KJV 2

[Logos1560]

Yes, I believe God used many good English translations during the preservation process.

Do you clearly and soundly understand the meaning of the word preservation?

Pastor Glenn Conjurske, a strong defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English translations, suggested that many KJV-only advocates “have never yet understood so much as the meaning of the word ‘preservation’” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 14; The Bible Version Controversy, p. 177).

Glenn Conjurske noted: “In its very nature preservation must be continuous, from beginning to end” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske added: “The ‘final form’ of anything which is preserved is just the same as it was the first day of its existence, and every day thereafter. This is the meaning of ‘preservation, and is certainly necessary to their doctrine of perfect preservation” (Ibid.; Bible Version, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske concluded: “The very meaning of ‘preservation’ necessitates that he [God] should keep it pure always, and not merely that he should restore it to purity after the passing of hundreds of years” (Bible Version, p. 63). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “We can have no restoration, no final form, no coming into being, of anything which has been preserved in perfection” (Ibid., p. 178).

Pastor Glenn Conjurske observed: “Let it be understood that the only foundation which has ever been professed for this [KJV-only] system is the supposed Bible doctrine of the preservation of the true text of Scripture, and it is precisely this doctrine of preservation which has often been given up in order to accommodate the facts concerning the Textus Receptus and the King James Version” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 12; Bible Version, p. 175). Glenn Conjurske asked: “How can they seriously maintain their doctrine of the preservation in perfection of the true text of Scripture, while they designate as the true text a text which never existed in the world before 1881--a text which was constructed in 1881 [by Scrivener]?“ (pp. 13-14). Conjurske added: “To adopt this text as the true Textus Receptus is in fact to give up their foundation. Whatever this may be, it certainly is not ’preservation.’ It is absolutely inconsistent with the very idea of preservation” (p. 14). He asserted: “These men have filled the church of God with disputes about ‘preservation,‘ without ever understanding their own doctrine” (p. 14). Glenn Conjurske pointed out that KJV-only people have told believers that “it must be a public and open preservation, of a text which is in common use in the hands of the people of God” (p. 15). Conjurske asserted that “it must be a still greater fairy tale that the true Greek text never existed on the earth at all--not in any manuscript or printed edition whatsoever--until Scrivener constructed it in 1881” (p. 16). Conjurske also wrote: “The fact is, the agreement is not perfect, either between the manuscripts and the printed Textus Receptus, or between the manuscripts themselves, nor between the various printed editions of the Textus Receptus, nor between the King James Version and the manuscripts, nor between the King James Version and any edition of the Textus Receptus” (Feb., 1994, pp. 42-43). Glenn Conjurske wrote: “If God has actually promised to preserve his word in perfect purity, 1611 is much too late to begin keeping that promise” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1995, p. 198). In another issue, Glenn Conjurske asserted: “The King-James-Only traditionalists have ransacked both Testaments—and wrested and contorted them too—in order to produce some promise or prophecy which will secure the perfection of their standard” (Sept., 1996, p. 196; Bible Version, p. 16). Glenn Conjurske maintained: “The assumption that we may apply the supposed promises to one Bible, and not to another, is absolutely groundless. No promise of Scripture is dated, and if any promise of Scripture secures the infallible working of the Holy Ghost for the production of a perfect translation, that promise must be as applicable to one version as to another” (pp. 196-197).


Glenn Conjurske observed: “If these men had done a little less asserting and denouncing, and expended a little of their time and energies in thinking, they must soon have realized that the very meaning of preservation completely overturns their entire [KJV-only] system” (Sept., 1995, p 198).

 

[SavedByGrace]

the 1611 King James Version is not a new translation from the Hebrew and Greek, but a revision from earlier Versions, like Tyndale, Great, and Geneva.

 

[Michael Hollner]

@Michael Hollner ,

I have another question, hoping you know the answer (if not perhaps someone else can chime in).

If God preserving His Word means He provides a transcript via translation in other languages, what about Greek? Is the LXX God's perfect Word for Greek speaking people?

Also, if we compare God's perfect Word in Latin, Greek, and German to the KJV will they read the same?

It seems that would be a good proof (if you are correct about how God preserves His Word). Grab a LXX, Luther's German translation, and make sure the KJV aligns.

The LXX is nothing more than the Alexandrian Egyptian manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus (All A.D. not B.C), all mixed up with the heretical apocrypha stuck within the O.T. texts. Unlike the original 1611, which rejected the apocrypha as “canon,” the KJV translators placed it in between the testaments and placed them in a separate Apocrypha section apart from the Old and New Testaments to indicate their status as non-canonical (Wikipedia “Bible apocrypha”). The apocrypha was only an accepted reading based on its historical value (but later removed in all KJV reprints), and is nowhere accepted as Scripture except by modern scholarship and the Roman Catholic Church. The King James translators did not integrate it into the Old Testament text, as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. This misleads many of its acceptance.

Therefore the LXX will not match up in many places. In fact, in my book at www.kjvdebate.com, which I recommend for you, there is proof of reverse engineering of the LXX which shows the scribes already had a copy of the New Testament in front of them during translation.

The KJV will read the same as the Old Latin (pre- Jerome Latin), the Greek T.R. and even Martin Luther’s German version in most places as these come from a pure line of texts. The KJV translators worked 7 years on the variations and my title gives many examples of this. Only the Greek T.R. editions will be the closest to the KJV as there are a few cases where the KJV translators or Beza made corrections to the various T.R. editions.

Nothing will align 100%, but 99% as in the T.R. editions. The T.R. editions are pure as gold, but even gold is 99.99% pure and has 0.01% that still needs refining but it is not cost-productive industry-wise to bring it to such and, some say it ends up transparent at this point.

The KJV is that 100% Gold that has been perfected through God’s refining process.

According to Jerome, Augustine, and the KJV translators (quoting Jerome and Augustine), this translation was as good as gold, likened to ‘two golden pipes,’ streams flowing from the Hebrew and the oldest Greek texts available. Augustine called them ‘precedent.’ Jerome called it ‘fountains.’

If you want a Bible as good as Gold, and want to receive the “fountains of living waters” (Jeremiah 17:13; Revelation 7:17), you need a Bible sanctioned by a King (Ecclesiastes 8:4) and written by the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:21)! The Authorized King James Version is that very “ONE PRINCIPLE GOOD ONE,” God’s finished product!

Would you be interested in chatting via cell some time to introduce each other?

Blessings....

 

[Michael Hollner]

Do you clearly and soundly understand the meaning of the word preservation?

Pastor Glenn Conjurske, a strong defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English translations, suggested that many KJV-only advocates “have never yet understood so much as the meaning of the word ‘preservation’” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 14; The Bible Version Controversy, p. 177).

Glenn Conjurske noted: “In its very nature preservation must be continuous, from beginning to end” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske added: “The ‘final form’ of anything which is preserved is just the same as it was the first day of its existence, and every day thereafter. This is the meaning of ‘preservation, and is certainly necessary to their doctrine of perfect preservation” (Ibid.; Bible Version, p. 177). Glenn Conjurske concluded: “The very meaning of ‘preservation’ necessitates that he [God] should keep it pure always, and not merely that he should restore it to purity after the passing of hundreds of years” (Bible Version, p. 63). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “We can have no restoration, no final form, no coming into being, of anything which has been preserved in perfection” (Ibid., p. 178).

Pastor Glenn Conjurske observed: “Let it be understood that the only foundation which has ever been professed for this [KJV-only] system is the supposed Bible doctrine of the preservation of the true text of Scripture, and it is precisely this doctrine of preservation which has often been given up in order to accommodate the facts concerning the Textus Receptus and the King James Version” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 12; Bible Version, p. 175). Glenn Conjurske asked: “How can they seriously maintain their doctrine of the preservation in perfection of the true text of Scripture, while they designate as the true text a text which never existed in the world before 1881--a text which was constructed in 1881 [by Scrivener]?“ (pp. 13-14). Conjurske added: “To adopt this text as the true Textus Receptus is in fact to give up their foundation. Whatever this may be, it certainly is not ’preservation.’ It is absolutely inconsistent with the very idea of preservation” (p. 14). He asserted: “These men have filled the church of God with disputes about ‘preservation,‘ without ever understanding their own doctrine” (p. 14). Glenn Conjurske pointed out that KJV-only people have told believers that “it must be a public and open preservation, of a text which is in common use in the hands of the people of God” (p. 15). Conjurske asserted that “it must be a still greater fairy tale that the true Greek text never existed on the earth at all--not in any manuscript or printed edition whatsoever--until Scrivener constructed it in 1881” (p. 16). Conjurske also wrote: “The fact is, the agreement is not perfect, either between the manuscripts and the printed Textus Receptus, or between the manuscripts themselves, nor between the various printed editions of the Textus Receptus, nor between the King James Version and the manuscripts, nor between the King James Version and any edition of the Textus Receptus” (Feb., 1994, pp. 42-43). Glenn Conjurske wrote: “If God has actually promised to preserve his word in perfect purity, 1611 is much too late to begin keeping that promise” (Olde Paths, Sept., 1995, p. 198). In another issue, Glenn Conjurske asserted: “The King-James-Only traditionalists have ransacked both Testaments—and wrested and contorted them too—in order to produce some promise or prophecy which will secure the perfection of their standard” (Sept., 1996, p. 196; Bible Version, p. 16). Glenn Conjurske maintained: “The assumption that we may apply the supposed promises to one Bible, and not to another, is absolutely groundless. No promise of Scripture is dated, and if any promise of Scripture secures the infallible working of the Holy Ghost for the production of a perfect translation, that promise must be as applicable to one version as to another” (pp. 196-197).


Glenn Conjurske observed: “If these men had done a little less asserting and denouncing, and expended a little of their time and energies in thinking, they must soon have realized that the very meaning of preservation completely overturns their entire [KJV-only] system” (Sept., 1995, p 198).

It would be helpful if your responses were a bit shorter other than copy and paste jobs from others. Do you have anything original or pioneered by yourself?

I understand preservation just fine. It means I have a Bible that is inspired by God, perfect, pure, anointed (I John 2:20) KJV and never changing. I hold it high as the Monarch of all books, for it is the very Word of God!

It sits on my desk and it is called the Authorized King James Version.

Rick, you are honestly in my prayers.

Blessings.....

 

[SavedByGrace]

It would be helpful if your responses were a bit shorter other than copy and paste jobs from others. Do you have anything original or pioneered by yourself?

I understand preservation just fine. It means I have a Bible that is inspired by God, perfect, pure, anointed (I John 2:20) KJV and never changing. I hold it high as the Monarch of all books, for it is the very Word of God!

It sits on my desk and it is called the Authorized King James Version.

Rick, you are honestly in my prayers.

Blessings.....

Are you saying that the KJV is Inspired by God the Holy Spirit?

 

[Logos1560]

Are you saying that the KJV is Inspired by God the Holy Spirit?

That is what he suggests in his own words.

you need a Bible sanctioned by a King (Ecclesiastes 8:4) and written by the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:21)! The Authorized King James Version is that very “ONE PRINCIPLE GOOD ONE,” God’s finished product!.

Michael Hollner wrote: "The new 'Bibles' are the works of MEN, but the KJV is a divine work of the Holy Spirit" (King James Only Debate, p. 336, 2021 edition).

Michael Hollner claimed: "The English of the AV sheds more light than any Greek text can" (p. 400).

 

[SavedByGrace]

The 1611 King James Version has a guide for morning and evening prayers, and for special occasions. These are readings from both the Old and New Testaments. It is interesting that they included books that they have listed as "apocrypha", which are not Inspired by the Holy Spirit. As I have marked three examples, which are from Wisdom of Solomon, not Proverbs, and the Book of Ecclesiasticus. These are part of the Canonical Books of the Bible! WHY would anyone who rejected these books as not Inspired, include them as part of readings from the Old Testament Books? There are others, which you can see from the 1611 edition available at archive.org, and elsewhere.

 

[SavedByGrace]

That is what he suggests in his own words

In which case the KJV is Infallible and Inerrant and the Original Autographs are, which is impossible, as the KJV has errors, in text, and grammar.

 

[Logos1560]

The LXX is nothing more than the Alexandrian Egyptian manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus (All A.D. not B.C),

The KJV will read the same as the Old Latin (pre- Jerome Latin), .

You fail to prove your many assertions to be true. Are you perhaps repeating Ruckman's claims concerning the LXX?

How can the KJV read the same as the Old Latin when the Old Testament of the Old Latin was translated from the Greek Septuagint that you in effect suggest should not have existed in the day that the Old Latin translations were made?

KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged that “the earlier Latin version of the Old Testament was a translation of the Septuagint” (KJV Defended, p. 95). In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators asserted that the [Old] Latin translations “were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream.” Reformer Francis Turretin affirmed that “the Latin version in use before the time of Jerome” was made from the Greek Septuagint (Institutes, I, p. 127). Jakob van Bruggen indicated that the O. T. of the first Latin translations was made from the Greek Septuagint (Future of the Bible, p. 40). Jakob van Bruggen mentioned Augustine’s objection to Jerome’s translating from the Hebrew instead of from the Greek underlying text of the Old Latin (p. 41).

There are many significant textual differences between the varying Old Latin manuscripts and the edited Greek text that underlies the KJV.

 

[SavedByGrace]

when the Old Testament of the Old Latin was translated from the Greek Septuagint

have you any evidence for this?

 

[Logos1560]

It would be helpful if your responses were a bit shorter

Some of your posts are just as long. Regardless of how long the response, you seem likely to respond with a straw-man distortion or strawman diversion. You avoid dealing with the serious problems with your incorrect reasoning.

 

[Michael Hollner]

Are you saying that the KJV is Inspired by God the Holy Spirit?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (II Tim 3:16) KJV.

The question is, do you have the Scriptures?

 

[Michael Hollner]

Some of your posts are just as long. Regardless of how long the response, you seem likely to respond with a straw-man distortion or strawman diversion. You avoid dealing with the serious problems with your incorrect reasoning.

You really need to let up on the 'human reasoning' thing, it is getting old. The 'science' deals with reasoning and most KJV believers just have simple faith in the promises of God.

 

[JonC]

The LXX is nothing more than the Alexandrian Egyptian manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus (All A.D. not B.C), all mixed up with the heretical apocrypha stuck within the O.T. texts. Unlike the original 1611, which rejected the apocrypha as “canon,” the KJV translators placed it in between the testaments and placed them in a separate Apocrypha section apart from the Old and New Testaments to indicate their status as non-canonical (Wikipedia “Bible apocrypha”). The apocrypha was only an accepted reading based on its historical value (but later removed in all KJV reprints), and is nowhere accepted as Scripture except by modern scholarship and the Roman Catholic Church. The King James translators did not integrate it into the Old Testament text, as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. This misleads many of its acceptance.

Therefore the LXX will not match up in many places. In fact, in my book at www.kjvdebate.com, which I recommend for you, there is proof of reverse engineering of the LXX which shows the scribes already had a copy of the New Testament in front of them during translation.

The KJV will read the same as the Old Latin (pre- Jerome Latin), the Greek T.R. and even Martin Luther’s German version in most places as these come from a pure line of texts. The KJV translators worked 7 years on the variations and my title gives many examples of this. Only the Greek T.R. editions will be the closest to the KJV as there are a few cases where the KJV translators or Beza made corrections to the various T.R. editions.

Nothing will align 100%, but 99% as in the T.R. editions. The T.R. editions are pure as gold, but even gold is 99.99% pure and has 0.01% that still needs refining but it is not cost-productive industry-wise to bring it to such and, some say it ends up transparent at this point.

The KJV is that 100% Gold that has been perfected through God’s refining process.

According to Jerome, Augustine, and the KJV translators (quoting Jerome and Augustine), this translation was as good as gold, likened to ‘two golden pipes,’ streams flowing from the Hebrew and the oldest Greek texts available. Augustine called them ‘precedent.’ Jerome called it ‘fountains.’

If you want a Bible as good as Gold, and want to receive the “fountains of living waters” (Jeremiah 17:13; Revelation 7:17), you need a Bible sanctioned by a King (Ecclesiastes 8:4) and written by the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:21)! The Authorized King James Version is that very “ONE PRINCIPLE GOOD ONE,” God’s finished product!

Would you be interested in chatting via cell some time to introduce each other?

Blessings....

I am not sure of few things in your post. I am grateful for the works of Jerome and Augustine but that does not mean I rely upon their opinions (they held problematic theology, at least from a Protestant....and particularly Baptist....standpoint). But I believevmuch is gained from those men, at least in considering their words. (I am not "anti-Catholic").

In other words, I am fine with the TR.

Let's consider my question another way (our detour on the LXX was my fault, knowing the debates I should have used another example). I can only deal with 5 languages - English, Hebrew...but poorly, Greek, Spanish, and German).

What is God's preserved Word for the German people? I suppose we have to look to Luther's translation.

Would it not be reasonable to expect God's Word to be perfectly perseved in German (which had its time as a primary language for the Western world) to match the KJV?

I don't do phone calls to discuss theology (verbal debates, IMHO, rely too much on debating skills and too little on the merit of positions, and I am a very poor debater). I prefer to learn (by presenting arguments) of other people's views.

But to get to know one another, sure. And if you are ever in the Augusta area stop by for dinner. Just shoot me a pm.

 

[robycop3]

Continuing the discussion (this post, brother, warrants exploration).


Many KJVO friends of mine share this view.

I suggest there is no difference between "special revelation" and "perfect preservation" in this case (in the context of KJVO). The only way the KJVO is correct is through a special revelation (providing a perfect preservation).

For example, there are instances in the KJV where the word choice does not preserve the meaning (although it is probably the best we can do), , instances where the KJV is more specific than the source text (which would constitute special revelation), and instances of less than perfect translation (by carrying forward the Latin).

Don't get me wrong. I love the KJV translation. I do believe God's Word is perfectly preserved (in the KJV, the NKJV, the NIV, ESV, ect) even though the translations differ. You may ask how this is possible, since each has made different translation choices and not all use the same sources. The reason I can say this is we have to remember these are translations. They point us to a source text.

When we study translated literature we consider the source text. We consider the translators choices. We look at various translations, siding with the source - not the target - language, while not disparaging the translation. We do this because we realize we are reading a translation and the author did not rise from the dead to tellvthe translator what to write in English. We gain an understanding greater than reading the book as if the author was a contemporary American.

If we are so serious with literature, I cannot but feel we should be even more so with Scripture. God's Word is not a siperficial thing.
The KJV(NOT "KJB") is NOT perfect. I, & others, have pointed out & discussed some of its goofs & booboos on this board.




Anyway, I thought there were ideas left that could be continued.

Same as all other valid Bible translations, it's a product of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.

 

[Michael Hollner]

I am not sure of few things in your post. I am grateful for the works of Jerome and Augustine but that does not mean I rely upon their opinions (they held problematic theology, at least from a Protestant....and particularly Baptist....standpoint). But I believevmuch is gained from those men, at least in considering their words. (I am not "anti-Catholic").

In other words, I am fine with the TR.

Let's consider my question another way (our detour on the LXX was my fault, knowing the debates I should have used another example). I can only deal with 5 languages - English, Hebrew...but poorly, Greek, Spanish, and German).

What is God's preserved Word for the German people? I suppose we have to look to Luther's translation.

Would it not be reasonable to expect God's Word to be perfectly perseved in German (which had its time as a primary language for the Western world) to match the KJV?

I don't do phone calls to discuss theology (verbal debates, IMHO, rely too much on debating skills and too little on the merit of positions, and I am a very poor debater). I prefer to learn (by presenting arguments) of other people's views.

But to get to know one another, sure. And if you are ever in the Augusta area stop by for dinner. Just shoot me a pm.

I was not referring to a phone call to debate you but to introduce each other and perhaps answer some of your questions. A lot more can be said in 15 minutes verbally than in 100 posts.

I posted page 389 of my book in the chapter talking about foreign translations.

 

[SavedByGrace]

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (II Tim 3:16) KJV.

The question is, do you have the Scriptures?

this refers ONLY to the Original Autographs, and NOT to ANY translation, no matter how good it is!

 

[robycop3]

Stratton7 said:
↑

"A good chunk of people that hold only to the KJB do not believe the translators had special revelation but that the inspiration is through perfect preservation".

I agree with this analysis. The KJV translators were not moved upon by the Holy Ghost in the same way the Apostles were. However, they were given guidance by the Spirit of God during the translation, thus GIVING THEM THE UNDERSTANDING for a perfected translation by Holy Ghost inspiration, for “there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding” (Job 32:8; II Timothy 3:16) KJV.

This is all in fulfillment of God's promises of preservation by divine providence. Now some notable scholars say quote, "God does not work in that way." My questions on that are this, how do you know that?

1) Did God speak to you verbally or in a vision to tell you He does not work in this way?
2) Are there any specific Scriptural references you can share with us that claim God does not work in this way?
3) Is the source of your knowledge on 'how God works' from man or God?
4) If from God, can you share your testimony or Scriptural references?
5) If from Man, can you share which man told you this?

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (II Tim 3:16) KJV. I guess this begs the question, "Do you have the Scriptures"?

This matter is a spiritual one, not a scientific one, for we are talking about a BOOK authored by the Holy Ghost. Spiritual discernment is needed to understand God’s Word AND HIS TIMING AND WORK THROUGH A TRANSLATION, of which the ‘science’ has been unable to do. ‘Human reasoning,’ as some have mentioned quite a bit in this thread, comes from the ‘science,’ not from Bible believers that trust in God’s promise of preservation, even in a translation. Thus when you hear the scholars say “God does not work in that way” as referring to a translation being perfect, well, that is according to them and not from the Word of God.

The KJV, same as all other valid Bible translations, is a product of MEN. There's no special inspiration foe any one Bible translation in any language, except we know God wants His word to be understood by all. And Jesus said the Gospel would be preaches to all people everywhere, which means everyong has, or will, hear it in his/her own language.

 

[Michael Hollner]

I am not sure of few things in your post. I am grateful for the works of Jerome and Augustine but that does not mean I rely upon their opinions (they held problematic theology, at least from a Protestant....and particularly Baptist....standpoint). But I believevmuch is gained from those men, at least in considering their words. (I am not "anti-Catholic").

In other words, I am fine with the TR.

Let's consider my question another way (our detour on the LXX was my fault, knowing the debates I should have used another example). I can only deal with 5 languages - English, Hebrew...but poorly, Greek, Spanish, and German).

What is God's preserved Word for the German people? I suppose we have to look to Luther's translation.

Would it not be reasonable to expect God's Word to be perfectly perseved in German (which had its time as a primary language for the Western world) to match the KJV?

I don't do phone calls to discuss theology (verbal debates, IMHO, rely too much on debating skills and too little on the merit of positions, and I am a very poor debater). I prefer to learn (by presenting arguments) of other people's views.

But to get to know one another, sure. And if you are ever in the Augusta area stop by for dinner. Just shoot me a pm.

How do I send you a PM in here?

 

[robycop3]

I have yet to read the rest of the new thread so far so hopefully I’m not repeating anything-
But is it possible that these men unknowingly were used by God to keep His word perfectly preserved? Is God not perfect? Hasn’t God used men unknowingly throughout history to accomplish His will?

One big prob with that explanation-THE KJV IS NOT PERFECT !