King James Bible Inspired

The mind boggling truth is God can be behind something and still there be error in it.

Inerrancy is an ideal we humans can approach but never reach this side of heaven. How many of us have been guided by God in our teaching and preaching? Surely that happens once in a while, but do we claim inerrancy?

So it is with translations. God guided and pushed along the translating of His word into English, yet . . . He didn't wave his inerrancy wand and keep ANY translation magically free from error.

He can do that. It's His business, who are we to tell Him He did it some other way?

 

If you subscribe to the KJVO school of thought, then that is a personal decision you have made. However, one cannot resort to misrepresenting the Word of God to justify their personal decision. The reference made to the Verse in the Book of Psalms does not refer to the Authorised Version in any way, shape or form. The phrase “purified seven times” refers to the silver to which the Word is being compared. It does not (let me say that again: DOES NOT) refer to the King James Version. The bottom line: God didn’t need King James.

Secondly, assuming that this does indeed refer to the AV (once again, IT DOES NOT), this still would not be a justification for the King James version of God’s Holy Word. The person who initially formulated this oft-quoted and tired argument neglected the fact that Wiclif’s translation was the FIRST English translation of God’s Holy Word, which predates the Tyndale translation by over one hundred years (I have facsimiles of both right here). I have heard some from the KJVO camp state that Wiclif’s translation is not to be considered, which is a wildly supercilious contention. Regardless of the source, the Wiclif translation was the first Bible in English. This is a point that cannot be ignored, especially when endeavoring to espouse the concept that this particular Verse in the Book of Psalms is prophetic with respect to God’s Word in English form.

Lastly, if one is going to make an attempt to repudiate all other English translations of God’s Holy Word, one must ensure that they are actually using the translation they are espousing. I have read posts and followed links to websites that make the claim that they are using the “1611 King James Version” of God’s Holy Word. I have also driven past churches that produce signs that identify themselves as a “KJB church.” In many cases, further examination reveals that this claim is nothing more than reckless pretentiousness. The REAL Authorised Version (incidentally, the one that I use) contains the Apocrypha. I am aware that the “Biblical experts” at Chick Publications have exposed the “conspiracy” that put the Apocrypha in the beloved KJV, so I do not need to see a link to this hilarity. I venerate the Authorised Version more than any of the “Biblical experts” at Chick Publications, as I adulate the TRUE 1611 Authorised Version, INCLUSIVE of the Apocrypha.

The Version of God’s Holy Word one is compelled to utilize is a personal decision, and cannot be justified by any specific Scriptural Passage. I love the AV more than ANY of the KJVO’s on this list, including Anti-Alexandrian and his “sect” (to usurp his word). Despite this fact, I do not subscribe to KJV-Onlyism. I do not resort to misinterpretation of Scripture or faulty numerology to substantiate my ardor for this translation.

 

The date of the one I have is 1769, which matches the 1611 except for typo, grammar, spelling corrections. </font>[/QUOTE]You have been misinformed.

Ecclesiasticus 1:5
The Word of God Most High is the foundation of wisdom; and her ways are everlasting commandments.

How is this written in your 1769 revision??

 

Strong's was published before the archaeological discovery mentioned in the quote and thus untrustworthy regarding that particular word.

I didn't consult a concordance yet to verify the number of its occurrences, but I did check e-sword and saw he was right about the definition and usage of the word as a unit of money, and its improved translation, or rather, transliteration. In the verse, it is generally transliterated "pim" or described as a certain fraction of a shekel. </font>[/QUOTE]I screwed up, but I still think the guy is wrong.

But note i'm not relying on strong's definition of the word, just his indentification of it. He identifies 'file' as coming from the two hebrew words petzirah and peh, H6477 and H6310. peh is used hundreds of times, and petzirah only once.

Peh usually means mouth, and pim is just the plural form. The KJV in the margin has "file with mouths". The Stone Editiion Tanach (an orthodox Jewish translation based on the masoretic text) translates the two words as "a multigrooved file".

IMO if someone somewhere found a weight with 'pim' written on it that doesn't really mean much. But perhaps the author of the article really meant to say 'petzirah' and not 'pim'.

I think if a relatively uneducated guy like me can find problems with this article it makes the rest of what he's saying seem rather questionable.

 

The date of the one I have is 1769, which matches the 1611 except for typo, grammar, spelling corrections. </font>[/QUOTE]You have been misinformed.

Ecclesiasticus 1:5
The Word of God Most High is the foundation of wisdom; and her ways are everlasting commandments.

Not sure what book you are talking about. I assume Ecclesiastes 1:5, but mine says
How is this written in your 1769 revision?? </font>[/QUOTE]

 

The date of the one I have is 1769, which matches the 1611 except for typo, grammar, spelling corrections. </font>[/QUOTE]You have been misinformed. How is this written in your 1769 revision??


Ecclesiasticus 1:5
The Word of God Most High is the foundation of wisdom; and her ways are everlasting commandments.</font>[/QUOTE]Not sure what book you are talking about. I assume Ecclesiastes 1:5, but mine says The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

 

Question here, why do you keep saying that the Bible is not perfect?? You know that we do not believe that. Only someone who can't read or someone who is dishonest could make such an accusation. Which are you? </font>[/QUOTE]Then please share with all of us, which one?

 

HankD,

The English term 'easter' meant passover in 1611, check the OED.

 

Scrivener Textus Receptus 1894/5

HankD

 

Then why did the KJV translators use the word "passover" for the Greek "pascha" every where but in Acts 12:4.

They made a mistake, plain and simple.

HankD

 

Then what part is inerrant? Which part is not?

 

Then why did the KJV translators use the word "passover" for the Greek "pascha" every where but in Acts 12:4.

They made a mistake, plain and simple.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know why. There's no demonstrable mistake here, though, just a lack of knowledge on our part.

 

It’s the same thing as when I was a kid and played cards (gasp!,I was Catholic then, so it was OK) with my bully cousin and he changed and made up the rules as went along (and as he began to lose).

Dear Timothy 1769,

I don’t why they made this obvious blunder, but blunder it is even if it was carried over from their OED, which leads into the question of who blundered first, the dictionary compilers or the AV translators.

There is absolutely no question in the Greek as to what is being said here because it is consistent which consistency the KJV translators did not follow.

To me its not a big blunder but a weakness indeed on their part.

HankD

 

If you don't know what he is talking about then it is obvious you do not use the KJV1611. Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus are two different things. Just look in the TOC in your KJV1611 and you will see that.

Don't you listen and learn?? I have told you many times that perfection is measured by fidelity to the original language texts, not some set of English words that never existed anywhere on earth until 1611 and can be found only rarely today. In fact, you do not even have one I imagine.

 

Dear Timothy 1769,

I don’t why they made this obvious blunder, but blunder it is even if it was carried over from their OED, which leads into the question of who blundered first, the dictionary compilers or the AV translators.

There is absolutely no question in the Greek as to what is being said here because it is consistent which consistency the KJV translators did not follow.

To me its not a big blunder but a weakness indeed on their part.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]HankD,

I think the OED is incorrect. It traces the usgage of 'easter' to signify the jewish passover all the way back to 971AD. Other examples of such usage date from 1398, 1535, and 1563.

This is not an error in the KJV.

 

Duh, I meant to say "I think the OED is correct".

 

Dear Timothy,

OK I corrected your typo...

That depends on what one means by an “error”.

The use of the word “Easter” by the Anglican Church was in all probability inherited from their paganized parent the Church of Rome and the celebration of the goddess Ishtar with the use of such fertility symbols as rabbits and adorned eggs.

Available to the public at http://www.origin-of-easter.com/


HankD

 

Not trying to be contentious... but- Are you saying that the OED is more authoritative than the word used by the original writer- thus inspired by God Himself?

If this word is translated as 'Passover' elsewhere then it is purely interpretive to translate it as 'Easter' here. That isn't formal equivalency, it isn't even dynamic equivalency... at best, it is a paraphrase.

 

Looking, don't see "icus." What's your game?

So your saying that God's pefect word only existed in the original mss and therefore does not exist today?