Featured The Actual KJV 1611

Has God preserved his words in a perfect Bible? Yes or no?

 

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and would state something about language.

That which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet would be in the original language in which it was given by inspiration (Matt. 1:22, Matt. 2:15). The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). The actual words written by the prophet would be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31). The exact words which “the prophets and Moses did say” (Acts 26:22) would be in the same language in which they stated them. Which are the same words spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets (Acts 3:21)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound and true to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. A writing from Elijah the prophet would be written in the language in which Elijah wrote it (2 Chron. 21:12). The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8, Luke 10:26). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). In what language were the actual words written by the hand of Moses? When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them. Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

George, do you avoid or ignore these internal statements in the KJV that would indicate or affirm that preservation would concern the same original-language words spoken and written by the prophets and apostles?

A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate this scripturally-based point that Bible preservation would concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Would the meaning of these verses have to be reduced to nothing or near nothing to try to suggest that these warnings were directly given concerning Bible translations?

These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration.

 

Why should a question be answered where you may assume as a true a premise that you have not proven to be true?

You did not answer the question that another posted asked you.

Questions do not establish or determine truth. You continue to fail to present any sound, scriptural case for what you assert. You do not define or explain what you mean by "preserved" and have not presented your view of preservation. Perhaps you ask your question based on some non-scriptural, naturalistic view of preservation that ignores what the Scriptures state.

I presented what I find that the Scriptures state and teach concerning preservation. You point out no scriptural problems with my scripturally-based points concerning Bible preservation. I do not answer invalid questions that assume unproven premises or questions based on unclear, speculative, human, hypothetical "can be" opinions.

 

Because I had a whole thread about it, and he would not answer, and when I pressed him he said "I don't know". Go check.

 

All that loquaciousness dies down to a silence before a simple, fair, question. Point made.

 

Incorrect, erroneous reasoning. You do not demonstrate that you make any sound point when you dodge and avoid the sound points that are problems for your human, non-scriptural reasoning.

No question is actually simple and fair when it assumes unproven premises to be true.
You demonstrate that you assume your unproven premises or assumptions to be true when you have not proven them to be true.

God was just as faithful to preserve His words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles before 1611 as He was after 1611. God has preserved His words.

You seek to assume (perhaps by the fallacy of begging the question) that God preserved them somewhere He did not say that He did. Evidently you cannot name and identify any one original-language Old Testament manuscript copy or any one original-language New Testament manuscript copy where God preserved every one of His words or even any one pre-1611 printed original-language OT text or original language NT pre-1611 text where God preserved every one of His words.

Do you seek to assume or speculate that God preserved His words in one English translation, which would suggest that He failed to preserve His original-language words perfectly in the original-language manuscripts? Does that make your view just as naturalistic and humanistic before 1611 as you incorrectly and unjustly attempt to claim that my scripturally-based position is?

 

You're right, the premise that God would preserve his words is an "unproven premise".
What was I thinking?!

In any event, you were asked for your opinion, and you won't give it, because to do so would expose unbelief.
Cue the loquaciousness.

 

Perhaps you show that you are not thinking justly nor scripturally.

The Scriptures do not say that God would preserve His specific words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles in a Bible translation as your words show that you do claim and assume.

Your "can be" premise concerning Bible translations is unproven.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

You have proven no unbelief on my part. I accept and believe all that the Scriptures state about themselves.

God was just as faithful to preserve His words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles before 1611 as He was after 1611. God has preserved His words.

Disagreeing with your speculation about where God has preserved His words is not unbelief in what the Scriptures state.

 

There is no unbelief in the Scriptures presented in my accurate true statement. You jump to a bogus opinion about my true statement.

By Bible translation I clearly mean any Bible translation made after the end of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God the NT prophets and apostles, not any translating that was directly part of the process of the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles. George, I have clearly explained that point before when refuting your incorrect attempt to appeal to verses that do not teach what you try to suggest.

 

That is not what I stated. What were you thinking when you improperly and incorrectly tried to distort and misrepresent what I stated into something that I did not say?

I clearly stated that God has preserved His words [the words He actually gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles].

You merely throw out your bogus allegations and straw man distortions when I do not blindly accept your human reasoning and subjective, hypothetical "translations can be perfect" speculation.

 

Working against a FALSE DOCTRINE is an important part of ministry. And the KJVO myth IS a false doctrine.

 

In a comparison of the 1611 edition to the Oxford edition of the KJV in the Scofield Reference Bible, over 2,000 differences that would affect the sound were noticed.

In a typical post-1900 KJV editions, there were over 170 whole words added to the 1611 edition that are not found in the 1611.

Over 45 whole words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in the post-1900 KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible if the 21 words omitted at Exodus 14:10 are included in the count. Over 65 times the number [singular/plural] of nouns or pronouns is changed from what it was in the 1611 edition. Twenty or more times the tense of a verb is changed. Sixty, seventy, or more changes would belong to the category of changing a word.

Under his category of substantial changes described as “changing the case,” D. A. Waite listed the examples of “who” to “whom” at Acts 21:16 and “him” to “he” at Proverbs 6:19 (AV1611 Compared, pp. 21, 22). Other examples of changing the case of pronouns would be “who” to “whom” at Genesis 24:44, Psalm 69:26, Acts 22:8, and Hebrews 7:4 and the changing of “it” to “its” at Leviticus 25:5. If all the changes of “you” to the nominative case “ye” were included in this category of changing the case of pronouns, it would add over 200 to the count of substantial changes. David Norton noted that in “Parris and Blayney’s modifications to the text I noted that ‘ye’ was usually the subject form, ‘you’ the object” (Textual History of the KJB, p. 143). In several places, a nominative case “ye” in the 1611 edition is changed to a different case “you” (Gen. 19:14, Num. 32:24, Deut. 1:13, Deut. 1:40, Josh. 3:12, Josh. 22:4, Isa. 1:16, Isa. 30:11, Isa. 32:11, Jer. 49:3, Ezek. 11:15, Zech. 6:7, Zech. 9:12). “Than” is a different word than “then” so that these 483 changes could be counted in the substantial category of “changing a word.”

If all the changes that would justly belong in the categories that D. A. Waite himself listed and described as “substantial” are counted, that total count would be over 400 [not only 136].

 

Inspiration did not continue from God after Originals were penned down!

 

By what basis do you judge that the TR greek text is superior to the MT/CT greek texts??