KJVO question

[Logos1560]

You need to learn what subjective means. I have accompanied my assertions with biblical text. That makes it objective.

Your subjective KJV-only reasoning is not objective. The biblical text that you cite does not state your KJV-only opinions. Accompanying biblical text that does not state what you assert does not make your KJV-only claims to be objective.

I do not agree with your private interpretations and your attempts to read into verses KJV-only opinions that they do not state.

 

[37818]

I think, and I could be wrong, that when they say the KJV corrects the Greek, I think what they really believe is that the KJV accurately picks and represents what the accurate and original Greek readings were. Probably when they say the KJV "corrects" the Greek, they believe it corrects the errors in the critical Greek texts and others.
Then again, I've read statements from Ruckman that do seem to be advancing the idea that the KJV is itself, advanced revelation.

The idea orginated with Rickman with chapter 8, "Correcting the Greek with the English" in his book, "The Christian Handbook of MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE."

 

[Logos1560]

You have not challenged me on any of those texts, which means to me that you accept what I say about them.

Yet another time you demonstrate that you have jumped to a wrong conclusion. I do not blindly accept what you say about verses in the KJV. I have already pointed out how that you read opinions into verses that they do not state.

 

[JesusFan]

Why am I supposed to believe you?

Maybe because that is how the Bible states it happened?

 

[JD731]

Your subjective KJV-only reasoning is not objective. The biblical text that you cite does not state your KJV-only opinions. Accompanying biblical text that does not state what you assert does not make your KJV-only claims to be objective.

I do not agree with your private interpretations and your attempts to read into verses KJV-only opinions that they do not state.

Listen guy, no biblical text or translation that you never cite but always refer to does not state your opinions. Good grief! You are telling us things about the original Hebrew and Greek that you can't even read and if you could it does not state what you affirm. You are projecting your own error on others.

You beat all I have ever seen. At the end of the day you are sore because I am disagreeing with your self serving opinions.

 

[JD731]

Maybe because that is how the Bible states it happened?

Bible teachers without bible quotes are not bible teachers. They may be teachers of religion and most of the world worships something.

I would like to see your quotes.

 

[JD731]

Yet another time you demonstrate that you have jumped to a wrong conclusion. I do not blindly accept what you say about verses in the KJV. I have already pointed out how that you read opinions into verses that they do not state.

You state a lot of stuff, but you prove nothing except you do not have a spiritual authority that you can read and understand.

 

[Logos1560]

You state a lot of stuff, but you prove nothing except you do not have a spiritual authority that you can read and understand.

Another incorrect opinion on your part.

I have a spiritual authority that I can read and understand.

I accept the proper derived secondary authority of English Bible translations such as the 1560 Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV as what they actually are as compared to the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. I have read and studied the KJV over 50 years, accepting it as what it actually is.

I took Biblical Greek in college, and one year I had to translate verses from Greek to English. I have some reprints of actual Textus Receptus Greek NT editions that were used in the making of the KJV. You keep assuming incorrect opinions or keep making false allegations.

You have not refuted nor answered my sound, scripturally-based points, and you have avoided actual verifiable facts that I have affirmed. You avoid the fact that the 1560 Geneva Bible was better and more accurate than the 1611 edition of the KJV in at least some places, and that fact would be affirmed by some changes, revisions, or corrections of renderings in the 1611 edition to those like the ones already in the 1560 Geneva Bible.
You also avoid the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. If God was directly translating the words in the KJV, He would not need to borrow renderings from unsaved Roman Catholic translators in the 1582 Rheims.

 

[Logos1560]

You are projecting your own error on others.

Your opinion is not true. Evidently you cannot answer nor refute my actual scripturally-based points and verifiable facts so you resort to your negative unproven allegations.

Your incorrect allegation of "error" may be the result of your own erroneous KJV-only reasoning.

 

[JD731]

Yet another time you demonstrate that you have jumped to a wrong conclusion. I do not blindly accept what you say about verses in the KJV. I have already pointed out how that you read opinions into verses that they do not state.

Here are some of the things I have learned from my personal study and meditation on the scriptures in my years that have contributed to my conviction that God alone must preserve his words in history and he has done it in the KJV.

1) Jesus Christ revealed himself and began appearing to men of his own choosing in the person of Adonay Jehovah, Lord GOD, in Gen 15:1-8. From that time the prophets called him "the word of the LORD." The capitalized word LORD is Jehovah.

This is in the very beginning of the third millennium of human history.
Romans 4 says it is the time of Abraham's justification by faith.

It is from this point that Abraham is presented as the father of faith

Ro 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Ro 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which [he had] being [yet] uncircumcised.
Ro 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

So you can see that Abraham believed God and his believing was imputed for righteousness all concerning the miraculous birth of his son before he was circumcised for the doctrinal reason stated above. (from this point going forward Abraham is always a similitude of God the Father)

Ge 17:24 And Abraham [was] ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
So it takes two mentions in scripture to establish a doctrine and there are two in Gen 15.

1 After these things the word of the LORD 1) came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I [am] thy shield, [and] thy exceeding great reward.
2 And Abram said, Lord GOD,1) what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house [is] this Eliezer of Damascus?
3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4 And, behold, the word of the LORD 2) [came] unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (read Romans 4 here)
7 And he said unto him, I [am] the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
8 And he said, Lord GOD,2) whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

I would not be dogmatic about this, but there is reason to believe that most, if not all the prophets of Israel, were commissioned by an appearance of the word of the LORD. I say it because of this.

1Sa 3:1 And the child Samuel ministered unto the LORD before Eli. And the word of the LORD was precious in those days; [there was] no open vision.
1Sa 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.
1Sa 3:21 And the LORD appeared again in Shiloh: for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the LORD.
1Sa 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, (it is obvious that a person came to Samuel)

Now 1560, I am making a defense for my personal view of the KJV as the inspired word of God for us English speakers. I told you earlier that the emotional books of the scriptures reveals the thoughts of God and not just the actions.Many of the psalms and especially Psa 119, gives us the thoughts prophetically of Jesus Christ when he came to earth in the form of a man and suffered for us. How and why would anyone desire to paraphrase those words or use a dynamic equivalence or condense them in any way? Jesus is connected to the word of God in this psalm. We need to know what he is thinking.

God often warned his people of prophets who were prophesying in his name whom he did not send. Ones who use all these new bibles and cannot figure out which one is the best should compare them and see if they are saying what God said. If they are paraphrased and condensed they are not his words.

I wanted in this post to give you some info on the word of the LORD and his being Adonay Jehovah and there is much more I can say but I need to move on to another point. I will just say that God confirms this truth in the NT of the KJV.

Ps 110:1 « A Psalm of David. » The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Would you agree that the scriptures are structured in a manner that no man can translate them because of their divine source and that they are from heaven where no one has been except one man?

JN 3;11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.

My reasons for being KJV only are personal and I believe biblical. Tell me what you think.

 

[Logos1560]

. How and why would anyone desire to paraphrase those words or use a dynamic equivalence or condense them in any way?

God often warned his people of prophets who were prophesying in his name whom he did not send. Ones who use all these new bibles and cannot figure out which one is the best should compare them and see if they are saying what God said. If they are paraphrased and condensed they are not his words.

It is a verifiable fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV paraphrased or used dynamic equivalent renderings or condensed the original-languages words of Scripture in at least some places, and they expanded the original-language words in many places by adding words for which they had no original-language words of Scripture. The KJV translators themselves acknowledged that they omitted providing an English word for some original-language words of Scriptures (condensed according to your term) in their 1611 marginal notes, and they acknowledged that they added words (expanded) in places.

Human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching tries to dodge and avoid that fact.

Men translated the KJV. God did not directly translate the KJV since the Scriptures do not teach that God would need to follow rules created by a man [Archbishop Richard Bancroft] in translating, that God would need to revise earlier translations made by men, that God would need the help of committees of men to help in translating, that God would need to borrow renderings from William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the Geneva Bible translators, and the Bishops' Bible translators, that God would leave uncorrected errors from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible, that God would borrow renderings from the unsaved Roman Catholic translators of the 1582 Rheims New Testament, and that God's translating would need revised and corrected several times in later editions.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 8 pm EDT / 5 pm PDT

 

[Logos1560]

Would you agree that the scriptures are structured in a manner that no man can translate them because of their divine source and that they are from heaven where no one has been except one man?

I do not agree with your factually incorrect opinion that no man can translate the Scriptures.

Martin Luther translated the Scriptures into German, and William Tyndale translated much of the Scriptures into English. The Geneva Bible translators translated the Scriptures into English.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 8 pm EDT / 5 pm PDT

This thread is closed