Problems with the AV1611 - try studying for yourself

[AVBunyan]

It seems many folks here and most the forums and in reality most of "christianity" today seem to have a big problem with the AV1611 bible.

Most of what they've heard about the AV1611 and all of it's "problems is actually that - they "heard" it - most have never really studied the issue - they have just taken people's word on the matter and never really studied for themselves.

It doesn't take a genius to figure this issue out - just takes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, some time, some resources and finally, a sincere desire to know truth. If you go at it with the above prerequisites then I believe God is honor bound to reveal the truth to you.

Now you don't have to look at the links below (and most will not) but if you are serious about getting the issue setted then within those links and other links within those links is enough material to shed light on the subject.

Try turning off the football games, your TV, put down you USA Today and other magazines, turn down your ungodly christian rock music, and get serious with some study for a change and quit living on somebody elses predigested food - chew some for yourselves.

Now - if you go through these links with any prejudices and still come out believing the modern versions are superior to the book God has been using for the past 400 years to save souls and bring revival then I can only come to the following conclusions:

1. You don't want to know truth.
2. You don't know how to study (I can understand this one, there is grace here)
3. You like being part of the unseparated world and feel comfortable amidst their company and are afraid to go outside the camp bearing Christ's approach. Interpetation? No guts.
4. Finally you could be lost and just can't see truth.

I trust some will do the research and if you do may God bless your studies.
And for those of you who will say - "I've heard all that stuff before." - then review the above 4 points again.

I can't give you the Holy Spirit, the time, nor the desire but I can provide some resources. the accountablility now rests with you. What will you do with it?

The page below has enough links to keep you busy if you are serious. This way I don't have to wear out my arm writing responding to the same old, worn-out questioins and issues. :roll:

http://av1611bible.com/links/av1611.htm

 

[Cure of Ars]

"AV = Authorized Version. 1611 = the year the AV was originally published."

Who has the authority to officially "authorize" a bible translation?

 

[AVBunyan]

Answer provided

"AV = Authorized Version. 1611 = the year the AV was originally published."

Who has the authority to officially "authorize" a bible translation?

Somewhere in the links page (I can't remember) you question is answered. The term "AV" was never put on the King James bible in 1611 - it just became attached to the King James after a while. Wasn't a King James I mandate.

Because of the vast use of the King James Bible it became the "AV" after time and lots of use.

I wouldn't trust anyone today to mess with the book and come up with a newer KJV - Why would God pick the most fleshly, ignorant, carnal, and worldly generation ever to "update" his word? :o

 

[Cure of Ars]

Re: Answer provided

Because of the vast use of the King James Bible it became the "AV" after time and lots of use.

It's interesting that you point to tradition. Why is a man made tradition started in 1611 binding?

 

[santamarana]

It seems many folks here and most the forums and in reality most of "christianity" today seem to have a big problem with the AV1611 bible.

Most of what they've heard about the AV1611 and all of it's "problems is actually that - they "heard" it - most have never really studied the issue - they have just taken people's word on the matter and never really studied for themselves.

It doesn't take a genius to figure this issue out - just takes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, some time, some resources and finally, a sincere desire to know truth. If you go at it with the above prerequisites then I believe God is honor bound to reveal the truth to you.

Now you don't have to look at the links below (and most will not) but if you are serious about getting the issue setted then within those links and other links within those links is enough material to shed light on the subject.

Try turning off the football games, your TV, put down you USA Today and other magazines, turn down your ungodly christian rock music, and get serious with some study for a change and quit living on somebody elses predigested food - chew some for yourselves.

Now - if you go through these links with any prejudices and still come out believing the modern versions are superior to the book God has been using for the past 400 years to save souls and bring revival then I can only come to the following conclusions:

1. You don't want to know truth.
2. You don't know how to study (I can understand this one, there is grace here)
3. You like being part of the unseparated world and feel comfortable amidst their company and are afraid to go outside the camp bearing Christ's approach. Interpetation? No guts.
4. Finally you could be lost and just can't see truth.

I trust some will do the research and if you do may God bless your studies.
And for those of you who will say - "I've heard all that stuff before." - then review the above 4 points again.

I can't give you the Holy Spirit, the time, nor the desire but I can provide some resources. the accountablility now rests with you. What will you do with it?

The page below has enough links to keep you busy if you are serious. This way I don't have to wear out my arm writing responding to the same old, worn-out questioins and issues. :roll:

http://av1611bible.com/links/av1611.htm

I don't have a problem with the 1611 except that it is OUTDATED!

Do you want to read from a book that most people WILL NOT understand?

If you want to talk about going to the original source lets go back to these translations!
The Septuagint

The Peshitta

The Vulgate

The Venerable Bede

Geneva Bible

KJV 1569

I am holding a reproduction of the original 1611 in my lap as I type this. I was going over a section in the beginning of this Bible which was written by the actual KJV translators to the reader of the KJV. (This is NOT the "Epistle Dedicatory to King James", but rather an introduction to every reader of the 1611 King James Version.) This introduction is missing in every modern KJV I have ever seen or owned. Remember, I am quoting from an ORIGINAL 1611. The style of English is quite different than what we use today - or even what we find in the KJV Bibles now in use - but I'm sure you will understand.




For the very Historicall trueth is, that vpon the importunate petitions of the Puritanes, at his Maiesties comming to this Crowne, the Conference at Hampton Court hauing bene appointed for hearing their complaints : when by force of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion booke, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although this was iudged to be but a very poore and emptie shift; yet euen hereupon did his Maiestie beginne to bethinke himselfe of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gaue order for this Translation which is now presented vnto thee. Thus much to satisfie our scrupulous Brethren.

Now to the later we answere: that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee haue seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee vttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Translator with the like grace, nor peraduenture so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sense, euery where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verum vbi multi nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counter a vertuous man, though hee haue made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and louely, though hee haue some warts vpon his hand, yea, not onely freakles vpon his face, but also skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what euer was perfect vnder the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priuiledged with the priuiledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?




Take in very carefully what you have just read. The King James translators believed that even the meanest [most inferior] translations of the Bible in English at that time, in their opinion, not only contained the word of God, but actually WERE the word of God. They also stated their belief that no translation of the Bible, regardless of textual "imperfections and blemishes" should be denied to be the word of God. Furthermore, they believed that the word of God should not be forbidden to be translated in the "currant," or current language used in its present-day. They also make no claim that their King James Version was a perfect translation.

(Note also that the many of the Pilgrims (Puritans) that landed at Plymouth Rock did not accept the 1611 KJV as authentic. This was one of the reasons they left England in the first place!)



Chick Comics' take on this is wonderfully paranoid


The translators go on to support the translation of Scripture into the "vulgar," or tongue of the common people:



Now through the Church were thus furnished with Greeke and Latine Translations, euen before the faith of CHRIST was generally embraced in the Empire : (for the learned know that even in S. Hieroms time, the Consul of Rome and his wife were both Ethnicks, and about the same time the greatest part of the Senate also) yet for all that the godly-learned were not content to haue the Scriptures in the Language which themselues vnderstood, Greeke and Latine, (as the good Lepers were not content to fare well themselues, but acquainted their neighbours with the store that God had sent, that they also might prouide for themselues) but also for the behoofe and edifying of the vnlearned which hungered and thirsted after Righteousnesse, and had soules to be saued as well as they, they prouided Translations into the vulgar for their Countreymen, insomuch that most nations vnder heauen did shortly after their conuersion, heare CHRIST speaking vnto them in their mother tongue, not by the voyce of their Minister onely, but also by the written word translated.



Quite a different view of the translators of the KJV than some would have us believe. They would have to brand the translators of their own beloved KJV as heretics and modernists for even suggesting that (a) the KJV is anything less than perfect, (b) even poor translations of the Bible contain the essential word of God, and (c) that the words of Scripture should be translated into (God forbid!) the common understandable language of the people.

From:
http://www.locksley.com/6696/kjv1611.htm
________________________________________________________________


Surely God did not sternly warn against adding to or taking away from His Word, while knowing it would never happen. Of course it has happened. But the immature absolutely refuse to believe it. They argue God is able to preserve His Word without error. And surely He is able, but that does not detract from the fact that men have indeed tampered with the interpretation of and translation of the very words of Scripture. God KNEW that men would add to and take from His Wordâ€â€hence the warning.

Admittedly, by the translators themselves, a perfect translation is not possible. Surely the teachers are more honest regarding their errors and imperfect knowledge than their students who swear by every word of their imperfections.

Notice these nine remarkable statements from the Translators of The King James Version immediately following the Preface, entitled: THE TRANSLATORS To The Readers (1611 Editionâ€â€I will copy it as is, in the archaic English spelling):

"No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some IMPERFECTIONS and BLEMISHES may be noted in the setting forth of it"

"For to whom euer was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe ouer that which hee had done, as to AMEND IT where saw cause?"

"But the difference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and OUR OFTEN CORRECTING OF THEM, is the thing that wee are specially charged with; let vs see therefore whether they themselves bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, TO CORRECT) and whether they bee fit men to throw stones at vs…they that are less sound themselues, ought not to object infirmities to others."

"Some peraduenture would haue no varietie of sences to be set in the margine [as the King James has done from the start; albeit they have in recent times been all removed in many editions] lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controuersies by that SHEW OF VNCERTAINTIE [not knowing for sure the proper or best way to translate this or that], should somewhat be shaken."

"Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and NOT TO CONCLUDE OR DOGMATIZE VPON THIS OR THAT PEREMPTORIALY? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of these things that are euident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit God hath left (euen in the iudgment of the iudicious) QUESTIONALBLE, can be no lesse then PRESUMPTION."

"Therefore as S.Augustine saith, that VARIETIE [different] of Translations is profitable for the find out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where THE TEXT IS NOT SO CLEAR, must needes doe good, yea, is NECESSARY, as we are perswaded."

"An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee haue not tyed our selues to an VNIFORMITIE OF PHRASING [that is just another way of saying they would not be tied to being CONSISTANT in their translating even though, consistency would be more accurate], or to an identitie of words, as some peraduenture would wish that we had done [I FOR ONE], because they obserue, that some learned men some where, haue beene as exact as they could that way [as though being "as EXACT as they could" is not a virtue]."

"Thus to minse the matter, wee thought to sauour more of CURIOSITIE THEN WISEDOME, and that rather it would breed scorne in the Athiest, then bring profit to the godly Reader." (All CAPS are mine).

I can certainly agree and sympathize with almost everything said by these truthful and candid Translators of the Authorized Version, with one exception. Although they believe that "Variety is the spice of life," I would rather suggest that "Honesty is always the best policy." I certainly prefer a translation that is consistent and meticulously accurate over one that has great variety, and reads smoothly with a poetic and melodious rhythm.

With that said, my personal teaching, preaching, and study Bible is nonetheless, the King James Version. But the primary reason for this is that more people are more familiar with King James than any other Version. Sadly, for many unlearned students of God’s Word, to quote from any Version other than the King James, is to not be quoting Scripture at all. Not to worry, one can learn the Truths of God from ANY translation once God opens one’s mind to the things of the spirit.

ADDING TO GOD’S WORD:

Just as surely as God warned against "adding to or taking from" His word, it has happened. There is overwhelming evidence and historical proof that the following portion of I John 5:7-8 iss not part of the original Greek manuscripts.

"…in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth…"

Also there is a mountain of historical evidence that this portion of the so-called "Great Commission" found in Matt. 28:19 is also not in any Scripture found in the first few centuries of both manuscripts or translations.

"…baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost"

In fact, it is an obvious and blatant contradiction of how the Apostles actually did baptize. They NEVER baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but always in the Name of Jesus ONLY. The Scriptures do not contradict; but some Bibles do.

But these two "additions" to God’s Word pale into little or no significance compared to the ONE GIANT INEXCUSABLE, "adding to" God’s word wherein the Translators turn Greek "aions" (periods of time as short as a few years) into English "eternities." This one gross error has turned into the most devastating botch of translating in the history of the world. Which consequently brought about the most damnable heresy in the history of the worldâ€â€"Eternal Punishment."

Early translations of the Greek Scriptures into English did not use the words "everlasting," "evermore," "for ever and ever" or "eternal" in their versions. Maybe the very oldest English related tongue was the Ancient Gothic Version by Wulfila, which was a language spoken about 350 AD, closely akin to the Old German and Old English spoken at that time. This version translated from the Greek, as well as later Old English versions between 680 and 995 translated from the Latin, did not use any words that meant "everlasting" or "eternal."

Wiclif’ finished his translation in 1382. A hundred and fifty years later came Tyndale, then Coverdale (1535), Cranmer’s (1539), the Genevan (1557), Rheims (1582), and finally The King James Authorized (1611). It was in these well-known English translations that the words "forever and ever" "everlasting" and "eternal" come before us.

However, not all English Versions perverted and corrupted the words having reference to time into words that now stand for eternity, but have nothing to do with time at all. Here are a few.

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959

Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983

The Emphatic Diaglott, 1912 edition (Greek/English Interlinear)

The Holy Bible in Modern English (Fenton), 1903)

The New Covenant, 1884

The New Testament in Modern Speech, 1910

The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, 1976

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958

The New Testament a Translation, 1938

The Companion Bible, 1990 A King James Reference Bible

TAKING FROM GOD’S WORD:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God…" (Rom. 8:28).

Oh really? Is this verse from the King James Version even true? How many billions of times has this verse been quoted, and it isn’t even true! Things do NOT "work together for good." That is absurd. "THINGS" can’t do anything by themselves. Just what is it that the King James has left out of this verse which has turned a grand and marvelous Spiritual Truth into a carnal-minded heresy? Why, just "GOD," that’s all. They left GOD out of this verse. And here is how God inspired this verse:

"And we know that GOD works together all things for Good to the (ones) loving God…" (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, By J P. Green, Sr).

‘Now we are aware that GOD is working all together for the good of those who are loving God…" (Concordant Literal New Testament).

"We know, further, that unto them who love God, GOD causes all things to work together for good…" (Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible).

Putting "God" back into this verse, puts the Truth back into this verse.

One more example: Just what is the "the book of life?" The King James (and others) makes it sound like the "book of life" is a literal book that is in the possession of the Lamb (Jesus Christ). Hence people believe that Jesus carries a literal book that has literal pages in it, on which are written literal names of the saved saints. Here is how the book of life is presented in the King James Bible:

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb…" (Rev. 13:8).

Why is this book called "the book of life?" Most would answer: because of the names that are WRITTEN inside who are promised LIFE. Maybe then it should have been called "the book of NAMES." Whether we emphasize "the book of life," or "the book of life," both are wrong. Something is missing? What? The same thing that was missing in Rom. 8:28, only this time it is CHRIST Who is missing. Put back the missing word, and we have a WHOLE NEW SCRIPTURAL TRUTH:

From King James Version:

"…whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb…"

From the Concordant Greek Text (Page 713):

"OF-WHOM NOT HAS-been-WRITTEN THE NAME OF-him IN THE SCROLLet OF-THE LIFE OF-THE LAMBkin"

From the Emphatic Diaglott Interlinear (Page 8843):

"…of which not has been written the name in the scroll of THE life of the Lamb…"

This book is a whole lot more than the "book of life." Rather this book is: "the book of THE LIFE OF THE LAMB!" WOW!

What a Truth we loose when we "take away" the definite article "the" from this verse of God’s Book. Why oh why would God have to write our names "IN A BOOK?" How absurd! Do we think that God has a POOR MEMORY and FORGETS things if He doesn’t WRITE THEM DOWN?

No, our names must be written in "THE LIFE OF THE LAMB" or our lives are not worth anything. Here is how Jesus Christ is our "Book of Life:"

"For the law of the Spirit of LIFE IN CHRIST JESUS has made me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2).

Our lives must be written in "The BOOK of the LIFE of the LAMB." It is "The Book of THE LIFE of THE Lamb." The book is the LAMB’S LIFE. The Lamb IS THE BOOKâ€â€JESUS CHRIST IS THE BOOK! When we "take away" from God’s "Book" we take away FROM JESUS CHRIST. We diminish "THE LIFE of the Lamb" down to a mere physical "book"â€â€a book of paper when translators, "take away from the words of the BOOK of this prophecy" (Rev. 22:19).

The solution to better understanding the Scriptures and the will of God is not solely a matter of a better translation or a perfect translation. The early church had NO translationsâ€â€they had the original Greek signatures, and copies of these signatures in the Greek language, which was universally understood throughout much of the Roman Empireâ€â€even Egyptians spoke Greek. And yet, the first century was a time of MASS APOSTASY in the church. Here is Scriptural proof:

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30).

"HOLD FAST THE FORM OF SOUND WORDS, which you have heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing, which was committed unto you keep by the Holy Spirit which dwells in us. This you know, that ALL THEY WHICH ARE IN ASIA BE TURNED AWAY FROM ME…" (II Tim. 1:13-15).

So, even a perfect translation would not keep carnal men from turning from the Truth.

From:
http://bible-truths.com/
Which Bible is Best?
____________________________________________________________________

No translation is without error because man had his hand in making it. The point is Do you understand what you are reading? Can you apply what you read to your life for the betterment of yourself and others? Is what you are reading making sense or are is the 1611, and your traditions what you worship instead of the God of the 1611.

 

[AVBunyan]

No translation is without error because man had his hand in making it.

Who taught you that - the Lord or the devil?

 

[santamarana]

No translation is without error because man had his hand in making it.

Who taught you that - the Lord or the devil?

I'll ask you this. Has the KJV been revised.

Why was a revision needed if it is a perfect translation? (Without Error)

Something that is perfected (Without Error) never needs changing.

 

[D46]

I can certainly agree and sympathize with almost everything said by these truthful and candid Translators of the Authorized Version, with one exception. Although they believe that "Variety is the spice of life," I would rather suggest that "Honesty is always the best policy." I certainly prefer a translation that is consistent and meticulously accurate over one that has great variety, and reads smoothly with a poetic and melodious rhythm.

Do you realize what a great contradiction that statement is in light of that next paragraph?

With that said, my personal teaching, preaching, and study Bible is nonetheless, the King James Version. But the primary reason for this is that more people are more familiar with King James than any other Version. Sadly, for many unlearned students of God’s Word, to quote from any Version other than the King James, is to not be quoting Scripture at all. Not to worry, one can learn the Truths of God from ANY translation once God opens one’s mind to the things of the spirit.

These two statement are mutual exclusive and are not in harmony with hs thoughts former statement. To believe that God honors and accepts ANY translation of his word is not conducive to making good sense. If that's the case, one may as well read the TNIV as the King James...ridiculous. Whoever wrote this seems to work both sides of the see-saw or as some would put it, speaks from both sides of his mouth.

Just as surely as God warned against "adding to or taking from" His word, it has happened. There is overwhelming evidence and historical proof that the following portion of I John 5:7-8 iss not part of the original Greek manuscripts.

The Johannine Comma has been a hotbed of discussion far too long. For one thing we don't have the "original Greek" to go by. Of the mss in existence it is found in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). The Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:

"In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed." How about that? Even the corrupt Vulgate had this verse and did not omit it.

Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses. he strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic. ... not only authenic, but God breathed.

 

[D46]

I'll ask you this. Has the KJV been revised.

No-absolutely not. There were corrections in spelling errors and type settings and that was the revisions you refer to and all those took place within the first years of it's existence.

There were only FOUR actual EDITIONS of the King James Bible produced after 1611: 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations (like the new versions SINCE 1881), and they really weren't even "revisions".

The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct printing errors, and two of the original King James translators assisted in the work.

The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638, only 27 years after the first printing.

Bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600's!

Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and spelling rules were established.

There were no new translations, and there were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being deceitful or stupid--or both. The many other so-called "revisions" of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations do not start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901 (ASV). Check the NIV or NASB and see how many times they've been revised. Much because of the many revised revisions of the Nestle/Aland Greek text which at this point, I believe they're up to the 27th edition from the 23rd Edition I had in an older NASB. New translations and revisions are a money making business for the UBS and companies like Zondervan, etc. It's about money....and they're all copywritten. Not so the King James Bible.

Fortunately, the King James wasn't translated using the corrupt Nestle/Aland Greek Text, Westcott and Hort's text, Lucifer's Lexicons or Nazi theological dictionaries as the modern versions are.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

The KJV is fraught with translational errors. I don't blame the translators for all of this as much was just them doing the best they could with what they had. Today, with more knowledge we are finding that many passages do not say what they say in the KJV. I find it interesting that the word "hell" is quickly disappearing from translations as we understand the original languages better.

 

[Solo]

The KJV is fraught with translational errors. I don't blame the translators for all of this as much was just them doing the best they could with what they had. Today, with more knowledge we are finding that many passages do not say what they say in the KJV. I find it interesting that the word "hell" is quickly disappearing from translations as we understand the original languages better.

Lyric's Dad,
Hell is being removed from the modern translations because the devil doesn't want mankind to believe in the justice judgment of God. Perhaps you could explain why Jesus speaks of hell fire being unquenchable, and that hell and death are cast into the lake of fire at the end.
Thanks,
Solo

PS. The KJV Bible is translated from the best manuscripts and the same ones that we have today. The difference between the translations of the KJV and some of the modern translations is that the Hort and Westcott boys were determined to undermine the KJV and took their main manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus, to cast doubt on the textus receptus.

Personally, I feel the leaning towards the modern manuscripts is leading to the apostacy that is prophesied as happening prior to the return of Jesus. The KJV has been around for 400 years. Isn't it amazing that the Word of God for those number of years is now considered in error and not the good word of God.

 

[AVBunyan]

I don't have a problem with the 1611 except that it is OUTDATED!

May I ask...

1. Do you have a final authority? Please, a simple yes or no will do.

2. What is this final authority if you ansered yes to #1?
(And please, refrain from saying God for we all know this and # 3 covers this.)

3. Can you put your hands on this final authority?

God bless 8-)

 

[AVBunyan]

Outdated???

I don't have a problem with the 1611 except that it is OUTDATED!

The KJV is fraught with translational errors.

Outdated you say? Really? Haven't heard that before :-?
Translational errors you say? Really? Haven't heard that before :-?

Poor ole me - I thought God was sovereign not man?

The heathen had no problem with that old black book in the 1700’s and 1800’s when the missionaries preached it to them and used the AV1611 as the basis for their foreign translations.

George Whitfield had no problem with the AV1611 when he preached to thousands at a time in England and America. Thos “uneducated†farmers and coal miners got it ok. They didn’t question the book like you do.

John Bunyan had no problem with the AV1611. Ole John was uneducated – just a tinker with no understanding of Greek of Hebrew and he did ok. His “Pilgrim’s Progress†sold more books than any other book except the Bible. That ole tinker had a pretty good grasp of that old language.

The cannibals of the New Hebrides had no problem with the AV1611 – John Paton used the 1611 and led whole islands to the lord with it. Those natives didn’t question the “old archaic language†like your crowd does today.

The average farmer of the 1800’s who grew up reading the AV1611 didn’t question it like you do.

CH Spurgeon did OK with that ole outdated book – though he messed with it on occasion.

So, here is ole farmer Jones sitting his tractor reading his blessed AV1611 (as he has been for 50 years) and your crowd comes along and tells him it is outdated. Do you think you are going to help him out?

The Chinese in the Shantung rival in the early 1900’s did ok with that ole black book.

The Welsh coal-miners had a nice revival using the ole black AV1611 – they didn’t question the book – they just read it and believed it.

Let’s stop – no sense in going on though I bet you till don’t get it.

Now – why do some of you have a problem with the AV1611?

Do you know why you question the book? You’ve been educated out of believing the book – if you ever believed it in the first place. Much wisdom doth make thee mad. For by wisdom the world knew not God.

What good are you doing while you are getting folks to doubt the very words of God. Why take on us “simple-minded folks†with all your education. Some here may be impressed with all your “documentation†but some of us are not. Instead of blessing us with all your knowledge why not take on the “big boys� Take your skills and go try to impress bro. Will Kinney or Dr. David Reagan, or that “dreaded, mean, ole†Dr. Ruckman (I say that affectionately for I love the man)? I’m sure these men will be real impressed with your studies. No, you will hang around these small forums assuming that most have not read the books you have read and you are right – many have not studied so you will look smart in their eyes. But some of us seen your type before and have read many of the books and materials you have read or seen and we still believe the book.

Now, let’s get mean. By you running around and questioning the book God used you are doing the work of the devil for he was the first one to question God’s word in Gen. 3. He got Eve to doubt the words of God and we’ve been in a mess ever since. Your crowd are members of the “Yea, hath God said†society.

If you were seeking to know truth on the matter and just had doubts then I’d be glad to discuss the issue with you but you are not seeking truth you are seeking to get people to doubt the book God used for almost 400 years. Therefore I do not care to deal with you or others on this issue – I’ve heard it all before.

Have a nice weekend.

 

[AVBunyan]

Personally, I feel the leaning towards the modern manuscripts is leading to the apostacy that is prophesied as happening prior to the return of Jesus. The KJV has been around for 400 years. Isn't it amazing that the Word of God for those number of years is now considered in error and not the good word of God.

Thanks Solo - well said. 8-)

God bless

 

[D46]

I guess we should put God on the witness stand and ask him why he said he would promise to preserve his word and modern scholars have found that he didn't, as the Alexandrian philosophers and scholars have determined the real words of God are not to be found in a particular bible. :roll:

You say, "But ALL translations are God's word, not just one." That's impossible, because the various translations contain different readings, and God is not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33). Besides, if all of the versions are the word of God, then where are the "corrupt" and "perverted" versions that we are warned about in II Corinthians 2:17 and Jeremiah 23:36? If everyone is innocent, then where are those who are said to be GUILTY of subtracting from and adding to the word of God (Revelation 22:18-19)? God wouldn't have warned us about Bible perversion if it wasn't going to be a reality. According to the scriptures, there must be a single Book that is the word of God, and there must be MANY which are involved in CORRUPTING the word of God.

There has to be a Book somewhere in "all generations" which is God's word; so what book is it? Those who "use" the new versions believe that these are good and reliable translations, but they do NOT believe these to be INFALLIBLE translations. However, I know MANY people who believe the King James Bible to be an infallible Book. Why? Because they know that the One True God has ONE TRUE BOOK. He promised to preserve His words, and we believe that He has done just that. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). If His words didn't pass away, then where are they? I want to read them. There has to be a perfect volume somewhere. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because God promised to preserve His words.

When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament, they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but; THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE "ORIGINAL GREEK" ISN'T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text!

Obviously God assisted them in their translating by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and He assisted the King James translators as well. The scholars will never understand this, for most of them have QUENCHED the Holy Spirit in their own lives by looking to higher education for truth, rather than seeking the Lord's leadership (John 16:13).

 

[santamarana]

Re: Outdated???

I don't have a problem with the 1611 except that it is OUTDATED!

The KJV is fraught with translational errors.

Outdated you say? Really? Haven't heard that before :-?
Translational errors you say? Really? Haven't heard that before :-?

Poor ole me - I thought God was sovereign not man?

The heathen had no problem with that old black book in the 1700’s and 1800’s when the missionaries preached it to them and used the AV1611 as the basis for their foreign translations.

George Whitfield had no problem with the AV1611 when he preached to thousands at a time in England and America. Thos “uneducated†farmers and coal miners got it ok. They didn’t question the book like you do.

John Bunyan had no problem with the AV1611. Ole John was uneducated – just a tinker with no understanding of Greek of Hebrew and he did ok. His “Pilgrim’s Progress†sold more books than any other book except the Bible. That ole tinker had a pretty good grasp of that old language.

The cannibals of the New Hebrides had no problem with the AV1611 – John Paton used the 1611 and led whole islands to the lord with it. Those natives didn’t question the “old archaic language†like your crowd does today.

The average farmer of the 1800’s who grew up reading the AV1611 didn’t question it like you do.

CH Spurgeon did OK with that ole outdated book – though he messed with it on occasion.

So, here is ole farmer Jones sitting his tractor reading his blessed AV1611 (as he has been for 50 years) and your crowd comes along and tells him it is outdated. Do you think you are going to help him out?

The Chinese in the Shantung rival in the early 1900’s did ok with that ole black book.

The Welsh coal-miners had a nice revival using the ole black AV1611 – they didn’t question the book – they just read it and believed it.

Let’s stop – no sense in going on though I bet you till don’t get it.

Now – why do some of you have a problem with the AV1611?

Do you know why you question the book? You’ve been educated out of believing the book – if you ever believed it in the first place. Much wisdom doth make thee mad. For by wisdom the world knew not God.

What good are you doing while you are getting folks to doubt the very words of God. Why take on us “simple-minded folks†with all your education. Some here may be impressed with all your “documentation†but some of us are not. Instead of blessing us with all your knowledge why not take on the “big boys� Take your skills and go try to impress bro. Will Kinney or Dr. David Reagan, or that “dreaded, mean, ole†Dr. Ruckman (I say that affectionately for I love the man)? I’m sure these men will be real impressed with your studies. No, you will hang around these small forums assuming that most have not read the books you have read and you are right – many have not studied so you will look smart in their eyes. But some of us seen your type before and have read many of the books and materials you have read or seen and we still believe the book.

Now, let’s get mean. By you running around and questioning the book God used you are doing the work of the devil for he was the first one to question God’s word in Gen. 3. He got Eve to doubt the words of God and we’ve been in a mess ever since. Your crowd are members of the “Yea, hath God said†society.

If you were seeking to know truth on the matter and just had doubts then I’d be glad to discuss the issue with you but you are not seeking truth you are seeking to get people to doubt the book God used for almost 400 years. Therefore I do not care to deal with you or others on this issue – I’ve heard it all before.

Have a nice weekend.

I have no problem reading the KJV. I think it is one of the most beutiful flowing translations we have. I also have read many other versions of the bible to see the truth of what is being said so that I will understand what I am reading.

My point is that the KJV is not the "ONLY" bible that a person needs to solely rely on for understanding. Lets take the greek interliner for example, or Rothermans emphasized, or Youngs Literal.
You being a KJV only Worshiper would not read these translations for fear of what the truth of Gods word really says because you might have to change the way you think, and thats hard for a person to do (Even though thats what scriptures teach you).

If you were truly "seeking" to know the truth you would Ask to know the truth but you don't want to know the truth because it offends your Theology.

You use "The Devil" as your scapegoat (Even though the BIBLE) states Jesus came to destroy (To render inoperative) the works of the devil.

Because what doesn't agree with "YOUR" interpretation of the bible, you claim (as did many have in the past) that it is of the devil.
And that makes you a liar, and all liars will have their PART in the lake which burns with fire.

It become's heresy because it dosen't fall in line with your dualistic theology.

I'm saved, He's not. I accepted Christ, He did not. I'm righteous, their not.

That is called dualism.

38and His word ye have not remaining in you, because whom He sent, him ye do not believe.
39`Ye search the Writings, because ye think in them to have life age-during, and these are they that are testifying concerning me;

Next time you go to the store remember how you look, and judge others and wonder "Are they saved" "There a bunch of sinners" "I'm going to heaven and their going to hell"

Then remember what Christ said about people such as yourself.

13`Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut up the reign of the heavens before men, for ye do not go in, nor those going in do ye suffer to enter.

14`Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye eat up the houses of the widows, and for a pretence make long prayers, because of this ye shall receive more abundant judgment.

15`Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye go round the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and whenever it may happen -- ye make him a son of gehenna twofold more than yourselves.

16`Wo to you, blind guides, who are saying, Whoever may swear by the sanctuary, it is nothing, but whoever may swear by the gold of the sanctuary -- is debtor!

17Fools and blind! for which [is] greater, the gold, or the sanctuary that is sanctifying the gold?

18`And, whoever may swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever may swear by the gift that is upon it -- is debtor!

19Fools and blind! for which [is] greater, the gift, or the altar that is sanctifying the gift?

20`He therefore who did swear by the altar, doth swear by it, and by all things on it;

21and he who did swear by the sanctuary, doth swear by it, and by Him who is dwelling in it;

22and he who did swear by the heaven, doth swear by the throne of God, and by Him who is sitting upon it.

23`Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye give tithe of the mint, and the dill, and the cumin, and did neglect the weightier things of the Law -- the judgment, and the kindness, and the faith; these it behoved [you] to do, and those not to neglect.

24`Blind guides! who are straining out the gnat, and the camel are swallowing.

25`Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye make clean the outside of the cup and the plate, and within they are full of rapine and incontinence.

26`Blind Pharisee! cleanse first the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside of them also may become clean.

27`Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye are like to whitewashed sepulchres, which outwardly indeed do appear beautiful, and within are full of bones of dead men, and of all uncleanness;

28so also ye outwardly indeed do appear to men righteous, and within ye are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29`Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the tombs of the righteous,

30and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31So that ye testify to yourselves, that ye are sons of them who did murder the prophets;

32and ye -- ye fill up the measure of your fathers.

33`Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna?

 

[santamarana]

I'll ask you this. Has the KJV been revised.

No-absolutely not. There were corrections in spelling errors and type settings and that was the revisions you refer to and all those took place within the first years of it's existence.

There were only FOUR actual EDITIONS of the King James Bible produced after 1611: 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations (like the new versions SINCE 1881), and they really weren't even "revisions".

The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct printing errors, and two of the original King James translators assisted in the work.

The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638, only 27 years after the first printing.



Bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600's!

Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and spelling rules were established.

There were no new translations, and there were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being deceitful or stupid--or both. The many other so-called "revisions" of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations do not start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901 (ASV). Check the NIV or NASB and see how many times they've been revised. Much because of the many revised revisions of the Nestle/Aland Greek text which at this point, I believe they're up to the 27th edition from the 23rd Edition I had in an older NASB. New translations and revisions are a money making business for the UBS and companies like Zondervan, etc. It's about money....and they're all copywritten. Not so the King James Bible.

Fortunately, the King James wasn't translated using the corrupt Nestle/Aland Greek Text, Westcott and Hort's text, Lucifer's Lexicons or Nazi theological dictionaries as the modern versions are.

May God open the eyes of your understanding.

Those of you who are serious Bible students know that for the last 300 years or so, the King James Bible has been, by far, the leading English Bible translation. Keep in mind, most of the world does not speak English, nor reads English Bibles. In recent years, the KJV has been sliding in its popularity. Today, the New International Version is the leading best-seller.

Since many of these new translations differ from the King James translation in many very important areas, some of which clearly touch on major doctrines of Christianity such as predestination, hell, trinity, etc., there has been a major push by predominantly fundamentalists from various denominations to discredit these new translations. These groups have written many books whose purpose is to teach that the King James Bible is the only inerrant, inspired Bible, and that all others fall short of the mark. Many books have been written trying to connect all these other translations as either "Satan inspired," "Roman Catholic Perversions," or inspired by the "Alexandrian Cult."

Most of these books that claim to be the "Defenders of the Faith" spend many words to try to discredit the translators and publishers of these other translations. Translators of Bibles other than the King James have been discredited in many ways by the KJV camp. The NIV, according to one author, is unacceptable because it has been said one of the members is a lesbian. Many other translators have had their names connected to various cults, labeled New Agers, Luciferians, members of the "Alexandrian Cult," etc.

I do not intend to follow up on everything written by the KJV camp because the number of books and things they say is almost like the flood that proceeds out of the mouth of the dragon in the book of Revelation. As a matter of fact, the leading KJV Only book is all-black with a red dragon on it. Many of these books come with some very bizarre and demonic looking covers. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

In following up some of the accusations aimed at Bibles other than KJV, I discovered most of the accusations were either completely false, or grossly distorted versions of reality. Often, words were taken completely out of context to make a person look like they were saying exactly the opposite. The NIV was completely rejected by one writer because one of the translators was said to be a lesbian. I am not saying that everything these authors were saying about these translators was false, but it was very clear, objectivity was not their guiding light. I am also not saying all these other Bibles are perfect. In my opinion, all the leading English Bibles fall short of perfection, and our Father planned it that way. I do believe they will get more accurate as days go by, especially more accurate than the KJV.

Having at least 12 books in my possession that teach all other Bibles other than the KJV should not be read, I noticed many of these writers spent many words maliciously smearing the translators of these other Bibles. I wondered if King James himself was put under the microscope, how would he come out? It occurred to me, very little is usually said about King James' personal life by the KJV camp. I wondered if the KJV Only camp ever investigated their own heritage. Surely, I thought, as much mud as they were slinging, their backyard had to be clean.

Nevertheless, I went to a couple of conservative Protestant seminaries and pulled out a few biographies about King James I of England, commissioner of the King James Bible. So that I am not guilty of smearing King James with my words, I will just quote these biographies written by English authors themselves. I could have selected some books written in the Cromwell era which were in the "smear" category. I chose not to use these sources. "With what judgment ye iudge, yee shall be iudged." (Original KJV, including its spelling)

Below are some quotations out of several biographies which I checked out of a conservative Presbyterian seminary and a conservative Lutheran seminary.

From the book James I by Otto F. Scott published by Mason/Charter 1976:

Carr's ascendancy came with a rush, however, for which the English were not prepared. They knew the king's leaning toward handsome young men and were not naive about its meaning. But James had kept his tendencies under at least quasi-control for many years and had not succumbed completely to his inclinations since the days of Esme' Stuart. Since then he had married and fathered three living children and had played the role of family man with some success. Suddenly, at the age of forty-one, he relapsed completely; openly succumbed to homosexuality and fell in love with a nineteen-year-old youth of no great intelligence. [page 306]
Meanwhile, he enjoyed his court, and Carr. His new favorite was perfect for him in every way-including a capacity for bisexuality. James liked men who liked women; he was not jealous of their heterosexual affairs. On the contrary, he enjoyed hearing details; they seemed to help convince him of women's inferiority. [Page 311]
For an example of the level of education, scholarship, and science in 1611 England:

For several weeks he (King James's son) tried to conduct his usual regimen, but was pale and finally had to go back to bed. The doctors then tried powdered unicorn horn in julep. The prince then complained that his head still hurt, so the physicians shaved his hair and applied the still-warm bodies of freshly killed pigeons and roosters. His condition grew worse. [Page 325]
From The Wisest Fool in Christendom by William McElwee published by Harcourt, Brace and Co., we read a letter King James wrote to Somerset. It was over 2000 words long. Here is a small portion of it:

I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnestly soliciting you to the contrary, accounting that but a point of unkindness. [Page 216]
From Jacobean Pageant by G.P.V. Akrigg published by Hamish Hamilton in 1962 we read about how King James selected government officials. Many of the books about King James discuss at length his sales of titles for money. The below account is just an example:

At times of acute financial embarrassment, the King might find that the only rewards he could give were titles of honour. Even these could be made a source of profit by the courtier who petitioned not for a title for himself but one to sell to someone else. In 1619 the Earl of Huntington made 2,500 pounds when he sold Sir Richard Wingfield the title of Viscount Powerscourt. Perhaps the most gratifying reward of all for a courtier, however, was when he received from the King not only a title for himself but a grant of estates to allow him to live on the scale his new dignity demanded. When Sir John Ramsey was created Viscount Haddington, he received lands worth 1,000 pounds per annum to support the title.
Not everybody prospered at court. Some made the wrong alliances and secured powerful enemies. Some bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with the senseless extravagance of the court, and had to retire at last, impoverished. Some incurred the fiery fate of the King's active displeasure. There was, for instance, the luckless soul who was so intent upon begging a suit that he neglected to admire the King's handsome new saddle. When his friends asked the King why he had not granted the man's petition, James snorted, 'Shall a King give heed to a dirty pauper, when a beggar noteth not his gilt stirrups?'
The courtier who had exhausted his means and become distasteful to the King was faced with the grim prospect of life as a 'cast-courtier' languishing in poverty on the Continent. Indeed, if he were a person of sufficient importance and his faults flagrant enough in the royal eye, he might not escape with exile either compelled or self-imposed, but find himself like Lord Grey, Raleigh, the Earl of Northumberland and poor Lady Arbella, confined to the Tower while the offices and monopolies, pensions and lands he had earlier secured were rapaciously sought by his more fortunate fellows.
When King James wanted something for one of his "male favorites," all means were lawful to him. In 1607 Carr was the king's pet. In Jacobean Pageant on page 179 we read:

Young Carr was mounting the ladder and not yet scornful of the base means by which he did ascend. Progressively the vista of honours opened before him. In the closing days of 1607 he was appointed a Gentleman of the Bedchamber and knighted. Early in 1608 he received the King's portrait mounted in gold and diamonds. In January 1609 King James taking advantage of a scribe's ommission of a phrase from a legal document, deprived Sir Walter Raleigh of his estate of Sherborne in Dorset and gave it to his young Scot. Feeling ran high against his act. Lady Raleigh went on her knees before the King and begged to be spared this much out of her husband's ruin, but James, muttering 'I maun have the land, I maun have it for Carr,' refused her. In 1610 Carr benefited from another man's ruin and received the forfeited Scottish estates of Lord Maxwell.
King James, although he didn't have a penny to put into his own Bible, had great lusts for castles, gifts for his "favorites," and extremely extravagant parties. He was always borrowing money and accumulated a great debt. This debt could be paid if he could get his son Prince Charles married off to the Spanish Infanta. Her dowry was worth between 600,000 to 1,000,000 pounds. Below is an account of what this marriage would have cost England and the Protestant cause taken from the book James I by Otto F. Scott:

The Vatican, drawn against its will but fascinated by the possibilities inherent in the situation, finally issued its demands upon England; all Catholics were to be free to their beliefs and relieved of any oaths to the English king; all children of the marriage were to be raised in the Vatican faith from the age of twelve. The demand was a virtual ultimatum that the English king dismiss the laws of his realm at the order of the Vatican. By May 1623 Olivares and Buckingham had exchanged hard words and were no longer speaking. The Prince of Wales (King James's son), however, had not been trained to argue. He said he and his father would set aside the laws of England and sign the articles. [Page 398]
The marriage negotiations eventually collapsed. Again, I do not bring out these parts of the history of King James to smear or slander him. He was a human being who will stand before the true King just like everyone else, and stand he will because our Father is able to make all stand. He was a king who was far from saintly, although he thought he was above all in intelligence, wisdom, and even in understanding of religious matters. I bring these points out because the King James Only camp spends many words smearing the publishers and translators of other Bible translations. How can they do this with so much mud on their own feet?

I am not saying all Bible translations are good. Some are better than others. I believe there are some excellent translations on the horizon and some terrible ones.

When one looks at King James and those he had around him, it should make an unbiased person realize that these KJV Only writers either have not done their own homework about their own version and the man who commissioned it, or they are very great hypocrites.

Having been in the KJV Only camp for a season, having read their literature and having searched with as a sincere heart as possible, I have come to the conclusion that the reason they throw so much dirt is because they are fighting a lost cause which cannot be won by them on the field of scholarship and truth. The pig pen is the ground they wish to argue on. Let us walk away from that mess and do as the prodigal son did, finally come to our senses. The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew5/D5-Ki ... round.html

 

[Free]

Personally, I feel the leaning towards the modern manuscripts is leading to the apostacy that is prophesied as happening prior to the return of Jesus. The KJV has been around for 400 years. Isn't it amazing that the Word of God for those number of years is now considered in error and not the good word of God.

Thanks Solo - well said. 8-)

God bless

Interesting that two OSAS advocates would agree that modern translations will lead to the apostasy, people leaving the faith.

1Ti 4:1 "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons," (NASB)

1Ti 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" (KJV)

If there is an apostasy then OSAS is false. Perhaps one of you can clear up this contradiction.

It's a little off topic so if you want, we can move this to a OSAS topic already in discusison.

 

[D46]

santamarana these postings of yours are a grevious waste of Internet space and of the time of people here that know fact from fiction. King James had absolutely nothing to do with the translation of the bible that bears his name. I have posted this before and will not beat a dead horse. Suffice it to say, those that bring about accusations about his personal lifestyle are of the Alexandrian cult as they hated him and his translation and therefore, in order to push and propagate their own fallacies and untruths, hurl accusations at the man himself when he had no chair on the translation board. Read my lips...NOTHING. You argument about the man is totally null and void and has nothing to do with the King James Bible.

I do believe they will get more accurate as days go by, especially more accurate than the KJV.

You're in a heap of trouble if you believe that! Have you been to the local Christian book store lately? They only get worse instead of better. Where have you been?

Having been in the KJV Only camp for a season,

I suggest you spend a bit more time in it before you start hurling judgement against something you know very little of outside of cutting and pasting articles you've seen, and; to quote you...May God open the eyes of your understanding.

Here's but a small sampling about the man, King James.

Some have falsely thought that the King James Bible was the translation of King James I of England. Others have tried to discredit the KJV because of the King himself. One has nothing to do with the other. James did not translate the Bible, and his character has little to do with the translation which bears his name. He was the King of England in 1611 when the Authorized Version was completed, and it was under his authority that the translators began their endeavor.

James was born in Scotland and was the only son of Mary, Queen of Scots. His famous mother was a strict Roman Catholic; however, James was raised a staunch Protestant. He had a love for sports as well as for scholarship. King Henry IV of France referred to James as "the wisest fool in Christendom" (King James VI of Scotland: I of England by Lady Antonia Fraser, 1974. p. 9). And yet, the Christian should keep in mind the words found in 1 Corinthians 1:25-29.

Dr. Charles Ryrie says of King James, "Now this was. . . an odd king. By eight, it was said, he could translate any chapter of the Bible from Latin to French to English. He knew Italian, Hebrew, Greek, and had learned large portions of the Word. He was apparently an effeminate man; so one writer has called him, 'Queen James who succeeded King Elizabeth'. He was undoubtedly a vain man, not really popular because he held to the absolute superiority of the king, and not the Parliament." ("Oddities of the King James Bible," cited from The Christian Librarian Vol. 18, No. 1 & 2 in Oct-Dec., 1974. p.14)

British author Caroline Bingham provides an interesting assessment of this English monarch. "At seventeen he was a remarkable youth who had already achieved an intellectual and political maturity; already he was recognizable as the canny and learned King who never achieved wisdom, who committed follies but was not a fool." (The Making of a King, Doubleday and Comp., 1969. p.15).

Lady Antonia Fraser adds to our understanding of King James in the conclusion of her book. She writes, "Let us assess James by his own sonnet at the start of Basilikon Doron, when he laid down the precepts for a King: 'God gives not Kings the style of Gods in vain, For on his throne his Scepter do they sway: And as their subject ought them to obey, So Kings should fear and serve their God again.' Perhaps James did not have the style of a God, and erred in thinking that it had been granted to him. Nor did he create it for himself as Elizabeth had created the style of a Goddess. But he did fear God and attempt to serve Him by his own lights. As a result, his subject, even if they did not always obey him, were not so badly served by him after all." (Fraser, p. 214).

Of his legacy, Sir Frederic Kenyon has written, "The Authorized Version may be put down as the best deed ever done by James I. . ." (The Story of the Bible, p. 40)

Where did his translators originate? They came from Cambridge, Westminister and Oxford with the credentials that far surpass those of the 19th Century when the word "textual criticism" came into it's own via the two heretics of Westcott and Hort of whom we have much to thank for their corrupting God's word.

 

[santamarana]

santamarana these postings of yours are a grevious waste of Internet space and of the time of people here that know fact from fiction. King James had absolutely nothing to do with the translation of the bible that bears his name. I have posted this before and will not beat a dead horse. Suffice it to say, those that bring about accusations about his personal lifestyle are of the Alexandrian cult as they hated him and his translation and therefore, in order to push and propagate their own fallacies and untruths, hurl accusations at the man himself when he had no chair on the translation board. Read my lips...NOTHING. You argument about the man is totally null and void and has nothing to do with the King James Bible.

I do believe they will get more accurate as days go by, especially more accurate than the KJV.

You're in a heap of trouble if you believe that! Have you been to the local Christian book store lately? They only get worse instead of better. Where have you been?

[quote:f1f42]Having been in the KJV Only camp for a season,

I suggest you spend a bit more time in it before you start hurling judgement against something you know very little of outside of cutting and pasting articles you've seen, and; to quote you...May God open the eyes of your understanding.[/quote:f1f42]

The truth seems to offend your traditions of men that make God's word of no effect in your life.

Do you know what an "Idol of the heart" is?

I don't Go to a christian book store.

Again what gets posted really hurts your traditions. Since that is what you truly worship (KJV ONLY). You don't worship God
You worship a translation of a book.
God is spirit.