Use of the KJV

The KJV superiority over modern versions is 4 "T": translators, theology, texts and technique. That's why I use the KJV.

Go to the website:
Why are Modern Versions dangerous?

 

Translators: From a time before dozens of archaeological discoveries provided more info on the original languages.

Theology: Infant-baptizing Anglo-Catholics with a priesthood and rituals based on those of Rome.

Texts: So demonstrably inferior as to contain a slew of verses absent in the Greek but taken from the Latin Vulgate. Had the wisdom, however, to depart from the Hebrew Masoretic Text in some verses in favor of using the Septuagint (kudos to them for that!).

Technique: No problem.

 

Dear Tim,

First of all the Book of Hebrews passages are written in Greek and are Scripture defining Scripture, using the word aggelos consistently - defining the Hebrew word elohim from Psalm 8:5 (in this instance) as to who or what is being spoken of.

Hebrews 2:5 For unto the angels (aggelois) hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

And in this instance in the Psalms and Hebrews the KJV translators correctly translated elohim as "angels" and yes incorrectly (IMO) as "God" in some of the MV's proving that NO translation is "perfect".

The Scripture in these 2 Hebrews passages is showing that this verse from Psalms is in reality about Jesus (the Logos) the Second person of the Trinity who would be incarnated, who said:

John 14:28 ...my Father is greater than I.

In His incarnation, Jesus voluntarily put Himself in submission to His Father as a servant (But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant).

Side Note: He made Himself of no reputation. It does not say the Father made Him of no reputation.

In any event the words brachu ti-little while in the Hebrews 2:9 passage are left untranslated by the KJV translators giving the impression that the kenosis of Jesus Christ is permanent and that He is still lower than the angels.

Had this been reversed and the KJV included these words and the MV's excluded them, there would have been an emotional catharsis and heck to pay from the KJVO.

Now however we find another place where the KJVO double-standard reigns and a precious truth in the Word of God is suppressed because of the allegiances to men and their pronouncements (so you see how this can work both ways?).

Will you "defend" the Word of God or those KJVO leaders who are trying to clone you into themselves?

Please stop and consider what is going on here.

I agree with you that the Word of God should not be allowed to be publicly compromised, not by Wescott and Hort or the KJV translators.

Imagine where we would be if all this energy of strife were directed towards the true "refinement" (protecting from human error) and keeping of the Scriptures of which the Father has given over into the hands of men (Romans 3:2 ... because that unto them were committed the oracles of God).

Besides dropping words, Would you like to go on and see where the KJV translators added words (God forbid) where there are none in the text?


HankD

 

Ed, you have mentioned that you have these 3 KJVs several times. I'm guessing the 1873 is the most common one found today. I have the Nelson 1611 hardback. How can I find the 1769?

I only use the KJV, but I don't believe the translators were inspired (that's kinda silly) but definitely believe it's God's preserved word.

 

Gayla: "I only use the KJV, but I don't believe the translators
were inspired (that's kinda silly) but definitely believe
it's God's preserved word."

Then you are not KJVO.
Maybe you are KJVpreferred.

Gayla: Ed, you have mentioned that you have these 3 KJVs
several times. I'm guessing the 1873 is the most common
one found today. I have the Nelson 1611 hardback.
How can I find the 1769?"

And you will probably see me mention them again, if
you don't put me on ignore

Dr. Bob Griffin Speaking of KJV Onlysists: //They condemn as heresy,
perversion and satanic any other version, yet cannot as a group
even agree on which KJV is the "only"! Amazing.//

I do like to find out from the 3 or 4 present KJVOs which they
really use. Now if i can just remember

Actually the 1769 is the most common. All the on-line Bibles
that i've found have the 1769 edition/version.
I'm using a Tim LaHaye PROPHECY STUDY BIBLE. It contains the
KJV1769 text and Tim LaHaye notes copyright 1991 and 2000.
Nowhere does the book say it contains the KJV1769 text. KJV Bible
produers tend NOT to tell which edition/version they contain.
No sense upsetting any staunch KJVOs who might want to buy it?

My 1873 seems like a hybrid, it has the KJV1873 text and
footnotes like the sidenotes of the KJV1611. My comic book
source of KJVO information says it is NOT the KJBible becasue
of the footnotes. ANyway, i got in in a package called:
Today's Parallel Bible (Zondervan, 2000). This contains the
KJV1873, NASB = NEw American Standard Bible, Updated Edition,
NLT = New Living Translation, and the NIV = New International Version.

Strangely the "Preface to the 1873 Edition" is contained in the volume.
So i expect this version of the KJV isn't accepted by
the comic book doctrine crowd as real KJB If the people in
the pew start knowing there are different edition/versions of the
KJV, then the pastors would have to start explaining that to them.
Some of the smarter pew persons will realize that the pastors
have been witholding this information for years.

My pastor reads from a KJV (actually i think he has so much memorized
that mostly he quotes from memory) and mentions where there
is a better or more up-to-date translation. In the past somebody
donated a lot of NIVs which now reside in the back of the pews.
Some member of the congegration reads a scripture each Sunday
morning. The most used versions are the KJV, nKJV, NIV.
Sunday pastor even mentioned the various versions of the KJV
(well, that there are), that he had a 1611 origional. He mentioned
you need a English degree to read it

 

Christ retains his Diety even when limited by his humanity. This is absolute. In this sense he was not (and has NEVER been) "lower than the angels". However in form (this is probably not the right term), he chose to take on humanity in which he was and still is "lower than the angels". Christ is still a human, the firstfruits of human resurrection, with visible scars of his humanity at his return. He will Always be God.

"Permanent" can be a relative thing because it seems that redeemed mankind (in their future glorified state) will be equal to ("like the angels") or superior to (judging angels). But

Lacy

 

I will never call you unsaved either.

I believe that the King James Bible is the only "perfect" word of God in the English language. I believe that the MVs contain enough of God's word for someone to accept Christ and be saved, just like a tract, but I don't believe that they will have the convictions nor the spiritual maturity that they could get from the King James Bible.

Really!? I guess he will reveal it when we get to Heaven huh? That sure will be a waste.

With this reasoning, anything could be God's word. But, I believe with careful reasearch that has been done by other men and women, the King James Bible rules over all.

So you have never misquoted the Bible or even paraphrased?

 

Will you also stop accusing me of pervertimg and corrupting God's word??

First, you have no revelation from God to base that on. That is purely your own view. Second, experience reveals your position to be inadequate. I have met plenty of people who use modern versions who are spiritually mature and who have proper convictions. In my experience, it is quite often the KJVO crowd who are spiritually immature and lack convictions. But that is all circumstantial. Peoples level of spiritual maturity has to do with learning, not with the Bible version they use. All things being equal, the tremendous advance in ease of understanding means that modern versions increase spiritual maturity, not decrease it.

But the main point of this paragraph is to say that your personal preferences are inadequate reasons for determining what God's word is. We need revelation for that. And that revelation is what the KJVO side lacks, as has been aptly demonstrated many times.

Yes really. He may well reveal it when we get to heaven, but he may not. But to call God's chosen method of working a waste is a step that I am not willing to take. He is the one who did not reveal the method of preservation. To call that decision a "waste" is beyond my spirituality for sure.

In no way. We have already established that the "Word of God" title can only be attached to faithful translations.

There has been no "careful research" that has demonstrated this. There have been many conjectures and a lot of false statements. There are many people who prefer the KJV but do not stoop to the level of attacking God's word by calling other versions "perversions," or "corruptions." You should be one of the latter ... one who says, "I like the KJV and prefer it."

Not under the guise of inspiration. Did you think through this before you answered?? You just said that it is okay to misquote Scripture under the guise of inspiration. I completely reject that. When the apostles references Scripture, they were inspired by God and thus they were accurate.

 

I understand what you are saying Lacy and I partially agree in that I think you understand that Jesus Christ is one Person with two natures, God and human.

The Scripture distinguishes His natures but never divides His person.

The Scripture is clear, though He is God come in the flesh He took upon Himself the form of a servant:

KJV Philippians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. {fashion: or habit}
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Notice that the Hebrews 2:9 passage focuses in on His humanity:

RSV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

Nonetheless the words "little while" are in the original language of the manuscripts and in the TR as well as the W&H Greek New Testament collations and in that you miss the point I am trying to make.

We don't know why the KJV translators did not translate these important words, which are part of the inspired text.

Also, the theory that the KJV English (1611?1769?) words are a "re-inspiration" cannot be true because if that were true then up to the point when the Greek was no longer the "inspired text" the text said that Jesus was made lower than the angels for a "little while".

Then in 1611 (after the "re-inspiration") we now (in 1611 and to this day) have that He was made "lower than the angels" and not just for a "little while".

Also You said...

which seems (I know you wouldn't) to contradict the Scripture.

KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels...

The whole problem is cleared up if he was made lower that the angels for a "little while", "for the suffering of death" in His incarnation.

Peace and blessings to you Lacy.

HankD

 

The modern versions of the Bible corrupt God’s word, so if you support those versions, well, I have a shoe for ya.

Yes, who and what determines that?

Sure there has, you just fail to accept it.

 

Which King James Version?
Which Version are you utilizing?

As for the only "perfect Word of God in the English language," let's see you prove that contention. Nobody has been able to do it yet....

 

Here we go again...... Follow this link.
I wonder: do they really know what Bible they are using?

 

That's very interesting! Why did these modern versions corrupt the Word of God? I researched this question for more than 10 years until I learned that it is true. For example, Dr. Bruce Metzger and W/H contradicted themselves with the Scriptures. That's why they produced their NEW modern versions.

 

And yet the KJV corrupts the Scriptures as well*, so we're no further ahead here.

"W/H" is old news. Do you have any honest examples for Metzger of what you said?


(*The entire statement is true only if the "MVs" do so.)

 

The Bible I use is the King James Bible dated 1769.

If the King James Bible is not perfect, then it is up to one to find one that is.

 

Why? Instead, why can't we deal with scripture in they way they did *before* 1611?

 

Why? Instead, why can't we deal with scripture in they way they did *before* 1611? </font>[/QUOTE]How about 1689?

Baptist Confession 1689

5._____We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.

 

Were they talking about the KJV, or the Geneva?

 

Timothy, those parts of the Baptist Confession do not mean what you think they mean, for 1605 is part of "all ages" - and if the Bible was already "pure" in the KJV-only sense in 1605, then the KJV was not only unnecessary, but also in error for deviating from that which was already pure.