Yes,the KJV has mistakes too

[Rippon]

My own personal perception of the purpose of Rippon's OP is that he posted it just to "needle" those of us here who do NOT believe the KJV contains errors or mistakes. Don't be coy....you know that we (KJVO's)would believe that anyone who believes there ARE mistakes in the AV would be making (in our eyes) an accusation against the Word of God that we hold dear.

You are too much! The KJV was a version,not the original. It is a mad-made document. It is not inspired. It is the Bible but not the Bible in the sense of all other translations not being the Word of God.

The KJVV,NKJ,MASBU,ESV,HCSB,NIV,NLT and many other versions have mistakes because they are not penned by people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit was were the originals.

I would say this....I have seen the dedicatory words or statement of the translators THAT IS OFTEN USED to prove that even THEY didn't believe their work was perfect. I get that....

See,that's one area where you are confused. it was not the dedicatory words,but the Preface written by Miles Smith. If you would take the time to read and digest it you would come to conclusions radically different than your KJVO stance.

However...those were NOT inspired and infallible words which THEY were speaking.

Just as the texts they were revising.

We (KJVO's) believe that there are no mistakes or errors in the Word of God despite...

...all the evidence to the contrary! :laugh:

I believe that to say there ARE mistakes and errors in the KJV is an accusation against the Word of God and I will maintain that opinion.

I suppose with equal sincerity you would say that water is not wet.

WE...as KJVO's have no problem pointing out the mistakes and errors in the CT/MV's because we do not believe they are completely accurate texts/translations.

What? You would dare to say that about the Word of God!:laugh:

I would point out that the CT/MV adherents actually and obviously believe that the translations THEY have higher regard for are in some way ADVANCED REVELATION over the KJV and more accurate in their content....you know that is true but I never see any of them actually saying that or owning up to believing that!

They wouldn't "own up " to that because it is utterly untrue.

Please note that anything I say in reference to this subject is in reference to English language translations ONLY.

Because the KJVO nonsense doesn't add up to a hill of beans in all the other language groups.

sometimes the declaration of truth sometimes requires one to be blunt.

That's right. And my blunt statement to you is to take stock in some actual scholarly materials not the KJVO "literature" and website morons who produce all this garbage.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Tsk,tsk,tsk.....!

You are too much! The KJV was a version,not the original. It is a mad-made document. It is not inspired. It is the Bible but not the Bible in the sense of all other translations not being the Word of God.

The KJVV,NKJ,MASBU,ESV,HCSB,NIV,NLT and many other versions have mistakes because they are not penned by people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit was were the originals.



See,that's one area where you are confused. it was not the dedicatory words,but the Preface written by Miles Smith. If you would take the time to read and digest it you would come to conclusions radically different than your KJVO stance.



Just as the texts they were revising.



...all the evidence to the contrary!



I suppose with equal sincerity you would say that water is not wet.



What? You would dare to say that about the Word of God!


They wouldn't "own up " to that because it is utterly untrue.



Because the KJVO nonsense doesn't add up to a hill of beans in all the other language groups.



That's right. And my blunt statement to you is to take stock in some actual scholarly materials not the KJVO "literature" and website morons who produce all this garbage.

:sleep:Your opinion of my comments has been noted...and ignored:sleeping_2:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Rippon]

:sleep:Your opinion of my comments has been noted...and ignored:sleeping_2:

Bro.Greg:saint:

That's what ostriches tend to do.

 

[saturneptune]

That's what ostriches tend to do.

You know, in eight years I have never seen a post of yours that made any theological sense. It does no good to know Hebrew and Greek if you do not know how to apply it and relate to others in the light of the Gospel. Any disagreement with you always results in an insult as the above quote.

I suggest you take a sabbatical from BB until you realize your opinion is not the Inspired word of God.

 

[Baptist4life]

You know, in eight years I have never seen a post of yours that made any theological sense. It does no good to know Hebrew and Greek if you do not know how to apply it and relate to others in the light of the Gospel. Any disagreement with you always results in an insult as the above quote.

I suggest you take a sabbatical from BB until you realize your opinion is not the Inspired word of God.

Amen!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup: I suggest rippon start READING the Bible he argues so much about, and then obeying it! Behaving like a Christian towards his brothers and sisters in Christ would be a great start! I've never seen someone who claims to be a Christian be so nasty to other believers! :BangHead:

 

[Logos1560]

I've never seen someone who claims to be a Christian be so nasty to other believers!

Do you not read carefully the posts of KJV-only advocates or do you apply a different standard [divers measures] to their posts? It seems that KJV-only advocates think that they are entitled to attack believers who disagree with a man-made KJV-only view.

What is kind, right, consistent, and scriptural about accusing believers of attacking the word of God because they disagree with opinions of men about a translation--the KJV?

 

[Wherever You Go]

I'm just going to go on record here as saying that I have read this entire thread.
:wavey:

 

[Amy.G]

I'm just going to go on record here as saying that I have read this entire thread.
:wavey:

And don't you feel edified? :laugh:

 

[Wherever You Go]

And don't you feel edified? :laugh:

Yes, that was basically my point. :tongue3:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

The Kettle Has Hit The Boiling Point!!!!

Amen!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup: I suggest rippon start READING the Bible he argues so much about, and then obeying it! Behaving like a Christian towards his brothers and sisters in Christ would be a great start! I've never seen someone who claims to be a Christian be so nasty to other believers! :BangHead:

Rippon is THE "Peter Ruckman" everyone claims Peter Ruckman to be.....except he's not as smart. Besides....I wasn't even talking to him...I was addressing Logos...er..Rick Norris. Lest I let my temper get farther out of hand...that is my last post in this thread. I'm done here.

Bro.Greg

 

[SovereignMercy]

Rippon is THE "Peter Ruckman" everyone claims Peter Ruckman to be.....except he's not as smart. Besides....I wasn't even talking to him...I was addressing Logos...er..Rick Norris. Lest I let my temper get farther out of hand...that is my last post in this thread. I'm done here.

Bro.Greg

This is at least the second time you've said you're done. KJV Onlyism is a [snipped]Which revision is inspired? Where was the inspired Word of God before? What about the poor quality of Erasmus's Greek text? Jesus is the living word and the Holy Spirit alone is able to teach us the truth of God using errant translations. The original was inspired and we have many quite accurate translations. When I witness to catholics and Jehovah Witnesses I often use their translations to show them their errors. Even those trying to lead people astray can't mask all the truth.

The King James Only Controversy by James White is an excellent book on the topic.

And please don't get me started on Peter Ruckman. We used to live in Pensacola near his cult. Had some good discussions with some of his students and was amazed by others prejudice and stupidity.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

KJV Onlyism is a cult pure and simple. Cults always claim to have some new, original revelation.

Those are some pretty harsh accusations for someone who appears to have a somewhat limited understanding of KJV-O. Not every KJVO is a Ruckmanite, I would argue that most are not. KJVO's absolutely DO NOT Universally claim that it is "inspired".....Those are YOUR words...and Ruckman's. I agree Ruckman was cultish. Most KJVO's claim no such thing.

Which revision is inspired?

None, as, before; KJVO's do not necessarilly claim the KJV is inspired, in fact, I've not known anyone on THIS board who believes that. At least argue against your opponent's actual claims and not the one's you create for them. Similarly, the way you are using somewhat divergent meanings of "inspiration" and subsequently claiming that KJVO's claim "new revelation" is a bit stretched. Joseph Smith claimed "new revelation"....KJVO's of even the worst sort aren't really a fair comparison.

Where was the inspired Word of God before?

The same place it always was. You appear not to understand the sum total of KJV-Onlyism very well. Anyone who maintains that the KJV is the perfect "preserved" Word of God by default insists that it has always existed in numerous manuscripts.

What about the poor quality of Erasmus's Greek text?

There's a debateable assertion right there if I've ever seen one :laugh:

Jesus is the living word and the Holy Spirit alone is able to teach us the truth of God using errant translations.

True.....so what?

The original was inspired and we have many quite accurate translations.

Well....you have excellent and accurate translations of flawed texts according to the KJVO's.

When I witness to catholics and Jehovah Witnesses I often use their translations to show them their errors. Even those trying to lead people astray can't mask all the truth.

Good for you and so what?

The King James Only Controversy by James White is an excellent book on the topic.

Read it twice and have done some fact-checking. Frankly, it's NOT that great a book. Fully twenty percent of his book is based upon an un-proved (and essentially un-provable) assertion that scribes intentionally ADDED accolades when speaking of Christ and his Divinity and status as Saviour etc...He simply asserts it, skips over any serious attempt to prove his rather bold accusation and then builds a massive case based upon that assertion.
White is good on a LOT of topics, but frankly....that book sux.

Also...there might be several counter-arguments to some of his assertions which he never mentions. He might pick apart ONE SPECIFIC counter-argument and knock it down....but fail to mention numerous other equally plausible explanations. This is bad practice IMO. Granted, he can't be exhaustive, but why pick only one possible counter-argument at all? Better to merely state your own case. He uses this technique to bolster his own assertions as though there are NO counters to his arguments which he can't knock down....Frankly, it's a little disingenuous and it prevents people from searching for alternative views.

And please don't get me started on Peter Ruckman. We used to live in Pensacola near his cult. Had some good discussions with some of his students and was amazed by others prejudice and stupidity.

You appear to act as though the sum-total of KJV-Onlyism is summed-up by Ruckmanites....I assure you, this is not the case............It is, IMO, YOUR particular "prejudice" that you do so.

 

[Wherever You Go]

It's also important to remember that there are not only two positions on the subject. There is a whole spectrum of ideology out there. The following observations are my own, not directly from any book, and I will state right now that this is my understanding of the subject, and thus, not "gospel fact".

The spectrum goes something like this.

A. KJ despisers. Think the KJ should never be used, that it is anathema.
B. KJ antagonists. Think the KJ is a very poor bible, totally outdated, obsolete
C. KJ minimalists. The KJ is one of many to choose them, and they don't like it
D. KJ pluralists. Put KJ on fairly equal value with others, but prefer others
E. Point zero. No opinion, or undecided.
F. KJ preference. Like the KJ, but have no philosophical reason.
G. KJ Selective. Prefer the KJ, thinking it is the best, but allowing others.
H. KJ Decisive. Believe KJ is the best, but believe it possible for a better to come. Warn believers about errors in other translations.
I. KJ Imperative. Believe that Thou shalt use the King James or Thou sinneth.
J. KJ Tyrannical. The KJ is absolutely the only game in town, and if you do not use the KJ, or if it was not used at your conversion, you are not saved. Not only this, but all non-English translations must be translated directly from the KJV. Thou hast no tolerance for people who believe otherwise; they are going to Hell.

Now that is the opinion for the KJV. There is a similar spectrum for the text families the translations came from. That spectrum, again, according to my understanding, is like this:

A. The Received Text (TR) is absolutely flawed and useless.
B. The TR is badly flawed, and decidedly worse than the W+H.
C. The TR is the lesser of the two text families, but still important.
D. The texts are of essentially equal value, or the person has no opinion.
E. The TR is the better text. It would be best to use it for all translation work.
F. The TR is definitively better, and the other texts are not to be considered. All translation, work to any language, MUST be done from the TR. (and the KJV is considered to be the embodiment of it in English).
G. God gave special, post-canonical blessing to the TR and its translation to English. Thou must believe that it is impossible to have a better English translation than the KJV. The translation itself was inspired with equal authority as the original manuscripts. The KJV itself is flawless.
H. Not only that (see G, above), but the KJV itself is now God's only endorsed word on earth today and for henceforward, such that using foreign language Bibles is wrong. If you are in a foreign land that speaks French, you must either convert a Bible directly into French from the English text of the KJV, or you must teach the French person to speak English (King James English, no less), so that they can read "the Bible" for themselves.
I. And not only that (see G and H above), but the original manuscripts and EVEN THE Textus Receptus ITSELF are irrelevant today, because the Heavenly endorsement of the KJV in 1611 means it is never necessary to study earlier documents today.


Now, that being my understanding of the situation, it is also true that there are more variations than I could list here, and "sideways, or non-linear" variations as well.

But everyone should be able to look through my list and more or less find their position on the KJV itself and the Textus Receptus.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

:wavey::thumbs: An EXCELLENT post Wherever...Thanks! :godisgood:

Personally: I'm something like:

H. KJ Decisive. Believe KJ is the best, but believe it possible for a better to come. Warn believers about errors in other translations.

on issue 1 because I nominally believe that:

F. The TR is definitively better, and the other texts are not to be considered. All translation, work to any language, MUST be done from the TR. (and the KJV is considered to be the embodiment of it in English).

 

[HeirofSalvation]

i am still trying to imagine what easter in Acts must have been like in the time of the Roman Empire! for they translated easter as being the celebrated festival!

Yes...they did, and there were some VERY sound reasons why they did so:
I would encourage you to do some research as to why they did. If you research this objectively, you may find as I do, that the translators of the KJV got it ABSOLUTELY correct! :wavey: and that the MV's are actually WRONG on the issue.

The KJV translators were anything but stupid, and frankly, I think they had some understandings that we have forgotten in this modern era. It is charming humanism to assume that we have such BETTER resources and knowledge than they did, (and granted there is some research they didn't have).....but knowledge is often LOST over time as well!

Does anyone here know how to make concrete which will harden under water?? Anybody? Anyone?

Because the ancients sure did! We've simply forgotten how. I for one, do not assume for a second, that the available scholarship available NOW is inherently superior in ALL ways as theirs was....Different, and some more manuscripts, yes....but that doesn't mean they didn't know stuff we don't. Frankly, I find that arrogant and somewhat humanistic assumption to be short-sighted at best. I wonder why no KJV proponent has mentioned that? It's a fait-accompli to the KJV detractors that we are so much more knowledgeable.....I defy that premise.

 

[Logos1560]

Acts 12:4--Easter

Yes...they did, and there were some VERY sound reasons why they did so:
I would encourage you to do some research as to why they did. If you research this objectively, you may find as I do, that the translators of the KJV got it ABSOLUTELY correct! and that the MV's are actually WRONG on the issue.

What are those "very sound reasons" that prove that the KJV's rendering "Easter" at Acts 12:4 is "absolutely correct"?

 

[Yeshua1]

What are those "very sound reasons" that prove that the KJV's rendering "Easter" at Acts 12:4 is "absolutely correct"?

'Inspired to them by the Holy Spirit!"

 

[Yeshua1]

:wavey::thumbs: An EXCELLENT post Wherever...Thanks! :godisgood:

Personally: I'm something like:
on issue 1 because I nominally believe that:

Do you hold that the modern versions are still bibles, just that there are inferior to the kjv?

that would be KJVP, NOT KJVO!

And MOSt of the Kjvo, if not all of them, do hold to teachings of the cult of rucerism or gail R!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

'Inspired to them by the Holy Spirit!"

REALLY? Is that what you honestly think? That the only reason one might think the translators of the KJV were correct in that translation is because they assume the translators were "inspired"?....you didn't bother to research it at all did you?

Fact: The word is translated "passover" 29 times in the NT.....in essentially EVERY modern version.

Fact: The KJV proceeds them also translating it that way EXCEPT for in that ONE instance. The KJV translators were AWARE of what they were doing, man. Whatever you should conclude, there is obviously, a reason (good or bad) for it.

Fact: It has nothing to do with the manuscripts they were using, as the word is the same as in modern texts.

Fact: Some earlier English Bible also translated it that way as well. Off the top of my head....the Coverdale and the Great Bible did....others did not.

Fact: The immediately preceeding Geneva also translates it as "Passover" as well.

Fact: Again...this was all info available to the translators of the KJV who were not near as stupid as you seem to think they were, and are either intentionally or not implying that I also am.

Logical conclusion: There is probably a very specific reason they translated it that way which it would behoove you to research. You obviously have not done so.

BTW: It is possible that I misspoke by saying the other translations were "wrong" to say Passover.......If you bothered to research the question for yourself, you might find that neither is (strictly speaking) "in-correct"....but, rather, I should have possibly said the KJV's rendering is "better".

 

[Rippon]

The Atcs of the Apostles by C.H. Rieu 1957

'It is unfortunate that most of it [KJV] is no longer intelligible,even to churchgoers. A modern congregation often listens to a reading of one of the Old Testament prophets or of an Epistle of st Paul with almost no comprehension,and it is possible that the [preacher] is sometimes as mystified as his hearers. What hope can evangelists have,with such a translation,of converyingthe truths of the Bible to the pagan or to the half-educated outside the church doors?" (9)