The ONE QUESTION whose correct answer proves the KJVO myth false...
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
benw31 said:
There are many varying editions of the KJV.
Post-1900 present editions of the KJV are not actually identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV except for a recent 1769 reprint edition printed by the Bible Museum in 2017.
The 1769 Oxford edition actually had several new renderings including errors that remained in KJV editions a good number of years, and some of them are no longer in post-1900 editions. One error in the book of Exodus remained in most Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for over 100 years until the 1873 Cambridge with some editions having that error after that.
benw31 said:
Perhaps your unproven opinion conflicts with some scriptural truths.
Do you adequately distinguish between preservation of the actual, exact, specific words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles and the later translation of them into different words in other languages?
Would you separate or distinguish between inspiration and preservation in the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew?s Bible or the 1560 Geneva Bible? If you [or the KJV translators] could in effect and in practice distinguish between inspiration and preservation before 1611 in the pre-1611 English Bibles, why can the same thing not be done in and after 1611 or 1769?
If some KJV defenders or holders of a KJV-only view according to their own statements make the word ?preserved? mean practically or essentially the same thing as ?inspired,? do they practically hold the same basic view as Peter Ruckman? They may deny that they claim that the KJV is inspired and may claim that they reject Ruckman?s view. But if they will at the same time claim that the KJV is the preserved word of God while making preservation in effect equal in meaning to inspiration, what is the clear, essential difference between their view and Ruckman?s?
The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to ?the things that are written by the prophets? (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews? language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features ?jot? and ?tittle? at Matthew 5:18 and the ?tittle? at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets. The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. A writing from Elijah would be written in the language in which Elijah wrote it (2 Chron. 21:12). The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). ?Moses wrote all the words of the LORD? (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: ?For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?? (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them. Do the Scriptures teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?
A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that Bible preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration. For when a king [or whoever] copied them, he would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them to be able to ?keep all the words? (Deut. 17:18-19).
A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from these instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28). Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? There is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God. Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. It can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2).
Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the preserved original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Do the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36)? Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47). Unless the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the authority, norm, and standard for Bible translations, there would be no sound, true criteria for distinguishing between a good, accurate translation and a poor, inaccurate translation.
Would not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration of God and preserved by God be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing?
Jim Taylor maintained that preservation is not ?an attribute? but that it ?is a process? (In Defense of the TR, p. 40). Taylor asserted that ?translations are not preserved because preservation is not an attribute? (Ibid.). Taylor noted: ?Add to this the fact that God preserved what he gave. God gave us his words in Greek and Hebrew and thus, he preserves his words in those languages? (Ibid.). Tim Fellure observed: ?Obviously, it?s not required that preservation extends to a translation if the Word of God has been preserved in the Greek and Hebrew text? (Neither jot nor tittle, p. 71). Thomas Corkish acknowledged that ?it is true that He [God] has not promised to preserve versions? (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 210). Raymond Blanton claimed: ?God has not preserved His Words mingled with the words of men? (Flaming Torch, May, 1988, p. 8).
Walt said:
Since the KJV is an English Bible translation, the clear, accurate term "KJV-only" would be used soundly and correctly to describe certain views concerning English Bible translations, not concerning Bible translations in other languages.
The term KJV-only is used to define and describe any view that accepts or makes some type of exclusive, only claims for the one English Bible translation--the KJV.
Holders of a KJV-only view would in effect attempt to suggest, assume, or claim that the KJV is the word of God in English in some different sense than any other English translation is the word of God in English.
While perhaps admitting the fact that the KJV is a translation, holders of a KJV-only view attempt in effect or in practice to treat the KJV as though it is in a different category than all other English Bible translations or as though it is not a translation in the same sense (univocally) as other English Bibles.
Community said:
Your question presupposes that there is only one faithful and accurate translation. Also, his question is not dismissing the KJV. He is saying the claim that the KJV is the only valid translation is false.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,410
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Community said:
No reason to limit the options to just one alternative. There are plenty of accurate, faithful versions in common use amongst conservative Christians: NASB, NIV, NKJV, and ESV just to name four. Take your pick.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,117
- Reaction score
- 1,134
- Points
- 113
Your brilliant arguments display the skolarship behind the Ruckmanite movement
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2013
- Messages
- 1,829
- Reaction score
- 40
- Points
- 48
Mark 8:27 in the KJV reads: "
And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
"
It should be "Who," not "Whom." There's a mistake in the KJV. That's it. It's over. The KJV is not perfect and is therefore not the Word of God.
And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
"
It should be "Who," not "Whom." There's a mistake in the KJV. That's it. It's over. The KJV is not perfect and is therefore not the Word of God.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 8
Not to mention such KJV goofs as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
John the Baptist used the KJV. That's enough, bless Gawd.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 8
He willed it to Paul.
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,061
- Points
- 113
Paul passed it on to Timothy. This is the unbroken chain of possession.
Landmarkism would be proud.
You did not actually present any unbroken chain of possession of the same word of God from A. D. 100 until 1611.
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,061
- Points
- 113
You may merely assume by fallacies opinions that you cannot prove to be true since you make no positive, clear, scriptural case for them.
I could have the same post-1900 edition of the KJV in my hand as you may have in your hand so your accusation against me would condemn my KJV and yours. Why would you condemn your own KJV?
Why you avoid naming and identifying which specific edition of the KJV that you claim to have in your hand?