inconsistent later editing of KJV

So now you believe footnotes over scripture. Now I see the problem.

The context is talking about being angry with your brother. The NIV says that if your angry with your brother, you will be subject to judgment. Meaning you better not be angry at your brother. But we all have at one point been angry with the brethern. That is why God put this in the KJB, you can be angry with your brother, but not without a cause. This is very plain and simple. Again, the NIV is WRONG!

 

The title of this thread is "inconsistent later editing of KJV"

This is not what is being discussed at the moment.

Page 5 warning:
If this thread does not return to its topic it will be closed no earlier than 10.30 PM EST today.

 

I tried Mr. Moderator, really I did, but they , well they wouldn't leave me be and, and'''

Is this sob story working? No? Ok.
Dog gone.

 

Actually I don't even need that.I just need them to to honor the validity of my stand and not to condemm other valid translations.This would not force them to compromise themselves in any way.They just need to acknowledge new discoveries in the older texts in the original languages and allow for honest scholarship.

 

That is a false statement. I didn't say that He didn't preserve His Word. I said that the words of the original were not preserved. Therefore, "perfect preservation" means something different than the narrow, false definition you seek to apply. Pslam 12 BTW was not given by God as it appears in the KJV. If was given in Hebrew. Your belief is self defeating.

No you don't. You may not believe either of us but what you believe about the KJV being the one and only Bible acceptable to God in English did not come from God. He never said it and the evidence that exists proves that notion to be wrong.

Says who? You? Certainly not God. In fact, God refutes your belief. He said that scripture was given through prophets, apostles, and holy men of old... the KJV translators did not qualify nor did any of the revisers nor do any of the creators/teachers of KJVOnlyism... nor do you.

As I said, God never said that he would not.</font>[/QUOTE] Right. He never said He would nor wouldn't. Therefore we look at what He providentially chose to do. For over 1300 years after the Bible was complete, all Bibles were hand copied. God allowed the copyists to make mistakes as is clearly demonstrated by the mss that remain until this day. There is no reason to believe that all of these "imperfect" copies were not accepted as the "perfect Word of God" by their users.

We can also look at the internal evidence from the KJV itself. OT quotes in the NT are almost never word for word. Sometimes they even vary in potential meaning as well as content, ie. Luke 4:18 v Isa 61:1.

Finally, as I pointed out, God's direct revelation of scripture occurred at a specific time through specifically qualified men. In the OT, an order of scribes was instituted to copy the scriptures. There is no mention of these men being inspired or divinely superintended to prevent their fallibility from effecting the text. The evidence indicates that small errors did creep in and that the scribes were so meticulous that they would not attempt a correction in the text even if they were sure it was an error. Instead, they put an alternative in the margin... sort of like the NKJV frequently does.

His ways are quite obviously not your ways. If you would like to prove that you are right, there is only one conclusive test: Find the perfect Hebrew and Greek mss and prove that the KJV is a perfect translation of those mss to the exclusion of any other possibilities. Your speculation on the matter, as convincing as it may be to you, is meritless.

Prove it.

I don't personally care for the NIV. Just don't like its method and am not comfortable with how it differs from the more literal translations like the KJV, NKJV, and NASB. However, I know people who have been saved and are being sanctified who use nothing else. As much as the KJV is the Bible to you, the NIV is the Bible to them.

Now, will you call good evil and evil good? Will you call scripture that leads to the salvation and sanctification of a brother in Christ a work of Satan? This would come very close to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. You cannot rightly attribute the work of the Spirit to Satan.

I know that we have copies to look at, but we cannot be 100 percent positive about this statement, because the original source text is not around.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes... and this precisely why we can't arbitrarily choose the KJV and say that it is the one and only perfect Word of God in English.

Though this sounds good, why does ever translation say something different?</font>[/QUOTE] First, they don't when put in context and take on the whole. The Bible is a Word... not simply a set of words.

Wrong. And if you go back to the last post on page 5 of that thread, I explained why you are wrong. In short, the blessings of "peace" and "prosper" overlap. By considering several translations, we can get the true sense of scripture... as said the KJV translators.

 

The only reason you can not understand it is because your not reading it and it's not being preached to ya every time your in a church service. </font>[/QUOTE] Yes I am. I study it. Memorize it. Teach from it every Sunday and Sunday night. Hear preaching from it every week.

It has been my primary Bible ever since I was saved over 30 years ago. It is a great translation that is time tested. Most Baptists preach right over its weaknesses in translation because they are so broadly understood and acknowledged. How many times have you heard a KJVO preacher say "this means...". If it means that, why doesn't it say that? Answer: I could and should.

But the reason should not be that it is not in an understandable form of English. God delivered His Word originally in the language that the common people spoke and understood. That is the way He intended His Word to be.

This is a false argument. New versions don't rewrite the Bible. They don't rewrite the KJV. They translate the original languages texts into the English spoken today.

If the Holy Spirit can cause us to understand a language we don't know... then why translate at all? Why don't we just wait on the Holy Spirit to give us the ability to read the Bible in the original languages?

The Holy Spirit shows us the spiritual meaning of scripture as we read words that we understand the meaning of. He doesn't impart grammar and vocabulary skills to us.

How did you come to the conclusion that not all the bibles out there are from God?</font>[/QUOTE] They are not all translated with the intent of faithfully representing the original texts.

Several have decided to make "gender neutral" translations and negate the distinctions made by the Holy Spirit. Some like the JW Bible word passages to support their false doctrines.

Others overuse dynamic equivalency in my opinion and adopt the bias of the translators more than is warranted. This is one of the things I like about the NASB though I don't necessarily believe the critical texts are superior to the Byzantine. The NASB is sometimes painfully, woodenly literal. I also like incorporating Young's Literal Translation with my KJV study. Young's probably can't be read by itself but it can be helpful when compared to another literal version.

Paraphrases are considered scripture by some. I consider them Bible story books that are not authoritative for doctrinal foundation.

Some Bibles I don't like simply because I don't. What I have seen of the Holman's fits into this category. In Romans 8, it seems to me that they may have smoothed out readings so as to eliminate their calvinistic tone.

Finally, I do take the intent and character of the translators into account. While the KJV translators are probably the weakest in this regard of any of the popular translations, the text itself has been tested by fundamentalists for over 200 years now (after the Geneva faded out). The NASB and NKJV were produced by conservative evangelical and fundamentalist scholars. The NASB is the only translation whose contributors were required to sign a statement of faith declaring the inerrancy of scripture and salvation by grace alone.

Really, check this one teaching out compared to in the NIV and KJB:

Matt. 5:22--
"22. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be in subject to the judgment." NIV
"22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:" KJV
Jesus is in trouble based on this verse in the NIV. KJV makes it plain that it is in reference to those who are angry with their brother without a cause. The Bible tells us to be angry and sin not in Eph 4:26, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:" A righteous anger is not sin. </font>[/QUOTE]Think it through in faith RR, not doubt.

Again, I am no defender of the NIV but you have to consider context. The context is of someone angry enough to assault or kill another.

Your cross-reference clarifies the meaning of this text. The clear implication is that someone who is angry to the point of being guilty before the court has sinned.

The explanation for this is no more difficult nor speculative than those for the KJV declaration that the love of money is the root of all evil. We know this simply isn't true. Many sins are rooted in something other than the love of money. However, MV's get it right. The love of money is a root of all kinds/sorts of evil.

 

Closed due to leaving the original topic.