God's word

As a whole, this is a false statement. On occasion, you will see an older or unfamiliar word. But not as much as teh KJV. And the sentence structure of MVs is the sentence structure that we use today. The KJV is not. That is simply the way that it is.

No ... I never have ... and if they did, it would be improper. Besides, teh Holy Spirit is not a new born. He is eternal.

You have been shown passages in Scripture where the apostles quote from teh word of God that is not the KJV. You have been shown places where a version otehr than teh KJV is called the Scriptures. You have been shown reasons why the "KJV is the only perfect word" simply doesn't match up to Scripture. You did see it because you responded to it from time to time. This has been a constant theme. To paraphrase Hebrews 5, by this time you ought to be teaching, but you still have need for someone to teach you the basics. That is a sign of spiritual immaturity in the text, a sign of those who have not moved past the basics of truth.

Because I understand what "perfect" means. To use an analogy, the Bible talks about becoming a "perfect man." It does not mean that you will be like every other man. It means that you will be complete. The versions do not all say something different. They say the same thing using different words.

This is an important issue, if for no other reason, because it goes to the heart of our belief. When you try to force a Bible on someone that is not in the language they speak and use, you are consigning them to confusion. They don't need that. You run the risk of causing little ones to stumble. And you yourself become a false teacher because you teach someething that is not true. I too rejoice when the gospel is preached truly, but whoever preaches it. But that does not excuse bad doctrine in other areas. And that is what must be addressed.

 

But HomeBound years ago when the KJVO came up with their "things different are not the same" mantra they seemed blissfully unaware of this fact concerning the differences among what is know as the various AV1611s on the market. As a matter of fact the differences between the “Alexandrian texts” are the same in quality as the differences between the KJV Editions except one can replace the phrase “printer error” with “scribal error”.

But what difference does the quantity or quality of the “errors” matter? God is not capable of one error no matter how small, no matter how insignificant in our eyes.
Unless, the AV1611 First edition to hit the street was not from God since it had errors (howbeit “printer errors, typeset errors, etc) which the translators attempted to correct over the years.

It would seem that God although He gave the AV originally by “second-inspiration”, was powerless to keep man from corrupting it. In addition the KJV translators began being “Bible-Correctors” in 1613 when they issued their first revision and continued on for 2 centuries later trying to help the Lord to get it right. Yes this is sarcasm but for a purpose for you to see the difficulty with your view.

Actually, the whole premise of the KJVO of “second-inspiration” and letter perfect preservation of jots and tittles is wrong as has been proven over and over again here and elsewhere.

The King James translators selected from various manuscripts and translations themselves those variants which they felt were the best. In fact in many cases they weren’t sure and put the alternatives in the margins of the AV and said so in the introduction “to the reader”.

Why is this important to you that there are no cross-references? The AV1611 First Edition had abundant cross-references, some of them referencing the heretical Apocrypha and vice-versa.
Are you saying the AV1611 First Edition was NOT “perfect”?

Most if not all of us here believe the same thing except that we believe that the NKJV/NASB (for instance) as well as the KJV qualify for this description.

HomeBound here is one of the many differences between the First Edition of the AV and the revisions which followed:

AV1611 Ruth 3:15
Also he said, Bring the vail that [thou hast] upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six [measures] of barley, and laid [it] on her: and he went into the city.

AV1769 Ruth 3:15
Also he said, Bring the vail that [thou hast] upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six [measures] of barley, and laid [it] on her: and she went into the city.

So was it Boaz or Ruth who went into the city, apparently this has flip-flopped more than once. If we say that the KJV is “perfect” which one is it that is “perfect”?

Is God confused or has man bungled his responsibility to God to neither add nor take away from His Word? Which is the edition that honors God? When you answer this we can go on to another difference.

The reality HomeBound is that we ALL want to honor God’s Word in the way that our Soul Liberty as Baptists allows us.

This is not a tirade against the KJV or the translators of the same who meticulously refined their text the best way they knew how in order to keep the precept of freedom from additions/deletions in the text but my opinion against what I consider the foundational errors of KJVOism: second-inspiration, advanced revelation, etc.

HankD

 

I always wondered why then do we not rewrite Shakespeare's writings. Why, because it would not be the same.
</font>[/QUOTE]That isn't a valid comparison. The KJV isn't the writings of God. It is a translation of texts derived from hand copies of the writings of God. These hand copies and texts went through numerous generations of copy and revision.

The KJV, like all translations and collated texts, is a rewriting of the Author's writings. These rewritings are so accurate that you can not point out a substantative difference between them even though they use different words to express the same original writing.

 

The only time it is proper to call a person an "it" is when the gender of a child is not known. In all other cases calling someone an "it" is offensive.

The gender of the Holy Spirit is known. He is a "He". It should be offensive to anyone who loves "Him" when "He" is called an "it".

BTW, I still use the KJV when teaching. But when I come across the passages that use "it" for the Holy Spirit, I read "He". If anyone ever confronts me for "changing the Bible", we may have a happening right there in church.

My Comforter IS NOT AN IT!

 

Of course they didn't the King James Bible was not written until 1611 and I'm sure the apostles were dead by then.
</font>[/QUOTE]I am sure that what Pastor Larry was saying is that you have been shown where the writers of the NT quoted from a version of the OT that is not the same as the one used by the KJV.

You evaded and obfuscated before... and might again. However, version of Isaiah Jesus read from at Luke 4:18 is not the same as the Isaiah 61 of the current KJV. That... is an irrefutable fact. Some say that He imported texts from another section of Isaiah but, if so, He did it in a very odd manner- breaking into a list to insert an item from a distant passage.

 

You have never... ever.... come close to proving this Homebound. Of course that isn't a cut on you.... no one of your persuasion has.

There are no missing doctrines. As opposed to creating doubt, the fact that different methods have been employed by a wide range of people in efforts to recreate the text and substance of the originals have yielded the exact same doctrines, revelations, and teachings provides affirmation for all faithful versions... to include the KJV.

The NASB and KJV aren't contradictory... they are complimentary.

 

So, Scott, are you saying that the bible, in Greek which God inspired, is offensive? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit insults Himself? If you will read the passage in question in Greek you will note the pronoun is neuter not masculine!

 

I am also aware that the rules concerning pronouns in Greek are not the same as English. If I understand correctly, there is sometimes implied gender even when the form of the pronoun is neuter.

Otherwise, I suspect that a conspiracy developed among the earliest KJVO's and they went back and altered the Greek texts to agree with the KJV.

 

The Holy Spirit is a "he," not an "it."</font>[/QUOTE]I understood Homebound to mean "I mentioned that fact, didn't I" and not to be referring to the Holy Spirit in the neuter, which, by the way, the Greek bible does.

 

Why do you wonder about this? Shakespeare is not writing under inspiration from God. Shakespeare doesn't promise to have the message of eternal life that must be communicated. We do not find in Shakespeare everything necessary to equip us for every good work.

And most people who take the time to watch or read Shakespeare find it very difficult to read. To compare God's word to Shakespeare is inappropriate on so many different levels.

No ... Which wasn't your statement anyway. You spoke of a "new born" where gender is not in question. Even for the unborn, the proper question (if you are so inclined to ask), is "Do you know what you are having?" or "Have you found out the sex of your baby?" It is a fine point, but a necessary one to be sure.

Doesn't that show you that someething other than the KJV must be the word of God? Surely all those years weren't lived without the word of God.

No. Since the translation of the KJV, we have made many valuable manuscripts discoveries that have greatly increased our knowledge of God's word. It would be wrong not to take advantage of those manuscripts.

Which is not the point I was making. We are all always learning. But there comes a time when you need to get past the milk and move on to the meat. Unfortunately, with most of this discussion we are constantly stuck on the milk because people will not accept the truth. You should know this stuff by now. We should not have to be continually repeating it.

That is simply not true. YOu think they cast doubt because you do not understand the issues involved and the nature of translation and transmission of God's word fully. The word of God is clear. You have a mistaken impression of "perfect."

But there is always time for learning. STudy the actual facts. You are, as of now, believing the wrong people. Those people have been soundly refuted many times in many different places. This is not new stuff. It simply needs to be understood.

 

Just for honesty's sake, let's indicate the parts that are actually relevant to the issue.

 

Here is another fact. Your "fact" is not entire correct. The NIV is available with the Apocrypha, and the predecessor to the ESV, the RSV, was also available with the Apocrypha, and electronic versions of the Apocrypha are available for the NKJV and ESV as well.

 

Here is another fact. Your "fact" is not entire correct. The NIV is available with the Apocrypha, and the predecessor to the ESV, the RSV, was also available with the Apocrypha, and electronic versions of the Apocrypha are available for the NKJV and ESV as well. </font>[/QUOTE]Were they published with the Apocrypha? Was it an official part of the translation sitting between the OT and NT in the final product?

Yes, my "fact" is exactly correct. Zondervan and various other publishers will pretty much do anything to sell a book. I would be surprised if Lockman ever makes that compromise. However, the question is whether the intent of the producers of the translation was to have the Apocrypha included. With MV's, it was not. With the KJV, it was.

Being "available with" is a far cry from "including".

 

I agree completely... as is the case with the NASB, NKJV, WEB, MKJV, and a few others.

1) Because of language changes that cause some people not to understand God's perfectly preserved message. This is especially dangerous when someone reads something in the KJV thinking they understand because the words are familiar while they in fact don't understand because the primary definitions have changed over the past 400 years.

2) Because a variety of translations are beneficial for understanding the true sense of scripture... thus saith the KJV translators themnselves.