KJVo Refuse to Answer

[Phillip]

This was the only answer I could find under "God's Word before 1611?"

By AV1611
Oh Great KARNAK tell us, tell us. We who are in darkness pray thee, tell us!
What WAS the prefect Bible in 1605?

In HIS service;
Jim

If you folks posted other answers, then either clip and paste them here or at least point me to them. I cannot find them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

This thread is a very typical of KJVo answers. There ain't none. Two pages of beating around the bush. If it took you guys so much effort to make an answer to this, then obviously it was not a simple answer to the question, it was probably a "run-around" typical circular reasoning to get out of having to answer the specific questions.

If you can answer the questions with a true answer, then why is it so difficult to just repeat the question here. Do I need to give you multiple choice of the Bible's available in 1605?

I could give you:
Great Bible
Bishop's Bible
Geneva Bible

I would expect it would HAVE to be one of these, especially since the KJV was an updated Bishop's because too many of the sentences are quote for quote from the Bishop's, but not all.

Do I need to give you multiple choice of the many versions of the KJV?

Here is the problem, you folks do NOT have answers because if you did it would destroy your KJVo theory. For example, if the Bishop's Bible was word-for-word correct, why would it vary from the KJV? Why would the KJV need to be written?

Which version of the KJV is the word-for-word correct edition, we have shown there ARE differences between the 1611 and Oxford. Not just spelling and printers errors like many say. Real differences.

Since the NASB is known to be more literal than the KJV, then maybe I should become an NASB onlyist.

Funny how the KJVo say there are many things missing in the new versions, when most of those versions print scripture that was probably added by hand-held copying.

Just answer the questions.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Folks...I'll not be guilty of any slander or contention regarding my personal KJV stand.I am comfortable with what I believe because I believe the evidence I have seen that supports it and the apparent motives of the people that present the evidence.I personally believe that it honors God to believe that he not only inspired IMPERFECT men to originally pen His Word(and protected HIS Word from error IN THE ORIGINALS).After all,God IS a perfect God.I further personally believe that that same PERFECT God insured that His Word...which He magnifies ABOVE His NAME....would be accurately and faithfully transmitted (again,by using IMPERFECT men) and PRESERVED in PERFECT FORM...again...After all,God IS a PERFECT God!!!Why is this premise so hard for people to accept...unless of course they are reasoning in the energy of the old adamic nature(and yes...SAVED people still do that so I'm NOT saying people that don't believe as I do are not saved...so don't accuse me of that!)Folks,I accept and believe what I believe by simple faith and an acceptance of the evidence I have seen and studied...nothing more.I personally believe that we are all free to believe what we will but that we are held responsible by God Himself for our choices...and that is what I believe.I further believe that God's work of preservation resulted in the english translation that I hold...namely the KJV.Now I'm not going to argue textual evidence with any of you...I have read extensively of it and accepted that which supports the position that we do indeed have a PERFECT BIBLE.My personal conclusions are based more in verse by verse comparisons I have done between my KJV and the most well known modern versions like the NIV,NASB,Holman,RSV,etc.I just don't like the way they read in many instances so I reject them because I believe that in some verses they weaken the doctrines of the Virgin Birth and the Deity of Jesus Christ and in other places they even cast doubt on the authenticity and AUTHORITY of significant portions of scripture.I'm a KJV believer who believes his Bible has no errors in it and I'll be that way til I die or get raptured.As for the rest of you...I love you in Christ and wish nothing but God's blessings on you....but I'll stand my ground and continue to believe that God made sure I have ONE BOOK that I can depend on for faith and practice in my Christian life.

Bro.Greg

God Bless You

 

[GeneMBridges]

Interesting, your perfect inerrant KJVO position then would have us believe in real unicorns...That speaks for itself.

When one of you can provide an argument that isn't based on circular logic, an appeal to authority, an appeal to tradition, an appeal to the popular, non-sequitars, guilt by association or any of the other dozen or so logical fallacies you employ, then we'll talk.

 

[av1611jim]

Gene said; "Interesting, your perfect inerrant KJVO position then would have us believe in real unicorns...That speaks for itself."
--------------------------------------------------

Your statement my friend assumes too much. Why would there not be a one horned animal which is as far as we know, extinct? That is all an unicorn is by the way. Just a one horned animal. Not some mythical one-horned horse.

So you see, Gene-o, you have made a serious blunder in your attempt to pile derision on the Monarch of Books.

In HIs service;
Jim

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

I have a far better idea....You believe what you will and I'll do the same.You and your friends believe you have the Word of God as contained in the multiplicity of your varied translations...and I believe I have the Word of God in one Book.You are entitled to believe what you will as am I.One thing is for certain....when we all get to heaven and stand before Christ at His Judgement seat we'll all be on the same page(whatever it may be)at the end of the day.One thing is sure....whether we are KJVO or the other persuasion we must all be careful not to get drawn aside from the work of winning the lost and growing in the Lord(not necessarily in that order)and be guilty of riding "hobbyhorses".I fear we all have done this...myself included...from time to time and this issue is a good example of that kind of behavior.I will close my participation in this discussion by going back to the Book I love and quoting a summary of what we should ALL BE DOING...it is as follows:
Ecclesiastes 12:13,14
13 "let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:Fear God,and keep His commandments:for this is the whole duty of man."
14 "For God shall bring every work into judgement,with every secret thing,whether it be good,or whether it be evil."

Folks,I suggest that we all read Colossians 4:6...mind our words that they be edifying...and move on.

God Bless Ya'll....Greg Sr.

 

[King James Bible Only]

Originally posted by Phillip:
I have asked two simple questions, many, many times in different threads and as soon as the questions are asked they are either ignored or the KJVo's stop posting.

I dare any KJVo to give me a simple answer to each. Answer it....don't give me ten paragraphs of blah, blah, blah.

I don't think they can, because I don't think they have an answer.

1. What was the word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect English Bible in 1605?

2. Which version of the KJV is word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect?

Phillip,

I have an answer to both these questions, do you really want to hear it, or would you like to edit your questions to more adequately express your inquiry? I will give you time to respond first.

 

[King James Bible Only]

As av1611jim said, The unicorn mentioned in the word of God is not the mythical one horned horse.

Go to a Dictionary with eytmology such as the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, or go to an Encyclopedia. The unicorn of scripture is none other than a rhinoceros, the English word "unicorn" is taken from the scientific name for that animal.

Lest any think me wrong in that some rhinoceroses have two horns and therefore not a "unicornus," I say now, Those are called "dicornus." It is in the Webster's 1828 Dictionary. I wish that people will do a study of those things some person tells them instead of simply spouting off the first "standard statement" that comes to their mind.

 

[Phillip]

What do you mean by edit my quetions? I have already expressed my quetions. NOBODY has responded with an answer. I may provide a rebuttal for your answer, but do you have a problem with that, because you can then reply.

I cannot edit what YOU type in, unless you put personal attacks in and then the moderators will edit them.

Go ahead and post your answers, I do not understand what is so difficult about this. Look at the posts above about unicorns, do you think that is answering my question?

Do you think the big long sermon about that's what I believe because God is a perfect God is an answer to what Bible was perfect in 1605 if God preserved His Word for all generations in a word-for-word PERFECT translation?

Answer away, that's what I've been asking for two pages.

 

[Phillip]

This is worse than pulling teeth. I am beginning to believe there are no answers that will allow KJVonlyism to survive.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by King James Bible Only:
As av1611jim said, The unicorn mentioned in the word of God is not the mythical one horned horse.

Go to a Dictionary with eytmology such as the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, or go to an Encyclopedia. The unicorn of scripture is none other than a rhinoceros, the English word "unicorn" is taken from the scientific name for that animal.

The 1611 edition of the KJV and some other KJV editions had a drawing or picture of a unicorn as part of the royal coat of arms. This picture was not a rhinoceros, and it is stronger evidence than what you have presented of how this word was
used in that day.

The Hebrew word at Deut. 33:17 is singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text. It was translated as singular in number in all the early pre-1611 English Bibles--"unicorn." This verse shows that this animal had "horns" (plural).
An 1800's edition of the KJV has this note: "The LXX translation has passed into our A. V., but is erroneous, as the mention of two horns on one reem (Deut. 33:17) proves."

 

[Phillip]

You folks are free to open a new thread on unicorns. I want a KJVo to answer my questions and I don't need any distractions (like they tend to do.) So, I please ask for help from my friends who are non-KJVo to discuss this on another thread.

I do NOT mean to offend anybody. I want to see how the KJVo believers justify this anomaly. Thank you all.

 

[King James Bible Only]

Phillip,
Calm down, I don't have any problem answering these questions, except that you have a grammar problem in the second, and I think you will dismiss my answers because you have not thought through the questions. So here you are.

Originally posted by Phillip:


1. What was the word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect English Bible in 1605?

Answer: The King James Bible.

That is the simple answer, I can explain it Biblically, historically, and logically if you like.

2. Which version of the KJV is word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect?

Answer: Yes. The King James Bible. This question is not grammatically correct. You ask, "Which version of the King James Version..." which is what it is. So, I point out, you have not edited your enquiry at this glaring redundancy. I will assume you mean "edition" the first time you said "version." Therefore,

Answer: The King James Bible.

What are the different "versions"? No need to bring up years of publication, that is not the issue. I have many King James Bibles that are exactly in keeping with each other. Buy a Cambridge Large Print Text Bible, buy a Cambrige Concord Text Bible, compare them jot and tittle and point out the variants. Is there a letter that is half printed and the other half not? Who is foolish enough to consider that an error? A missing period that is obviously supposed to be there? I think none are so dense as to assert such to be an error in the Bible. I could give you a list of King James Version printing to avoid if you are looking for the correct printing, but I really don't think you were actually searching for an answer.
Don

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by King James Bible Only:
As av1611jim said, The unicorn mentioned in the word of God is not the mythical one horned horse.

Go to a Dictionary with eytmology such as the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, or go to an Encyclopedia. The unicorn of scripture is none other than a rhinoceros, the English word "unicorn" is taken from the scientific name for that animal.

Lest any think me wrong in that some rhinoceroses have two horns and therefore not a "unicornus," I say now, Those are called "dicornus." It is in the Webster's 1828 Dictionary. I wish that people will do a study of those things some person tells them instead of simply spouting off the first "standard statement" that comes to their mind.

Since nobody is posting tonight, I guess I will break my own request. King James Bible Only you hit the nail on the head.

If it takes Webster's 1828 Dictionary to understand the KJV, would not a modern version work, if not as well, but maybe better?

By the way. I could not pull up your website.

 

[Phillip]

If you truly want me to edit my questions, I will. Whether it is to explain my reasoning or clarify, I would think you could see what I am getting at.

The bottom line is that I picked 1605 out of the blue sky. The hard-core KJVo says there is a word-for-word perfect Bible for each generation. If we English speaking people are so priviledged to have this Bible while unreached people groups don't, then you have a problem

If there was a word-for-word perfect Bible in English in 1605, why did it have to be replaced, and where is it? None of the old Bibles are word-for-word even close. Usually, father apart than many MVs. Example: Geneva, carried over by the pilgrams because of prosecution by the church of England.

Bishop's Bible, the closest because it is the version that was upgraded to come up with the
AV1611 version. Besides, the heavy use of Latin Vulgate to fill in blanks where they existed.

Was the Latin Vulgate the Word-for-word perfect version in Latin?

Now, the AV1611 and the Oxford KJV are very different and not just spelling and printer's errors. I have a list of changes that can be shared with you. This does away with a word-for-word perfect translation unless you believe in a new revelation in 1769. Which would leave all other generations speaking English--without. . .

What I do NOT want is a long diatribe of excuses why an answer cannot be given, particularly for question number one. This is a typical KJVo stunt and it is the same as the answers above. This is a debate site where we debate. For someone to come bouncing in here and say I'm right your wrong because I've studied it. Well. . . that horse won't ride.

A simple answer to question one will simply be the name of that perfect Bible, which I will then ask you why it needed to be retranslated into the KJV. Obviously, I have to spell this out in order to get an answer. But, you know what? I don't expect a true answer. I expect a big long thesis on "why"? Not "what".

I have NO problems with a KJV preferred. It is a great Bible, although somewhat dated based on Jacobean English. Plus, I do not like all translations. Some are better than others.

Sure God is perfect. But it is simply not Biblical that a word-for-word translation will exist. God's Word is preserved. But, you cannot even have a perfect translation when words in Hebrew and Greek do not translate to English no matter how hard you try.

Just answer the questions. I have a lot more that have gone unanswered by the KJVo.

 

[King James Bible Only]

Originally posted by Phillip:

If it takes Webster's 1828 Dictionary to understand the KJV, would not a modern version work, if not as well, but maybe better?

By the way. I could not pull up your website.

I've corrected my error to the website, I think.

I didn't say it takes a Webster's to understand the King James Bible, but nonetheless, shew me the modern version that has correctly identified this animal. The King James Bible correctly translates this word into "unicorn" but can you point out a "version" that even translates the name of the animal to "rhinoceros"?? I have looked in "The Living Bible," "Revised Standard Version," "New American Standard Version," and the 1885 "Revised Version." None of them identify this animal, and therefore are not right. What version do you have that does shew this animal to be the rhinoceros??

You don't have to have a Webster's 1828 Dictionary, you can study and find out what this "unicorn" is using Encyclopedia or Dictionaries that have etymology. If people would quit lying about what a unicorn is or "was believed to be" we wouldn't have this problem. Same goes with many other words.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by King James Bible Only:
Phillip,
Calm down, I don't have any problem answering these questions, except that you have a grammar problem in the second, and I think you will dismiss my answers because you have not thought through the questions. So here you are.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:


1. What was the word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect English Bible in 1605?

Answer: The King James Bible.

That is the simple answer, I can explain it Biblically, historically, and logically if you like.

2. Which version of the KJV is word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect?

Answer: Yes. The King James Bible. This question is not grammatically correct. You ask, "Which version of the King James Version..." which is what it is. So, I point out, you have not edited your enquiry at this glaring redundancy. I will assume you mean "edition" the first time you said "version." Therefore,

Answer: The King James Bible.

What are the different "versions"? No need to bring up years of publication, that is not the issue. I have many King James Bibles that are exactly in keeping with each other. Buy a Cambridge Large Print Text Bible, buy a Cambrige Concord Text Bible, compare them jot and tittle and point out the variants. Is there a letter that is half printed and the other half not? Who is foolish enough to consider that an error? A missing period that is obviously supposed to be there? I think none are so dense as to assert such to be an error in the Bible. I could give you a list of King James Version printing to avoid if you are looking for the correct printing, but I really don't think you were actually searching for an answer.
Don </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I did not see your post. Oh, I am quite calm.

1) Yes, please DO explain.

2) My brain outruns my typing so grammar is not a big issue for me on a thread such as this. Obviously, you know what I mean, but you are using a perceived error to deflect answering the question. Yes, I do have a list of word-for-word changes between the KJV1600 and the Oxford edition. These are NOT spelling and typos. These are "fixes" to an imperfect translation that was not perfect to start with. Yes, it is the inerrant Word-of God in that it contains His Words. The question IS correct there are many versions of the KJVersion. So, which is it? I will NOT accept all, because that is a cop out.

If you truly have answers, then please write them and don't play games, otherwise, I have been through every KJVo contrived game that is possible and your answers are no different. However, I will give it to you that the KJV was the word-for-word perfect Bible in 1605.

Your answer tends to make me think of Ruckman's false latter day correction--that the KJV is more accurate than Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Where does God say that He will have perfect translators?

Why not the NKJV, after all it was translated from the TR? Oops, are there translation errors and typos in it due to first run, like the 1611KJV?

Finally, jot and tittle does not mean period, comma, letter (because if letters are changed how could the 1611 and 1769 have the same jots and tittles--NOT printer's errors--differences)?

The originals did not have punctuation, nor did the Hebrew have vowels. If we were to maintain every jot and tittle without "addition" to the Word-of-God then we should do without the spaces between the words, every vowel and punctuation marks, that were added in about 500 AD.

Why would the PERFECT word-for-word translation be granted to the English speaking world? Why not an unreached people group with a dialect that does not have a Bible? Why are WE so blessed?

If age is going to be an answer, then the Vulgate wins hands down, even though it is Latin.

 

[King James Bible Only]

Originally posted by Phillip:
If you truly want me to edit my questions, I will. Whether it is to explain my reasoning or clarify, I would think you could see what I am getting at.

The bottom line is that I picked 1605 out of the blue sky. The hard-core KJVo says there is a word-for-word perfect Bible for each generation. If we English speaking people are so priviledged to have this Bible while unreached people groups don't, then you have a problem

If there was a word-for-word perfect Bible in English in 1605, why did it have to be replaced, and where is it? None of the old Bibles are word-for-word even close. Usually, father apart than many MVs. Example: Geneva, carried over by the pilgrams because of prosecution by the church of England.

Bishop's Bible, the closest because it is the version that was upgraded to come up with the
AV1611 version. Besides, the heavy use of Latin Vulgate to fill in blanks where they existed.

Was the Latin Vulgate the Word-for-word perfect version in Latin?

Now, the AV1611 and the Oxford KJV are very different and not just spelling and printer's errors. I have a list of changes that can be shared with you. This does away with a word-for-word perfect translation unless you believe in a new revelation in 1769. Which would leave all other generations speaking English--without. . .

"SEND ME YOUR LIST VIA E-MAIL AND I WILL GET BACK TO YOU WITH AN ANSWER TO THEM ALL." [Don's response]

What I do NOT want is a long diatribe of excuses why an answer cannot be given, particularly for question number one. This is a typical KJVo stunt and it is the same as the answers above. This is a debate site where we debate. For someone to come bouncing in here and say I'm right your wrong because I've studied it. Well. . . that horse won't ride.

"No excuses made at all, I answered the question plainly, you have yet to respond to my answer." [Don's response]


A simple answer to question one will simply be the name of that perfect Bible, which I will then ask you why it needed to be retranslated into the KJV. Obviously, I have to spell this out in order to get an answer. But, you know what? I don't expect a true answer. I expect a big long thesis on "why"? Not "what".

"I named that perfect Bible, the King James Bible." [Don's response]

I have NO problems with a KJV preferred. It is a great Bible, although somewhat dated based on Jacobean English. Plus, I do not like all translations. Some are better than others.

Sure God is perfect. But it is simply not Biblical that a word-for-word translation will exist. God's Word is preserved. But, you cannot even have a perfect translation when words in Hebrew and Greek do not translate to English no matter how hard you try.

Just answer the questions. I have a lot more that have gone unanswered by the KJVo.

Send me the list via e-mail, and I will respond to it. Got to go to bed now, though.
Don

 

[Phillip]

רם רים ראים ראם
re'êm re'êym rêym rêm
reh-ame', reh-ame', rame, rame
From H7213; a wild bull (from its conspicuousness): - unicorn.

 

[King James Bible Only]

Originally posted by Logos1560:
The 1611 edition of the KJV and some other KJV editions had a drawing or picture of a unicorn as part of the royal coat of arms. This picture was not a rhinoceros, and it is stronger evidence than what you have presented of how this word was
used in that day.

Logos,
Please give me the page number where you found the Royal Coat of Arms in your 1611 printing of the King James Bible.
Thanks,
Don

 

[Phillip]

I will have to dig the list out. It is on my office computer. But, I do have my 1611 here with my Oxford. We can discuss some specifics. But, first, why don't you go ahead and give me an answer to my first question. You have piece mealed this thing out so much that I would like to see some answers.

If we are playing a "stalling" game, then there is no need. Since I have been through all of the excuses before, then just lay it out. You know what I want. I have written MORE than enough, that you can read through grammatical errors and answer the complete questions without me handing you a list. Actually, although I will send you a list, I wonder if you have studied the differences. I can just imagine the answers on each one. "Oh, printers error". If God is perfect with the translation, why could He not be perfect with the printing?