Questions for KJV critics

[Steve K.]

Psalm 12:7 plainly states, thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Thus we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired. Not too much of a feat to overwhelm such an omnipotent Being.
The fearful fundamentalist launches two attacks on the Scriptural teaching found in Psalm 12:7.
1. They claim, "Verse 7 is talking about the Jews, not the Bible." Then to add credence to their claim they rush out and publish a translation that says just that in Psalm 12:7. Let's look at this verse in the New International Version.
"O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever."
This is an irresponsible and dishonest translation. The Hebrew word "shamar" meaning "to keep" which the New International Version translators render "you will keep us" is found in the future second person singular "thou shalt keep" and is directed to the THIRD person plural "them" and NOT the first person plural "us" as the New International Version translators rendered it. Thus we see it is the King James, God’s perfect, preserved Bible which has accurately preserved the reading of the originals, not the unreliable New International Version.
Psalm 12:7 is not God's promise to preserve the Jews, a promise which flourishes elsewhere in Scripture. It is God’s promise to preserve His words, and is a direct reference to those words as described in Psalm 12:6.

 

[Ransom]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:

1. They claim, "Verse 7 is talking about the Jews, not the Bible." Then to add credence to their claim they rush out and publish a translation that says just that in Psalm 12:7.

We already got one - it's called the King James Bible. According to the translators, "them" literally means "him." They said so in their own margin note on this verse

We've been through this already. Maybe you forgot. More likely, though, you have a real blind spot where the truth is concerned. You put your fingers in your ears and start shouting "LALALALALALALALA," and then claim you never saw your factoids refuted.

 

[Steve K.]

That's your job Ransom trying to refute SCRIPTURE. You can't do it so you take a version that changes it.Then you whine when anyone claims to have the word of God. God promised to preserve his word and did in the KJV.The Devil was the first one to try to pervert it .If you want to get in line behind him help yourself. I'm staying in God's line.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
Psalm 12:7 plainly states, thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Thus we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired.

This is simply untrue. How many times will this have to be said before you study and realize how wrong you are?? you have repeating stuff that other people have said and it simply isn't true. God is preserving the godly man. This verse does nto talk about his words.

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
Psalm 12:7 is not God's promise to preserve the Jews, a promise which flourishes elsewhere in Scripture. It is God’s promise to preserve His words, and is a direct reference to those words as described in Psalm 12:6.

That is an admission that the promise does not apply to your Anglican Version, because it did not exist to be preserved at the time the psalmist wrote this... or else God broke his promise and did not preserve those words for many centuries.

 

[Scott J]

This kind of dove tails nicely with the Isaiah 61:1 thread that the KJVO's have been avoiding like the plague.

Steve, When Christ read Isaiah 61:1 as recorded in Luke 4:18, was He reading from a corrupted scroll that added the words "and recovering of sight to the blind," or is the KJV incorrect at Isaiah 61:1?

 

[Ransom]

KING JAMES AV 1611 said:

That's your job Ransom trying to refute SCRIPTURE.

No, Steve the Stubborn, I am NOT trying to refute it. I am preserving the proper interpretation, as it has been understood for centuries. As the KJV translators themselves intended their translation to be understood.

People knew that Psa. 12 was talking about people preservation long before there was a modern version to make it clear. You can go to a Web site like the Christian Classics Ethereal Library and you can read these commentaries for yourself.

Of course, I don't expect you to do any such thing. You're far too smart for that, right?

You can't do it so you take a version that changes it.

No, I am telling you what the translators of the King James Bible themselves said.

How many times has someone tried to tell you that the KJV translators themselves referred the pronoun "them" back to the "him" in Psa. 12:5?

Wasn't it you who said that the scholarship behind the modern Bible translators can't even come close to the scholarship of the KJV translators? Well, why not believe them then?

Double standards.

You gotta laugh. Man, someone tell me how I can get more than 8 of these guys into a post.

[ February 06, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[Steve K.]

Hey Scott he spelled Isaiah wrong too.Silly God.
That is only one of the sorriest things I've heard you say.Better spend some time reading the bible instead of questioning ot all the time.

 

[neal4christ]

[ February 06, 2003, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Steve,
Why don't you answer Ransoms questions??????????????

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
Hey Scott he spelled Isaiah wrong too.Silly God.
That is only one of the sorriest things I've heard you say.Better spend some time reading the bible instead of questioning ot all the time.

God didn't spell anything wrong and we aren't talking about Greek vs Hebrew versions of the same name although that is a good illustration of how both the KJV and NASB can be the Word of God.

What I cited was a place where the Bible says that Jesus Himself was reading prophecy from the OT. What He read as scripture does not agree with the KJV. Who is wrong? Jesus or the KJV.

Why are you evading Steve? Are you afraid of the truth? I think you are. Where is that manhood you've been bragging about.

 

[Steve K.]

I am not evading anything you just can't understand scripture because you have rejected God's word.
The word "devils" (the singular, person called the "devil" is) is NOT in the NKJV! Replaced with the "transliterated" Greek word "demon" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). The Theosophical Dictionary describes demon as: ". . . it has a meaning identical with that of 'god', 'angel' or 'genius'". Even Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (p.157) defines "demon" as: "an inferior deity, WHETHER GOOD OR BAD". Webster defines "demon" as: "divinity, spirit, an attendant power or spirit", but "devil" as: "the personal supreme spirit of EVIL. . ."

In 2 Timothy 2:15, the NKJV (like the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) remove that "obsolete" word - "study"! The only time you're told to "study" your Bible. AND THEY ZAP IT! Why don't they want you to "study" your Bible? Maybe they don't want you to look too close - you might find out what they've ACTUALLY done to your Bible! The "real" KJV is the only English Bible in the world that instructs you to "study" your Bible!

That "obsolete" word "virtue" is replaced with "power" in Mark 5:30, Luke 6:19, 8:46! How does anybody confuse "virtue" with "power"? Simple - by being "bosom-buddies" with the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV! That's what they did!

One of the most absurd changes ever made is changing the word "servant" to "slave"! The NKJV in Romans 6:22, reads: "But now having been set FREE from sin, and having become SLAVES OF GOD. . ." The NKJV, in 1 Corinthians 7:22, calls the Christian, "Christ's slave". Talk about a contradiction! John 8:36 says, "If the Son therefore shall make you FREE, YE SHALL BE FREE INDEED." But isn't a Christian supposed to serve? Yes, in love. Not as a slave! Galatians 5:13 explains it, perfectly: "For, brethren, ye have been called unto LIBERTY;(not slavery!) only use not LIBERTY for an occasion to the flesh, but BY LOVE SERVE one another."

In order to "harmonize" with the satanic New Age Movement (and of course the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!), the NKJV changes "end of the WORLD" to "end of the AGE"! And in it's no longer the "WORLD to come" but "AGE to come". The New Age Movement teaches a series of ages (hence the name: New AGE). See Matthew 12:32, 13:39, 13:40, 13:49, 24:3, 28:20, Mark 10:30, Luke 13:30, 20:34,35, 1 Cor 1:21.

The New Age Movement and the occult are longing for one called the Maitreya. The Bible calls him the Anti-Christ. New Ager's refer to him as the "the Coming One" - AND SO DOES THE NKJV! In Luke 7:19, 20 (see also Matt 11:3) John told his disciples to ask Jesus: "Are You THE COMING ONE. . ." In the "The Great Invocation", a "prayer" highly reverenced among New Agers and chanted to "invoke" the Maitreya, says, "Let Light and Love and Power and Death, Fulfil the purpose of the Coming One."

And to REALLY show their sympathy with the satanic New Age Movement - BELIEVE IT OR NOT - in Acts 17:29 the New Age NKJV changes "Godhead" to "Divine Nature"! ( ditto NIV, NASV)

And if you think the NKJV just "innocently" updated the "obsolete words", removed the "thee's and thou's" - here's what the translators proudly admit: "IT IS CLEAR that this revision REQUIRED more than the dropping of "-eth" endings, removing, "thee's" and "thou's," and updating obsolete words." (The New King James Version, 1982e. p. 1235)

 

[Ransom]

Sorry to disappoint those who thought Steve couldn't get any more incoherent, but now he's starting to spew the conspiracy theories:

In order to "harmonize" with the satanic New Age Movement

Steve, may I suggest you start wearing one of these? I think the psychotronic rays being beamed at you from the black helicopters are starting to microwave your brain.

 

[Steve K.]

What question?
Consider that the Authorized King James (AKJ) has 790,685 words, The New International Version (NIV) has 64,576 fewer words, The New King James Version (NKJV) 19,755 fewer words, and The Revised Standard Version (RSV) 30,534 fewer. Obviously these versions have left out many words which were not all articles or thee's, thou's, thine's, and ye's.

One tidbit of uncommon knowledge regarding the "archaic" thee's, thou's, thine, and ye's (Elizabethan English) is that the first three are second person singular and ye is second person plural. Modern translations are void of this distinction.

 

[Steve K.]

Spoken like a true "Devil's advocate" Ransom.

 

[Ransom]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by KING JAMES AV 1611:
I am not evading anything you just can't understand scripture because you have rejected God's word.

Yes you are. Your long reply has nothing to do with the disagreement between Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:18 in the KJV.

I see several errors in what you did write that I may respond to later. This tells me you still aren't checking your sources even at the surface level. You still aren't proving all things.

However, the current issue is with the disagreement I cited. If you have an answer, please post it. Is Jesus wrong in Luke or is the KJV recording of Jesus in Luke in error or is Isaiah 61:1 in the KJV erroneous?

 

[AV Defender]

Is Jesus wrong in Luke or is the KJV recording of Jesus in Luke in error or is Isaiah 61:1 in the KJV erroneous?

Can you prove this claim??

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Is Jesus wrong in Luke or is the KJV recording of Jesus in Luke in error or is Isaiah 61:1 in the KJV erroneous?

Can you prove this claim?? </font>[/QUOTE]

Luke 4
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Isaiah 61
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

The quote in Luke attributed to the Lord clearly uses different wording which could even be interpretted to change the meaning of the passage. Meek and poor are not the same. Bruised and bound are definitely not the same and could have near opposite meanings.

Besides these, the significant phrase that I bolded was either added to Luke or deleted from Isaiah. In either case, this looks like an error in the KJV. If anyone can prove differently then I would be interested.

However, if you establish some sort of principle by which to reconcile these verses, you must be willing to use the same principle with regards to differences between the KJV and MV's.

 

[AV Defender]

Well,Jesus is God(John 10:30)He can add to a verse if He wants;what error?

you must be willing to use the same principle with regards to differences between the KJV and MV's.

That has to do with the underlying texts.