King James Only and Jehovah

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by GraceSaves, Oct 6, 2003.

  1. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    I checked TheHarvest's website, and on there he claims that the King James Bible is the perfectly preserved Word of God.

    If this is the case, why does this text incorrectly translate the true name of God, Yahweh, as Jehovah?
     
  2. Stephen III

    Stephen III
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    And perhaps he could answer one further; (as noone else has)

    Was the 1611 original KJV also the "perfect preserved Bible", as it included the deutercanonicals? (those seven books included in Catholic Bibles and excluded in subsequent KJV)

    Or did it evolve to be perfectly preserved?

    Was the Holy Spirt involved in the committee to establish the canon of the original version or the last committee to change it, or both and was seemingly confused? Or neither, and then where did the authority come to either include or exclude?


    How do we know if the current KJV is complete in what it includes as perfectly preserved?

    Don't waste our time with debate on whether the books should or should not be included, just answer the questions as they are.
     
  3. The Harvest

    The Harvest
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    sure i'll answer. although may i suggest in the future if you start a topic and expect one person to know about it you should let them know instead of leaving it to chance that they'll just happen by. i almost didn't see this one in which my presence was requested.

    Yes it was. I assume by deutercanonicals you are talking about the apocrypha. The apocryphal books were inserted BETWEEN the testaments as uninspired, historical reading. They were not in the OT canon as with Catholic "bibles".


    nope, the translators did their job the first time.

    The Holy Spirit was not confused and I would recommend you be very careful in word choices when talking about the Holy Spirit in such a manner.
    The canon of the KJB includes 66 books. As I stated above the apocrypha was in between the Testaments as uninspired writings and was never considered by the AV translators to be part of the canon. So when it was taken out it didn't change the perfection of the inspired texts of the 66 books.


    Because God promised to preseve His word.
    Ps 12:6-7
    Matt 24:35
    Mark 13:31
    Luke 21:33

    ok. there ya go.
     
  4. The Harvest

    The Harvest
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Couple of things here...

    1. Are you an expert in Hebrew? If not, how can you correct the nearly 70 men who were experts in Hebrew that translated the AV?

    2. When going from one language to another sometimes names will change a little. The same is true when going from English to Spanish.
    Matthew is Mateo
    Mark is Marcos
    Luke is Lucas
    John is Juan

    I don't see any reason to stop believing the AV is the word of God because of your reasoning here.
     
  5. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    oops, double post
     
  6. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Remember those who translated the KJV were pedobaptists. Also they did not have a manuscript any older than the eleventh century.
     
  7. The Harvest

    The Harvest
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0

    do you have documentation for this?

    doesn't matter how old the manuscripts were. the ones they had were the perfectly preserved words of God. the manuscripts used on the modern english versions are different from those of the AV1611 and are the same used to translate the catholic bibles.
     
  8. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Remember those who translated the KJV were pedobaptists."
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "do you have documentation for this?"

    This one is easy.
    King James Version. King James was an English king. England had in those days and still has a official state church (no seperation between state and church for the British).
    This is the Anglican Church. Of all churches produced by the Reformation it is the one closest to Rome. Yes they baptize infants.
    The KJV or AV (Authorized Version) has those names because it was translated by Anglican scholars working for the Anglican Church of which king James was the head. That same Anglican church persecuted baptists by the way.
     
  9. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why are so many Baptists King James Version Only when, doctrinally speaking, the KJV condemns so many Baptist teachings? You would think the Baptists would be reading the Baptist-slanted NIV. Now that's a version written by and for Baptists!
     
  10. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    John,

    Interestingly enough, when I attended LCMS National Youth gatherings in high school, they always gave us NIV Bibles. ;)

    TheHarvest,

    When the KJV was put together, we still did not know the correct name for God, because in the original Hebrew, there are no vowels. Now, originally, the "J" in Jehovah would have been acceptable, becuase there was a time when the letter "J" produced the "Y" sound. You see this same example with Jesus and Yeshua (Joshua). So, even if we let this one slide, teh vowel choices for Jehovah do not match with what we KNOW now for a fact is correct, which is YAHWEH. "Jehovah" was literally nothing more than a guess. They did not know, so they guessed, and unfortunately, the guess was incorrect. Thus, the proper and personal name of God in the King James Bible is not God's name.
     
  11. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is from TheHarvest's website, and I assume are his own words (assuming he is Keith):

    "This is another one of those questions that Dr. Sam Gipp answered very well in The Answer Book in Chapter 7. Take a moment and follow that link and read the short answer he gave.

    The important thing to remember is that since the time of the King James, there has only been primarily one group of people taking on the task of evangelizing the entire world. That, of course, is the english-speaking people. God knew well ahead of time who would be evangelizing the world in the latter days and knew that He needed to preserve His words in the language of those people. That is one reason why the King James Bible came about. And that is why God chose to preserve His words in English.

    Perhaps instead of wasting time arguing that you don't think this is fair, you could grab your King James Bible and go witness to someone? Or don't you care that people all around you are on their way to an eternity in a Lake of Fire?"

    Am I the only one that sees the total lack of reasoning here? What happens if English ceases to be the language of the world? It's 100% possible, considering the language of the world has changed MANY times over the course of human history. And what of the 1600 years prior? Christians did without the perfect Word of God?

    Talk about brainwashing... :rolleyes:
     
  12. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    This page argues that the Bible believing Christian needs to own a gun:

    http://www.touchet1611.org/GodGunsGuts.html

    "Do the people of America have the guts it takes to go back to the King James Bible? We must also be the land of the brave. It would take guts for an American to go back to the King James Bible and back to the God of the universe. It would take guts for men today to be carrying a Bible and gun."

    "He would be a gun carrying, church going man with a Godly wife and children, all who believe the Bible to be the word of God and would try to direct people to the knowledge of the truth - Jesus Christ."

    Planning on starting a crusade or something? You advocate this stuff?
     
  13. The Harvest

    The Harvest
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    the NIV was translated from catholic manuscripts. it's NOT a baptist version.

    also...can you give me some examples of the KJB condemning baptist doctrine. i've never heard anyone say that before.
     
  14. The Harvest

    The Harvest
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    my earlier statment still stands. if you are not perfectly fluent in the Hebrew language, you have no right to attempt to correct nearly 70 men who were.
     
  15. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    my earlier statment still stands. if you are not perfectly fluent in the Hebrew language, you have no right to attempt to correct nearly 70 men who were. </font>[/QUOTE]TheHarvest,

    If this is really your argument, then I will withdraw from any further discussion with you, because I don't talk to brick walls.
     
  16. The Harvest

    The Harvest
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    what if the sky falls? what if the pope dies? what if arnold wins the race for California governor? the universal language of the world today is english. and it's only growing. more and more countries are teaching their people english.

    the overwhelming majority of missionaries in the world today are from the USA. you think that's going to change anytime soon?

    nope. it was preserved in other forms. first the originals, then copies of the originals and then it was translated into different languages. it has always been around just as God promised in Ps 12:6-7
     
  17. The Harvest

    The Harvest
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    again this is just speculation. you have no evidence, only your own reasoning.

    here is a portion of "The Answer Book" by Dr. Sam Gipp that will help you with your problem here.

    "The company of men who did the translating of the Authorized Version was made up of Bible believing men from both the Anglican and Puritan churches. Their character and qualifications have been attested earlier.
    Such a statement as, "The King James translators were nothing but a bunch of Episcopalian baby sprinklers," is one of those statements which is sadly not based on fact nor conviction. It is made with the hope of character assassination and an ultimate hope of overthrowing the authority of the King James Bible in the minds of believers.
    It might be beneficial at this point to note what the King James translators were NOT.
    They were not adulterers, as David. Nor were they murderers as Moses and David. Nor had any of them sacrificed any of their children to Chemosh or Molech as Solomon had in I Kings 11. Nor had they vehemently denied the Lord as Peter.
    These short comings are not pointed out to bring disrespect on any of the writers of scripture. But are noted so that we should be a little more gracious in our description of the men whom God has chosen to use."

    here's a link to the rest of that book which you can read for free online.

    http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp
     
  18. The Harvest

    The Harvest
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    ok well nice talking to you.

    i don't like talking to people who think they know more than God.

    God said He would preserve His word in Ps 12:6-7. Now either He is a liar or YOU are. And I tend to believe that God is not a liar.

    Rom 3:4 yea, let God be true, but every man a liar
     
  19. The Harvest

    The Harvest
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    my earlier statment still stands. if you are not perfectly fluent in the Hebrew language, you have no right to attempt to correct nearly 70 men who were. </font>[/QUOTE]TheHarvest,

    If this is really your argument, then I will withdraw from any further discussion with you, because I don't talk to brick walls.
    </font>[/QUOTE]why is it ok for anyone to correct the Bible that feels like it but it's not ok for anyone to conduct open heart surgery that feels like it. how is that any different?

    if you are not qualified to do something, then you are not qualified to do it. ESPECIALLY when we're talking about God's word!
     
  20. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, a bible written by Baptists using Catholic manuscripts. And I suppose they taught you from one of those new Catechisms instead of the old 1943 LCMS Catechism?

    No wonder you turned Catholic. You could have just as easily become Baptist. You were never given a chance to be Lutheran!
     

Share This Page

Loading...