Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

For hundreds of years "Pilgrims Progress" by John Bunyan has been the second best seller in the world, though it may not be now. Did God authorize the then reigning government, and the Church of England, to mercilessly throw Bunyan into a rat infested prison that he might right this beautiful piece of literature that has touched the hearts of many. The king's heart is in the Lord's hand. Shall we apply the verse to Bunyan's situation as well just because one of the greatest pieces of literature ever written came out of his years of horrible confinement?
DHK

 

I agree with you. No one can STOP the KJV since 400 years. No other version can kill the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]No one can kill the Greek either, which we have had for 1900 years. That is almost 5 times older than the KJV. I think it is better to stick with the Greek than the KJV. 400 years means nothing in the light of 1900 years. Why bring up a 400 year old Bible when you have a book 1900 years old, existing before the English language even appeared?
DHK

 

The LXX -- do you hold it with your hands TODAY? Did any preachers use it for preaching/teaching TODAY? The Vulgate -- do you hold it with your hands TODAY? Did any preachers use it for preaching/teaching TODAY? Geneva -- do you hold it with your hands TODAY? Did any preachers use it for preaching/teaching TODAY? The RV -- do you hold it with your hands TODAY? Did any preachers use it for preaching/teaching TODAY?

 

The anser is yes.
I have a copy of the LXX--yes in Greek. I have referred to in on occasion, and used the results of my research in teaching.
Likewise the Vulgate (though I have to rely on man's interpretation of it).
I have also used the Geneva and the RV in my studies which then translates into my teaching. My teaching comes primariy from the KJV, but there is nothing wrong with consulting other translations and resources. A preacher's best weapon is his library.
DHK

 

Yes to all of the above.

 

I believe DHK is talking about TR instead of LXX here.
Yes, TR or supporting Majority behind and Masoretic Text have been preserved by God, and these should be the fundamental basis.I agree that God didn't give any second inspiration for the translation which is equal to the first inspiration.
However, we have to be careful in saying that only texts in original language are worthwhile or preserved under God's providence, because it was the exact policy of RC when they didn't allow the translation of Bible and condemned or despised the translation as Vulgate.
If we stick to original language only, how many percentage of the unbelieving people can read Bible?
Therefore God must have preserved Bible translated in the readable common language under His own providence. We must accept and believe that God helped the translators foreseeing His own providence. I don't mean that such inspiration worked 100% everywhere in KJV, but the past history tells us very positive view on it.

 

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Are THEY really pure? Shall he really keep them and preseve them? Is God a liar?...

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

WOW! He loves his word.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

God is well able to give us perfection in the AV without any need to go back to the Hebrew or dead Greek language.
I wounder if we can trust anything in the Bible if we feel need to debate on certain texts "but in the Greek it says this"

Consider the secular king of Persia, Cyrus:

Ezra1:1 ¶ Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,
2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Is this perhaps same as what compelled king James to start the translation of the bible in english? it sure would not be foriegn to Gods way of using sinful men.

May God bless his word in your hearts.

 

Jeremiah 36:1 ¶ And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.

Jer 36:4 Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.
5 And Jeremiah commanded Baruch, saying, I am shut up; I cannot go into the house of the LORD:
6 Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the LORD in the ears of the people in the LORD'S house upon the fasting day: and also thou shalt read them in the ears of all Judah that come out of their cities.

Jer 36:17 And they asked Baruch, saying, Tell us now, How didst thou write all these words at his mouth?
18 Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.
19 Then said the princes unto Baruch, Go, hide thee, thou and Jeremiah; and let no man know where ye be.
20 ¶ And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king.
21 So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king.
22 Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him.
23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

Now here is the blessed part, after the king cut up God's word that jeremiah had Baruch write...

Jer 36:27 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,
28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

God just had a sinful man write his perfect word again!

 

Psalm 12:6-7 was completely true in 1605. Why were the pure, preserved words corrected and replaced in 1611? Or was God lying until 1611?

Same point for the rest of the scripture passages you posted.

 

"The Septuagint Version
of
The Old Testament,
With an English Translation,
and with
Various Readings and Critical Notes.
London: Samuel Bagster and Sons,
15 Paternoster Row, 1879"

I also have the TR, printed and published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, as well as in an interlinear form.
DHK

 

DHK, if you compare LXX with Masorah, there are too many spots where both differ each other. Dead Sea scroll confirms the general accuracy of Hebrew words in Masorah, even though some key verses reflect LXX.
Many people say that NT quotes exactly LXX. But what about Heb 10:5-6, which is not LXX.
Often people point out Acts 7:14 for 75 or 70 sould who went down.If you count the number of people mentioned in LXX, then you can find the contradiction inside LXX( Gen 46, Ex 1)

If anyone can claim that NT quoted LXX word-to-word, then he must check why LXX didn't translate Masorah word to word for OT.
It is very much obvious that LXX translated thought-to-thought. Then suddenly is it said NT is the same as LXX by word-to-word? It means that LXX was translated retrospectively after NT was established, inserting the NT words into OT word by word after NT was established.

There can be a lot of speculation, and if you try to translate OT, both Masorah and LXX, you can find LXX is not the Word-t0-Word translation.

Moreover it is used for Apocrypha.

 

Psalms 73:18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places:

Dear Natters,
I know not (by lack of study on the issue) what all corrections (if true) were made, but my acknowledgment of God being God fully assures me that if He wants his word to be available for all he can. The greek that the kjv translaters knew personally and had to translate from, where is it today? is it available for all to learn?
one might call this stand I take of little value, or uneducated and childish. Well I must say I'm glad I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to KEEP that which I have committed against that day
May God do a good work in your heart

 

Don't get caught up in the details, but rather understand the overall point - if a perferctly inerrant, perfectly preserved Bible (as defined by KJV-onlyism) existed in 1605, the KJV was not needed and should not have been produced. However, if a perfectly inerrant, perfectly preserved Bible (as defined by KJV-onlyism) did NOT exist in 1605, then the verses used to defend the type of inerrancy and perservation required by KJV-onlyism were lies in 1605. Or, alternatively (and truthfully), those verses do not mean what KJV-onlyism requires them to mean.

Yes, the various editions of the TR and other texts are still available. In fact, that's one way we are able to identify where the KJV deviated from even the texts it was translated from.

 

Don't get caught up in the details,

 

We can simplify this post by saying the only way to end this debate is to hold all the original texts in our hands even then people that claim Christianity would say they have a better way of reading it or they would dispute its authenticity. No book or text can make the claims that the KJV can. I plan to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. For now, I stand alone the Word of God the B.I.B.L.E, BIBLE !!!

Rev. Jerry D. Lowery D.D.

 

You admitted ignorance and then turn around and say nothing compares to the KJV?

No book or text can make the claims that the KJV can according to the KJVOs. Study would change that though.

 

and the serpent said "yea hath God said..."
we live in a powerless age because Gods word is preached with doubts. "hath God said such and such or did God not properly direct the translaters"

this can get old and some times unprofitable but it is very imporant, christians should be taught this as soon as they get born again, The devil's first approach to cause Eve to sin was tempt her to doubt God's word.

 

Did the KJV translators listen to "yea hath God said..."? Why didn't they just accept the Bible they already had?

 

They also listened to their doctrine of pedobaptism.