question about God's "preserved" Word

KJVONLY said:

You sure said that right!! the NKJV DON'T translate like the KJV; it HAS RSV & NASV readings IN IT..

No, it has some words in it that are the same as the RSV and the NASB. Good for it, I say.

What you KJVers need to learn is that departing from the KJV translation is not the same as departing from the Textus Receptus. As long as you continue to confuse these two, your credibility remains in the toilet.

I don't have to walk in circles, I HAVE the word of GOD THE KJV!!!

Why, you're doing it at this very moment! Round and around the KJV sophists go, like a whirling dervish.

 

Joe Turner,

I agree with those who have pointed out to you that you seem to be confusing the NKJV's differences in translation at certain points with a difference in the underlying Greek text. For example, you mention that the NKJV omits "hell" and in doing so departs from the Textus Receptus, so I would ask you to demonstrate this. In what verses does the NKJV depart from the TR on the translation of "hell"? I will keep the discussion focused upon this particular case for the moment, and when we have finished discussing it, perhaps we can then take up your other examples one by one. If you are interested in really debating this in detail, I am more than happy to do so. I only ask that we take it one point at a time, as I have suggested, so that I do not have to type so much at one time in my responses.

Pastork

 

When I came to pastor our church, it was using the NIV. I am a KJV preacher. Naturally discussion came up about the NKJV.
I contacted the publishers of the NKJV and asked for their rules for quoting their Bible. They sent me three pages of regulations. Example of one;
"if you quote more than 50% of a book of the Bible, or record it, or print it,... written permission is required."
This means, then, if our jr. church memorized and recited half of II John, they were breaking the law!
If a S.S. class quoted half of Obadiah, again, they would be violating copyright law.

The KJV is not copyrighted.
All other versions are. This is why all other versions cost more to purchase. The book stores have to reimburse copyright owners. When a Bible is copyrighted, it ceases to be God's Word and becomes man's interpretation of what he thinks God's Word means.

Our society has mastered the dumming down system. Rather than dumming down the KJV, why not preach the pure Word and raise the people to that Godly standard. At the same time...2 things bear mentioning;
1. What part of "thou shalt not kill" is hard to understand? IN other words - is the KJV really that much more difficult to understand?

2. IT has always been the higher itelligensia that has complained of not understanding the KJV. The common folk have rarely grumbled. It was certainly the same here. It was the Lawyers and nurses that didn't understand the KJV. The housewives and factory workers didn't have a problem.
THe KJV actually uses fewer 3 syllable words than the other versions. (Example; "collonade")

 

Good to hear from ya Joe Turner. Since you joined BB I have been looking forward in reading you posts, you seem to have a good head on them there shoulders.

I'm with Pastor Bob and Joe Turner on this issue.

P.S. Some talk about MSS. Aren't the MSS destroyed?

 

Well, first of all, the name KJVO was branded to Bible Believers by Bible correctors/rejectors,and scholarship-onlyist;the answer to your question is the word of God was the Geneva bible or matthew's bible in 1605.I personaly think that if it came from the same text the KJV came from it's trustworthy.Again, there are MANY so called KJVO's out there that belive that way;I myself don't object being called a KJVO,big deal;but at least I know that MY God was able to preserve his word for the English speaking people. Now you can't say I *NEVER* answered your *SIMPLE* question.. My *simple* question to you is do YOU believe that We have THE WORD OF GOD, perfect infalable, and without error on this Earth for us to see, read, touch,ect?????

 

The KJV is not copyrighted.
All other versions are. This is why all other versions cost more to purchase. The book stores have to reimburse copyright owners. When a Bible is copyrighted, it ceases to be God's Word and becomes man's interpretation of what he thinks God's Word means.

Anything in print gets a copyright. Copyrights all expire. Once the copyright expires, the point is moot. There are several biblical translations that are no longer under copyright. The original King James Version (1611) was also protected by copyright-type laws at the time.

You you're saying that once a biblical translation falls out of copyright, it then becomes God's word.

If you say the KJV is God's preserved word, should a bible in another language be translated from the KJ, or translated from the original Greek/Hebrew?

Since the Bible was not written in English, the KJV is not God's preserved word. It's a translation of God's word.

 

That is a mischaracterization of copyright law. The quoting they mean in this context is in printed materials – as in research or duplication of a passage. Half of a book is an extremely generous quantity of material to freely use.

It is the product of a government (a monarchy to be specific). If the United States government were to undertake a translation of the scriptures, it would also not be copyrighted. Of course, even if the KJV would have been copyrighted, it would have fallen into the public domain at this point. One day, if the Lord tarries, the NIV will fall into public domain.

Yep. That money goes to pay for those who labored to do the research and translation.

The translation work is copyrighted, not the original texts. Just how does God’s ownership and authority fall away from the God’s truth when a copyright is registered. Can you give me chapter and verse?

All translations are an interpretation of what the interpreter thinks the original author means. The KJV is absolutely no exception to this rule.

The spelling you are looking for is “dumbed down.” The newer translations use a more modern version of the language that modern readers speak and write. This obviously removes a barrier to interpretation for those not used to the KJV.

The New Testament was originally distributed in Koine Greek (common merchant lower Greek – the language of the street) and not in classic Greek. We have a very clear precedent for putting the Bible in the common vernacular.

By the way, the use of archaic language is not a measure of intelligence.

Since the meaning of the verse is “Do not murder”, the newer translations are actually superior even in this very simple illustration. The

Beyond the fact that you offer no proof of this allegation, you may be forgetting that a lot of “common people” don’t really read much because they find reading above a seventh grade level difficult. When you force them to use a KJV, you effectively remove the opportunity for them to discover God’s truth for themselves. They are at the mercy of whatever the preacher wants to tell them is true.

I can read and understand the KJV, but I had a difficult time doing it as a child. I was delighted to get a NASB bible as a teenager so I could read the Bible for myself where I wasn’t struggling with the language.

Syllable counts are not necessarily the best measure of the difficultly level… And the word is spelled “colonnade”.

 

Neither of these are the same as the KJV. Do you believe either of these was "THE WORD OF GOD, perfect infalable [sic], and without error"? If so, why did the KJV deviate from them? If not, why do you demand these attributes for identifying "the word of God" today? When did these Bibles stop being the "word of God"? When were these "final authorities" replaced with another "final authority" - and why doesn't "final" mean "final"?

Dance, Japheth, dance!

What I said was I've never seen a KJV-only supporter answer it in a way *that didn't contradict KJV-onlyism*. You still haven't answered the question in a way that doesn't contradict KJV-onlyism, for neither the Geneva nor Matthew's was perfect, inerrant, infallible, etc - because if they were, the KJV is not because it deviated from them. All you've said is *exactly* what us "Bible correctors" are saying today: that two different English Bibles can *both* be called "the word of God" despite their differences and imperfections! Tou are opposed to someone else when they say that, yet you are saying that yourself. How do you explain this?

Not in they way *you* believe it must exist, no. I believe God preserved his word, and I believe all good Bibles are "the word of God". I just disagree with your view in what method this preservation took place.

 

Earlier posted by 2Timothy4:1-5

How sad indeed.

 

I do believe this is the question at hand. Answer: the manuscripts are no longer around.

P.S. If there is no true, pure, infallible, inspired, errant Word of God today, then what do you place your faith in?

 

Not "what," but Who. God has complete authority over words; no words have any authority over Him.

 

Yes, but he used man to write those words to comfort one another with these words. God is perfect, therefore we have a perfect Bible. That has been proven to be the King James Version.

 

Idiotic nonsense. Nothing-- absolutely not any of the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts-- and not even the KJV itself, nor those who translated it, give any support to this idea that "the perfect Bible has been proven to the King James Version." It is a translation, and not more nor less. It is mostly literal, but it does employ dynamic equivalence, and it does add words which change the thought of somce passages. Your Anglican Bible ain't perfect.

 

No, it has not been proven.

You said that since God is perfect, we have a perfect Bible. Think about this: was God perfect in 1605?

 

I wonder if any of the KJVO will ever answer that question.

 

My question is, if there is no perfect bible, then how do you know what you are doing is right? Man would have his own rules regarding God without a finally authority. When you quote scripture, how do you know what you are quoting is true and correct? The originals are gone so there goes that theory.

Yes the Bible was perfect before 1611. Hello, God did exist before then. He perserved his word from the time it was first written till now and I bet forever. Why wouldn't He? I'm not exactly sure about all the bibles before the King James Bible, but I'm sure of this. God would/will not let us be without his word in any generation, hint Psalms 12:6-7, 1 Thessalonians 4:18 and Matthew 4:4.

Again, the King James Bible has been proven. If not, prove it.

My thoughts on the MV's is that they contain the Word of God, but are corrupt because of the spirit of the antichrist, the devil if you will.

 

Homebound, homebound, homebound,

Psalm 12:6-7 does not refer to the words that are preserved and pure. I foresee this being a battle with every KJVO person I know because they refuse to STUDY.

Please inform me, what doctrine is ignored by other literal translations? What is it that us NKJV, NASB, ESV users are doing in our lives that is so wicked that only using a KJV will correct? I will tell you this, I will never be for a state-church, praise an adulterous king as a defender of the faith, or pour water on a babies head like the precious KJV translators. In fact, I am going to go on the offensive. I don't have to defend God's word; I just have to let the lion out of the cage, so to speak. I will use the same rhetoric and logic by KJVO people and watch all arguments crumble.