JD731, are you in effect acknowledging that my statement states the truth?
Stating the truth would not be silly.
-
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 Update Project
- Thread starter Baptizo
- Start date
JD731, are you in effect acknowledging that my statement states the truth?
Stating the truth would not be silly.
Not sure what point you are making, but if it is to claim the KJV did not mistranslate the meaning of the Greek name in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, you are wasting our time.
As to the one time the AV translated G2424 as Jesus meaning Justus, please cite the verse. My online interlinear says Colossians 4:11 has G2459.
I don't know. You wear me out. I do not approach my Bible as if it has anything to do with the Church of England. I approach it as being what it claims in it's pages, the word and record of God. If it turns out at the judgement, of which I will be a participant, that I find out it really was not trustworthy, as you claim, then I will understand that I was decieved by at least the producers of it. As it stands now, I have had over 50 years to prove it and the prophecies it contains and I find no fault in it.
So, if what you imply, that there are more translations and paraphrases, yea, all translations and paraphrases that are produced by various men and organizations, are equally the word of God, as they claim in their pages, then it should comfort your heart because neither of us will have anything to be concerned about at the judgement. I am not quite there yet but keep pounding and, who knows, you might just convince me as you have our friend @Conan and a host of others that this is indeed the case.
I know one thing for sure, having interacted with most people on this Baptist forum, and that is that I have not gleaned from the pages of my KJV what you and at least some of the people here who state their theology have gleaned from their Bibles. In many cases we are not speaking of the same Jesus, I think, and since there are at least a pluraity of this person, I admit that it is I who could be wrong. I just do not think it is.
Last edited:
The opposition of die-hard KJVO types is uneducated, IMHO."The opposition die-hard KJVO typesisare uneducated, IMHO."
"The opposition die-hard KJVO typesisare uneducated, IMHO."
The opposition of die-hard KJVO types is uneducated, IMHO.
Adding 'of' to the phrase changes it, makes 'is ' correct. Also changes the meaning. Makes those who are opposing KJVO to be uneducated.
Do you stick your head in the sand and try to hide from the truth?
Do you in effect reveal that you do not approach the KJV from the standpoint of all the facts or from the standpoint of truth?
The KJV has something to do with the Church of England regardless of your efforts to dismiss or deny it. The Church of England had a great deal to do with the KJV and its making. The KJV was the third authorized Church of England English Bible translation. All the makers of the KJV were members of the Church of England, and they all held the doctrinal views of the Church of England in that day. King James I, who made the rules for the making of yet another English Bible translation, was head of the Church of England. The rules for the making of the KJV led to episcopal bias in some of its translation decisions. Archbishop Richard Bancroft, who was over the state Church of England under King James I, was the overseer for the making of the KJV.
In his dedication to King James I in the 1611 KJV, Bishop Thomas Bilson may have indicated possible Episcopal bias when he noted the “great hope” that the Church of England would reap “good fruit” from the translation. Thus, one stated "hope" or aim for the KJV was to help or aid the state Church of England.
So what! I defer to Heb 11:6.which states "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
I have told you that we have the identity of Jesus Christ in the OT revealed in Ge 15:1. He is the word of the LORD and it is he that speaks to the prophets. Just as a for instance, he comes to Ezekiel as the word of the LORD saying this and that; He revealed himself unto the prophets and one does not reveal a spoken word. Therefore he came as a person.
3 The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.
(Did he really have a hand).
He came to Ezekiel 60 times in his prophecy.
He showed up as the Lord GOD, Adonay Jehovah, 210 times in his book, speaking. He is omnipresent and eternal and not like us, he is not restricted by time. He is mentioned in the NT 13 times as the word of the Lord, all during the apostolic era. A thousand years in his sight are as yesterday when it is passed and as a watch in the night. That verse is in Psalm 90 and I hope I am quoting it exactly right. The point being is that 425 years since the production of the KJV is a very short time for him.
You and I do not view God and his ways in the same way. You are judging me by your standards and God is not going to judge either of us by how well we were able to put the history of King James together but how faithful were were. I do not see youas having a position of faith.
My position is one of biblical faith in what the Scriptures teach.
I am judging your non-scriptural KJV-only view by scriptural standards. Faith in human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions is not biblical faith in what God said. The modern case for KJV-only teaching can be regarded to be flawed and broken because it sometimes sets faith to oppose truth, or it sometimes advocates misplaced or blind faith in the wrong thing such as in the subjective opinions, human reasoning, or traditions of men. Faith in unproven premises based on fallacies would not qualify as sound biblical faith in what the Scriptures state. You refuse to believe or accept verified true facts concerning the KJV.
According to KJV-only assertions concerning faith, did what a false prophet or a false teacher stated become true if someone or many believed it? The Scriptures warn that false prophets will deceive many (Matt. 24:11). If someone claims to know something that is not proven to be true, is it to be accepted blindly or mindlessly as true because they say that they believe it? When some Pharisees believed their own teaching, did that make it true and scriptural? If someone believes a private or incorrect interpretation or misinterpretation of Scripture, does that belief make it become correct or true? When Jesus stated: “Have faith in God” (Mark 11:22), the Scriptures do not also suggest or teach that you must have blind faith in the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611. Would dead faith or misplaced blind faith in error, falsehoods, fallacies, false claims, opinions of men, or non-scriptural teachings be the same thing as biblical faith in God and in what God teaches in Scripture?
Do the Scriptures actually teach that believing things that are not true is sound, biblical faith? Could some possibly have a mixed faith—faith in God mixed with blind faith in the opinions of men, which could be nearly as wrong as trying to mix both faith and works as means for salvation? Would having a mixed faith—some faith in God mixed with blind faith in unproven KJV-only assertions and claims that are not true be sound? Opinions or preferences of men do not become part of sound Bible doctrine because someone professes to believe them or have faith in them. KJV-only advocates have not proven soundly from the Scriptures that a position of sound faith in God requires or leads solely to a modern, man-made KJV-only view. The case for a KJV-only view can be regarded as flawed or broken because it can and does sometimes lead to deception (believing KJV-only assertions that are not true).
Is KJV-only reasoning in effect a view advocating doubt concerning preservation of the specific, exact words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles? The many non-scriptural aspects of KJV-only teaching mislead and even deceive believers to believe KJV-only assertions that are not true, to believe KJV-only assumptions based on use of fallacies such as begging the question, and to believe misleading KJV-only allegations that are based on use of unjust measures [double standards]. Are KJV-only authors advocating the kind of misplaced faith that leads believers to believe assertions or claims that are not true? If so, that is not sound biblical faith, it is blind faith that may result in being deceived. In claiming to be a path away from doubt, has some KJV-only teaching become a possible path to deception (being deceived)? Being deceived or deception is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit of truth. Would being deceived by having blind faith in assertions that are not true increase faith in what God said? Could being deceived be a fruit of accepting blindly human KJV-only reasoning, especially of accepting KJV-only assertions that are not true?
I have created topics for discussion and have joined in many threads where many different Bible doctrines were being discussed. I have always quoted from the KJV and have been diligent to prove my logic and reasoning on those topics by carefully considering the KJV in context to reach my conclusions and to post my opinions. As far as I can remember my thoughts and words were my own. I have never quoted the words of another Bible teacher or commentator here and cannot remember ever posting video links to one. In other words, what I believe and post here are my own and you have never been on any of those threads demonstrating where my being KJV only has led me to believe and teach heresies. This is certainly an opportunity for you to do so.
Just so you know my biblical position. I am an Independent, Fundamental, Dispensational, Pre Trib, Pre Millennial Baptist who believes the proper way to interpret the scriptures is historically and literally. My fellowship is with others who share this view.
What are you? What part of my biblical position would be a deception?
Your question was already answered in what I posted. Your human, non-scriptural claims for the KJV are not stated in Scripture so they are not biblical. One part of your claimed faith that is not true is your blind acceptance of claims for the KJV that are not true and your refusal to believe statements concerning the KJV that are true. Use of the word "faith" does not justify or excuse believing claims that are not true and that are not scriptural. KJV-only teaching is a doctrine of men, not taught in Scripture.
When anyone believes claims that are not true, that person deceives themselves or is being deceived by others.
I am an independent, fundamental, Bible-believing Baptist.
Adding 'of' to the phrase changes it, makes 'is ' correct. Also changes the meaning. Makes those who are opposing KJVO to be uneducated.
red, I hope you are not one of those self proclaimed elites. It just does not seem consistent with being from the ky hill country.
1Co 8:1 .....Knowledge puffeth up......
Last edited:
Man, you have been here for years saying there is no Bible you believe. You claim you know where the KJV is in error and you refuse to correct it in a new edition so we can have a perfect Bible. Maybe you are doing it in the new KJV update. I hope this is your project. If you say you don't believe God can translate with inspiration then you must discount all the Hebrew quotes of the Bible authors into Greek, sometimes not in the same word structure. Which of those words are inspired, the Hebrew or the Greek?
You are in my view obsessed with one subject that cannot be proven from the scriptures. You have never addressed my claim that Jesus Christ has the title beginning in Ge 15 and going through the apostolic era in the NT, the word of the LORD.
1Sa 3:1 And the child Samuel ministered unto the LORD before Eli. And the word of the LORD was precious in those days; there was no open vision.
1Sa 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.
1Sa 3:21 And the LORD appeared again in Shiloh: for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the LORD.
1Sa 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
The word of the LORD has the characteristics of a person. He comes in an open vision many times. A personal pronoun distinguishes him often times. He can speak. He has human features like hands. He is eternal.
It seems that the prophets was able to see the vision of Jesus Christ in the OT. This confirmed them as prophets of the LORD. It is certainly true in the NT. All the prophets of God saw Jesus Christ and their account of his words were from eye witnesses.
I do not know why you classify men like me, who believes the word of the LORD is alive and has personhood and can only be manifested in one person is a heretic, and is something you will answer for. We do not have a vision of the word of the LORD today but all those men who wrote the scriptures did have a vision of him. In essence we are believing the same thing; the word of the LORD. He gave the word and great were the number that published it.
Lu 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Ac 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Ac 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
2Th 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:
Watch this;it is the last appearance in the scriptures.
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Last edited:
Nah, just messin’ with JoJ
Yah! LOL
I do not say that God could not translate as part of the process of the giving of all Scripture by direct inspiration of God. Both the original-language words of the Old Testament and the original-language words of the New Testament were given by a miracle of direct inspiration of God.
Any translating in that process of the giving of Scripture by inspiration to the prophets and apostles is not the same thing as the revising and translating involved in the making of the KJV. The KJV was not made by a process of direct inspiration of God.
You bear false witness since I have not "been here for years saying there is no Bible [ I ] believe." You improperly try to put words in my mouth that I do not say. I have not claimed to know all the places where the KJV may have errors whether introduced by the translators, printers, or later editors.
Just as the early English Bible translators and the KJV translators believed, I believe the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.
I believe and accept the KJV as what it actually is--the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as post-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English. In agreement with clear scriptural truth, I do not claim that any errors introduced by men whether the translators, the printers, or editors are inspired words of God.
You choose to believe claims for the KJV that are not true and that are not scriptural.
No, my understanding of what you said was wrong.
I thought you had said the translators had translated G2424 one time as Justus, when they actually had translated it as Jesus, and then followed with "which is called Justus (G2459).
As to Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, the KJV mistranslated G2424 as Jesus when the meaning was Joshua. Had they added in italics (Joshua) just behind "Jesus" like you did, there would have been no translation error.
JD31 said:
Last edited:
L1560, some of the things you dogmatically declare are things you cannot possibly know, such as the things God can or cannot do or that he did or did not do in the 16th century. That generation has long since come and gone and the rest of us have moved on. Somehow you got stuck there and nothing else holds any interest for you. I feel for you but I just cannot reach you.
We cannot know anything about the inspiration and preservation of the scriptures unless God tells us. It cannot be learned any other way Like all other things that cannot be learned but must be revealed, God does it through his word over a great amount of time and by piecemeal. Here a little and there a little. All Bible doctrines are that way. This is how God keeps his truths from those who are merely curious and it is he who ultimately gets the glory for making his doctrines known. It is through a personal relationship with him. It is also a test for us.
Consider how people during the first 2500 years of human history, in the nations around the world, could not know anything about God that was not revealed through nature. They could not have known about angels for instance although we now know that angels, both good and bad, had a profound ministry during all of history. Today, we have all that God is going to say to this age about angels and so when someone mentions this or that about the subject then we must go back to what God has said about them to determine If what is said is likely to be true.
This reminds me of a sermon illustration I once heard. Two men were sitting one morning talking and one said to the other, "an angel came by my bed last night." The other said, how did you know it was an angel? Well said the one, it looked like an angel, to which came the reply; what does an angel look like? Confidently and assuredly the man said, Ha, they look like the thing that came by my bed last night.
One must approach the doctrine of inspiration and preservation the same way. You will have to get the mind of God on it by reading the scriptures. He has said all to this age he is going to say but it he has not said it in one place. One must get his thinking on it through the scriptures. One thing, God spoke all his inspiration before he wrote it. If one does not have a spiritual mind then he will not be able to be taught these doctrines just by reading the words of scripture because they are "spiritually discerned". We are told that in 1 Cor 2.
One way we can know that a teacher is led of the Spirit in his understanding is if he attempts to connect the dots the Lord has given him in the scriptures so that other spiritually minded men might see. The man who is operating from his own ideas will usually refer to his own scholarly work and he will be more apt to make his arguments by quoting works by other men and their reasonings and conclusions. Often times the scriptures will be referred to in references but seldom quoted.
One thing is sure about these kinds of men and I have learned this, is that men who do not have these credentials but makes the claim that we can learn and understand God without the influence of all these outside sources are characterized as ignorant and unlearned. This has been true on this thread. Who is going to quote me in a good way? I seldom even get a like on these threads. I have posted no scholarly credentials therefore whatever I say about the great doctrines of the faith cannot be taken seriously by some. Yet I claim the Lord has taught me certain things without the aid of many of these high profile people. Because I have learned them I have ordered my steps in a certain manner. I have a personal relationship with God the father through the Lord Jesus Christ and I love his word. I would never purposely mischaracterize it.
I learned and know my understanding of the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures from reading the Scripture under the guiding of the Holy Spirit of truth. My view is based on what the Scriptures state and teach. I can spiritually discern from the Scriptures. You are wrong to bear false witness concerning my faith in God and in the Scriptures.
Instead of reading human, modern, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions into verses, I properly understand and interpret verses according to the context of the overall teaching of Scripture.
Well, I'll admit that I originally was ambiguous....Adding 'of' to the phrase changes it, makes 'is ' correct. Also changes the meaning. Makes those who are opposing KJVO to be uneducated.
You must look at authorial intent here, though.