Final Authority before 1611?

--------------------------------------------------
Give the evidence. John Burgon (Wescott and Hort's most outspoken critic and Scrivener) were NOT KJVO and indicated as much in their books and writings.
--------------------------------------------------

Neither am I. Nor would they have condoned the modern versions of today that are based upon those texts that they fervently outspoke against.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
I just did a global search on “king james bible” in an electronic King James Bible and found nothing. BTW it was 1769 revision (not sure if was the Oxford or Cambridge).

--------------------------------------------------

The reason you couldn't find it is because you are looking through the glasses of a false man-made label. If the glasses of this label were removed, then you would be able to see the light of the truth shine through.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
The history of Psalm 12 shows that there has never been agreement concerning its meaning including KJV translators by their marginal notes in the AV First Edition.
--------------------------------------------------

Rigthly dividing the word of truth and understanding "how" would be one of the ways of determining the truth of this passage. Yes, the truth of it can and is known.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:You continue to say this, and claim the truth is wrong, without one iota of proof. There are no mistakes in the KJB. NONE.

I believe Cix quite plainly showed you the error, but in your fanatical stubbornness, you simply refuse to accept his truth and his clear proof for it. The Greek verb "Diulizo" means "strain OUT, remove by filtering, etc." It's from where we get our word "dialysis". If YOU had to be on dialysis, would you like for the machine to strain AT the impurities in your blood, or for it to strain them OUT?

It is sad that you and many others believe there are. What a very sad and dangerous way of thinking to have in one's christian walk. And even sadder, is the fact that many are leading others to this path of doubt and confusion. If the blind follow the blind, they both will fall into the ditch.

Several of us have **PROVEN** them to you, Michelle! We've provided the UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE OF THESE ERRORS, much of it from other places in the KJV itself! It's your PRIDE AND FANATICAL STUBBORNNESS which keeps your mind closed from the TRUTH. It's as if you say, "Water is dry, not wet" and we respond with the definition of "wet": "consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid such as water...and you counter with, "No, you're twisting the definition, reading from a false dictionary...water is DRY! You're wrong to say it's wet!"

Again, your credibility is now ZERO. But it doesn't hafta STAY zero...you can still actually face up to the truth and admit the truth IS the truth. God will forgive you and so will WE.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Luke 4:17-19
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written

The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Isaiah 61:1-2
The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

This is conclusive scriptural proof that Jesus is/was NOT KJVO.

If He were then He would have seen to it that
this Scripture turned out identical in words in both the KJV Old Testament and the New.
--------------------------------------------------

Come off the label Hank, and then you may be able to see. By the way, you neglected to give the previous verse:

16. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19. To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Hint: Jesus, by his authority and power, and being the Word of God, and the Son of God, combined the scriptures of the place in the book of Isaiah concerning him as HE spoke to the people. This is why their eyes were "fastened upon him"

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
” yet Jesus admitted later that he was” so, where then does Jesus "admit" that the KJV translators are “inspired" writters of Scripture?
--------------------------------------------------


John 16, 17


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:Sometimes the only credible answer, can only be answered by God Almighty himself.

And He's answered THIS question, by continually providing His word in the languages of the time, including English.


It is called faith in God and believing him and what he has said and revealed, rather than doubting. John 16,17

And He has clearly revealed He's NOT limited to just one translation of His word.

Why do you continue to focus on non-issues to prove the lie that God's word has errors?

He ISN'T...he's PROVEN an error, same as others of us have proven other errors...errors in the TRANSLATORS' work, not GOD'S.


Why is it you are leading people to blindly follow those who claim to have knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages, over and above that of what God has provided for us for generations and his leading us to the truth?

For the simple ABSOLUTE FACT that EVERY valid Bible translation EVER MADE has come from the GREEK, HEBREW, & ARAMAIC texts.


You are trying to sow doubt in the truth, to compromise with errors and corruptions that have been done to God's word. Shame on you. Gen.3:1

That's the KJVO practice.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Then please enlighten me as to what the verse means since "I don't understand". What exactly does "strain AT a gnat" mean?

--------------------------------------------------


It means exactly as what you all are guilty of doing on these boards.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle said "Jesus, by his authority and power, and being the Word of God, and the Son of God, combined the scriptures of the place in the book of Isaiah concerning him as HE spoke to the people."

No, the KJV doesn't say he mixed scripture with his own words - you're adding that to the story. The KJV says he read it. The KJV says what he read aloud was scripture (God's word in written form). Good try though.

 

--------------------------------------------------
(CEV) You blind leaders! You strain out a small fly but swallow a camel.

(Darby) Blind guides, who strain out the gnat, but drink down the camel.

(ESV) You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

(GB) Ye blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallowe a camell.

(GNB) Blind guides! You strain a fly out of your drink, but swallow a camel!

(WEB) You blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel!

(YLT) `Blind guides! who are straining out the gnat, and the camel are swallowing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


These are ALL WRONG. You don't strain something out, you strain at it. The truth is not that they strain it out, that they strain at it, but could swallow a camel. You all are not understanding the truth in the scriptures, which is causing you to falsely accuse there is error in the scriptures. It is rather your precious favorite flavor of the month that has altered the scriptures, and you haven't even noticed because you don't understand the scripture itself. You are guilty of this very same thing that Jesus accused the Pharisees of. How ironic.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle said "You don't strain something out, you strain at it."

There was a fly in my juice the other day. I strained it out, I didn't strain at it.

 

Trotter: “For your information, most translations now use the Majority text, not W/H.”

Definitely not correct. The underlying text of most translations (whether UBS4, NA27, or purely eclectic) remains 99.5% identical with W-H (I’ve run an electronic comparison to be sure).

Michelle: “For your information, most versions still use the W/H text, to which is now renamed the Majority Text.

Equally incorrect. The Majority or Byzantine text differs from the W-H text almost as much as does the TR underlying the KJV, and is far closer to the TR than any other type of text.

C4K: “Thank you sister, for about 25 years I have been under the impression that the Minority Texts were the basis for W/H.”

Return to your previous impression. You were correct.

Askjo: “Well, the W/H text is called, the "NEW TR."
C4K: “The NEW TR = Majority Text??”

The NA27/UBS4 text has been called by Kurt Aland the “New Standard-Text” but not the “new TR”. He received strong criticism for even making this audacious claim. The NA27/UBS4 text certainly does not equal a majority or Byzantine type of text.

Michelle, responding to the statement, “John Burgon (Wescott and Hort's most outspoken critic and Scrivener) were NOT KJVO and indicated as much in their books and writings”.said:

“Nor would they have condoned the modern versions of today that are based upon those texts that they fervently outspoke against”

Actually a very correct and (for once) insightful reply by Michelle! Raise the credibility level one-one-thousandth of a point!

 

--------------------------------------------------
A difference of opinion concerning a verse of Scripture does not constitute calling God a liar by either party.

Danger.

--------------------------------------------------


There is no danger when you are in the truth. I am in the truth. Are you? If not, then the danger is for you to worry about. I don't want to be guessing at the truth, but know it, live it, share it. How bout you? Nor do I desire to compromise with untruth about it. How bout you? Truth isn't a two way street. Truth is a one way street and absolute. And by the way, it is not just one verse of scripture being discussed, but many.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. He will keep them from this generation, from being debauched by them and drawn away from God, from mingling with them and learning their works. In times of general apostasy the Lord knows those that are his, and they shall be enabled to keep their integrity. From being destroyed and rooted out by them. The church is built upon a rock, and so well fortified that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. In the worst of times God has his remnant, and in every age will reserve to himself a holy seed and preserve that to his heavenly kingdom.
--------------------------------------------------


Amen!! To this I also agree. But you neglected to say how? How is it that God does this?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

In another direction, I finally think I can put my finger on the initial fallacies of the KJVO position:

Michelle:

“Bible = the perfect words of God; scripture; the whole councel of God; without error”

No problem here except spelling of “counsel”.

“scripture = created by and given by God; preserved accurately in copies and in use/living throughout history and within the churches without error.”

Key Fallacy #1: “preserved accurately in copies” does not equal “preserved perfectly”, otherwise the copies would not differ a whit from one another. If one thinks otherwise, we then need to know which single Greek manuscript copy is “the” perfectly preserved one, and then we can base and test all translations upon such.

Used “throughout history and within the churches without error” is a different issue, also not substantiated by the facts, or we would not have differing interpretations. “Used as an infallible/inerrant authority within the churches throughout history” would be a more appropriate way of saying it.

“translation = the converting of the accurate copies of scriptures (words of God) into the prospective language accurately under the providence of God, without error.”

Key Fallacy #2, built upon Key Fallacy #1: “the accurate copies of scriptures” are evidenced under Fallacy #1 to be at best only “reasonably accurate” or “highly accurate”, since no two manuscripts are identical.

Key Fallacy #3: although one can legitimately maintain that accurate translation indeed proceeds “under the providence of God”, once again one cannot maintain that such translation must be or necessarily is “without error”, since once again every translation differs from every other.

“Bible translation = the scriptures; the word of God accurately in the prospective language, without error - perfectly.”

Key Fallacy #4: Except for certain translations with known non-orthodox biases, Bible translation definitely strives to reproduce “the word of God accurately in the prospective language” from the original texts. But to presume that any translation made by fallible humans will necessarily be produced “without error - perfectly” is to presume more than scripturally should be expected in any such endeavor (“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (KJV)/corrupt (RSV)/sick (ESV)” (Hebrew 'ANASH = weak, sick, frail, incurable)

Imperfect manuscripts (being the ultimate source of any translation) cannot become perfect in translation, especially when such translation is made by human beings who themselves are imperfect. Now if one wants to postulate special “advanced revelation” and direct inspiration of certain translators, that is another matter and a differing theological opinion which I would not happen to share.

In contrast, a highly accurate translation made from highly accurate manuscripts by highly skilled human translators causes me no major problem whatsoever, and I can rely upon and trust the scriptural text thereby provided to my hand according to various translations, whether in matters of theology, history, geography, or anything else that is clearly taught within the word of God. In declaring such, I do not deny or reject divine providence; rather, I recognize and accept that providence functioning in the continued preservation of the original texts by means of fallible humans, as well as the same providence functioning in providing accurate translations of those original texts by means of other fallible humans. I praise the Lord for what he has done to preserve his written word to all generations!

I don’t really expect a valid reply from KJVO defenders on these points, so no need to bother.

“The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.” -- Wallace Stevens

 

Umm, through the King James Bible? :eek: ;)

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle:Now you are lying.

Talking to yourself? Lemme recommend a good doctor...

You have been provided abundant scriptural proof, and you deny it, because you refuse to see the truth in them.

--------------------------------------------------

Please stop separating my writing to make it seem as though I said something I did not say. This is unacceptable to me, and if you continue to do this, I am not going to discuss this with you anymore. This is a form of trickery and in attempt to slander my character and my point.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
I believe the AV came out as GOD WILLED...and so did the NIV, NKJV, NASB,
--------------------------------------------------

Then you believe in a god of confusion and error, who cannot, nor does provide his words perfectly for you, and makes you run around like a chicken with your head cut off, trying to fit the pieces together with your own reasoning and logic. Sorry, I pass, because that is what leads to deception and doubt.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The question was asked to Michelle: “Do the rest of the billions of people in the world who do not read english have the word of God or is it only a priveledge for English speakers?”

Michelle: “I believe by faith that they do and have had and will be based upon the same greek and Hebrew texts, that our KJB is based upon, but this is all I know and cannot speak of things of this nature without having an understanding of the other languages, and the history of the word of God in those languages.

I had brought this up in a previous post, to which no KJVO defender has bothered to reply. The issue is a matter of fact, and has nothing to do with whether one understands a specific foreign language or not. Just assume the facts are correct, Michelle (I can assure you that they are) -- an answer can still be given:

(1) Coptic-speaking Christians in Egypt even to this day use only the Coptic version. That version has been of the Alexandrian type of text ever since the second century, and remains so today. Do the Egyptian Christians have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?

(2) Syriac-speaking Christians who continue to use the Peshitto have a NT canon that excludes 2Peter, 2Jn, 3Jn, Jude. Is their NT complete for them? Also, while the Gospels in the Syriac version are more strongly Byzantine, in the Acts and Epistles, “the Peshitta includes significant elements of other types.... about 30-40% of the whole” (Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism). With a truncated canon and a 40% non-Byzantine text in their Acts and Epistles, do today’s Syriac-speaking Christians have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?

(3) The Japanese people, since the introduction of Christianity, continually have had a translation in their mother tongue that was based exclusively on the Alexandrian type of text. They have never had a translation based on a TR or Byzantine type of text. Do today’s Japanese people have an “accurate translation in their mother tongue”?

Still waiting for a reply (good or otherwise).

 

Ziggy, your posts are totally groovy.
Roby- I appreciate very much your patience and bravery dealing with a most stubborn gal of "Preceptian" mentality, i.e. the assumption that the 1611/1769 English version is the only version today's English readers are allowed to use. A challenge to KJVO's: Go out on any given busy street and speak 17th Century English, I doubt you'd do this for you know how silly you'd sound. But you expect God to sound like this, don't you? :rolleyes: