How Original Is The KJV?

My Bible tells me in Hebrews Chapter 11 that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph ALL had saving faith before there were written scriptures (some speculate that Moses had sources to draw upon for his writing of the Pentatuech). These pre-Moseaic people had heard the word of God proclaimed; that is, they had heard the true message of the collective revelation of God to mankind. The truth of Romans 10:17 was true before 1611. God's truth was probably widely spread by Adam himself (although not likely in written form). Notice Romans 10:14 (KJV) --

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?​

The Greek word kerusso (Strong's #2784) is rendered here as "preacher"; it means a 'proclaimer'. I think Adam was a proclaimer, and we know Noah was a proclaimer of the word of God. It is my opinion that even as Paul wrote these words in Romans that he was not thinking of "the word of God" as something that was primarily (or only) contained on a paprus scroll or written with ink on parchment.

 

Anyone that attacks the word of God will bring judgment or loss of rewards upon themself.

I'm not going to even argue here. What was the point of the original post? Since every KJB Believer already knows that the King James Bible was the seventh purification of God's word in English, you aren't telling us anything new.

What do you want?

Here are some new things.

NEW King James Version
NEW International Version
NEW World Translation
NEW Revised Standard Version
NEW American Standard Version

Do you take solace that these versions are different from each other or something?

I assume that your original post was a rebuke to KJBO people. Do you really think we believe the Bible just fell out of the sky one day?

It's godless attacks like this that defines modern Christianity. Everything is compared to the King James Bible. If it's different from the KJB, then it must be good. That is the modern philosophy.

For I am not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

[personal attack and attack on the Bible deleted]

 

Actually I'm not familiar with that verse. And neither is God. And neither should you be, for it is NOT IN ANY BIBLE ANYWHERE IN ANY LANGUAGE.

Judge not lest ye be judged is not a Bible verse, in any version.

The verse is "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Now, we are coming at this from two different sides. The way I see it, I have removed the beam of 100 different versions from my own eye. I want to remove the mote from yours.

You want to stick a beam in my eye that will cause me to say "Oh, where is God's where, it is here a little, there a little, in this version and that version, and God's word is spiritual and does not exist in one book".

I'm not even judging you. I only said what the Bible said. [personal attack and attack on Bible deleted]

I am sick of seeing Christians attack the words of God. It's almost like they are denying the deity of Jesus Christ or something. It breaks my heart to see men willingly attack and reject God's words.

Joe Bloggs down the street uses the NIV. He doesn't know any better, he uses it because his church uses it and because he has missed the command in 2 timothy to study. Joe Bloggs is saved, born again and loves Jesus Christ. Joe Bloggs thinks that it's okay to use different Bible translations, because he does not understand. However, Joe Bloggs doesn't go on to Christian forums and openly ATTACK God's word. He is ignorant. He is not an enemy of the word of God and he is not a corrupter of the word of God

Now, if Joe Bloggs is faced with a choice - that the NIV he is using is in error, and that there is ONE perfect Bible - he has to make a choice.

i) He can keep using his NIV and be WILLINGLY ignorant of the word. This will make him an enemy, and Satan will have an ally in his heart. He will become angered against the perfect word, and will start to fight against it. He will kick against the pricks. Joe Bloggs will become Rippon. The internet becomes his battleground over the word of God.

ii) He can humbly accept that God knows all things, and God is right. The God that saves him and keeps him saved can perfectly preserve, honour and bless a book.


You have made your choice Rippon, [personal attack deleted]
God bless
Luke

 

// Since every KJB Believer already knows that the King James Bible was the seventh purification of God's word in English, you aren't telling us anything new. //

I believe in all ten different KJB's I've found. But the KJV was not the 7th purification of God's word in English. So here is one KJV Beleiver who does NOT know what you say to be true.

I read IN AWE OF THY WORD

sold here: http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0284.asp
(my favorite comic shop )

Disclaimer: I don't get anything if you buy a book from Chick. Personally I'm boycotting Chick, You can probably buy the book cheaper at Amazon.com - I don't get money from Amazon, though I buy stuff there from time to time.

In AWE, Sister G.A. Riplinger has three DIFFERENT lists of 'the seventh purification of God's word in English'
I'll go look for where I put the location & other documentation of those three probably at baptistboard.com .

Here is a debunking of the KJV = 7th English Bible idea:
http://www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-24897.html

 

// I am sick of seeing Christians attack the words of God. It's almost like they are denying the deity of Jesus Christ or something. It breaks my heart to see men willingly attack and reject God's words. //

Amen, Brother Lukasaurus -- Preach it! :thumbs:

The people I see attacking the Word of God = the words of God, - they attack my most productive soul saving Bible: the NIV1984; my current most popular Sunday School teaching Bible, the HCSB2003; my most popular commentary Bible: the Geneva Bible, 1560 Edition; and my current most popular studying Bible, the NASB-Updated.

-YBIC Ed Edwards,
still believing my signature:

 

// I am sick of seeing Christians attack the words of God. It's almost like they are denying the deity of Jesus Christ or something. It breaks my heart to see men willingly attack and reject God's words.

// Joe Bloggs down the street uses the NIV. He doesn't know any better, ... //

Pardon me if you are Black, Native American, or Asian - but in the words of my Native American friend: "White man speak with forked tongue." In one sentence the one who wrote the above says that they decry those who attack the words of God and in the next sentence the one who wrote the above attacks the words of God in the NIV.

YBIC, Ed Edwards
The guy who takes effort to peruse, study, inspect, check & read three DIFFERENT KJVs every day.

-

 

I use many Bible versions and I love Christ with everything in me. I AM NOT an enemy of Jesus! If we disagree, we must disagree in love!

 

Amen, Brother Franklinmonroe - Preach it!

Another two-faced argument:

1. It is bad when the MVs use the evil Latin Vulgate of Jerome
2. It is good lhen the KJVs use the blessed Latin Vulgate of Jerome

Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate by Saint Jerome /AKA: Euisebus/ ):
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

1. It is bad when the MVs use the evil Latin Vulgate of Jerome
http://www.chick.com/bc/2005/word.asp

2. It is good lhen the KJVs use the blessed Latin Vulgate of Jerome
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/lucifer.asp

 

Then maybe you are sniffing the wrong place friend.

I did not write that in a spirit of pride. And I never once said that Rippon was unsaved, nor did I judge him as an unsaved person. I prayed over that as I wrote it, because I do not want to be prideful.

It takes a lot to say that I am wrong. And I have been wrong in the past, especially on Bible versions, when I used to use all manner of modern versions. I use the King James Bible now. It doesn't make me any better than you.

May God forgive me if I wrote that with iniquity or malice in my heart.

 

Are you absolutely sure about that?
Have you checked all the different translations of the world?
It seems to me that you consider only 10% of the world (The English speaking world) as salvable. All the rest are damned to Hell for they have not the KJV, the true Word of God. Am I right?

This is a personal attack, and as such will not be tolerated.

Tone down the rhetoric and explain without so much emotion and you will gain more respect.
The Living Bible is not a translation. It is a paraphrase. IMO, it is what one man thinks what the Bible says, that is, his opinion--more like his commentary of the Bible. It is not a direct translation of the Bible at all, and certainly not worthy of being called a translation. It is a paraphrase.

You are often confused as to who is attacking the Word of God and who isn't. I admire your passion, but sometimes it is misdirected. You end up attacking the very thing that you are trying to defend.

Already you have set up a scenario that will never happen.
There is no perfect Bible--not in the KJV, not in the English language, not in any language. The only perfect Bible was in the original manuscripts which are now destroyed. We have the copies which have been preserved for us in the Greek and Hebrew. No translation, is a perfect translation, not even the KJV. There are plenty of errors in the KJV that one can point to. And there are plenty of people on this board that can point you to them. One cannot translate from one language to another without losing meaning. It is not possible. For that reason alone there is no perfect translation.

Making Rippon (or anyone else) the butt of your personal attacks won't endear you to this board. You may disagree with the NIV and other MVs. So state your case clearly and concisely. Leave out the trash talk.

God has blessed hundreds if not thousands of translations of His Word. The Apostle Paul did not use the King James Bible.

Questioning someone else's salvation is definitely against the rules.

 

With all due respect, I believe that you may have possibly misunderstood the main thrust of my original post.

My primary intention wasn't in any way intended to indicate that no one had received saving faith from God before there was a written form of God's Word.

Of course there were people who received saving faith from God prior to Moses compiling the Pentateuch in written form. To believe otherwise would be ridiculous. If what I posted led you to believe that I hold to such a view, then I humbly ask your forgiveness.

My principal point was simply this:

If there was a written "Word of God" in existence in the English language before AD 1611, why would have it been necessary for God to have a completely new "Word of God" published in AD 1611?

Did our omniscient, immutable God somehow come to the conclusion that any written works that dared to presume themselves to be His written revelation in the English language that were published prior to AD 1611 were so inherently corrupt that they could not possibly convey in English what He had intended for English-speaking people to know about Himself and His relationships with His created human beings that He now once and for all must inspire certain scholars of the early 17th century Church of England to pen what is commonly referred to as the Authorized (not by God Himself but by King James I of England) Version (a/k/a the "KJV")?

If one should lay aside his/her preconcieved notions regarding the KJV and spend some time in doing some personal research about the intentions of the KJV translators themselves, one would quickly realize that even these scholarly men (and they were indeed the leading experts of their times in not only Hebrew and Greek, but also in other Semitic languages and cultures!) claimed no special "inspiration" from God Himself.

What they produced was the result of some half-dozen + years of exhaustive research not only in the original languages of both the OT & NT, but also all that they had available at that time about Near Eastern culture and customs, combined with both extensive examination and cross examination of their own specific textual translations on several levels within their respective translating committees and then to the "general" committees as well.

Very little of what these translators knew for their day and time evaded such careful scrutiny.

Yet, if one is to claim that what they produced is completely, totally, 100% without error in the very slightest degree, then they will have cast aside any historical, logical or even ethical consistency and go far, far beyond what few, if any, reasonable person who would have lived either in their day and age or at least as far forward until perhaps the late 1800's atrributed to the KJV translation.

My point (which I thought I stated in my post) is this:

Either there was a written Word of God in the English language before AD 1611 or there wasn't!

If indeed there was a written Word of God in the English language before AD 1611, why would God have to inspire another written Word in the English language that was published in AD 1611?

This, to me at least, is a much more basic and vital question than all of the other "word studies" (important as they may be in their place) that so far have been posted in this entire thread.

I again humbly and respectfully challenge any one to give me a detailed, rational, "spin-free" answer in their own personal words (no "cut and paste" jobs as Dr. Bob warned against) to my question(s).

Of course, detailed documentation from reliable sources to support your position would be very helpful.

 

Amen, Brother Elder* Dr. Bob -- Peach it! :thumbs:

* Note: Kudos on reaching 60 years of age!!

I have my paternal GrandFather's Bible (GFB) but it isn't worth very much. He even wrote 'Edd Edwards' in it.

 

// If there was a written "Word of God" in existence in the English language before AD 1611, why would have it been necessary for God to have a completely new "Word of God" published in AD 1611? //

IMHO there was a written "Word of God" in existence in the English Language before AD 1611. It was called THE GENEVA BIBLE. I have a reprint of the Geneva Bible, 1560 Edition (complete with the tiny print margin commentary that upset a MAN called 'King James the I of Scotland and King James the VI of England' so much that James 6th of Scotland had a Bible translated and named after him) and I have a electronic copy from e-sword.com which apparently is the 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible without the commentary. This 'Word of God' called the Geneva Bible made it unnecessary for God to commission a new Bible. So MAN determened a new Bible was needed, not God. God has a Nature to make 'The Word of God' succeed, so the KJVs were very successful in causing souls to be saved into the Kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Messiah Jesus.

 

No need to apologize, I understood your original post clearly. I just wanted to make a point that "the word of God" did not originally exist only in written form. I'm not KJVO so I cannot really address the second portion of your post. But I am familiar with the response they usually give to that question.