"KJV", "KJVO", "1611KJV" on Church documents

Actually there are thousands of "conflicting" authorities because you are including translations.

There can only be ONE Word of God which is perfect and it must of necessity be in the original language in which the Lord gave it.

So, in reality the focus of our controversy ought to be upon discovering the best or most accurate representative original language text of the Bible and particularly the New Testament.

We keep launching missles at each other concerning a TRANSLATION a DERIVED text,
and one that those self-same translators and/or Church of England translator committees CORRECTED over hundreds of years in hundreds of places.

In the mean time this translation looses meaning to the English-speaker little by little over the years just as the Vulgate did while Latin turned into Italian.

The KJ Bible can NOT be modernized.
To do so would make it into something else.
We must start fresh from the original language texts to give a "koine" (language of life) Word of God derived from the original "koine" for each generation until the end of the generations.

My opinion of course.

HankD

 

To believe a translation is 100 percent correct is a lie. No translation is ever perfect. There are words in the original language that do not translate as there are in other languages. Just ask anyone who tranlsates from one language to another.

You may believe the KJV is the best and that is your right. But to believe a translation is 100 percent accurate is wrong. Even non-believers who translate in the courts will tell you that. Nothing can ever be translated with 100 percent accuracy withour a thorugh explanation.

Ask a Spanish speaker to translate Como estas and Como esta. They translate the same but one would be rude is used incorrectly.

 

So far what I have learned is the KingJames, and the new versions all have flaws.
prior to all these versions,there was classified as a" dark age". Jerromes writings were apparently off on the translating.All our bibles have somewhat been based around him, either in one way or another!if this is the case. Then which part of the Bible do you beleive? Which part is off?

 

Fraser, I have a question: did you read the books I had suggested earlier? Secondly, do the 'errors' of the translations and the copied manuscripts have the destructive force of causing one to put no faith in God's Word? Perhaps I should clarify what an 'error' is in regard to translations & copied manuscripts. Such errors in the transmission of the Bible text are not of the kind that will add or take away from what the Bible says. Can we ever know if the text of the Bible we have today exactly matches the text of the original manuscripts exactly? Nope. But, you may ask, do we have every word as written in the original manuscripts? I say yes! Unfortunately, we cannot compare the copied manuscripts with the original autographs because we don't have the originals. We must weed through the copied manuscripts to compare the various manuscripts and make decision as best we humanly can. See, those who make the claim that the KJV or the TR/Received Text is as equal to the original manuscripts have no idea what they are saying! They are denying the nature of the manuscript evidence and mock the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. They are more concerned with being certain rather than being concerned with the truth. I think that they have deluded you into thinking that you must have a 'perfect', 'correct', and 'preserved' Bible, being chosen by them as the KJV. Did you ever question why they think that the KJV is as they claim it to be? Even the KJV translators did not claim their work to be 'inspired' or anything like what is claimed by the KJVO's.

Again, I strongly suggest that you read the books I had mentioned before and make your decision accordingly.

 

True!! Problem is,they dont know which "bible"(over 200 conflicting authorities) to believe in.(1 Corinthians 14:33) </font>[/QUOTE]And you do??

By what authority?

 

Fraser:
"If we dont beleive that the KingJames is inspired.Then what do we beleive?"

We believe this:That God has inspired/caused His word in English to have been written in various versions over time. You believe the KJV is a valid translation, right? Then, what aboutits immediate predecessor, the Geneva Bible? Is it still valid? If not, when & why did it become non-valid? If it was never valid, then did God not preserve/present His word in English before 1611?

Is there one scintilla of EMPIRICAL PROOF that God inspired the AV/KJV more than He did any other translation? Think these questions over very closely...

 

I don't think they're "flaws", per se, as much as they are "discrepancies" and "imperfections". However, I believe God has presented His word AS HE HAS CHOSEN, and in different versions in various languages. He intended for His word to be universal, which meant presenting it in the language of His various target readerships throughout their generations. Thus, the English and the spelling of the Tyndale Bible is somewhat difficult for most of us to read with full clarity, while it was perfectly clear to the English readers of 500 years ago.

Just remember to take any questions regarding the Scriptures to their AUTHOR, instead of relying only on our human answers-and follow the HOLY SPIRIT. If He leads you to use the KJV, NIV, both of them, or any other version or versions, by all means OBEY Him.

 

Tiny Tim, I went to a small IFB church outside of Chesapeake, Ohio(just across the creek from Huntington, WV)whose statement of faith includes their belief in the "plenary authority of the Bible, and that the Bible is complete, perfect, error-free, and is our final authority in all matters of faith, that Bible being the Authorized Version of 1611, commonly known as the King James Bible". I had my replica AV 1611 with me when I caught up with the asst. pastor outside & asked him about their statement of faith when they were evidently using the 1769 KJV. I showed him the difference in John 3:16 between the AV 1611 & the 1769 KJV. Without hesitation he said that the 1769 was merely an "update" of the 1611. I then asked him, "Then why didn't they COMPLETELY update the English, including the spelling, to that of 1769? There are many extant British literary works from that time with which to compare." This time he DID hesitate & said, "I honestly don't know". I said, "Well, thanx for being honest, and I do hope y'all think that one over & consider the words of your statement of faith." This was a week ago today.

 

Hello again!
The problem I am having is the books, and history on the various bibles.Every book I have read,which is many.The authors explains the version, based around his or her faith.therefore
its there opinon, or faith. I would like to find a history book on our bibles. State the facts, not there faith included.Is there so such a book?
If I read history on the T.R.for exsample.If the author is a K.J.O. then you know the KingJames is the Bible, and all the information he,or she gathers, is going to persuade me, that they are right. This is the problem!I am having problems getting the facts straight.

 

Robocop,
I like your answers. Thanks!
In Christ, Fraser

 

Thank you, Sir, but I give all credit to GOD for causing you to learn for something I said. I'm no genius, just average IQ & education. And I've learned something from YOU-Keep reading! Keep studying! God says we learn His word line upon line, precept upon precept.

 

All my
brousing the web indicates:

Not one KJV 1611 AV site uses the
KJV1611 edition. All of them I've found use
the KJV1769 edition.

In Google:

KJV 1611 AV gets 13 hits.
KJV1611 gets 2590 hits.
AV 1611 gets 1570 hits.
AV1611 gets 4590 hits.

On most of these sites you will not even
find that there are various editions
of the KJV for sell in 2004.



This page has a link on it to a
"King James Version of the Bible"
http://www.born2serve.org/links.htm

Using the Ruth 3:15 test, this KJV
is a KJV1769.

KJV 1611 AV sites use the KJV1769

I found this out years ago.
I went to Eureka Springs.
There is a Bible Museum.
Across the street is a book store.
They sold $3 copies of one page of
a KJV1611 Edition. I bought one for
my daughter. They were the Gothic letters.
I saw things were different than
my KJV (which i found out later to be KJV1769).
I searched the web with 1992 search engines.

I found out none of the KJV 1611 AV sights
use the KJV1611 Edition, in fact, many of them
don't even seem to know there are various Editions.

The people who teach KJV Onlysim on the internet seem
to very deceptive. This deception seems to extend
to the Bible printers. None of the KJV1769s i've seen
say they are KJV1769 edition (though by the Ruth 3:15
test you can see that they are.
The KJV 1611 AV search engines on line are not KJV1611
but KJV1679.

Caveat: the KJV1769 has been my primary study/teaching
Bible for 47 of my 52 years as a Christian.



[ February 04, 2004, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]