "translation" made directly from the Hebrew and Greek, but, a REVISION of earlier translations, like the Geneva Bible and Bishops Bible. They also much relied on Théodore Beza Greek NT

 

[SavedByGrace]

represented in the CT/MT/Tr greek texts, and the Hebrew Masoretic text!

The Hebrew MT has been corrupted in places by the Jews. What about the Greek texts of Nestle-Aland, UBS, W&H? Your argument does not hold.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Where are the originals?

LOST!. Why, does this bother you, or cause you problems?

 

[SavedByGrace]

We have quite a few "good enough" English Bible versions, from Tyndale's to the ESV.

so which is the Word of God, and are they all equally reliable?

 

[robycop3]

so which is the Word of God, and are they all equally reliable?

They're ALL the WOG & reliable if they're accurate translations of their sources. And remember that the AV makers said even the meanest(poorest) of translations are the WOG. (That was before he cult-specific "bibles" started coming out.)

Remember, there are many ways in English to say the same thing.

 

[Salty]

Remember, there are many ways in English to say the same thing.

Not only that but translating is not always exact!
For example - the word refrigerator in German is kuhlschrank.
But to translate kuhlscrank to English - it could be refrigerator, fridge or ice box.

A literal translation could be cool* cabinet
* as in cold.

 

[Logos1560]

While the "BenChayyim" ( not Kittel's work, sometimes referred to as the "Ben Asher" ) is God's preserved word in the Hebrew.

Gail Riplinger acknowledged: “The original ben Chayim Hebrew Bible wrongly omitted Joshua 21:36-37” (Hazardous, p. 1016). Gail Riplinger asserted: “This proves that the KJB translators DID NOT follow ben Chayim exclusively” (Ibid.). Riplinger also maintained that “the original ben Chayim edition wrongly omitted Nehemiah 7:68” (p. 1017).

Arthur Farstad indicated that the Masoretic Text and the Targum in Psalm 22:16 read "Like a lion my hands and my feet" while the KJV translators followed the reading of the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac "they pierced My hands and My feet" (The NKJV, p. 98). Concerning Psalm 22:16, Edward F. Hills asserted that "the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate" (KJV Defended, p. 223). Gail Riplinger claimed that “in Psalm 22:16, the Latin, Syriac Peshitta, and the Greek Bible preserve ‘they pierced my hands and my feet’” (Hazardous, p. 1003).

James D. Price identified and listed what he asserted are “82 justifiable emendations to the Masoretic text” in the Second Rabbinic Bible made by the KJV translators along with “146 unjustifiable emendations” (King James Onlyism, pp. 561-590).

 

[SavedByGrace]

There are about 50 different Greek words, which are translated by the English "come", in the KJV!