THIS is an Essentisl Tool for all KJVO to have and use now

[Dave G]

The Hebrew and Greek texts trump and have supremacy though over ANY English translation

Unfortunately, there are currently two Hebrew collated texts, and three Greek...
All of which differ when compared to each other in their respective languages.

Where can we find the Greek and the Hebrew?

 

[JesusFan]

Unfortunately, there are two Hebrew collated texts, and three Greek...
All of which differ when compared to each other in their respective languages.

Which if fine, as none of them are inspired by the Holy Spirit, just as NO English translation was either

 

[Dave G]

why would the Lord not want to get out His message to us in modern English and not in 400 year old English, as He desires for us to be able to read with understanding?

I have a simple answer.
Instead of translators using 3 predominant collated Greek texts and two predominant collated Hebrew texts, and then trying to start all over, why not simply update the AV with more modern English words?

Regardless, I don't have any problem understanding the "KJV", but there is a learning curve to it;
A learning curve that I believe is well worth the effort.

That said, it seems you still do not understand what's really going on with all the translations being made in these last days, my friend.
Each time this subject comes up, you appear to take the side of the modern translations that keep changing...
The NA / UBS apparatus that keeps changing.

God, who says "I change not", doesn't change ...and neither do His words.

 

[Dave G]

Which if fine, as none of them are inspired by the Holy Spirit, just as NO English translation was either

I agree that no translation is inspired in the sense that God spoke the words, like He did through His prophets and apostles, to the translators.
But that's not what I find concerning, Dave.

My question is,
Do you really believe that we actually have the inspired and preserved words of God today?
If so, where are they and how can today's English speakers find them?


As for the OP in the first post, thank you for the link.
I think it will help those who are still making use of the AV, to understand what many of the Late Middle English words mean in today's English.

 

[JD731]

The Scriptures do not teach that God ordained the making of the 1611 KJV. The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. God would have been just as involved in the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible as in the making of the 1611 KJV.

The believers who were Baptists that were involved in the making of the 1842 English Bible and the 1850 KJV NT with emendations were more likely to be guided by the Holy Spirit of truth than the doctrinally-unsound Church of England makers of the KJV who believed the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration and who were active in persecuting and even torturing people for their beliefs.

1842 revision of KJV by several Biblical scholars; Sixth Edition in 1847 had the title "Baptist Bible" on the binding
1850 and 1851 KJV N.T. with emendations edited by Baptists: Spencer Cone & William Wyckoff)

You answered a question I did not ask and avoided the question I did ask. Are you on record proclaiming that God is so disengaged in the maintenance of his word testimony that he allows men to present it in any form they wish?

 

[JesusFan]

I have a simple answer.
Instead of translators using 3 predominant collated Greek texts and two predominant collated Hebrew texts, and then trying to start all over, why not simply update the AV with more modern English words?

Regardless, I don't have any problem understanding the "KJV", but there is a learning curve to it;
A learning curve that I believe is well worth the effort.

That said, it seems you still do not understand what's really going on with all the translations being made in these last days, my friend.
Each time this subject comes up, you appear to take the side of the modern translations that keep changing...
The NA / UBS apparatus that keeps changing.

God, who says "I change not", doesn't change ...and neither do His words.

Changing due to recent advancements, as an ongoing attempt to get right back to the originals themselves, as who stated that the Kjv 1611 was to be the final say in English translations? The 1611 translators did not see it that way

 

[JesusFan]

I agree that no translation is inspired in the sense that God spoke the words, like He did through His prophets and apostles, to the translators.
But that's not what I find concerning, Dave.

My question is,
Do you really believe that we actually have the inspired and preserved words of God today?
If so, where are they and how can today's English speakers find them?


As for the OP in the first post, thank you for the link.
I think it will help those who are still making use of the AV, to understand what many of the Late Middle English words mean in today's English.

WSe have the very word of God to us in the English translations now avaiable to us such as Nas/Esv/Nkjv/ Kjv

 

[Logos1560]

You answered a question I did not ask and avoided the question I did ask. Are you on record proclaiming that God is so disengaged in the maintenance of his word testimony that he allows men to present it in any form they wish?

Your question was soundly answered. You dodge and avoid what I actually stated as you ask a question that attempts to put words in my mouth that I did not suggest.

It may be KJV-only reasoning that seems to suggest that God is not engaged in the maintenance of His word testimony in present-day standard English, but that is not what I suggested.

 

[Logos1560]

I have a simple answer.
Instead of translators using 3 predominant collated Greek texts and two predominant collated Hebrew texts, and then trying to start all over, why not simply update the AV with more modern English words?

Updating the archaic language in the KJV has been done, but KJV-only advocates attack and condemn English Bibles that do that.

These Bibles [the 1982 NKJV, the 1987 Literal Translation in The Interlinear Bible, the 1990 Modern King James Version, the 1994 21st Century King James Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, 2000/2013 Jubilee Bible, the 2014 Modern English Version, the 2022 Simplified KJV, and Nick Sayers’ 2023 King James Version New Testament] did not try to start all over.

 

[Salty]

Updating the archaic language in the KJV has been done, but KJV-only advocates attack and condemn English Bibles that do that.

So very true - and that is a shame that some will not accept todays English (or as I prefer to say" "American"!

 

[Dave G]

WSe have the very word of God to us in the English translations now avaiable to us such as Nas/Esv/Nkjv/ Kjv

I'm sorry, but I disagree.
I hold that we do have it in the KJV, but the rest you've listed have varying errors and inconsistencies with regard to using transliteration instead of translation, use of the Critical Text versus the Textus Receptus, and other problems.

Honestly, I couldn't recommend any of the ones in the quote above ( other than the AV ) to anyone who asks me where to find the preserved, inspired word of God in English.
It's the only one that I'm confident comes from the correct Greek and Hebrew texts, and the only one using the TR that I feel doesn't take liberties with the translation process.

I'll take my leave of the thread now, as it seems nothing much has changed since I first started posting my convictions on this subject over 7 years ago...
Pretty much the same group of people keep making the same arguments in favor of English translations that make use of the ever-changing NA / UBS Greek, and don't appear to see any problem with it.


May God bless you sir.

 

[JD731]

Just to throw a monkey wrench in all of this, my guys in Africa use the NIV. Hahha

It’s because the NIV has a 7th grade reading level and that’s what the people can handle education wise

Not my fav, but it’s ok

And now, you know the rest of the story.

I have been losing respect for Baptists for a while because the ways of God are not to turn over his testimony to any translation committee that decides they want to add another translation to the list. We serve a God who killed a man under his Mosaic law for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day when he said plainly it was forbidden and killed another man because he touched the Ark of The Covenant to steady it when he did not have the tribal credentials to do it. IOW God is serious about what he says. If God were doing that to the careless and disobedient in today's economy I would guess, we certainly would not have paraphrases of his word and there would be dead bodies everywhere. Thank God for grace, eh? Don't think he has changed his attitude about rebels and sin and the death penalty, he has not. He has just put the death penalty on someone else and has instead extended mercy and grace to the rest of us through Jesus Christ the righteous.


Two things I have learned. One, the God whose testimony (the scriptures) that I have been reading is nothing like the God many of you folks present here on a regular basis.


Secondly, It is recognized that he has made adjustments and changes in his dispensations and transitions (his ways) in his dealings with men in his unfolding drama of redemption for all 6000 years now but his character has not changed.


1 Cor 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

My conclusion: We must fear God more than he is being feared by modern Christianity. It really does take a great deal of humility for learned men to bow the knee to foolishness like a Bible written with the stamp of God in the King's English.

 

[Logos1560]

the rest you've listed have varying errors and inconsistencies with regard to using transliteration instead of translation,

Do you ignore and avoid the fact that the KJV sometimes used transliteration instead of translation?

The Church of England makers of the KJV took some liberties in the translating process as they changed some renderings in the pre-1611 word of God in English to make them more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government. The KJV translators also borrowed many renderings from the non-Textus Receptus source--the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

 

[Logos1560]

My conclusion: We must fear God more than he is being feared by modern Christianity.

How do you show that you truly and consistently fear God when you disregard His strong condemnation of the use of divers measures [double standards] as being an abomination to the LORD? Divers weights and divers measures, both of them are alike abominations to the LORD (Prov. 20:10).

Is the fear of the LORD soundly understood (Prov. 2:5) if it is thought that use of unjust measures and unrighteous judgments would be in agreement with it? The fear of the LORD is to hate evil, pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way (Prov. 8:13). According to the Scriptures, would KJV-only use of unscriptural, double-minded, unjust measures in many of its misleading, extreme allegations against the NKJV and other English Bible translations indicate the fear of the LORD? Would the abomination of the use of unjust measures honor God? It should be clear that believers do not choose fear of the LORD when they choose to use double-minded, unjust measures or standards (Prov. 1:29). Would the use of unscriptural, unjust measures and the use of fallacies be a hindrance and stumbling-block or a help and stepping-stone in the pursuit or advocating of truth?

 

[JD731]

How do you show that you truly and consistently fear God when you disregard His strong condemnation of the use of divers measures [double standards] as being an abomination to the LORD? Divers weights and divers measures, both of them are alike abominations to the LORD (Prov. 20:10).

Is the fear of the LORD soundly understood (Prov. 2:5) if it is thought that use of unjust measures and unrighteous judgments would be in agreement with it? The fear of the LORD is to hate evil, pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way (Prov. 8:13). According to the Scriptures, would KJV-only use of unscriptural, double-minded, unjust measures in many of its misleading, extreme allegations against the NKJV and other English Bible translations indicate the fear of the LORD? Would the abomination of the use of unjust measures honor God? It should be clear that believers do not choose fear of the LORD when they choose to use double-minded, unjust measures or standards (Prov. 1:29). Would the use of unscriptural, unjust measures and the use of fallacies be a hindrance and stumbling-block or a help and stepping-stone in the pursuit or advocating of truth?

You still have not answered my question. You are trying to make this about me and others who think differently than you.

 

[Logos1560]

You still have not answered my question. You are trying to make this about me and others who think differently than you.

Your question was answered. Are you the one trying to make this about me and others who think differently than you? You seem to be guilty of what you accuse others. You avoid answering questions that you are asked.

You do not practice what you preach concerning the fear of God. You avoid dealing with the scripturally-based truths that are serious problems for your modern KJV-only opinions.

 

[Logos1560]

I have been losing respect for Baptists for a while because the ways of God are not to turn over his testimony to any translation committee that decides they want to add another translation to the list.

KJV-only advocates suggest that the ways of God are to turn over his testimony to one exclusive translation committee of biased, doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics who decided to add another English translation to a list of multiple earlier English Bible translations.
Do the ways of God contradict the wisdom from God above that is without partiality (James 3:16) by showing partiality to one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England men in 1611?

Perhaps we should lose respect for your seeming use of double standards concerning the ways of God. The ways of God do not approve the use of divers measures [double standards]. Is the fear of the LORD soundly understood (Prov. 2:5) if it is thought that use of unjust measures and unrighteous judgments would be in agreement with it? The fear of the LORD is to hate evil, pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way (Prov. 8:13). According to the Scriptures, would KJV-only use of unscriptural, double-minded, unjust measures in many of its misleading, extreme allegations against the NKJV and other English Bible translations indicate the fear of the LORD? Would the abomination of the use of unjust measures honor God? It should be clear that believers do not choose fear of the LORD when they choose to use double-minded, unjust measures or standards (Prov. 1:29)

 

[Craigbythesea]

The 1828 Webster Dictionary will give to you what the Kjv terms and words chosen by the 1611 translators meant in their time, not the current understanding in english, so very valuable to avoid misunderstanding g the bible

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/bible

See especially the 1000 words that have changed their meanings from bacjk then to today when used in 1611 Kjv

I have here in my study a reprint of the 1828 Webster Dictionary. Most unfortunately, it was compiled before the massive amount of research in lexicography during the past 200 years, including how words in the English language have been actually used starting with their first known use up to the present time. Merriam-Webster English language dictionaries and Oxford English language dictionaries (there are many editions of both), unlike the many other English language dictionaries, list their definitions chronologically, starting with the earliest and up through the present time. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (Merriam-Webster: America's Most Trusted Dictionary) is more current than any Oxford dictionaries because it is being updated in real time as new research is published. Indeed, Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary has been updated several times this year.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm sorry, but I disagree.
I hold that we do have it in the KJV, but the rest you've listed have varying errors and inconsistencies with regard to using transliteration instead of translation, use of the Critical Text versus the Textus Receptus, and other problems.

Honestly, I couldn't recommend any of the ones in the quote above ( other than the AV ) to anyone who asks me where to find the preserved, inspired word of God in English.
It's the only one that I'm confident comes from the correct Greek and Hebrew texts, and the only one using the TR that I feel doesn't take liberties with the translation process.

I'll take my leave of the thread now, as it seems nothing much has changed since I first started posting my convictions on this subject over 7 years ago...
Pretty much the same group of people keep making the same arguments in favor of English translations that make use of the ever-changing NA / UBS Greek, and don't appear to see any problem with it.


May God bless you sir.

The Modern Version bibles were all translated by scholars who had to accept the Plenary inspiration of Scripture, accepts the essentials of the Faith, and they all were just as bright and smart as 1611 translators, and had access to far superior tools to use, such as lexicons, dictionaries, word books, historical and geographical atlas etc

 

[JesusFan]

I have here in my study a reprint of the 1828 Webster Dictionary. Most unfortunately, it was compiled before the massive amount of research in lexicography during the past 200 years, including how words in the English language have been actually used starting with their first known use up to the present time. Merriam-Webster English language dictionaries and Oxford English language dictionaries (there are many editions of both), unlike the many other English language dictionaries, list their definitions chronologically, starting with the earliest and up through the present time. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (Merriam-Webster: America's Most Trusted Dictionary) is more current than any Oxford dictionaries because it is being updated in real time as new research is published. Indeed, Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary has been updated several times this year.

The 1828 would give to kjvo users the meaning though ascribed to the english word they chose to use as of 1611