Calvinism and the King James Bible

Will:

Even you use a bible that has changed, added, and dropped words from what God said.

II Chron.28:11
1611: "the wrath of God"
1638: "the wrath of the Lord"

Mark 10:18
1611KJV"there is no man good"
1638KJV"there is none good"

Josh. 13:29
1611KJV "Manesseh"
1638KJV "the children of Manesseh"

Rev. 12:14
1611KJV "she might flee"
1769KJV "she might fly"

Which revision is God's perfect Word?
Remind's me of that new KJVO book out entitled

Different is not the Same

Good name, huh?

Answer this without consulting the "wisdom of man". I think you will find it hard to do.

P.S. Could you reply without using the "copy and paste" routine? How about using your brain rather than someone else's? Your contradicting yourself.

[ November 04, 2002, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: try hard ]

 

Wait, I thought there weren't any words removed...

 

Hi Try Hard,

OK, Will might have "cut and pasted", but that gives you no excuse not to answer his point. Go on, tell us: why can't a translation be inspired? I doubt you'll find an answer in the Bible...

As for which of those AVs was true? Well I'll tell you: they both were. All the passages you quoted were true (as were all the other alleged "contradictions" between versions of the AV I've ever seen advanced). They were all the word of God. Unlike the NIV, however, which is wrong (some would say "heretical") when talking about Joseph and Mary in Luke 2:33,

The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Will,

I have been reading this thread and would like to second one point made by Pastor Larry, which is that you were incorrect to make such an issue of the "is" in 2Tim.3:16 ("All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" [KJV]). As you probably know, the word "is" is italicized in the KJV because it is supplied by the translators due to the fact that there is no corresponding verb in the Greek text. The Greek word theopneustos is actually an adjective used to describe the nature of Scripture without saying that it is now being inspired in the KJV, etc. The reason I bring this point up again is that, unless I missed it somewhere, you did not seem to acknowledge it or respond to it.

Pastork

[ November 04, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

try hard,

Please try harder at getting your facts straight. The book to which you are alluding is not new. It was published in 1993 by Dr. Mickey P. Carter. The correct title is, Things That Are Different Are Not The Same."

Have you read it?
Do you know anyone who has read it?

 

I might be reaching on this one Bob, but I bet it doesn't address how there have been multiple revisions and changes in the KJV and the TR and yet the 1769 in your hand is supposed to be the preserved version.

Perhaps you could tell us which KJV and/or TR is the preserved one. Until this happens, the KJVO claims are meaningless.

 

I just have a question: How do you prove that a new translation is in error? Can you? I hear KJVO say the new versions are in error and change this and that, but they are always comparing it with the KJV. My challenge is to prove a new translation is in error. And by the way, the NKJV follows the same text in the NT as the KJV, but the "changes" you allege are actually more accurate renderings of the Greek used, not a different Greek. Another thing I was just wondering, if the KJV is inspired, then why in the world did the translators use any Hebrew and Greek texts? Seems the same methods were used then as they are today, yet today translators are evil. Something is not adding up here, it seems I am going in circles.........

 

Sorry, but I realized this is not the topic of this forum, but it is rather Calvinism and the KJV. Sorry to get off on tangents.......

 

This is the author's declaration regarding which TR he holds as preserved.

 

I have started a new thread to address this issue:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000599

 

You can never trust anyone who starts an argument with an unproven conclusion as the premise.

No. It didn't. The LV pre-dated the TR by about 1000 years. More accurately, the TR was influenced by the LV. Namely, I John 5:7-8 and Rev. 22.

I would actually like to believe many of the stories told about these groups. Unfortunately, most of the existing history was written by the RCC and since they oppressed these groups out of existence I don't believe them to be an unbiased source. Do you have or know of any real documentation of what these people did? Writings like the "Trail of Blood" et al. tend to fill big gaps with speculation.

I believe that biblical Christianity has been perpetually existant in the shadow of the RCC and other powerful forces. But I believe this more because I think the Bible suggests it rather than recorded history.

...and the most noted Catholic scholar of his day.

Actually, the first one was a LV-Greek interlinear.

Yes and no. It did provide great momentum and supported the proliferation of translations. However, the roots of the reformation reach back to the earliest years of the 2nd millenium.

Interestingly, the RCC's defense of the LV only view was that it was preserved by God and the Church, not the Greek/Hebrew. They argued it was superior to the original language texts. Not unlike many KJVO's today.

which originally did not contain the trinitarian formula at I John 5:7-8. Remember, Luther was a contemporary of Erasmus. He obviously did not consider Erasmus' work inerrant nor infallible.

I don't know where the author went from here but this last statement begs the question- "How can something different (and therefore imperfect) be a proper basis for the perfect?"

Where? Erasmus published 4 revisions of his original work. Several other revisions were performed by others following his death. Which one was preserved?

[ November 04, 2002, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Ummm, maybe you should take a shot at trying hard sometimes You have disappointed me. The book is only 9 years old.

If my understanding is correct, anything after the year 1769 is new. Contradiction? I think so.