Featured Comparing to the Orginials

Bell will have to answer that himself.

 

Nobody in their right mind can answer other then "NO"

 

The AV makers knew differently. They placed the following footnote in the AV 1611:

"Heb. him, I. euery one of them."

The KJVOs' "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" comes straight from 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. While he didn't originate that notion, he put it into his book & it's been copied by most subsequent KJVO authors. it was wrong when first conceived, & it's wrong now.

And that "thingie" begs these questions: WHERE DOES PSALM 12 MENTION THE KJV OR ANY OTHER BIBLE TRANSLATION???????????????? WHERE IS THE KJV MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE, PERIOD??????????????????????

***THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !***

 

This is that note:

"Heb. him. I. euery one of them."

It was (conveniently for KJVOs) left out of subsequent KJV editions, as was the preface, "To The reader".

 

I believe God allowed the original Autographa to disintegrate so they wouldn't become icons of worship instead of Himself, in the manner that the old knights venerated the "Holy Grail".

And I believe God conveyed His word to us in the ancient mss. we DO have, exactly as HE chose.

 

God preserved to us the originals in the fact that thru all of variants and manuscripts that we now have available to us we can get back to being essentially what the originals were saying to us !

 

I VERY much doubt that the Holy Spirit was referring to the Kjv in psalms in regards to being a purified perfect English translation, or any other translation for that matter!

 

And what methods should be used to discern the correct original from the varints? What were intentionally changes in error?

 

There is no Universal agreed upon criteria for making those decisions....

 

I've known Roby for a very long time. He has never even insinuated what you accuse him of. I think you should reread his post. Roby is not a King James ONLYIST.

 

I know that he is anti KJVO, as I am also. was just remarking on how they use the Psalm to try to support KJVO in improper fashion!

 

Agreed.

Again, I agree.
To me, that's part of the problem.

Yet again, I agree.
To me, He was referring to His words...all of them.
In whatever language they are preserved in.

So...where can I find all of His words?
The originals have long since gone to dust.
Gents ( and ladies ), I think the point continues to be missed.

From my research, the "Critical Text" gives me 2 major witnesses ( both were in possession of the Vatican at one point ) and a piece-meal smattering of others for a very narrow Greek text.
The "Received Text" gives me what the Reformation era translators had, for the most part, and it was wider...some 6-7 major witnesses and a piece-meal smattering of others for a Greek text with which to develop a Bible that was not tainted by the Roman Church ( It had "Vaticanus" and the Latin Vulgate ).
The "Majority Text" gives an even wider Greek text to draw from, using some 100 manuscripts and pieces.

Here's the strange thing...the TR agrees more when compared to the MT, than the CT does.
Yet, most English translations continue to be made from a Greek Text compiled from a narrower set of witnesses than what they started out with 500 years ago.
Why not use the MT, and come up with a new standard that everyone can agree with?

Not going to happen...there it is, and there it sits.


But without the originals, we still get 'round to the same old argument:
What does God's word really say?

I could give example after example after example in differences between many of the most popular English translations today, and the time-worn AV ( and some of the other Reformation era translations, like the Tyndale, the Bishops, etc. ), and it's not because of the out-of-date words being used, it goes far deeper than that. But most of you don't see the differences as being a problem...you just seem to roll with it and keep going.

I, on the other hand know what the differences are, why they are there and why I'm going to stay right where I started over 40 years ago.
...and my love for the KJV is not going to tell you that you can't have your "non-KJV" Bibles.

Yes, I've said this before:
But it is going to make me wonder why some of you don't take the subject more seriously.

 

To me, the foundation of God's word is being destroyed ( in the public eye ) by doubt and mistrust, by "textual criticism" and by an apparent disbelief in preservation...
The promise that God will preserve His words, in whatever language His children speak and read, for them until He sends His Son.
Yes, I think that God has His hand in the translation effort, and I also think the Devil has his hand in it, too.

What....you don't think that the spiritual realm has an effect on the physical?
Read the book of Job.
Read the book of Acts.
Read the "Gospels".

What Satan does, affects God's sheep...whether in sowing tares, sponsoring false teachers or in casting doubt upon the Lord's words ( Genesis 3:1 ), the Devil is not an enemy to be trifled with.
But the Lord is not a God to be trifled with, either.
When He does something, Satan can only stand back and watch.


From my perspective, whatever you, as a group, decide in this thread, to me it will only end up being undecided.
The proof is that there has been, and will be, more threads about this subject.
The fact that there is a division tells me that the enemy has done his job well...to inject doubt as to what God's words even are ( and where they can be found ), and the rest falls apart...at least in the eyes of men.
Whether on the KJV side or on the other, the divide is here to stay, so I am resigned to it being there.

We can't settle on a standard?
Well, at least I take comfort in the fact that, for over 200 years, there was one, at least in English, German, Spanish and French.
And the only "competition" was from the Vatican ( The Douay-Rheims came along fairly quickly during the "Protestant Reformation", and its basis was the Latin Vulgate that was already in its possession ).

For now, until the Lord shows me different, I thank Him that, as one of His blessed sheep, I can count on having His words, in very nearly whatever language I choose, right in front of me...
And all I have to do is go to the Trinitarian Bible Society, and have a copy of it sent to me.

But even more, is the fact that Scripture tells me that I can count on one thing:

" He that is of God heareth God’s words:..." ( John 8:47a )
" My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. " ( John 10:27 )

Whatever translation they are in, whatever manuscript they originate from, if they are HIS words, His sheep will "hear" them.
He has promised that His word will go forth, and that it will accomplish that which He determines:

" So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it." ( Isaiah 55:11 )

We don't need the originals...
We have the Original, and He is the Word made flesh.
He will use His Spirit to guide His sheep into all truth with His words, no matter where they are.



I wish you well, and these are my only replies in this thread.

 

I think that one can make a convicing case for either the MT or the CT as being the best Greek text for use to use and study from today, but not the TR...

 

The Majority/Critilical Greek texts have been very useful for translations and biblical studies, as its the KJVO camp that has caused division in the ranks, as they are the ones to see all other Greek text and translation derived off them as being corrupted, and even satanic!

 

Where do the Scripture actually state that God promised to preserve different words in whatever language than the actual exact specific ones in the original languages which He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles?

There are scriptural truths that indicate that the doctrine of preservation concerns the original-language words of Scripture.

Perhaps KJV-only advocates are the ones who apparently may not believe that God preserved the actual specific words He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that they refuse to accept any specific original-language OT edition and any specific original-language NT edition as the proper standard and greater authority for the trying of all Bible translations.

How would the use of fallacies such as the fallacy of begging the question in modern KJV-only reasoning strengthen the foundation of God's word?

 

KJVO has to assume that the TR is an exact copy of those originals to us, and that the translation team from Oxford had inspiration to translate just as the Apostles had to record!