Textual History of the KJB

LRL...boy....chill...you sound almost as mean as Dr.Ruckman...lol

Greg sr.

 

Does 'faith' equal trust? The Scriptures are self-attesting to its own integrity, authority, and infallibility. The Scriptures are inspired and inerrant in the original writings as the Holy Spirit superintended and guided the original authors, revealing the complete, perfect will and mind of God. These are objective facts recorded in the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21), and are therefore trustworthy. This is objective faith, in that we can trust God at His Word, being the Word of God as revealed in the Scriptures. On the other hand, believing by 'faith' that only the KJV is the Word of God in the English language is a farce, completely false and with grave error. There is no objective 'faith' in a false doctrine or belief. The Scriptures so NOT attest to the false KJV-only belief that God somehow 'preserved and protected' His Word so that it would not be recorded with errors that scribes had introduced into the text throughout history. There was never any supernatural act of God to preserve the text of the Bible to reflect, reveal, or record exactly as the original writings revealed. To insinuate that God had 'preserved' the Scriptures into a translation, or even a 'text-type', is an unscriptural and erroneous position to take. God did NOT preserve the KJV any less than He did to preserve strawberry jam!

 

I do not intend to sound mean, and to state that my comments were intended to be as corrosive as 'Dr. Ruckman' is insulting to say the least. I am merely defending the historical Christian doctrines that you, and other KJV-onlyists, so deftly denigrate.

 

LRL...I will apologize for the "insult" but at the same time I will say that you were beginning to be a bit overbearing in my opinion.I am NOT "denigrating" the Word of God.I believe my bible without question...even when it condemns and convicts me....and I do hold to the same "historical" doctrines that I'm sure you and I both hold to...except THIS one.In that,we'll just have to agree to disagree.I don't believe that my position on the KJV does any violence to the truths of scripture in general....many of the modern versions do.They do it either by poor translation or footnotes that bring into question the matter of "authority" of the text.

Greg Sr.

 

And here is where you run afoul of placing the opinions of the translating committee above what the Scriptures actually say. No just you, Greg, but any and all who want to argue for the "words" of the KJV.

The King James Version of the bible is a translation, a written treatise of the English from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the manuscript compiled by Erasmus (and edited and updated by many). Nothing wrong with that. But the KJV, and every other translation ever written (or to be written), is not the "words" of the original authors, but rather the close aproximation of the words, intent, and context of them.

To build your whole faith in the KJV as being the sole word of God in the English language because it is the "words" is ludicrous at best. The "words" you are trusting in are the words of Anglican scholars, not the actual "words" of the originals.

In CHrist,
Trotter

 

This is NOT 'our' position! Textual criticism is not a means to define or determine 'truth'. Textual criticism is a tool of Greek scholars, as well as students of the Bible (like you and me!) to use to determine the best reading of the text of the OT/NT by evaluating the textual evidence of the extant manuscripts. It is easily provable that even the KJV translators used textual criticism to evaluate different readings in the texts they had available. Are you aware of 13 marginal readings in the KJV that state different readings in the Greek NT? Again, it is our assertion that the historic Christian doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, and infalliblity are what we hold to, and define as being 'truth'. To defend your belief that God somehow 'providentially preserved' the Word of God to read exactly like the original writings is in ignorance of Bible doctrines as well as ignorant of the manuscript evidence.

Is it your dependence on the self-attesting Word of God or is it your 'faith' that you base your beliefs upon? If you believe that God supernaturally preserved the Word of God, even to the very exact words, to reflect the exact reading of the original writings, then where do you find this 'doctrine' in all of Scripture? How do you define a doctrine without any doctrinal support to your claims of 'faith'. I think a charismaniac would do better than this!

 

We most certainly DO NOT hold to the same historic Christian doctrines about the Bible. You don't believe that it is ONLY the originals that were inspired and inerrant; the quality of inspiration (theopneustos = "God breathed")can only be applied to the original writings and the original writers (prophets and apostles). Secondly, you believe, however falsely, that God somehow supernaturally 'preserved' the KJV as His Word in the English language. Such doctrines eminate from a Seventh-Day adventist!

Modern versions, much like the KJV, don't question the authority of the Scriptures, as you seem to attest, nor do they question the Bible. The footnotes written in the margins of the MV's (as well as the KJV; there are 13 of them in the marginal notes of the 1611!) bring into focus the readings of the variant manuscripts. Do you not read the preface to any of the MV's regarding the textual comments? Your assertion that the MV's 'question' the authority of the Bible are patently false and misleading. Also, your assertion that the MV's question the truth of the Bible are also as disingenuous. If the manuscript evidence suggests that a certain reading was inserted into the text of the Bible, regardless of the error of the scribe that committed it, does no harm to the veracity of the Scriptures.

 

"sin with pride..."?definitely not..I'm very humbled by what I believe and while I don't profess to understand the supernatural methods that God used to do it,I still believe in a perfect God somehow,someway preserving a perfect Bible so I could have one today.I am humbled and mystified by that...but I still believe it.You can believe what you wish.I'm obviously NOT qualified nor am I willing to spend my time arguing this point any further with you.Everything I've seen you guys argue for seems to have to fit some form of demonstratable "scientific" type of school of thought.I believe something that I won't possibly understand completely this side of Heaven...but then...I can't possibly understand why God would look down on me.....a vile wicked sinner...and love me enough to sacrifice His own Son so that I could be saved.What I believe doesn't depend on the gifts,talents or skills of man AT ALL.I love ya'll in Christ....but on this subject I'll disagree with you until the grave.God is a supernatural God...and His Word is a Living Supernatural thing.All that any wise man can do is bow,surrender,and believe."Pride goeth before a fall".I originally said in another thread that I would not participate any further in this divisive debate...and yet,I allowed myself to get sucked back into it.I must withdraw now lest the flesh get the better of me.

Greg Sr.

 

Mr. Perry, the differences in our positions is defined by EVIDENCE. What evidence has God left that proves the KJVO myth true? Not one word. What evidence has He left us to show the KJVO myth is false? PLENTY! We can start with the fact that no two English versions are alike, old or new. Several of the older ones were made by men working at the peril of their lives. You know men like Tyndale or Coverdale believed the English world should have God's word in its own language. They made their translations in the best English of their day.

And there's simply no way that any translation can carry the original words 100% because of the differences in languages. Greek and Hebrew have more than one word for which there's no exact English equivalent. But I fully believe that God presents His word to us in our languages as He wills for us to have it. After all it is HE who has created all languages, and who supervises them today.

Now, did the making of the AV render the Geneva and the other existing English BVs no longer valid? Not hardly. And there's absolutely NOTHING in Scripture indicating God's word is frozen in time and cannot be correctly rendered in the languages of today.

The KJV DOES have some booboos and poor translations. Many of them, such as "Easter" in Acts 14:12 and "slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30 have been discussed on this board. However, I won't throw out the baby with the bathwater and say those goofs render the KJV not valid. They simply show it's another case of imperfect man handling God's perfect word, but, as has every other valid version, it's come out according to God's will.

Yes, the differences in our positions is indeed EVIDENCE for my position, and LACK of evidence for yours. I have faith in my position from the things seen(multiple BVs throughout the history of the English language) while YOU have only BLIND FAITH, with absolutely NO sustaining evidence. As I've said many times, there's simply NO VALID EXCUSE for being KJVO except PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

 

Mr. Perry, call it what you want, but "scientific evidence" is exactly what God has left us from the gitgo. He doesn't expect us to believe by blind faith. Many times in Scripture, He says, "Such-and-such is gonna happen. Then you shall know that I am God." He performed miracles for many centuries through His prophets and teachers. The Holy Spirit visibly manifested Himself several times as He did in Acts 2. In other words, God proved He is God. He left us a solid basis for our beliefs. WE have FAITH in the UNSEEN by what we HAVE SEEN.

OTOH, the KJVO myth has NO such foundation for faith. The whole idea is man-made and of recent origin. There's simply no factual basis for anyone to believe such a man-made myth, and there's certainly NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it, either. The KJVO doesn't have any real REASONS for his believing the myth...He/she only has EXCUSES.

 

But robycop, you reject, and neglect to see the proof right before your very eyes! You are the one who is revealing you go by "blind faith" rather than by faith in what we have been given and can see! You are looking for a verse in the Bible that says verbatum, the King James Bible is the Only Bible that you should rely upon. This is futile thinking, and leads you to be led away from seeing the truth regarding this issue, and blind to it and then because of this, falsely accusing your bretheren that share it with you. Some day you WILL KNOW. The ONLY foundation besides our faith in Jesus Christ that we can build upon, and rely upon, and stand 100% sure, is by the very word of God himself, and knowing that he has faithfully provided it to us WITHOUT ERROR for his faithful believers. If you do not believe this, you do not have faith in the power of God, nor the promises he has made and what he has said concerning his words, which is the ONLY way one can remain in the will of God, and to know HIM. YOu mess with God's word, you mess with the truth and faith then does not remain, but withers away, as it is not built upon the foundation of the scriptures and faith in God and his word, but of the foundation of quicksand of unbelief and doubt.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

^^^

Huh? Scriptural proof is Scriptural proof. A doctrine doesn't exist..... unless it's in the minds of KJVonlies....

 

Okay, so if we are looking for a 100% letter perfect translation, then please provide the letter perfect English translation in 1588?

Then explain if it is letter perfect how the King James came about based on "changing" the earlier Bibles.

Then, please tell us which is the most accurate, The 1611 version or the Oxford 1769 version.

THIS is the scientific method.

Direct and specific answers please, I do not need a paragraph on each one, just THE answer in as few of words as possible.

Thank you,
Phillip

 

OK...I'm obviously with Michelle on this one....but I know that will come as no surprize to any of you.I'm beginning to get used to the regular event of being "drawn and quartered" in here...not to mention being accused of heresy.At some point in the distant past the Holy Spirit's work of Divine Inspiration of the Originals concluded and the work of Divine Preservation of those same Originals began.I believe this because I CAN'T believe that the Holy God that saved me by grace through faith in His Son would throw the very foundation of my faith,The Word of God,to the four winds to be "sifted" by man.Call it what you will(and I'm sure you will)but The PERFECT God of Heaven simply cannot allow His Word to be held to a lower standard since he has said in Psalms 138:2 that He magnifies His Word "above all thy name."The perfection of God demands the same standard of perfection in His Word.You say that translation(s) are imperfect...I'll grant you that most of them are.I believe we have had SOME version of God's perfect word in print ever since the canon of scripture was CLOSED...even PRIOR to the translation we know as the KJV.The KJV IS faithful to the Originals...God has seen to that..and I'll go to my grave believeing that IT(KJV)is the translation that God protected so that we could have the perfect Word of God in this generation(for english speaking people)just prior to the return of our Lord Jesus Christ.Can I prove that to you or anybody?NO...probably not...but I don't feel obligated to...I'm simply declaring what I believe.Michelle,Granny,AV1611Jim,and any of you others in here...stick by your Book...and your guns...don't let these guys discourage you.I'm gonna keep the faith and believe the Book,keep praying for souls,passing out tracts(KJVO of course)and trying to faithfully find out how to live by faith and try to be pleasing to my Master.After all,that's all that really matters in this world and that's enough to keep us all occupied til He comes.From my point of view the only "fruit" I see coming out of the "new" versions is compromise,ecumenicism,new evangelicalism with weak standards,no seperation from the world,liberalism,and modernism,etc.You won't get these critics in here to agree with that but...well....oh well.We should all seek the Lord that he would give us the fruits of His Spirit and speak out for what we believe with grace,seasoned with salt.The very premise of most of the new version translators that they are trying to make the Word of God easier to understand is a FALSE PREMISE.Any "casual"reading of 1 Cor.2 (particularly vs.9-14)will tell you that.With that said...I'm done.Carry on!oh...I will be watching this debate as usual...but I am done arguing about it....I see no point in getting sucked back into this again.By the way...you haven't won...it's NOT a competition.

Greg Sr.

 

This is futile in the case of this question. There is no answer, in spite of obvious, major differences as in 1 Thessalonains 2v14. In this case we are told that these are not "real" differences and that we should stop attacking the Bible.

 

I asked a few simple questions and asked for a few simple answers without a "speech" that said NOTHING, but I believe in KJVOnlyism.

Answer these questions please and just name the answer without a speech:

A) What was the true Word-for-Word perfect Bible in 1588?

B) Why did the KJV have to be translated if that book was perfect?

C) Why did the KJV include the apocrypha up to the middle of the 1800's.

D) WHICH of the almost 100 revisions is the word-for-word PERFECT KJV. The 1611 printing or the 1679 Oxford. Or another?

E) What is the perfect - word-for-word Bible for some of the unreached people groups that have yet to have a Bible translated into their language?

F) Why was an ENGLISH Bible the one to carry-the-torch (so to speak) and have the word-for-word perfect Bible?

G) How do you translate perfectly from Greek to English (I'm assuming you have studied Greek in order to make the informed statements you are making.)

E) Is the Latin Vulgate the Perfect Word of God? I certainly hope so, since the KJV translators used it to obtain missing or disagreeing manuscripts.

F) So, I guess the pilgrams didn't have a perfect Word of God since the Geneva is quite different from the KJV and the King of England tried to destroy the Geneva along with those who used it.

Final message: If ya ain't got the apocrypha, ya ain't got the real KJV.

Disclaimer: Do NOT misquote me and say that I am attacking the KJV. I think the 1679 Oxford is a perfectly good translation -- just very difficult to read for those who didn't grow up with it.

 

I honestly cannot believe we are starting up another KJVO debate. I was actually learning a few things without interruption.

 

You are right, the KJVO haven't won, there is absolutely no Biblical support. It IS a competition when people come on here saying bad things about the Bible translations. That is against board regulations.

You won't continue the debate because you cannot answer the question I proposed.

 

Phillip..I'll freely admit..I'm not "qualified"to prove anything.I just know what I believe in my own heart and mind.I can't prove what I believe about the bible any more than I can prove the true existence of Heaven and Hell...but I have FAITH..given to me by the grace of God that they are indeed real and that they do indeed exist BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO.The supernatural truths must be seen through the eye of faith.Lost people have told me that that is a myth and that I have "blind" faith.I know otherwise...and so do you,but it is ONLY by the grace of a loving,merciful God that we do.Not everything can be demonstrated by "scientific"evidence.And that,my dear brother,is why I'll stay out of this debate in the future.Plus the fact that all it usually does is get otherwise gracious brothers and sisters in Christ upset at one another.The Word of God is a supernatural thing...a living entity...for that reason we can't apply the rules of man's wisdom to it in order to "figure it out".From the original Inspiration of it,to the transmission,translation,and preservation of it down through the years,God has had His Holy Hand on it from start to finish.I can't "prove"that...but I do believe it.God Bless You.Peace!

Greg Sr.