next »

[Gabriel Anast]

I know that there will be many that join 7xSunday that are either vaguely aware of some issue concerning very adamant adhearance to the KJV, or that "Rabid King James Onlyism" is a fundamentalist threat to open study of the Word of God. Some will have no idea there is a King James and try their best to choose a version of the Bible that helps them most in their day to day life based primarily on psychology or self-help criteria. Still others think that the book in the pew in front of them is "the Bible," after all, why would there be "versions" of the Word of God? Finally there will be people who don't speak English well to begin with, and will need a compelling reason to use the King James, as it presents a significant "learning curve" compared to other texts.

So, this thread is dedicated to creating a simple introduction or FAQ about the KJV, and the Bible versions issue in general.

As a rule, posts should be short and to the point. The easier to read/digest the better. If any of you are good story tellers and know stories that can illustrate the points made, this would be especially helpful.

--gabe

[brandplucked]

Many people clamor for updating the language of the King James Bible, and I will admit there are a few words that do need to be explained and that could be modernized, such as "conversation" when it means "manner of living" and "let" when it means "to hinder", and possibly "prevent" when it means "to go before or to precede", but who is going to do it and not mess with other things that make it worse?

The NKJV and several other modern versions have "modernized" these few words but in addition they have messed up scores if not hundreds of other passages. For some examples of this see my article on The Old Fashioned Language of the King James Bible.

Is Archaic language always bad? What about all those "Ye"s, and "Thee"s? Would you change all those words like "ye, thee, thine, and thy"? Do you know the difference in meaning and why they are actually more accurate than the modernized, generic "you" as found in the NKJV, NIV, ESV?

Most languages have a singular and a plural form of the second person - the person being spoken to - "you". There is the singular "you" and then there is the plural, like "you all". This is found in the Hebrew and Greek languages as well as Spanish, French, Italian and many other world languages.

In English this distinction is expressed by "Thou" meaning "you singular, and you alone" and "Ye" meaning "all of you, plural". This distinction makes a big difference in hundreds of passages in the Bible.

For instance, in Luke 22:31-32 the Lord says to Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat: But I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not: and when THOU art converted, strengthen THY brethren."

Here the word YOU is plural in both the Greek and the English, meaning Satan was going to sift all of the disciples, "you all", but Jesus is letting Peter know that He had prayed for him (thee) specifically as an individual.

In John chapter four, the Samaritan woman at the well is speaking to Jesus and says: "Sir, I perceive that THOU art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and YE say (all you Jews)that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."

Then the Lord says to this individual: "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when YE shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. YE worship Ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews." Here the YE means "all of you who are Samaritans", not just the individual woman to whom He was speaking.

One more of hundreds of such examples that could be given shows this important distinction between "thee" (an individual) and "you" meaning "you all". The young David had gone out to meet Goliath the Philistine and he was speaking to one individual, the giant. David says to him: "THOU comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield, but I come to THEE in the name of the LORD..for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give YOU into our hands." David was not just telling Goliath that God would deliver him up, but ALL of the Philistines - "you all".

A simple rule of thumb is if the word begins with a T, as in thou, thy, thee, then it is singular; and if it begins with a Y, as in you, your, ye, then it is plural, meaning "you all".

The use of "thou" and "ye" may be "archaic" because we don't speak this way today, but it is far more accurate and reflects the Hebrew and the Greek languages that underlie the King James text. In fact, not even in 1611 did they speak this way. Read the preface to the KJB and you will see they did not use the "thee"s and "ye"s as they are found in the Scriptures.

Not only does the King James Bible use "thy" and "thee" and "ye" but so also do the Revised Version, and the American Standard Version 1901, the Douay version 1950, Young's, Darby, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

Even the RSV 1952 and the NASB in 1977 used "thee" and "thou" when addressing God in prayer, though the words "thee" and "thou" are not just used to show reverence for God, but rather express the second person singular of anyone, including the devil himself. The NASB, RSV both say in John 17:2 " thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him." But then in 1995 the NASB changed their texts again and now read the generic "You". So were "thou" and "thee" not archaic in 1977, but then became so in the next few years?

The King James Bible is more precise and accurate with its use of "thou" and "ye", and when you update and modernize these "archaic" words to the generic "you", you do so at the expense of sacrificing an important distinction God has placed in His inspired words.

Will Kinney

[brandplucked]

Is King James onlyism Scriptural?

We who believe God has preserved His inspired words only in the Authorized King James Holy Bible are accused of being unscriptural.

What does the Book say? God told the prophet Isaiah in chapter 59:21 "This is my covenant with them; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

The Lord   Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.

God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16

"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19

God has promised to preserve His words, here on earth, in a form that will be known and spoken among His seed, till the end of this world. How has He done this? Modern scholars tell us: "No translation is inspired; only the originals were inspired." The originals no longer exist. Is it biblical to say no translation is inspired? Again, what does the Book say? Moses spoke to Pharoah in Egyptian, yet is was translated into Hebrew.

Jesus probably spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, yet His words were translated into Greek as were the O.T. quotes. To say "no translation is inspired" is not biblical. Please see my article "Can a Translation be Inspired" for further development of this topic, here -http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

Scholars tell us God has preserved His words somewhere in a few thousand conflicting manuscripts which only they can read. Yet they cannot agree among themselves as to which texts to put into their "bibles", nor how to translate the meaning once they agree on the text.

Get 10 scholars into a room and you will come up with 12 different opinions. They try to piece together the original words from the remaining, conflicting manuscripts. Yet God can work through this "scholarly process" Himself much better than they, and place His true words in one volume, because He knows which words are His and which ones are not.

God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.

God knew English would become the "universal" language. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It was even taken to the moon! It has no proven errors.

We are falsely accused of trusting in a 17th century Anglican translation. No, we do not defend the KJB translators, their doctrines, prefatory remarks or their marginal notes. We trust in the living God Who used imperfect, sinful men both to write the originals and to preserve His words.

We defend only THE TEXT AND THE MEANING of the King James Holy Bible. Modern scholars admit their bibles are not inspired and contain errors. Ask your pastor where you can get a copy of the inspired writings of the prophets and apostles. If he doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the King James Bible, you are in for a real treat when you hear his answer.

Check out my article called "There is No Inerrant Bible", and you will see factual statements from many leading Evangelicals showing that most seminarians and future pastors no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoInerrant.html

The NKJV, NIV, Holman Standard, and the NASB all contain proveable false doctrines and disagree among themselves. The NIV and NAS reject in many places the Hebrew to follow the LXX, Syriac, Targum, or something else and the NIV and Holman tell you this in their footnotes.

(For examples of where versions like the NASB, NIV, etc. reject the Hebrew texts, and not always in the same places, please see the first two links here. And to see some concrete examples of false doctrine found in the modern versions, take a look at the third link provided here.)

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html

The "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 applies to what Timothy and his mother had in their home hundreds of years after the originals had turned to dust.

To say, "only the originals were inspired" is unbiblical. Which view is more scriptural, that of the King James Bible believer, or that of the modern "Bible Of The Month Club" promoter?

The "Thus saith the Lord" of old, has been replaced by "How does this version render it?".

I can hold the pure, perfect, inerrant words of the living God in my hands and read them in the King James Bible. What do you have in your hands?

The following is part of a discussion I had with a Christian who does not believe any Bible is the inerrant word of God.

"Why did you call it 'baloney' ?"

Hi brother Joster, I understand your concern about the way I answered your stance on the question of the inerrancy of the Bible. Let me explain a little bit. I am deliberately somewhat confrontational and "in your face" when I see the typical clichés you posted about where you think God's inerrant words are today. I have heard and read the same platitudes hundreds of times.

Your stated position is not at all well thought out. It superficially sounds very religious, but in reality says nothing. I want to get your attention and hopefully you will think it through a bit more.

Here is what you said: "Just remember, if you want the inerrant Word, as it is in its raw self, without any question as to its validity - then you need to become a student in its original languages. NO translation, including the KJV, is 100% accurate...they all have their strengths in translation and they all have their weaknesses."

Now brother, instead of taking offense by my basically calling this a bunch of baloney (which it is), think about what you are really saying here.

If we need to learn the original languages like Hebrew and Greek, then the average Joe and Jane out there can't really know what God has said. All he or she is left with are inferior, error prone, and imperfect translations, and we need the "expert scholars" to clear things up for us. All of these things are implied by your statement. In other words, the average working guy and Christian Mom or student has to settle for something less that the pure word of God. You are stealing the inspired Bible right out from under them and placing some kind of special class of modern day priestcraft as interpreters.

Secondly, you should know by now that there is no "The Hebrew text", and much less any "The Greek Text" for anyone out there to compare all versions with to see if they are right or not.

Thirdly, even if we all knew Hebrew and Greek, there still would not be any inerrant Bible as the Final Standard, simply because all these guys who write today's "bibles" come up with entirely different meanings in hundreds of verses, even when they are looking at the same text.

Fourthly, none of the bible versions out there like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, Holman follows the exact same underlying Old Testament or New Testament texts as do the others. They are all different from each other and they often contradict one another in both text and meaning.

And fifthly, when you make a statement like this: "NO translation, including the KJV, is 100% accurate...they all have their strengths in translation and they all have their weaknesses." - what do you think this implies?

It means that even though all the other translators have taken your initial advice on how to find the inerrant word of God by becoming students of the original languages, yet they have failed to give us an inerrant Bible (in your humble opinion, of course).

It also means that Your expertise is above and beyond everybody else's, because You have examined all the Bible versions in detail (which I highly doubt) and have found them all to be wanting. So, this begs the question: Why then haven't YOU, with all your advanced learning, published for the needy Christian world an inerrant Bible that only has strengths and no weaknesses in it?

Brother, I just want you and all others who express similar views (and there are many today who hold the same views you do) to realize how utterly vacant of any real meaning, and pretentious your statement of faith about the Bible really is.

Sometimes a mild rebuke is called for, and if someone tells me there is no inerrant, complete, inspired Holy Bible on this earth, I get a bit indignant about it.

"This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." Titus 1:13

I do not reject you personally as a brother in Christ; it is your position of unbelief in an inspired, inerrant Holy Bible that I attack. I hope you can see the difference. If I didn't love God's word or care about where the church is clearly headed with today's mindset regarding the inspired Scriptures, then I would say nothing.

"Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way." Psalm 119:128

Will Kinney

[gusoceros]

Here is the deal on the KJVO from my perspective:  It is pure silliness to hold the position that a "translation" is more authoritative as the Word of God.  The Word of God- meaning the Bible- was not written in English, and by default- as a translation of the original text- will not perfectly convey the original message, and some things dont fully pass in the translation.  As in all study of the Word of God, reference to the original language for clarification on the interpretation of the translation you are reading, is quite necessary as a standard operating procedure.  IMHO, the KJVO-ists fall prey to a position that does not allow them the fullness of interpretation that one can have when they responsibly approach the reading of of the KJV translation of the Word of God, and others to get an idea of what is being said in the original. 

That said- it is most certainly splitting hairs, as nearly any translation being read of the Bible, is good for us, and renewing to our mind.  It is an impossibility to reach a perfect understanding of God's Word in any case, so a bit of humility goes a long way in this position, so that we can see the forest for the trees in understanding where the value really lies- in reading the Word of God, whatever translation you may use that is most easily assimilated by you.

G

[brandplucked]

Here is the deal on the KJVO from my perspective:  It is pure silliness to hold the position that a "translation" is more authoritative as the Word of God.  The Word of God- meaning the Bible- was not written in English, and by default- as a translation of the original text- will not perfectly convey the original message, and some things dont fully pass in the translation.  As in all study of the Word of God, reference to the original language for clarification on the interpretation of the translation you are reading, is quite necessary as a standard operating procedure.  IMHO, the KJVO-ists fall prey to a position that does not allow them the fullness of interpretation that one can have when they responsibly approach the reading of of the KJV translation of the Word of God, and others to get an idea of what is being said in the original. 

G

Hi G, thanks for your thoughts.  Let's examine your position a little further.  You refer here to "the original" and "the original text".  Are you aware of the fact that there simply are no originals?  So, how could you possible know if  a translation matches the original or not?

Secondly, You say: " It is pure silliness to hold the position that a "translation" is more authoritative as the Word of God.".  Let me first ask, "more authoritative" than what?  Than your non-existent, never seen by you "the original"

It also seems your whole idea here is that a translation cannot possible be the pure, complete and 100% true words of God.  Where on earth did you ever get this idea?  Surely, not from any bible version I am aware of.  So, where did you get it from?

Thirdly, if you believe "The Bible" IS the infallible, complete and inerrant words of God, then what exactly are you referring to?  The non-existent, mystical and imaginary "original"?  Which position is really the silly one: Your "no bible or translation is the pure and wholly true words of God", or the belief that God has in fact kept His promises to preserve His words in a tangible "book of the LORD" here on this earth, and that for the last 400 years and in the foreseeable future it is in the King James Bible?

In case you don't get back to us about what you really believe about the Bible, I'll go ahead and post a response to the question: Can a translation be the true words of God.

But I hope I hear back from you on this.

God bless,

Will K

[brandplucked]

Here is the deal on the KJVO from my perspective:  It is pure silliness to hold the position that a "translation" is more authoritative as the Word of God.  G

Hi G, I was going to post it, but I noticed that I already had.  Here is the link.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

Here is something very similar you might want to consider.

The following is part of a discussion I had with a Christian who does not believe any Bible is the inerrant word of God.

"Why did you call it 'baloney' ?"

Hi brother Joster, I understand your concern about the way I answered your stance on the question of the inerrancy of the Bible. Let me explain a little bit. I am deliberately somewhat confrontational and "in your face" when I see the typical clichés you posted about where you think God's inerrant words are today. I have heard and read the same platitudes hundreds of times.

Your stated position is not at all well thought out. It superficially sounds very religious, but in reality says nothing. I want to get your attention and hopefully you will think it through a bit more.

Here is what you said: "Just remember, if you want the inerrant Word, as it is in its raw self, without any question as to its validity - then you need to become a student in its original languages. NO translation, including the KJV, is 100% accurate...they all have their strengths in translation and they all have their weaknesses."

Now brother, instead of taking offense by my basically calling this a bunch of baloney (which it is), think about what you are really saying here.

If we need to learn the original languages like Hebrew and Greek, then the average Joe and Jane out there can't really know what God has said. All he or she is left with are inferior, error prone, and imperfect translations, and we need the "expert scholars" to clear things up for us. All of these things are implied by your statement. In other words, the average working guy and Christian Mom or student has to settle for something less that the pure word of God. You are stealing the inspired Bible right out from under them and placing some kind of special class of modern day priestcraft as interpreters.

Secondly, you should know by now that there is no "The Hebrew text", and much less any "The Greek Text" for anyone out there to compare all versions with to see if they are right or not.

Thirdly, even if we all knew Hebrew and Greek, there still would not be any inerrant Bible as the Final Standard, simply because all these guys who write today's "bibles" come up with entirely different meanings in hundreds of verses, even when they are looking at the same text.

Fourthly, none of the bible versions out there like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, Holman follows the exact same underlying Old Testament or New Testament texts as do the others. They are all different from each other and they often contradict one another in both text and meaning.

And fifthly, when you make a statement like this: "NO translation, including the KJV, is 100% accurate...they all have their strengths in translation and they all have their weaknesses." - what do you think this implies?

It means that even though all the other translators have taken your initial advice on how to find the inerrant word of God by becoming students of the original languages, yet they have failed to give us an inerrant Bible (in your humble opinion, of course).

It also means that Your expertise is above and beyond everybody else's, because You have examined all the Bible versions in detail (which I highly doubt) and have found them all to be wanting. So, this begs the question: Why then haven't YOU, with all your advanced learning, published for the needy Christian world an inerrant Bible that only has strengths and no weaknesses in it?

Brother, I just want you and all others who express similar views (and there are many today who hold the same views you do) to realize how utterly vacant of any real meaning, and pretentious your statement of faith about the Bible really is.

Sometimes a mild rebuke is called for, and if someone tells me there is no inerrant, complete, inspired Holy Bible on this earth, I get a bit indignant about it.

"This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." Titus 1:13

I do not reject you personally as a brother in Christ; it is your position of unbelief in an inspired, inerrant Holy Bible that I attack. I hope you can see the difference. If I didn't love God's word or care about where the church is clearly headed with today's mindset regarding the inspired Scriptures, then I would say nothing.

"Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way." Psalm 119:128

Will Kinney

[gusoceros]

Here is the deal on the KJVO from my perspective:  It is pure silliness to hold the position that a "translation" is more authoritative as the Word of God.  G

Hi G, I was going to post it, but I noticed that I already had.  Here is the link.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

Here is something very similar you might want to consider.

The following is part of a discussion I had with a Christian who does not believe any Bible is the inerrant word of God.<snip>

I can appreciate your passion.  Is the KJV an original work, or a translation of something else?  IMHO- the answer to this fervor, lies in the answer to this question- as a translation, can never be equal to the original- the servant can not be greater than the master- because it isnt the original, rather a replica.  It doesnt mean one cant use it as the Bible, just that the value in the KJV does not come from itself, rather from that it copies.

G

[brandplucked]

I can appreciate your passion.  Is the KJV an original work, or a translation of something else?  IMHO- the answer to this fervor, lies in the answer to this question- as a translation, can never be equal to the original- the servant can not be greater than the master- because it isnt the original, rather a replica.  It doesnt mean one cant use it as the Bible, just that the value in the KJV does not come from itself, rather from that it copies.

G

Hi G, Can't you see the illogic of your present position?  You keep talking about "the original" and tell us the KJB is not equal to "the original".  How on earth do you know this?  Do you have "the original" right there in front of you and are comparing it to the King James Bible?  Of course not.  Your position on the Bible right now is that there is no such thing as a complete, pure and inerrant Bible in any language (including the ever elusive Hebrew and Greek) and that no one can truthfully say "The Bible is the inspired and inerrant words of God".

If as you say "a translation, can never be equal to the original", I can only assume you either did not read my article about this, or else you do not believe the many examples that the Bible gives of where a translation IS the equal of the original. 

If I am wrong of what your position really is, then tell us exactly and very clearly where we can all get a copy of what you think is "the original" so we can compare it to the King James Bible and see for ourselves that what you say is true.

G, what you have as your final written authority is a Phantom Bible -  An X Files (the truth it out there somewhere) imaginary and non-existent fantasy.  I and many thousands of other Christians have a Holy Bible that we believe are the preserved and 100% true words of God in the English language.  You, on the other hand, have nothing that you can hold in your hands and recommend to anyone as the true and perfect words of God.

Correct me if I am wrong.  Follow the logic of your own statements.

Will K

[gusoceros]

I can appreciate your passion.  Is the KJV an original work, or a translation of something else?  IMHO- the answer to this fervor, lies in the answer to this question- as a translation, can never be equal to the original- the servant can not be greater than the master- because it isnt the original, rather a replica.  It doesnt mean one cant use it as the Bible, just that the value in the KJV does not come from itself, rather from that it copies.

G

Hi G, Can't you see the illogic of your present position?  You keep talking about "the original" and tell us the KJB is not equal to "the original".  How on earth do you know this?  <snip>

The Prophets and Apostles did not write the pieces that have gone into the Bible, in English.  This tells me the original pieces were in a different language- by the very nature that the KJV is a Translation (King James VERSION)

Is the KJV a translation- yes, or no?

G

[brandplucked]

I can appreciate your passion.  Is the KJV an original work, or a translation of something else?  IMHO- the answer to this fervor, lies in the answer to this question- as a translation, can never be equal to the original- the servant can not be greater than the master- because it isnt the original, rather a replica.  It doesnt mean one cant use it as the Bible, just that the value in the KJV does not come from itself, rather from that it copies.

G

Hi G, Can't you see the illogic of your present position?  You keep talking about "the original" and tell us the KJB is not equal to "the original".  How on earth do you know this?  <snip>

The Prophets and Apostles did not write the pieces that have gone into the Bible, in English.  This tells me the original pieces were in a different language- by the very nature that the KJV is a Translation (King James VERSION)

Is the KJV a translation- yes, or no?

G

Hi G, Yes, Obviously the King James Bible is a translation.  Did you happen to actually read my article "Can a Translation be Inspired?"  The Bible itself clearly teaches by way of many examples that a translation can be the inspired and inerrant words of God.   In case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

Now, if we accept your present view of things, there obviously are no originals left anywhere on this earth.  In fact, the "originals" NEVER were put together into a single book of the Lord, so we would have to conclude by following your logic that there NEVER WAS an inspired and inerrant Bible (a single book containing all the inspired writings) on this earth.

Why not just openly and honestly admit that you personally do not believe that any  Bible in any language (including Hebrew or Greek) is now the complete and 100% true words of God?  This is what you really believe, isn't it?  Why are you having trouble admiting it?  More and more Christians are now openly saying that they do not believe in an inspired and inerrant Bible.  They are at least being honest with the logic of their conclusions.  What about you?

Thanks,

Will

[gusoceros]

The Prophets and Apostles did not write the pieces that have gone into the Bible, in English.  This tells me the original pieces were in a different language- by the very nature that the KJV is a Translation (King James VERSION)

Is the KJV a translation- yes, or no?

G

Hi G, Yes, Obviously the King James Bible is a translation.  <snip>

Any translation is then- by definition- dependent on the original- from which it gains its purpose as a translation, a representation of the original in another language- that is what differentiates an original from a translation.  It is immaterial whether or not I have the original in front of me- as we both agree now, that the KJV is a translation- and is therefore dependent on the original, whether or not it can be produced.

Translations- by their very nature, do not exactly represent the nuances of the underlying language- and some things can and are lost in translation- if it were not so, then the languages would be exactly the same, and as far as I know- Greek / Hebrew are distinctly different from English.  That is the purpose of Concordances- and for that matter to a lesser degree- the purpose of an English Translation- to help those of us know the Word of God, when we dont know or understand Greek and Hebrew.

This is all quite foundational, and basic.  The KJV is an English Translation of the Word of God- and as such, is dependent on the original, and does not stand alone.

G

PS- please dont take offense that I have snipped out other arguments you are making, I am trying to keep the conversation from diverting into sidepaths that we have not earned the right to get to yet.  It is imperative that before we can advance in the argument- the nature of "what it is to be a translation" be brought out- as it is foundational to the situation.

PPS- I do believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God- so ...

[brandplucked]

Any translation is then- by definition- dependent on the original- from which it gains its purpose as a translation, a representation of the original in another language- that is what differentiates an original from a translation.  It is immaterial whether or not I have the original in front of me- as we both agree now, that the KJV is a translation- and is therefore dependent on the original, whether or not it can be produced.

Translations- by their very nature, do not exactly represent the nuances of the underlying language- and some things can and are lost in translation- if it were not so, then the languages would be exactly the same, and as far as I know- Greek / Hebrew are distinctly different from English.  That is the purpose of Concordances- and for that matter to a lesser degree- the purpose of an English Translation- to help those of us know the Word of God, when we dont know or understand Greek and Hebrew.

This is all quite foundational, and basic.  The KJV is an English Translation of the Word of God- and as such, is dependent on the original, and does not stand alone.

G


PPS- I do believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God- so ...

Hi G, thanks for your response.  It looks to me that you are using a whole lot of human reasoning rather than the sound principles laid down before us in the Bible itself.  I repeat a couple of clear examples:

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

G, you close with saying: "PPS- I do believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God- so ..."

I would then ask you why you use a present tense verb IS?  The word IS means that it is something that exists now, not in the past.  For the past you should properly use the word WAS.  So, if you believe the Bible (which you have yet to identify for us, and tell us cannot possibly be a translation into another language), then where can we all get a copy of this "Bible" you say you believe in that IS the inerrant words of God?

Come on, G.  You wouldn't be trying to make us think you actually believe in something that you yourself affirm does not exist, would you?

Where is this inerrant bible you say you believe in?

Thanks,

Will

[gusoceros]

Any translation is then- by definition- dependent on the original- from which it gains its purpose as a translation, a representation of the original in another language- that is what differentiates an original from a translation.  It is immaterial whether or not I have the original in front of me- as we both agree now, that the KJV is a translation- and is therefore dependent on the original, whether or not it can be produced.

Translations- by their very nature, do not exactly represent the nuances of the underlying language- and some things can and are lost in translation- if it were not so, then the languages would be exactly the same, and as far as I know- Greek / Hebrew are distinctly different from English.  That is the purpose of Concordances- and for that matter to a lesser degree- the purpose of an English Translation- to help those of us know the Word of God, when we dont know or understand Greek and Hebrew.

This is all quite foundational, and basic.  The KJV is an English Translation of the Word of God- and as such, is dependent on the original, and does not stand alone.

G


PPS- I do believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God- so ...

Hi G, thanks for your response.  It looks to me that you are using a whole lot of human reasoning rather than the sound principles laid down before us in the Bible itself.  I repeat a couple of clear examples:

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

G, you close with saying: "PPS- I do believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God- so ..."

I would then ask you why you use a present tense verb IS?  The word IS means that it is something that exists now, not in the past.  For the past you should properly use the word WAS.  So, if you believe the Bible (which you have yet to identify for us, and tell us cannot possibly be a translation into another language), then where can we all get a copy of this "Bible" you say you believe in that IS the inerrant words of God?

Come on, G.  You wouldn't be trying to make us think you actually believe in something that you yourself affirm does not exist, would you?

Where is this inerrant bible you say you believe in?

Thanks,

Will

A couple things here-

1) None of this actually addresses the authority of a translation vs the original- the examples you give all represent something completely different- speaking original words, in a different language.  This is not an example of a translation.

2) Both Biblical references you cited, were originally in Hebrew and Greek respectively.

3) The point I made about a translation not being exactly the same as the original, remains.

4) The KJV remains, an unoriginal work- a translation, to which you agree- which also means, that you agree that there was something from which it was translated.

G

[brandplucked]

Hi G, it really seems we will be getting nowhere in our discussion about the Bible.  I posted two examples that clearly teach that a translation can be the true and inspired words of God.  And what did you come back with?  This statement: "Both Biblical references you cited, were originally in Hebrew and Greek respectively."

G, here they are again.  Notice that the first inspired words were spoken in Egyptian and TRANSLATED into inspired Hebrew, and the second example is of spoken and inspired Hebrew which was directly TRANSLATED into inspired Greek.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

Now, about this "inerrant Bible" you SAY you believe in - Where can we get a copy of it?

Thanks,

Will

[sonja]

So who says that God hasn't inspired the newer translations?  As far as I'm concerned, KJ English is another language and God could just as easily used another inspired version for modern times.  The bottom line is that we have nothing from God saying, "All ye English speaking people, use the KJV only and no others.  I have only inspired the KJV." 

I think the problem is that this whole issue becomes a stumbling block for people....especially new believers.  To me, that would grieve the Holy Spirit.  I have a friend in prison who absolutely will not read the KJV, but give her a simpler translation and she can handle it and enjoys it.  Where would that leave her if she is scared off by the KJV?  You can say that a simple class would help her to get over those fears, but does God really want us to have to take a "class" on a form of language that we don't even use anymore before we can even start to understand His word?  I have to disagree.

I've listened to teachers who are KJVO and have yet to hear something that is completely off from what I've already learned by reading other translations....mostly NKJV.  Seems I have the same understanding of the gospel and love for the Lord as those who are KJVO.  But how can this be if the version I'm reading is so wrong?

Just my uneducated two cents.  I'm no scholar.

Sonja

[Titus2:3wife]

Sonja,

I suppose God could inspire people to translate a new Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew, but if he did it would look exactly like a KJV 1611.  Why do it again, if it has already been done.  What about the newer translations?  Well, they were re-translated using a text from the Catholic church and  by men of pure corruption and not by men who were God-fearing Christians such as those who translated the Bible for King James of England.  Do you even know the two men who translated the "other" versions?(This would include the NKJV, NIV, NASB)  The NIV was translated by two men who believed in everything that wasn't biblical.  They didn't believe in the virgin birth, they didn't believe in a resurrection, they were heavy into witchcraft.  Would you want to read a Bible translated by someone like that, or a Christian?  Let me give you something to think about.  A new perspective.  Would you want someone who does not believe in Jesus and is heavily into the occult to watch your children?  My guess is no.  Then, why would you want a person like that to translate the Holy word of God?  Just a thought.
I know that this KJVO can be overwhelming sometimes.  I never knew about the different bible versions when I got saved.  I don't believe anyone needs to know a specific "translation" to be saved.  But if you want to be able to walk in truth, effectively, it would be of an easy yoke to bear if you read the true word of God.  I will give a list of books and references for you to use and see for yourself.  It wouldn't hurt to look into it. 

Which Version is the Bible?  by Floyd Nolen Jones
Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible, by Samuel Gipp
The Language of the King James Bible by, Gail Riplinger
Check out av publications website or chickpublications website and they have more information about this issue.  I know that av publications has mini-tracts that will explain this situation in an easy to understand way.  I think they are only .15-.30 cents each. If you can't afford them, I will send some to you.  Then, perhaps, you can share them with the people in jail.  This  would be a non-confrontational way of sharing this truth with those that may not otherwise ever want to change a bible version.  Most people who are KJVO are understanding that many people just have never heard of this before and we try to share the truth.  But it is up to each individual who has heard this to research it for themselves that they may be blameless in regards to this situation when we are judged for our works.  Let me know if you have any other questions.

[sonja]

You're reply was very gentle and greatly appreciated.  I have the book "Which Version is the Bible" but have yet to dive too deeply into it.  I have read another book called "The Facts on the King James Only Debate" and it really made sense to me and only confirmed my conviction.

My question is that after I research this and still believe the way I do currently, would the KJVO group believe me to be saved and able to stand blameless before God (as stated about being blameless when we are judged for our works).  I find it scary that God would judge me on something that really isn't that clear.  Now if I believed a different doctrine than you because of reading other translations, then fine, but I haven't found anything yet that would lead me to witchcraft.

What did the English speaking people do before 1611 is this is the true translation?  They wouldn't have had a way to know the "true" word of God.

[gusoceros]

Hi G, it really seems we will be getting nowhere in our discussion about the Bible.  I posted two examples that clearly teach that a translation can be the true and inspired words of God.  And what did you come back with?  This statement: "Both Biblical references you cited, were originally in Hebrew and Greek respectively."

G, here they are again.  Notice that the first inspired words were spoken in Egyptian and TRANSLATED into inspired Hebrew, and the second example is of spoken and inspired Hebrew which was directly TRANSLATED into inspired Greek.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

Now, about this "inerrant Bible" you SAY you believe in - Where can we get a copy of it?

Thanks,

Will

I agree- we are not getting very far.  If the KJV is a translation, that means that it is a copy of something- that is what it is to be a translation.  Let is dispense with the logical fallacy of "I believe the KJV is a translation, but there is no original" position please.

This is foundational to us continuing- can we agree that the KJV was translated from a Word of God that came before it, in a different language?

G

[Titus2:3wife]

Sonja,

I hope you do plan on finishing that book.  It was really good and it was the first time that we had ever heard of this sort of thing.  In fact, many questions that you are asking me can be answered reading that book and others.  It is my understanding, from the history point of view that before 1611 King James Bible there was the Bible and it was very seldom reproduced.  Doing so meant instant death by the Catholic Church.  See, they had the "true" bible in their churches that was locked to their podium that they used and nobody read it but them. It was a way of holding the congregation to their bondage.   When an up and coming scholar would study the scriptures in order to become a priest or something they would read it and either 1.)  Realize that the Catholics were adding tradition to the real Word of God and making up other things and they would blindly turn and eye.  Or 2.)  They realized the same things and started to make copies of this Bible for the comman man, risking their lives, knowing that taking the stand would be punishable by anathema or death. 

This is heart of the Reformation.  This was known as the Dark Ages.  Many people perished because only priests had the bible.   Not because the Catholic Church is a true Christian Church but because they killed everyone that disagreed with them.  Once people heard what the real word of God was all about they were no longer in bondage to the Catholic Church.  They were no longer in fear of a works based religion that never satisfied the soul.  They were hearing of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ that was not of works but of grace.  Word spread and many people, I believe 60 million were put to death for believing in this gospel and many people were copying these bibles(still the real word of God) and passing them around(Wycliff, Tyndale).  Ever hear of Bloody Mary?  She was a queen of England who was Catholic and wanted the people who believed in this Bible and not the papal authority of the church.  This is where King James of (Scotland) and England come into play.  He was the grandson of Bloody Mary and by the grace of God inherited the throne as king as a protestant(those who believed in the bible and not the Catholic Church) and he conducted a committee to translate many copies of this bible.  This bible and it's copies are known today as the King James Version 1611, hence the year the bible was safely and legally translated, copied, and distributed.  All bibles today stem from the King James.  This is probably the worst telling of the history, but it gives you a general idea of what exactly went on back then.  But I encourage you to read some of those books, for I am no scholar nor good at writting!

As for reading another translation, that choice is purely yours.  Can you still be saved reading another translation, yes.  But that doesn't mean I would reccommend it.  I am writing to you as if I would be writing my dear beloved sister or precious daughter.  I would want to share the truth with them so much out of love.  Well, that's why I am sharing it with you.  I know that we don't know each other, but Christ wants us to esteem others in this way, and I want you to know the truth as much as I would want my own precious children to know it. 

As for God judging you for this as works, only God can speak to your heart.  I can correct and exhort as a sister in the Lord, but I cannot be your conscience. 

I know your heart is not intended toward witchcraft, neither was mine when I read an NIV, but I was reading blasphemous scriptures and didn't even know it.  Let me share just one with you before I end. 

In an Isaiah 14:12-14 an NIV calls Lucifer "...Oh morning star"  but when you look in the book of Revelations 22:16 an NIV calls Jesus morning star.  So, how can Lucifer and Jesus be called the same.  Hence, a bible that gives the glory that belongs to Christ to the devil.  Was it a mistake?  Surely anyone can make a simple wrong translation?  This is where the KJV comes in.  There are typos like misspelled words, but no mistranslations.  The other translations are translated not only incorrectly, but blasphemously.  Some are subtle, others are blatantly obvious.  There will be a time when a saved person will have a Bible and fall away from the truth just by reading it, because they don't understand the true Deity of Christ. This is the prophesied falling away of the church.  This is just the beginning of a one world bible for the one world church.  These newer versions are getting watered down verse by verse and version by version.  Why do homosexuals and Gnostic's find no conviction reading these new versions?  This is why. 

Hope I have helped somewhat and that even though I will only read a King James Version, I do it humbly, knowing that I too was once in darkness.  I wish for my fellow brothers and sisters to see the truth.  God bless you on your new and exciting study!

[brandplucked]

So who says that God hasn't inspired the newer translations?  As far as I'm concerned, KJ English is another language and God could just as easily used another inspired version for modern times.  The bottom line is that we have nothing from God saying, "All ye English speaking people, use the KJV only and no others.  I have only inspired the KJV." 

I think the problem is that this whole issue becomes a stumbling block for people....especially new believers.  To me, that would grieve the Holy Spirit.  I have a friend in prison who absolutely will not read the KJV, but give her a simpler translation and she can handle it and enjoys it.  Where would that leave her if she is scared off by the KJV?  You can say that a simple class would help her to get over those fears, but does God really want us to have to take a "class" on a form of language that we don't even use anymore before we can even start to understand His word?  I have to disagree.

I've listened to teachers who are KJVO and have yet to hear something that is completely off from what I've already learned by reading other translations....mostly NKJV.  Seems I have the same understanding of the gospel and love for the Lord as those who are KJVO.  But how can this be if the version I'm reading is so wrong?

Just my uneducated two cents.  I'm no scholar.

Sonja

Hi Sonja, I think I understand your points.  I agree that a person can get saved and love the Lord no matter which version he or she may be using.  However, the simple fact is that more and more Christians no longer believe that any Bible in any language is now the inerrant words of God.  This unbelief is being promoted by most seminaries today and it will only get worse.  Biblical illiteracy is at an all time high.  People know less and less about sound doctrine, and what is perhaps worse, they don't even care.

Here is what many seminaries are teaching about the inerrancy of the Bible, and a shocking poll about what many "Christian" youth now believe.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoInerrant.html

Will Kinney

[stallent]

So I have a few questions of the KJVO folks:

1) Do you believe that the KJV is the only English translation that is inspired?
2) Do you believe that there can be or are inspired translations in other languages?
3) Do you believe that a translation must be "inspired" to contain the Words of God, and that if it is not inspired, it cannot be the Word of God?
4) Do you believe that the current version of the KJV contains all the words of God ever inspired?
5) Do you believe that "Word of God" equates to "Scripture(s)"?
6) Do you believe that the councils that chose the books that are contained in the current KJV were inspired to pick those books, and leave out other books which up until that time were used in Christian churches?

[sonja]

Just some questions:

How do we know that those who translated the KJV were inspired by God? 

What tells us that FOR SURE these people were the ones God chose to do the "inspired" translation? 

And why can't there be any others? 

Does this mean that every language can only have one "inspired" translation? 

Did the people translating the KJV claim that they were the ONE and ONLY "inspired" translation into English?

[Titus2:3wife]

Read the two books that I suggested to you.  Which version is the Bible and Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible by Samuel Gipp available through chickpublications.com
These will answer all of these questions and so much more.  A little research never hurt anyone!

[gusoceros]

I took some time, and addressed the points you made, and added some information as well.

Hi G, it really seems we will be getting nowhere in our discussion about the Bible.  I posted two examples that clearly teach that a translation can be the true and inspired words of God.  And what did you come back with?  This statement: "Both Biblical references you cited, were originally in Hebrew and Greek respectively."

G, here they are again.  Notice that the first inspired words were spoken in Egyptian and TRANSLATED into inspired Hebrew, and the second example is of spoken and inspired Hebrew which was directly TRANSLATED into inspired Greek.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Your example fails- it is not the same water- it is the nature of translations to miss some things, or for somethings not to translate well- which is why we need our concordances.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

Your example fails- the original account is recorded for the first time, in Hebrew.  It is not a translation- it is the original recording of events.

In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

Your example fails- speaking to someone in their own language, is not an example of translation- translation is the act of taking something that is already written- and copying it as exactly as the tools of the languages can, to reflect it as a duplicate.  This is not what Paul was doing- he was creating original conversation- the original record.

If no translation can be inspired of God

BTW (as I have said before)- Im not arguing that God did not guide the creation of the KJV- I am arguing against the silly notion that it is the *only* translation that can/should be used.

Now, about this "inerrant Bible" you SAY you believe in - Where can we get a copy of it?

Thanks,

Will

Your request for source continues to be a logical fallacy- not only is it irrelevant because you claim the KJV is a translation (thus admitting an inspired source document by default), it is irrelevant to whether or not the KJV is the only translation that should be used.  To deny it exists, is to discredit the translation as well- unless I am missing something here, which is entirely possible.

I agree- we are not getting very far.  If the KJV is a translation, that means that it is a copy of something- that is what it is to be a translation.  Let is dispense with the logical fallacy of "I believe the KJV is a translation, but there is no original" position please.

This is foundational to us continuing- can we agree that the KJV was translated from a Word of God that came before it, in a different language?

I am thinking then- that if one is to consider the KJV a Translation- that is by default admitting an original source file in another language.  By definition- it is impossible for a Translation to be more accurate than the original, because the servant is not greater than the master- indeed, it would seem that there is a great deal of sophistry around the basis that a translation is now the basis of authority for God's Word.  While it is not my intention to diminish any of the translations from their purpose and intent of bringing us God's Word in a language we can understand (in all our getting, let us get understanding), it seems that this position that there is only 1 version a Christian can/should use or else falls into this trap as outlined by scripture in Colossians 2:

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,

God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[d]

 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

 20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.[/list]

[brandplucked]

So I have a few questions of the KJVO folks:

1) Do you believe that the KJV is the only English translation that is inspired?

Yes.
2) Do you believe that there can be or are inspired translations in other languages?

There may be in the future, but for the last almost 400 years the pure words of God are only found in the King James Bible.
3) Do you believe that a translation must be "inspired" to contain the Words of God, and that if it is not inspired, it cannot be the Word of God?

Yes.  A translation can be the inspired words of God, in spite of what others here may think.  All versions contain many or some of God's true words.  To that degree they contain the true words of God, but none of them is the pure and perfectly preserved words of God except the KJB.
4) Do you believe that the current version of the KJV contains all the words of God ever inspired?

Yes, all that God intented to be placed into the book of the LORD.

5) Do you believe that "Word of God" equates to "Scripture(s)"?

No, the Word of God is the Son of God.  The Scriptures are the words of God.  The words of God were never crucified, bled or rose from the dead. The Word of God did.

6) Do you believe that the councils that chose the books that are contained in the current KJV were inspired to pick those books, and leave out other books which up until that time were used in Christian churches?

Yes.  It is all part of the sovereignty of God in history.

Will K

[brandplucked]

Just some questions:

How do we know that those who translated the KJV were inspired by God? 

The KJB translators were not inspired.  Only God's words are inspired, even when they are placed into a translation.

What tells us that FOR SURE these people were the ones God chose to do the "inspired" translation? 

The fruits of their labors.  By their fruits ye shall know them.  There are no lies in the KJB.  There are lies and false doctrines in all modern versions.

And why can't there be any others? 

Maybe there will be in the future, but I don't see this happening. 

Does this mean that every language can only have one "inspired" translation? 

No, it means there must be at least one true and 100% pure book of the Lord on this earth.  God never promised to give every nation a perfect Bible, but He did promise to preserve His words in the book of the Lord here on this earth.  As far as I know, only the KJB meets the requirements of truth and fruit.

Did the people translating the KJV claim that they were the ONE and ONLY "inspired" translation into English?

No, they never did.  Did Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, Jude or James ever claim such a thing either?

I've answered your questions.  would you answer mine?

If you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, can you tell us which one it is?  Do you believe the NKJV is the perfect, complete and infallible words of God?  yes or no?

Thanks,

Will K

[stallent]

So I have a few questions of the KJVO folks:

1) Do you believe that the KJV is the only English translation that is inspired?

Yes.
2) Do you believe that there can be or are inspired translations in other languages?

There may be in the future, but for the last almost 400 years the pure words of God are only found in the King James Bible.
3) Do you believe that a translation must be "inspired" to contain the Words of God, and that if it is not inspired, it cannot be the Word of God?

Yes.  A translation can be the inspired words of God, in spite of what others here may think.  All versions contain many or some of God's true words.  To that degree they contain the true words of God, but none of them is the pure and perfectly preserved words of God except the KJB.
4) Do you believe that the current version of the KJV contains all the words of God ever inspired?

Yes, all that God intented to be placed into the book of the LORD.

5) Do you believe that "Word of God" equates to "Scripture(s)"?

No, the Word of God is the Son of God.  The Scriptures are the words of God.  The words of God were never crucified, bled or rose from the dead. The Word of God did.

6) Do you believe that the councils that chose the books that are contained in the current KJV were inspired to pick those books, and leave out other books which up until that time were used in Christian churches?

Yes.  It is all part of the sovereignty of God in history.

Will K

So some followup questions:

1) Can uninspired texts can contain the Word of God?
2) Were there inspired texts before the KJV?
3) Were the original texts (which do not currently exist) inspired?
4) Were the texts from which the KJV translated inspired?
5) Are the texts from which the KJV was translated no longer available?
6) Can parts of a text be inspired and other parts uninspired?
7) "God has promised to preserve His words, here on earth, in a form that will be known and spoken among His seed, till the end of this world." What form did this take prior to the KJV? In what form were God's words known and spoken among his seed prior to the KJV being made available to the masses? What was the "book of the Lord" prior to 1611 that could be sought out and read?
I didn't quite understand the answer to #4 above so I will ask several questions to clarify. Do you believe that all the words of spoken by holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (inspired) were recorded in the KJV?
9) Do you believe that all Scriptures that were given by inspiration of God are recorded in the KJV?
10) You have said that many other texts contain some of the words of God. Do you believe that any words of God that are not in the KJV are inspired?

[brandplucked]

So some followup questions:

1) Can uninspired texts can contain the Word of God?

Hi Stallent.  First of all, you need to make the Biblical distinction between the Word of God, and the words of God.  I did this for you before, but you either forgot or ignored this distinction.  The Word of God is one of the names of the Son of God.  The words of God are those words that God caused to be recorded in His inspired book.  Uninspired texts cannot contain the words of God.
2) Were there inspired texts before the KJV?

Yes.
3) Were the original texts (which do not currently exist) inspired?

Yes.
4) Were the texts from which the KJV translated inspired?
Yes.
5) Are the texts from which the KJV was translated no longer available?
They are no longer available.  Many manuscripts they used are no longer with us, but the readings they included can be found among the various texts in existence today - usually in Erasmus, Beza, or Stephanus for the N.T. and in most existing Hebrew Scriptures.

6) Can parts of a text be inspired and other parts uninspired?

Sure, if it is a faulty text and yet other parts are correct.  All modern bibles are partly inspired and partly not.

7) "God has promised to preserve His words, here on earth, in a form that will be known and spoken among His seed, till the end of this world." What form did this take prior to the KJV? In what form were God's words known and spoken among his seed prior to the KJV being made available to the masses? What was the "book of the Lord" prior to 1611 that could be sought out and read?

I'm not sure about being available to the masses, but I would say the Hebrew Scriptures for the O.T. and most likely the Old Latin and the Waldensian bibles for the New Testament.

I didn't quite understand the answer to #4 above so I will ask several questions to clarify. Do you believe that all the words of spoken by holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (inspired) were recorded in the KJV?

Yes.  All the ones God wanted to be included in His book of the LORD.

9) Do you believe that all Scriptures that were given by inspiration of God are recorded in the KJV?

Yes, All the ones God wanted to be included in His book of the LORD.

10) You have said that many other texts contain some of the words of God. Do you believe that any words of God that are not in the KJV are inspired?

No.  How could you possible know otherwise.

Now, just one simple one for you.  Do you believe The Bible is now the complete, pure, perfect, inspired and 100% true words of God?

If you say Yes, then you must tell us what you mean by "The Bible" and where we can get a copy.

Thanks,

Will K

[stallent]

Now, just one simple one for you.  Do you believe The Bible is now the complete, pure, perfect, inspired and 100% true words of God?

If you say Yes, then you must tell us what you mean by "The Bible" and where we can get a copy.

Thanks,

Will K

I do not even know why you ask this question. Well, yes I do. You ask the question to put people on the spot who do not understand that a subjective, extra-Scriptural standard has been set. God promises that not a jot or tittle of the law or the prophets will be done away until all be fulfilled. He promises that heaven and earth will pass away, but His words will not pass away. I guess we see your definition of "not pass away" in the above question. Frankly, I don't make the connection. If I believed that you came up with that question on your own I guess I would be impressed, but I don't believe that you did. I believe that you picked it up somewhere and thought it was clever. It is a bullying tactic. You quote a bunch of Scripture, then define your playground from there, knowing that most people won't be able to see the disconnect between the Scripture that you use and the defined playground. It sounds Spiritual and right and so even though something doesn't seem right to them, they are unable to respond. Many probably don't even realize what you have done.

By implication, by your conditional yes to several of my questions, and also by reading through Scripture about various prophets whose words are not recorded, God spoke through prophets things that were not recorded. Also we do not have every single word that Christ spoke while on Earth. We don't even have every single word that he spoke while preaching. As you know, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." and "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." We can probably safely make the assumption that if he did so many other signs that weren't recorded, that He also spoke a lot more than was recorded. In fact we have several records of Him speaking to people, like the scholars in the temple when he was young, and we don't have any clue what He said. If in His 30 years He only spoke the words recorded in the gospels, He was a pretty quiet guy. Most of us speak more than that in a single day. Therefore the KJV Bible cannot by definition be the complete words of God.

The words of God are pure, and perfect, and true, wherever they might be, including outside the covers of the KVJ Bible.

I can only imagine the tongue lashing that the apostle Paul would have given you for asking a loaded question like this. After the way that you've treated many people, I would imagine that many would revel in it. Probably not good attitudes on our part. But I imagine that we would all learn a lot about the nature of God's word and how it is ludicrous to make a statement like, "For the last four hundred years, the complete, pure, perfect, inspired and 100% true words of God have only been contained in the KJV."

BTW, I know the distinction of "Word of God" and "words of God" but you occassionally seem to use them interchangeably which is why I've asked some of the questions. Probably just oopsies on your part since you are so adament about maintaining the distinction.

[brandplucked]

Now, just one simple one for you.  Do you believe The Bible is now the complete, pure, perfect, inspired and 100% true words of God?

If you say Yes, then you must tell us what you mean by "The Bible" and where we can get a copy.

Thanks,

Will K

I do not even know why you ask this question. Well, yes I do. You ask the question to put people on the spot who do not understand that a subjective, extra-Scriptural standard has been set. ....The words of God are pure, and perfect, and true, wherever they might be, including outside the covers of the KVJ Bible.

Hi S, it looks to me by your statement "The words of God are pure, and perfect, and true, wherever they might be, including outside the covers of the KVJ Bible"   as though you have gone off into the cloudland of mysticism.  This is where I believe Christianity is headed, so it really comes as no surprise to me.  YOU were the one who was asking about "inspired words" and I was pointing you the the Book.  Now, you tell us that not only are they not in the Book but "wherever they might be".  This is pure mysticism.

Have it your way.  No one is forcing the belief in an inerrant book of the Lord upon you. You can believe whatever you want.

But for those redeemed saints who still want to believe the promises of God are sure and true, and that there really is a "book of the LORD" here on this earth, I am merely telling others where this Book can be found today.  Some have ears to hear and others do not.

You and I obviously differ over who is the one who hears and who doesn't, so we'll just let God sort it all out.  I can't persuade anybody of anything.  God has to do the work or it simply won't get done.

Will K

Advanced search

• 1 Timothy 3:16 GOD was manifest in the flesh, or the Vatican versions "he"?: Translation Questions and Discussion byandiclare (3)
• Revelation 18:20 - Bible critics and "ye holy apostles and prophets": Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• What About the 2011 NIV Old Testament?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• 1 Samuel 6:19 Is your Bible the 100% historical truth of God? 50,070 or 70 slain: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (3)
• What About the new NIV 2011?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (2)
• Answering the Typical Anti-KJB Only sites: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• We are Gods?: Bible Discussion bySoffi (0)
• Every Man For Himself Bible Versions: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• Answering James White's Question - Which KJV?: Translation Questions and Discussion byAndysDad (6)

• Japanese/English Bible?: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byGarlicMomma (5)
• Beka....?: Announcements & Updates byandiclare (0)
• HELP? Hubby can't sleep (I tried to search this): Healthcare @ Home byandiclare (1)
• Where is everyone?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (5)
• Introduce Yourself!: Nothing Deep bypiperjameson (325)
• The scoop on Soap: House and Home byCherika Four Seasons (1)
• Ideas: Children serving each other: Parenting byjenibee (0)
• My husband needs help with something I think is wrong: Relationships byjackiee (4)
• like minded moms?: Parenting byHomeschool_Newbie (2)
• "Courtship" discussions/questions: Relationships byHomeschool_Newbie (15)
• Announcing....: Announcements & Updates byBJ_BOBBI_JO (5)
• 80 days dream: Announcements & Updates bybasething (16)
• strabismus: Healthcare @ Home byFree Woman (10)
• Prayer Requests -- Health Related: Healthcare @ Home byBJ_BOBBI_JO (640)
• Translations in Guatemala...: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byAndysDad (5)
• Boring christian life: Sarah's Daughters byBJ_BOBBI_JO (6)
• Is this site for real?: Relationships byandiclare (2)
• Emergency food: canned or powder?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (9)
• A heart issue for my children?: Parenting byandiclare (9)
• Keeping Warm, Heating Tips & Tricks: House and Home byherbalmom (60)

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

February 04, 2012, 05:17:36 PM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 6890
• Latest: Sunglasses

Stats

• Total Posts: 243886
• Total Topics: 21906
• Online Today: 35
• Online Ever: 437
• (April 01, 2008, 03:09:36 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 1
• Guests: 29
• Total: 30
• MomOf8