Big Problem for KJVo

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Apr 4, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quote: "The Journey from Texts to Translations--The Origin and Development of the Bible"; Paul D. Wegner

    Chapter 17 Title: "English Bibles prior to 1611"

    Note to readers: Under US Federal Code of Copyrights and Trademarks, I am allowed to quote small sections for explainations.

    First Paragraph: "With the many excellent English translations available to us, it is difficult to realize that for more than nine hundred (900) English-speaking people did not have a Bible in their own language."

    My comments: This is historically accurate. English Bibles were first translated by early translators such as: Caedmon (d.c. 678), Bede (c. 675-735/736, Aldhelm (d. 709),Alciun (735-804) and Alfred the Great (849-901).

    The first English translations were translations of the Vulgate with English written below. It was much like our interlinear Bibles, except it was not produced on a printing press that was not developed until the 14th/15th century.

    The problem with KJVo argument is the 900 years without an English Bible shoots down the idea that the English always had a Bible they could read. (For each Generation --- just not in English ;)
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Oh well, what's new? They will get together in someone's garage and come up with something nobody has ever heard of and claim as their's for safe keeeping calling it preserved from the beginning in English that it.

    They will makes sure that at least 1000 copies of it are plagiarized on many more websites claiming that so many agree with them.
     
  3. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Methinks you misunderstand some of us. 900 years without a "perfect, complete" Bible. (Without any mistakes.)

    Before the KJV, I believe just you. "Lots of manuscripts", "multiple choice", "mistakes", "unhappy translations", etc.

    I never heard of a KJVoer who thought the KJV was the only "reliable translation". There are lots of "reliable translations." But only one perfect translation. Only one Book that spawned 200 years of the greatest revivals and restorations of truth since the 1st century.


    MVers, by definition, believe that there has never been a "perfect Bible".

    I commend James White for actually saying (King James Only Controversy p. 36) what every one of his contemporaries believes:

    "All of these things [scribal errors] contributed to the simple fact that there is not a single handwritten manuscript of the Bible, in Greek or Hebrew, that does not contain, somewhere, an error, an oversight, a mistake. To err is human."

    Prior to the KJV? I believe the same thing as Mr White (And probably you too,).

    Lacy
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You do not characterize MV's correctly. MVer's DO believe there are inerrant MV's. The "Word of God" (the messages, doctrines, reproofs, laws, grace, gospel) etc. are preserved in MOST MV's without error. Even the KJV is inerrant in that it contains the "Word of God" that is complete and accurate.

    You did NOT understand what I said, there were NO, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH translations in the English language for the first 900 years. The Bishop's Bible came later. The Geneva Bible came later.

    At least one KJVo person on this board admits that she believes there is a Bible in every Christian's language that has been perfect. How does this reconcile with that statement?

    So answer my question which of the KJV's are PERFECT? With corrections being made up until a century ago, which is accurate. It certainly isn't the 1611, it contains the Apocrypha (meaning hidden books---not "non-scriptural").
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just exactly WHEN did this KJV suddenly become "Word for Word" perfect?
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I belive all current versions
    to be each seperately a PERFECT BIBLE.
    Please ammend your statement to say:

    //Most MVers, by definition, believe that there has never been a "perfect Bible".//

    Thank you for your obligatory compliance.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, Two things, (one I didn't quote, sorry) I do not think "most" MVers believe that. Plus, I must humbly disagree that "all current versions". This would have to include some poor translations which are just not part of the main-stream MV family. Wouldn't you say that you agree with that?
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    The basic problem for the KJVO with their premise of the "perfect" Word of God for each generation, is the question "where was the perfect Word of God before 1611?"

    The answer "nowhere" won't work for the obvious reason, it negates the very statement itself.

    Another answer that I have heard is "it was fragmented". Problem: The generation that had the "fragmented Word of God obviously did not have the "perfect" Word of God.

    Or the worst one yet : they would have to say the Latin Vulgate of which the RCC made a similar "Only" claim of "LVO" it is "better than the Greek" because it is written in the "language of heaven (God MUST speak Latin)". BTW this possibility is enhanced by the fact that the Vulgate contains the Apocrypha as did the First Edition AV of 1611.

    In the words of the Apostle Paul "God forbid".

    HankD
     
  10. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    It seems that a KJVO position is parallel with a Mormon position of "so far as it is translated correctly." Who is the KJVO "prophet"?
     
  11. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    King James, if you don't believe me read the introduction to the KJV. It gives the King more credit than God. [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Lacy, how can you say the KJV is perfect when it contains PROVEN ERRORS? These errors have been pointed out in other threads on this board.
     
  13. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    "In the words of the Apostle Paul "God forbid".

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Yeah right, like the Paul would ever speak english slang!!!

    That's a good one!!!

    Just say it isn't so!!
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    OK, it isn't so, Paul never said those words (well, its NOT in the TR).

    Let me ask all the KJVO folks: Do you believe that the phrase attributed to Paul "God forbid" in several passages in the KJV is inspired?

    HankD
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Not to mention "the image of" in Romans 11:4, KJV.
     
  16. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Or any other words in italics - you know the ones the KJV translators added.
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    The phrase "God forbid" in the KJV is NOT in italics. It should be translated "no" if possible. "God" or "forbid" is not in the Greek text but the word "ME" (pronounced may, meaning: no) or ME GINOITO (may it not be, or certainly not).

    Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

    Have they stumbled that they should fall? No, but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

    HankD
     
  18. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    How would you translate "Between a rock and a hard place" into Spanish?

    Lacy
     
  19. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    I know that. Robycop3 brought up the phrase " the image of " in Rom 11:4 which was added by the KJV translators. The TR didn't contain the phrase and neither did the OT quote that Paul used. The KJV translators added it. So, I pointed out that the KJV added many words in italics that are not found in the source manuscripts. Are all these added words inspired or not?
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The only reason I object to such added words/phrases in the KJV is that the KJVOs often bash other versions which add words for clarification in English or translate certain words/phrases literally, things which the KJV also does. I want to show everyone the KJVOs are using a DOUBLE STANDARD.
     

Share This Page

Loading...