KJVO question

[Logos1560]

I am sure he did not use the exact same words because if he did we would be speaking Hebrew and Greek. He has already shown us that he does not use the exact same words in translations by quoting his OT Hebrew into NT Greek. Why are you folks denying that?

Your question would be based on a false misrepresentation and distortion since what you assert has not been at all denied.

It has already been clearly noted that the translating of OT passages into NT Greek was part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets. Accepting the wisdom of God in how He chose to give and preserve His words does not mean that the original-language words cannot be translated into other languages. It has not been at all argued that it was wrong for the Scriptures to be translated into German, English, Spanish, and other languages. The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.

What would be wrong would be any attempt to make the post-NT uninspired translated words a greater authority than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. You have failed to demonstrate that the Scriptures teach or support your human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

 

[JD731]

okay - whatever

That is a mighty casual brush-off. Nobody ever mentions Satan in this conversation. He does have skin in the game, so to speak. He is the great deceiver, eh?

 

[Logos1560]

A big part of the cause for that is that no one has a bible they can believe anymore.

You fail to prove your opinion to be true. You improperly condemn Bible believers who believe their Bible translation as what it actually is while KJV-only advocates try to demand that one Bible translation be believed and accepted as something that it is not (perfect, inspired).

By believing assertions or claims that are not true and that are not scriptural KJV-only advocates deceive themselves.

 

[JD731]

Your question would be based on a false misrepresentation and distortion since what you assert has not been at all denied.

It has already been clearly noted that the translating of OT passages into NT Greek was part of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets. Accepting the wisdom of God in how He chose to give and preserve His words does not mean that the original-language words cannot be translated into other languages. It has not been at all argued that it was wrong for the Scriptures to be translated into German, English, Spanish, and other languages. The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.

What would be wrong would be any attempt to make the post-NT uninspired translated words a greater authority than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. You have failed to demonstrate that the Scriptures teach or support your human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

You are fibbing now. Nobody that I know is saying the words are more inspired by claiming they are equally inspired. Where is it said it is either right or wrong to for God to translate his words? I compared the KJV and the Geneva bible in 1 Peter 1 to show that the KJV was superior. You have not learned a thing from the scriptures I have been showing you. God says stubbornness is as the sin of witchcraft.

You have no scripture for your doctrines and to your credit you rarely ever quote any, demonstrating that you are going your own way.

 

[Logos1560]

You have no scripture for your doctrines .

Incorrect.

I have repeatedly appealed to the Scriptures for my scripturally-based points. I accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

You have no scripture for KJV-only opinions. You try to read into scripture or add to scripture KJV-only opinions of men.

 

[Logos1560]

I compared the KJV and the Geneva bible in 1 Peter 1 to show that the KJV was superior.

You would be wrong to try to suggest that one comparison of one verse demonstrates that the KJV is superior to the 1560 Geneva Bible. You may suppose that the KJV is superior at this one verse, but that does not at all mean that it is superior in all places to the Geneva Bible or that it is superior overall to the Geneva Bible. It could be possible for the KJV to be better overall than the Geneva Bible, and yet the Geneva Bible could still be better than the KJV in at least some places.

I have found many verses where the 1560 Geneva Bible is clearer, better, more accurate and faithful to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages than the 1611 KJV.

In my comparisons of the 1560 Geneva Bible and KJV editions, I have found that a good number of changes in the 1611 edition of the KJV in later KJV editions were to renderings or words already found in the 1560 Geneva Bible. That fact suggests that the 1560 Geneva Bible was better than the 1611 edition of the KJV in those places, and it would demonstrate that the Geneva Bible was better than the 1611 edition in at least some places.

 

[Logos1560]

You have not learned a thing from the scriptures I have been showing you.

I accept what the Scriptures actually state. I am cautious about your possible private interpretations or attempts to add to verses things the verses do not state. You may try to read too much into a parable while you will ignore and avoid clear scriptural truths.

You have not learned anything from the scriptural truths and from the facts that have been pointed out to you. You choose to cling to KJV-only opinions that are not true.

 

[JD731]

Incorrect.

I have repeatedly appealed to the Scriptures for my scripturally-based points. I accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

You have no scripture for KJV-only opinions. You try to read into scripture or add to scripture KJV-only opinions of men.

No you do not. You present a premise usually and sometimes throw out a grouping of scriptural references the context of which may or may not be dealing with your subject and choose rather to quote authors and scholars and historical figures word for word if you think they advance your premise.

By the way, I have not been arguing KJV opinions. I am arguing my own convictions and have quoted no extra biblical KJV only sources.

 

[Logos1560]

No you do not.

By the way, I have not been arguing KJV opinions. I am arguing my own convictions and have quoted no extra biblical KJV only sources.

You are arguing your own personal subjective KJV-only opinions [not biblical convictions clearly stated in the Scriptures]. Your own stated human opinions would be an extra-biblical KJV-only source. Several of your allegations against present-day English Bibles would come from extra-biblical KJV-only sources even if you do not directly quote them word-for-word.

You would be bearing false witness in trying to allege that I do not accept what the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

 

[JesusFan]

Is this admitting you do not know what God said because you have only a translation of something you cannot read? What good are the originals really doing you?

The Hebrew and Greek texts have authority and are superior to ANY translation made off them!

 

[JesusFan]

That is not the reason. Several of the different doctrinal views were already in existence before the KJV was made. Most of the denominations or different doctrinal views were taught from the KJV for many years before 1881 and the modern versions, so you improperly try to blame them for something for which they were not responsible. The archaic language in the KJV may have contributed to some men being able to read different doctrinal views into its renderings.

The word of God was translated into English many years before 1611. The KJV was one of men's efforts to understand and interpret God's words into English, and it was intended to support Church of England doctrinal views. The KJV is an English Bible translation in the sense and way that the pre-1611 English Bibles are and in the sense and way that post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

What is really strange to me is that many Kjvo find fault with MV being corrupted and influenced by the Vatican, but did not the Kjv translators use for main sources Greek text of a Catholic scholar, and also used Vulgate and Rheims to enable some of their translation decisions?

 

[JesusFan]

Is that what you are saying?

You seem to be unsure whether God faithfully preserved the exact same words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles since you seem to advocate the unscriptural idea that God supposedly transferred preservation to different words in a different language in 1611 when God never said that He did.

indeed, as His promises to the Pure text always was to the Originals inspired by the Holy Spirit to Prophets and Apostles

 

[JesusFan]

I am sure he did not use the exact same words because if he did we would be speaking Hebrew and Greek. He has already shown us that he does not use the exact same words in translations by quoting his OT Hebrew into NT Greek. Why are you folks denying that? In Acts 22 Paul spoke to the Jews in Jerusalem in Hebrew and Luke wrote his words in Greek. We do not know in what language God communicated to Adam in the garden but if it was something different than what Moses spake, God not only had to tell him what was said between the two but he also had to translate it.

The Holy Spirit inspired down into the Originals the "translation" between the Old and New as you see it!
he never inspired any translations since those originals were penned down

 

[JesusFan]

That is a mighty casual brush-off. Nobody ever mentions Satan in this conversation. He does have skin in the game, so to speak. He is the great deceiver, eh?

Indeed, as he has used the Kjvo to divide the body of Christ!

 

[JD731]

You are arguing your own personal subjective KJV-only opinions [not biblical convictions clearly stated in the Scriptures]. Your own stated human opinions would be an extra-biblical KJV-only source. Several of your allegations against present-day English Bibles would come from extra-biblical KJV-only sources even if you do not directly quote them word-for-word.

You would be bearing false witness in trying to allege that I do not accept what the Scriptures state and teach about themselves.

You need to learn what subjective means. I have accompanied my assertions with biblical text. That makes it objective. You have not challenged me on any of those texts, which means to me that you accept what I say about them.

I believe in a word revelation from God and a word revelation is evidence all through the scriptures. In order to have sound doctrine one must believe the words of God and study them in their context. They cannot be changed to a better word in the eyes of the translator nor can they be omitted from a text without doing damage to the text and corrupting it.

My moto is "Believe the Words."

 

[JesusFan]

You need to learn what subjective means. I have accompanied my assertions with biblical text. That makes it objective. You have not challenged me on any of those texts, which means to me that you accept what I say about them.

I believe in a word revelation from God and a word revelation is evidence all through the scriptures. In order to have sound doctrine one must believe the words of God and study them in their context. They cannot be changed to a better word in the eyes of the translator nor can they be omitted from a text without doing damage to the text and corrupting it.

My moto is "Believe the Words."

Indeed, the words of the Prophets and Apostles, and not the words of the 1611 Kjv translation team!

 

[JD731]

The Holy Spirit inspired down into the Originals the "translation" between the Old and New as you see it!
he never inspired any translations since those originals were penned down

Why am I supposed to believe you?

 

[JD731]

Indeed, as he has used the Kjvo to divide the body of Christ!

Truth divides. That is it's job. Jesus said, "think not I am come to bring peace on the earth. I came not to bring peace, but a sword, and a man's enemies shall be those of his own household." How about that?

Men must choose sides. I have chosen mine and it appears you have chosen yours.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Ok. The KJV corrects the Greek.

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.

 

[Logos1560]

I believe in a word revelation from God and a word revelation is evidence all through the scriptures. In order to have sound doctrine one must believe the words of God and study them in their context. They cannot be changed to a better word in the eyes of the translator nor can they be omitted from a text without doing damage to the text and corrupting it.

My moto is "Believe the Words."

The Church of England makers of the 1611 KJV changed many words in the pre-1611 English Bibles to what they considered to be a better word in the eyes of the translators, to words that would support their Church of England doctrinal views, or to a word required according to the rules that they followed. The Church of England makers of the KJV omitted some words in the pre-1611 English Bibles and did not provide any English rendering in their text for many words in their underlying original-language texts of Scripture so does that mean that they did damage to the text and corrupted it according to a consistent, just application of your own assertion?

You fail to show that you believe the actual preserved original-language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. I believe the words of God. Perhaps your posts would suggest and show that you may blindly believe the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611 as revised several times by later editors/printers instead of the inspired words of God. Your inconsistent KJV-only reasoning permits the KJV translators to do the same things that you inconsistently and thus unjustly attack or condemn other Bible translators for doing.

It is the specific words God revealed and gave by divine inspiration to the prophets and apostles that are the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations including the KJV. It was the standard of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages that were used in the making of over 2,000 changes to the 1611 edition of the KJV. You do not seem to believe those preserved original-language words of God.