Question on how KJVO Regard the 1611 Kjv?

[Blank]

The originals were inspired,

That is a moot point, since we don't have the 'original' manuscripts.

 

[Logos1560]

That is a moot point, since we don't have the 'original' manuscripts.

It is not a moot point. Do you have a correct understanding of the term inspiration?

Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Jim Taylor affirmed: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). Jim Taylor again noted: “Keep in mind that inspiration describes the process by which God recorded His words for man” (p. 76).

Are you suggesting that God failed to preserve the same exact specific words that He gave by the process of inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

 

[robycop3]

Followed Bishop's and also to differinate between Jewish Passover and Easter.

Easter the pagan or Jewish all use same word; just like alch wine and grape juice.

Is not a error, whether its pagan or not.

Also, this word Easter occurs after Jesus rose again....

Yes, it IS an error. No one anywhere in Luke's time was observing anything called Easter. Getting tired of being proven wrong ? Try this one - Please show us any MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE for the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5.

 

[Ben1445]

Most KJVO have never seen a 1611, but they swear they are using one.

If you have followed the thread, KJB1611reader is exactly what he calls himself. At the risk of rehashing the thread again, I’m not saying he doesn’t read editions that have updated spelling also. If you want clarification about that I think you could ask. But I have seen the 1611 he has been reading through, from what he posted on the thread and it qualifies as a 1611.

 

[JesusFan]

If you have followed the thread, KJB1611reader is exactly what he calls himself. At the risk of rehashing the thread again, I’m not saying he doesn’t read editions that have updated spelling also. If you want clarification about that I think you could ask. But I have seen the 1611 he has been reading through, from what he posted on the thread and it qualifies as a 1611.

What is ironic to me is that KJVO persons refuse to acknowledge that English has changed so much over the centuries that many people today would have hard time reading the Kjv with real understanding, and that very similar to Muslims who memorize and recite their Arabic Korans yet without even knowing what they said

 

[JesusFan]

That is a moot point, since we don't have the 'original' manuscripts.

If The Holy Spirit had not inspired them though, there would have been no authoritative scriptures that were base source material, and would have not been anything worthy to have been even copied down and passed around as scripture

 

[Blank]

It is not a moot point. Do you have a correct understanding of the term inspiration?

Yes, I believe so.

Jim Taylor defined the term inspiration as follows: “A process by which God breathed out his very words through holy men in order that his very words could be recorded’” (In Defense of the TR, p. 328). Jim Taylor affirmed: “As a theological definition, inspiration is a process” (p. 33). Jim Taylor asserted: “Inspiration is a process which was completed when the last New Testament writer wrote the last word” (p. 34). Jim Taylor again noted: “Keep in mind that inspiration describes the process by which God recorded His words for man” (p. 76).

That sounds more like 'expiration' rather than inspiration (breathing out rather than breathing in).

Are you suggesting that God failed to preserve the same exact specific words that He gave by the process of inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

I am only saying that we don't have the original manuscripts, so we don't know what specific words God gave to the prophets and apostles. The earliest existing manuscripts date back to around 125 AD, and these are just fragments.

 

[Reynolds]

If you have followed the thread, KJB1611reader is exactly what he calls himself. At the risk of rehashing the thread again, I’m not saying he doesn’t read editions that have updated spelling also. If you want clarification about that I think you could ask. But I have seen the 1611 he has been reading through, from what he posted on the thread and it qualifies as a 1611.

I said "most". I did not say "all".

 

[Conan]

If you have followed the thread, KJB1611reader is exactly what he calls himself. At the risk of rehashing the thread again, I’m not saying he doesn’t read editions that have updated spelling also. If you want clarification about that I think you could ask. But I have seen the 1611 he has been reading through, from what he posted on the thread and it qualifies as a 1611.

I admit I am impressed. He is the first one that I have seen that can actually use a 1611 KJV. At least it appears so. I have heard a lot make the claim. He could be the first that I have encountered. I see that as a very positive thing. Not being an Onlyist. But actually using a 1611 KJV at least some.

 

[Logos1560]

That sounds more like 'expiration' rather than inspiration (breathing out rather than breathing in).

Edward Young wrote: “Now the term inspiration is, in the humble opinion of the present writer, not a happy one. The word inspiration means that which is breathed in. It come to us from the Latin, and in the Latin translation of the Bible, commonly known as the Vulgate, is used as a rendering of the Greek theopneustos (God-breathed). We are not satisfied with this translation, for the English word inspiration as has just been remarked, means a ‘breathing in,’ and, as we have seen, that is not at all what Paul intends to say.” Edward Young added: “The Scriptures, Paul vigorously asserts, are writings which came into being because they were breathed out by God Himself” (Thy Word is Truth, pp. 21-22). Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) asserted: “There is, we may well admit, nothing in the word theopneustos to warrant the in- of the Vulgate rendering: this word speaks not of an ’inspiration’ by God, but of a ’spiration’ by God” (Inspiration, p. 277). Benjamin Warfield wrote: “The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a ‘spiring’ or ‘spiration.’ What it says of Scripture is, not that it is ‘breathed into by God’ or is the product of the Divine ‘inbreathing’ into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, ‘God-breathed,’ the product of the creative breath of God” (p. 133). Benjamin Warfield noted: “The simple rendering ‘God-breathed’ would commend itself powerfully to us: certainly not, with the Vulgate and Luther, ‘God-inbreathed,’ since the proposition ‘in’ is wholly lacking in the term and is not demanded for the sense in any of its applications” (p. 284).

Gordon Clark asserted: “The English word inspiration with its prefix in gives the impression that after the Bible, or a book of the Bible, had been written, God breathed into it. However, the Greek word does not mean breathed into, it means breathed out. God breathed out the Scriptures” (God’s Hammer, p. 4). Matthew Barrett asserted: “2 Timothy 3:16 does not convey that God breathed something divine into the human writings after the fact, but rather the reason the Scriptures exist is because God himself breathed them out” (God’s Word Alone, pp. 228-229). Matthew Barrett observed: “The context of 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly conveys something being exhaled. God’s words are not breathed in; they are breathed out! God’s words come out from him to us, not vice versa” (p. 228). Gary Crampton wrote: “’God-breathed’ is actually a more proper translation of the original language of 2 Timothy 3:16 (Greek-Theopneustos), because it speaks of the fact that the Scripture has been ‘breathed out’ by God (whereas inspired means ‘breathed in’)” (Bible, p. 50).

 

[Blank]

Edward Young wrote: “Now the term inspiration is, in the humble opinion of the present writer, not a happy one. The word inspiration means that which is breathed in. It come to us from the Latin, and in the Latin translation of the Bible, commonly known as the Vulgate, is used as a rendering of the Greek theopneustos (God-breathed). We are not satisfied with this translation, for the English word inspiration as has just been remarked, means a ‘breathing in,’ and, as we have seen, that is not at all what Paul intends to say.” Edward Young added: “The Scriptures, Paul vigorously asserts, are writings which came into being because they were breathed out by God Himself” (Thy Word is Truth, pp. 21-22). Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) asserted: “There is, we may well admit, nothing in the word theopneustos to warrant the in- of the Vulgate rendering: this word speaks not of an ’inspiration’ by God, but of a ’spiration’ by God” (Inspiration, p. 277). Benjamin Warfield wrote: “The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a ‘spiring’ or ‘spiration.’ What it says of Scripture is, not that it is ‘breathed into by God’ or is the product of the Divine ‘inbreathing’ into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, ‘God-breathed,’ the product of the creative breath of God” (p. 133). Benjamin Warfield noted: “The simple rendering ‘God-breathed’ would commend itself powerfully to us: certainly not, with the Vulgate and Luther, ‘God-inbreathed,’ since the proposition ‘in’ is wholly lacking in the term and is not demanded for the sense in any of its applications” (p. 284).

Gordon Clark asserted: “The English word inspiration with its prefix in gives the impression that after the Bible, or a book of the Bible, had been written, God breathed into it. However, the Greek word does not mean breathed into, it means breathed out. God breathed out the Scriptures” (God’s Hammer, p. 4). Matthew Barrett asserted: “2 Timothy 3:16 does not convey that God breathed something divine into the human writings after the fact, but rather the reason the Scriptures exist is because God himself breathed them out” (God’s Word Alone, pp. 228-229). Matthew Barrett observed: “The context of 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly conveys something being exhaled. God’s words are not breathed in; they are breathed out! God’s words come out from him to us, not vice versa” (p. 228). Gary Crampton wrote: “’God-breathed’ is actually a more proper translation of the original language of 2 Timothy 3:16 (Greek-Theopneustos), because it speaks of the fact that the Scripture has been ‘breathed out’ by God (whereas inspired means ‘breathed in’)” (Bible, p. 50).

I wonder what B.B. Warfield meant by 'spiration' by God if not 'ex' or 'en'?

 

[Ben1445]

What is ironic to me is that KJVO persons refuse to acknowledge that English has changed so much over the centuries that many people today would have hard time reading the Kjv with real understanding, and that very similar to Muslims who memorize and recite their Arabic Korans yet without even knowing what they said

I read the KJV and it isn’t that hard to understand. I do use it and am exercised to chew the meat of it.
It is funny to me that since it is so hard to understand, people let other people make an interpretation of it for them and call it good. I’d rather use the one that is translated well than wonder how much textual criticism has worked its way into my Bible.

 

[JesusFan]

I read the KJV and it isn’t that hard to understand. I do use it and am exercised to chew the meat of it.
It is funny to me that since it is so hard to understand, people let other people make an interpretation of it for them and call it good. I’d rather use the one that is translated well than wonder how much textual criticism has worked its way into my Bible.

The 1611 used textual criticism, and KJVO has to rely upon holding to the translators had Holy Spirit inspiration in order to determine which would be the correct variant rendering to use for their text.
Based upon sound logic and textual criticism, the Kjv would be the same as Nkjv, Esv, Nasb etc as valid good English translations

 

[JesusFan]

I admit I am impressed. He is the first one that I have seen that can actually use a 1611 KJV. At least it appears so. I have heard a lot make the claim. He could be the first that I have encountered. I see that as a very positive thing. Not being an Onlyist. But actually using a 1611 KJV at least some.

Yes, majority saying they read and use the 1611 are really using 1769

 

[Blank]

What is ironic to me is that KJVO persons refuse to acknowledge that English has changed so much over the centuries that many people today would have hard time reading the Kjv with real understanding, and that very similar to Muslims who memorize and recite their Arabic Korans yet without even knowing what they said

And If they were consistent, they would of had to know Latin to read the Latin Vulgate.

 

[Ben1445]

The 1611 used textual criticism, and KJVO has to rely upon holding to the translators had Holy Spirit inspiration in order to determine which would be the correct variant rendering to use for their text.
Based upon sound logic and textual criticism, the Kjv would be the same as Nkjv, Esv, Nasb etc as valid good English translations

So is there some KJVO person who is telling you that you are going to miss salvation because you don’t use the KJV?
The only thing I have seen is people who are upset about some people who only use the KJV.
Unless they are coming into your house to take your preferred version, let them use the Bible they have convictions about.
If they are not against us they are for us. So what difference does it make which version someone else uses?

 

[Ben1445]

The 1611 used textual criticism, and KJVO has to rely upon holding to the translators had Holy Spirit inspiration in order to determine which would be the correct variant rendering to use for their text.
Based upon sound logic and textual criticism, the Kjv would be the same as Nkjv, Esv, Nasb etc as valid good English translations

Also the textual criticism I am referring to is of the modern eclectic variety and not merely the common sense variety.

Reformedbooksonline has a relevant read on the subject.

 

[atpollard]

Also, how did Easter become a Christian Holy day?

Germanic Christians.

The Pagan Goddess of spring (Estar or something close) gave her name to the direction EAST. The Spring Equinox placed the sun rising at its EASTERN most position. Germanic Christian Monks celebrated a MASS at dawn on the Equinox ... the Easter Mass (after the direction East named for the old Pagan Goddess of Spring). When the Roman Empire fell and the Germanic Christians arrived in Rome, the name of the Easter Mass (for Spring and dawn and renewal of the earth) was adopted for the Resurrection Mass that occurred about the same time of year and carried similar messages of rebirth and renewal.

Thus "Passover" (Jews surviving Egypt) became "Easter Mass" (for EAST and the Spring Equinox ... rebirth of the earth after a sleep in the death of winter).

 

[Ben1445]

Germanic Christians.

The Pagan Goddess of spring (Estar or something close) gave her name to the direction EAST. The Spring Equinox placed the sun rising at its EASTERN most position. Germanic Christian Monks celebrated a MASS at dawn on the Equinox ... the Easter Mass (after the direction East named for the old Pagan Goddess of Spring). When the Roman Empire fell and the Germanic Christians arrived in Rome, the name of the Easter Mass (for Spring and dawn and renewal of the earth) was adopted for the Resurrection Mass that occurred about the same time of year and carried similar messages of rebirth and renewal.

Thus "Passover" (Jews surviving Egypt) became "Easter Mass" (for EAST and the Spring Equinox ... rebirth of the earth after a sleep in the death of winter).

So something was determined to be done by a certain time on the calendar. There is no teaching to celebrate Easter.
So at least we are not talking about changing doctrine.

As far as the translation, if I knew anyone who was one of the translators, I would ask them why they came up with this Easter instead of Passover.
It’s not something that I would consider throwing out my Bible for.

I value the source text more than having my Bible say Passover in reference to the calendar.

 

[atpollard]

So something was determined to be done by a certain time on the calendar. There is no teaching to celebrate Easter.
So at least we are not talking about changing doctrine.

Easter was just the name of the Mass that was celebrated at DAWN on the day set aside for "Resurrection Sunday" (and named Easter after the German name for EAST ... where the sun rose on Resurrection Sunday).

No, I do not think Christians are required to celebrate ANY holidays according to scripture. We are told it is best if we do not forsake the gathering together, so we should gather to worship ... but that is a different thing (a "one another" matter).