Challenge: Prove there are Errors in a King James Bible

[AVBunyan]

Now were're getting somewhere. This is the type of discussions I like.

I delved into Hebrew and Greek, looked at the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Vulgate, etc. and did lots of research. I am now very impassioned about understanding the Bible in its original languages.

OK – let’s keep it simple – After all of your studies and comparisons let me ask you three simple questions:
1. Do you have a FINAL authority? Yes or No
2. If yes then what is it?
3. If yes then can you put your hands on it? Yes or no

I literally have an arsenal of Bible Study books at my disposal on my bookshelf. I have a facimile version of the original KJV, a NIV, NASB, NKJV, a Strong's KJV concordance, a Zondervan NASB concordance, an Ancient-Hebrew Lexicon, Unger's Handbook, Survey of the New Testament, Survey of the Old Testament, Biblical Archaeology, Zondervan's New Testament Theology, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and many other scholarly works. I saturate myself with studies in the culture and language of the day of the Bible.

I ask the same three questions above again.

Some were great works of Scholarship and literalness: KJV, ESV, ASV, and RSV. And their updates in the NKJV and NASV. Others not so literal: NIV, Message Bible, Amplified Bible... yet nonetheless a translation to bring the life-giving Gospel to people in English!

Why the NASV but not the NIV? They all read the same – from the same set of corrupt manuscripts from Egypt by the heathen philosopher Origen.

I have never developed a wrong doctrine because of a mistranslation, if I ever developed a wrong doctrine it was because I failed to read God's word in entirety and context and was not consistent with my theology.

I cannot refute that – don’t know much about your views.

I have heard of Burgon before but the others I haven't. And its not that I'm not interested its that I have already looked in to this issue in great depth and don't necessarily have to appeal to those particular people to prove or debate a point.

You must acquaint yourself with their works if you are going to objectively study this vital issue. Right now you have an imbalance.

I I don't ever use the NIV for study - NASB would have been soooo much better

Again - Why the NASV but not the NIV? They all read the same – from the same set of corrupt manuscripts from Egypt by the heathen philosopher Origen.

May I be so bold as to offer advice?

1. Keep it simple.
2. Get it settled where the new versions came from – the motive for their existence – their subtle attacks on doctrines.
3. If God shows you #2 then your life and study becomes much more simplified.

I’m hesitant to do this so as not to call attention to myself for I'm less than dust on the balance (and I believe this). But in light of #3 – I’ve been blessed to have sat under and have been learning under who I feel is one of the finest teachers of the scriptures for over 24 years. During this stint I’ve been through our Bible Institute 3 times, once assisting in the teaching. I’ve been teaching Sunday School and Sunday PM Bible study session during this time only. Now, my point? I’ve never used any other translation to get clarification – never desired to. Don’t know Greek/Hebrew – no desire to. My tools are a King James Bible, a Webster’s 1828 dictionary, a good concordance and reliable commentators, and finally my preacher. Life is so simple. Am I a great Bible teacher? Of course not but I believe my teaching to be sound because I go by one book and trust God by his Spirit to give me what I need to know.

I thank the Lord for your youthful zeal and desire to study. But as long as you keep using those versions and have doubts about the King James your growth and knowledge will be stunted.

One can survive on McDonalds but – there is enough nutrition there to keep you alive but you will not be healthy.

BTW – though I do not agree with your father’s view on authority I praise the Lord for him being a Christian dad who wants the best for his son. My dad was a brave and great WWII Marine fighter pilot but…he died an alcoholic and lost.

God bless

 

[cyberjosh]

1. Do you have a FINAL authority? Yes or No
2. If yes then what is it?
3. If yes then can you put your hands on it? Yes or no

The final authority on what the meaning of Scripture is the understanding God gives me by guiding me by His Spirit into all truth. This doesn't mean all my views are right I still have my opinions as do all, but you said it yourself that you will trust God to give you correct understanding. God is my final authority and I supplement my Bible studies with prayer.

I ask the same three questions above again.

Same thing. But these are just tools for the understanding.

Why the NASV but not the NIV? They all read the same – from the same set of corrupt manuscripts from Egypt by the heathen philosopher Origen.

No, now see this is where (and I say this as nicely as possible) your bias/ignorance comes in. If you indeed do not read other versions then you admit to your ignorance of what it says, since you don't read it often if at all - this is an extrapolation from pure logic (if you don't read it then you can't know it). So don't make assumptions. The NASB is far more literal than the NIV and has a different line of transmission than the NIV. They may use some of the same manuscripts but the the NASB if decended from the KJV. KJV->RV->ASV>NASV (NASB). The NIV is an entirely new endeavor.

Plus you did not answer my main point which should dispell most of your "problems" with how I use the text: I read the NKJV and NASB for their update on verses that agree (with the KJV - meaning no difference in the source document reading for a verse) rather than for their different textual line. Please go back and respond to that part of my post. Thanks

I cannot refute that – don’t know much about your views.

Well then perhaps you can't then truthfully say that my life will be stinted if I don't regard the KJV as infallible. And if you wish to explore that then test me with a doctrine that you think is destroyed in newer versions and see what I think about it and if I can give a defense. Let's make this practical so we don't (even accidentaly) argue about issues that are really issues.

I will try to give you an honest example though of something not doctrinally huge but nonetheless a translation which I believe to be non-perfect the KJV in my next post.

I’ve never used any other translation to get clarification – never desired to. Don’t know Greek/Hebrew – no desire to. My tools are a King James Bible, a Webster’s 1828 dictionary, a good concordance and reliable commentators, and finally my preacher. Life is so simple. Am I a great Bible teacher? Of course not but I believe my teaching to be sound because I go by one book and trust God by his Spirit to give me what I need to know.

When you say "concordance" do you mean a Hebrew/Greek concordance? See I don't see why you would limit yourself to looking just at the KJV and not learn of the language it was translated from. In order to fully understand the KJV you'd think you would have to be like those who translated it in the first place: educated to the original languages. Just a thought. And nothing is wrong with reading the KJV. If we both read our different Bible versions (but then again I don't limit myself exclusively to one translation) if we both really studied we would come out with the same truth and conclusions about central doctrines (unless it become a matter of interpration - like OSAS and baptism of the Holy Spirit etc.)

P.S. I would just ask you to be patient and not shut me out. One man I spoke with over PM who was a KJV-onlyer got so mad at me and said I was being influenced by demons because I differed with him and he blocked all my posts to him. Ignorance and anger are not good bed fellows. You'll only see my openness to ideas, not limiting myself. So please reason with me. And for the record you haven't diectly answered my posts about why you believe the KJV to be infallible, I I tried to deal with the inspiration issue but you didn't reply.

 

[cyberjosh]

There was one example I wanted to go over, if you don’t mind, of a place where I believe the KJV has an incorrect translation and I’d like your feedback on it. I will try to be reasonable with all the translations I reference though (mainly the NASB and NIV). I’ve done much study on this verse and even discussed this with a real Hebrew scholar, Jeff Benner (from ancient-hebrew.org).

The verse in question is Leviticus 17:7 and in the KJV it reads, “And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.â€Â

Now, to be fair neither the KJV, NASB, or NIV translate it literally, though I believe the NASB and NIV have better readings on that specific verse. The word behind the bolded text is se’irim and literally means “goatsâ€Â, and it translated as such many times in the OT. The KJV translates this word according to what they believe was the word’s meaning. It is possible since the word is plural, ending in “-im†like (elohim & seraphim), and since it is in the context of worshiping/sacrificing that they took it to refer to false gods or spirits (devils) that they were sacrificing to.

The NASB is the first to pick up a more literal reading by translating it, “"And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat-demons with which they play the harlot.†The NASB picks up on the literal aspect of goats but keeps the demons/devils reading to add an elaboration on meaning like the KJV does. But in this literal sense this conjures up a strange picture: what kind of actual spiritual entity can be referred to as a goat (because demons are real)? In other places in the KJV it writes “satyrs†for goats which conjures up a strange image by the way because “satyr†borrows from Greek mythology of a half-man half-goat spirit, while the Bible does not seek to acknowledge the existence of such creatures, instead calling them false gods and “nothingsâ€Â. Even the NASB makes this questionable translation of “satyrs†in one place. But the intent is obvious in the translation to portray these strange goats as an item of worship. But what is the real meaning of this word in context?

Strangely enough the NIV has the best reading as far as meaning goes in context (and that almost never happens!). The NIV says, “They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves.†This makes the most contextual sense, as I discussed with Jeff Benner (and he even changed his lexicon entry on this word because of it!), and it is clear this is the meaning in other references of se’irim being made and torn down, referring to idols (2 Chronicles 11:15).

Now looking back at the KJV you could have never surmised in that passage that God was condemning the practice of sacrificing unto goat idols, while you might have gotten the impression that they were sacrificing to spirits (although doctrinally sound, but not what it says).

That’s why I emphasize not only looking at multiple versions but also lexicons and such that tell you the literal meaning of a word so that you can do a proper Bible study. The KJV translators knew the literal meaning of the word but also knew that somethings are just hard to convey in English. Actually in my opinion it would be much better to just learn Hebrew and Greek and buy a book that prints the Bible in the original languages thus avoiding these translation problems at all.


P.S Please honestly consider this example. I hope at the very least you see where the root of my concern comes from. You've been trying to show me where your concern lies, because you don't want me to read a version that has an incorrect reading, and here I am having the same concern for you. Our feelings are mutual on this but we are just approaching from different ends. So let's cooperate and discuss this like friends concerned for one another. And hey if it makes you feel better I'll find a KJV reading that is better than the NASB and NIV readings and explain my reasoning also. Too much is at stake with God's word to not be absolutely certain you really understand. So I am not ignorant to the principles of translations and how problems can arise occasionally.

 

[AVBunyan]

So please reason with me. And for the record you haven't diectly answered my posts about why you believe the KJV to be infallible, I I tried to deal with the inspiration issue but you didn't reply.

Because no one yet has ever proven any translational error in a King James Bible to me and others yet.

God bless

 

[Solo]

Because no one yet has ever proven any translational error in a King James Bible to me and others yet.

God bless

In my 23 years as a Christian I have always read the KJV, even after having been given RSV, and other versions. I bought a Thompson Chain reference Study NIV once upon the time, but after reading that dear book of errors, I threw it in the trash and went back to the KJV.

Your research and posts at this forum have backed up the little research that I have done and more. Thanks for the effort that you have given in giving us the truth concerning the modern versions.

Westcott and Hort did more to influence me against the modern versions than anyones attempt to portray the KJV in a dark light.

Thanks again and may God bless you with healing.
Michael

 

[cyberjosh]

Because no one yet has ever proven any translational error in a King James Bible to me and others yet.

Alright well could you look at my example in Leviticus and tell me what you think? I just want to know where you stand. I presented that as honestly and sincerely as I know how.

And if you read my post all the way through you will see that I encouraged practical examples so we aren't fighting a ghost that isn't really there. It would also help if you answered my question about a request for clarification on what you mean by "concordance". Thanks.

Westcott and Hort did more to influence me against the modern versions than anyones attempt to portray the KJV in a dark light.

Who said anything about portraying the KJV in a dark light? The KJV is a great Bible! I just don't think its perfect, nor any other translation we have.

And for the record I don't support all the Alexandrian readings only those which by any means (even in Chruch Father quotes) cannot be found early enough. So I do disagree with some of the outtakes, though luckily the NASB just brackets them yet leaves them in.

This sinister Bible version conspiracy stuff really irks me sometimes. And atleast on the passages that don't have outtakes or additions, be willing to read a different wording in another version, sometimes it can be more clear and sometimes more correct. I tried to give an example in Leviticus if anyone would like to see where I'm coming from.

I presented a reasonable approach, I expect at least a courteous reasonable answer. Please.

 

[AVBunyan]

Alright well could you look at my example in Leviticus and tell me what you think? I just want to know where you stand. I presented that as honestly and sincerely as I know how.

Josh – If you look at the Greek I’d bet you find different words to describe the word devils. Just like if you studied the English word money in the English one will find different colorings of the word. When I study a word I go to Webster’s to get the definitions of the word but the AV stands.

Here in the Greek there maybe different shades – the Lord had the AV translators use devils for the word devils sums it up. If one is worshiping goats he is worshiping the devils tools which in turn means he is worshiping devils.

My concordance is the one I use with the old Qucikverse bible software 3.0 - I use it to do searches.

I do not use Greek/Hebrew concordances. If Quickverse were not available then I'd use a Strong's or Young's or both. I use them to search words not to define words.

As long as you keep referring to the Greek/Hebrew your studies will dry up on the vine and never get anything settled. Stick with an AV, an English Dictionary, a good English concordance, prayer and labor.

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

1. In my 23 years as a Christian I have always read the KJV, even after having been given RSV, and other versions. I bought a Thompson Chain reference Study NIV once upon the time, but after reading that dear book of errors, I threw it in the trash and went back to the KJV.

2. Your research and posts at this forum have backed up the little research that I have done and more. Thanks for the effort that you have given in giving us the truth concerning the modern versions.

3. Westcott and Hort did more to influence me against the modern versions than anyones attempt to portray the KJV in a dark light.

4. Thanks again and may God bless you with healing.
Michael

1. Praise the Lord for you open-mindedness and courage.

2. You are most gracious brother and I am humbled - thank you kindly.

3. Amen - you are exactly right - good preaching!

4. No, thank you for you!

God bless

 

[Vic C.]

My concordance is the one I use with the old Qucikverse bible software 3.0 - I use it to do searches.

I use my QV 3.0 to death. I "love" it. 8-) I picked it up at Staples about 12 years ago for a whopping $4.99. Priceless!

 

[cyberjosh]

Josh – If you look at the Greek I’d bet you find different words to describe the word devils. Just like if you studied the English word money in the English one will find different colorings of the word. When I study a word I go to Webster’s to get the definitions of the word but the AV stands.

Here in the Greek there maybe different shades – the Lord had the AV translators use devils for the word devils sums it up. If one is worshiping goats he is worshiping the devils tools which in turn means he is worshiping devils.

My concordance is the one I use with the old Qucikverse bible software 3.0 - I use it to do searches.

I do not use Greek/Hebrew concordances. If Quickverse were not available then I'd use a Strong's or Young's or both. I use them to search words not to define words.

As long as you keep referring to the Greek/Hebrew your studies will dry up on the vine and never get anything settled. Stick with an AV, an English Dictionary, a good English concordance, prayer and labor.

First of all thank you for replying.

Second, a minor detail, but the word is in the Old Testament and is Hebrew, not Greek.

Third, I'm sorry to say it but that's not very satisfactory. Perhaps the reason that you have never seen the KJV disproved is because you don't look into things like this. I myself wrote that the translation would be doctrinally sound (because the NT says when you sacrifice to idols you sacrifice unto devils) but that is not what the text literally says in Leviticus 17:7 and you would get the wrong impression of what God was speaking about. I could try to pull a similar stunt with the NASB and say "Well they just used a different shade, and summed it up, even though that's not what the text says." Do you see where I'm coming from here?

I got the following from the KJV with Strong's references website, so you can click on the word devils yourself in the verse. Here is what the entry says:

AV - kid 28, goat 24, devil 2, satyr 2, hairy 2, rough 1; 59

adj
1) hairy

n m
2) he-goat, buck
2a) as sacrificial animal
2b) satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of
Gadara ( Mt 8:30-32 )

All the entries seem plausible except the last one. A demon possessed goat? The Israelites worshiped demon possessed goats? Should this be new information we should preach in sermons and such? Maybe they worshiped a goat idol but are we going to say demon possessed goats were common in the 2nd Millenium B.C? I think this is merely to excuse the reading of "devils" & "satyr", which is only translated such twice.

You do know where the reading came from don't you? The Septuagint, the LXX, instead of writing "goat" translated it daemon (demon - only one meaning) in its Greek text. You can look it up yourself on google. It wouldn't be the first time that the LXX (Greek version of the Old Testament) translated poorly from the Hebrew. So the KJV translators there took a Greek reading instead of the original Hebrew (how do they justify that?). The "satyr" reading is similar, it is a Greek replacement of the original Hebrew in a Greek document, thus it would make sense that it borrows on Greek mythology.

So actually that lexicon entry is trying to reconcile the Greek word daemon with the Hebrew word se'irim (a goat, a kid) unjustifiably, not even from the same language much less the same meaning. What is your opinion of translators jumping between the Hebrew reading in the Old Testament to a Greek reading of a translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) arbitrarily? Now if you want to talk about corrupt texts I can show you how corrupt the LXX is in places.


P.S. I use QuickVerse also. It's a great tool. I also the Libronix digital Library which has various Bibles, Vine's Expository, Matthew Henry's Commentary, a Bible Dictionary, and a whole slew of other Bible study tools.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[AVBunyan]

First of all thank you for replying.

You are welcome Josh.

This thread and all the responses proves my OP - one cannot take a King James Bible by itself and prove a translation error.

God bless

 

[cyberjosh]

This thread and all the responses proves my OP - one cannot take a King James Bible by itself and prove a translation error.

I'm sorry if I have taken this off the original purpose for the thread. For that specific reason I will stop with our current discussion since it is not in bounds of the topical constraints. But if you are not afriad to take up the challenge I would be most pleased if you would PM me a reasonable defense for the position of the KJV's upstanding in translation.

In the mean time I will try to find something more relevant to the OP to present. Thanks for your time.

~Josh

 

[AVBunyan]

I'm sorry if I have taken this off the original purpose for the thread. ~Josh

Hi Josh –
I understand I can be difficult. And I do believe you are sincere and that is the main reason I continue though I am not able to go into the depth you desire.

May I respectfully suggest Dr. Peter S. Ruckman’s “The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship†– this can be purchased at Bible Baptist Bookstore, Pensacola Fla. This book is heavy and will provide enough to chew on. Please pay special attention to the second chapter where Dr. Ruckman sites just a few of his resources. And when these panty-waist AV correctors who say Dr. Ruckman say he doesn’t know what he is talking about then I laugh at their ignorance. These folks (AV & Dr. Ruckman haters) have got lace on their britches and need to grow up. Now with that being said….

Josh there are basically two ways one will go to correct a King James Bible:

1. Go to the Egyptian manuscripts (Vaticanus/Siniaticus, etc. family) or go to the modern versions which are based upon these corrupt texts. And if these are your sources then you will definitely find differences between the AV and these texts or versions. But consider the source – Egypt and Origen. Many a smarter man than me rejects such corrupt sources.

2. Go to the Textus Receptus (the basis for the AV) to look for differences and guess what – you may find them there. Why? Simple – once one goes to the Greek you will find that one can play with Greek and make it say whatever needs to be said.. Just like looking up “devilsâ€Â, “moneyâ€Â, etc. And yes, even Textus Receptus texts will disagree.

Summary of points 1 & 2 – Once you start going to the Greek then anything goes, “At Burger King you can it Your Way!â€Â

Conclusion:
My view – One has to trust that back in 1604-1611 (AV translation) that when the 56 or so AV translators sat down with all available manuscripts and tools that God providentially had them put down exactly what he wanted them to put down and I have it today in a common King James Bible. Bottom line – you have to trust God. Most AV correctors today think they can do better than those poor ole’ King James Translators who just couldn’t get the job done (excuse sarcasm). BTW – just study the AV translators' credentials. Those translators would walk right past the present day “scholars†looking for a real scholar!

Finally – earlier I ask you what your final authority was and you answered God. Of course God is but how do you know what God says? Do you have his exact words or are they scattered about amidst lexicons, modern versions, Dead Sea Scrolls, professors’ opinions, personal opinions, etc. We in our circle call this the “Mystical Bibleâ€Â.

Josh, you appear to have a keen mind – don’t waste it on the scholarship of this present AV correcting world. We may never see eye to eye here for I believe you (at this present time) have become to entrenched with scholarship – I say this out of love and concern.

God bless 8-)

 

[cyberjosh]

I understand I can be difficult. And I do believe you are sincere and that is the main reason I continue though I am not able to go into the depth you desire.

Thank you for continuing with me then because you judged correctly, I am very sincere.

May I respectfully suggest Dr. Peter S. Ruckman’s “The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship†– this can be purchased at Bible Baptist Bookstore, Pensacola Fla. This book is heavy and will provide enough to chew on. Please pay special attention to the second chapter where Dr. Ruckman sites just a few of his resources. And when these panty-waist AV correctors who say Dr. Ruckman say he doesn’t know what he is talking about then I laugh at their ignorance. These folks (AV & Dr. Ruckman haters) have got lace on their britches and need to grow up. Now with that being said….

I will look up on Dr. Ruckman but I can't guarantee I'll buy the book (I have too many already ). If I have time I might review some of his points and post my thoughts on them in your PM. But as a compromise I would kindly request you, in the area that you are lacking the knowledge to go into depth with me (as you said), that you would try learning a little Hebrew so that you can give an adequate defense of the KJV for such verses as the one that says "thick clay" and "devils" when the Hebrew word means something different. The knowledge couldn't hurt you and perhaps you might figure out why the KJV people chose not to render it literally.

2. Go to the Textus Receptus (the basis for the AV) to look for differences and guess what – you may find them there. Why? Simple – once one goes to the Greek you will find that one can play with Greek and make it say whatever needs to be said.. Just like looking up “devilsâ€Â, “moneyâ€Â, etc. And yes, even Textus Receptus texts will disagree.

Alright, well on that note what do you think of the NKJV? It is based on the Textus Receptus and does not use the Majority or Alexandrian readings (it only notes those readings in the margins to show where it differs from the TR - which doesn't count). The NKJV also makes simple updates such as "thick clay" to "pledges", but uses the same text the KJV does, and unfortunately (IMO) it also keeps the "devils" reading in Leviticus 17:7 though that is a bad Greek translation of "goats". At any rate I read my NKJV more than my NASB because it is a bit more conservative but has updated scholarship like the NASB.

Summary of points 1 & 2 – Once you start going to the Greek then anything goes, “At Burger King you can it Your Way!â€Â

Sorry, but wrong. Some people might try that but not me and other people who seriously learn the Hebrew language (see my comment on lexicons below), and it is obvious that context dictates the translation of a word, since a hebrew word can be translated into several English words. Who would have thought that the Hebrew word "halel" (as in Haleluyah) can be translated "praise" (in the Psalms) and "the North Star" (in Job) and yet have the same basic meaning: to look at something majestic for guidance (or the object looked at), like the North Star is used for a referene to guide someone's journey and praise in essence is looking to God and directing your life accordingly.

Conclusion:

My view – One has to trust that back in 1604-1611 (AV translation) that when the 56 or so AV translators sat down with all available manuscripts and tools that God providentially had them put down exactly what he wanted them to put down and I have it today in a common King James Bible. Bottom line – you have to trust God. Most AV correctors today think they can do better than those poor ole’ King James Translators who just couldn’t get the job done (excuse sarcasm). BTW – just study the AV translators' credentials. Those translators would walk right past the present day “scholars†looking for a real scholar!

Well this is where we may kindly differ, and may just have to agree to disagree but we nowhere have been given a gurantee by God that He providentially guided them to write those things down in the KJV. That's trying to add extra-biblical authority to a group of men, and assuming God did something without any proof or statement that God did so. And also they used/borrowed alot of readings William Tyndale's beautiful translation that brought us a long list of memorable phrases like "filthy lucre", "a man after his own heart", "signs of the times", etc. etc. Actually without some of those early translators such as Wycliffe and Tyndale and their sacrificial martyrdom we wouldn't even have a KJV because the Bible would never have made it into English under the Catholic Church's thumb. We ought to be grateful for even translations such as Wycliffe's, who was the first to translate the Bible into English (as far as I know).

Finally – earlier I ask you what your final authority was and you answered God. Of course God is but how do you know what God says? Do you have his exact words or are they scattered about amidst lexicons, modern versions, Dead Sea Scrolls, professors’ opinions, personal opinions, etc. We in our circle call this the “Mystical Bibleâ€Â.

The lexicons (like Strong's) merely help me see where the translators got their reasoning from and I being a human like them can either agree or disagree. I would love to have a conversation with any still-living translator of the Bible so that I could ask them for an adequate defense on a reading that I differed with them on.

Josh, you appear to have a keen mind – don’t waste it on the scholarship of this present AV correcting world. We may never see eye to eye here for I believe you (at this present time) have become to entrenched with scholarship – I say this out of love and concern.

Trust me, it's not wasted. Just as it wasn't wasted on Erasmus, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, or any other great theologian and translator, and I use my studies to glorify God and shoot down the lies of the enemy and confusion about God's word. I am a Bible warrior and will be strong in my defense of it. And no I am not bogged down with scholarship, thanks to my Dad warning me many years ago about getting too deep into scholarship lest I forget what is really important. I have spent a good year or so going into incredible depth with my studies a year or so ago to satisfy some of my most nagging questions about translation, and now I can sit back and just read the Bible for what it says and know what "shades of meaning," as you said, are behind words as I read God's wonderful love letter.

And I probably haven't done a good in-depth language research project in about a year and have been trying to improve my theology. In fact, just the other day, I even told my friend Jeff Benner (the Hebrew scholar I used to work with online) that I was sorry but that I thought theology more important than continuing my Hebrew studies at the present time, though I always reference Strong's Concordance for quick open-close questions. I am well founded on my faith and am not ignorant to God's word in the original languages. But I don't forget what's important and I use the Bible practically for apologetics and "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousnes" (2 Tim. 3:16).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[AVBunyan]

Alright, well on that note what do you think of the NKJV? It is based on the Textus Receptus and does not use the Majority or Alexandrian readings (it only notes those readings in the margins to show where it differs from the TR - which doesn't count).~Josh

You need to read more closely Josh. Yes - the NKJV is based upon the TR but where it strays the corrupt readings agree with the Alexandrian texts because that's where it goes to when it strays.

So, when you are reading a NKJV you are reading a version tainted with Egyptian readings - a lot of Egyptian readings. There is just enough of the scriptures in there to pull off the deception.

Regarding the AV translators being providentially led by God I quote:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: and...

What they produced bore great fruit everywhere it (AV1611) went.

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

The fruits of the modern versions? (Generally speaking - exceptions prove the rule.)
Confusion
Doctrinally ignorant saints
Worldly saints
Carnal saints and...
Saints that cannot even tell you doctrinally what took place at Calvary

God bless

 

[cyberjosh]

Ok, thank you for answering one of my points, but that post took me 20 minutes to compile. Could you spend a little more time answering each point? I mean the reason I take the time is because I want to communicate with you. But I don't mean to rush you if you are busy right now. Just when you have the time. Quoting each point like I do yours would help greatly.

I'd especially like to hear your feedback on my proposed compromise with you. Also of special interest to me are the translators (Tyndale, Luther, Wycliffe) I mentioned, so I'd like to know your thoughts on them. You said the KJV brought about much fruit, that is is because it was the most widely accepted and popularized one in English and enjoyed the longest span of time for a translation to survive in English. But the earlier translations like I said brought about revival (good fruit) because of the martyrdom of those saints. So I respect them. Also the Pilgrim's used the Geneva Bible, but ripped out the Apocrypha. So our founding Fathers were blessed by the Geneva Bible also. Let's not forget that. And I feel privilaged to have in my possession an original 1650 reprint page/leaflet of the KJV (over 350 years old) and an even earlier copy (over 356 years old) of a Geneva Bible page.

I hope you can respond to my sincere inquiries. Thanks.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Bick]

Errors in King James Bible

Hi Bunyan. You say, as I recall, that we are not to compare the KJV words with the literal meanings in the Textus Receptus. I wonder why?

But for now, I will stick with just the English.

Gen. 49:26; Deut. 33:15; and Hab. 3:6, among others, speak of "the everlasting hills."

NOW, contrast this with:
Isa. 40:4 "..every mountain and hill will be made low.."
54:10 "For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed.."
Matt.24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass
away."
2 Pet. 3:10 "..the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

NOTE: It is obvious the mountains and hills are not "everlasting", are not "eternal", for the present heaven and earth will pass away. "Everlasting" is a mistake. The meaning is "age-lasting", or "for the ages."

This is also true in many other places such as: "..be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors (Psa 24:7); "..shall surely be an everlasting priesthood" (Exod. 40:15); etc.

Let's look at Luke 1:33, "..and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

IF HIS KINGDOM IS TO REIGN FOREVER THAN PAUL IS WRONG:
For he tells us in 1 Cor. 15:24ff "Then (cometh) the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet."

Christ's reign is not "for ever", but only until all enemies have been subdued to him; and then He will be subject unto the Father.

All for now. Bick

 

[AVBunyan]

Re: Errors in King James Bible

Let's look at Luke 1:33, "..and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

Christ's reign is not "for ever", but only until all enemies have been subdued to him; and then He will be subject unto the Father.

All for now. Bick

The issue of Luke 1:33 is the kingdom - not Christ reigning.

The kingdom goes on.

 

[cyberjosh]

AV, I would like hear your reply to our previous line of discussion above, but in the mean time I have something relevant to the OP within the topical constraints (of trying to show errors in the KJV with the KJV). I would like to know your answer to the inquiries below.

How do you explain the differences (and I realize that I'm walking on a slippery slope because all versions have this) in the form of these verses in the OT with their form as quoted in the NT? :


Mark 1:3 "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

Isaiah 40:3 "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

------------------------------
Isaiah 6:10 "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."

Matthew 13:15 "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

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

Isaiah 65:1 "I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said."

Rom 10:20 "But Esaias is very bold, and saith, 'I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.'"

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

Psalms 40:6 "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required."


Hebrews 10:5-6 "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, 'Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.'"


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

If you can satisfactorily answer these inquiries as to the differences I would be pleased because this has puzzled me many time because it is like this in all other versions as well. But if the KJV is the final authority then what do you make of the differences? How do you explain them?

A whole list of such differences can be found: here.

P.S. But aside from that I really would like to continue our discussion above. Like I said it took me about 20 minutes to compile it and I would appreciate it if you could quote and respond to each point.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[AVBunyan]

If you can satisfactorily answer these inquiries as to the differences I would be pleased because this has puzzled me many time because it is like this in all other versions as well. But if the KJV is the final authority then what do you make of the differences? How do you explain them?

Josh - just not sure but I believe them all to be right.
1. Nowhere are we told the NT writer has to quote word for word.

2. Nowhere does it say the NT writers cannot paraphrase - God could allow for this - it his word. Jesus often doesn't quote all the passage.

3. Oftentimes the NT verse adds details.

God bless