The KJV: The Inspired Word Of God

What is the inspired Word of God is Spanish? French? German? Russian? What was God's inspired Word prior to 1611?

 

Those verses do not declare or state what
you wrote. According to a consistent application
of your reasoning, when English-speaking believers read those same verses in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, were they to assume that the
1535 Coverdale's Bible was God's true inspired word in English and that it could never be update, revised, or changed? Later when they read those same verses in the beloved Geneva Bible, were they to assume that the Geneva Bible was the only inspired word of God in English?
Are you claiming that the word of God in English changes from year to year (1526, 1534, 1535, 1537, 1539, 1560, 1568, 1611, 1629, 1769, 1833, etc.)?

Do you use and read the actual 1611 edition of the KJV or do you use one of the other present-day varying editions of the KJV that have many
words changed?

 

I guess they do not believe the Greek NT and Hebrew and Aramiac OT are.

Don't you know that God's word didn't exist before 1611?

 

I believe the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic are the inspired and preserved Bible. I know there are minor variants in some of the Recieved text manuscripts. When there are variants, I side with the translation by the KJV translators.

I believe that the the rendering of the KJV is the best reflection of the Greek and Hebrew in English. The use of the singular and plural second person pronouns is an example of superiority of early modern English. I have read the 1611, it completely harmonizes with the most common 1769 used in churches today. The difference is an update to spelling which in 1611 had no standards.

As far as other languages, I also believe that there are preserved Bibles in German, French, and Spanish. I know for example, that the French Bible is called the David Martin translation, and the Spanish Bible is the Reina-Valera 1960. Spanish is a language that retained the originial delineation between the singular and plural, so a more recent update is acceptable. However, the KJV is superior to the Reina Valera in a couple of places. For example the word "logos" in John 1:1 is translated "word" in the KJV, and "verbo" in the Spanish Bible. I think the word "verbo" is not the best word to use (I might have chosen "palabra." That being said, the Spa

 

This quote is from here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2839.html#000003

Zachary: //However, if you have a good old King James
Bible, you will see in 2 Peter 3:9, it says:
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as
some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to
us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but
that all should come to repentance." //

On this board i expect you to quote Bible verses
such as the one you quoted back then as
in this example:

2 Peter 3:9 (KJV1769)
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as
some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to
us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but
that all should come to repentance.

Compare to :

2 Peter 3:9 (KJ21 - The 21st Century King James version)
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as
some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to
us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but
that all should come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (KJV1611):
The Lord is not slacke cocerning his promise (as
some men count slacknesse) but is long-suffring
to vs-ward, not willing that any should perish, but
that all should come to repentance.

As you can see, we are very precise on this forum;
you are expected to be also.

Your copy of the KJV is probably a "lying KJV" in that
it doesn't bother to tell you which one it is.

Here is a short guide to most of the KJVs commonly
for sale in 2005:
-----------------------

Which King James Version do you use?
Here is a sample test:

1. Ruth III:15d (KJV1611):

... and he went into the citie.

2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):

... and she went into the city.

3. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):

... and he went into the city.

----------------------

 

I sure wish my entire post had shown up....

I did go on to show that double inspiration and the Ruckmanite version of KJV-onlyism is heresy.

 

Zachry: "I believe the KJV 1611 is God's true inspired word
in English."

Amen, Brother Zachry. When are you going to get
a copy of it? You can get an electronic copy
at e-sword. I have an eletryonic copy of the
KJV1611, KJV1769 with Strong's Numbers, and the
Geneva Bible. This is good if i even have to work
off the internet, for the Bibles are on my hard drive.

Zachry: "Psalm 12:6-7 and 2 Timothy 3:16 declare it to be so."

Actually neither of these verses say which version
of the KJV is "God's true inspired word in English".
Both these verses are in my HCSB = Holman Christian
Standard Bible which is written in the same language
people speak in 2003, when the translation was completed.

The Psalm 12:6-7 false "KJV is God's only word in
English" is despelled by the REAL KJV, the KJV1611 Edition:

Pfalme XII:5-7 (KJV1611):

For the oppression of the poore, for the sighing
of the needy, now will I arise (saith the Lord,)
I will set him in safetie from him that puffeth at him.
6 The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes:
as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.
7 Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,)
thou shalt preserue +them,
from this generation for euer.

Sidenote: + Heb. him euery one of them

The false argument of the KJVO is that "the two
'them's in verse 7 refer to the 'wordes' in verse 6.
In fact, the 'them's refer to the 'poore' in
verse 5.

The 'Heb' in the translator footnote shows that
there is a variance in the Hebrew sources available
to the KJV translators: some (which the KJV translators
believe to be nearest to the originals) say
'them' and some say 'he'. Obviously the 'he' means
the people in verse 5. The 'them' can be read in
error to mean (as do the KJVOs) the 'words' in
verse 6.

 

There are plenty of TR based foreign Bible that are absolutly the woG.

Ignore the Alexandrian propaganda and do some reasearch..

 

I beg to differ. Spanish grammer is much more simmilar to Greek than to English grammer is and therefore translates better than English. The Renia Valera is much better than the KJV.

 

I would concur and my original post I did in fact explain that. However, the word "word" is a better noun form for the greek "logos" than the spanish "verbo."

 

There are plenty of TR based foreign Bible that are absolutly the woG.

Ignore the Alexandrian propaganda and do some reasearch.. </font>[/QUOTE]Agree -- Amen!

 

I've done some research. None of the match the KJV 100%. For that matter the TR itself does not match the KJV 100%.

 

And?!

 

Well, I thought it would be obvious. Since it is not, the point is that if they do not match, how can they be the "word of God" if they differ from the KJV?

 

Zachary: As I've said, before, or at least I think I have. I believe the KJV 1611 is God's true inspired word in English.

So do I...but not JUST the KJV.


Psalm 12:6-7 and 2 Timothy 3:16 declare it to be so.

The above statement shows us you haven't read the AV 1611 despite saying you believe it to be God's word.


Yes, I even believe the italicized words in the KJV are just as inspired as the non-italicized words.

OK, here's proof that you haven't read the AV 1611 and are speaking from the canned spam of the perpetrators of the KJVO myth:

For Psalm 12:7, the translators placed this marginal note beside it, to-wit..."Heb. him, I. euery one of them"

Don't believe it? I have a repro of the AV 1611 before me even as I type. You may easily verify the above online if you have no copy of the AV.

If you believe the italicized words as you say, you should see that those translators believed Ps.12:7 was about the PEOPLE mentioned in the surrounding verses. No use trying to say, "The marginal notes aint the TEXT" because both text and notes were written by the same people.

As for 2 Tim.3:13..."All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What part of "all scripture" don't you understand? Are the NKJV, NASB, HCSB, Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible Scripture or not? If not, whynot? Where does that verse assign any exclusivity to the KJV? Where does it drop the SLIGHTEST HINT about the KJV? Why can't this verse apply to every other valid BV old or new? After all, the verse is much older than any translation of it.

Sorry, Zach, it appears you're just another clueless Wilkinson/Ray/Fuller "party line" KJVO who blindly pushes the long-disproven false doctrines of the KJVO myth. You lose.

 

I believe that God has made the various Bible translations available to His people. I think a KJV and a NASB are equally God's Word to His people. Unless the translators have an intent to defraud for other motives then their work will be blessed by God. Bruce

 

Praise the Lord that you have the liberty to have and express yourown personal views!

 

Hmmm. What did Psalm 12:6-7 and 2 Timothy 3:16 declare before 1611? Where they lies then?

 

Natters: "Hmmm. What did Psalm 12:6-7 and 2 Timothy 3:16 declare before 1611?"

Here we go, about 1585:

Psalm 12:5-7 (Geneva Bible):

Now for the oppression of the needy, and for the sighes of the poore, I will vp, sayeth the Lord, and will set at libertie him, whom the wicked hath snared.
6 The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes, as the siluer, tried in a fornace of earth, fined seuen folde.
7 Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer.

In verse 7 'them' refers to 'the needy' in verse 5.
Clearly in verse 7 'him' refers to the 'the poor'
and 'the needy'.

2 Timothy 3:16 (Geneva Bible):

For the whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teache, to conuince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousnesse,

[sarcasim]as can be clearly seen, these verses declare
that the KJV1769 edition of the KJV of 1611 is the
only copy of God's Bible in English [/scarism]