15 simple rules for "dictation".

Rule 3 I can't recall exactly how it went but something like they couldn't translate Church any other way. According to Strong's Greek Dictionary it could be translated "assemblies" or "congregation" so they forced them to go with "church" instead of letting the translators be "moved" or "lead" by the Holy Spirit.

 

Maybe King James was led by the Spirit of God to establish those rules. But that is just the point—we don’t’ know. And we don’t know a whole lot of things about the King James translation of the Bible because the making of it took place 400 years ago and all the eye witnesses are dead. But we do know that early printings of the KJV included thousands of printing errors. Therefore, it appears to me that God was standing back by at least a little distance, and we know for a fact that the KJV is not perfect and that many of the “modern versions” are more accurately translated and more accurately printed. This much we know for certain.

Yes, there are still those who argue that the earth is flat, or some other outrageously ridiculous thing, but none of these foolish, groundless arguments changes reality.

 

God never said that the KJV is perfect; the translators denied that it was perfect; and any schoolboy with an ounce of sense can see that it is not perfect.

I can understand a reasonable adult arguing with a schoolboy. I can understand some wacko arguing with the dead translators, but I can NOT understand anybody arguing with God. Nonetheless, the Bible gives us many examples of people who did that, and we have plenty of examples of people on the BB who are doing that—and not just in the KJO threads!

 

--------------------------------------------------
God never said that the KJV is perfect; the translators denied that it was perfect; and any schoolboy with an ounce of sense can see that it is not perfect.
--------------------------------------------------

Maybe you may not "think" it is, and MEN might not "think" it is, but the Lord has said it is and has shown me, and others, that His words are perfect.

Deut. 32, Psalm 12,19,33,119, John 16 along with James 1.


Psalm 119
160. Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Proverbs 14
The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways: and a good man shall be satisfied from himself.
15. The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

Proverbs 30
. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

(and there are many more I could give)


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

If God is Almighty God, and CAN do and HAS done all these things, HOW then can anyone believe he CANNOT give us HIS PURE WORDS?


Job 37

1. At this also my heart trembleth, and is moved out of his place.
2. Hear attentively the noise of his voice, and the sound that goeth out of his mouth.
3. He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.
4. After it a voice roareth: he thundereth with the voice of his excellency; and he will not stay them when his voice is heard.
5. God thundereth marvellously with his voice; great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend.
6. For he saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth; likewise to the small rain, and to the great rain of his strength.
7. He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work.
8. Then the beasts go into dens, and remain in their places.
9. Out of the south cometh the whirlwind: and cold out of the north.
10. By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.
11. Also by watering he wearieth the thick cloud: he scattereth his bright cloud:
12. And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth.
13. He causeth it to come, whether for correction, or for his land, or for mercy.
14. Hearken unto this, O Job: stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God.
15. Dost thou know when God disposed them, and caused the light of his cloud to shine?
16. Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?
17. How thy garments are warm, when he quieteth the earth by the south wind?
18. Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
19. Teach us what we shall say unto him; for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness.
20. Shall it be told him that I speak? if a man speak, surely he shall be swallowed up.
21. And now men see not the bright light which is in the clouds: but the wind passeth, and cleanseth them.
22. Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty.
23. Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice: he will not afflict.
24. Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle said "If God is Almighty God, and CAN do and HAS done all these things, HOW then can anyone believe he CANNOT give us HIS PURE WORDS?"

I don't think anyone here believes he cannot give us his pure words. I think the question most of us don't understand about your view is: why would he wait so long to do it?

 

Hi Lacy Evans,

Good questions - but the difference is those are things that were not promised as happening from the get-go - they were prophecies about the future. Conversely, the idea that God "preserves" his words comes from scriptures that are not talking about a future event, but an ongoing preservation from the moment they were given. If God waited 16 centuries to "preserve" them, does that mean those verses were not true during the first 16 centuries? It seems like KJVO people are trying to have it both ways, and are really arguing against themselves on this one.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Hi Lacy Evans,

Good questions - but the difference is those are things that were not promised as happening from the get-go - they were prophecies about the future. Conversely, the idea that God "preserves" his words comes from scriptures that are not talking about a future event, but an ongoing preservation from the moment they were given. If God waited 16 centuries to "preserve" them, does that mean those verses were not true during the first 16 centuries? It seems like KJVO people are trying to have it both ways, and are really arguing against themselves on this one.
--------------------------------------------------

NO doubt God has and continues to preserve his words, and they are preserved perfectly, as they are His words. This is what we believe. However, many mv proponents do not really believe this, even though they think they do, and say they do. There are scriptures missing from the mv's and many problems with them, that PROVE they are NOT God's pure words that he has preserved. They have been changed, not just in the manner of one word changed to another with the same meaning (which isn't a problem in most cases). Far much more than that has happened. This is how we KNOW they ONLY contain the words of God, but are not the whole counsel of God, and are not pure. Therefore, we know that God's hand is not in them
(wasn't by the will of God, but by the will of man) because the Holy Spirit of truth leads us to ALL truth. He doesn't give only part of it, but ALL of it. This truth is kept by the believers, who hold God's words dear in their heart. God preserves them through His people for his people and THROUGH HIS CONTROL AND OVERSIGHT. And the Holy Spirit testifies to the believer that it is God's word.

Hebrews 4
11. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
12. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

and....

John 10

1. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6. This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
7. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15. As the Father knoweth me, even so I know the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.



Now please refer to John 16.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Where did these rules come from? Who told them NOT to faithfully translate certain words in the AV1611 but to use, instead, inaccurate or misleading "church" words so as not to offend or straighten out the false doctrine of the English catholic church.

--------------------------------------------------

As I understand this, the King was petitioned by the PEOPLE (believers) for this translation. It was most LIKELY the PEOPLE who asked for (made known to the King) and helped to establish these rules.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said "NO doubt God has and continues to preserve his words, and they are preserved perfectly, as they are His words. This is what we believe. However, many mv proponents do not really believe this, even though they think they do, and say they do. There are scriptures missing from the mv's and many problems with them, that PROVE they are NOT God's pure words that he has preserved."

But isn't the KJV different from the Bibles before it as well, not just changing a few words to another with the same meaning, but sometimes entire phrases added or missing? It appears to me that you accuse others of the same disbelief in preservation that you yourself have about the time before the KJV. You talk of believing God preserving his words, yet you recognize that the KJV is different from the Bibles before it. If God preserved his words in the way you are demanding, then why didn't the KJV translators just tell King James "We already have God's preserved word, your majesty. No need to change it."?

What if someone had faith that the Geneva Bible (I have a reprint, and it's not the same as the KJV) was the preserved word of God? The KJV would then been seen as not only unneeded, but also as changes and corruptions. How do you explain this in light of your line of thinking about preservation?

 

--------------------------------------------------
But isn't the KJV different from the Bibles before it as well, not just changing a few words to another with the same meaning, but sometimes entire phrases added or missing? It appears to me that you accuse others of the same disbelief in preservation that you yourself have about the time before the KJV.
--------------------------------------------------

NO it is not the SAME thing as is EVIDENCED and the FACTS regarding this issue. There are always problems with translations, or copying. Everyone knows and understands this. However, regarding God's words, we must approach this first understanding the POWER AND CONTROL of God concerning his words. In the cases that you make mention of previous Bibles, those attribute to spelling, printing, and typeface issues. The language of English was being established. But we see that God in his CONTROL AND POWER over his words, saw that they were CORRECTED. WE do not see this SAME fact or reasons, regarding the MV's. These things are to throw you off the track of the truth, and blind you to it. And you are all falling for it.


--------------------------------------------------
You talk of believing God preserving his words, yet you recognize that the KJV is different from the Bibles before it. If God preserved his words in the way you are demanding, then why didn't the KJV translators just tell King James "We already have God's preserved word, your majesty. No need to change it."?
--------------------------------------------------

Because it wasn't the King's idea. The people petitioned it because they did not like the Bishop's Bible because they felt it had too much Catholic influence (they probably didn't trust it). The King only honored their request.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

michelle said " There are always problems with translations, or copying. Everyone knows and understands this. However, regarding God's words, we must approach this first understanding the POWER AND CONTROL of God concerning his words. In the cases that you make mention of previous Bibles, those attribute to spelling, printing, and typeface issues."

I'm not talking about those things. I'm talking about where words with different meanings are used, or entire phrases are addded or missing in the KJV when compared to Bibles like the Geneva.

you said "But we see that God in his CONTROL AND POWER over his words, saw that they were CORRECTED."

"Corrected"???? God's preserved word needed correcting???

If something was the preserved word of God, it would not need "correcting" - isn't that your whole point with modern versions? Now you yourself are arguing for correction! If Gods word was PRESERVED before the KJV, it wouldn't need correcting by very definition of preservation. You are arguing both sides of the fence!

you said "Because it wasn't the King's idea. The people petitioned it"

Regardless of who wanted it, why didn't the translators say "We already have God's preserved word. No need to change it."?

Did they or did they not have God's preserved word before they translated the KJV? You seem to be going both ways on this question, and I don't understand your view on this. Can you explain?

 

you said "But we see that God in his CONTROL AND POWER over his words, saw that they were CORRECTED."

So you're saying "correction" is part of God's process of preservation? Isn't that what you have been arguing AGAINST up until this point?

 

--------------------------------------------------
So you're saying "correction" is part of God's process of preservation? Isn't that what you have been arguing AGAINST up until this point?
--------------------------------------------------

No I haven't. It is the label people place upon me that warp their understanding of what I believe, rather than what I have said, and assume things that I have not said. What I have been saying is that God is not correcting it today (as it is evident). There is a big difference between correction and altering. God doesn't alter his words, for He is the same yesturday, today, and forever. He corrects what fallible men have "goofed". If I didn't understand this and believe this, then I would not be able to believe and trust his words completely. If I thought or believed that God allowed the errors, and allowed them to remain, I would not and could not then have any trust in his words, because I would always be wondering or doubting. Then, I would try to figure it out my self, making my own self the judge of what is God's word. God desires us to trust him and his words, and not only keep them but live them. Not only that, the whole Bible is about Jesus Christ, the Revelation of Jesus Christ our Saviour. If there were any errors allowed in the scriptures, that were left uncorrected, then we could not be sure of even our faith.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The Lord NEVER said one word about the King James translation of the Bible! Neither did He say one word about any other translation of the Bible. You have posted very many verses, but not one single one of them said anything about any translation of the Bible. And according to the logic that you use in your posts, the only possible perfect translation is the Latin Vulgate.

 

God has never "corrected" His Word. He has revealed it- ONCE and only ONCE... and He did it perfectly the first time. No need for correction.

What we see is the effects of fallible man in the preservation and translation of the Word.

Not in the context that we are discussing. Correction is a form of altering. To correct something presumes that it was flawed to start with.

Right. He has never altered them... nor corrected them. When He breathed the originals there was no need for correction and He has been out of the direct inspiration business since the last qualifed recipient of inspiration died- the Apostle John.

There is no evidence anywhere that God acted through the KJV translators/revisers to correct what someone else "goofed". That notion is completely an invention of your imagination in a vain attempt to protect your pride from having to admit the truth that you are wrong.

This just reveals the weakness of your discernment. It is not proper to say there are errors in scripture. A difference in translation choices is not an error. The recognition of a variant or the choice of one variant over another is not an error. To say that the exact original reading of some word or group of words is in doubt is not the same as doubting the Word of God... at least the KJV translators didn't think so. They assigned doubtful passages to God's providence.

 

That would make what you think a direct contradiction of what scripture teaches. Romans 1 tells us that even those who only have God's revelation of Himself in nature are without excuse.

And is nature still in its pristine form after God created it perfect? No. It has been corrupted by man's sin and "groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" (Romans 8).

So a normal reading and legitimate application of God's Word proves your thinking to be in error. The massive amounts of evidence we have for the Bible proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the originals of God's written Word are far less tainted by man's fallibility than nature is, yet God says that even nature leaves sinners without excuse.

Nature does not perfectly reflect the attributes of God. But it does so sufficiently in accordance with God's providential choice of allowing man to choose sin thus bringing the corruption of sin and death upon all of creation.

You don't have to have a perfectly worded Bible to be guilty of sin or to be saved from that guilty sentence. What you need is a Bible that accurately reflects the originals... Thank God He has blessed modern English readers with many.

Modern English readers are surely without excuse.