KJV Preference, the Poll

The only thing brash and ignorant here is this statement. I am not ignorant of God's word in either the AV or any of the other translations. I do not have the KJV in any regard or way. I am not like those who attack the word of God.

I have done both reading and studying. I have not strained at a gnat (and that is not what Christ condemned anyway if you would follow your own advice and read and study the Bible).

If you read your Bible, that is not what it says. It does not say that they both went. The verse is question says either that "he went" or "she went." There is a way in Hebrew to say "both" or "he and she" or "they." None of those are used. To the contrary, it says "he" in Hebrew or "she" in some other translations. These are the simple facts.

We do not deny that the both went into the city. What we deny is changing the word of God.

Several outright problems. First, we are not permitted to choose from among the word of God to pick what are the really important words. Neither are you. Second, God has not been deleted from 1 Tim 3:16. You reveal yourself as one who has failed your own advice, to read and study the word of God (2 Tim 2:15). Anyone who can read can plainly see that God is being talked about in that passage. Anyone who can think can understand that "deletion" requires previous "presence." Theos was never there in the original writings. Therefore, it cannot have been deleted. Third, 2 Tim 3:16 is probably not the most clear teaching of deity in the NT. Titus 2:13 would be more explicit, as would Rom 9:5 (NIV). John 1 is probably the most explicit, but you deny even part of that one.

You need to grow in your understanding and put away these false notions that spring from lack of knowledge of God's word.

 

My KJB is 1769. Thanks Ed! I didn't know.

When we finish hashing out he/she; we can get back to, "Where did Cain get his wife?".

When we get to Heaven; do you really think these little squabbles will be important?

We will be so overawed by the presence of God, we will not care about any of the silly little questions we all say we are going to ask!

 

Not so. I love the KJB, it is my primary Bible.
However, I know it has weaknesses in its translation and differences between its publications.

Having said that, why is it when folks point out just one of these KJV weaknesses (e.g. "he", "she") it is "hatred" of God's infallible word, "gnat straining", "petty arguments", etc but when one the MV's weaknesses come to light it is "things which are different are not the same!"?

Why does "different" take on a "different" meaning for the KJVO folks when the KJV is involved?

Deuteronomy 25
13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

HankD

 

Ed, You're just having too much fun with this...

 

My king James Bible is the NKJV!
It is the only version of the Bible that I use.

 

I hope that was intended as sarcasum! You do realize with no perfect translation you have no perfect word of GOd right? And uh, if it ain't all of God, were does that leave you on your salvation and doctrine beleifs? IF it all ain't God's word {i.e. it contains the word of God} how can you discern which is which?
One of the biggest problems I've seen talking with folks about their stand of the Bible is that they ain't sure which one is.
I heard recently that there are around two hundred translations,paraphrases,and versions. They all claim to be God's word, but they all leav things out, add to em, or read diffrently. Now if that ain't confusion tell me what is!
Now you all know my stand on the Bible by now {if ya don't all ya gotta do is read my profile!} and not only do I take it in faith, I've been reading up on the history of teh Bible {from Bible times till now.} and the manuscript families my Bible came from. It's interesting to say the least, and if anything from reading the diffrent opinions I have to say if anything my stand on the KJB is strenghtened. The KJB 1611 was changed over the years for spelling and printing errors....not content! I am convinced beyond all that when I read my Blessed Old Book, that I am reading God's very preserved Word.
God promised to preserve it. Now my question is, do you have God's preserved Word? If you say no translation is, then you deny God's promise.
I've heard the argument that "Well the original copies {hebrew OT, and Greek NT} were, but we no longer have that." My answer is, that the KJB was translated to English, and it's still God's word. If I asked someone who only spoke spanish "What's your name?" of course he wouldn't understand me {as I can't understand a word of greek.} but if I said "Como te llamas?" I would still be asking him the same thing....and in his language. Still the same, but I just used a diffrent language. The KJB is God's word for the english folk because it was translated from a pure line of manuscripts from the originals.
Now I know this is a long post, and I'd just love to say more {ya'll know how I love talking!} but I'm tired and need to get ready for church. I think it will be interesting in the least to see were this thread will go!
~Miss Abby
Proverbs 31:30 KJB

 

"I heard recently that there are around two hundred translations,paraphrases,and versions."
Trust me there are a whole lot more. Think thousands.

 

The problem with your reasoning is that it implies Christians living before 1611 had no hope. Suppose you lived in 1605, before the KJV was published. Did you have a perfect translation? If so, the KJV was not only unnecessary, it was a corruption of that which was perfect. If you didn't have a perfect translation (as must be the case if the KJV is a perfect translation), where did "that leave you on your salvation and doctrine beliefs"?

Not at all. As the KJV translators said, "Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English...containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

More, praise God.

Don't confuse uncertainty over a few readings with confusion about Christian faith in general. According to KJV-only author Waite, the KJV was the 17th complete English translation, and 29th if you count only New Testaments. What is different about your "confusion" argument back then, except the size of the total number?

Please see the other thread, the one about the 1611 vs. newer KJVs.

Amen, me too.

I say YES! God's word is preserved in the range of translations, the range of manuscripts. That's how it was in 1605, and the verses that talk of preservation did not magically change meaning in 1611.

You are exactly right. Even the KJV translators said something to this effect. To continue the above quote, the next thing they said was "As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere." In other words, when translating the king's speech (the word of the king), it is still the word of the king even though not all translations of that speech are done equally well.

I think you're exaggerating quite a bit here. The line is not pure, there is variance within it just as within all textual lines. Even if there wasn't, the KJV is not a pure translation of that line, it has some variation itself.