Inspired Text

Translation: "I believe what the translators of the King James Version says. I believe what the translators of the King James Version said in the King James Version. If the translators of the King James Version used 'trust' one time and then 'hope' the next, that is the translators of the King James Version perfect word. We are in no place to correct the translators of the King James Version's word. I do not question the translators of the King James Version's word, I believe it."

***Translator's Note*** Of course, the above is but a loose translations from a manuscript compiled by an out of work RCC priest, who only had a few incomplete, conflicting copies of HomeBound's post, some of which he had to back-translate from Kenyan due to missing sections toward the end of the message.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Not on this subject you don't. You believe what you decided to believe and then twist what the Bible says to provide a proof for what you predetermined to be "true".

Apparently you don't believe what God said in the Bible since He didn't use two different English words- He used one Greek word.

It is perfectly legitimate for translators to use different words to translate a single word based on context. However, it is not legitimate to attribute this HUMAN CHOICE to God. He didn't say trust nor hope. He inspired the Greek.

There has been no attempt to correct God's Word. There has only been an attempt to analyze the translation choices of the KJV translators.

Actually, you do question God's Word persistently- each time you attack faithful MV's.

 

Homebound, do you not understand that God inspired the Greek word that is sometimes translated "hope" and sometimes translated "trust?" God did not use "hope" or "trust" but inspired the same Greek word in both places. The translator decided which was best. God did not inspire any English words or English translations. Or do you think He did? If so, then how can you explain the mistakes sometimes made by translators?

Translations are not inspired; only the original autographs are. Notes are not inspired.

 

The notes in the AV gave their meaning or possible other words to be used. They are to understand what the passage means.

Matthew 9:30 KJV And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.

Notes said, "strictly instructed." That refers to literal renderings, alternate translations, or explanations.

 

To whom did they refute? Which KJVO?

 

To whom did they refute? Which KJVO? </font>[/QUOTE]You for one. Every time you attempt to give 'proof' of your beliefs.

But more specifically, Riplinger, Cloud, Ruckman, Waite, Gipp, etc. have all been exposed as promoters of error. Not one of their arguments stands up to honest scrutiny.

 

To whom did they refute? Which KJVO? </font>[/QUOTE]If you really don't know then step up to the observation area.

 

Do you honestly think Bible-Believers would go as far to actually worship(literaly) a Book?! Ludicrous!!!!

I've heard this hackneyed baloney time and time again from the worlds oldest "sect."


No Bible-believer on this planet believes that you can mark on God with ink, or leave Him in the rain, or tear part of Him out, or fold Him, or put Him in a drawer, or in a desk.

"bibliolatry"??

Baloney!!!

Well,for the thinned-skinned sissies sake,I have agreed NOT to use the "C" word along with Alexandrian;but not by my choice either!!

 

No, but I believe that you and some of your compatriots do. Us Bible-believers do not.

 

Homebound:I believe what the Bible says. I believe what God said in the Bible. If God used trust one time and then hope the next, that is God's perfect word.

Actually, it's an AV TRANSLATOR'S word. HE, the translator made the choice to use "hope" in one place and "trust" in another for the Greek 'elpis/elpizo' without any contextual reasons to do so. You cannot prove he was any more inspired by God than were the translators of the Geneva Bible or those of the NKJV.

Same with the Greek word 'pascha'. They translated it "Passover" every time but once, in Acts 12:8 where they translated it "Easter" without any good reason to do so.(Not wanting to discuss the correctness or incorrectness of easter again-just pointing out that it was a TRANSLATOR'S CHOICE!) The Onlyist is putting his/her trust in the translator(s) of his/her pet version.


We are in no place to correct God's word. I do not question God's word, I believe it.

Given the many differing English BVs, it appears someone somewhere took it upon themselves to do so. The AV 1611 was NOT the first English BV, nor the last, but no two BVs are alike. The Onlyist(KJVO or other) simply cannot prove his/her version of choice is the ONLY "official" one.

 

av1611jim:While one side rejects the scholarship of its opponent, and dogmatically says "we know it's false"; they then disallow the SAME FREEDOM for their opponent.

We've PROVEN the KJVO stuff wrong. We've PROVEN, by the KJV itself, that JESUS AND THE APOSTLES used at least one other version of the OT Scriptures. We've PROVEN that the KJV isn't perfect. We've PROVEN that many of the pro-KJVO authors are liars and masters/mistresses of misinformation and misquotes. We've PROVEN that the modern KJVO myth was started from a 1930 book written by a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST official. We've PROVEN that in English God has provided His word in several different versions. And we've provided the EVIDENCE to back our claims!

What has the KJVO proven ? Nothing. Care to disagree? Then show us BY SCRIPTURE that KJVO is of GOD. PROVE to us that no other English BV is God's word.

It's not a matter of "disallowing"-it's a matter of actually PROVIDING EVIDENCE AND PROOF for one's assertions. I shall give a brief example:

IMO, one of the most stupid KJVO assertions is"The NIV removes the deity of Christ in Luke 2:43 by calling Joseph Jesus' FATHER." This stupidity is embraced by several of today's KJVO "scholars"

Why is it so stupid? Most of them didn't bother to read five verses further in their KJVs, to-wit:

Luke 2:48, KJV And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

Now, a few of them who DID manage to read that far point out that in V.49 jesus appears to correct her in saying He must go about His Father's business. BUT....HOW DO THEY GET AROUND THE FOLLOWING????????

Luke 2:27, KJV Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required,

Luke 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

All in the same chapter that the verse in question is in!

The Greek word here twice rendered "parents" is 'goneus', which is rendered "parents" every time by the KJV that it appears in the Greek.

This proves one, or both of two things: that the KJVOs who started this stupidity didn't read their KJV very closely, or chose to ignore those verses which didn't fit their garbage, hoping that none of us had read our KJVs that closely.

I'm just a dumb ole steelworker, but I was able to prove those even-dumber KJVO "scholars" wrong by merely READING THE KJV closely while praying for God's guidance. No rocket science needed.

This is but a brief example of how we've proven ALL the KJVO bunk wrong. Actually, the burden of proof is upon the KJVO to prove his myth right, as it's the KJVO who's introduced a new doctrine into Christianity. We reject the KJVO myth on lack of evidence alone, but for the benefit of the newer Christian, we provide proofs that the KJVO myth is wrong from the gitgo.


How very gracious of you.
Jim

You're welcome, Sir. You have every opportunity to prove the above wrong, or to prove the KJVO assertions right. But remember, I proved the above KJVO stuff wrong with the KJV ITSELF. While the KJVO myth is based upon guesswork, innuendo, fishing stories, double standards, fables, and sometimes outright lies & dishonesty, our refutations are based upon FACT. This is quite evident to the open-minded readers.

Can you actually prove any KJVO point by any evidence? Go for it!

 

Askjo:The notes in the AV gave their meaning or possible other words to be used. They are to understand what the passage means.

Then why did you argue so hard against the rendering 'morning star' in Isaiah 14:12 while knowing that the marginal note says, "or O day starre" if that note is meant to show what the passage means? Do I smell the great KJVO DOUBLE STANDARD at work here?

 

And you are a LIAR!! And so is anybody else that spreads that kind of Alexandrian TRASH!!

 

Anti-Alexandrian:And you are a LIAR!! And so is anybody else that spreads that kind of Alexandrian TRASH!!

I know you were addressing another, but how about those who spread that kind of KJVO trash?

 

Did they agree each other?

 

To whom did they refute? Which KJVO? </font>[/QUOTE]If you really don't know then step up to the observation area. </font>[/QUOTE]I already know who KJVOs are, but I ask you, are they "one" group in one camp?

 

These notes are not always correct.

 

av1611jim: "I want to know are you in the battle
with it (your Bible reaching the lost millions
around you?"

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: /no long answer, i'm studying
how to be more humble/

I answered your question.
Now you answer the question for which
this topic exists.
Thank you.

av1611jim: "Right now it (my Bible)
is the one on my desk."

Me also. On my desk is HOLY BIBLE, Red Letter
Text Edition (Holman Christian Standard Bible - HCSB).

Does your King James Version
include the translator notes?