I have never quoted or mentioned the name of The liar gail riplinger. Why put that liars name like I quoted her? That is misleading. I never mentioned that lying lady.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The KJV has been Preserved more Perfectly than Human Possibility.
- Thread starter Alan Gross
- Start date
- Status
Your eyes may be closed, or you may be blinded by erroneous KJV-only reasoning. You refuse to see the truth.
Your attempts to make the KJV the standard for the NKJV indicate erroneous KJV-only reasoning.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
How do you know?
They may very well have done that.
You can't say they didn't, for sure, right?
I'm not suggesting they did.
I just can't say they didn't, for sure.
From: Jesus Or Joshua?
"Bible correctors frequently drag out this dead fish and try to raise a stink about how the King James Bible is in error when it refers to "JESUS" bringing the children of Israel into the promised land.
"These noted scholars try to place you in the position that you can never read your Bible and know for certain, "Thus saith the Lord", unless you first consult with them to find out if you have the correct text they approve of, and that the text that you have is translated properly according to what they declare to be the correct rendering...They themselves become the Final Authority for what God REALLY said.
In Hebrews 4:8 we read: "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."
"Likewise in Acts 7:45 we have: "Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David."
"The Greek texts all literally have the name JESUS in these two places, though the contexts refer to the man Joshua. Joshua himself is a pictoral "type" of our Lord Jesus Christ.
"Joshua, along with Caleb, did believe God had given them the promised land, but the rest of the people entered not in because of unbelief.
"Later this same Joshua ('Jesus' in Greek) led the people into the land.
"The promised land typifies the spiritual rest from our own works which was accomplished by the greater Jesus, the Son of God Himself.
"Other Bible versions that read JESUS in Acts 7 and Hebrews 4
like the King James Bible are
Wycliffe 1395,
the Great Bible,
Taverner's Bible,
Matthew's Bible,
the Bishops' Bible 1568,
the Geneva Bible 1599,
Webster's 1833 translation,
Darby's translation 1890,
and the 1950 Douay version.
"The Spanish 1999 Las Sagradas Escrituras also reads like the KJB, having: "Porque si Jesús les hubiera dado el Reposo..."
"Joshua himself was called by four different names including
Jeshuah Nehemiah 8:17;
Joshua in Joshua 1:1;
Jehoshuah in Numbers 13:16, and Oshea in Numbers 13:11.
"He is mentioned only twice in the New Testament, once in Acts 7:45 and again in Hebrews 4:8.
"In Greek his name translates as Insous, or Jesus in English.
"This is exactly the same way "Jesus" is spelled in every case.
"Both Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:45 the literal Greek "Jesus" refers to the man Joshua, who himself believed God and is the "type" of the true Jesus, who indeed does lead us into the promised land and gives us rest from our own labours.
"The type and the antitype both have the same name.
"God Himself inspired the Bible in this way to teach a spiritual lesson.
"John Gill remarks in his commentary that Joshua " was an eminent type of Jesus Christ.
"There is an agreement in their names, both signify a saviour, Joshua was a temporal saviour, Christ a spiritual one;
"and in their office they were both servants;
"and in their qualifications for their office, such as wisdom, courage, faithfulness, and integrity.
"Joshua was a type of Christ in many actions of his life; in the miracles he wrought, or were wrought for him; in the battles he fought, and the victories he obtained."
"The King James Bible and all the others are not in error, as some allege.
"Rather it gives a literal translation of the Greek name Joshua, and reveals the "type" or divine foreshadowing of the fulfillment which was completed in the Son of God."
Will Kinney ( looks like he is KJV-only; too bad that is an indefensible position, regardless of how well-intended and how zealously he generates.good material.)
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Do you think I did that?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
There is a reason they use the word, "New".
The underlying texts behind the KJV and the NKJV could hardly be more different.
That is the issue with all the modern 'bibles'.
Besides their entirely different motivations, types of translators, translation techniques, committees participation, and their differing Theological positions (and the degree to which a wave of supernatural deception surrounds and protects one and attempts to devourer the other.)
Yes, in post #120.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
That's you, huh?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Which translation of the Seventy? Which Septuagint?
...
What is up with all these omissions and demotions of the Lord God, Jehovah and His GODHEAD, the Trinity, and Jesus Christ?
Accurately and faithfully translating the original words is what the KJV translators did, and made the renderings stronger, by adding "God", etc., and more expressive, all within the bounds of any illegitimate translation.
Is something wrong with that all of a sudden?
Since, when?
Are you all saying that the words "God" those 51 times in the KJV are added illegitimately?
Is there some underlying issue with that?
What is it?
That it's been done hundreds and hundreds of times, in dozens of Bible versions?
Why did the NKJV omit "God" even once?
Then, there is a LOT of wrong in a LOT of versions. See link below.
Really? The KJV or no version is a correct standard and authority to reference in translating?
That's bizarre.
How about the KJV being able to be the correct standard and authority to reference in creating a revision of itself?
That idiom was "God" forbid.
See below.
Why did the NKJV it the Name "God" from the KJV 51 times?
What was the reason?
If adding the word "God" to a verse, to indicate the source ot a blessing or warning, etc., is somehow inappropriate, unwarranted, incongruous, or sin, then dozens of versions have hundreds of inappropriate, unwarranted, incongruous, or sinful additions of the word "God" to verses, where there is no underlying Hebrew or Greek for "God", specifically.
God Forbid.
“GOD FORBID!” - Do Bible Correctors Really Know What They Are Talking About? Of Course Not!
"Doug Kutilek is a virulent critic of the King James Bible. He has written this short article criticizing the reading of “God forbid” as is found in the Holy Bible. Here is his opinion and then I will post the refutation.
"Doug Kutilek writes: The phrase “God forbid” occurs some 24 times in the King James Version of the Bible. Nine of these occurrences are in the OT (and thrice the similar “the LORD forbid”), while fifteen are found in the NT. Of the NT occurrences, all but one are found in the writings of Paul.
"As has been pointed out countless times with regard to the use of the phrase “God forbid” to render the words of the original Hebrew and Greek, it is a close English equivalent except for two facts:
1. the word “God” is not found in the original text; and
2. neither is the word “forbid.”
"Other than that, it is a fine representation of the original!
"It is obvious, of course, that here at least, the KJV is not a literal translation of the original, but is at best a paraphrase, a “dynamic equivalent.” (Do I hear some rigid KJV adherent mutter under his breath, “God forbid!”?)
"The New Testament passages, gleaned from Strong’s concordance, are Luke 20:16; Romans 3:4; 3:6; 3:31; 6:2; 6:15; 7:7; 7:13; 9:14; 11:1; 11:11; I Corinthians 6:15; Galatians 2:17; 3:21; 6:14. In every case but the last, the phrase is a self-standing grammatical unit, expressing strong opposition or rejection of a just mentioned opinion, point of view, or implied answer to a question. In Galatians 6:14, it is incorporated into a sentence.
"In all 15 references, the Greek phrase is identical: ME GENOITO. ME is a negative particle usually used with verbs in the subjunctive, optative or imperative moods.
"GENOITO is a rare NT occurrence of a verb in the optative mood (just 56 cases in all).
"It is from the verb GINOMAI, “to be, become, happen,” etc. Taken together, the phrase may be literally rendered, “may it not be,” a phrase weaker in force in English than the Greek original.
"Modern English equivalents would be “not at all!” or “absolutely not!” or “certainly not!” or “by no means” or “under no circumstances” or “perish the thought!” or even the colloquial, “no way, Jose!” (see the New King James Bible, New American Standard Bible, and New International Version in the passages involved).
"While all of these modern renderings are other than strictly literal renderings of ME GENOITO, they at least have the advantage over the KJV rendering of not introducing the name of God where it is not found in the original.
"Frankly, I am at a loss to explain how it came to pass that “God forbid,” came to be considered by Wycliffe and other early English translators from Tyndale to the KJV as a suitable and correct translation of the Greek ME GENOITO.
"It was strictly a phenomenon that arose in the then-very small English-speaking world, as far as I can tell. It cannot be defended as “the closest possible English equivalent.”
"The renderings of the NKJB, NASB, and NIV are very much to be preferred to it.
---Doug Kutilek "AS I SEE IT"
Volume 4, Number 4, April, 2001
con't
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
And now for my rebuttal.
"First of all, you need to keep something firmly in mind when dealing with men like Doug Kutilek and others like him who have taken it upon themselves to "correct" God's Masterpiece, the King James Holy Bible.
"And this is it - even though our Bible critic, Mr. Kutilek, piously refers to "the originals" or "the original Greek and Hebrew" 5 times in his short criticism of the KJB, the man couldn't show you a copy of these "originals" or a translation of them if his life depended on it.
"Yet he refers five times here to something he has NEVER seen and in fact that he himself KNOWS does NOT exist. There simply is NO "the original" our Bible corrector refers to, and he knows there isn't. The only "final authority" these men have is their own opinions and personal preferences, subject to change at any moment.
"Now, let's look more specifically at the expression "God forbid", as found in the only English Bible believed by thousands even today to be the complete*, inspired* and infallible* words of the living God - the King James Holy Bible.
(* More perfectly complete, inspired, and infallible than humanly possible, alone, is the way I put it).
"All previous English versions use this same expression, "God forbid", including
Wycliffe 1380, 1395;
Tyndale 1525, 1534;
Coverdale 1535;
The Great Bible (Cranmer) 1539,
Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568,
the Geneva Bible 1557, 1587, 1599, 1602,
the Beza New Testament 1599 and the Douay-Rheims version of 1582.
"God forbid" is also the reading found in John Wesley's N.T. translation of 1755, the Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston's Primitive New Testament of 1745, the Worsley Version of 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, the Book of the New Covenant 1836 (Granville Penn), the English Revised Version (of Westcott-Hort fame) of 1885, and the American Standard Version of 1901. The Douay version of 1950 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Corinthians and Galatians, The World English Bible 2000 in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version 1912 in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14, the Revised Standard Version of 1952 in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, J. B. Phillips N.T. 1962 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16, the New Living Translation 1996 in Luke 20:16, and Galatians 6:14, and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, and The Update Bible of 2003 have "God forbid" in all the same passages as does the King James Bible.
"Other English Bibles that use the phrase "GOD FORBID" in places like Romans 3:4 are The Bill Bible 1671, the Clarke N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Alford N.T. 1870, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Amplified Bible 1987, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Sacred Family of Yah 2001 "Elohim forbid", The Tomson New Testament 2002 - "God forbid", the Evidence Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005 (Vince Garcia), the Bond Slave Version 2009, The New European Version 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2013, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The BRG Bible 2012 and The Modern English Version 2014.
"The Common English Bible 2011 - “GOD FORBID that we should rebel against the Lord” (Joshua 22:29), “Then the people answered, “GOD FORBID that we ever leave the Lord to serve other gods!” (Joshua 24:16), “GOD FORBID that I should do that,” he said. “Isn’t this the blood of men who risked their lives?” (1 Chronicles 11:19), “Then Peter took hold of Jesus and, scolding him, began to correct him: “GOD FORBID, Lord! This won’t happen to you.” (Matthew 16:22), “But as for me, GOD FORBID that I should boast about anything except for the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 6:14)
"Maybe these Common English Bible translators should have consulted with Mr. Kutilek before they made all these "blunders", ya think?
"Oh, wait. There's more."
Much, much, much more at: Another King James Bible Believer
"First of all, you need to keep something firmly in mind when dealing with men like Doug Kutilek and others like him who have taken it upon themselves to "correct" God's Masterpiece, the King James Holy Bible.
"And this is it - even though our Bible critic, Mr. Kutilek, piously refers to "the originals" or "the original Greek and Hebrew" 5 times in his short criticism of the KJB, the man couldn't show you a copy of these "originals" or a translation of them if his life depended on it.
"Yet he refers five times here to something he has NEVER seen and in fact that he himself KNOWS does NOT exist. There simply is NO "the original" our Bible corrector refers to, and he knows there isn't. The only "final authority" these men have is their own opinions and personal preferences, subject to change at any moment.
"Now, let's look more specifically at the expression "God forbid", as found in the only English Bible believed by thousands even today to be the complete*, inspired* and infallible* words of the living God - the King James Holy Bible.
(* More perfectly complete, inspired, and infallible than humanly possible, alone, is the way I put it).
"All previous English versions use this same expression, "God forbid", including
Wycliffe 1380, 1395;
Tyndale 1525, 1534;
Coverdale 1535;
The Great Bible (Cranmer) 1539,
Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568,
the Geneva Bible 1557, 1587, 1599, 1602,
the Beza New Testament 1599 and the Douay-Rheims version of 1582.
"God forbid" is also the reading found in John Wesley's N.T. translation of 1755, the Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston's Primitive New Testament of 1745, the Worsley Version of 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, the Book of the New Covenant 1836 (Granville Penn), the English Revised Version (of Westcott-Hort fame) of 1885, and the American Standard Version of 1901. The Douay version of 1950 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Corinthians and Galatians, The World English Bible 2000 in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version 1912 in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14, the Revised Standard Version of 1952 in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, J. B. Phillips N.T. 1962 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16, the New Living Translation 1996 in Luke 20:16, and Galatians 6:14, and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, and The Update Bible of 2003 have "God forbid" in all the same passages as does the King James Bible.
"Other English Bibles that use the phrase "GOD FORBID" in places like Romans 3:4 are The Bill Bible 1671, the Clarke N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Alford N.T. 1870, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Amplified Bible 1987, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Sacred Family of Yah 2001 "Elohim forbid", The Tomson New Testament 2002 - "God forbid", the Evidence Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005 (Vince Garcia), the Bond Slave Version 2009, The New European Version 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2013, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The BRG Bible 2012 and The Modern English Version 2014.
"The Common English Bible 2011 - “GOD FORBID that we should rebel against the Lord” (Joshua 22:29), “Then the people answered, “GOD FORBID that we ever leave the Lord to serve other gods!” (Joshua 24:16), “GOD FORBID that I should do that,” he said. “Isn’t this the blood of men who risked their lives?” (1 Chronicles 11:19), “Then Peter took hold of Jesus and, scolding him, began to correct him: “GOD FORBID, Lord! This won’t happen to you.” (Matthew 16:22), “But as for me, GOD FORBID that I should boast about anything except for the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 6:14)
"Maybe these Common English Bible translators should have consulted with Mr. Kutilek before they made all these "blunders", ya think?
"Oh, wait. There's more."
Much, much, much more at: Another King James Bible Believer
False Witness. You do not have authority to give many falsewitnesses because you are lying for the KJV Bible.
I appologize Alan. I misunderstood your fine post. I thought you were accusing me of quoting the lady when you did no such thing. You just quoted her name from the reference that I had quoted. I withdraw the false accusation which I made against you. Please forgive my misunderstanding.
Your so-called rebuttal would condemn the KJV translators, and your incorrect rebuttal would suggest that they translated from something that did not exist. The rules for the making of the KJV and the KJV translators referred to "the original Hebrew" and the "original Greek" in the same sense and way that Doug Kutilek soundly referred to them.
According to its own title page and its preface, the 1611 KJV professed to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.” The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.”
Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds (1549-1607) "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). Mordechai Feingold cited where John Rainolds wrote: “We must diligently give ourselves to reading and meditating of the holy scriptures in tongues in which they were written by the holy Spirit” (Labourers, p. 14). Feingold also cited where John Rainolds asked: “Are not they blind, who prefer a translation, and such a translation before the original?” (p. 121). In a sermon on Roman 1:16, Miles Smith (?-1624) referred to “the fountain of the prophets and apostles, which are the only authentic pen-men, and registers of the Holy Ghost” (Sermons, p. 75).
In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.” Earlier on the third page of this preface, Miles Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.” Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or no so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indured with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”
At Acts 10:14, Tyndale's and Matthew's Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV has "Not so." At Acts 11:8, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Whittingham's, and Geneva Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV again has "Not so." At 2 Samuel 20:20, the 1560 Geneva and 1568 Bishops’ Bibles have “God forbid” twice while the KJV has “Far be it” twice. This verse has the same Hebrew word twice that the KJV rendered “God forbid” several other times. At 1 Samuel 20:9, the 1560 Geneva’s rendering [“God keep it from thee”] and the Bishops’ rendering [“God keep that from thee”] were revised in the KJV [“Far be it from thee”].
Would Alan Gross and Gail Riplinger claim that the KJV omitted the name of God at these verses according to a consistent, just application of their own assertions or accusations against the NKJV?
Would Alan Gross and Gail Riplinger claim that the KJV omitted the name of God at these verses according to a consistent, just application of their own assertions or accusations against the NKJV?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Remember, your reasoning has to be confined to brand new definitions of things (like all those different gratuitous assertions and generalizations you invented as new definitions of KJVO, to make me one.)
God is the Source of declaring, "may it not be".
Powerful sounding, huh?
Apparently, the KJV translators and those of dozens upon dozens of other Bibles don't have your acumen smartness.
Even though, it is not easily articulated, "expressing what the Author said in words in their language and figures of speaking, by the closest words in another language, with their own figures of speaking, to represent what the Author said in words and was expressing, with authenticity", is the translator's job, the way some take it.
Others just take their job of translating the Bible to be to disembowel Diety, from it.
Gail Riplinger is just another strawman (like KJVO and anti-Dean Burgon, or whatever) you brought up, for you to have something to attack. And from what you posted, you don't know if she was right or not.
...
Omitting words from a book being revised is my rationale.
And I am correct.
The KJV DOES NOT advertise, as its Claim to Fame, to be a direct, special "NEW" revision of either Tyndale's, Matthew's, Whittingham's, Geneva Bible 1560, or 1568 Bishops’ Bible.
Did they call it the "New Geneva Bible"?
No.
But, The New King James is supposed to be a revision of The New King James.
They lied though, didn't they?
They omit and/or bear false witness to the KJV and of God and Jesus Christ, second only to her bonafide, pure, in-stage, actual, genuine sister versions.
I say it is a doppelgänger, at best.
I do not see it, or the others derived from texts which are, also, not what they claim to be, by translators who actually are who they claimed to be, using techniques and Theologies they are proud to believe, as a Christian version for Christians.
The KJV has been Preserved more Perfectly than Human Possibility and is closest to the Original Autographs.
Last edited:
The NKJV is an actual revision of the KJV. No, they did not lie when it is said to be a revision.
The NKJV is both a revision of the KJV and a translation of the same original-language texts as the KJV just as the KJV is also both a revision and a translation of those original-language texts.
You bear the false witness and make false accusations. You disobey a scriptural command of God. You incorrectly deny the truth. Your eyes are evidently closed to the facts.
The first rule for the making of the KJV stated: “The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.” The preface of the KJV asserts that it is a revision. The KJV translators were given unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible as their starting point in English.
Your human rationale is inconsistent, incorrect, and wrong.
The makers of the KJV omitted many words from the Bishops' Bible of which the KJV is officially a revision according to the first rule for its making.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
So, they could have marketed it, if they thought it would make more money, by calling it the New Bishop's Bible?
That's if a translation of the Original lanuages, with another version "to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit" is the same as a revision, which, has to be officially the case, because you said so, below; "the Bishops' Bible of which the KJV is officially a revision".
That's just the way it is,
except for The NKJV and
Do you mean to tell me that you do not know that the KJV WAS A REVISION of the Bishops Bible?
This thread is closed
- Status