Questions Regarding Archaic Words

[santamarana]

Few people realize that all these Bible Versions listed below are nothing more than revisions of the original 1611 King James Version

Revised Version
American Version
Revised Standard Version
American Standard Version
New Revised Standard Version
New American Standard Version
King James Version II (KJII) (renamed to Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
King James for the 21st Century (KJ21)
King James 2000 (KJ2000)
The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV) (formerly named King James II)
Modern King James Version (MKJV)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Revised Authorised Version (RAV) (British edition of the NKJV)
Revised King James New Testament (RKJV)
The Third Millennium Bible (TMB)
Updated King James Version (UKJV)

This is where your research is flawed Santa - most of the versions above are not based upon the texts the AV1611 came from - they are not revisions of the 1611.

The NKJV and some of the others have some scripture in it but where there vary from the AV they get from the corrupt texts of Egypt.

Most of the ones you listed above are based upon the texts that originated out of Alexandria from the 3rd century with Origen as the author.

All modern versions are based upon the corrupt Greek/Hebrew manuscripts of Egypt from the 3rd century. The AV1611 and all genuine revisions on are based upon those texts that originated from Asia Minor - the line of manuscripts that God has been using since the 1st century.

I don't care for those "KJV updated", etc.

God bless

You still did not answer the question.

Do you read from an original 1611 version of the bible.
Example from the preface of the original 1611.

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?

Do you understand this language?

Here is a great example of the Kind of people who are KJV worshipers.

"Do We Have the Inerrant Word of God Today?"
Yes!



Don't believe it when people tell you that the word of God is found only in the originals--which NOBODY has. Jesus made a promise, and we know that He cannot lie:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." -Matthew 24:35

Many Bible college students, professors, pastors, teachers and lay people talk about, "we believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures as found in the originals"---NOBODY has the originals. They are saying that we don't have God's word today which directly contradicts what Jesus said in Matthew 24:35. The faith of many young Christians is shattered by the time they leave Bible college. Don't fall prey to this trap.



Questioning the Word of God
Remember Satan's first words to Eve in the garden:

"Yea, hath God said...?" -Genesis 3:1

Satan questioned Eve about God's word and we know the results of her listening to him. That is what is happening today...

"Well, the Greek doesn't really say that."

"The Authorized King James does not say that properly."

"The Authorized King James is hard to read and outdated."

"You need to go to the Bible college and take some Hebrew classes so that you better understand the Bible."

I will NEVER go to school to translate the Bible. I've got the best teacher in the universe and beyond--His name is the Holy Ghost. I've also got the word of God--the Authorized King James Bible. I have NEVER once gotten increased understanding from a preacher's "explanation of the Greek". The forceful, unabated, irreverent attack on the Authorized King James Bible that has served Christendom for almost 400 years is the result of liberalism gone amuck. When some false prophet tries to turn us away from what we know, we need to say, "Get thee, hence Satan for thou desiredst not the things that be of God, but those that be of men!"



We Need to Get Down to Business
Instead of worrying about the Greek and the Hebrew and self-esteem and Christian financial seminars we need to get some spiritual power by OBEYING God's commands. The Lord's business is being left undone:

we need to be out on the street witnessing and seeing souls saved,
"He that winneth souls is wise."



living holy and not watching Satan's TV and movies,
"Be ye holy, for I am holy."



keeping the Lord's commandments and stop saying, "I just don't measure up."
"Whosoever loveth me keepeth my commandments."



teaching our kids about Jesus and stop giving them video games to keep them quiet
"And, ye fathers...bring [children] up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."



praying for our Pastor, families, enemies, strangers, acquaintances, friends, co-workers, government
"Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."



wives, learn to submit to your husbands
"...as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."



husbands, learn to love your wives as you love yourself
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."



There's plenty more that we can do, but as you can see, we have pressing business for the Lord.



Are the "Originals" Important to God?
With all this talk about the originals, let's take time out to see what God thinks. Look at Jeremiah 36:23, 32. God had Jeremiah to write down His words. What happened? The originals were destroyed and Jeremiah re-wrote them. If the originals were that important to the Lord, He wouldn't have let them be destroyed. Let us not place an emphasis on the originals that God doesn't place there.



Is this Discussion Important?
Someone once commented in an e-mail that I'm "arguing" about an unimportant point. That is untrue. The New Testament is full of warnings about Satan and false prophets trying to deceive us. Are these warnings given to us in vain? No, they're not. Let us be like the Berean Christians and check out everything that comes our way in the light of the Word of God comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

The Bible says that we are in a war. That means that we are fighting and contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. If you don't find yourself standing and fighting for the things of God, you've got to re-examine your walk. Can you see how our faith would be all messed up if Satan could change the Bible to say whatever he wants it to say? Can you see how all these different "versions" are desensitizing even true Christians to manipulation of God's word?

I have a very pitiful quote by a man who sat on the NASB translating committee--he laments that he ever had anything to do with messing with the word of God and tells people that Satan is behind all new versions.

SOURCE


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

1611 King James Bible

 

[AVBunyan]

You still did not answer the question.
Do you read from an original 1611 version of the bible.

I thought you could tell from my posts that I do not - I read from a present day Cambridge - but if all I had was a $5.95 KJV Bible from Walmart then that would be fine.

I said before - I do not expect anyone to read from an origianl 1611 or copy of one of which I have.

My point - a modern King James that can be purchased from anywhere is fine.

I cannot be more clear that that.

God bless

 

[santamarana]

Thank you!
So you will agree that The KJV has been Revised since 1611.

Revised:
To prepare a newly edited version of (a text).
To reconsider and change or modify: I have revised my opinion of him. See Synonyms at correct.

n. Printing (rvz, r-vz)
A proof made from an earlier proof on which corrections have been made.

Has the 1611 gone through changes, and modifications, corrections in mispellings, corrections such as believing in mythological animals, modified from the old english that we don't speak any more.

And it also seems that the translators could not agree as to what hell really meant (Thats also in the marginal notes of the 1611 KJV that they have taken out because of the false doctrine of inerrancy)

Of the many English Bible translations we searched, the King James Bible had the most number of cases where we found the word "hell" in the Old Testament. It translated the Hebrew word "Sheol" as "grave" 31 times, "hell" 31 times, and "pit" 3 times. Almost without exception, all the other leading Protestant Bibles didn't have the nerve to do what the King's translators did, that is, take the Hebrew word "Sheol" where everyone went, according to the Old Testament teachings, and divide it into "hell," a place for the unrighteous, and "grave" or "pit," presumably the place for the righteous. They translated this word according to their theology, and not according to the Hebrew. Most of the translations did not have the word "hell" in any part of the Old Testament. The ones that did, have mentioned it only a handfull of times, always from the Hebrew word "Sheol" which they translated the vast majority of times "grave, underworld, etc.." Those translations that use the word "hell" are so inconsistent with it, that it is impossible to determine which Scriptures clearly refers to "hell" and which refers to "grave." Where one translation had "hell," another had "grave." In other words, those translations that tried to put "hell" into the Old Testament couldn't agree with each other as to which verses spoke of "hell" and which spoke of the "grave."

Inerrant:
Incapable of erring; infallible.
Containing no errors.

Can you say (without being a hypocrit) that the KJV is without any errors?

 

[AVBunyan]

Can you say (without being a hypocrit) that the KJV is without any errors?

Yes, I can - all the way down to the punctuation marks and italicized words. 8-)

 

[kwag_myers]

Can you say (without being a hypocrit) that the KJV is without any errors?

Yes, I can - all the way down to the punctuation marks and italicized words. 8-)

Well, there you have it! Since the original writings of the New Testament had no punctuation marks or italicized words, we can see that the KJV is loaded with errors (additions). Consider Deuteronomy 4:2.

 

[AVBunyan]

Can you say (without being a hypocrit) that the KJV is without any errors?

Yes, I can - all the way down to the punctuation marks and italicized words. 8-)

Well, there you have it! Since the original writings of the New Testament had no punctuation marks or italicized words, we can see that the KJV is loaded with errors (additions). Consider Deuteronomy 4:2.

Kwag - show me one verse where only the orignals are inspired - one verse will do, thank you.

And when you answer me we can go further into this if you wish

 

[santamarana]

Can you say (without being a hypocrit) that the KJV is without any errors?

Yes, I can - all the way down to the punctuation marks and italicized words. 8-)

You know when you say something like you just stated it goes to show how much of an idol a book has become to you.

It is a funny thing The Roman Catholic Church said they had the "Infallable Latin Vulgate" and that all other translations were of the devil.

Deju-Vu?

This is from the preface to the 1611 version that was recently reprinted by Thomas Nelson Publishers/Nashville TN] to expose a few of the Fallacies of the modern day "KJV-Only" cult.

Not to belittle the King James Bible itself, but to expose those who claim it's Infallability.

From the preface:
"...We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [most common, lowest quality] translation of the Bible in English...containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God."

"No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."

"Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one...."

A defense of adding marginal notes. [The 1611 original had numerous marginal notes that offer different possible translations of words or phrases.]

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, less the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point....It hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain), but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence....Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way....For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?....We have...avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for baptism, and congregation instead of church...."

I wonder how much you are in bondage?

The fact of the matter is the KJV has been revised many times not because satan wants to deceive people as you so blindly claim, but for a better understanding of the Bible for all people. To correct whatever needs to be corrected.

From The NRSV preface.
In the course of time, the King James Version came to be regarded as "the Authorized Version." With good reason it has been termed "the noblest monument of English prose," and it has entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.

Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision. The task was begun, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The (British) Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated with the work, was published, as was mentioned above, in 1901. In 1928 the copyright of the latter was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United States and Canada that were associated in this Council through their boards of education and publication.

Do you believe in defects?

(1) 1611, Great "He" Bible, (Ruth 3:15, "and he went into the city.")
(2) 1611, Great "She" Bible, (Ruth 3:15), "and she went into the city.")
(3) 1611, "Judas" Bible, (Mat. 26:36, "Judas" for "Jesus.")
(4) 1631, "Wicked" Bible, (Ex. 20:14, omits the "not.")
(5) 1638, "Forgotten Sins" Bible, (Luke 7:47).
(6) 1641, "More Sea" Bible, (Rev. 21:1, "There was more sea.")
(7) 1653, "Unrighteous" or Field's Bible, (1 Cor. 6:9, "unrighteous shall inherit.")
(8) 1702, "Printers" Bible, (Ps. 119:161, "Printers have persecuted.")
(9) 1711, "Profit" Bible, (Isa. 57:12, "shall profit" instead of "shall not profit.")
(10) 1716, "Sin On" Bible, (John 5:14, "sin on more" for "sin no more.")
(11) 1717, "Vinegar" Bible, (Luke 20, "parable of the Vinegar" instead of "Vineyard."
(12) 1746, "Sting" Bible, (Mark 7:37, "sting of his tongue" not "string."
(13) 1792, "Denial" Bible, (Lk. 22:34, Philip denies Jesus instead of Peter.
(14) 1801, "Murderers" Bible, (Jude 1:16, "murderers" used instead of "murmurers."
(15) 1802, "Discharge" Bible, (1 Tim. 5:21, "I discharge" instead of "I charge."
(16) 1804, "Lions" Bible, (1 Kings 7:19, "out of thy lions" instead of "loins."
(17) 1805, "To-Remain" Bible, (Gal. 4:29, "to remain" inserted instead of a comma.
(18) 1806, "Standing Fishes" Bible, (Ezek. 47:10, "the fishes shall stand" instead of "fishers."
(19) 1807, "Ears to ear" Bible, (Mat. 13:43, "ears to ear" instead of "to hear."
(20) 1810, "Wife-Hater" Bible, (Lk. 14:26, "hate not . . . and his own wife" instead of "life.")
(21) 1823, "Camels" Bible, (Gen. 24:61, "Rebekah arose, and her camels" instead of "damsels."
(22) 1829, "Large Family" Bible, (Isa. 66:9, "not cease to bring to birth" instead of "not cause to bring forth."
(23) undated, "Fool" Bible, Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God" instead of "there is no God."

I have seen defects in many bibles. I have seen them in the KJV. Does that deter me from not reading the KJV? No I read the KJV,Concordant Literal,Rothermans Emphasized, RSV, NRSV, Youngs Literal, Amplified, New Living Translation, New English, J.B. Phillips,Cotton patch just to name a few.

"THE TRANSLATORS WERE UNINSPIRED MEN, AND CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE TO MISTAKES; THE TRANSLATION IS 'INSPIRED', SO FAR AS IT EXACTLY GIVES THE ORIGINAL ... SO FAR, NO MORE"

| JOHN GIRARDEAU |

"VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS IS PROFITABLE FOR FINDING OUT OF THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURES."

| the TRANSLATORS of the KING JAMES VERSION to the READERS |

"THERE IS EVEN NOW, WITH SOME IGNORANT PERSONS, AN ASSUMPTION OF THE INFALLIBILITY AND EQUALITY WITH THE ORIGINAL, OF SOME PARTICULAR TRANSLATION--AS TO THE VULGATE, OR KING JAMES, OR LUTHER'S"

| Basil Manley |

 

[AVBunyan]

You know when you say something like you just stated it goes to show how much of an idol a book has become to you.

I've made my view clear onthis idol buusiness - I woship the God who wrote the book and respect and love the book He wrote.

Now Santa - how do you expect to listen and chat with you when you keep accusing me of beinga KJV idolator? Tthis is a cheap shot and shows the shallowness of your character. You folks have accused me of being a jerk and having a bad attitude but you can call me an idolator, after I answered this twice, and not a peep from anybody on this false accusation.

 

[santamarana]

You know when you say something like you just stated it goes to show how much of an idol a book has become to you.

I've made my view clear onthis idol buusiness - I woship the God who wrote the book and respect and love the book He wrote.

Now Santa - how do you expect to listen and chat with you when you keep accusing me of beinga KJV idolator? Tthis is a cheap shot and shows the shallowness of your character. You folks have accused me of being a jerk and having a bad attitude but you can call me an idolator, after I answered this twice, and not a peep from anybody on this false accusation.

Hey If you like being in bondage, and unteachable thats your loss and ignorance.

God did not write the KJV, God is spirit. Does God ever proclaim that He wrote a book?

Not one with pages.

You are the book He is writing. The book He is writing is the Book of the Life of the Lamb (That is If you be dead, and raised with him)

Has God inspired men to write? Yes.
Are these men perfect? No.

Is the bible free from error?
No.

Should that deter you from trusting in the bible?
No. Your faith is not in a bible.

"Have Faith in God"

 

[AVBunyan]

Hey If you like being in bondage, and unteachable thats your loss and ignorance.

You are in agreement with the world on this issue of authority and the King James Bible - therefore I am against you. Is that clear enough?

My communication with you has ended - I've tried to be cordial. I've been wasting my time - will not waste my time any longer.

 

[santamarana]

Hey If you like being in bondage, and unteachable thats your loss and ignorance.

You are in agreement with the world on this issue of authority and the King James Bible - therefore I am against you. Is that clear enough?

My communication with you has ended - I've tried to be cordial. I've been wasting my time - will not waste my time any longer.

If you can answer these simple questions about the KJV then what you state is true and I am wrong.

(1) Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?

(2) Were the KJV translators "LIARS" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?

(3) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?

(4) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?

(5) Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?

(6) Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?

(7) Is the KJV "scripture"? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]

(8) WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God"  1611... or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?








(9) In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?

(10) Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?

(11) Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?

(12) Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?

(13) Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?

(14) Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?

(15) What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].

(16) IF... the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?

(17) Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560]... English Bibles absolutely infallible?

(18) If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]

(19) If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?

(20) Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus  "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?

(21) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture  "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?

(22) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture  "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?

(23) Who publishes the infallible "INERRANT KJV"?

(24) Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words  would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611... or 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?



KING JAMES







(25) Would you contend that God waited until a king named "JAMES" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign...Your Majesty's Royal Person..."  IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation  Antonia Fraser  "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham  "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott  "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson  "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]

(26) Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine  "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]

(27) Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2:3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?

(28) Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?

(29) Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14:8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?

(30) Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader?  "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV]  "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange  I speak as to my children  open wide your hearts also."

(31) Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?

(32) Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4:8? [Remember  you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]

(33) Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again  you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]

(34) Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]

(35) Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]



(36) Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol 27, 1881, page 485  see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]

(37) Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116]

Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation  the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John 3:16]."?

(38) Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907  "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]

(39) Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]

(40) Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch?

 

[kwag_myers]

Kwag - show me one verse where only the orignals are inspired - one verse will do, thank you.

And when you answer me we can go further into this if you wish

I'm not really sure what you mean, but here is one of my favorite examples of suggestive punctuation:

1 Corinthians 14:34, KJV "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

The translation from the Greek is more like, "The women in the gathering of citizens are to keep their silence not to permit her to speak is in submissiveness to the law".

The key here is where the KJV adds a comma, "...keep their silence, not to permit her to speak..."

Perhaps it should be. "...keep their silence not, to permit her to speak...". This is more in keeping with Galations 3:28.

 

[Vic C.]

LITV

34 ¶ Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not allowed to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as also the Law says.

YLT

34Your women in the assemblies let them be silent, for it hath not been permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith;

 

[AVBunyan]

I'm not really sure what you mean,

Kwag - what I 'm saying is this - folks always want to refere to the originals as the only inspired scriptures - O'm sayin there is no verse in any bible to say that only the originals are inspired - I believe what I hold in my hands is.

For a moment kwag - let's forget all preconceived notions here and let me ask you some simple yes or no questions - not trying to start a war or be cute - trying to be sober-minded. Come let us reason together:

Look at this verse:

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If it is scripture it has to be inspired according to II Tim. 3:16. The “Bible†says that if you want to call what you have “the scriptures†then it has to be inspired. If it is not inspired then it is not scripture.

1. Can we agree here?

2. Did Timothy have a copy of the scriptures?

3. Were they inspired according to vs. 16?

4. Did Timothy have the originals?

God bless

 

[kwag_myers]

Look at this verse:

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If it is scripture it has to be inspired according to II Tim. 3:16. The “Bible†says that if you want to call what you have “the scriptures†then it has to be inspired. If it is not inspired then it is not scripture.

1. Can we agree here?

Okay (yes).

2. Did Timothy have a copy of the scriptures?

Yes. He had the Old Testament, Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. Although they may have not been written yet, I'm sure that Timothy had knowledge of them. I'm sure that he also had some of Paul's writings, too.

3. Were they inspired according to vs. 16?

Yes.

4. Did Timothy have the originals?

Original manuscripts - No. Original text - Yes.

God bless

Thanks, I'll take all the blessing I can.

 

[AVBunyan]

4. Did Timothy have the originals?

Original manuscripts - No. Original text - Yes.

I'm confused - please explain. Thanks

 

[kwag_myers]

4. Did Timothy have the originals?

Original manuscripts - No. Original text - Yes.

I'm confused - please explain. Thanks

Did Timothy hold in his hands the actual manuscripts penned by Moses? No. Did he have an exact reproduction of the original manuscript? I'm pretty sure that he at least had access to one. By "text" I mean, Timothy could read Moses' writings word for word.

Here's the thing; Let's say that I write a book and someone who is well respected in the Christian community says the book is anointed. So, a guy in France decides (or perhaps, is inspired by the Holy Spirit) to translate the book into his native language. Does the French version become superior to the original English? No.

Then, the French government decides that French is no longer the official language and New French is it's replacement. Now, what possible reason can you give me to justify keeping the old French version? It's not better than the original, and no one speaks the language anymore (theoretically speaking). What could possibly be wrong with taking the original English and translating it into New French (i.e., a language that everyone speaks)?

I'm sorry, but I just fail to see the logic. If you want to read 1611 English, go for it. But I have my hands full with today's English, thank you very much.

Just a note to the French; I love your language and hope to one day learn it, so please don't take offense with my example.

 

[AVBunyan]

By "text" I mean, Timothy could read Moses' writings word for word

By the King James text I mean I have word for word exactly what God wants me to have today.

1. Then, the French government decides that French is no longer the official language and New French is it's replacement.
2. Now, what possible reason can you give me to justify keeping the old French version?

1. Is the New French a superior French or a watered down, slang version to pacify the dumbness of the modern French people?

2. How about because the “Old French†produced miraculous results that the New French wasn’t?
Perhaps there was a lot of money in producing “New French†bibles�
Maybe because the common French man was having no issues with the Old French it was “sold to them†by the ‘educated†class that the common folk needed a newer French?

What could possibly be wrong with taking the original English and translating it into New French (i.e., a language that everyone speaks)?â€Â

If one is going from one language to another there is no issue. But if one takes corrupt texts and then uses them as the basis for a translation into a new language then that would be a problem – don’t you think? This is what is going on today – the “scholars†have taken corrupt texts (Wescott & Hort) and used them as them as the basis for all the modern versions.

I'm sorry, but I just fail to see the logic. If you want to read 1611 English, go for it.â€Â

Here is my point Kwag and nobody has answered or responded to me yet on these two points:

1. The English in the present King James Version is not really the “ole’ English†that everybody says it is. The English of the present English KJV is not that of the English spoken in 1611 – it is a different English. The thee’s and thou’s are a more exact wording for example. There is nothing difficult about some of the words in the present day 1611. I’ll guarantee you that many of the “update and easier to read†words of many of the modern versions are not understood by the vast majority of the common folk either. For example, what is the “slime of the purslane� Found in any modern version in Job by the way!

It is a trade off – I’ll take the “harder†to read words of the pure text than the “harder†to read words of the modern corrupt texts.

There are many articles documenting the modern versions are no easier to understand. Why? The corrupt Greek texts used for the NT were written in the more “flowery†classical Greek of the 3rd century not the koine Greek like the received texts was.

2. And finally – my main point, which I have yet to have anybody respond to:
For over 350 years the common man, heathen, missionary, preacher, farmer, shopkeeper, etc. has had no issues with the “language†of the AV1611? I thought we are supposed to be more “enlightened†and educated then those folks? One cannot deny (unless he is blind as a bat coming in backwards!) the results produced with the AV1611 around the world. And now we want to do better?

Why all of a sudden now, with all the means of education and communication, do we have an issue with the “language†of the KJV? I’ll tell you why I think so:
a. Professing “christians†are dumber - to much TV, magazines, newpapers, etc..
b. Professing “christians†are more carnal, fleshly, and worldly.
c. Professing “christians†have been educated out of the KJV.
d. There is lot’s of money in publishing these days.

But I have my hands full with today's English, thank you very much.“

I can understand – it is a watered down slang English – less superior and exact as the English as the present day 1611.

I'm a lot of fun, huh? :o

Kwag - I know I'm a pain - you ought to have to be me and live with me :-D :

 

[kwag_myers]

First, you're not a pain, you just insist on worshiping a relic.

Second, I believe we have answered both your questions and you chose not to accept them as valid answers.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. ...you just insist on worshiping a relic.

2. Second, I believe we have answered both your questions and you chose not to accept them as valid answers.

1. Kwag - this has gotten so old - cheap shot - I do not worship a book - no KJV believer worships a book. We just stand in awe of having God's exact words, perfect and without error in our hands. This bothers you folks doesn't it? Don't know why :-?

2. Kind of - you still missed 2 points:
a. If there is no scripture saying only the originals are inspired then my KJV that I hold in my hands can be inspired also and I, by faith, believe it to be so. Can you say the same for any one of the 100 or so modern versions which disagree with one another? (Jer. 36 teaches double inspiration by the way.)

b. Also - haven't heard much cmments on :

And finally – my main point, which I have yet to have anybody respond to:
For over 350 years the common man, heathen, missionary, preacher, farmer, shopkeeper, etc. has had no issues with the “language†of the AV1611? I thought we are supposed to be more “enlightened†and educated then those folks? One cannot deny (unless he is blind as a bat coming in backwards!) the results produced with the AV1611 around the world. And now we want to do better?

God bless