The KJV: The Inspired Word Of God

Is the KJV a revision of earlier English translations that were not the word of God according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning?

 

I believe the KJV is GODs' preserved Word for the English speaking people! It has no errors plus no man or group owns a copyright to it! Which I think that's the way it should be!!! You can get your own printing press , produce millions of copies of the Bible , give them to anyone you want and you don't have to acquire anyones' permission or pay any royalities to anyone!!!

 

I believe the KJV is GODs' preserved Word for the English speaking people!

Ok then which KJV?

1611?
1613?
1623?
1650?
1762?
1769?
etc...

Like all faithful English translations they are the preserved Word of God. The message is perfectly preserved in all faithful translations no matter the time period and/or languages

next...

It has no errors plus no man or group owns a copyright to it!

Errors:

Easter is one.

Deuteronomy 8:9 (KJV)
9 A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.

Did brass? really?

copyright

Just go and pick up a Cambridge KJV. This will settle this matter.

You can get your own printing press , produce millions of copies of the Bible , give them to anyone you want and you don't have to acquire anyones' permission or pay any royalities to anyone!!!


And this proves what? I can do the same with the Geneva Bible, etc.... I've seen people giving away NKJV, NIV's, and CEV's...so this means what my friend.

You really need to look at the Cambridge KJV my friend.

 

By the way the NKJV is dirt cheap at Wal-Mart and Dollar General where I live! For $5.00 plus tax a person can own a nice NKJV!

Thank God for cheap bibles!

 

The reasons I gave are why the Gideons distribute the KJV. The 1611 is good but with no standard of spelling at that time , it's a little stranger to read but I like it! Plus there were some printing errors at the time! They did pretty well with the equipment they had!!! Some editors have made some changes and I usually stay away from those ! Nelson changed Jesus Christ from being Saviour to savior , which I do not like the change. Anyone can be someones savior but there is only one seven letter capitol S..... Saviour!!!
Don't have a Cambridge KJV and never read one!only if someone changed it would be the only way any copyright could be obtained. David J , I get a sense you dislike the KJV...why?

 

I love the KJV. I have a worn out Oxford KJV(1769). I currently have the 1611 KJV, 1769 KJV, 1873 KJV, NKJV, and KJ21.

I am just telling you the truth about the KJV. I was a KJVO for over 7 years. I got out of KJVOism when I read the AV1611 and took the AV translators advice.

I sense that you have been reading Riplinger by some of your statements. Take my advice avoid her.

I would advise you to buy a reprint of the AV1611 and study it from cover to cover. It's a wonderful translation with many marginal notes and alternate readings in it. It will give you a good picture behind the KJV. The 1611 KJV destroys many KJVO myths. Don't take my word or anyone elses word for it! Read it for yourself like I did years ago and then decide if KJVOism is all that it claims to be.

I highly recommend the TR family and the CT family. The AV1611 had this to say:

“Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee haue seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee vttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Translator with the like grace, nor peraduenture so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, euery where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verum vbi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee haue made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and louely, though hee haue some warts vpon his hand, yea, not onely freakles vpon his face, but also skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.”

AND

“Neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it [the work of translation]...[nor] were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps.... Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anuill that which we had hammered: but hauing and vsing as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coueting praise for expedition, wee haue at the length, through the good hand of the Lord vpon vs, brought the worke to that passe that you see.”

AND

“Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled...[that] it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there, to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerne saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseeme vs than confidence. . .and to resolue upon modestie....There be many words in Scripture, which be neuer found there but once. ..there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves...so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in thejudgement of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.”

The above was taken from the AV1611.

*Alternate Readings in the AV1611 KJV

Judges 19:2 "Or, a yeere and foure moneths. Heb. dayes, foure moneths"

Ezra 10:40 "Or, Mabnadebai, according to some copies"

Psalm 102:3 "Or, (as some reade) into smoke"

Matthew 1:11 "Some reade, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias"

Luke 10:22 "Many ancient copies adde these words, And turning to his Disciples he said"

Acts 13:18 "according to the Sept. [Septuagint] and so Chrysost."

**Isaiah 14:12 "Or, O daystarre"

**** This is an important side note in the AV1611 because the King James Onlyist love to attack the modern versions for using morning star or day star instead of Lucifer**

Research it for yourself my friend,

In Christ,

David

 

Walmart has the 1611 KJV for $18.33!

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2369154

 

Greetings 13th! I would conjecture a guess from what you have posted that your standard is the 1769 Oxford Press Bible since it uses the UK spelling of Saviour as opposed to the US spelling Savior and you have never owned a Cambridge Press KJV. (BTW, the Cambridge could not have changed the Oxford since it was published seven years earlier). My 1769 Oxford Edition of the KJV, printed in the US in 1993 has this:

That sounds like a copyright to me.

For the curious, this edition has no study notes, it is text and centre references only.

[ June 10, 2005, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Have no idea who Riplinger is David...sorry!!!

 

I'd be happy to have you explain the copyright in my Oxford KJV if you get a chance 13th.

I would also appreciate instruction on how americanising the spelling of Saviour makes it wrong. Do you suggest that "Saviour" must have seven letters in it no matter which language it appears in?

 

Greetings 13th! I would conjecture a guess from what you have posted that your standard is the 1769 Oxford Press Bible since it uses the UK spelling of Saviour as opposed to the US spelling Savior and you have never owned a Cambridge Press KJV. (BTW, the Cambridge could not have changed the Oxford since it was published seven years earlier). My 1769 Oxford Edition of the KJV, printed in the US in 1993 has this:

That sounds like a copyright to me.

For the curious, this edition has no study notes, it is text and centre references only. </font>[/QUOTE]I think a crown copyright is issued for government documents and expires after 50 years of the first publication....there is no lasting copyright on the KJV! A man at my church volunteers for the Gideons and says that's the reason they print the KJV. They couldn't afford to pay royalities as a nickel or so a copy for other versions with the amount they distribute! Also I've never seen a footnote on church news letters and such saying used by permission like the NIV!

 

Therefore the copyright on my 1769 Oxford KJV (printed in 1993) does not expire until 2043 even according to your standards. Remember my 1769 Oxford KJV was printed in the US. Most countries of the world recognise copyrights of other nations. The US and the UK certainly do. Sorry my friend, your copyright rabbit just won't hunt.

BTW, the Gideons also print the NKJV.

 

Don't own an Oxford but if any extra commentaries or references that it has could explain it!

It's not americanizing! Older American dictionaries printed before the name of Jesus upset so many have two listings. Saviour- Our Lord Jesus Christ
savior- a person who saves a life! May not be an issue with some but Jesus Christ, as far as I'm concerned, deserves to stand out from everything else as much as possible!!! I could be drowning and you jump in and save my life which would make you my savior but in no way could you measure up with Jesus ; my Saviour!!! That's just how I look at it ....if you don't , that doesn't bother me!

 

I'm not saying they don't in certain places but I've never seen a Gideon NKJV.

 

Hey C4K , what's the difference with the Oxford and the KJV that the dollar stores and budget places sell for 5 bucks? Different translation or what?

 

One thing also I'll add is , I was presented a Scofield Reference Bible which is a KJV from my Church which is a beautiful Bible!!! Gold trim , leather cover ; I mean nice!!! I take it home and start to read! BTW , The Bible text is the same as a plain KJV but his notes and such make it copyrighted! That's when I realize that a person should be careful about "Reference Editions"!!!
As soon as I get to reading his notes on the first page....Charles and myself had a comfict! lol!!! I'm a YEC and on the first page he is combining the creation with millions and millions of years! Although I agree with much of his ideas and theology , he even skipped over commenting on the Flood of Noah , which I learned later he didn't accept! Not trying to start an Old Earth\Young Earth discussion here but explaining why I don't bother with any Reference Bibles anymore!!!

 

Of course we should be careful of reference editions. They are the words of men.

Please note in the KJV copyright the bolded, italicised word "NO PART of this publication..." As I mentioned above the Bible has no notes or commentaries, only centre references. Like it or not the KJV is copyrighted.

The change from Saviour to Savior is a simple americanisation, just like savour to savor and neighbour to neighbor. The change is consistent in American Bibles. To claim otherwise is simply sensationalism. Note this from the 1828 Webster's dictionary and note the spelling.

SOURCE
I did not realise that there are old American dictionaries that differentiated between the word "Saviour" and "savior" in the way you describe. I was unaware of that fact. Could you point me in the right direction please?


I have a Gideon NKJV on my desk in front of me at the moment.

The $5 KJV at Wal-mart are more than likely reprints of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

Since you don't like Nelson Bible, and don't have a Cambridge or Oxford KJV, may I ask which edition you use?

[ June 10, 2005, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

I have many different translations. I collect Bibles. I have 17 different versions also several copies of most translations that I've acquired! At this moment I'm using a freebie Gideon KJV that my brother gave me. I own Nelson Bibles , Bibles from other denominations , Ampified , nkjv , which I believe are Nelsons , Nivs , RAS ,and so forth!
I was given the Bible on CD as a present which I believe is a Living Bible version , which is interesting because of the sound effects and music plus several different Bible softwares with many different types! I understand the Southern Baptist have a new version now which I haven't seen as of yet but for daily use...I use my plain Gideon KJV( I just checked and it has no copyright, btw) If I stumble or not clearly understanding a certain verse, I will reference several different Bibles to see whos in agreement with a certain word!

 

On this I an not certain, but am pretty sure that the Gideon KJV uses the Oxford text.

To say that the KJV is not copyrighted is an error, and has no real relevance in any regard.

To say that American publishers used Savior to de-emphasise the importance of Christ is in error, and hs no real relevance in any regard.