KJV Onlyest 1611 Psalm 12:7 note, question.

[JD731]

That is evidently your misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the KJV. Perhaps by eisegesis you are reading your own human opinions into verses that do not actually teach what you may read into them or add to them.

Examples, please.

The text of the KJV clearly teaches that it is the process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles that is by a direct miracle of inspiration of God.

The text of the KJV does not teach that the process of post-NT translating is by a miracle of inspiration of God. The text of the KJV does not teach that the translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England priests proceeded directly from the mouth by God by direct inspiration. The KJV was made by the same processes by which the multiple, varying pre-1611 English Bibles were made. The text of the KJV does not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revisions decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England men in 1611. The text of the KJV does not suggest that God would contradict His wisdom from above by showing partiality or respect to persons to one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

My arguments have never been about new inspiration in new Bibles but about preservation of the inspired record and testimony of God across languages and progressive revelation through the passing of time and fulfilled prophesy. You seemed to purposely missed that.

 

[Logos1560]

But what is one of the main reasons for a continuous line of new Bibles? It is so people can understand God better in modern English and it is accomplished through new Bibles. They are not commentaries, they are Bibles with the title "Word of God. That is a desire for more and better revelation, is it not?

Wanting the word of God in present-day standard English instead of 1500's English is not a desire for more and better revelation.

Desiring that the word of God be more accurately translated is not a desire for more direct revelation from God. Many believers recognize the truth that Bible translations are what they are--translations. Translation involves interpretation. Interpretation is not the result of a miracle of direct new revelation from God. Believers realize that Bible translations can be improved just as the original 1611 edition of the KJV has been revised and improved many times.

In his prologue to the Christian reader in his 1535 Bible translation, Miles Coverdale wrote: "Whereas some men think now the many translations make division in the faith and in the people of God, it is not so." In their comments to the brethren of England, Scotland, Ireland, etc. in the 1560 edition, the Geneva Bible translators acknowledged that “some translations read after one sort, and some after another, whereas all may serve to good purpose and edification.“ In their preface to the 1611 KJV, its translators themselves argued that "variety of translations is profitable for finding the sense of the Scriptures."

 

[Logos1560]

Examples, please.

The text of the KJV says it is the words of God, not the words of the KJV translators.

You did not say which verse or verses in the KJV lead you to your above assertion.

Nevertheless, your own assertion indicates or reveals that by eisegesis you are reading your own human opinions into verses that do not actually teach what you may read into them or add to them. The text of the KJV does not suggest that it is new or additional revelation or that its words are directly inspired of God.

 

[David Lamb]

Well, okay but what do you think the mystery is that Paul is revealing?

Now who am I to argue against the great minds of Palmer Roberton and Author L Johnson? But what is one of the main reasons for a continuous line of new Bibles? It is so people can understand God better in modern English and it is accomplished through new Bibles. They are not commentaries, they are Bibles with the title "Word of God. That is a desire for more and better revelation, is it not? So, to claim a further revelation is to deny the sufficiency and completeness of what has already been given. Obviously the given revelation has not worked for them or they are under the assumption that it has not worked for others.

And BTW, I am nor advocating for more and better Bibles, you are. I am sure we have God's revelation preserved for us in the KJV. It makes me wonder why you named yourself after the Geneva Bible.

Is it a desire for a better revelation that causes people like the Wycliffe Bible Translators to translate the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures into languages which don't yet have the bible? How is that different, in principal, to translating the Hebrew and Greek into the Engish we use today? Many words have gone out of use since 1611, and many others have changed their meaning since 1611.