The Supposed Errors in the KJV

[rlvaughn]

My statement right after the one that you quoted would be a statement that defends the KJV as what it actually is, and I have made that an assertion similar to that before on the Baptist Board.

I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I accept and defend the KJV as what it actually is. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

I suspect most people read and receive that (what you bolded) as a simple statement of what you believe about the KJV, not as something particularly defending the KJV. However, with your explanation, I can see that you can mean it that way.

 

[robycop3]

You will never understand the development of language, will you? Passover didn't exist in Luke's time. Passover is an English word that did not exist until the 1500s. He couldn't have meant "passover" until the 1500s! (His writing is not that late, even by the most liberal standards.)

The WORD 'passover' didn't exist then, but the OBSERVANCE did, & in Greek it was called pascha, the word Luke (and JESUS) used for it, & p'sach in Hebrew, the word GOD used for it in speaking to Moses. Easter didn't exist then, under any other name.

 

[robycop3]

Thanks!
As to the KJB - an excerpt from a search:
“The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB), sometimes as the English version of 1611, or simply the Authorized Version (AV)...”

If I’m assuming here, would it be that you don’t like the “KJB’ term because it relates to KJVOnlyism so “KJV” seems proper in that it’s just another version out there to be used?

Well, the KJV IS a Bible version; it's not "THE" Bible. Notice I also say "NASV", not "NASB" as it's a version as well. And yes, "KJB" is associated with the false KJVO myth.

 

[robycop3]

Let me say again that I'm dead-set against the KJVO MYTH, not the KJV itself. However, it becomes necessary to point out some of the KJV's errors to destroy the KJVO assertion that the KJV is perfect. That makes us Freedom Readers appear to be anti-KJV. While I use the KJV & AV 1611 only for study, I consider it to be as valid an English Bible translation as any other.

ALL translations have human error. We must not forget that all Bible translations, any language, are products of imperfect men handling God's perfect word.

 

[rlvaughn]

The WORD 'passover' didn't exist then, but the OBSERVANCE did, & in Greek it was called pascha, the word Luke (and JESUS) used for it, & p'sach in Hebrew, the word GOD used for it in speaking to Moses. Easter didn't exist then, under any other name.

Passover didn't exist then any more than Easter didn't exist then. No point in talking you about it. You don't get it, and don't want to get it, because it harms your rant about Easter. Neither the names Easter nor Passover existed when Luke wrote about the OBSERVANCE (which had existed since God gave it to Moses). However, the word Easter did exist in the old English language at least as early circa AD 990 (over 500 years before the word Passover existed), referring to the OBSERVANCE in the Wessex Gospels.

 

[rlvaughn]

Well, the KJV IS a Bible version; it's not "THE" Bible. Notice I also say "NASV", not "NASB" as it's a version as well.

In your lingo then, do you believe translations are not Bibles?

 

[rlvaughn]

But some of them aren't even professing Christians, Roby.

And neither were all the AV makers.

What evidence do you have that the AV translators did not profess to be Christians?

 

[Stratton7]

And neither were all the AV makers. At least one (Thompson) was a drunk. Others had political motives. Others were members of the notorious Star Chamber & Court of High Commission.

The translators were more linguistically qualified than any other group of translators before or since. They were godly men. Some were pastors, some missionaries, some evangelists, others professors in Bible colleges. All were in the gospel ministry. All had repudiated Rome. All were Bible scholars in their own right, even apart from their linguistic skills. Some knew the biblical languages since childhood.

 

[Logos1560]

The translators were more linguistically qualified than any other group of translators before or since. They were godly men. Some were pastors, some missionaries, some evangelists, others professors in Bible colleges. All were in the gospel ministry. All had repudiated Rome. All were Bible scholars in their own right, even apart from their linguistic skills. Some knew the biblical languages since childhood.

You do not prove your assertions to be true.

How was it godly for the KJV translators to be involved in persecuting others for their professed beliefs?
Several of the KJV translators were members of the High Commission Court that persecuted professed believers.

Do you claim that it was godly for the Church of England makers of the KJV to accept the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration?

 

[robycop3]

Passover didn't exist then any more than Easter didn't exist then. No point in talking you about it. You don't get it, and don't want to get it, because it harms your rant about Easter. Neither the names Easter nor Passover existed when Luke wrote about the OBSERVANCE (which had existed since God gave it to Moses). However, the word Easter did exist in the old English language at least as early circa AD 990 (over 500 years before the word Passover existed), referring to the OBSERVANCE in the Wessex Gospels.

And it was then, as now, a separate observance from pascha/p'sach.

 

[robycop3]

In your lingo then, do you believe translations are not Bibles?

None are "THE" Bible. However all valid ones are the word of God.

 

[robycop3]

What evidence do you have that the AV translators did not profess to be Christians?

I reckon they all SAID they were Christians. However, one must wonder if a drunk or members of the sinister Star Chamber or Court Of High Commission actually WERE Christians. (Of course, JESUS is the Judge of their status with Him.)

 

[Yeshua1]

You and anti-KJVers are saying that. I have yet to come across any KJVers as saying that. Even if there is one KJVer saying that, I read it as One because only Jesus Christ is appearing and not the Father. So to me, you are not reading the verse rightly but parroting anti-KJVers when that Great God & Saviour is to Jesus Christ as our blessed hope that is appearing..

The Kjv English rendering clearly has in mind though God and savior jesus are not the same person here!

 

[rlvaughn]

And it was then, as now, a separate observance from pascha/p'sach.

"You do not prove your assertions to be true."

None are "THE" Bible.

Not what I asked. "Are they not Bibles," is what I asked. You seem to admit they are, though being somewhat equivocal about it.

I reckon they all SAID they were Christians. However, one must wonder if a drunk or members of the sinister Star Chamber or Court Of High Commission actually WERE Christians. (Of course, JESUS is the Judge of their status with Him.)

Yes, it is Jesus who knows their hearts and is their judge. I didn't ask you to look into their hearts, just whether or not they professed to be Christians, which you initially said they did not.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your problem is that 1 Corinthians 1:18 does actually say "Are being saved" as in the NKJV and others. The verb is in the present tense, which in Greek is continuous. That it offends your theology does not alter the meaning of the verb.

Saved and now also in the process of of being saved

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you in advance for trying to help me.



I do not consider the NKJV on par with the JKJV. FYI

Romans 8:24; Aorist: 'For we were saved in this hope.' NKJV

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? KJV

Ephesians 2:5, 8; Perfect: 'By grace you have been saved.' NKJV Both NKJV & KJV shown below in comparison.

Ephesians 2:5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), NKJV

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved KJV

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, NKJV

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: KJV

Titus 3:5, Aorist: 'According to His mercy, He saved us.' NKJV

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; KJV

2 Corinthians 2:15, Present: 'Those who are being saved.' NKJV

2 Corinthians 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: KJV

Romans 5:9, Future: 'We shall be saved from wrath.' NKJV NKJV in full below.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. NKJV

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. KJV

Romans 11:26, Future: 'All Israel will be saved.' NKJV

Romans 11;26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: KJV

Granted one can find reproofs in scripture in the NKJV as well as other modern bible versions they are using but false teachings are derived from taking verses out of context from the rest of scripture in that modern Bible version that it sows doubts in His words that would have otherwise reprove how they are applying such verses like 1 Corinthians 1:18 & 2 Corinthians 2:15 in that modern Bible version.



Past I can agree with but present per Matthew 24:13 is referring to running that race aka abiding in Him as His disciple to escape or to be saved from what is coming on the earth to avoid being left behind.

2 Corinthians 3:18 applies differently and so I do not see that as referring to being saved at all, but being transformed.

When we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, we are saved but not everyone will be found abiding in Him to be received by Him as that vessel unto honor in His House, but later on after the great tribulation as that vessel unto dishonor but still in His House per 2 Timothy 2:18-21 .Anyone at the judgment seat of Christ are saved or they would not be there.

'

Being saved completely would suggest salvation by works whereas we are saved as that foundation was laid by Jesus Christ which can never be removed but on the way to Him, our works to shall be judged by what we built on that foundation that determines how we will be received..

In any event, what you shared can be used by the works of Catholicism and other cults when they insist on works being a necessity to being saved. Not sure how you can defend against that or reprove it when what you say and what the NKJV in 1 Corinthians 1:18 & 2 Corinthians 2:15 would say that would support such false teachings whereas the KJV would not.

The Nkjv is superior to the kjv!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you for your correction. I used "talk to text" in that reply and didn't check the "your"/"you're" text.

To your questions.......
I believe ANYONE who causes doubt about the Word of God is wrong. Don't you? Roby is causing people to doubt the KJV, which is the Word of God. Why do you continue to support him? Can it be because you and roby both seem to be obsessed with it? Do you not have better things to do than causing people to find fault with a particular Bible translation? That's just sad.

Do you also assert that non- KJV advocates (like roby) are leading people to doubt and disbelieve the word of God as translated into the KJV?
If not, are you displaying use of unjust measures or making an unrighteous judgment in your seeming effort to provide aid only to non-KJV advocates or only to the non-KJV side?

Those questions go both ways, sir.

BTW, this will be my last reply to any of your posts because, frankly, after reading your "copy and paste" responses all over the internet for years on end, I find you highly annoying, and better ignored.

Its the Kjvo casting doubts upon all other English translations!

 

[Yeshua1]

The King James Version is a fantastic Version of the Bible. King james onlyism is a false teaching.

We ALL here agree with that!

 

[Yeshua1]

I was wondering if we could switch gears a moment and talk about the translation methods of each version. It doesn’t appear the modern translations have gone through anywhere the extent of the superior methods used by the KJB translators had used.

Actually, the Nas/Esv/Nkjv all used formal translation principles, even more so then the Kjv did!

 

[Yeshua1]

The translators were more linguistically qualified than any other group of translators before or since. They were godly men. Some were pastors, some missionaries, some evangelists, others professors in Bible colleges. All were in the gospel ministry. All had repudiated Rome. All were Bible scholars in their own right, even apart from their linguistic skills. Some knew the biblical languages since childhood.

They still though translated in regards to Anglican beliefs in places, see Baptism!