What is lacking?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Bob Krajcik, Dec 22, 2002.

  1. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is lacking?

    What is lacking in the Authorized King James Version Bible translation? The King James Version has many critics around here. Therefore, it seems it should be easy for those critics to prove what is lacking in the King James Version Bible. It should be easy for them to say why they find it so strange that I say, for practical purposes, I have a Bible every bit as valid as the original manuscripts.

    If you had the very original manuscripts, and you could show conclusive proof of the error you claim is part of my Bible, then I could understand why you tenaciously appose the King James Version Bible, and why you find a problem with confidence of the king James Bible being as valid as the original. Do you have the original, unaltered?

    I contend that I am able to quote the King James Version and say with boldness and integrity, “Thus saith the Lord...” Some of you approve a multitude of conflicting versions. As you approve the conflicting versions, what happens when you come to those verses that are showing a different reading and different meaning? Do you say of those conflicting verses, “Thus saith the LORD...” or instead, “Yea, hath God said...?”

    Paul spoke of the Scripture that is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. One can have a short tract and find enough to tell them of salvation, but what about being throughly furnished unto all good works?

    Paul never, not even for a moment, had the original manuscripts, when he spoke of scripture as he did in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I think what he had was every bit as true as the original, nothing lacking, and as valid as the original. I say the KJB is every bit as true as the original, nothing lacking, and as valid as the original.

    If I had the original, in practical terms, I would not have a different word of God than I have now. The word of God does not change. The English versions based on the different foundation are different, and that can be demonstrated. They are different from version to version, therefore it is shown the premise of them is, “Yea, hath God said...”

    Another thing you Bible correctors could show me, is why do you want to use different manuscripts for your translations, if your version is honestly saying the same as the King James Version Bible? Why all the fuss about changing to a new foundation, if it is honestly the same?

    You say my King James Version Bible is not as valid as the original? Show your proof.

    When I present the word of God, those that hear it and profit from it receive it as it is in truth, the very word of God. I don’t hold forth a multiple choice list of the verses from the conflicting English versions, that each have different meaning, and pick a verse one time, and the same verse with a different reading and meaning the next time. I don’t present a message that is based on, “Yea, hath God said...” If you find fault with my confidence in the word of God, where is your evidence my Bible is corrupt? I’m not as sophisticated as the Bible correctors. Some of you want to be teachers of the law. So now is your chance. Make your case for a corrected Bible, and provide me with a corrected Bible, along with proof it is corrected to a version that is not lacking.

    Myself, I think the Bible I have now is not lacking. That Bible I speak of validates itself, and my mind is settled on that.

    1 Thessalonians 2:13
    13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
    KJV

    In Christ,
    Bob Krajcik
    AKA Polycarp

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are begging the question.

    What was the final authority in 1605? What was it lacking, that it had to be replaced by the KJV?
     
  3. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great question. Thanks for showing interest.

    The final authority in 1605 was in the available Antiochian manuscripts, and was lacking nothing. But honestly, where the final authority was in 1605 really isn’t a great concern of mine, and, you see, I would not know where to find those sources they had in 1605. I am not living in 1605, and I actually do not know anyone that is currently living in 1605. I would be surprised if you said you were presently living in 1605, or if you said you knew someone that is presently living in 1605. I would think you would be concerned about where the final authority is at now. What I am concerned about, is where the final authority is at now, in the English language. I have that I am happy to say, and it is lacking nothing.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. OldBibles

    OldBibles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2002
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 Thessalonians 2:13
    13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
    KJV

    1 Thessalonians 2:13
    13 For this cause also thanke we God without ceasing, that when ye received the worde of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the worde of men, but as it is in deede, the word of God, which also worketh in you that beleeve.
    Geneva,Beza version ,1583

    Since my version came many years before yours, why is mine not the word of God.
    Why is mine not correct, why do you prefer the “new” version.

    Since we do not have the original manuscripts we judge the remaining early manuscripts by the same method we would judge any Bible, that is, by their message. And to confirm this we would use any other existing manuscripts in comparison to see if principles and doctrine were changed. This is how the Textus Receptus texts were formulated and is also how the King James Version of the Bible was written. No one text existed before King James in any language which matched it verse for verse. The translators of the KJV looked at the historical record, earlier English Bibles and earlier Greek/Latin/Hebrew /Aramaic Bibles to determine what the best text was for the KJV.

    Most of the people I have talked to who support the view that Modern Versions are the Word of God also believe that the English Versions printed before the KJV are also the Word of God (and they readily admit that the KJV itself represents the Word of God). This is easily demonstrated by comparing the doctrines and principles of the earlier versions to those contained in the KJV and also by comparing the doctrines and principles of the Modern Versions to those of the Tyndale/KJV Bibles. It seems that KJVO supporters are the ones who have trouble with the question of what was the word of God before 1611. It’s obvious why they would not like to address this matter. If they say that versions before King James were the Word of God, then, since these versions do not match verse for verse the KJV their argument for a perfect Bible is unsubstantiated. And if they claim these versions were not God’s Word then this would say God did not preserve His Word, which we all know He did.

    You can claim the KJV is your Bible of choice or the best for you and no one can argue, but claiming most others to be in some way corrupt is totally unfounded.
     
  5. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Old Bibles, do you have the very manuscripts that were being used in 1605? Do you believe there is a final authority now, or there was then? Are you able to produce that?

    To clear something up, I never said the newest versions, or even older versions, do not contain the word of God. They certainly do, at least the ones I have seen do.

    What I said was the King James Version is lacking nothing. What do you say it is lacking, and where is your final authority to prove it is lacking?

    If you say the versions that in places have different readings and different meanings than the KJV are correct, nothing lacking, and not corrupted in certain places, then you are saying the KJV is lacking something, and is corrupted. You are welcomed to your opinion, but I am settled in mind that my Bible is wholly true and wholly complete.

    I do not find valid reason for me to fall over contradictory versions, and present some of my Bible, by saying, "Yea, hath God said..." Of course, that is between my and God.

    KJV Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

    I present every verse based on the premise, "Thus saith the LORD..." Of course anyone is able to say the same thing about a version that has different readings and different meaning with some of the verses, but most anyone is able to see they are not the same, and that one or the other, is wrong, or as some might say, both are wrong. But I have yet to see conclusive proof my Bible is wrong, and I have yet to see proof it falls short of what was given with the original. The original is long since gone, and if it is not gone, it has not been produced. There is not conflict with me, for I have received what I have as the very word of God, wholly true and wholly complete. Those that think that foolish, show some proof, conclusive proof my Bible is wrong, and then provide me with a version you say is wholly true and wholly complete. Of course, I don’t think you have such a version. If you are settled with using versions and selecting various readings based on a multiple choice list, that is between you and our Lord. I remain settled with my Bible, for I am happy with one Lord, and one faith, from my one English Bible. Again, if you are settled with using multiple English versions, and selecting various readings based on a multiple choice list, that is between you and our Lord. If you want to pull some different readings and meanings from any of various original language sources, that also is between you and our Lord. Aren’t you happy you don’t have to have me approve you? I am happy. I will continue to use and present verses from my Bible, and I will continue to say what I am presenting from my Bible is wholly true.

    [​IMG]

    [ December 23, 2002, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Bob Krajcik ]
     
  6. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let’s have a look:

    KJV Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

    DRA Psalm 118:165 Much peace have they that love thy law, and to them there is no stumbling. block.

    GNV Psalm 119:165 They that loue thy Law, shall haue great prosperitie, and they shall haue none hurt.

    Since I am using the King James Version, it matters not to me if another version also has the word of God. I fail to see how this proves my Bible corrupt, or proves my Bible is lacking or is of less value than what was given with the often acclaimed “original” manuscript, the originals, the very originals, that no one person on earth has ever had all together.

    Now lets look at some other versions:

    From the RSV, NRS, NIV, NLT, ESV:
    Matt 17:21
    Matt 18:11
    Matt 23:14
    Mark 7:16
    Mark 9:44
    Mark 9:46
    Mark 11:26
    Mark 15:28
    Luke 17:36
    Luke 23:17
    John 5:4
    Acts 8:37
    Acts 15:34
    Acts 24:7
    Acts 28:29
    Rom 16:24
    From the RSV & ESV:
    Matt 12:47
    From the RSV only:
    Matt 21:44
    Luke 22:43
    Luke 22:44
    Luke 24:12

    The text of the verses is included. There is no text. I have no reason to stumble when I present my Bible, and I have words provided with my Bible in these verses. When I present my Bible, presenting the above listed verses, I do not say, “Yea, hath God said...” I fail to see how this proves my Bible corrupt, or lacking. But I see something is lacking.

    What is lacking in my Bible, and where is the evidence, you that say my Bible is lacking?

    This could continue, but what I was hoping to find was the final authority provided from the ones that say my Bible is lacking, and that say my Bible is of less value than the original.

    [​IMG]

    [ December 23, 2002, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: Bob Krajcik ]
     
  7. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just imagine! My English Bible is of more worth now, than the acclaimed original! You say it is not? You say my English Bible is lacking what the original had? Then prove it. Then show me the original.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clear communication to the 21st century reader. Words ahve changed meaning, even opposite meaning in some cases that leads the KJV to give the opposite meaning of what God's intended (2 Thess 2:8 - Let). Sentence structure is very difficult and stilted because the language of 1611 is not the language of today. Most of us here love the KJV and grew up on it. We have switched because we desire to have the word of God in our own language.

    You mention 2 Tim 3:15 where Paul called something other than the originals the Holy Scriptures. It must be noted that he called something other than the KJV the Holy Scriptures. That is a proof text that disproves the KJOnly position. Something that is not the KJV can rightly be called the Holy Scriptures. That is why I, with authority, hold up my NASB week after week and say, "Thus says the Lord" though I usually phrase it "This is what God says." There is no conflict of authority. As the KJV translators said, there is benefit in getting a "variety of senses" from many translations, all of which, "even the very meanest" are the word of God. I simply believe what the KJV translators said, both in their preface and in their text.
     
  9. Author

    Author
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://abooks.com/images/aralph.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, to emphasize what Pastor Larry just said so well, there is nothing lacking in the KJV, it is God's Holy Word. Equally, there is nothing lacking in the ASV, NIV, World English Bible (my favorite), Chinese Union Bible, the Bible in Croatian, the Bible in Cherokee, the Bible in Basic English, the Latin Vulgate, ad infintum. The Bible, any BIBLE, gives us God's plan for OUR salvation.

    One should use the Bible they understand best. ... In my case, I would get little from the Latin Vulgate as, unlike Saint Jerome, I know little of Latin. A Bible in Cherokee would, also do me little good, as I've never learned the language that some of my ancestors spoke. A Bible in archaic English, does me some better because I've been exposed to it all my life. BUT a Bible in MY language (contemporary Southern English) would do me best, because I know that speech the best. However, not finding any Bibles with "y'all" in them, I have settled for the World English. :D

    God is love. He's not gonna get down on us just because we read a different version Bible from what King James read. This is, assuming King James actually read the KJV, eh?

    --Ralph
     
  10. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great question. Thanks for showing interest.

    The final authority in 1605 was in the available Antiochian manuscripts, and was lacking nothing.

    </font>[/QUOTE]Then why does the KJV deviate occasionally from the Antiochian manuscripts? Have these manuscripts stopped being the "final" authority?

    It IS a concern of yours, because it shows that the definition and application of the concept of "final authority" must be consistent throughout history. If it cannot be shown to be consistent, then the KJV-only foundational understanding of "final authority" breaks down, and KJV-onlyism's "final authority" in the NOW is shown to be built on a misconception.

    I notice that, when compared to the NIV, the KJV is lacking "through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages" in Jude 1:25, "God" from Phil 1:14, "the Holy Spirit" from Acts 4:25, " The LORD is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made." in Psa 145:13, etc. Obviously then, there are instances where the KJV has some text that the NIV doesn't have, and the NIV has some text that the KJV doesn't have. When you say things are "lacking" in the NIV because it is present in the KJV, it is a double standard not to say the same thing about the KJV when something is not present in it. If those things are not "lacking" in the KJV, then how can you say other things are "lacking" in the NIV?
     
  11. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh boy, here we go again!The versions from Wycliffe to Geneva are what are known as "reliable" translatons. In other words, they were good translations made from the right text, and God chose to use them. But all of the time God was providentially moving toward a perfect text in English: the AV. The way we know that God stopped at the AV is because although each subsequent version readily replaced the previous one from Wycliffe to Geneva (with the Geneva being the most authoritative in the hearts of the laity) the KJV was not & will not be surpassed despite numerous attempts after 1611 to produce other versions that were "better."The Holy Spirit witnessed through the Body of Christ (not scholarship or marketing techniques) which version was the authority.And therefore your question is just a strawman argument to try & trip up bible believers.The KJV & bible believers are here to stay....

    [ December 23, 2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Bob, you have been asking for someone who admits that Bibles prior to 1611 weren't the perfect word of God. Here it is in black and white. They were only "reliable" while God was workign towards a perfect English translation in 1611 ... no wait -- 1613, no wait again -- 1631, no wait yet agian, 1679. You see all these revisions were God working towards a perfect translation in English. Of course, my jesting points out the problem with the assertion that is I cite here. It simply is incompatible with the facts. People today do not use the 1611. Most use the 1769. Some use the Cambridge and some use the Oxford. Both are different.

    There are a couple of problems though that shoot holes in this theory. First, God does not work towards perfection. He is perfect and all his revelation is perfect. If the KJV is perfect, which one is and why did it take so long to perfect it? Second, God did not deny 1500 years of church history his perfect word to bring it about. God's word has always been inspired and inerrant. It will be long after the KJV is gone just as it was before the KJV got here.

    The Holy Spirit does witness through the body of Christ and the body of Christ at large has never accepted the exclusivity of the KJV. This is because a large portion of the body of Christ doesn't even speak English. The English speaking body of Christ is moving away from the KJV because it is language we no longer speak.

    Let's have some civility here and use arguments that are reasoned and thought through. The danger in this type of discussion, as it always has been, is that emotions run high whenever someone "questions" the KJV. Let's back off the emotions and resort to discussing the issues.

    [ December 23, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  13. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh boy, here we go again!The versions from Wycliffe to Geneva are what are known as "reliable" translatons. In other words, they were good translations made from the right text, and God chose to use them. But all of the time God was providentially moving toward a perfect text in English: the AV.

    </font>[/QUOTE]So the prior versions *were* lacking, and it took God several tries to get it right? The previous "final authorities" were not actually "final" at all?

    It is not a strawman. It deals with the very concepts of "final authority" and "preservation" that KJV-onlyism is built on. If the concept is not consistent, the concept is not true, and KJV-onlyism today is built on a falsehood. Surely you can understand this, even though you avoid it.
     
  14. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    No,no,no. Psalms 12:6-7 is not him *attempting* to preserve his word;typical Alexandrian response.The KJV & it's supporters will never go away from this board or the world..
     
  15. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    No,no,no. Psalms 12:6-7 is not him *attempting* to preserve his word;typical Alexandrian response.

    </font>[/QUOTE]JYD, don't you get it??? Was Psalm 12:6-7 a lie in 1605? You yourself said prior versions were only "reliable", but not "perfect". Do you not understand that you are arguing both for and against "perfect preservation" at the same time????

    Good. I hope not. For I am one of them.
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually Ps 12:6-7 is not about the preservation of his word or any attempt thereat. It is about the preservation of the godly man who appears to be ceasing from the earth. VV. 1-2 make clear what the psalm is about. Vv. 6-7 appeal to the promises of God as proof that the godly man will be preserved from this generation onward.

    I think however you are missing the point. If the KJV you have in your hands today is the perfect word of God (as you use perfect), then it did not exist prior to 1769 because there has never, in the history of humanity, been anything identical to what you have in your hand. Since "things that are different are not the same" then God's word cannot have existed before 1769. If you admit that it did exist, then you must admit that something other than the KJV is the word of God. Then you are a dreaded "alexandrian," aka a Bible believing Christian who holds the biblical doctrine of soteriology.

    I think you are too quickly glossing over this issue of changes. You complaint with the MVs is that they changed things. Yet the KJV itself was changed 4 major times and many more minor times. The KJV was a change from everything that existed before it. If your standard is the KJV, then to be consistent you must admit that God's word did not exist prior to the KJV, specifically as it stands today, not as it was translated.
     
  17. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Psalm 12:6-7 has NOTHING to do with the preservation of God's word. If so, please point me to the original Hebrew manuscripts (which David must have been talking about).
     
  18. H.R.B.

    H.R.B.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    With all the verses missing it kinda seems like a
    person gets more for their money buying a King James.

    Everyday king james bible user,
    Heidi

    [ December 23, 2002, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: H.R.B. ]
     
  19. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font>[/QUOTE]You know, a bible verse can have more than one meaning;I'm sure all of you fine"bible students" knew that already.

    (edited to remove insult)

    [ December 24, 2002, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]
     
  20. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will admit, the reading is very simple in these verses, for there is no text:

    From the RSV, NRS, NIV, NLT, ESV:
    Matt 17:21
    Matt 18:11
    Matt 23:14
    Mark 7:16
    Mark 9:44
    Mark 9:46
    Mark 11:26
    Mark 15:28
    Luke 17:36
    Luke 23:17
    John 5:4
    Acts 8:37
    Acts 15:34
    Acts 24:7
    Acts 28:29
    Rom 16:24
    From the RSV & ESV:
    Matt 12:47
    From the RSV only:
    Matt 21:44
    Luke 22:43
    Luke 22:44

    That certainly will stun those that thought the apostle Paul had a copy of the 1611 KJV. I’ll give you a point for that bit of information you have given us. But that does not prove the KJV is corrupted, and lacking.

    You believe the text of the KJV. Then you must believe the text of the KJB as it is given in the above list of verses. Do you suppose God changed His mind, and decided to change His word for the other versions? I do not think so.

    You say there is nothing lacking in the KJV. The text of the KJV, nothing equivalent, in any form, as is easily demonstrable by looking at the verses in the list I provided, is missing in those versions I mentioned. I would say there is something lacking in those versions. Further, God’s plan for our salvation is available on a tract. Do you suppose the tract should be counted as a wholly true and wholly complete Bible, with nothing lacking? I do not think so.

    I asked the question, What is lacking in the Authorized King James Version Bible translation?

    It has been said, by the Bible critics, there is nothing lacking in the Authorized King James Version Bible. But those same critics also classify versions that are demonstrably different than the Authorized King James Version Bible as lacking nothing. I’ve avoided saying this, I am aware there are many in denial of this, but, things different are not the same.

    Some see the versions based on a good, better, and best basis. Others see the versions as each lacking nothing, even when it is demonstrably evident there are differences in readings and meanings among the many English language versions. Others have shown they simply find the Authorized King James Version offensive.

    To repeat myself, My 1611 Authorized King James Version English Bible is of more worth now, than the acclaimed original! I never said the newest English versions, or even older versions, do not contain the word of God. Since I became aware of this controversy, in the early 1980s, my position has been, the newest English versions, or even older versions, certainly do contain the word of God, at least the ones I have seen do, but there are those places where they are found lacking. With that said, the King James Version is lacking nothing, and is wholly true and wholly complete.

    My question remains, What is lacking in my English language Bible, and where is the evidence, you that say my Bible is lacking?

    I expect I will not be posting for a few days, as I want to spend some time with family. Thanks to those that have presented themselves in a Christian manner, dealing with these things, as that certainly helps all of us along the way.

    God bless and keep you.

    Bob Krajcik
     

Share This Page

Loading...