PDA

View Full Version : IS the KJV the only correct English translation of the Bible? [sf various threads]



John777
09-05-2013, 09:05 PM
[in response to a post by poster "God"]

^^

i cant believe that you would call yourself that title and i cant believe that you would not read the King James Bible to read what the real God really says. :snooty:

Saragossa
09-05-2013, 09:11 PM
What did King James say the real god really said?

Adamski
09-05-2013, 09:15 PM
^^

i cant believe that you would call yourself that title and i cant believe that you would not read the King James Bible to read what the real God really says. :snooty:
Or indeed the New King James Bible or the New American Standard Bible. Both accurste translations of holy Scripture. I also quite like the KJV because it was the first Bible I read when I became a Christian.
Sadly John777, on this bulketin board we not only have a user called God but we also have one called Antichrist (whose posts are generaly not worth the trouble of reading).

John777
10-05-2013, 03:14 PM
What did King James say the real god really said?

Sorry i dont quite understand what your saying, if you want to know what i think of King James i believe that he was a very scholarly and very Christian man who came to the throne as a result of prayers from people that were wanting to hear the real word of God. The Geneva and Bishops Bibles although in English were not perfect translations as the errors were obvious and there was a need for a English Bible that could be spread across the world. The King James Bible is the most published book ever in mankind's history, so i would say that God is definitely pleased with it.

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

It is interesting that the King James Bible was the seventh English Bible to be produced and it went through seven editions (not revisions) from 1611 to 1769 thus fulfilling Psalm 12.

pax
10-05-2013, 03:16 PM
I'm a King James Bible Believing Christian yes eternal life is a good idea, the word "eternal life" life has to be defined because people have different ideas what it is, i would say that "eternal life" is only possible because of the Lord Jesus Christ,

Only the King James bible? Did God speak divinely to the translation committees established by the publishing companies?

Is the KJV more authoritative than the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?

John777
10-05-2013, 03:26 PM
Or indeed the New King James Bible or the New American Standard Bible. Both accurate translations of holy Scripture. I also quite like the KJV because it was the first Bible I read when I became a Christian.


That is good that you have read the KJV Bible but i have to say to you in that i dont believe that the NKJV or the NASV are accurate translations of the Bible. i can easily see that there are verses in the NKJV and NASV that contradict the KJV Bible which means that things that are different are not the same. i would recommend that you see this (this is only the beginning)

NKJV:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjv.asp?FROM=biblecenter

NASV:

http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NASV/new_american_standard_version_exposed.htm

Deut.4:2 (KJV) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Luke 4:4 (KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

1 Peter 1:23 (KJV) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

John777
10-05-2013, 03:46 PM
Only the King James bible?

For English speaking people yes, why would God have multiple bible versions of the same language that contradict each other as seen today there are about 300 different English translations out there so you have to ask which one is God's word that is 100% right?

1 Corinthians 14:33, For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


Did God speak divinely to the translation committees established by the publishing companies?

Many of the bibles produced for Christian bookstores today are made by worldly book publishing companies! eg Zondervan, Thomas Nelson are worldly book companies that produce alot of non-Christian material which is anti-Bible. Guess why they are producing Bibles? you know the answer - the money! you should see how many millions these companies rake in. God is not in the business of speaking to modern bible version translation committees divinely today. The translation committee of the KJV Bible in 1604-1611 were not affected by modern nonsense, the translation committee consisted of translators from the Anglican Church system and from Puritan scholars working side by side, there is a book out about the lives of the KJV Bible translators, all were the best men available for the translation.


Is the KJV more authoritative than the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?

if you cant understand original Hebrew, Aramaic or ancient Koine Greek then yes!
um what originals? they no longer exist! what we have are copies and copies of copies. The originals had there place when they existed, but now God has given us His preserved word the King James Bible 1769 edition. The same God that made the universe has preserved His words throughout history believe it or not. And He has said so in the Bible!

Psalm 12:6 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Jesus says: Matthew 24:35 (KJV) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

John777
10-05-2013, 04:24 PM
^^

Did you know the "house of mourning" means funerals?

My rebuke would be this is not KJV Bible

Ecclesiastes 7:2 (KJV) It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.

Ecclesiastes 7:5 (KJV) It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

Adamski
10-05-2013, 07:52 PM
That is good that you have read the KJV Bible but i have to say to you in that i dont believe that the NKJV or the NASV are accurate translations of the Bible. i can easily see that there are verses in the NKJV and NASV that contradict the KJV Bible which means that things that are different are not the same. i would recommend that you see this (this is only the beginning)

NKJV:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjv.asp?FROM=biblecenter

NASV:

http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NASV/new_american_standard_version_exposed.htm

Deut.4:2 (KJV) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Luke 4:4 (KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

1 Peter 1:23 (KJV) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Ok. I even have a book on the KJV being more accurate but disagree with it in places as goes too far. New Age Bible Versions, by G. A. Riplinger.

My main issue with KJV is understanding it today when many words have changed meaning or are no longer used. NKJV better from this perspective. Anyway, translation read is not the key issue and we can agree to disagree on that. Salvation is - and indeed actually reading your translation!

Adamski
10-05-2013, 07:59 PM
^^

Did you know the "house of mourning" means funerals?

My rebuke would be this is not KJV Bible

Ecclesiastes 7:2 (KJV) It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.

Ecclesiastes 7:5 (KJV) It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Not really significantly different. See my comments on KJV on the Does God Exist thread. Just too hard to understand today without hard work. I would rather have that time listening to God speak than trying to work out the meaning of the written words....

John777
10-05-2013, 09:14 PM
Just too hard to understand today without hard work. I would rather have that time listening to God speak than trying to work out the meaning of the written words....

which bible you use will determine your faith:

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

my recommendation is to stay with the KJV. :)

John777
10-05-2013, 09:17 PM
My main issue with KJV is understanding it today when many words have changed meaning or are no longer used. NKJV better from this perspective.

Proponents of the modern corrupt Bible translations claim that the King James Bible's vocabulary is too antiquating and hard to understand. They make these accusations against the King James Bible in an attempt to justify publishing "newer" and "easier to understand" Bibles. As you will quickly discover below, the New King James Bible (NKJB) is NOT easier to understand. "New" is not always a better thing. In the case of the NKJB, it is much worse!

Below is a sampling of difficult words found in the New King James Version.

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths [not to get clean,] bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty, borne, breach, brandished, bray, bristling, buffet, buckler, bulrush, burnished, butress, calamus, caldron, capital, carcasses, carnally, carrion, cassia, caulkers, centurion, chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste, chasten, chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern, citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven, commission, commonwealth [not shared money,] compound, concede, compulsory, conciliation, concubine, congealed, contemptuously, confederacy, contingents, corban, coriander, countenance, couriers covert, crags, crescents, crest, cropped, cubit, custodian [not the one who cleans the school halls,] curds, dainties, dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed, deride, despoiled, diadem, diffuses, dilapidation, dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner, docile, dragnet, dregs, drachmas, dropsy, dross, dryshod, eczema, edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails, envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise, expiration, faction, fallow, famish, fare, fatlings, feigned festal, fetched, fidelity, figurehead, filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers, fuller furlongs, gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew, homers, hoopoe, immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy, jubilation, kors, laden, lamentations, laud, lusty, mail [not a letter,] mammon, matrix [other than the movie,] mattock, mercenaries, mina [not a type of bird,] mite [not a bed bug,] moorings, nativity, offal, offscouring, omnipotent, oracle, pangs, papyrus [not a fruit,] paramours, parapet, penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins [not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot,] pinions [not a type of nut,] plaited [not dishes,] platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice, Praetorium, prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators, propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver, rampart ravenous, ravished, raze [not to lift up,] reconciliation, recount, rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled [does not have to do with guns,] rivulets, rogue, salute [ does not have to do with the army,] satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle [not a type of bus or spaceship,] siegeworks, sistrums [not an affectionate term for your sisters,] skiff, soothsayer, spelt straits, superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng, timbrel, tittle, tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton, warp, wend, wield, winebibber, woof, wrought.

http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NKJB/vt.htm

Desmond
10-05-2013, 09:32 PM
Below is a sampling of difficult words found in the New King James Version.
Difficult is a relative term, apparently.

Adamski
10-05-2013, 10:29 PM
KJV has everyday words like "peradventure". It even has "He that pisseth against the wall..." to mean male, but I don't find that much of an aid to worship and prayer. But it is still the Bible, just as I said a harder to understand version. Of course the list of difficult words in the KJV would be much longer than that for the NKJV.

EDIT: the 1769 KJV version may have removed some of the less savoury wording from the 1611 one. I don't happen to possess one to check that.

BTW I do still use my KJV. A major reason is I learnt many verses from it in my younger days.

Adamski
10-05-2013, 10:31 PM
which bible you use will determine your faith:

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

my recommendation is to stay with the KJV. :)
That verse is pretty similar in NKJV, NASB and even RSV. I believe it.

Oepty
10-05-2013, 10:41 PM
^^

Did you know the "house of mourning" means funerals?

My rebuke would be this is not KJV Bible

Ecclesiastes 7:2 (KJV) It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.

Ecclesiastes 7:5 (KJV) It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.


Of course I know the house of mourning means funerals

I use the KJV as my main Bible, but I liked the translation I used.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 01:13 AM
It even has "He that pisseth against the wall..." to mean male, but I don't find that much of an aid to worship and prayer.

That has to be one for the biblical quote for the day thread. :lol:

John777
11-05-2013, 10:21 AM
KJV has everyday words like "peradventure". It even has "He that pisseth against the wall..." to mean male, but I don't find that much of an aid to worship and prayer. But it is still the Bible, just as I said a harder to understand version. Of course the list of difficult words in the KJV would be much longer than that for the NKJV.

The KJV Bible has been rated at 6th grade reading level, all versions have difficult words, the KJV Bible is too hard to read.

But lets look at the NKJV Bible

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NKJB/craft1d.jpg

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NKJB/nkjv2a.jpg

see the pagan symbol that was put on the NKJV when it first came out.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15 (NKJV) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

In 2 Timothy 2:15, the NKJV (like the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) remove that "obsolete" word - "study"! The only time you're told to "study" your Bible. AND THEY ZAP IT! Why don't they want you to "study" your Bible? Maybe they don't want you to look too close - you might find out what they've ACTUALLY done to your Bible! The "real" KJV is the only English Bible in the world that instructs you to "study" your Bible!

Things that are different are not the same.

for more changes see:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NKJB/exposed.htm


EDIT: the 1769 KJV version may have removed some of the less savoury wording from the 1611 one. I don't happen to possess one to check that.

the 1769 KJV Bible is 99.9% the same as the 1611 KJV Bible except in the 1769 there has been changes to the spelling, a change of font from gothic to modern font, and a correction of misprints from mistakes with old style printers.


BTW I do still use my KJV. A major reason is I learnt many verses from it in my younger days.

That is good. The KJV Bible is the easiest Bible to quote from because of the rythym in it, even children have found it easier to memorize than the modern versions.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 10:23 AM
I think we need a separate thread to discuss KJV-only beliefs.

John777
11-05-2013, 10:32 AM
I believe rr is referring to the varying canon between the protestant and catholic bibles (for example). The Catholic bible comprises 73 books. The Eastern Church has more books again. So there is certainly substantial disagreement on what constitutes biblical material among the three major groupings of Christianity.

the catholic bibles include the Apocrypha and are corrupted, catholicism is a cult, it is not christianity according to the KJV Bible. The Orthodox churches are also doctrinally wrong.

This chart here shows where the bible versions came from, yes the Modern Bible Versions are based on catholic manuscripts the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. That is 2 huge red flags their.

http://www.born2serve.org/images/kjvchartbig.gif

New Versions are Vatican Versions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zS45tDFHRo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPui6bFiU2g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmZW9XUuci8

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 11:56 AM
I think we need a separate thread to discuss KJV-only beliefs.

I wonder if John777 believes in magic, ghosts, water-divination, etc.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:00 PM
I wonder if John777 believes in magic, ghosts, water-divination, etc.

You can wonder that all you like but it is off topic to this thread.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:04 PM
the catholic bibles include the Apocrypha and are corrupted, catholicism is a cult, it is not christianity according to the KJV Bible. The Orthodox churches are also doctrinally wrong.

How to win friends and influence people by John777. You could start by calling the majority of christians in the world either cult members or doctrinally wrong.

Can you give us some pointers to the protestant churches you also think are cults. I have a feeling that by the time you finish we can identify what tradition you are in. :)

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:10 PM
You can wonder that all you like but it is off topic to this thread.

Well it is an interesting case study on the topic of this thread. John777 seems totally out of control with regards his beliefs and I was just musing as to how outlandish they get when you really start to plumb their depths.

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2013, 12:12 PM
Ok. I even have a book on the KJV being more accurate but disagree with it in places as goes too far. New Age Bible Versions, by G. A. Riplinger.
That is complete trash. It's hard to imagine an author so clueless. Here is a good refutation (New Age Bible Versions Refuted).


My main issue with KJV is understanding it today when many words have changed meaning or are no longer used.
Yes, such as "let" meaning "prevent", "conversation" meaning "conduct", "prevent" meaning "precede", "replenish" meaning "fill up" not "refill". I would rather use a Bible in the English I speak, not the English of 400 years.


NKJV better from this perspective. Anyway, translation read is not the key issue and we can agree to disagree on that. Salvation is - and indeed actually reading your translation!
Indeed. See also Psalms 12:6–7: A Great "Word Preservation" Passage—Or Is It? (http://www.kjv-only.com/psalm12.html)

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:12 PM
Well it is an interesting case study on the topic of this thread. John777 seems totally out of control with regards his beliefs and I was just musing as to how outlandish they get when you really start to plumb their depths.

He seems passionate, zealous about his beliefs, I think that is a good thing.
I am not sure his beliefs are so good though.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 12:16 PM
He seems passionate, zealous about his beliefs, I think that is a good thing.

I think religious zeal can be a very bad thing and has certainly lead to a lot of suffering and continues to do so today.

Oepty
11-05-2013, 12:20 PM
I think religious zeal can be a very bad thing and has certainly lead to a lot of suffering and continues to do so today.

Then you think nonsense

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2013, 01:28 PM
Only the King James bible? Did God speak divinely to the translation committees established by the publishing companies?

Is the KJV more authoritative than the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?
Obviously not.

John777
11-05-2013, 07:42 PM
That is complete trash. It's hard to imagine an author so clueless. Here is a good refutation (New Age Bible Versions Refuted).

no it isn't a good refutation.


Yes, such as "let" meaning "prevent", "conversation" meaning "conduct", "prevent" meaning "precede", "replenish" meaning "fill up" not "refill". I would rather use a Bible in the English I speak, not the English of 400 years.

ah but that isn't the point. God has given us a Bible in English to use what has happened is that dictionaries have been changed since 1611, it is good that the Bible is what it is. It is God's book not man's book. The problem with the Modern Bible Versions in English is that they have obvious errors in it. And plus with the links i posted above the Roman Catholic Church (cult) is behind the Modern Bible Versions translations, so if you want to read them the Pope is smiling. Plus ask how important is the word of God?

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.


Indeed. See also Psalms 12:6–7: A Great "Word Preservation" Passage—Or Is It? (http://www.kjv-only.com/psalm12.html)

Dr Thomas Holland on Psalm 12:6-7 KJV

http://www.sovereignword.org/index.php/defense-of-the-traditional-bible-texts-and-kjb/218-dr-thomas-holland-on-psalm-126-7-and-the-kjb

anyone can put up a website attacking the KJV, it is a matter of what you are reading is it true or not?

recommended:

http://www.kjvbiblebelievers.com
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com
http://www.kjv1611.org
http://www.kingjamesvideoministries.com
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
http://www.kjv1611.org
http://www.av1611.org
http://www.biblebelievers.com
http://www.brandplucked.com
http://www.usekjvonly.com
http://www.chick.com

John777
11-05-2013, 08:06 PM
How to win friends and influence people by John777. You could start by calling the majority of christians in the world either cult members or doctrinally wrong.

Can you give us some pointers to the protestant churches you also think are cults. I have a feeling that by the time you finish we can identify what tradition you are in. :)

The church systems in the world are in a very poor state today, sorry but it is very bad. No surprise since Satan and his minions are very active.

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Ephesians 6:
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

The greatest conspiracy is that the word of God has been changed, the churches are meant to be the backbone of society but because there are so many spineless "spiritual leaders" out there they have allowed the word of God to be changed and people have been fed poisons. And see what is happening today in the churches, apostasy everywhere, no wonder there is so much chaos,

Right now there is a falling away of people from the truth.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Protestant Cults? Those that use the false bibles and distort the truth and bring in scriptural heresy such as women pastors, tolerance of homosexuals, baptismal regeneration, soft stance on hell, soft stance on sin, organized state religion, tithing heresy, 501c3 tax exemptions, calvinism, the prosperity gospel, connections to freemasonry, connections to the Vatican, contemporary christian music, Nicolatianism.

The Anglican church a state cult, Modern Baptists that use modern versions, Lutherans that are tied to Catholics, Mennonites unscriptural practices, Presbyterians use false bibles, the Uniting Church uses false bibles, Salvation Army false bibles any others?

These are also tied to Catholicism or Freemasonry in some ways.

I'm a KJV Bible Believer, i judge the church systems by the King James Bible, i'm not perfect, but the word of God sheds light on dark practices, u cant throw out the Bible.

Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Desmond
11-05-2013, 09:01 PM
http://www.chick.com
I bet that place gets a lot of disappointed surfers.

Adamski
11-05-2013, 09:16 PM
The greatest conspiracy is that the word of God has been changed, the churches are meant to be the backbone of society but because there are so many spineless "spiritual leaders" out there they have allowed the word of God to be changed and people have been fed poisons. And see what is happening today in the churches, apostasy everywhere, no wonder there is so much chaos,

Right now there is a falling away of people from the truth.

Protestant Cults? Those that use the false bibles and distort the truth and bring in scriptural heresy such as women pastors, tolerance of homosexuals, baptismal regeneration, soft stance on hell, soft stance on sin, organized state religion, tithing heresy, 501c3 tax exemptions, calvinism, the prosperity gospel, connections to freemasonry, connections to the Vatican, contemporary christian music, Nicolatianism.

The Anglican church a state cult, Modern Baptists that use modern versions, Lutherans that are tied to Catholics, Mennonites unscriptural practices, Presbyterians use false bibles, the Uniting Church uses false bibles, Salvation Army false bibles any others?

These are also tied to Catholicism or Freemasonry in some ways.

I'm a KJV Bible Believer, i judge the church systems by the King James Bible, i'm not perfect, but the word of God sheds light on dark practices, u cant throw out the Bible.

Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?Boy. You are squarely in the "mine is the only right church" camp. You can't dismiss 95% of Christendom as wrong.

Rincewind
11-05-2013, 09:41 PM
Protestant Cults? Those that use the false bibles and distort the truth and bring in scriptural heresy such as women pastors, tolerance of homosexuals, baptismal regeneration, soft stance on hell, soft stance on sin, organized state religion, tithing heresy, 501c3 tax exemptions, calvinism, the prosperity gospel, connections to freemasonry, connections to the Vatican, contemporary christian music, Nicolatianism.

The Anglican church a state cult, Modern Baptists that use modern versions, Lutherans that are tied to Catholics, Mennonites unscriptural practices, Presbyterians use false bibles, the Uniting Church uses false bibles, Salvation Army false bibles any others?

Do you attend a Evangelical Church?

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 01:11 AM
no it isn't a good refutation.
Yes it is. White is qualified in the language and history of textual transmission. That Riplinger harridan has qualifications in ineterior decorating.


ah but that isn't the point.
Of course it is. The KJV translators wanted a Bible in a language of their day. That's why they revised the Bishop's Bible, which was a revision of other Bibles going back to Tyndales Bible. And the KJV-1611 was extensively revised by Blayney in 1769, which is the "KJV-1611" that you use.

I have a copy of a fascimile of the real KJV-1611, which you have evidently never seen. It has the Apocrypha, marginal notes, and a preface from the translators "to the reader", advocating "a variety of versions", differentiating between "originalls" and copies and translations (so they would have been part of the so-called Alexandrian Cult you probably believe exists), and all the other things you hate about modern versions!


God has given us a Bible in English to use what has happened is that dictionaries have been changed since 1611, it is good that the Bible is what it is. It is God's book not man's book.
The Geneva Bible is earlier than the KJV, and is a better translation. The KJV is better known today because a bisexual king was behind it, and persecuted the Puritans, who took the Geneva Bible to America.


The problem with the Modern Bible Versions in English is that they have obvious errors in it. And plus with the links i posted above the Roman Catholic Church (cult) is behind the Modern Bible Versions translations, so if you want to read them the Pope is smiling. Plus ask how important is the word of God?
Come off it. The KJV uses a Greek text compiled by Erasmus, who never left the Roman Catholic "cult", and he used textual criticism based on only a handful of very late Greek manuscripts. There is no single Greek manuscript that's identical to the so-called Received Text.


Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
A good example of how the much later manuscripts had fuller quotations of the OT. Totally understandable if you understand anything about the history of Greek texts. One corroboration for the Greek text is the many lectionaries we have. They were selections of biblical texts to be read to the churches. But sometimes they required the reader to put a short text in context. Sometimes there would be an extensive section with just pronouns. So the text for the reader would explain that it's the "Lord God" who is doing something, or add that it was the "Lord Jesus Christ" when it was just "Jesus". And in the case above, the brief OT quotation would have been understood by the original hearers without spelling it out. But the lectionaries would spell out a fuller quotation.

The same happened with scribal transmission. Sometimes a scribe would spell out something in a margin, including fuller quotations of the OT, and the "expansion of piety" of titles for Jesus. But in both cases, copyists of the next generation of manuscripts would sometimes mistake that marginal note, or lectionary context, for something inadvertently omitted. Not wanting to err on the side of depriving Christ of a title, they would put it in the main text of the next generation.

Under Constantine, a standardized text was produced, which incorporated all those additions. Most of the later manuscripts look like this text, and are named after the old name of Constantinople, hence the Byzantine textual family. The Erasmian Greek text was based on a few late Byzantine-type manuscripts.

See, no conspiracy is required to explain why the KJV in many cases is supported by a majority of manuscripts, but these are the very late ones. Also, no one has "taken out" anything from the modern Bibles, but the KJV has many things added.


Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Jesus spoke in Hebrew (with a Galilean accent), not Jacobean English. Nor does "God's preservation" mean that He preserved it in the way you think. Rather, He preserved it over so many Greek texts that we can know what the original was. Your position has a big problem: could people living before 1611 have had God's Word preserved for them? Or, what was "preserved" before the "Textus Receptus", given that no Greek manuscript is identical to this?


Dr Thomas Holland on Psalm 12:6-7 KJV
What a moron.


Anyone can put up a website attacking the KJV, it is a matter of what you are reading is it true or not?
But that website documented that the KJV translators themselves didn't believe what you do about the Psalm! And they were definitely not KJV-only.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 01:18 AM
Or indeed the New King James Bible or the New American Standard Bible. Both accurate translations of holy Scripture.
They are both good formal equivalence translations, and either is excellent as a primary Bible for personal study and church readings. They are a nice complement for each other, because NKJV is largely based on the Majority Text and the NASB on the UBS text.


I also quite like the KJV because it was the first Bible I read when I became a Christian.
And none of us has a problem with people reading the KJV out of preference, just with KJV-onlyism, and certainly with the cultic Ruckmanite belief that God re-inspired the KJV so it supersedes the Hebrew and Greek originals.


Sadly John777, on this bulletin board we not only have a user called God but we also have one called Antichrist (whose posts are generaly not worth the trouble of reading).
Even most of his fellow atheists don't take him seriously.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 01:21 AM
http://www.chick.com
I bet that place gets a lot of disappointed surfers.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
12-05-2013, 12:16 PM
I bet that place gets a lot of disappointed surfers.

Also a lot who are highly amused. Many of them atheists. The sick glee that Chick Tracts take in sending their characters to Hell, infecting them with AIDS for not following Jesus and other such things has a certain cult appeal.

Hobbes
13-05-2013, 05:34 PM
Is this the same King James as the one who was always in bed with the Duke of Buckingham?

Oepty
13-05-2013, 06:13 PM
Is this the same King James as the one who was always in bed with the Duke of Buckingham?

I believe King James might have tended towards that way yes. Not sure if he did it with that particular Duke.

Adamski
14-05-2013, 12:37 AM
The KJV translators can't be held accountable for the sins of the King.

But what I have read is that a number of the KJV translators were freemasons. Personally, I trust later translations the NKJV and NASB more.

John777
24-05-2013, 08:42 PM
But what I have read is that a number of the KJV translators were freemasons.

where are you getting that nonsense? that is what roman catholics would say.


The KJV translators can't be held accountable for the sins of the King.

that is right no man is perfect only the man Christ Jesus.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Desmond
24-05-2013, 09:59 PM
where are you getting that nonsense? that is what roman catholics would say.Bro, do u even lift?

John777
25-05-2013, 09:02 AM
Bro, do u even lift?

i'm telling it as it is, the truth may offend but the truth will never comfort you with a lie

Rincewind
25-05-2013, 11:20 AM
i'm telling it as it is, the truth may offend but the truth will never comfort you with a lie

Oh the irony.

Tony Dowden
25-05-2013, 12:19 PM
... Catholicism is a cult ...

Why do you say so? Is Anglicanism also a 'cult' then?

Rincewind
25-05-2013, 12:26 PM
Why do you say so? Is Anglicanism also a 'cult' then?

See post #31 of this thread


The Anglican church a state cult

;)

John777
25-05-2013, 05:21 PM
... Catholicism is a cult ...


Why do you say so?

Catholic "clergy" teach that you can only be saved by being a Catholic, they believe there is no salvation outside of the Catholic System, you have to take part in their rituals to go to heaven, so in their eyes i'm doomed, that is what a cult will do they will say there is no salvation outside their cult system so people are afraid to leave and them people nearly always have to work their way to heaven by doing works in their own system. There are 1.2 billion catholics in this world, when people think of cults they think of small numbers, this cult is very dangerous, just see their history. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing now is trying to bring other religions under its control, with Islam they are doing it through Fatima and Marian Apparitions, with Hinduism Mary is gotten status as another deity, Pentecostals are doing false miracles similar to the charismatic movement inside the catholic system.
The Vatican is extremely wealthy, it has control right round the world with tentacles like an octupus, here in Australia one in every fourth person is a Catholic which has a big effect on Australia.
Saying that i know of people that have come out of the Roman Catholic System to become King James Bible Believers similar to myself, one internet ministry is www.excatholicsforchrist.com These ex-catholics will tell you that the RCC is a cult too.



Is Anglicanism also a 'cult' then?

i came out of the Anglican system, i was not clergy but i saw alot that goes on. It is not as extreme as catholicism it is more soft in what they stand for people dont usually call Anglicanism a cult but i think some things are like a cult. Much of it has to do with non-biblical practices. For instance the Anglican Church is tied to the government in schooling, these schools receive money from the government, Christians are not supposed to be tied together with the government.
The hierarchy of clergy in the Anglican system has women leaders in it which is unscriptural, the titles of leaders "reverend" is unbiblical, the collection of tithes is unbiblical, the use of modern bible versions typically the NIV which is corrupted, the big earnings the Anglican system brings in, people can be very afraid to leave the Anglican system for some reason. There are freemasons and catholics that have infiltrated the Anglican system too. Anglicanism is far more subtle than Catholicism it leaves people in a churchianity system rather than a real Christian one. Just wait for Anglicanism to go under the Vatican one day.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2013, 10:57 PM
How about the Geneva Bible (http://genevabible.com/)? I think it is the best of all the translations into Early Modern English from the so-called Textus Receptus (although I still prefer good modern versions like ESV, NASB). The Geneva Bible was first published in 1560, and was probably the first ‘study Bible’ in history. The Geneva Bible, with its excellent direct prose and the biblical study notes, was the main Bible of 16th century English Protestantism, and was the translation used by William Shakespeare, Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Donne, John Bunyan, and even the KJV translators in their preface, ‘The Translators to the Reader’. It's largely forgotten today, mainly for political reasons: upsetting King James' belief in the Divine Right of Kings and the Anglican hierarchy. That's why he commissioned a new Bible, but it still took decades to replace the Geneva. For example, the Mayflower pilgrims, who landed in America 9 years after the first KJV, took a Geneva Bible with them. Almost all the KJV-only arguments don't apply to the Geneva Bible.

Adamski
25-05-2013, 11:24 PM
Catholic "clergy" teach that you can only be saved by being a Catholic, they believe there is no salvation outside of the Catholic System, you have to take part in their rituals to go to heaven, so in their eyes i'm doomed, that is what a cult will do they will say there is no salvation outside their cult system so people are afraid to leave and them people nearly always have to work their way to heaven by doing works in their own system. There are 1.2 billion catholics in this world, when people think of cults they think of small numbers, this cult is very dangerous, just see their history. What the Roman Catholic Church is doing now is trying to bring other religions under its control, with Islam they are doing it through Fatima and Marian Apparitions, with Hinduism Mary is gotten status as another deity, Pentecostals are doing false miracles similar to the charismatic movement inside the catholic system.
The Vatican is extremely wealthy, it has control right round the world with tentacles like an octupus, here in Australia one in every fourth person is a Catholic which has a big effect on Australia.
Saying that i know of people that have come out of the Roman Catholic System to become King James Bible Believers similar to myself, one internet ministry is www.excatholicsforchrist.com These ex-catholics will tell you that the RCC is a cult too.



i came out of the Anglican system, i was not clergy but i saw alot that goes on. It is not as extreme as catholicism it is more soft in what they stand for people dont usually call Anglicanism a cult but i think some things are like a cult. Much of it has to do with non-biblical practices. For instance the Anglican Church is tied to the government in schooling, these schools receive money from the government, Christians are not supposed to be tied together with the government.
The hierarchy of clergy in the Anglican system has women leaders in it which is unscriptural, the titles of leaders "reverend" is unbiblical, the collection of tithes is unbiblical, the use of modern bible versions typically the NIV which is corrupted, the big earnings the Anglican system brings in, people can be very afraid to leave the Anglican system for some reason. There are freemasons and catholics that have infiltrated the Anglican system too. Anglicanism is far more subtle than Catholicism it leaves people in a churchianity system rather than a real Christian one. Just wait for Anglicanism to go under the Vatican one day.I have to disagree with most of that. I have many good Christain friends who are Anglican. E.g., since when is collecting tithes unbiblical? Read Malachi 3 in the KJV!

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2013, 12:39 AM
I have to disagree with most of that. I have many good Christain friends who are Anglican. E.g., since when is collecting tithes unbiblical? Read Malachi 3 in the KJV!
Yes, calling them "cults" goes too far. Genuine adherents of the 39 Articles are not cultic. There are certainly individual heretics in the Anglican communion, e.g. Bishops who even deny the Resurrection and existence of God, and there is something wrong with a denomination that doesn't throw them out. I wouldn't even call Roman Catholicism a cult despite its faulty teachings on soteriology, since at least it accepts the Trinity, and for most of its history, accepted biblical inerrancy.

John777
26-05-2013, 01:26 PM
How about the Geneva Bible (http://genevabible.com/)?

it's very close to the KJV Bible but it isn't 100% The KJV is more English and so took over the Geneva Bible.


Almost all the KJV-only arguments don't apply to the Geneva Bible.

How is that?


I wouldn't even call Roman Catholicism a cult despite its faulty teachings on soteriology, since at least it accepts the Trinity, and for most of its history, accepted biblical inerrancy.


they may have a doctrine called "the trinity" but it is not the trinity that i know because the catholics throw Mary in as a co redeemer which puts a huge amount of people outside of the catholic system.

John777
26-05-2013, 01:30 PM
since when is collecting tithes unbiblical? Read Malachi 3 in the KJV!

Tithing is Not Taught in the New Testament

Tithing was for Old Testament Israel. If tithing were for today's believer, then it would have been reiterated in the New Testament; but it was not. The remaining 11-Tribes were obligated to support the priestly tribe of Levi. In sharp contrast, there is NO such obligation today for believers to tithe 10% or give offerings to a church (which in America is basically a conglomerate of arbitrary ministries ranging from legitimate to criminal front organizations). It's a sin to teach people that God commands believers to support any particular church or ministry. The Bible clearly teaches that we ought to give to the poor, which is what the Apostles did with the money given to them by the believers in Acts 4:34-37. Sadly, most of the money donated to churches today goes for spending on themselves.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/tithing_unbiblical.htm

Ian Murray
26-05-2013, 04:30 PM
Catholic "clergy" teach that you can only be saved by being a Catholic, they believe there is no salvation outside of the Catholic System, you have to take part in their rituals to go to heaven, so in their eyes i'm doomed, that is what a cult will do they will say there is no salvation outside their cult system
Strangely, I was educated within the Catholic school system and taught the opposite, that God will forgive everyone's sins if duly penitent.

John777
26-05-2013, 08:47 PM
Strangely, I was educated within the Catholic school system and taught the opposite, that God will forgive everyone's sins if duly penitent.

That is because there is some double mindedness going on, they will say that but:

In Roman Catholic teaching there is no salvation apart from participation in the sacraments mediated through its priesthood. The Roman Church teaches that she is the mediator between Christ and the individual. Saving grace is mediated through these sacraments. John Hardon, author of The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (which carries the official authorization of the Vatican) says this:

Why did Christ establish the Church?
Christ established the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation.

How is the Church the universal sacrament of salvation?
The Church is the universal sacrament of salvation as the divinely instituted means of conferring grace on all the members of the human family.

What does the Catholic Church believe about the forgiveness of sins?
She believes it is God’s will that no one is forgiven except through the merits of Jesus Christ and that these merits are uniquely channeled through the Church He founded. Consequently, even as the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation, she is also the universal sacrament of reconciliation.

How does the Church communicate the merits of Christ’s mercy to sinners?
The Church communicates the merits of Christ’s mercy to sinners through the Mass and the sacraments and all the prayers and good works of the faithful.

Are the sacraments necessary for salvation?
According to the way God has willed that we be saved the sacraments are necessary for salvation

(John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Questions # 401, 402, 461, 462, 1119).

There is more to say i recommend this link:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/catholic_church_is_not_christian.htm

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2013, 11:26 PM
it's very close to the KJV Bible but it isn't 100%.
Obviously the Geneva Bible is not 100% of the KJV Bible. But this is the question-begging so common among KJV-onlyism: presupposing that the KJV should be the standard, then showing how other versions differ from this standard, thus "demonstrating" how corrupt they are. In reality, the similarities are due to their common descent from the Tyndale Bible. Most of the best-known words and expressions from the KJV are really from Tyndale:


Atonement
Jehovah
scapegoat
let there be light
the powers that be
my brother's keeper
the salt of the earth
a law unto themselves
filthy lucre
it came to pass
gave up the ghost
the signs of the times
the spirit is willing
live and move and have our being
fight the good fight



The KJV is more English and so took over the Geneva Bible.
As I said, it took over for political reasons: the KJV was backed by the State, and this included the Anglican Church that you decry as being part of the State. Or rather, it was the study notes more than the translation per se, e.g.:


1 Samuel 8:11 Not that kings have this authority by their office, but that such as reign in God’s wrath should usurp this over their brethren, contrary to the law, Deut. 17:20.

Philippians 1:1 By the Bishops are meant both the Pastors, which have the dispensation of the word and the Elders, that govern: and by Deacons are meant those that were stewards of the treasury of the Church and had to look unto the poor.

BTW, please don't complain about marginal notes, because the original 1611, which you probably have never seen (you quote from the 1769 Blayney revision), had them too.

The King decreed that a new Bible should replace the Geneva Bible, which he didn't like for political reasons, and this new Bible was officially a revision of the Bishop's Bible, a demonstrably inferior translation to the Geneva.


How is that?
Because a lot of the arguments go into the differences between the so-called Textus Receptus and the critical Nestlé–Aland–UBS text. Such arguments don't apply to translations also taken from the same text as the KJV. Others concern the rise of Darwin and its alleged influence on modern versions, but the Geneva is even older than the KJV.


they [Catholics] may have a doctrine called "the trinity" but it is not the trinity that i know because the catholics throw Mary in as a co redeemer which puts a huge amount of people outside of the catholic system.
No they don't. Some of their prayers in history are way too florid about Mary, and they believe she was sinless which is unbiblical (see The Virginal Conception of Christ (http://creation.com/the-virginal-conception-of-christ)), but make no mistake: the Trinity for them is the biblical Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The most conservative Roman Catholic I've ever met (literally more Catholic than the Pope, it seemed) told me, "You'll go to hell if you worship Mary."

John777
27-05-2013, 06:19 PM
Some of their prayers in history are way too florid about Mary, and they believe she was sinless which is unbiblical

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mary_worsip_is_crazy.jpg

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mary_worship34.jpg

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/mary_idolatry-los_angeles.jpg

this is Mary worship


the Geneva is even older than the KJV.

yes it is, but i dont hold it to be perfect, only the KJV Bible is perfect, between the two i believe that God chose the KJV Bible to be His perfect word, i just see the KJV Bible as having that favour in history, the Geneva Bible kind of got sidelined.

Desmond
27-05-2013, 07:00 PM
only the KJV Bible is perfect, between the two i believe that God chose the KJV Bible to be His perfect word, i just see the KJV Bible as having that favour in history, the Geneva Bible kind of got sidelined.
Ah, another religious zealot who thinks he has the exclusive Truth. You should fit in well here.

John777
27-05-2013, 09:49 PM
Ah, another religious zealot who thinks he has the exclusive Truth. You should fit in well here.

indeed i should

pax
27-05-2013, 11:57 PM
Carry on chaps, this is most entertaining.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2013, 12:59 AM
this is Mary worship
More likely, very unhealthy devotion. But since you evidently have a Catholic Catechism, you should be able to verify that the Trinity is officially Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while Mary was a created being. I don't approve of Marian devotion or believe that she was sinless or a perpetual virgin, but I also don't approve of misrepresenting their position.


yes it is, but i dont hold it to be perfect, only the KJV Bible is perfect,
Then you disagree with the KJV translators themselves!


between the two i believe that God chose the KJV Bible to be His perfect word, i just see the KJV Bible as having that favour in history, the Geneva Bible kind of got sidelined.
Yes, it got sidelined because it attacked the divine right of kings and Episcopalian forms of Church government. King James detested the Geneva Bible for that reason. He famously said, "No bishop, no king." This is a terrible reason to prefer the KJV to the Geneva Bible. It also implies the irrational notion that the Bishop's Bible was very close to God's perfect word, and somehow the King's appointed translators revised it almost to perfection in 1611, then Benjamin Blayney of Oxford achieved perfection in 1769 when he produced the revised KJV you now read.

Also, if you want to resort to historical "arguments from circumstance", then we should never have departed from the Latin Vulgate, which God had clearly blessed for a millennium (by your type of reasoning).

John777
28-05-2013, 07:46 PM
Then you disagree with the KJV translators themselves!

QUESTION: Did the translators of the Authorized Version claim to be inspired by God?

ANSWER: No. But Biblically that does not mean that they could not have been inspired.

EXPLANATION: The men on the translation committee of the King James Bible were, without dispute, the most learned men of their day and vastly qualified for the job which they undertook. They were overall both academically qualified by their cumulative knowledge and spiritually qualified by their exemplary lives.

Among their company were men who, academically, took a month's vacation and used the time to learn and master an entirely foreign language; wrote a Persian dictionary; invented a specialized mathematical ruler, one was an architect; mastered oriental languages; publicly debated in Greek; tutored Queen Elizabeth in Greek and mathematics; and of one it was said, "Hebrew he had at his fingers end". Yet head knowledge can be a curse if not tempered by a fervent, pious heart.

In this, the spiritual realm, they were light years ahead of many today who flaunt their education yet fail in any attempt at a practical, personal witness.

[overlong copy and paste snipped - full text in link below - mod]

http://chick.com/reading/books/158/158_14.asp


Also, if you want to resort to historical "arguments from circumstance", then we should never have departed from the Latin Vulgate, which God had clearly blessed for a millennium (by your type of reasoning).

i have no problem with the bible in other languages, i believe that the Old Latin Vulgate Bible (not the catholic one) is inspired and has been used by God.


Benjamin Blayney of Oxford achieved perfection in 1769 when he produced the revised KJV you now read.

QUESTION: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?

ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no revisions.

EXPLANATION: One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic of the Authorized Version 1611 is the "revision hoax." They run to this seeming fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their opponents who overwhelm their feeble arguments with historic facts, manuscript evidence and to obvious workings of the Holy Spirit. Once inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, "Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?" The shock of this attack and the momentary confusion that results usually allows them time to make good their escape.

Unfortunately, upon entering their castle and closing the door behind them they find that their fortress has been systematically torn down, brick by brick, by a man with the title of Dr. David F. Reagan.

Dr. Reagan pastors the Trinity Baptist Temple in Knoxville, Tennessee. He has written a devastating exposé on the early editions of the King James Bible entitled "The King James Version of 1611. The Myth of Early Revisions."

Dr. Reagan has done an excellent job of destroying the last stronghold of Bible critics. I see neither a way, nor a reason to try to improve on his finding. So I have secured his permission to reproduce his pamphlet in its entirety.

More here:

http://chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp


But since you evidently have a Catholic Catechism, you should be able to verify that the Trinity is officially Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while Mary was a created being. I don't approve of Marian devotion or believe that she was sinless or a perpetual virgin, but I also don't approve of misrepresenting their position.


this link here shows more info:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/hail_mary_co-redeemer.htm#n1

Kevin Bonham
28-05-2013, 08:02 PM
Moderation Notice

Please avoid copying and pasting huge chunks of copyrighted text when a small excerpt or summary and link is sufficient. I nearly deleted the above post (see forum rules here: http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8974) but eventually decided instead to just snip the overquoting at the top.

Although it is technically permitted to quote long chunks of text for the purposes of critical review of a claim posted by someone else I don't think quoting several paras to respond to a single line is justified.

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2013, 03:47 AM
QUESTION: Did the translators of the Authorized Version claim to be inspired by God?

ANSWER: No. But Biblically that does not mean that they could not have been inspired.
They specifically disclaimed inspiration. Conversely, the OT prophets recorded things like "The word of the LORD came to Moses" etc. Paul introduced his letters with his credentials as an Apostle of Christ.

The KJV translators also said things that contradict KJVOs, e.g.:


The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Originall [sic] in many places, neither doeth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it … which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and comment it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God. (emphasis added)
Note, they specifically differentiated the original manuscripts from copies and translations, and affirmed the existence of the Septuagint, which much KJVO propaganda claims never existed.

They also said:

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded (emphasis added).
So there can be no doubt that they were not KJVO, since they commended a “variety of translations”.


EXPLANATION: The men on the translation committee of the King James Bible were, without dispute, the most learned men of their day and vastly qualified for the job which they undertook. They were overall both academically qualified by their cumulative knowledge and spiritually qualified by their exemplary lives.
The Geneva Bible likewise had very qualified scholars, who were also leaders in the early post-Reformation church. The NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV likewise have very able Christian scholars behind them. They also have much knowledge in Koinè Greek and access to older texts that the KJV translators lacked.


i have no problem with the bible in other languages, i believe that the Old Latin Vulgate Bible (not the catholic one) is inspired and has been used by God.
Yet the Vulgate differs from the KJV in content. What about German? The Luther Bible? This also has some different translations.


QUESTION: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?

ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no revisions.
Where to begin? First, the KJV itself was the product of revisions. It was first published in 1611 (with 8,422 marginal notes and the Apocrypha), and was officially a revision of the 1568 Bishop’s Bible, itself a revision of the 1539 Great Bible, in turn a revision of the 1537 Matthew Bible, which was largely based on the 1526 Tyndale Bible. So the KJV was essentially the 5th revision of the Tyndale Bible, and retains about 90 % of its wording.


EXPLANATION: One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic of the Authorized Version 1611 is the "revision hoax." They run to this seeming fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their opponents who overwhelm their feeble arguments with historic facts, manuscript evidence and to obvious workings of the Holy Spirit. Once inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, "Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?" The shock of this attack and the momentary confusion that results usually allows them time to make good their escape.
That might play well with those who don't have any copies of the original 1611, but since I possess one, it won't work on me. The KJV has been revised several times since 1611; most copies of the KJV today are actually the 1769 revision by Dr Benjamin Blayney of Oxford, which differs in about 75,000 places from the 1611 edition. , Also, the original 1611-KJV contained the Apocrypha, cross-referenced to it from the canonical books, and listed verses from the Apocrypha in its Scripture reading schedule without any diclaimer that they were not inspired. The 1611 original also had over 8,000 marginal notes suggesting alternative translations and uncertainty about some words in the original languages. It used spellings like Iesus, Iehovah, vnto, euill, hee/shee, off-fpring, and beleeueth.

So which pair of the following is God’s inspired word?:

Ruth 3:15 — ‘...and he went into the city.’ Today’s KJVs read ‘...and she went into the city.’
Psalm 69:32 — ‘...and your heart shall liue that seeke goode.’ Today’s KJVs read, ‘...and your heart shall live that seek God.’
Jeremiah 34:16 — ‘...and euery man his handmaide, whom yee had set at libertie....’ Today’s KJVs read, ‘...and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty....’

These are clear changes in substance.


Dr. Reagan pastors the Trinity Baptist Temple in Knoxville, Tennessee. He has written a devastating exposé on the early editions of the King James Bible entitled "The King James Version of 1611. The Myth of Early Revisions."

Dr. Reagan has done an excellent job of destroying the last stronghold of Bible critics. I see neither a way, nor a reason to try to improve on his finding.
Not much of a finding, since it didn't take much research to disprove it. Also, most conservative Christians take exception to being called "Bible critics" because we deny that the KJV is infallible.

John777
29-05-2013, 05:34 PM
The NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV likewise have very able Christian scholars behind them.

you have to be kidding right? These four are hopeless translations full of obvious errors and you want me to believe that there are very able Christian scholars behind them?


The Geneva Bible likewise had very qualified scholars, who were also leaders in the early post-Reformation church.

:hmm: i agree with you there


They also have much knowledge in Koinè Greek and access to older texts that the KJV translators lacked.

There have been many manuscripts found since 1611, but there have been no new READINGS found. The fact is, that the King James translators had all of the readings available to them that modern critics have available to them today.

http://chick.com/reading/books/158/158_41.asp


Yet the Vulgate differs from the KJV in content. What about German? The Luther Bible? This also has some different translations.

Really? are there any examples? by that i would have to see two perfect translations from two different languages side by side.


So the KJV was essentially the 5th revision of the Tyndale Bible, and retains about 90 % of its wording.

i have heard different percentages, Tyndale's Bible was a great work but the KJV is still different.


So which pair of the following is God’s inspired word?:

Ruth 3:15 — ‘...and he went into the city.’ Today’s KJVs read ‘...and she went into the city.’
Psalm 69:32 — ‘...and your heart shall liue that seeke goode.’ Today’s KJVs read, ‘...and your heart shall live that seek God.’
Jeremiah 34:16 — ‘...and euery man his handmaide, whom yee had set at libertie....’ Today’s KJVs read, ‘...and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty....’

Today's KJV because the former has printing errors.


The KJV has been revised several times since 1611; most copies of the KJV today are actually the 1769 revision by Dr Benjamin Blayney of Oxford, which differs in about 75,000 places from the 1611 edition.

well you can believe it is a revision, i dont see it that way, one question though: what do you think of the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) that is the final form of the King James Bible?

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2013, 01:22 AM
you have to be kidding right? These four are hopeless translations full of obvious errors and you want me to believe that there are very able Christian scholars behind them?
Where are these errors? And please don't just trot out a list of things "taken out", because this again begs the question that the KJV or TR is the standard.


Sometimes the modern versions communicate better, because language has changed since the KJV. A good example is "replenish the earth" in Gen. 1:28, where the Hebrew just meant "fill the earth". "Replenish" in 1611 actually meant "fill up" or "make replete". See Replenish the earth: Were Adam and Eve supposed to fill the planet with their descendants—or to refill it? (http://creation.com/genesis-1-28-replenish-or-fill)

Sometimes the modern translations are better because we now know more about Koinè Greek grammar. For example, about 200 years after the KJV was published, the Greek scholar (and anti-slavery activist) Granville Sharp carefully investigated the grammar of the Greek New Testament, and discovered the following rule that was unknown to the KJV translators, and is now named after him:

‘When kai (‘and’) connects two singular nouns, which are describing a person and are not proper names, of the same case; and if the definite article (‘the’) precedes the first noun and is absent from the second noun, both nouns refer to the same person.’
Sharp discovered that the KJV had obscured what are actually clear proofs of the deity of Christ. Let us apply his rule to the Greek text of Titus 2:13:

ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
appearing of the glory of the great God and Saviour of us Jesus Christ
Note that ‘the great God’ has the definite article τοῦ, while ‘saviour’ doesn’t, and they are connected by καὶ, and they are both singular nouns of the same case — genitive (possessive) — therefore they refer to the same Person, Jesus Christ. This shows that Titus 2:13 should be rendered: ‘… the glorious appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ’, as many modern translations do, an unambiguous statement of Christ’s deity. But the KJV translators, who pre-dated Granville Sharp, translated the verse as ‘… glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;’ which obscures the deity of Christ. In fact, it is very similar to the heretical New World Translation published by the Jehovah’s Witness cult, ‘… the glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] savior of us, Jesus Christ’. Of course, the JW New World Translators were deliberately attacking the deity of Christ, unlike the KJV translators who would have been delighted at Sharp’s work, and would have commended modern translations for following it. The same applies to 2 Peter 1:1.

[QUOTE=John777]There have been many manuscripts found since 1611, but there have been no new READINGS found.
The problem is that the Byzantine MSS show clear evidence of things being added because of expansion of piety.


Really? are there any examples? by that i would have to see two perfect translations from two different languages side by side.
Genesis 6:4, nephilim in Hebrew: KJV translated it "giants" following the Vulgate which in turn followed the LXX gigantes. Luther translated it Tyrannen or "tyrants".


i have heard different percentages, Tyndale's Bible was a great work but the KJV is still different.
But Tyndale's Bible was still the ultimate source of much of the KJV's wording.


well you can believe it is a revision, i dont see it that way,
But I've shown you content changes. The original also had marginal notes, which most KJVOs hate in modern versions.