Makers of KJV as Bible revisers

[Rippon]

I believe God has preserved his Word, and I believe in English it is in the King James Bible.

So what makes the KJV so special? It is an also-ran with translations of the Bible in many other languages. It must be frurating for mainstream KJVOites to acknowledge that the royal Bible is one of many --not the singular translation. Of course hardcore KJVO folks don't care about the many other languages in which the Bible is translated. They want everyone to bow down to the KJV weather native English speakers or not.

Do you know what the word version means? The KJ Bible is a version. It is a version -among many others in English and a plethora of other languages.

There is nothing unique about the KJV (in its many forms). The Son of God, on the other hand is indeed Unique.

 

[Winman]

So what makes the KJV so special?

I might ask you the same thing. What is it about the KJB that brings about so much animosity?

I believe one of the greatest proofs that the KJB is indeed the Word of God in English is that so many people seem to hate it.

I don't see thread after thread attacking the ESV, or the NIV, or any other version, but for some folks it seems to be their life calling to attack the KJB.

That should tell folks something. :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

I might ask you the same thing.

But it is not special since it is one of many bible translations. A person could life Spirit-filled life without even knowing about it.

What is it about the KJB that brings about so much animosity?

You ask such an innocent-sounding question knowing full-well the truthful answer I will tell you. It's not the KJV as such, but KJVOism which most mature Christians can not abide with.

I believe one of the greatest proofs that the KJB is indeed the Word of God in English is that so many people seem to hate it.

And of course you mean the Word of God in English.You know very well it is not.

for some folks it seems to be their life calling to attack the KJB.

Why hide behind your old subterfuge? We "attack" KJVOism. Duh.

 

[Winman]

But it is not special since it is one of many bible translations. A person could life Spirit-filled life without even knowing about it.

Oh, but it is. No other version causes such controversy.

You ask such an innocent-sounding question knowing full-well the truthful answer I will tell you. It's not the KJV as such, but KJVOism which most mature Christians can not abide with.

I don't believe this answer, because you and others always attack the version. Logos 1560 goes to incredible lengths to find any error that has ever been found (and there have been many errors), or to quote anyone who attacks the KJB, not the folks who read it.

You yourself say a person can live a Spirit filled life without it. That is an attack on the version. How is that an attack on me?

And of course you mean the Word of God in English.You know very well it is not.

I have always said the KJB is the Word of God in English. If you were the use the same text and translate into another language like French, if it was an accurate translation it would be the word of God in French.

Why hide behind your old subterfuge? We "attack" KJVOism. Duh.

I think it is you that is hiding, your real issue is the KJB, you don't like it. It you did, you wouldn't care that I and others are KJB only. Why do you care what I believe?

If you want to believe the NIV is the only accurate version, that is OK with me. I would disagree with you, but I am fine with you believing whatever you want to believe.

If you ask me, you folks don't believe in anything. You can claim the word of God is preserved in the original autographs, but everybody knows that is absolutely false, the orignal autographs do not exist and have not for centuries.

Then you say all versions have errors. So how can God's word be preserved in your view? Folks with your view have no idea where the scriptures start and end, you don't know if you are reading the Word of God, or something some scribe wrote in centuries ago. How could anybody trust in that?

And that is the whole point.

 

[Rippon]

You yourself say a person can live a Spirit filled life without it. That is an attack on the version.

Yes, a Christain lead a Spirit-filled life without consulting the KJV. Is that a new discovery of yours? It is not an attack on the KJV --just stating common sense.

I have always said the KJB is the Word of God in English.

And you have always been wrong by thinking it is the singular Word of God in English.

If you want to believe the NIV is the only accurate version, that is OK with me.

Well, it's a given that it is far more accurate than the KJV --but I have never espoused that the NIV is the only accurate version. The KJVO camp has that unique mindset pegged-out for themselves.

If you ask me, you folks don't believe in anything.

You would be lying to say such a sinful thing.

 

[Winman]

Yes, a Christain lead a Spirit-filled life without consulting the KJV. Is that a new discovery of yours? It is not an attack on the KJV --just stating common sense.

Well, a person needs the word of God in their own language. For English speaking persons, my opinion is that the KJB is the accurate word of God for these persons, and because it is accurate you have a much better chance of living a Spirit filled life. Of course, a person who prays and studies using another version would do better than someone who does not pray and study using the KJB.

And you have always been wrong by thinking it is the singular Word of God in English.

I would disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Well, it's a given that it is far more accurate than the KJV --but I have never espoused that the NIV is the only accurate version. The KJVO camp has that unique mindset pegged-out for themselves.

Again, I would disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Now, if I were like you anti KJB only folks, I would start threads every few days attacking the NIV. That would be easy enough to do, but you really don't see KJB only folks doing that here at BB do you?

You would be lying to say such a sinful thing.

Stating my belief is not lying, even if it were to be error. A lie is when you intentionally say something you know is wrong. If you say something you sincerely believe, that is not lying.

 

[JonC]

So what makes the KJV so special?

I was actually wondering the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I love the KJV, it is a beautiful translation. But some posts here seem to indicate that it was the "perfect" translation in English. (I do understand the manuscript argument, although I don't find any concrete arguments supporting that position).

 

[Dr. Bob]

Oh, but it is. No other version causes such controversy.

Spot on. Why? No one falsely claims "perfection" for a man-made translation except the Adventists and now a few Baptists.

We HAVE the perfectly preserved actual Words of God, available for translation into a thousand receptor languages.

But to claim that Jacobean English 1611 (whichever revision one thinks is "perfect" or the actual 1611 itself) is the actual "preserved Words of God" is idolatry AND an attack on the first fundamental of the faith.

I love the Bible. I am not fond of some translations of the Bible and EVERY translation has poor, weak, inaccurate words, verses, paragraphs and even chapters.

Man-made is NOT God-made. Things that are not the same are different.

 

[Logos1560]

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.

Your distortion, misrepresentation, and false claims about what believers believe about the Scriptures is wrong and is contrary to the Scriptures.

We do not say that the original autographs have been and are preserved. You are making a bogus, false claim and are putting in the mouths of others words that they did not say.

The Scriptures are preserved in the original languages just as the early English translators and the KJV translators noted. Are you actually claiming that the KJV translators lied when they maintained that the preserved Scriptures in the original language are the standard or authority for trying all translations and when they claimed to be translating from the original language Scriptures?

The printed editions of the original language texts used in the translating of the early English Bibles still exist. The original language manuscripts on which those printed editions were based still exist.

I have printed copies of original language texts of Scripture including reprints of some of the editions that the early English translators used.

For the exact, same words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles to be preserved, those exact same words would need to be preserved in the same languages.

According to the definition of preservation and according to what the Scriptures teach about preservation, how would different words in a different language supposedly be an actual preservation of the exact same original language words that God gave to the prophets and apostles?

Do KJV-only advocate argue for some type dynamic equivalency meaning preservation instead of exact word preservation?

It is the fallacies and the unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards] of a modern, man-made KJV-only theory that mislead some into making incorrect claims.

 

[Luke2427]

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:

Even if Winman had a point here, which he doesn't, you would be an idiot in the highest degree to follow his advice.

Think about it. If the original autographs existed, I mean the ones Paul and Peter and Luke wrote upon themselves, what kind of a moron would you be to demand to "hold them in your hand"??

I'll tell you what. Go to D.C. and demand to "hold in your hand" the original copy of the Declaration of Independence. Really press the matter saying, "I won't believe it has been preserved until I 'hold it' in my hand!"

Make a raucous over it like a redneck fool and when you get shot and die the world will be a little better off for being rid of another moron- that's if you would do such a thing- you would need to die because it ought to be a capital crime to be that stupid and that level of stupidity is so great that it weighs down the whole human race.

Do you see? Don't ever follow Winman's advice.

"demand to hold it in your hand"!!!!

What utter NONSENSE!

 

[Winman]

Even if Winman had a point here, which he doesn't, you would be an idiot in the highest degree to follow his advice.

Think about it. If the original autographs existed, I mean the ones Paul and Peter and Luke wrote upon themselves, what kind of a moron would you be to demand to "hold them in your hand"??

I'll tell you what. Go to D.C. and demand to "hold in your hand" the original copy of the Declaration of Independence. Really press the matter saying, "I won't believe it has been preserved until I 'hold it' in my hand!"

Make a raucous over it like a redneck fool and when you get shot and die the world will be a little better off for being rid of another moron- that's if you would do such a thing- you would need to die because it ought to be a capital crime to be that stupid and that level of stupidity is so great that it weighs down the whole human race.

Do you see? Don't ever follow Winman's advice.

"demand to hold it in your hand"!!!!

What utter NONSENSE!

What is nonsense is this argument. You don't realize it, but you are supporting my argument and defeating your own. A person can go to D.C. and look at the original Declaration of Independence, it has been kept and carefully "preserved". And there are a few select individuals who are allowed to take it out of it's display and touch it.

No such thing can be done with the original autographs of scripture, they do not exist any more. So to argue God's word is preserved in the original autographs is ridiculous. If the word of God is preserved, it must be preserved in accurate copies of the originals. If the copies are not accurate, then they are not preserved, just as if a copy of the Declaration of Independence was missing John Hancock's signature, it would not be preserved.

But this is what folks try to argue, that all versions and texts are corrupt and full of additions and subtractions, and yet are preserved. Silly.

What Luke doesn't get is that Jesus is "The Word of God", that is his NAME. The written scriptures represent Jesus, and if Jesus is perfect (and he is), then the scriptures must also be perfect. This is one reason I believe God has preserved his word. I cannot explain exactly how God has done this, and I don't really worry how God has done this, I simply believe his many promises to keep his word. And I believe in the English language the preserved word is the King James Bible.

God himself has written that he has magnified his word above all his 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.

Now, if you want to call those who believe God's promises and hold his word in high esteem idolators, go ahead, but God himself has magnified his word above even his own name.

Folks ought to think about that before they criticize the word of God.

 

[Winman]

Your distortion, misrepresentation, and false claims about what believers believe about the Scriptures is wrong and is contrary to the Scriptures.

We do not say that the original autographs have been and are preserved. You are making a bogus, false claim and are putting in the mouths of others words that they did not say.

The Scriptures are preserved in the original languages just as the early English translators and the KJV translators noted. Are you actually claiming that the KJV translators lied when they maintained that the preserved Scriptures in the original language are the standard or authority for trying all translations and when they claimed to be translating from the original language Scriptures?

The printed editions of the original language texts used in the translating of the early English Bibles still exist. The original language manuscripts on which those printed editions were based still exist.

I have printed copies of original language texts of Scripture including reprints of some of the editions that the early English translators used.

For the exact, same words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles to be preserved, those exact same words would need to be preserved in the same languages.

According to the definition of preservation and according to what the Scriptures teach about preservation, how would different words in a different language supposedly be an actual preservation of the exact same original language words that God gave to the prophets and apostles?

Do KJV-only advocate argue for some type dynamic equivalency meaning preservation instead of exact word preservation?

It is the fallacies and the unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures [double standards] of a modern, man-made KJV-only theory that mislead some into making incorrect claims.

Oh, I know your clever (but illogical) argument about the word of God being preserved in the "original languages", whatever that means. It was addressed in the past;

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2007628&postcount=12

I guess as long as the original Greek language is kept in a library somewhere that in your opinion the word of God is preserved. Absurd to say the least.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What Luke doesn't get is that Jesus is "The Word of God", that is his NAME. The written scriptures represent Jesus, and if Jesus is perfect (and he is), then the scriptures must also be perfect. This is one reason I believe God has preserved his word. I cannot explain exactly how God has done this, and I don't really worry how God has done this, I simply believe his many promises to keep his word. And I believe in the English language the preserved word is the King James Bible.

So how does this play out for the vast numbers who don't have the word of God in their language? Where is God's promise of preservation for them?

 

[Luke2427]

What is nonsense is this argument. You don't realize it, but you are supporting my argument and defeating your own. A person can go to D.C. and look at the original Declaration of Independence, it has been kept and carefully "preserved". And there are a few select individuals who are allowed to take it out of it's display and touch it.

No such thing can be done with the original autographs of scripture, they do not exist any more.

And nobody has said that papyrus upon which Paul wrote WAS preserved.

I should not have to tell you that. You ought to have better knowledge of the subject if you are going to speak on it.

You made this absolutely idiotic statement about demanding to let you "hold" them.

What kind of hayseed, backwater nonsense is in your head to make you come up with such poppycock?

So to argue God's word is preserved in the original autographs is ridiculous. If the word of God is preserved, it must be preserved in accurate copies of the originals. If the copies are not accurate, then they are not preserved, just as if a copy of the Declaration of Independence was missing John Hancock's signature, it would not be preserved.

If the orignial autograph of the DoI were destroyed today its words would be perfectly preserved in millions of copies of it around the globe.

Through textual criticism you could get the exact words of the original. If five hundred have this variation out of ten thousand, then you know that is a copyist error.

The word of God is perfectly preserved through the vast number of copies and and God has used textual criticism to preserve it just as we would use TC to preserve the DoI.

It is not preserved through a TRANSLATION. No intelligent person on EARTH would purport such nonsense!!

 

[Baptist4life]

Things that are not the same are different.

^^^ That is exactly my problem with all the various translations. They are NOT the same, yet people claim the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. are all EQUALLY the Word of God. How can that be? How can one translation have a passage while another translation leaves that same passage out, yet still be equally the Word of God? It's either supposed to be in there, or it's not supposed to be in there. So, if one person has a translation which has the passage, and says "the Bible says..........." and another person has a translation that doesn't have those verses he can say " My bible doesn't say that!" Therefore they are NOT both the Word of God! One is wrong, one is right, but EQUAL, they are not! A third grader could understand that, yet apparently all you Bible scholars cannot. :BangHead:

 

[Logos1560]

Oh, I know your clever (but illogical) argument about the word of God being preserved in the "original languages", whatever that means.

Are you claiming that the KJV translators did not know whatever it means to translate from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? Are you saying that the arguments and claims of the KJV translators concerning preservation of the Scriptures in the oriignal languages were illogical, absurb, and wrong? Are you implying that the KJV translators did not state the truth concerning what they had before them?

According to its title page and its preface, the KJV professes to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59).

In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“ Earlier on the third page of this preface, Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.“

Laurence Vance cited the report of the British delegates (including KJV translator Samuel Ward) to the 1618 Synod of Dort that included a reference to “the truth of the original text” (King James, His Bible, p. 47). In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson also acknowledged that the KJV was a translation made “out of the original sacred tongues.“ John Eadie noted that the account of the Hampton Court conference written by Patrick Galloway, the king’s Scottish chaplain, [“an account revised by the king himself”] stated “that a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” (English Bible, II, p. 179).

 

[Logos1560]

It was addressed in the past;

The KJV-only poster who responded did not address the actually scriptural truths presented. Evidently you do not know how to address what the Scriptures actually teach as you cling to your faulty, unproven, KJV-only opinions.

The Scriptures are the specific written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44) and not by means of human wisdom or scholarship including that of the KJV translators. The words that proceeded directly out of the mouth of God are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56). The words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Exod. 9:16, Rom. 9:17). God's Word indicates that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).

Along with the Old Testament, New Testament writings are also called Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16, 1 Tim. 5:18). The apostle Peter asserted that the commandment of the apostles are connected with the words revealed and spoken by the prophets (2 Pet. 3:1-2). The apostle Paul noted that his writing or epistle was “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Heb. 1:1-2). The words or word that Jesus Christ spoke were in the original language in which they were given by inspiration to the New Testament writers (John 12:48). Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses wrote them.

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The phrase “the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17) was used to denote the entire Old Testament Scriptures. The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Since the Scriptures indicated the positive that preservation would be in the exact specific words that were given by God in the specific original languages in which He gave them, it did not need to state the negative that preservation did not relate directly to different words that are used in translations. When the positive principle for the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages given to the O. T. prophets was indicated, there was no need to state again the same principle for the preservation of the additional Scriptures given to the N. T. prophets and apostles. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could also not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ’s comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also refer to Moses’ writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The Scriptures or oracles of God committed to the Jews or Hebrews were in the original language (Rom. 3:1-2). “The scriptures of the prophets” were in the original language (Rom. 16:26). The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Rom. 16:26). The actual languages in which God said or revealed His words are the original languages. The actual languages of the specific, precise, pure words given to the prophets and apostles by inspiration of God are the original languages.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

^^^ That is exactly my problem with all the various translations. They are NOT the same, yet people claim the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. are all EQUALLY the Word of God. How can that be? How can one translation have a passage while another translation leaves that same passage out, yet still be equally the Word of God? It's either supposed to be in there, or it's not supposed to be in there. So, if one person has a translation which has the passage, and says "the Bible says..........." and another person has a translation that doesn't have those verses he can say " My bible doesn't say that!" Therefore they are NOT both the Word of God! One is wrong, one is right, but EQUAL, they are not! A third grader could understand that, yet apparently all you Bible scholars cannot. :BangHead:

The TR (or whatever Byzantine text body one chooses) and the KJV are not alike. Which is right and which is wrong?

1 John 5.12 in the KJV1611 and the KJV1769 are not the same. Which is right and which is wrong? Which edition is the word of God?

 

[Mexdeaf]

^^^ That is exactly my problem with all the various translations. They are NOT the same, yet people claim the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. are all EQUALLY the Word of God. How can that be? How can one translation have a passage while another translation leaves that same passage out, yet still be equally the Word of God? It's either supposed to be in there, or it's not supposed to be in there. So, if one person has a translation which has the passage, and says "the Bible says..........." and another person has a translation that doesn't have those verses he can say " My bible doesn't say that!" Therefore they are NOT both the Word of God! One is wrong, one is right, but EQUAL, they are not! A third grader could understand that, yet apparently all you Bible scholars cannot. :BangHead:

They are all equally the Word of God just as we are all equally people. Variations in form or content do not imply inequity in value.

Now stop banging your head- that leads to brain injuries, you know!

 

[Logos1560]

problem comes from faulty reasoning

^^^ That is exactly my problem with all the various translations. They are NOT the same, yet people claim the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. are all EQUALLY the Word of God. How can that be? How can one translation have a passage while another translation leaves that same passage out, yet still be equally the Word of God? It's either supposed to be in there, or it's not supposed to be in there. So, if one person has a translation which has the passage, and says "the Bible says..........." and another person has a translation that doesn't have those verses he can say " My bible doesn't say that!" Therefore they are NOT both the Word of God! One is wrong, one is right, but EQUAL, they are not! A third grader could understand that, yet apparently all you Bible scholars cannot. :BangHead:

A consistent application of your faulty reasoning would condemn the KJV and all translations of the Scriptures. Third graders do not understand and grasp abstract truth and logic and do not know how to recognize the use of fallacies [false arguments].

The KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] which the KJV translators stated were "the word of God" "notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it." The KJV translators indicated that no translations [which would include their own] could be perfect and they yet suggested that those imperfect translations were still the word of God. Does your faulty reasoning condemn the KJV translators?

There were the same type differences between those earlier English Bibles and the KJV as between the KJV and later English translations. If simply compared to the KJV, those earlier English Bibles that were "the word of God" in English according to the KJV translators had many added words or many omitted words [including phrases, clauses, and whole verses]. Several of those early English Bibles did not have two whole verses that are found in the KJV, and yet the KJV translators asserted that they were the word of God. The Great Bible had over 100 words in the book of Psalms [including three whole verses in one psalm] not found in the KJV and also over 100 words in the book of Acts not found in the KJV. The Bishops' Bible had a good number of words and phrases that are not found in the KJV. If it is claimed that those earlier English Bibles were not the word of God, then when the KJV translators borrowed words, phrases, and even whole verses from them, they were taking what was not the word of God according to such faulty reasoning.

Even if the fact that the KJV is more a revision of earlier English Bibles than it is a new translation is ignored and the KJV was incorrectly considered only a translation, a consistent application of the same faulty reasoning would also in effect condemn the KJV. The printed original language texts from which the KJV was translated were based on original language manuscripts that had copying errors, including sometimes omitted words and phrases. Is it being suggested that the correctly copied parts of those manuscripts were not the word of God if any copying errors were included in them?

In addition, the same original language words and phrases in the original language texts are translated different ways in the KJV. The KJV sometimes added words or phrases for which there is no original language words and sometimes did not give any English word for some original language word. All those added words are not in italics. Thus, if translating differently the same original language words means that it is not the same, than the KJV could not be the word of God according to such faulty reasoning. According to unscriptural, unrighteous divers measures, is translating the same original language words differently OK when in the KJV but wrong when in other translations?

Is the fact that there are known errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV supposed to be proof that it could not be the word of God according to such faulty reasoning? Is the fact that over 100 words were added to later editions of the KJV a serious problem for such faulty reasoning? Is the fact that all the many varying editions of the KJV from 1611 until today a serious problem for such reasoning? Even all present editions of the KJV are not the same so is it being claimed that they all are not the word of God because they have differences?

If all or nothing reasoning and fallacies such as the fallacy of composition are applied to the making of all translations including the KJV, no translation could be considered the word of God.