The KJV’s respect for God’s Words

[jonathan.borland]

This tax made the AV too pricey for the average Englishman to afford . . . .

I wonder how much one of those costed in today's terms based on the average income of a person of that day. Can anyone calculate the answer? Would it have been $1,000 or more?

 

[Jerome]

the early copies of the AV has KJ's TAX STAMP in it, placed there at the suggestion of his Finance Minister Sir Robert Cecil. This tax made the AV too pricey for the average Englishman to afford, but was a way for KJ to line the royal treasury with gold.

Please substantiate this claim. Thanks.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello robycop3

You first said..........

“Still Learning, you should still learn that the AV men also 'edited' the Bible.”

Of course; this is not in dispute.

But what’s important is, they did it “hundreds of year ago”, and not under public pressure.

And.....the final product, has been under the most intense scrutiny that any document has every experienced, for hundreds of years......and yet God’s people still trusted it.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

“And the "Yea, hath God said...?" is one of the MOST STUPID of KJVO arguments. You are stumped by this version of it:" Yeah, hath GOD said, 'You shall be KJVO?' "

I will overlook how you are calling me stupid, and still respond.

Here we have Satan: Trying to convince Eve to disobey God: But Eve knows what God has said.
So Satan, “questions God’s Word”, and says........"Yea, hath God said...?"

Some might call me stupid, for using this example of Satan’s methodology:
But He is still using the same tactics today........
“This verse isn’t found in the best Greek manuscripts”.

I.e. Did God really intend for this verse to be in the Bible????

What is really stupid, is for people to fall for the same trick, over and over again.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said........

"The love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil" is reality. "The love of money is THE root of ALL evil" does NOT fit reality. We all agree that Klebold & Harris committed a great evil when they shot up Columbine HS, but it would be absurd to say they did it for lova money since they KILLED THEMSELVES. And while Scripture cannot be broken, it can be poorly translated, and that's what the KJV did with 1 Tim. 6:10. There are other goofs as well, discussed elsewhere in this forum. Bottom line is that the KJV is no more perfect than the versions you are dissing.”

Well, you are wrong: The “love” of money, “is” the “root” of “all” evil!

Understanding this statement, is kind of like explaining why gambling is a sin, even though you will not find one verse in the entire Bible that says so.

Gambling is a sin, because it is the “worship of money or gain”.
Just as “the love of money”, is the “worship of money or gain”.

Money is not the issue: (Everyone needs money)
The issue is our heart, and who we are worshiping.

The terrible act at Columbine, had nothing to do with guns, or video games or bullies:
It had to do with the god that those two young men were worshiping.

No, they didn’t commit this crime to get money.
But I can grantee you, that “they loved money”.

Just as every wicked person that commits a wicked act, “loves money”!
--------------------------------------------------
Lastly you said..........

“As for Bible sales...the early copies of the AV has KJ's TAX STAMP in it, placed there at the suggestion of his Finance Minister Sir Robert Cecil. This tax made the AV too pricey for the average Englishman to afford, but was a way for KJ to line the royal treasury with gold.”

I put this statement in the same category, of all the other mis-information that can be found on the internet, about the KJV.

There are those who, prefer the NASB, but there are those who HATE THE KJV.
This hatred of the KJV is totally irrational.

 

[Baptist4life]

This tax made the AV too pricey for the average Englishman to afford, but was a way for KJ to line the royal treasury with gold.

How did the royal treasury line itself with gold if the KJV was too PRICEY for the average Englishman to afford? Your statement contradicts itself!

 

[Jerome]

I wonder how much one of those costed

KJB1611 (a large folio) reportedly cost 12 shillings. source
In 1610, £0 12s 0d would have the same spending worth of today's £58.73 source

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

KJB1611 (a large folio) reportedly cost 12 shillings. source
In 1610, £0 12s 0d would have the same spending worth of today's £58.73 source

Excellent research, according to the same second source that would be 12 days wages for a full craftsman or 14 pounds of wool. Either on of those would have been quite a stretch for the average family.

 

[Trotter]

How did the royal treasury line itself with gold if the KJV was too PRICEY for the average Englishman to afford? Your statement contradicts itself!

More than the average Englishman could afford, but not the wealthy, and not the churches themselves. The very fact that the Crown put its own tax on it would have been enough for me to never pick it up had I lived at the time.

I continue to be both amazed and astounded by stilllearning's "thoughts" on the matter. The very thing used to condemn any translation after the KJV does not apply to the KJV... well, outside of the corrections for spelling and grammar, of course. Uh-huh. Gotcha.

I keep forgetting that God put on His hat and hit the road after 1611. Or 1769. Or whenever the KJV was finally "perfected" or purified or whatever it is the KJVO camp want to claim this month. I guess that stinks for all the rest of us who aren't on that bandwagon, what with us having the use inferior and tainted translations and all. I mean, golly, the KJV translators obviously had God standing on their shoulders making sure they penned His exact words... like Mark 16:9-20, or 1 John 5:7... contrary to later evidence that these are most likely later additions.

Yeah... all the additional discoveries that have been found since back then are obvious ploys of the devil meant to confuse modern man. Isn't that how the reasoning goes? And that Erasmus had heaven itself guiding him as he hacked together his manuscripts, back-translating from the Vulgate to fill in the places he was missing? And the translators of the earlier works, that the KJV translators copied? I just want to make sure I am getting all the convolutions in the right place and order... I would hate to muddy the waters any more and all...

 

[jonathan.borland]

Excellent research, according to the same second source that would be 12 days wages for a full craftsman or 14 pounds of wool. Either on of those would have been quite a stretch for the average family.

Apparently, in 1611 to buy the AV would have meant about 1/30 of the average man's yearly wages. So if we assume the average man today makes around $40,000, then the AV would have costed over $1300 in today's terms. Is that correct? Or if this number is too high, and the average man makes $30,000 today, then it would have costed $1000 or so. It's a pretty hefty sum, however you calculate it.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Trotter

You said........

“I continue to be both amazed and astounded by stilllearning's "thoughts" on the matter. The very thing used to condemn any translation after the KJV does not apply to the KJV... well, outside of the corrections for spelling and grammar, of course. Uh-huh. Gotcha.”

Please elaborate.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said........

“I keep forgetting that God put on His hat and hit the road after 1611. Or 1769. Or whenever the KJV was finally "perfected" or purified or whatever it is the KJVO camp want to claim this month.”

Another cryptic statement, but I think you are saying that you believe, that even by 1769, God had not yet provided us with an accurate English Bible.

And if that is the case, than you have succumb to the story that has been being spun, for about the last 120 years or so:
(That somehow God allowed his Word to get lost, and we need those wise scholars, to find if for us again
-And they are still looking.-

All that I have been saying in this thread, is that I believe that the English Bible is complete and accurate, and has been for the last 400 years or so.
(And if it’s not broken, it doesn’t need to be fixed.)
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.....

“I guess that stinks for all the rest of us who aren't on that bandwagon, what with us having the use inferior and tainted translations and all. I mean, golly, the KJV translators obviously had God standing on their shoulders making sure they penned His exact words...”

There is no need to be sarcastic.

And no, you are not forced to read those Bibles. The KJV is available everywhere.

No, I do not believe that the KJV translators got any words from God;
(And I have always spoken against double inspiration, and you know that.)
--------------------------------------------------
But next you get more to the point.......

“.....like Mark 16:9-20, or 1 John 5:7... contrary to later evidence that these are most likely later additions.”

Please, what are these “later evidences” you are talking about?
(And can they be trusted?)

I mean if tomorrow, the announcement was made, “Ancient manuscript found, that proves the Bible to be a lie”.
(Would you, check it out, to see if it was a valid charge?)

If you did, I would feel sorry for you.

The Bible, is just something that should not be questioned!
(IT’S THE BIBLE!)
--------------------------------------------------
Now, your next statement, lets me know where you are coming from........

“Yeah... all the additional discoveries that have been found since back then are obvious ploys of the devil meant to confuse modern man. Isn't that how the reasoning goes? And that Erasmus had heaven itself guiding him as he hacked together his manuscripts, back-translating from the Vulgate to fill in the places he was missing? And the translators of the earlier works, that the KJV translators copied? I just want to make sure I am getting all the convolutions in the right place and order... I would hate to muddy the waters any more and all.”

You are looking for anything, that will allow you to question God’s Word.
(And so you have found plenty!)

What do you think about people like..........
John Bunyan, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Wycliffe, William Whittingham, Christopher Goodman, William Tyndale, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson, William Cole, Mathew Parker, Miles Coverdale, etc.

These were all great Christians from the past:
(And even though I reject Calvinism, I included his name)

All of these men studied the KJV(or one of the Bibles that made it up), and they believed that the Bible that they were studying was God’s complete Word.

Now are you saying that they were a bunch of morons?

 

[Trotter]

Please elaborate.

Modern translations fall short because men are "waxing worse and worse", but the KJV can be edited and revamped without this tainting it. Your reasoning is a combination of personal conviction and dogma from what I see, and is not really reasoning at all. What you say against anything other than the KJV does not apply to the KJV because it was written earlier. If being closer to the actual autographs is best you should be using the Vulgate and the Septuagint.

Another cryptic statement, but I think you are saying that you believe, that even by 1769, God had not yet provided us with an accurate English Bible.

And if that is the case, than you have succumb to the story that has been being spun, for about the last 120 years or so:
(That somehow God allowed his Word to get lost, and we need those wise scholars, to find if for us again
-And they are still looking.-

All that I have been saying in this thread, is that I believe that the English Bible is complete and accurate, and has been for the last 400 years or so.
(And if it’s not broken, it doesn’t need to be fixed.)

You claim that there's no way a bible translated today can compare with the KJV because men are "waxing worse and worse", and yet the KJV is perfection even though it was translated by fallen men as well. And that the various editions/revisions were only for typos and spelling errors... meaning it wasn't perfect, but was being edited by men who were "waxing worse and worse" than those who initially translated the KJV. Do you see the hypocrisy there?

God's word has never been lost. I realize that you do not accept the research done regarding biblical manuscripts, but that doesn't change the fact that there are some manuscripts that contain things that were not in the earlier manuscripts. Those extra words had to come from somewhere...

There is no need to be sarcastic.

And no, you are not forced to read those Bibles. The KJV is available everywhere.

No, I do not believe that the KJV translators got any words from God;
(And I have always spoken against double inspiration, and you know that.)

Sorry... sarcasm was as good as I could pull on that one. I know the KJV is everywhere as I have multiple copies myself. I also own many other translations that are just as viable and a whole lot easier to understand because they are written in lanuage much closer to that which we speak today.

The KJV wasn't double inspiration... and yet it alone is perfect? Hmmm... sounds like a bit of double talk there.

Please, what are these “later evidences” you are talking about?
(And can they be trusted?)

I mean if tomorrow, the announcement was made, “Ancient manuscript found, that proves the Bible to be a lie”.
(Would you, check it out, to see if it was a valid charge?)

If you did, I would feel sorry for you.

The Bible, is just something that should not be questioned!
(IT’S THE BIBLE!)

"Can they be trusted?" I seriously doubt that you, or any other KJVO, would accept anything outside of the manuscripts used for the KJV (which no longer exist) as trustworthy. As for what evidence, the thousands of fragments and manuscripts discovered since the translating of the KJV... all of them.

Please don't feel sorry for me. I rest assured with where I stand. I check and verify everything possibly can; it's part of how my mind and gift mix work. And I have seen quite a few media articles that have claimed that very thing over the years... none have panned out yet.

I am not questioning the bible, but I am questioning your reasons/reasoning regarding the KJV. Surely it is strong enough to stand on its own. I learned a long time ago to steer clear of dogmatism because it is mostly made up of man-made stuff that has been added on to the truth. That goes along with my generation in many ways and has proven to be very valuable in my Christian walk over the years.

You are looking for anything, that will allow you to question God’s Word.
(And so you have found plenty!)

What do you think about people like..........
John Bunyan, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Wycliffe, William Whittingham, Christopher Goodman, William Tyndale, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson, William Cole, Mathew Parker, Miles Coverdale, etc.

These were all great Christians from the past:
(And even though I reject Calvinism, I included his name)

All of these men studied the KJV(or one of the Bibles that made it up), and they believed that the Bible that they were studying was God’s complete Word.

Now are you saying that they were a bunch of morons?

I am showing what questions the KJV. The KJV is God's word, yes... but it is not the sole repository for it in the English language. God's word will stand when all else has fallen... no matter what translation is is in.

I think those listed were fallible men, just like all others. And yes, they studied the bible and accepted it as it was the best they had at the time. This is not that time, nor are we only allowed a single translation as declared by law. None of them were morons, but all of them were limited to what they had. i have many more resources on my computer alone than they had, and that without including the vast wealth of knowledge available on the internet. My bookcases also contain more than most of these had access to in their day. I don't claim to be anywhere near these men, but I do know that they would be completely amazed at the information we have today and that this information would have a huge impact on them.

Don't get me wrong. I do love and use the KJV, but I use it as one among many translations. I will stand and protect it, as well as any other valid translation of the bible, from attack. And this is not an attack on the KJV, but rather a show that it is not perfect.

 

[stilllearning]

Good evening Trotter
And thank you for your informative and civil response.

You said......

“Modern translations fall short because men are "waxing worse and worse", but the KJV can be edited and revamped without this tainting it.”

Yes it can. Because with all it’s editing and revamping, it remains intact.
--------------------------------------------------
Continuing you said......

“Your reasoning is a combination of personal conviction and dogma from what I see, and is not really reasoning at all.”

Yes, yes yes. I do have convictions and I am dogmatic, when it comes to God’s Word.
(I think every Christian should be.)

But this doesn’t mean that I don’t use my mind.

One definition of “reasoning”, is: (The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.)

I do this with God’s Word; From the standpoint that God in infinite and I am finite.
And although God does expect us to use our minds, to solve life’s problems, He never wants us to question His Word.

And as I have said; I believe that His Word has already been delivered to us.
And any additional research or discovery concerning His Word, is just not needed.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said......

“What you say against anything other than the KJV does not apply to the KJV because it was written earlier. If being closer to the actual autographs is best you should be using the Vulgate and the Septuagint.”

Not exactly.
Yes, all my complaints, are with English translations that are not the KJV;
(But this is not because it simply happened to have been written before them

I see the KJV, as “God Word in the English language”.
I see it as something that had been established, long long ago.

Therefore, we already had God’s Word, before Wescott & Hort.
So what was their motivation, other than to cast doubt upon what was already accepted as God’s inspired Word.
--------------------------------------------------
Now for your 2nd paragraph......

“You claim that there's no way a bible translated today can compare with the KJV because men are "waxing worse and worse",....

Yes I do:

.....and yet the KJV is perfection even though it was translated by fallen men as well.”

Yes, the men who translated the KJV were fallen, but God’s Word is perfect.
(And I think that we can trust God, to enable the honest labors of fallen Christians, to accurately translate His Word.)
--------------------------------------------------
Also you said.....

“And that the various editions/revisions were only for typos and spelling errors... meaning it wasn't perfect, but was being edited by men who were "waxing worse and worse" than those who initially translated the KJV. Do you see the hypocrisy there?”

No, I don’t.....because:
The Biblical term we keep using: “waxing worse and worse": Tells us, that the earlier “honest labors” of Godly men, will be better than the later “honest labors” of Godly men.

With this said I prefer not to trust even the honest labors, of Godly men today;
In the area of changing the Bible in any way.
i.e. If an updated version of the KJV were announce, that promised that only the old words were replaced with updated words; I would most likely reject it, because of tremendous influence, modern textual criticism, has had on everyone in academia.

But not all the work done in this field, has been honest:
There is a lot of historical evidence, seriously questioning the integrity of Wescott & Hort: And as far as I can tell, all the changes made in the modern versions, are a result of their work.

As for this word “perfect”: As you have seen I have used it sparingly, if at all:
(The word perfect, seems to bring to mind a “facsimile”
And although I do trust the KJV, to be God Word, it is not a facsimile.

The word that I prefer is “infallible” (incapable of error):
--------------------------------------------------
Your next paragraph......

“God's word has never been lost. I realize that you do not accept the research done regarding biblical manuscripts, but that doesn't change the fact that there are some manuscripts that contain things that were not in the earlier manuscripts. Those extra words had to come from somewhere...”

It’s not that I don’t accept the research done regarding biblical manuscripts; I just see this research, as a big waste of time.
(Unless of course, your intent is to cast doubt upon God’s Word.)

But you do bring up a very interesting point: “Those extra words had to come from somewhere”

What extra words:
As far as I can tell, all the Modern Versions, only remove words & verses & passages:
(Could you please inform me of any words, they have added.)
--------------------------------------------------
You continue.....

“The KJV wasn't double inspiration... and yet it alone is perfect? Hmmm... sounds like a bit of double talk there.”

No; It didn’t have to be inspired again, in order to be “an accurate translation of God’s Word”:
All that was required: Was honest labors of Godly Christian men, and accurate copies of the autographs, to translate from.
(And this is the main difference between the KJV and the MV’s.)
--------------------------------------------------
Here is another interesting statement you make.......

“"Can they be trusted?" I seriously doubt that you, or any other KJVO, would accept anything outside of the manuscripts used for the KJV (which no longer exist) as trustworthy. As for what evidence, the thousands of fragments and manuscripts discovered since the translating of the KJV... all of them.”

What exactly are you referring to, that (no longer exist), that was used to translate the KJV?

And as for all the fragments of manuscripts, that have been found:
As I have said, we already have God’s Word, so what’s the big deal.
--------------------------------------------------
Please forgive me, but I was flabergasted by your next statement.....

“Please don't feel sorry for me. I rest assured with where I stand. I check and verify everything possibly can; it's part of how my mind and gift mix work. And I have seen quite a few media articles that have claimed that very thing over the years... none have panned out yet.”

This was said in response to my pretend news flash......
“Ancient manuscript found, that proves the Bible to be a lie”

And you said........

“And I have seen quite a few media articles that have claimed that very thing over the years... none have panned out yet.”

As I stated, I flatly ignore such announcements, and classify them as open attacks upon God’s Word, intended to cast doubt in people’s minds about the Bible.

Our faith in God and His Word, needs to be such that such claims, don’t even have to be investigated.
(Not because we should be afraid of anything
But because of the absurdity of such claims.
--------------------------------------------------
Your next paragraph.........

“I am not questioning the bible, but I am questioning your reasons/reasoning regarding the KJV. Surely it is strong enough to stand on its own. I learned a long time ago to steer clear of dogmatism because it is mostly made up of man-made stuff that has been added on to the truth. That goes along with my generation in many ways and has proven to be very valuable in my Christian walk over the years.”

I agree: A lot of dogmatism, is “man made”.

But there is a clear reason why we should be dogmatic about God’s Word.......
Jeremiah 17:9-10
V.9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and dsperately wicked: who can know it?
V.10 I the LORD search the heart, try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, [and] according to the fruit of his doings.

God’s Word, is the only thing that can be trusted in this world.
--------------------------------------------------
Next........

“I am showing what questions the KJV. The KJV is God's word, yes... but it is not the sole repository for it in the English language. God's word will stand when all else has fallen... no matter what translation is is in.”

This is also interesting.
Why should you doubt that “the sole repository for it in the English language”?

Should Christians in the past, have doubted that the Bible was complete?

Should Christians today, be doubting that we have God’s completed Word?

As what point in time, should we expect the LORD to fulfil His promise, to preserve His Word?

And once again, all I see the MV’s doing, is removing words, verses & passages.


To be continued............

 

[stilllearning]

--------------------------------------------------
Finally your last paragraph...........

“I think those listed were fallible men, just like all others. And yes, they studied the bible and accepted it as it was the best they had at the time. This is not that time, nor are we only allowed a single translation as declared by law. None of them were morons, but all of them were limited to what they had.”

Why were they limited?

Was God hiding something from them?

Is God’s motivation, somehow to not reveal all of His Word to us or to them?
--------------------------------------------------
Also......

“i have many more resources on my computer alone than they had, and that without including the vast wealth of knowledge available on the internet. My bookcases also contain more than most of these had access to in their day. I don't claim to be anywhere near these men, but I do know that they would be completely amazed at the information we have today and that this information would have a huge impact on them.”

You know, it may have had an impact upon them.
(But information is irrelevant, from God’s point of view.)

From my investigation, I have learned that when the translators started their work on the KJV, some unforseen circumstances prevented the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus,
from arriving at their location, therefore preventing these translators, from being influenced by them.
(Praise the LORD!)

I see these unforseen circumstances, as God’s providence.
(He saw to it, that only accurate copies, were considered.)




Good night.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well it's pretty obvious that this thread has come to it's illogical conclusion.

 

[Trotter]

Well it's pretty obvious that this thread has come to it's illogical conclusion.

Yeah.

"He's dead, Jim. Let him go." -Leonard "Bones" McCoy

 

[jonathan.borland]

Yeah.

"He's dead, Jim. Let him go." -Leonard "Bones" McCoy

"I'll never forgive them . . . . . . . . for the death of my boy."

KIRK KIRK KIRK KIRK!

 

[Rippon]

Someone who is regarded a great Christian theologian, of one generation, would not be so considered by a previous generation.

For instance, BB Warfield(1851-1921), is today by most people look upon as a Godly man:
But if someone with his ideas about the Bible, were around back in the 1700's or 1600's, he would have been considered a heretic.

What is it with you besmirching BBW at every turn? I dare say he qualifies as a gold standard of biblical orthodoxy.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I dare say he qualifies as a gold standard of biblical orthodoxy.

Agreed, I don't think I have ever heard a reputable source question his orthodoxy, much less consider him a heretic.

 

[Rippon]

And as I have said; I believe that His Word has already been delivered to us.
And any additional research or discovery concerning His Word, is just not needed.

Should the discoveries be silenced?! Are you afraid of facts?

Yes, all my complaints, are with English translations that are not the KJV

O boy!

we already had God’s Word, before Wescott & Hort.
So what was their motivation, other than to cast doubt upon what was already accepted as God’s inspired Word.

Yes, we had translations of God's Word before the advent of W&H. But it is nonsensical in the extreme to say that the reason they did all their hard work was to cast doubt on God's Word. You are being absurd and dishonoring to two biblical scholars to whom we owe a great debt.

The Biblical term we keep using: “waxing worse and worse": Tells us, that the earlier “honest labors” of Godly men, will be better than the later “honest labors” of Godly men.

I guess that's a sample of your hermeneutical principle.

With this said I prefer not to trust even the honest labors, of Godly men today;

You take the cake.

But not all the work done in this field, has been honest:
There is a lot of historical evidence, seriously questioning the integrity of Wescott & Hort:

Well, since you want to slam BB Warfield, no wonder you'd try your best to demean W&H too.

It’s not that I don’t accept the research done regarding biblical manuscripts; I just see this research, as a big waste of time.

And you pride yourself regarding your logic and powers of reasoning?!

As far as I can tell, all the Modern Versions, only remove words & verses & passages:

Modern verses do not "remove" passages. That is unless you regard the KJV as a standard of perfection.

Modern versions have additional material not present in the KJV.

And once again, all I see the MV’s doing, is removing words, verses & passages.

How myopic of you.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Rippon

I have been expecting you to come “ripping” in here.

You said......

“What is it with you besmirching BBW at every turn? I dare say he qualifies as a gold standard of biblical orthodoxy.”

Precisely; This is the problem with biblical orthodoxy.

2000 years ago, the Pharisees and Sadducees, were the gold standard of biblical orthodoxy.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi C4K

You said......

“Agreed, I don't think I have ever heard a reputable source question his orthodoxy, much less consider him a heretic.”

Of course you haven’t, because this is 2010.

The context of my statement in this thread, was that if someone was found to have his belief’s back in the 1600's & 1700's: That person would have been called a heretic.

This was to demonstrate how standards, are constantly changing.