KJV-only divers measures concerning pre-1611 English Bibles?

[logos1560]

The KJV is a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'].  The KJV is more of a revision of those earlier English Bibles than it is a new, fresh, or independent translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.  The makers of the KJV maintained that those pre-1611 English Bibles were the word of God in English.

The truth is consistent.  One clear test of modern claims implying or asserting that the KJV should be considered to be given by inspiration of God according to 2 Timothy 3;16 would be to see if the same claims are applied consistently to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision.

Is Tyndale's Bible asserted to be given by inspiration of God by the same ones who suggest that is true of the KJV?

Is the 1535 Coverdale's Bible asserted to be given by inspiration of God?

Is the 1537 Matthew's Bible claimed to be given by inspiration of God?

Is the 1539 Great Bible maintained to be given by inspiration of God?

Is the 1560 Geneva Bible asserted to be given by inspiration of God?

Is the 1568 Bishops' Bible asserted to be given by inspiration of God?

Is the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament from which the makers of the KJV borrowed a number of renderings asserted to be given by inspiration of God?

Will it become or be very obvious and clear that KJV-only advocates would have to be using one weight or measure for the pre-1611 English Bibles while using a different one for the KJV and also a different for later English Bibles such as the NKJV? 

This evident use of different measures indicates a serious problem concerning the accuracy of their assertions or accusations since the use of divers weights, divers measures, unjust balances, or double standards is wrong according to the Scriptures (Prov. 16:11, 10:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Micah 6:11).  Unrighteous divers weights, unjust balances, or untrue judgments are not of the LORD (Ps. 19:9).

 

[Binaca Chugger]

This complicated issue is quite simple to me - the KJV is a correct translation.  Predecessors and followers are not completely correct, as only one can be.  Truth is found in many other translations.  Some claim bold lies are found in some.

Salvation by the KJV alone is heresy, as this theory mandates that only those after 1611 may be saved.

Keep in mind, God did not promise His Word to be translated into English in a certain year, only that It would be preserved forever. 

I contend that some predecessors and followers are nice works of translation, but not absolutely correct.  If I have a correct translation from the correct sources done my the greatest minds with the greatest resources, why should I use any other?

 

[christundivided]

This complicated issue is quite simple to me - the KJV is a correct translation.  Predecessors and followers are not completely correct, as only one can be.  Truth is found in many other translations.  Some claim bold lies are found in some.

Salvation by the KJV alone is heresy, as this theory mandates that only those after 1611 may be saved.

Keep in mind, God did not promise His Word to be translated into English in a certain year, only that It would be preserved forever. 

I contend that some predecessors and followers are nice works of translation, but not absolutely correct.  If I have a correct translation from the correct sources done my the greatest minds with the greatest resources, why should I use any other?

You don't have such a resource. It doesn't exist. Preservation has nothing to do with the text of any translation. God doesn't have to "write" something down to "preserve" His Word. It is Eternal. Never ending. It exists beyond parchment and paper. Its not tied to anything in this world.

So when you say God has promised to preserve His Word and then believe its preserved on the KJV...... you're believing a lie. Every KJV in existence will perish and fade from existence. God's Word will not. Oh.... by the way.... God hasn't forgot one thing He said.... and He's not relying on mankind to remember it for Him.

 

[logos1560]

Keep in mind, God did not promise His Word to be translated into English in a certain year, only that It would be preserved forever. 

God did not promise that the preservation of the words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles would be transferred to another language such as English. 

How is claimed preservation in different words in a different language supposedly preservation of the same original language words that God gave to the prophets and apostles?

Do the Scriptures state or teach that the word of God is bound or limited to the textual criticism decisions of one group of critics and to the translation decisions of one group of Church of England scholars?

 

[Binaca Chugger]

This complicated issue is quite simple to me - the KJV is a correct translation.  Predecessors and followers are not completely correct, as only one can be.  Truth is found in many other translations.  Some claim bold lies are found in some.

Salvation by the KJV alone is heresy, as this theory mandates that only those after 1611 may be saved.

Keep in mind, God did not promise His Word to be translated into English in a certain year, only that It would be preserved forever. 

I contend that some predecessors and followers are nice works of translation, but not absolutely correct.  If I have a correct translation from the correct sources done my the greatest minds with the greatest resources, why should I use any other?

You don't have such a resource. It doesn't exist. Preservation has nothing to do with the text of any translation. God doesn't have to "write" something down to "preserve" His Word. It is Eternal. Never ending. It exists beyond parchment and paper. Its not tied to anything in this world.

So when you say God has promised to preserve His Word and then believe its preserved on the KJV...... you're believing a lie. Every KJV in existence will perish and fade from existence. God's Word will not. Oh.... by the way.... God hasn't forgot one thing He said.... and He's not relying on mankind to remember it for Him.

You read and assumed.

In the beginning was the Word....Forever O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven...The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...

Any text (or digital for that matter) copy will fade over time.  Original (first draft inspiration) autographs are non-existent.  Original copies in other languages are non-existent.  His Word is eternal, enduring forever. 

I believe the KJV is simply a correct English translation of the Word.  As such, why would I need another? 

I don't find the updates in updated versions any more beneficial in understanding.  I believe there to be very few, if any, willfully misconstrued passages.  However, I do see where doctrines are changed by some updated manuscripts.  I have no problem consulting other literary research devices for help in understanding, but will not hold any higher than the Scripture themselves.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Keep in mind, God did not promise His Word to be translated into English in a certain year, only that It would be preserved forever. 

God did not promise that the preservation of the words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles would be transferred to another language such as English.

True 

How is claimed preservation in different words in a different language supposedly preservation of the same original language words that God gave to the prophets and apostles?

How is what I see on the screen the same html that was typed into the computer to "create" this website?

Do the Scriptures state or teach that the word of God is bound or limited to the textual criticism decisions of one group of critics and to the translation decisions of one group of Church of England scholars?

Nope.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]I don't find the updates in updated versions any more beneficial in understanding.[/quote]

Yet to deny that the majority of modern English readers find contemporary translations easier to understand than a 400 year old Elizabethan English translation is to appear either patently dishonest or hopelessly naive.

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]I believe there to be very few, if any, willfully misconstrued passages.  However, I do see where doctrines are changed by some updated manuscripts.[/quote]

The only doctrinal differences I know are where the KJV has a glaring error in one of the commandments and where the KJV states that all evil can be contributed to a love of money. Did you have any other particular doctrines in mind?

 

[Binaca Chugger]

The only doctrinal differences I know are where the KJV has a glaring error in one of the commandments and where the KJV states that all evil can be contributed to a love of money. Did you have any other particular doctrines in mind?

haha    haha  hahahaha  :

John 3:16 is the most glaring and easy to showcase - one and only son vs only begotten son has different implications.  Things along this line occasionally show up in various translations.

 

[christundivided]

This complicated issue is quite simple to me - the KJV is a correct translation.  Predecessors and followers are not completely correct, as only one can be.  Truth is found in many other translations.  Some claim bold lies are found in some.

Salvation by the KJV alone is heresy, as this theory mandates that only those after 1611 may be saved.

Keep in mind, God did not promise His Word to be translated into English in a certain year, only that It would be preserved forever. 

I contend that some predecessors and followers are nice works of translation, but not absolutely correct.  If I have a correct translation from the correct sources done my the greatest minds with the greatest resources, why should I use any other?

You don't have such a resource. It doesn't exist. Preservation has nothing to do with the text of any translation. God doesn't have to "write" something down to "preserve" His Word. It is Eternal. Never ending. It exists beyond parchment and paper. Its not tied to anything in this world.

So when you say God has promised to preserve His Word and then believe its preserved on the KJV...... you're believing a lie. Every KJV in existence will perish and fade from existence. God's Word will not. Oh.... by the way.... God hasn't forgot one thing He said.... and He's not relying on mankind to remember it for Him.

You read and assumed.

In the beginning was the Word....Forever O Lord, thy Word is settled in heaven...The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...

Any text (or digital for that matter) copy will fade over time.  Original (first draft inspiration) autographs are non-existent.  Original copies in other languages are non-existent.  His Word is eternal, enduring forever. 

I believe the KJV is simply a correct English translation of the Word.  As such, why would I need another? 

I don't find the updates in updated versions any more beneficial in understanding.  I believe there to be very few, if any, willfully misconstrued passages.  However, I do see where doctrines are changed by some updated manuscripts.  I have no problem consulting other literary research devices for help in understanding, but will not hold any higher than the Scripture themselves.

Fair enough.

I believe the KJV is simply a correct English translation of the Word.  As such, why would I need another? 

I'd say you see your choice as being more than just your own. Would you expect others to carry the same opinion to be in "proper fellowship" with God?

The KJV isn't correct in some areas, mistaken in others and down right wrong in a few. I imagine it just depends on how close to "right" you want to get.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I'd say you see your choice as being more than just your own. Would you expect others to carry the same opinion to be in "proper fellowship" with God?

What business do I have determining if someone is in "proper fellowship with God," or as the IFB states "right with GOd?"  I quite that even before I left the NADD.

The KJV isn't correct in some areas, mistaken in others and down right wrong in a few. I imagine it just depends on how close to "right" you want to get.

huh?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]I don't find the updates in updated versions any more beneficial in understanding.

Yet to deny that the majority of modern English readers find contemporary translations easier to understand than a 400 year old Elizabethan English translation is to appear either patently dishonest or hopelessly naive.

OR experienced  [/quote]

No. That's not really an option. I read somewhere that half of Detroit's adult population are functionally illiterate. And instead of giving them a Bible that they might actually have a chance of understanding, some people insist that they read a 400 year old translation containing words many scholars cannot readily define. And, frankly, that's not a way to share the message of Jesus*, God who became man so that we might understand Him.

* This isn't to say there is anything wrong with someone using a KJV because that is their own preferred version. Proclaiming that it's the only acceptable translation however...

[quote author=Binaca Chugger][quote author=rsc2a]The only doctrinal differences I know are where the KJV has a glaring error in one of the commandments and where the KJV states that all evil can be contributed to a love of money. Did you have any other particular doctrines in mind?
[/quote]

haha    haha  hahahaha  :

John 3:16 is the most glaring and easy to showcase - one and only son vs only begotten son has different implications.  Things along this line occasionally show up in various translations.[/quote]

Semantically "sticks" and "branches". No doctrine is changed.

 

[prophet]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]I don't find the updates in updated versions any more beneficial in understanding.

Yet to deny that the majority of modern English readers find contemporary translations easier to understand than a 400 year old Elizabethan English translation is to appear either patently dishonest or hopelessly naive.

OR experienced 

No. That's not really an option. I read somewhere that half of Detroit's adult population are functionally illiterate. And instead of giving them a Bible that they might actually have a chance of understanding, some people insist that they read a 400 year old translation containing words many scholars cannot readily define. And, frankly, that's not a way to share the message of Jesus*, God who became man so that we might understand Him.

* This isn't to say there is anything wrong with someone using a KJV because that is their own preferred version. Proclaiming that it's the only acceptable translation however...

[quote author=Binaca Chugger][quote author=rsc2a]The only doctrinal differences I know are where the KJV has a glaring error in one of the commandments and where the KJV states that all evil can be contributed to a love of money. Did you have any other particular doctrines in mind?
[/quote]

haha    haha  hahahaha  :

John 3:16 is the most glaring and easy to showcase - one and only son vs only begotten son has different implications.  Things along this line occasionally show up in various translations.[/quote]

Semantically "sticks" and "branches". No doctrine is changed.
[/quote]Say it out loud.  " One and only Son."  It isn't  true.  You don't hear the Capitalized letter.  And this is the single most often shared Bible Verse, in the USA.

He gave his only begotten son.
He gave power to become a son, to those who believe.
He has no  "one and only" son.
It is confusion, it reminds me of you.

Anishinaabe

 

[bgwilkinson]

[quote author=Binaca Chugger]I don't find the updates in updated versions any more beneficial in understanding.

Yet to deny that the majority of modern English readers find contemporary translations easier to understand than a 400 year old Elizabethan English translation is to appear either patently dishonest or hopelessly naive.

OR experienced 

No. That's not really an option. I read somewhere that half of Detroit's adult population are functionally illiterate. And instead of giving them a Bible that they might actually have a chance of understanding, some people insist that they read a 400 year old translation containing words many scholars cannot readily define. And, frankly, that's not a way to share the message of Jesus*, God who became man so that we might understand Him.

* This isn't to say there is anything wrong with someone using a KJV because that is their own preferred version. Proclaiming that it's the only acceptable translation however...

[quote author=Binaca Chugger][quote author=rsc2a]The only doctrinal differences I know are where the KJV has a glaring error in one of the commandments and where the KJV states that all evil can be contributed to a love of money. Did you have any other particular doctrines in mind?

haha    haha  hahahaha  :

John 3:16 is the most glaring and easy to showcase - one and only son vs only begotten son has different implications.  Things along this line occasionally show up in various translations.[/quote]

Semantically "sticks" and "branches". No doctrine is changed.
[/quote]Say it out loud.  " One and only Son."  It isn't  true.  You don't hear the Capitalized letter.  And this is the single most often shared Bible Verse, in the USA.

He gave his only begotten son.
He gave power to become a son, to those who believe.
He has no  "one and only" son.
It is confusion, it reminds me of you.

Anishinaabe
[/quote]

Only begotten is an OK translation but IMHO the way the NET Bible handles the whole verse represents the Greek text more faithfully.

One and only is in the sense of the only one of its kind. Jesus is the only one in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily. Jesus truly represents God in all His Glory and Majesty bodily.

All believers are born again into God's family with Jesus as our elder brother. In a sense you could say all Christians are begotten of God, we however are not the only one of its kind. We are not the only unique one.

NET Bible:
Jn. 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

I think we probably just disagree on the NET but that is OK too.


Of course the traditional translation of Latin "unigenitum" and "Only Begotten Son" comes directly out of the Roman Catholic Church and is the traditional ecclesiastical reading.

Here is the Rheims translated from the Latin Vulgate:

Joh 3:16  For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

C'mon folks.......

One and only means that you and I are not His children...........

 

[christundivided]

C'mon folks.......

One and only means that you and I are not His children...........

LOL. So sad. So sad. No it doesn't.

Let me ask you a question........ does "only begotten" mean we are not "begotten" of God?

1Pe 1:3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

I'd say you've just created a glaring contradiction.