My responses

Then why did the MV of 1611 mess with the existing Geneva Bible?

 

Friend, the problem with these verses and your belief they support the KJVO opinion is this: no where in these verses is the KJV mentioned!
Yes, the Word of the Lord will endure, but to say that this means that the KJV is the only word of the Lord is mistranslating Scripture.

 

stilllearning. I'll only address your response to what I said.

You do a good job of cutting and pasting verses in your post. The problem is that not one of the verses you quoted even remotely suggests that one of the KJVs is the only word of God in English.

You go on further to state that "God has perfectly preserved His Word, and that we have no business messing with it."

This is true. God has preserved His word. The problem here seems to be that you confuse God's Word, God's word, and printed words on a page.

God's Word is Jesus Christ, the Living Word. It was He who lived, who was crucified and who victoriously conquered death and the grave.

God's word (note the lower case w) is the message God has accurately prserved for generation upon generation. God's word didn't miraculously appear when the 1611 or the 1769 KJV was published. God's word was around long before the KJVs in many various translations, and it is still around in many various translations since the KJVs were published. The only modern translations I know of that "mess with" God's message are those like the Cotton Patch Version and the Klingon Version which were not legitimate efforts to translate the word of God but were attempts to publish something that would be noticed and would sell enough copies to make a few bucks, and of course versions that were "translated" so that errant groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists could have "scripture" that agrees with their erroneous teachings.

Then there's the printed words on the page. THIS is what most KJVOs are determined to preserve. Of course God didn't promise to preserve a particular set of English words printed on the page - the English language didn't exist when the Bible was written, nor is it mentioned anywhere in Scripture. God's promise of preservation applies to the message He preserved for the human race - no matter what translation the message is in. The message is the same in the KJVs as it is in the legitimate modern translations I've read. These translations all teach the virgin birth of Christ, His sinless life, His death and burial, His glorious and victorious resurrection and all the other basic fundamental Christian doctrines. The strange thing is that, as I said before, the KJVO position, that one of the KJVs is the only true word of God in English, is not even hinted at in Scripture. God's preservation of His word is not dependent on the preservation of one particular Bible translation - never was, never will be.

 

Are you aware of what the Bible teaches concerning the Bibliology? If so, Jesus Christ recognized that the Scripture attested to its own biliology. The Bible attests to its own inspiration. The Lord promised the preservation of His Word for a thousand generations as what Psalms 105:8 stated. These churches recognized and received the true revelation and rejected the tampered revelation. The church's responsibility is to make the Scriptures to every generation and believers would recognize these local church - preserved Scriptures, the Words of God. The Bible prediction will show the translation model. The RECEIVED Bible is the KJV. The KJV/TR model fits the model prediced in Scripture.

The MV/CT model agrues in favor of the imperfect preservation of the text. This defenders of CT/MV attacked the KJVO concerning the "perfection" in the KJV because of the differences in variants through the textual criticism to "restore" what God never preserved. The MV/CT model does not fit in the model predicted in Scripture. We called, MV, "Restored" bibles.

The KJV/TR model holds to the promised of verbal, plenary preservation and the responsibility to receive The Words of God. The KJV is built upon the TR, and we called the KJV, the "RECEIVED" Bible because the KJV/TR model is the translation model predicted in Scripture.

 

Many translations hold to the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture, moreso than the KJV, and reflect a more thorough & conservative Bibliology.

 

Nearly 10,000 disagreements of words are found in Modern Versions. Can the disagreement of words in modern versions be equally verbally inspired of God?

 

Have you researched the number of differences between the MV of 1611 and its predecessors? Can they be equally inspired?

 

Stilllearning:
// This has never happened before;

// I copied some questions from another thread, onto a flash drive, and came back a few hours later with the answers, and the thread was closed. //

It happens a lot on on the Bible Versions/Translations Forum. The clue is when in the fifth hour of the topic, the posts are on page five. Quite frankly, I've written posts that took me well over 5 hours to: write, rewrite to not be nasty, rewrite to quote scripture, rewrite to say scriptural stuff, can't post cause of BB, can't post cause my internet service server is honked up, then post.

Strangely, most everything that can be said about versions and translations has been said already on this forum. Some posts are still on this Forum, some parts are in the archives, they can still be found EASIEST through Google. in Google you can specify BB (baptist board) finds only. I use that to find out what I really said when I said what I said insterad of something eles which I'd of wish I said or even did type up but alas is now lost in cyber-space.

 

Askjo: // The Lord promised the preservation of His Word for a thousand generations as what Psalms 105:8 stated. //

Amen, Brother Askjo - Preach it!

Psalms was written some 3000 years ago which might be about one hundred generations. God's Written Word still exists today - preserved perfect in hundreds of English Versions and thousands of other languages.

Askjo: // The RECEIVED Bible is the KJV //

This is your OPINION. we all have opinions, I've got two or thee myself.

Psalm 105:8 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):

He forever remembers His covenant,
the promise He ordained
for a thousand generations -

The RECEIVED Bible is the HCSB. The Bible I received is the HCSB.

I also have 11 KJVs I checked for consistency and found 10 DIFFERENT KJVs. I'm still pretty upset about this, nobody warned me that would happen) ;-(

 

And/or the existing Bishop's Bible?

BTW, the BISH, was the extant 'Authorized Version' for the Church of England. ONLY the common person was generally using the GEN, and certainly not the clergy of the Church of England, who for the most part, opposed the GEN for all they were worth.

Hmmmm! Come to think of it, so do those most who are "KJVO" oppose the GEN, and BISH, as well as even the KJ-1611, in like manner, despite their hypocritical paying of "lip-service" to the GEN, BISH, KJ-1611 and even the KJ-1769, while allegedly opting for ONLY the 1769, and under the varied pretenses of opposing "MVs", supporting "improved spelling", opposing "c_____ texts", or whatever reason may appear fashionable, at that moment.

The hypocrisy is deafening, IMO.

Ed

 

OP // You will say, that you are only talking about “legitimate translations”.
But who are we gong to elect, to determine what makes a translation legitimate? //

Strange thing to say on a Baptist Only Forum of a Baptist Board (BB). What ever became of Baptist persons gathering together in Baptist groups of common interest to solve 'problems' in a Bapist way?

How hard would it be to let your local church to "determine what makes a translation legitimate"?

READ MY TRAILER:
If you don't agree with it, you might be fighting the Lord himself.

 

Not hard at all. The problem is that if your local church is apostate or teaches false doctrines. There are a lot out there. I don't want that kind of church to determine what's legitimate. Did you read the thread about the new bible called "The Voice"? The emergent church loves it. Does the fact that the Emerg. church endorses it make it a legitimate version?

There must be some other way to determine what a legitimate translation is.

 

God's perfect, inerrant, Word found in HCSB

The pure written word of God said:

Psalm 105:8 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
He hath alway remembred his couenant and promise,
that he made to a thousand generations,

Twelve years later, why was it changed to this?

Psalm 105:8 (KJV1611 Edition, e-sword.com edition):
He hath remembred his couenant for euer:
the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.

Notice how the word 'promise' got kicked out of the Bible my those baby baptizin' English King worshiping Catholics -- those guys may not be found in the here-after I'm headed for

Psalm 105:8 (KJV1769ish type edition, Crosswalk.com edition):
He hath remembered his covenant for ever,
the word which he commanded to a thousand generations

 

I'm very confused by this KJV only doctrine that S. Learning advocates. Which KJV should I use? And, which KJV did S. Learning lift scripture from to support this doctrine? Is there any consistancy to the KJV? The two that I own and use are different. Ed says he has eleven and that there are differences. What gives? Seems that if the KJVO doctirne were legitimate that there would be only one KJV instead of this multiplicty of versions.

 

Still Learning:

Sorry, Sir, that's NOT the KJVO position. The very same verses are found in every other valid BV.

 

Askjo, I asked you on the "Fighting Fundamentals" board to post your 'prediction' and you failed to do so. What makes it any different here? It's still a figment of your imagination, not backed up at all with Scripture.

 

There's a vast difference between the AV1611 and the current KJV editions. Most newer editions leave out most or all of the extratextual material provided by the translators as study helps, and their marginal notes that give alternate translations of certain words/phrases.

Just remember there's NO SCRIPTURE IN THE KJV limiting GOD to just the KJV, nor is there any one KJV edition better than another.