Makers of KJV as Bible revisers

[Dr. Bob]

The Adventists ARE a "cult". We have always allowed the use of the "c" word in cases dealing with Mormon, Adventist, JW's, Christian Science, Moonies, et al.

The Adventists adopted and promoted the KJVonly position decades prior to any Baptist espousing it. That cult has since abandoned the KJVonly (though my Adventist friends still use only the KJV) position.

Remember, I carry a 1769 Oxford revision of the AV1611 (Scofield notes, too) to church weekly. NNE is attacking the KJV; they are attacking the Adventist-originated KJVonly position.

Amazing to see Baptists defending that view, but there is a great Baptist position of soul liberty . .

 

[Yeshua1]

The Scriptures were translated into English before 1611. There was the late 1300's Wycliffe's Bible. There were several English Bibles made and printed in the 1500's.

The makers of the KJV changed and revised the English Bible of their day. Those hundreds and thousands of changes and revisions made to the pre-1611 English Bibles include at least a few textual changes and many, many translational changes.

In addition, the 1611 edition of the KJV was changed and revised in over 2,000 places by later printers and editors of the KJV.

Evangelist Dennis Corle, editor of fundamentalist publication Revival Fires, asserted: "There are Bible believers and there are Bible revisers, but there are NO Bible believing revisionists" (God's Inspired Book The Bible KJV 1611 Inspired Preserved, p. 49).

Dennis Corle claimed: "Make no mistake, to revise the Bible is to change its contents. Though it is perceived as a milder word than is the word translation, it none the less speaks of changing the text" (p. 49).

Does a consistent application of Dennis Corle's statements assert that the makers of the KJV and that the later editors of KJV editions were all non-Bible believing revisionists?

Dennis Corle also asserted: "There are several major reasons for a revision.
First: You are proud enough to assume that you can improve on the King James Bible. That would imply imperfection in the present King James Bible" (p. 51).

According to a consistent application of Corle's reasoning, were the makers of the KJV proud enough to assume that they could improve on the pre-1611 English Bibles?

Were later editors and printers proud enough to assume that they could improve on the 1611 edition of the KJV?

How can the KJVO claim that their 1611 version is the perfect One, when they also would recognise 1769 revisions, and also the geneva bible itself, and they do NOT all agree exactly the same?

 

[Logos1560]

No KJVO claims perfection of the translators. That is a rotten strawman argument against KJVOs. We claim that God preserved His word THROUGH translators the same way He did when He used them to pen it.

KJV-only author Mickey Carter wrote: "Best authorities in our viewpoint are the King James Version translators" (Things That Are Different Are Not the Same, p. 154). Donald Clarke noted: "The 'best authorities' become the final authority; the Bible must submit its message and authority to their critical scrutiny" (Bible Version Manual, p. 56).

KJV defender D. A. Waite claimed: "The King James Bible is God's Word kept intact in English because of its superior translators" (Defending the KJB, p. 63).

Ian Paisley wrote: "The translators of the English Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible are pre-eminent in their saintliness and scholarship" (Plea for the Old Sword, p. 30).

Does a KJV-only theory imply or suggest that God could not guide and work through William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, and the translators of the Geneva Bible the same exact way that is claimed for an exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611?

 

[Yeshua1]

KJV-only author Mickey Carter wrote: "Best authorities in our viewpoint are the King James Version translators" (Things That Are Different Are Not the Same, p. 154). Donald Clarke noted: "The 'best authorities' become the final authority; the Bible must submit its message and authority to their critical scrutiny" (Bible Version Manual, p. 56).

KJV defender D. A. Waite claimed: "The King James Bible is God's Word kept intact in English because of its superior translators" (Defending the KJB, p. 63).

Ian Paisley wrote: "The translators of the English Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible are pre-eminent in their saintliness and scholarship" (Plea for the Old Sword, p. 30).

Does a KJV-only theory imply or suggest that God could not guide and work through William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, and the translators of the Geneva Bible the same exact way that is claimed for an exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611?

Bigger question is did jesus promise ongoing inspiration from the Spriit to seperate english versions, or did he confine that to the revelation from god of the originals themselves?

For those advocating KJVO position MUST have the Spirit inspiring the KJV translators same fashion as he did the Apsotles to produce their originals!

 

[Logos1560]

Such a shame that so many people claim to believe in the sovereignty of God until it comes to Bible translations.

Is it interesting that some who would most strongly attack and condemn Calvinism in effect seem to use the most extreme, hyper-Calvinistic-type reasoning when it comes to advocating a man-made KJV-only theory?

 

[Yeshua1]

Is it interesting that some who would most strongly attack and condemn Calvinism in effect seem to use the most extreme, hyper-Calvinistic-type reasoning when it comes to advocating a man-made KJV-only theory?

using their own logic, why couldn't the Esv be a calvinist version, the HCSB be SBC only version etc?

 

[Baptist4life]

Fair enough. After a careful reading I have edited two posts that I felt were in direct violation of our rules.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::applause:

 

[Rippon]

KJVO critics have done more to shatter faith in the Bible than any KJVO proponent.

KJVO critics have shattered the false myth of the KJV (in its many incarnations) as being perfect and what all English-speaking Christians need to use. We have shattered the false,flimsy,hypocritical and sinful premise of the KJVO mentallity that other versions of the the Bible are not also the Word of God.

Such a shame that so many people claim to believe in the sovereignty of God until it comes to Bible translations.

Do you believe that in the sovereignty of God He has raised up many translations of the Word of God in English ? Do you believe that in His providence He has caused the NIV (in its several forms) to be so popular in the last several decades around the world? Now be consistent DJA.

 

[Revmitchell]

KJVO critics have done more to shatter faith in the Bible than any KJVO proponent. Such a shame that so many people claim to believe in the sovereignty of God until it comes to Bible translations.

This has to be one of the dumber things ever said on this board.

 

[Yeshua1]

This has to be one of the dumber things ever said on this board.

That would make it a real whopper!

As there have benn severa"interesting" things said on this board!

 

[Yeshua1]

And yet the copies of the Hebrew texts that Christ Himself quoted from were copied from scribes that KILLED HIM.

No KJVO claims perfection of the translators. That is a rotten strawman argument against KJVOs. We claim that God preserved His word THROUGH translators the same way He did when He used them to pen it. Difference between KJVO and the rest is that none of you KJVO critics can tell us where we can get a copy of the word of God. KJVO critics spend more time attacking the KJV instead of writing about what's RIGHT about THEIR "preferred" translations, and even then, their preferences in translations changes every other few years. One year it's the NKJV, then 3 years later it's the NASB, then 3 more years it's the ESV, etc..

No KJVO critics believes we have an infallible Bible anywhere. KJVO critics act like evolutionists, depending on the most recent "discovery" to question God's creation because the issue of creation is never settled with them. Since the KJVO critics do not have any settled standard on the word of God, they jump at every so-called "new" discovery, spend hours to "discover" that a KJV edition change "ye" to "you" while the manuscripts they love and support have entire books of the Bible missing.

KJVO critics have done more to shatter faith in the Bible than any KJVO proponent. Such a shame that so many people claim to believe in the sovereignty of God until it comes to Bible translations.

the KJVO position claims that the 1611 Kjv was the prefect word of God to us in english, yet the translators themselves NEVER stated as such, as they viewed the geneva/Bishop/Tynsdale etc as being the english word of God also!
Also, they brought in some renderings that reflected needing to keep King james happy, and to keep items like water baptism as they saw it...

They also used differing TR/Vulagates and other sources, so somehow imperfect humans, using imperfect source docs/texts created a "perfect" translation? Would HAVE to be the truth the Kjv team hadsame inspiration that Apsotles had to write scriptures, to have them have that to creat a perfect transaltion!

 

[Logos1560]

KJVO critics act like evolutionists

That is a bogus, false accusation that bears false witness against believers in God and in the Scriptures.

Disagreeing with the non-scriptural and unproven opinions and fallacies of a KJV-only theory is not acting like evolutionists.

It is KJV-only advocates that could accurately be said to use fallacies and faulty reasoning like evolutionists do in order to promote their unproven theory.

 

[Logos1560]

KJVO critics spend more time attacking the KJV instead of writing about what's RIGHT about THEIR "preferred" translations,

You fail to practice what you preach or assert.

KJV-only advocates spend more time attacking and misrepresenting modern translations instead of in honoring the KJV-only burden of proof and proving their claims concerning the KJV.

The fact is that attacks on other translations and comparing them to the KJV as the assumed standard [using the begging the question fallacy] does not prove the claim that the KJV is the perfect, infallible and inerrant standard.

 

[Yeshua1]

You fail to practice what you preach or assert.

KJV-only advocates spend more time attacking and misrepresenting modern translations instead of in honoring the KJV-only burden of proof and proving their claims concerning the KJV.

The fact is that attacks on other translations and comparing them to the KJV as the assumed standard [using the begging the question fallacy] does not prove the claim that the KJV is the perfect, infallible and inerrant standard.

Wouldn't the One standard to compare versions to be the originals themselves?
So by making the Kjv the standard of comparison, they are essentialling making their version equal to, same as the originals?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Attributing to a man-made document/book the perfection/attributes of God is classified as "bibliolatry". God will not hold guiltless those who give HIS glory to "another".

I have a wonderful compilation of all 5500 Greek texts/fragments that have every single Word of God in my hand. I can look at any verse/phrase in it and see if any variant (from copies of copies of copies where man-made error is rampant) exists and what the original was.

Yet not have an actual original - which would be worshiped and venerated if such existed. God loves us enough to preserve EVERY one of His Words yet not in an idolatrous setting.

 

[Yeshua1]

Attributing to a man-made document/book the perfection/attributes of God is classified as "bibliolatry". God will not hold guiltless those who give HIS glory to "another".

I have a wonderful compilation of all 5500 Greek texts/fragments that have every single Word of God in my hand. I can look at any verse/phrase in it and see if any variant (from copies of copies of copies where man-made error is rampant) exists and what the original was.

Yet not have an actual original - which would be worshiped and venerated if such existed. God loves us enough to preserve EVERY one of His Words yet not in an idolatrous setting.

yet if a KJVO staes and holds that their version IS indeed perfect in all that it records, isn't that saying its equal to being the originals for us today?

 

[Winman]

Attributing to a man-made document/book the perfection/attributes of God is classified as "bibliolatry". God will not hold guiltless those who give HIS glory to "another".

Wow, so you think the Bible is a "man-made document"?

And the scriptures themselves say God has magnified his word above his very name;

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

I rather think God will hold those guilty who do not magnify his word as he does.

 

[Yeshua1]

Wow, so you think the Bible is a "man-made document"?

And the scriptures themselves say God has magnified his word above his very name;

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

I rather think God will hold those guilty who do not magnify his word as he does.

We are to worship and honor only the Creator, for while none of our bible versions are totally perfect, He is!

 

[Mexdeaf]

Wow, so you think the Bible is a "man-made document"?

And the scriptures themselves say God has magnified his word above his very name;

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

I rather think God will hold those guilty who do not magnify his word as he does.

David knew nothing of a King James Version when he wrote this.

 

[Winman]

We are to worship and honor only the Creator, for while none of our bible versions are totally perfect, He is!

And what is his name?

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

The scriptures represent Jesus himself, Jesus is "The Word of God". This is one reason I believe God has preserved his Word, and I believe in English it is in the King James Bible.

You say only the original autographs are preserved, but the original autographs were lost many centuries ago. If the scriptures are preserved, they MUST be preserved in a copy.

Don't be fooled when you are told the scriptures are preserved in the original autographs folks, that is a lie. When they tell you that, ask to see and hold the originals. :thumbsup: