Please explain KJV

Wow! Me too!

I held up an NIV Wed. night and the same thing was true!

And it corrects me as well.

Isn't it amazing how much we have in common...different translations, same Lord, same doctrine? Only God could accomplish such.

 

Amen, Brother GodsRealTruth -- Preach it! :thumbs:

I recommend you check and see how folks who post/read
here define 'INERRANT WORD OF GOD' :

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=30182&page=11

I believe the 'innerrant word of God' includes all
the KJVs (warts included) and anyother valid
translations including (ones I've personally used or are likely
to use, over 10 years): NIV, nKJV, HCSB = Christian
Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/.

 

I agree with much of what your wrote - (NFV)

Did you notice anything 'missing' in my 'New Frank Version' text above? No, of course you didn't, because you are not familar with any similar statements of mine. Here is another version:

Brother Gill, I read your post, and I agree with much of what you wrote - (KFV)

You can now see that by changing the order of presentation, the accusation of adding to the text could be leveled at the 'King Frank Version'.

The KJV enjoys the benefits of being an early and beautifully written English text that was promoted and then accepted. The combination of being early and elegant allowed it to become very familar with widespread use over time. However, being early and elegant does not supercede many other important issues related to the quality of a translation. But what might your opinion be if the NIV had established itself 360 years before the KJV?

I don't think that this is actually the case. In my experience, these versions allow 'fair use' (like your calendar), sometimes up to hundreds of verses before permission must be sought. Practically speaking, the translations' editors, printers, and others involved, all need to make a living wage. Copyrights also protect the texts from being changed unexpectedly, or even heretically (therefore, a purchaser familar with a text is assured of the product).

 

Brother Gill: //I cant even print verses out of the NIV,
NKJ etc...etc....and put them on a calender without going
through copy right laws. Why is this? Who owns
Gods Word but he him self.//

Unfortunately your statement shows you may lack some information.
Americans have been stealing, bootlegging, and defying international
copyrights since 1611. The KJVs Copyrights
belongs to the crown of England.
In fact, in 1776 when the 13 Colonies went into total rebellion against
the King of England, the cost of the KJV was 3 Pounds Sterling (Silver):
about equivalent to 3/4 of a year's labor for a common skilled
laborer. One of those Pounds went directly to the King Of England.
The Puritans used the Geneva Bible and damned the KJV (so called
'Authorized Version'. King James authorized it, not God, as some
folk claim.)

 

Hawaiiski:If our present-day KJV isn't the inerrant word of God in English, which version is?

Every valid version.


The argument that no manuscript or version can be inerrant because it is a product of imperfect man is contrary to God's promises of preservation. By this reasoning, even the original autographs are flawed since they were also penned by fallible men.

Big difference. The autograph writers were working under the direct influence of God, often hearing Him tell them what to write, while the translators, working long after the fact, are working from copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of what the original writers wrote.

 

GodsRealTruth:INERRANT WORD OF GOD!

Which version? God didn't speak to His writers in English.

When I hold that bible up and preach from it, I have confidence knowing it is the INERRANT WORD OF GOD!

Which version?

It is made to correct us not the other way around.

Too many preachers trying to correct the word of God instead of jsut preaching from it! :tear:

Actually, too few preachers actually STUDY God's word in-depth enough to actually know what it says. And the KJVO myth is parta not knowing what it says & doesn't say.

 

Max, what is hypocritical and dishonest about showing the truth vs. the KJVO myth? Nothing at all! Apparently, you just need to look in the mirror to see hypocrisy and dishonesty. The fact that the KJV has errors has been shown over and over again. There is nothing hypocritical or dishonest about showing and discussing those errors. Please stop hiding behind the ignorance of KJVO writers. It is hypocritical and dishonest.

In the KJV the original word pascha was correctly translated as Passover in every instance but one. Why defend the use of the word Easter when there was a current word that was much more accurate and which was used elsewhere in the same version? If Passover was the right word to use in every other occurrence of pascha then it would have been the right word to use in Acts 12:4 too. Blindly defending this poor word choice is not at all honest. As for the 22/42 thing, that has also been shown to be an error time and time again. To defend this as anything but an error is dishonest and hypocritical at best.

Max, there is nothing at all hypocritical or dishonest about standing against the KJVO myth. Putting truth against the myth is not dishonest in any way, shape or form. The dishonesty and hypocrisy come from those who constantly defend the errors of the KJV after having been shown the truth repeatedly.

 

Amen! Praise God! And we should all be thankful He has provided His inerrant word for us in various versions down through the years. The word of God as found in MVs is inerrant in that these versions all convey to us the plan of salvation just as the various KJVs convey the plan of salvation. Thank You Lord for providing Your inerrant word to us in the NASB, the NIV and the NKJV as well as in the KJVs and other legitimate Bible translations! And thank You Lord that we can rest in the knowledge that the NASB and the NKJV among others are all the inerrant word of God!

Yes, far too many folks are trying to correct the word of God. They should realize that their practice of comparing everything to the KJVs is nothing but a waste of time. The KJVs are not the measuring rod for all other translations as some folks would have us believe. And since there are differences in the various KJVs then exactly which one of them is it that is the true measuring rod to these folks and which ones are the KJVs with errors? Or is it that they cannot decide which of the KJVs is the right one and which ones aren't?

 

The "error" concerning Ahaziah's age didn't originate w/ the KJV, but was translated as found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. If the KJV is in error here, then so is the Hebrew.

How do you determine whether or not a version is "legitimate"? God promised to preserve His words, not just truths. How can a version be the inerrant word of God w/ translational errors, as you claim? This is contradictory.

 

I understand this. The point I was conveying was that this type of reasoning is unbiblical, since imperfect men did in fact produce a perfect product. Since God initially gave them this ability, why should we conclude that He didn't oversee the process of preservation of those same perfect words as He promised?

 

The NIV has 17 fewer verses than the KJV & NKJV. Either these verses are genuine & were omitted from the NIV, or they aren't genuine & were erroneously added to the KJV & NJKV. Which do you believe? One or the other has violated the admonitions of adding to & subtracting from God's word. Both cannot be valid.

 

Error is error whether it is in the underlying text or in the translation. Remember, the Hebrew Masoretic text is not the original autographs. Is the 22/42 discrepancy found in all Hebrew manuscripts? I am not an expert on Hebrew by any means, but I would venture to guess that not all Hebrew manuscripts contain this discrepancy.

Legitimate Bible versions are those translated with the intent of translating the underlying text(s) as accurately and completely as possible. Translations that are legitimate include, but are not limited to, the Bible versions that preceded the KJVs, the KJVs themselves, the ASV, the NASB, the NKJV, the NIV and others. Bible versions that are not legitimate are those versions "translated" with the intent of making the Bible say what it doesn't say. Such versions include the Clear Word Translation (CWT) of the Seventh Day Adventists, the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) also called the Inspired Version of the Mormons, and the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses. These errant groups had no Bible that taught some of their errors, so they "translated" Bibles which would agree with their errors.

As for the preservation of God's words then we need to get rid of every English Bible version, every Spanish Bible version, etc. The only way to inerrantly preserve the specific words would be to preserve them in the original languages. Since no other language can provide a 100% accurate translation of those original words simply because of the differcnes in languages, then the KJVs or any other English version cannot possibly be the preservation of God's words. And as has been shown in various threads and posts here at BB Psalm 12:7 is not a promise to preserve words as many onlyists would have us believe, but a promise to preserve the poor and needy, which is the subject of the 12th Psalm.

God promised to preserve His word, which is different than the specific words. Onlyists misinterpret God's word to mean specific words. God's word has been preserved in various English Bible translations down through the years. God's word is preserved in the KJVs, the NASB, the NIV, the NKJV, etc. If you want preservation of the particular words then forget about English or any other modern language and use only the original Hebrew, Greek ar Aramaic languages. Still the question arises as to which of the original language manuscripts would be the perfect preservation of the original words. Since we do not have the original autographs no one can say with 100% certainty.

The contradiction lies not in believing God has the power to preserve His word without preseving the particular words, but in claiming that the KJV is the perfect preservation of God's words even though the various KJVs have differences. Since there are differences in the various KJVs then which of the KJVs is it that is the perfect preservation of the words and which of the KJVs have errors? Remember, what is different cannot be the same.

 

The NIV is just as faithful to its underlying text as the KJVs. The question is not whether the verses are omitted in the NIV or added in the KJVs. The question is which text is more reliable - the text underlying the NIV or the text underlying the KJVs? Some folks believe that the older texts are more reliable as they are closer in time to the original autographs and likely more accurate. Others believe that the majority of texts are more reliable simply because of their numbers, not taking into account that more time had elapsed and thus more chance for errors or additions to be made. Since the KJVs are not based on a single text that could be the perfect preservation of particular words, and since the Textus Receptus is a "best of" compilation of the various texts used to translate the KJV of 1611 and its subsequent editions, then this destroys the theory that God preserved the specifric words in only one manuscript. There were various texts used to translate the original KJV. And since bits were used from one text and pieces used from other texts this shows that the translators of the KJV did not think one particular text was 100% accurate. And if the original words were perfectly preserved in one particular text, why is it that many of the texts used to translate the KJV came from mere fragments? If God was going to perfectly preserve the specific words then does this mean that various manuscripts had errors in them and that God saw to it that the erroneous parts were destroyed so that KJV translators had only the perfectly preserved words to work with? What about the differences in the surviving texts they used?

 

Hawaiiski: //God promised to preserve His words, not just truths. //

This statement appears void of meaning. His words convey His truths.
His words can be translated into other Languages and still
convey His truths - the exact words, even the exact letters being
changed, but God (Who is Truth, Justice, & Love) is unchanged
and God's Written Word is the truths.

God's Written Word (AKA: truth with a small 't') is about the
Truth with a capital 'T': Messiah Jesus. God's Written Word is
preserved in multiple places. Why limit God's Written Word to
one and only one family of Manuscripts like the Majority Texts
or the Texcus Receptus Texts or the King James Versionb[/].
Isn't that Limiting God's power to Preserve His words: the
truth of God?

Hawaiiski: //How do you determine whether or not a version is "legitimate"?//

God has already answered that question:

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV1611 Edtion):
Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly diuiding the word of trueth.

Some of the antique words hide some of God's truth here
so I'll also show the words of a more recent inerrant translation:

2 Timothy 2:15 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible / Holman, 2003 / ):
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who doesn't need to be ashamed,
correctly teaching the word of truth.

I note here that in 1611 'Studie' meant closer to what 'be diligent'
means in 2007 than what 'study' means in 2007.

I note here that what in 1611 'diuiding' meant
closer to what 'teaching' means in 2007 than what
'dividing' means in 2007. So the 2007 meaning is easier to
understand to 2007 users than then 1611 text.

Please note that most people don't even bother to use
the translation made in 1611 by known worhty translations.
In 2007 most people use later renderings of the KJVs
made frequently by unknown translations of unknown
worth.

 

Hawaiiski: //The NIV has 17 fewer verses than the KJV & NKJV.
Either these verses are genuine & were omitted from the NIV,
or they aren't genuine & were erroneously added
to the KJV & NJKV. Which do you believe?
One or the other has violated the admonitions of adding
to & subtracting from God's word. Both cannot be valid.//

The logic error you commit here is called 'the false dilemma'.
If you picked it up from someone else, you may have been
intentionally deceived. If you though of it yourself you
made a mistake.
'Di' is Greek meaning 'two' in English; 'lemma' comes from
the Greek and means 'proposition' or 'logical argument' (as
opposed to a fussy argument). Here the logical error
of 'the false dilemma' has been made because there are
obviously more than two posiblities.
I personally believe the verses were added to the majority
texts. However, how would we know about that unless
we used more than one English Translation?

(Some say it isn't fair that in English we have multiple translations
of the Bible, but we do have those translations and for $10 you
can have 2 to 4 of them for yourself.)

BTW, the KJV1611 contains the false believe that the
gestation period of humans is 10 months (really it is closer to
9 months). I've documented this at this topic:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=31304

Make sure not to every make your doctrine hinge on one
and only one verse. God's most important doctrines are taught
again and again and again and again strangely, one truth but
multiple words. For example personal salvation is talked about
in the Bible using names like 'saved', 'born again', etc.
with parts of it being justificaiton, scantification, glorification,
etc. (this is NOT an exhaustive list but only a suggestive list
in passing).

 

I believe God is able to perserve his word in any translation or language. After all at the Tower of Babel he is the one that seperated the languages. I personally use KJV, NKJV, and NIV.

The NIV bible I use lists the verse it omitted at the bottom. That way I can still read it and be true to God's Word.

I used to be a KJV Only guy until I finally sat down and prayed and realized God is able to do ALL things. That also includes if he wants to perserve his word through another language, who am I to question that? God can do all things. We need to stop putting limits on him.

I have felt the Holy Spirit use me when preaching out of everyone of those translations. Jesus has saved many people in the church I serve at no matter what translation I was using.

Jesus is awesome! :thumbs:

 

Dear Pastor Max, I disagree. in my estimation using the "easter" example and calling it an "error" is not dishonest.

The reasons being the evidence that follows:

Acts 12

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.​

In all other places the days of unleavened bread were always associated with "pascha" or the Passover by the KJV translators.​

If there were no mention of the Days of Unleavened Bread then IMO it would be a subjective call. It would help to know what/where it is used elsewhere in the Scripture and how it was translated in those places by the KJV translators:

Matthew 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?​

Mark 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?​

Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.​

Luke 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.​

Acts 12

3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.​

These are the same pairs of koine words as in the Acts 12 passage and if not an error then (IMO), the KJV translators were at least inconsistent and this passage can be confusing. The fact is that they knew exactly what the koine said but for some unknown reason (perhaps "tradition") they, as well as others, chose an English word that is used only in Acts 12 for a word which they consistently translated as "passover" and clearly inconsistent with the context.​

It can open the door to confusion to the babe in Christ studying the Scripture. Mild to be sure but God is not the author of confusion. IMo they should have used "passover" as all the other places where these words are paired.​

True, I don't know their motive (perhaps "tradition"), but you really don't know the motive of others either. I for one am not being "dishonest" by calling it an "error" in translation because of the reasons above.​

Actually I don't call it an error but use the words "inconsistent", "inconsistency".​

HankD​

 

Hawaliski: //How do you determine whether or not a version is "legitimate"? //

Look at our discussion of 'Soul Competency' at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36955&page=4

:godisgood: