It doesn't make sense

From the Prologue to the 1611 King James Bible:

KJV Psalm 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

ASV Psalm 78:41 And they turned again and tempted God, And provoked the Holy One of Israel.

NAB Psalm 78:41 Again and again they tested God, provoked the Holy One of Israel.

NIV Psalm 78:41 Again and again they put God to the test; they vexed the Holy One of Israel.

NAS Psalm 78:41 And again and again they tempted God, And pained the Holy One of Israel.

RSV Psalm 78:41 They tested him again and again, and provoked the Holy One of Israel.

NRS Psalm 78:41 They tested God again and again, and provoked the Holy One of Israel.

NKJ Psalm 78:41 Yes, again and again they tempted God, And limited the Holy One of Israel.

WEB Psalm 78:41 Yes, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

DBY Psalm 78:41 And they turned again and tempted *God, and grieved the Holy One of Israel.

LXX Psalm 78:41 {077:41} Yea, they turned back, and tempted God, and provoked the Holy One of Israel.

 

There is no common sense to KJVOnlyism unless you want to redefine the term.

The critical point is how you define perfect in this context. If you mean perfectly worded (Being without defect or blemish) then no we do not have a perfect English Bible since the Bible wasn't written in English. If there is a perfect original language text, the point would still be moot since no one knows which one it is.

If you mean perfect in the sense of completely sufficient to the purpose (Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind; Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation) then we certainly do have several versions and text that mutually validate one another by their agreement of message.

And He has. No one on your side has proven that doctrines or practical truths are lost in MV's. MV's are proven to be sufficient to make men "wise unto salvation."

 

HankD, is that really there? I've never even heard of this! How would this be explained by KJVO folks?

KJVO folks, please understand, this is a sincere question, at least on my part, not an attack.

 

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

 

...is that really there? I've never even heard of this! How would this be explained by KJVO folks? </font>[/QUOTE]I am not KJVO in the sense that it is defined by the majority here, but I will give you my thoughts on the matter.

Every translation that is produced from the proper textual basis has merit. I would like to believe that the KJV translators are referring to the English forerunners of the KJV and not the future translations that would deviate from the textual family that these translators used.

There is evidence that these men were aware of and rejected certain manuscripts. It is doubtful that they would make a blanket statement endorsing all other translations including those translations based on material they rejected themselves.

 

No. There are hundreds of languages in the world. All of those people have the same opportunity to look up the biblical meanings in the original greek and hebrew as we do.

 

I like these words from the KJV translators to the readers (you KJVO folks would do well to read the whole thing if you have not since it was written for you):

Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water; even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esay, to whom when a sealed book was delivered with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed. [Bold emphasis my own]
-The Translators to the Reader

This preface is very insightful into the minds of the translators of the KJV. I have great respect for them and would recommend that others would read it if they have not before they begin to espouse the KJVO viewpoint. Honestly, the KJVO camp seems to correspond well with how the Catholics were withholding God's Word from the common man when the KJV was translated. Read the preface, and see how the translators felt towards the Catholics that did that.

Neal

 

Yes, USN2Pulpit it is there. As a matter of fact the KJV translators quoted Augustine to support the marginal notes they included in the KJV1611 First Edition. Here it is in a little wider scope of context...

Obviously, Augustine could not have been referring to English (as we know it).

You can get a copy of the complete KJV1611 prologue, it is quite long and HEAVY reading:

Scan the web using www.dogpile.com (or whatever) with +kjv +prologue.

You will find a text version somewhere.

HankD

 

Thanks HankD. By the way, what part of Washington state? I still own a home on Whidbey Island in Oak Harbor.

 

So are you saying that those who do not understand the KJV are not saved? (And yes, I understand the KJV. But my wife does not. So is she not saved?) Where does it say in the Bible that a man will understand a language that is not common to him once he is saved? It seems clear that God wants everyone to understand his message. Are you willing to confine God's Word to Elizabethan English that is not common nowadays?

Do you really want to equate Elizabethan English with the things of God?

I believe that the KJV is the Word of God. But I must ask, what is your test used to prove that the KJV alone is the Word of God?

Neal

 

I am a common man. I am not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination and I can understand the King James Bible fairly well. It was translated into the common tongue (English) and has proven itself to be the word of God. As the Bible says in I Cor 2:14 the unsaved will never comprehend the things of God. Get a man saved first and he will have no problem understanding the King James Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]The plain fact is that the KJV is a translation of the word of God into 17th century English, and much of its vocabulary and idioms are now archaic. Because of this, some passages in the KJV will be utterly baffling for anyone who speaks only 21st century English. Consider the following passage from the KJV:

"O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." (2 Cor. 6:11-13 KJV)

Show this passage to *any* typical English speaking person today and I suspect it will be just as incomprehensible to him as if it were written in Latin or Swahili or some other foreign language. However, show that same person the same verse in th NIV and it will be crystal-clear to him what it means:

"We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange -- I speak as to my children -- open wide your hearts also." (2 Cor. 6:11-13, NIV)

This has nothing to do with whether or not the reader is saved, and everything to do with basic reading comprehension.

"Lis donc cela! Et qui répond: Je ne le puis, Car il est cacheté." (Isa. 29:11, Louis Segond)

[ May 19, 2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

Pioneer writes:
&gt;&gt;People who refuse to listen to old-fashion Holy
&gt;&gt;Ghost preaching from the King James Bible will
&gt;&gt;always look for an easier way out. That easy
&gt;&gt;way out is found in the flood of modern &gt;&gt;versions.

What? That statement doesn't make any sense.
Following this logic, anyone who does not speak English is unable to heed the call of the Spirit.

 

I live in Olympia, the capital of the beautiful State of Washington.

HankD

 

And obtw, as the KJV translators alluded to "such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable…" ,

I think Psalm 78:41 is one of the "questionable" things they spoke of...

KJV Psalm 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

ASV Psalm 78:41 And they turned again and tempted God, And provoked the Holy One of Israel.

Did the Hebrews "limit" or "provoke" the Holy one of Israel?

The Hebrew word in question is "tavah" which has a dual meaning and can be translated either way.

HankD

 

Okay, this has degenerated too much. Time to close.