God's word

[Pastor Larry]

Why, the modern versions use words that are either archaic or a word that only ET would recognize.

As a whole, this is a false statement. On occasion, you will see an older or unfamiliar word. But not as much as teh KJV. And the sentence structure of MVs is the sentence structure that we use today. The KJV is not. That is simply the way that it is.

You have never or you have never heard someone refer to a new born as "it?"

No ... I never have ... and if they did, it would be improper. Besides, teh Holy Spirit is not a new born. He is eternal.

Okay, I must have missed that, can you show me again.?

You have been shown passages in Scripture where the apostles quote from teh word of God that is not the KJV. You have been shown places where a version otehr than teh KJV is called the Scriptures. You have been shown reasons why the "KJV is the only perfect word" simply doesn't match up to Scripture. You did see it because you responded to it from time to time. This has been a constant theme. To paraphrase Hebrews 5, by this time you ought to be teaching, but you still have need for someone to teach you the basics. That is a sign of spiritual immaturity in the text, a sign of those who have not moved past the basics of truth.

Also, I really just don't understand how you can believe that there is more than one perfect Bible, especially when they all say something different.

Because I understand what "perfect" means. To use an analogy, the Bible talks about becoming a "perfect man." It does not mean that you will be like every other man. It means that you will be complete. The versions do not all say something different. They say the same thing using different words.

This is an important issue, if for no other reason, because it goes to the heart of our belief. When you try to force a Bible on someone that is not in the language they speak and use, you are consigning them to confusion. They don't need that. You run the risk of causing little ones to stumble. And you yourself become a false teacher because you teach someething that is not true. I too rejoice when the gospel is preached truly, but whoever preaches it. But that does not excuse bad doctrine in other areas. And that is what must be addressed.

 

[HankD]

I don't accept spelling, printing, textual corrections as a revision, so therefore all (as far as I know) have the same doctrine and meaning.

But HomeBound years ago when the KJVO came up with their "things different are not the same" mantra they seemed blissfully unaware of this fact concerning the differences among what is know as the various AV1611s on the market. As a matter of fact the differences between the “Alexandrian texts” are the same in quality as the differences between the KJV Editions except one can replace the phrase “printer error” with “scribal error”.

But what difference does the quantity or quality of the “errors” matter? God is not capable of one error no matter how small, no matter how insignificant in our eyes.
Unless, the AV1611 First edition to hit the street was not from God since it had errors (howbeit “printer errors, typeset errors, etc) which the translators attempted to correct over the years.

It would seem that God although He gave the AV originally by “second-inspiration”, was powerless to keep man from corrupting it. In addition the KJV translators began being “Bible-Correctors” in 1613 when they issued their first revision and continued on for 2 centuries later trying to help the Lord to get it right. Yes this is sarcasm but for a purpose for you to see the difficulty with your view.

Actually, the whole premise of the KJVO of “second-inspiration” and letter perfect preservation of jots and tittles is wrong as has been proven over and over again here and elsewhere.

The King James translators selected from various manuscripts and translations themselves those variants which they felt were the best. In fact in many cases they weren’t sure and put the alternatives in the margins of the AV and said so in the introduction “to the reader”.

I use a Old Scofield Study Bible which is 1769 I believe. However, I am going to get a Cambridge 1769 without any cross references.

Why is this important to you that there are no cross-references? The AV1611 First Edition had abundant cross-references, some of them referencing the heretical Apocrypha and vice-versa.
Are you saying the AV1611 First Edition was NOT “perfect”?

I do however believe in God's perfect word, which I believe to be found in the King James Bible.

Most if not all of us here believe the same thing except that we believe that the NKJV/NASB (for instance) as well as the KJV qualify for this description.

HomeBound here is one of the many differences between the First Edition of the AV and the revisions which followed:

AV1611 Ruth 3:15
Also he said, Bring the vail that [thou hast] upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six [measures] of barley, and laid [it] on her: and he went into the city.

AV1769 Ruth 3:15
Also he said, Bring the vail that [thou hast] upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six [measures] of barley, and laid [it] on her: and she went into the city.

So was it Boaz or Ruth who went into the city, apparently this has flip-flopped more than once. If we say that the KJV is “perfect” which one is it that is “perfect”?

Is God confused or has man bungled his responsibility to God to neither add nor take away from His Word? Which is the edition that honors God? When you answer this we can go on to another difference.

The reality HomeBound is that we ALL want to honor God’s Word in the way that our Soul Liberty as Baptists allows us.

This is not a tirade against the KJV or the translators of the same who meticulously refined their text the best way they knew how in order to keep the precept of freedom from additions/deletions in the text but my opinion against what I consider the foundational errors of KJVOism: second-inspiration, advanced revelation, etc.

HankD

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
As a whole, this is a false statement. On occasion, you will see an older or unfamiliar word. But not as much as teh KJV. And the sentence structure of MVs is the sentence structure that we use today. The KJV is not. That is simply the way that it is.

I always wondered why then do we not rewrite Shakespeare's writings. Why, because it would not be the same.

No ... I never have ... and if they did, it would be improper. Besides, teh Holy Spirit is not a new born. He is eternal.

You've never heard someone ask a mother-to-be, "do you know what it is?"

You have been shown passages in Scripture where the apostles quote from teh word of God that is not the KJV.

Of course they didn't the King James Bible was not written until 1611 and I'm sure the apostles were dead by then.

You have been shown places where a version otehr than teh KJV is called the Scriptures.

Pastor Larry, I don't know this so I will ask you. Do the modern versions use the same MSS as the KJB?

To paraphrase Hebrews 5, by this time you ought to be teaching, but you still have need for someone to teach you the basics. That is a sign of spiritual immaturity in the text, a sign of those who have not moved past the basics of truth.

You got that right, I'm always learning something new. I hope to never know it all. Why, pride.

Because I understand what "perfect" means. To use an analogy, the Bible talks about becoming a "perfect man." It does not mean that you will be like every other man. It means that you will be complete. The versions do not all say something different. They say the same thing using different words.

Though they may be similiar in some places, the modern versions cast doubt on God's word.

This is an important issue, if for no other reason, because it goes to the heart of our belief. When you try to force a Bible on someone that is not in the language they speak and use, you are consigning them to confusion.

I had this problem a couple of years ago, actually around September 2002. I learned very quickly that I could not force the King James Bible on anyone. I have learned to plant the seed and let the Holy Spirit do the watering.
For those who I may have tried to force the KJB on them, I do apologize, please forgive me for my Father in Heaven has already. Besides, I do not have enough knowledge to debate this subject the way it should be debated.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
As a whole, this is a false statement. On occasion, you will see an older or unfamiliar word. But not as much as teh KJV. And the sentence structure of MVs is the sentence structure that we use today. The KJV is not. That is simply the way that it is.

I always wondered why then do we not rewrite Shakespeare's writings. Why, because it would not be the same.
</font>[/QUOTE]That isn't a valid comparison. The KJV isn't the writings of God. It is a translation of texts derived from hand copies of the writings of God. These hand copies and texts went through numerous generations of copy and revision.

The KJV, like all translations and collated texts, is a rewriting of the Author's writings. These rewritings are so accurate that you can not point out a substantative difference between them even though they use different words to express the same original writing.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
You've never heard someone ask a mother-to-be, "do you know what it is?"

The only time it is proper to call a person an "it" is when the gender of a child is not known. In all other cases calling someone an "it" is offensive.

The gender of the Holy Spirit is known. He is a "He". It should be offensive to anyone who loves "Him" when "He" is called an "it".

BTW, I still use the KJV when teaching. But when I come across the passages that use "it" for the Holy Spirit, I read "He". If anyone ever confronts me for "changing the Bible", we may have a happening right there in church.

My Comforter IS NOT AN IT!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You have been shown passages in Scripture where the apostles quote from teh word of God that is not the KJV.

Of course they didn't the King James Bible was not written until 1611 and I'm sure the apostles were dead by then.
</font>[/QUOTE]I am sure that what Pastor Larry was saying is that you have been shown where the writers of the NT quoted from a version of the OT that is not the same as the one used by the KJV.

You evaded and obfuscated before... and might again. However, version of Isaiah Jesus read from at Luke 4:18 is not the same as the Isaiah 61 of the current KJV. That... is an irrefutable fact. Some say that He imported texts from another section of Isaiah but, if so, He did it in a very odd manner- breaking into a list to insert an item from a distant passage.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Though they may be similiar in some places, the modern versions cast doubt on God's word.

You have never... ever.... come close to proving this Homebound. Of course that isn't a cut on you.... no one of your persuasion has.

There are no missing doctrines. As opposed to creating doubt, the fact that different methods have been employed by a wide range of people in efforts to recreate the text and substance of the originals have yielded the exact same doctrines, revelations, and teachings provides affirmation for all faithful versions... to include the KJV.

The NASB and KJV aren't contradictory... they are complimentary.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
The gender of the Holy Spirit is known. He is a "He". It should be offensive to anyone who loves "Him" when "He" is called an "it".

So, Scott, are you saying that the bible, in Greek which God inspired, is offensive? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit insults Himself? If you will read the passage in question in Greek you will note the pronoun is neuter not masculine!

 

[Scott J]

I am also aware that the rules concerning pronouns in Greek are not the same as English. If I understand correctly, there is sometimes implied gender even when the form of the pronoun is neuter.

Otherwise, I suspect that a conspiracy developed among the earliest KJVO's and they went back and altered the Greek texts to agree with the KJV.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Of course I use the Holy Spirit, I did mention it didn't I.

The Holy Spirit is a "he," not an "it."</font>[/QUOTE]I understood Homebound to mean "I mentioned that fact, didn't I" and not to be referring to the Holy Spirit in the neuter, which, by the way, the Greek bible does.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
I always wondered why then do we not rewrite Shakespeare's writings. Why, because it would not be the same.

Why do you wonder about this? Shakespeare is not writing under inspiration from God. Shakespeare doesn't promise to have the message of eternal life that must be communicated. We do not find in Shakespeare everything necessary to equip us for every good work.

And most people who take the time to watch or read Shakespeare find it very difficult to read. To compare God's word to Shakespeare is inappropriate on so many different levels.

You've never heard someone ask a mother-to-be, "do you know what it is?"

No ... Which wasn't your statement anyway. You spoke of a "new born" where gender is not in question. Even for the unborn, the proper question (if you are so inclined to ask), is "Do you know what you are having?" or "Have you found out the sex of your baby?" It is a fine point, but a necessary one to be sure.

]Of course they didn't the King James Bible was not written until 1611 and I'm sure the apostles were dead by then.

Doesn't that show you that someething other than the KJV must be the word of God? Surely all those years weren't lived without the word of God.

Do the modern versions use the same MSS as the KJB?

No. Since the translation of the KJV, we have made many valuable manuscripts discoveries that have greatly increased our knowledge of God's word. It would be wrong not to take advantage of those manuscripts.

You got that right, I'm always learning something new. I hope to never know it all. Why, pride.

Which is not the point I was making. We are all always learning. But there comes a time when you need to get past the milk and move on to the meat. Unfortunately, with most of this discussion we are constantly stuck on the milk because people will not accept the truth. You should know this stuff by now. We should not have to be continually repeating it.

Though they may be similiar in some places, the modern versions cast doubt on God's word.

That is simply not true. YOu think they cast doubt because you do not understand the issues involved and the nature of translation and transmission of God's word fully. The word of God is clear. You have a mistaken impression of "perfect."

Besides, I do not have enough knowledge to debate this subject the way it should be debated.

But there is always time for learning. STudy the actual facts. You are, as of now, believing the wrong people. Those people have been soundly refuted many times in many different places. This is not new stuff. It simply needs to be understood.

 

[skanwmatos]

Just for honesty's sake, let's indicate the parts that are actually relevant to the issue.

Originally posted by HankD:
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.

(List of the accepted OT canon)

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

(The Apocrypha listed)

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

(The NT canon listed)

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Here's another fact for you. The NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV were not published with the Apocrypha at all.

Here is another fact. Your "fact" is not entire correct. The NIV is available with the Apocrypha, and the predecessor to the ESV, the RSV, was also available with the Apocrypha, and electronic versions of the Apocrypha are available for the NKJV and ESV as well.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Here's another fact for you. The NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV were not published with the Apocrypha at all.

Here is another fact. Your "fact" is not entire correct. The NIV is available with the Apocrypha, and the predecessor to the ESV, the RSV, was also available with the Apocrypha, and electronic versions of the Apocrypha are available for the NKJV and ESV as well. </font>[/QUOTE]Were they published with the Apocrypha? Was it an official part of the translation sitting between the OT and NT in the final product?

Yes, my "fact" is exactly correct. Zondervan and various other publishers will pretty much do anything to sell a book. I would be surprised if Lockman ever makes that compromise. However, the question is whether the intent of the producers of the translation was to have the Apocrypha included. With MV's, it was not. With the KJV, it was.

Being "available with" is a far cry from "including".

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by HankD:
God is not capable of one error no matter how small, no matter how insignificant in our eyes. Unless, the AV1611 First edition to hit the street was not from God since it had errors (howbeit “printer errors, typeset errors, etc) which the translators attempted to correct over the years.

I don't have a good answer of why there were these minor errors. All I know is that they were corrected/edited not revised. Just a thought though, just think if the printing back in 1611 was flawless. That would be the machine we would use today. Could you imagine using a printer/copy from 1611.? God's message was perfectly preserved in the King James Bible. Why we need another version, I'll never know.

Why is this important to you that there are no cross-references? The AV1611 First Edition had abundant cross-references, some of them referencing the heretical Apocrypha and vice-versa.

Cross references are good, don't get me wrong, but I hate the way Scofield likes to subsitute words and then says somethings about this not being in some MSS.

Are you saying the AV1611 First Edition was NOT “perfect”?

No, it is.

Most if not all of us here believe the same thing except that we believe that the NKJV/NASB (for instance) as well as the KJV qualify for this description.

[/qb]Okay, how do you narrow it down to the NKJV/NASB? Or any other version?

HomeBound here is one of the many differences between the First Edition of the AV and the revisions which followed:

Printing error that was corrected the next year.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
God's message was perfectly preserved in the King James Bible.

I agree

completely... as is the case with the NASB, NKJV, WEB, MKJV, and a few others.

Why we need another version, I'll never know.

1) Because of language changes that cause some people not to understand God's perfectly preserved message. This is especially dangerous when someone reads something in the KJV thinking they understand because the words are familiar while they in fact don't understand because the primary definitions have changed over the past 400 years.

2) Because a variety of translations are beneficial for understanding the true sense of scripture... thus saith the KJV translators themnselves.

 

[RaptureReady]

For all that are concerned about the KJB calling the Holy Spirit "it." The KJB says, "itself" just to clarify in Romans 8:16 and 26. Here is my response taken from Dr. Samuel Gipp's the Answer Book:

First, the word translated "itself" in Romans 8:26 is "pneuma" which means "spirit." (Since the "spirit" is like air (Genesis 1:7, John 3:8) we use the word "pneumatic" to describe things that are air operated.) In Greek every word has its own distinct gender, masculine, feminine or neuter. Masculine gender is denoted by the article "o," feminine by "a," and neuter by "to." The word for spirit, "pneuma" is neuter, a fact which is known to even first year Greek language students. Thus, the King James Bible correctly translates pneuma "itself" because it would be grammatically incorrect to translate it "himself" as many of today's inferior translations do.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Scott J:
[QBWere they published with the Apocrypha? Was it an official part of the translation sitting between the OT and NT in the final product?[/qb]

Who cares about the Apocrypha? The Apocrypha is placed in between the OT and NT for historical use only, NOT TO EVER BE CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I agree

completely... as is the case with the NASB, NKJV, WEB, MKJV, and a few others.

A few others? You mean not all the versions out there are God's word?

1) Because of language changes that cause some people not to understand God's perfectly preserved message.

According to 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Until you get saved, you won't understand God's word. That is one reason I believe for all the modern versions. Man wants to understand God's word without going through the blood of Jesus so they try and write God's word so they can understand it. They want another way that they can control.

This is especially dangerous when someone reads something in the KJV thinking they understand because the words are familiar while they in fact don't understand because the primary definitions have changed over the past 400 years.

That's why God tells us in 2 Timothy 2: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2) Because a variety of translations are beneficial for understanding the true sense of scripture... thus saith the KJV translators themnselves.

Actually I think the opposite. Because of all the variety of translations we have confusion and doubting of God's word.

 

[RaptureReady]

I think we've beat the horse to death don't you?