The original text was inspired

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R

Reformedjason

Guest
#1
When the original text of the bible were penned that was inspired text.
We now have translations of copies of that inspired text. How do we know what we have is accurate ? We trust that many copies were compaired to make a text that says what the majority of the copies say. We then take that copy and translate it. So all translations are just that. A translation of a copy ( rather copies) of an inspired text. Saying any translation is inspired is not true. Can we trust modern translations? Yes because they were translated from even more copies than the Kjv. Are some new translations trash? Yes. Do research and find out which modern translations are good. If you stick with the nasb the esv the NIV and the Kjv you should be in good shape.
 
C

CoooCaw

Guest
#2
When the original text of the bible were penned that was inspired text.
We now have translations of copies of that inspired text. How do we know what we have is accurate ? We trust that many copies were compaired to make a text that says what the majority of the copies say. We then take that copy and translate it. So all translations are just that. A translation of a copy ( rather copies) of an inspired text. Saying any translation is inspired is not true. Can we trust modern translations? Yes because they were translated from even more copies than the Kjv. Are some new translations trash? Yes. Do research and find out which modern translations are good. If you stick with the nasb the esv the NIV and the Kjv you should be in good shape.
in the millennium, Moses will give us the "directors cut"

and king james will give us the correct revision of the authorized version in english
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#3
Just Stick with the King James Bible and you'll be just fine.

It is a documented fact that the modern versions, the NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. are Vatican versions because they are translated from an "interconfessional text" produced under the supervision of the Vatican. Which is based on the corrupt Siniaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. Already been proven and documented.

Brandplucked has done extensive research on this very subject and has documented extensively the changes that are made in the modern versions. You can see them here for yourself:



Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer


Also, you can watch this good video where Brandplucked shares this information on Youtube:



[video=youtube;UCx5NSY0Oe4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCx5NSY0Oe4[/video]



One other thing too Jason. All translations are not the same. All the modern translations do not even say the same thing in many different places. For a new version to get a copyright, there has to be enough changes within its text to be considered an original work. Now consider this, if there are 250+ English translations on the market today and just about everyone of them has a copyright attached to it, how many changes and differences do you think is between all the different modern translations?

Another thing, can a translation be inspired? It sure can. Did you know that there are approximately 66 inspired translations in the Scriptures?


Here is one example of an inspired translation in the Scriptures:



21And they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us. 22And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his blood is required. 23And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter. - Genesis 42:21-23 (KJV)



Now the text says that Joseph spake to them by an interpreter. Now we know that Joseph's brothers spoke Hebrew. Yet Joseph spoke to them in the Egyptian tongue. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. So there goes your first example of an inspired translation.


Now to further expound, let's go back a few verses in the same chapter:


18And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God: 19If ye be true men, let one of your brethren be bound in the house of your prison: go ye, carry corn for the famine of your houses: 20But bring your youngest brother unto me; so shall your words be verified, and ye shall not die. And they did so. - Genesis 42:18-20 (KJV)


The whole section which is in bold is where Joseph is speaking to them in the Egyptian tongue. Again, how do we know this? Because in verse 23, we read that "Joseph spake unto them by an interpreter."


It is right in the context of that passage of Scripture (Genesis 42:18-23).

So let me ask you Jason, do you believe that that the section in Bold print was inspired in the Original Autographs?

If you believe that it was inspired, then you have just accepted an inspired translation.

Therefore by the standard given in the Holy Scriptures, a translation can indeed be inspired.

And we do have an inspired translation. It's called the Authorized King James Holy Bible. Believe it and trust it.

I also believe that the Original Text (Autographs) were inspired. But I also believe that inspiration did not stop with the original autographs but it continued through with preservation of the pure words of God Almighty.


Inspriation is a process. God utilized the process of Inspiration to put His words onto paper.


It is a process that follows completely through.


15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV)


2 Timothy 3:16 says that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."


Notice it does NOT SAY that
"all the original autographs were given by inspriation..."



Inspiration did not stop at the orginal autographs. But it continued on through the preservation of God's holy and pure words.


So the Scriptures that I have in my hand are inspired. My King James Bible is inspired.


 
Last edited:
R

Reformedjason

Guest
#4
The king James has mistakes so it is not inspired. I will list a few later but now need sleep.
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#5
The king James has mistakes so it is not inspired. I will list a few later but now need sleep.
There are no errors or mistakes in the King James Bible.

The King James Bible is the preserved and inspired word of God.
 
N

nathan3

Guest
#6
There are no errors or mistakes in the King James Bible.

The King James Bible is the preserved and inspired word of God.
I use the KJV, and I know the apostles and Christ did not speak English in the areas concerned in the Bible. You want to look at the hand written mss. Not English. It's good to do word studies and get into the Hebrew and Greek.

I still use my KJV, but I know its not taken from English .
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#7
There are no errors or mistakes in the King James Bible.

The King James Bible is the preserved and inspired word of God.
Young's Translation: Publisher's Note & Preface (1898)

Confused Renderings of King James' Revisers.

The English verb 'destroy' is, in the Common Version, the representative of not less than forty-nine different Hebrew words (as may be seen in the 'Englishman's Hebrew Concordance,' p. 1510 of second edition);-- the verb 'to set,' of forty, and 'to bring,' of thirty-nine, &c. It ia evident, therefore, that the use of 'Cruden's Concordance,' and all others based on the Common Version, can only mislead the mere English reader.

The following list of words, with the number of their Hebrew representatives (according to the Common Version) expressed in numerals, will surprise all who have not hitherto attended to this subject; viz:--

To abhor 12, abide 13, abundance 11, affliction 12, to be afraid 22, after 13, against 13, among 11, to be angry 10, another 11, to appoint 24, appointed 10, army 10, at 13, to bear 13, beauty 15, before 22, beside 14, to bind 15, body 12, border 13, bough 13, branch 20, to break 33, bright 10, to bring 39, to bring forth 21, broken 12, to be broken 16, to burn 19, burning 12, but 15, by 14, captain 16, captivity 10, to carry away 10, to carry 12, to cast 19, to cast down 19, to cast out 15, to catch 12, to cease 21, chain 10, chamber 10, change 16, to be changed 10, chief 10, to cleave 15, coast 10, to come 32, commandment 12, companion 10, company 22, to consider 18, to consume 21, consumed 10, to continue 11, corner 10, country 10, to cover 21, covering 13, to cry 17, to cut down 10, to be cut down 13, to cut off 18, to be cut off 14, dark 11, darkness 10, to declare 11, decree 11, to be defiled 10, to deliver 26, to depart 18, desire 13, to desire 13, desolate 16, to be desolate 11, desolation 12, to despise 10, to destroy 49, to be destroyed 17, destruction 35, to divide 19, to draw out 10, dung 10, to dwell 14, dwelling 11, east 10, end 26, to establish 13, to be exalted 11, excellent 10, to fail 30, to faint 18, to fall 14, fear 16, to fear 10, flood 10, for 21, foundation 11, from 17, fruit 12, garment 14, to gather 23, to gather together 16, to be gathered 10, to be gathered together 14, to get 16, gift 12, to give 15, glorious 12, glory 10, to go 22, goodly 15, governor 12, great 24, grief 10, to be grieved 17, grievous 10, to grow 13, habitation 17, to harden 10, haste 11, to make haste 10, height 11, to hide 14, to hide self 12, high 18, to hold 12, hurt 11, idol 11, if 10, in 13, to increase 17, iniquity 11, to be joined 10, judgment 10, to keep 11, to kindle 15, knowledge 12, labour 10, to be laid 10, to lay 24, to lead 12, to leave 15, to be left 11, to lift up 15, light 13, to long 10, to look 16, to be made 11, majesty 10, to make 23, man 12, to mark 10, measure 13, meat 14, to meet 10, midst 10, might 12, mighty 26, to mourn 12, to move 15, to be moved 13, much 10, multitude 14, net 10, not 14, now 13, of 10, to offer 22, offering 10, old 13, only 11, to oppress 10, to ordain 12, over 10, to overthrow 11, palace 10, part 14, people 10, to perceive 10, to perish 13, pit 12, place 13, pleasant 17, pleasure 10, poor 10, portion 13, to pour out 12, power 17, to prepare 14, to prevail 15, pride 10, prince 11, proud 16, to put 28, to regard 17, rejoice 19, to remain 16, remnant 11, to remove 20, to be removed 11, to repair 10, to rest 17, reward 16, riches 10, right 16, river 11, ruler 13, to run 14, scatter 12, to be scattered 10, secret 12, to set 40, to be set 13, to set up 18, to shake 15, to shew 19, to shine 11, to shut 11, side 13, to be slain 14, slaughter 12, to slay 15, to smite 12, sorrow 28, to speak 22, speech 10, spoil 10, to spoil 16, to spread 15, to stay 14, to stop 10, strength 33, to strengthen 12, strong 26, substance 14, to take 34, to take away 24, to be taken away 10, to tarry 16, to teach 10, to tell 12, terror 10, that 16, these 16, think 12, this 20, thought 11, through 11, thus 10, to 12, tremble 13, trouble 14, to trouble 12, to be troubled 14, truth 11, to turn 15, to turn aside 10, to be turned 10, understanding 14, to utter 15, to vex 16, to wait 10, wall 13, waste 10, to waste 10, when 12, where 13, which 11, wisdom 12, with 18, within 12, without 12, word 10, work 15, wrath 10, yet 10, youth 11.

To make afraid 8, ancient 8, army 8, ask 8, assembly 8, back 9, band 9, battle 8, beat 9, because of 8, to behold 9, bottom 8, break down 8, to be brought 9, burden 8, to be burned 8, cast down 9, cause 9, to charge 8, chariot 8, clean 8, come upon 8, commit 8, to compass 9, confirm 9, cry out 8, to cut 8, to dance 8, deceitful 8, deep 9, defence 8, to be delivered 9, destroyer 8, devour 9, to direct 9, to do 9, to be done 8, to draw 9, to drive 8, drive away 8, dry 8, edge 8, enemy 9, even 8, ever 8, excellency 8, except 8, fair 8, fall down 8, fat 8, favour 8, to feed 9, fellow 9, first 9, flame 9, folly 9, foolish 9, form 9, friend 9, full 9, to gather selves together 8, be glad 9, going 9, be gone 9, goods 8, grieve 9, guide 8, heart 8, here 8, be hid 9, hole 8, honour 9, hope 9, image 9, increase 9, it 8, kill 9, lamb 9, to lament 9, to lay up 9, to leap 8, lift up self 8, to be lifted up 9, like 8, to be liked 8, line 8, little one 8, long 8, lord 8, lying 8, majesty 8, manner 9, to melt 9, mischief 8, to mock 8, mourning 8, none 8, officer 8, one 8, to open 9, oppressor 8, other 8, pain 9, to part 8, path 9, perfect 9, to perform 8, to pervert 8, piece 9, plain 8, pluck 8, polluted 9, possession 9, pray 9, precious 8, preserve 8, price 8, prison 9, prosper 9, pure 9, purpose 9, put away 9, put on 9, raise up 9, ready 8, receive 9, rejoicing 9, rest 8, return 8, ruin 8, to rule 9, to be sanctified 8, save 8, to say 8, search 8, see 9, shame 9, sheep 8, to shoot 8, to shout 8, shut up 8, sin 9, since 8, to sing 8, small 9, snare 9, son 8, sore 9, to sound 8, space 8, spring, 8, staff 9, step 8, stir up 8, stranger 9, stream 9, strike 8, strive 9, stronghold 9, subdue 8, such 8, surety 8, sweet 9, to be taken 8, tear 9, thick 8.

The above are taken from a most useful book, entitled 'The Englishman's Hebrew Concordance,' which only requires the insertion of the Hebrew Particles to make it a complete work.

'The Bible Student's Guide,' by the Rev. W. Wilson, D.D., cannot be sufficiently commended as an accurate and elaborate Key to the mixed renderings of King James' Revisers.

LAX RENDERINGS OF KING JAMES' REVISERS.

NATHAN, 'to give,' is rendered (in the Kal conjugation) by such words as: to add, apply, appoint, ascribe, assign, bestow, bring, bring forth, cast, cause, charge, come, commit, consider, count, deliver, deliver up, direct, distribute, fasten, frame, give, give forth, give over, give up, grant, hang, hang up, lay, lay to charge, lay up, leave, lend, let, let out, lift up, make, O that, occupy, offer, ordain, pay, perform, place, pour, print, put, put forth, recompense, render, requite, restore, send, send out, set, set forth, shew, shoot forth, shoot up, strike, suffer, thrust, trade, turn, utter, would God, yield; besides seventeen varieties in idiomatic renderings=84!

ASAH, 'to do,' (in Kal) by: to accomplish, advance, appoint, to be at, bear, bestow, bring forth, bring to pass, bruise, be busy, have charge, commit, deal, deal with, deck, do, dress, execute, exercise, fashion, finish, fit, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, hold, keep, labour, maintain, make ready, make, observe, offer, pare, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, require, sacrifice, serve, set, shew, spend, take, trim, work, yield; besides twenty idiomatic renderings=74!

DABAR, 'a word,' is rendered by: act, advice, affair, answer, anything, book, business, care, case, cause, certain rate, commandment, communication, counsel decree, deed, due, duty, effect, errant, hurt, language, manner, matter, message, oracle, ought, parts, pertaining, portion, promise, provision, purpose, question, rate, reason, report, request, sake, saying, sentence, something to say, speech, talk, task, thing, thought, tidings, what, wherewith, whit, word, work; besides thirty-one idiomatic renderings=84!

PANIM, 'face,'is rendered by: afore, afore-time, against, anger, at, because of, before, before-time, countenance, edge, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront, forepart, form, former time, forward, from, front, heaviness, it, as long as, looks, mouth, of, off, of old, old time, open, over-against, person, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason of, right forth, sight, state, straight, through, till, time past, times past, to, toward, unto, upon, upside, with, within; besides forty-two idiomatic renderings=94!

SUM or SIM, 'to set,' is (in Kal) rendered by: appoint, bring, care, cast in, change, charge, commit, consider, convey, determine, dispose, do, get, give, heap up, hold, impute, be laid, lay, lay down, lay up, leave, look, be made, make, make out, mark, ordain, order, place, be placed, preserve, purpose, put, put on, rehearse, reward, set, cause to be set set on, set up, shew, take, turn, work; besides fourteen idiomatic renderings=59!

SHUB, (in Hiphil) 'to turn back,' is rendered by: to answer, cause to answer, bring, bring back, bring again, bring home again, carry back, carry again, convert, deliver, deliver again, draw back, fetch home again, give again, hinder, let, pull in again, put, put again, put up again, recall, recompense, recover, refresh, relieve, render, render again, be rendered, requite, rescue, restore, retrieve, return, cause to return, make to return, reverse reward, send back, set again, take back, take off, turn away, turn back, cause to turn, make to turn, withdraw; besides fifteen idiomatic renderings=60!

NASAH, 'to lift up,' is (in Kal) rendered by: accept, arise, able to bear, bear up, be borne, bring, bring forth, burn, be burned, carry, carry away, cast, contain, ease, exact, exalt, fetch, forgive, go on, hold up, lade, be laid, lay, lift up, pluck up, marry, obtain, offer, pardon, raise, raise up, receive, regard, respect, set, set up, spare, stir up, suffer, take, take away, take up, wear, yield; besides four idiomatic renderings=46!

OBAR, 'to pass over,' is (in Kal) rendered by: to alienate, be altered, come, come over, come on, be delivered, enter, escape, fail, get over, go, go away, go beyond, go by, go forth, go his way, go in, go on, go over, go through, be gone, have more, overcome, overpass, overpast, overrun, pass, pass along, pass away, pass beyond, pass by, pass on, pass out, pass over, pass through, give passage, be past, perish, transgress; besides three idiomatic renderings=42!

RAB, 'many, much,' is rendered by: abound, abundance, abundant, captain, elder, common, enough, exceedingly, full, great, great multitude, great man, great one, greatly, increase, long, long enough, manifold, many, many a time, so many, have many many things, master, mighty, more, much, too much, very much, multiply, multitude, officer, plenteous, populous, prince, suffice, sufficient; besides seven idiomatic renderings=44!

TOB, 'good,' is rendered, by: beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, fair, fair word, to favour, be in favour, fine, glad, good, good deed, goodlier, goodliest, goodly, goodness, goods, graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh, liketh best, loving, merry, pleasant, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, well, to be well; besides four idiomatic renderings=41!

It would be easy to multiply examples of lax renderings did space permit. The following are some that have been marked; e.g. Ahad by 23, Altar 25, Ish 31, Al 36, Im 23, Amar 37, Aphes 23, Asher 27, Bo 32, Bin 20, Ben 20, Gam 20, Halak 36, Ze 21, Hul 27, Hazak 23, Hai 22, Hayil 26, Tob 37, Jad 36, Jada 36, Yom 32, Hatib 28, Yalak 24, Jatza 37, Ysh 31, Yashab 20, Ki 36, Kol 20, Kalah 21, Lakah 20, Meod 21, Moed 20, Matza 22, Maneh 20, Mishpat 27, Natah 21, Naphal 20, Nephesh 35, Sabab 20, Ad 22, Oud 26, Oulam 24, Al 34, Alah 37, Im 21, Amad 23, Anah 20, Arak 20, Pe 29, Panah 20, Pagod 25, Qum 27, Qarah 24, Raah 32, Rosh 21, Hirbah 30, Ra 37, Shub 35, Shalom 28, Shillah 27, Shillet 20, Shama 20.
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#8
I use the KJV, and I know the apostles and Christ did not speak English in the areas concerned in the Bible. You want to look at the hand written mss. Not English. It's good to do word studies and get into the Hebrew and Greek.

I still use my KJV, but I know its not taken from English .

Hi there Nathan.

Why look at the hand written manuscripts when I already have God's pure and perfect word in my hand?

Let me ask you a question sir, did many of the mighty men of God (George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, Peter Cartwright, Charles G. Finney, William Carey, Hudson Taylor, J. Frank Norris, and Lester Roloff), did these men which God used greatly to preach the Gospel and win souls, did these men read, preach or use the manuscripts?

Or did they read and preach from a Book?


These men preached from an English Bible which they believed to be God's word. They preached from the Authorized Version.

Now if someone wants to read the manuscripts, well then okay. They can do that. If you want to do word studies into the Hebrew and Greek, then go ahead. That is fine.

But again; I know that the English translation I hold in my hand is perfect and inerrant.

Jesus said in John 17:17:

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

God preserved His pure words for us to read and take heed to.


In the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, Christians believed that the Bible they held in their hand was the word of God. They believed in the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures.

But today, very few Christians believe the Bible anymore. They no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Bible. And the source of today's apostacy came directly from the seminaries who teach the dangeours Alexandrian philosophy. It can all be traced back to 1881. The very year that the English Revised Version was published


Many of the preachers across this country who have been trained in Alexandrian textual criticism in their seminairies constantly lie about what they believe about the Bible.

They profess to believe in "the Bible"
and they profess to believe that "the Bible is the word of God" when they really do not believe the Bible. They do not believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Hence, they are liars.

Many preachers who graduated from their seminaries really believe that all bibles have errors in them. They really believe that "only the originals are inspired" and so forth. And that shows you how bad the apostasy has gotten.
 
Feb 17, 2010
3,620
27
0
#9
People, I have the good advantage to know two languages. I am Afrikaans and I am not to bad in English. The KJV was tranlated in 1611, and the Afrikaans Bible was translated in 1933. Both Bibles were translated from the original languages of the Canon books. All books of the Old and New Testiments....

Now when I compare the work done by the score of scholars that transated to English in 1611, and I compare the translation done by the group of WORLDWIDE scholars that were employed to translate to Afrikaans, I find that BOTH groups did quite a remarkable job.

The two Bibles are so identical, and in some words the English language outshine the Afrikaans and Dutch, but in other sentances the Afrikaans are better than the English. Greek and Hebrew translated to English or Afrikaans cannot be done as thoroughly as we might want it, BUT.... God knows that too. And he will use sincerity to the SALVATION of those that ACCEPTS as God gave....


Here is the thing.... WE have to ask ourselves.... Is the Bible INSTRUCTIONAL enough to get me to know what God wants? I think it is... I believe if I do as the Word of God says, then God's will will be done.... I just find that the KJV and the Afrikaans OLD TRANSLATION are the two Bibles that SPEAKS STRAIGHT! I am not English in FIRST language, but the KJV make PERFECT sence! As do the OLD Tranlation of Afrikaans....

And here is the thing.... If you think the Bible falls short or has mistakes.... BE NOT WARY OR WORRIED... If God gives you HIS SPIRIT you will LACK NOTHING! If God SAVES you you will have peace, holiness and REST! Perfectly! God knows ALL languages and there shortcomings, but His Spirit has no shorcomings! Neithe HIS TRUTH that HE WRITES ON OUR HEARTS...
 
Last edited:
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#10
There are no errors or mistakes in the King James Bible.

The King James Bible is the preserved and inspired word of God.
The Reformed Reader introduction to the geneva bible for the historic Baptist faith.

For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of history's greatest ironies. Today's Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James Bible. Most of the newer Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.

The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups until it went out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland,* William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively.

Until he had his own version named after him, so did King James I of England. James I later tried to disclaim any knowledge of the Geneva Bible, though he quotes the Geneva Bible in his own writing, As a Professor Eadie reported it:

"... his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge up to a late period of the Genevan notes and version was simply a bold, unblushing falsehood, a clumsy attempt to sever himself and his earlier Scottish beliefs and usages that he might win favor with his English churchmen." 1

The irony goes further. King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people. His sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication.

First, King James I of England was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart. 2 Mary Stuart may have been having an affair with her Italian secretary, David Rizzio, at the time she conceived James. There is a better than even chance that James was the product of adultery* (G.P.V. Alerigg Jacobean Pageant p.6.). Apparently, enough evidence of such conduct on the part of Mary Stuart and David Rizzio existed to cause various Scot nobles, including Mary's own husband, King Henry, to drag David Rizzio from Mary's supper table and execute him. The Scot nobles hacked and slashed at the screaming Rizzio with knives and swords, and then threw him off a balcony to the courtyard below where he landed with a sickening smack. In the phrase of that day, he had been scotched. 3

Mary did have affairs with other men, such as the Earl of Bothwell. She later tried to execute her husband in a gunpowder explosion that shook all of Edinburg. King Henry survived the explosion, only to be suffocated later that same night. The murderers were never discovered. Mary was eventually beheaded at the order of her cousin, Elizabeth I of England. 4

To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God.

This is why the Geneva Bible annoyed King James I. The Geneva Bible had marginal notes that simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent placed in the Geneva Bible by the leaders of the Reformation including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere dithering of dissidents.

First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage," (Note i, Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James

Second, religion in James' time was not what it is today. In that era, religion was controlled by the government. If someone lived in Spain at the time, he had three religious "choices":

1. Roman Catholicism
2. Silence.
3. The Inquisition.

The third "option" was reserved for "heretics," or people who didn't think the way the government wanted them to. To governments of that era heresy and treason were synonymous.

England wasn't much different. From the time of Henry VIII on, an Englishman had three choices:

1. The Anglican Church.
2. Silence.
3. The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and quartered, or some other form of persuasion.

The hapless individuals who fell into the hands of the government for holding religious opinions of their own were simply punished according to the royal whim.

Henry VIII, once he had appointed himself head of all the English churches, kept the Roman Catholic system of bishops, deacons and the like for a very good reason. That system allowed him a "chain of command" necessary for any bureaucracy to function. This system passed intact to his heirs.

This system became a little confusing for English citizens when Bloody Mary * ascended to the throne. Mary wanted everyone to switch back to Roman Catholicism. Those who proved intransigent and wanted to remain Protestant she burned at the stake - about 300 people in all. She intended to bum a lot more, but the rest of her intended victims escaped by leaving the country.

A tremendous number of those intended victims settled in Geneva. Religious refugees from other countries in Western Europe, including the French theologian Jean Chauvin, better known as John Calvin, also settled there.

Mary died and was succeeded to the throne by her Protestant cousin, Elizabeth. The Anglican bureaucracy returned, less a few notables such as Archbishop Cranmer and Hugh Latimer (both having been burned at the stake by Bloody Mary). In Scotland, John Knox led the Reformation.

The Reformation prospered in Geneva. Many of those who had fled Bloody Mary started a congregation there. Their greatest effort and contribution to the Reformation was the first Geneva Bible.

More marginal notes were added to later editions.

By the end of the 16th Century, the Geneva Bible had about all the marginal notes there was space available to put them in.

Geneva was an anomaly in 16th Century Europe. In the days of absolute despotism and constant warfare, Geneva achieved her independence primarily by constant negotiation, playing off one stronger power against another. While other governments allowed lawyers to drag out cases and took months and years to get rid of corrupt officials, the City of Geneva dispatched most civil and criminal cases within a month and threw corrupt officials into jail the day after they were found out. The academy that John Calvin founded there in 1559 later became the University of Geneva.

Religious wars wracked Europe. The Spanish fought to restore Roman Catholicism to Western Europe. The Dutch fought for the Reformation and religious freedom. England, a small country with only 4 ? million people, managed to stay aloof because of the natural advantage of the English Channel.

The Dutch declared religious freedom for everybody. Amsterdam became an open city*. English Puritans arrived by the boatload. The 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible was printed in Amsterdam and London in large quantities until well into the 17th Century.

King James, before he became James I of England, made it plain that he had no use for the "Dutch" rebel who had rebelled against their Spanish King.

Another of the ironies left us from the 16th Century is that freedom of religion and freedom of the press did not originate in England, as many people commonly assume today. Those freedoms were first given to Protestants by the Dutch, as the records of that era plainly show. England today does not have freedom of the press the way we understand it (There are things in England such as the Official Secrets Act that often land journalists in jail.)

England was relatively peaceful in the time of Elizabeth I. There was the problem of the Spanish Armada, but that was brief Elizabeth later became known as "Good Queen Bess," not because she was so good, but because her successor was so bad.

Elizabeth died in 1603 and her cousin, James Stuart, son of Mary Stuart, who up until that time had been King James VI of Scotland, ascended the throne and became known as King James I of England.

James ascended the throne of England with the "divine right of kings" firmly embedded in his mind. Unfortunately, that wasn't his only mental problem.

King James I, among his many other faults, preferred young boys to adult women. He was a flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject.

The King was queer. The very people who use the King James Bible today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out of their congregations.

The depravity of King James I didn't end with sodomy. James enjoyed killing animals. He called it "hunting." Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying.

James was a sadist as well as a sodomite: he enjoyed torturing people. While King of Scotland in 1591, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of Scotland. James would even suggest new tortures to the examiners.

History has it that James was also a great coward. On January 7, 1591, the King was in Edinburgh and emerged from the toll booth. A retinue followed that included the Duke of Lennox and Lord Hume. They fell into an argument with the laird of Logie and pulled their swords. James looked behind, saw the steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There, to his shame, he "fouled his breeches in fear." 5

In short, King James I was the kind of despicable creature honorable men loathed, Christians would not associate with, and the Bible itself orders to be put to death. 6

James ascended the English throne in 1603. He wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the Bible in order to deny the common people the marginal notes they so valued in the Geneva Bible. That James I wasn't going to have any marginal notes to annoy him and lead English citizens away from what he wanted them to think is a matter of public record. In an account corrected with his own hand dated February 10, 1604, he ordained:

That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.

James then set up rules that made it impossible for anyone involved in the project to make an honest translation, some of which follow:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible to be followed and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.

Or, since the common people preferred the Geneva Bible to the existing government publication, let's see if we can slip a superseding government publication onto their bookshelves, altered as little as possible.

2. The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word "church" not to be translated "congregation," etc.

That is, if a word should be translated a certain way, let's deliberately mistranslate it to make the people think God still belongs to the Anglican Church - exclusively.

3. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

James didn't want those pesky marginal notes cropping up, not even once. That was fine for the common herd, but not for James' own bishops. Many of their writings and sermons alluded to the Geneva Bible and its marginal notes decades after the King James Bible was published.

The bishops had good reason to be confused. They needed those marginal notes. James had just obliterated a procedure that kings and governments had used for thousands of years. Because words and phrases quite often had several meanings all important state or royal decrees, treaties, and agreements contained marginal explanations or commentaries in order to remove all doubt from the mind of the reader. In the 16th century those marginal notes were called "glosses." Today the members of the legal profession use almost the same system in the form of footnotes and case cites.

The King James Bible was finally printed in 1611. It was not technically a translation. What the flunkies employed by King James did was revise and compare other translations of which they simply plagiarized about 20% of the Geneva Bible.

In their New Testament translation, the King James "translators" didn't even revise and compare. What they did was simply copy – almost word for word - William Tyndales' 1525 New Testament. At the time of his translation Tyndales' New Testament had been labeled as "seditious material" by Henry VIII and copies discovered on ships reaching English ports were confiscated and destroyed. William Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, even went so far as to buy all the copies he could get in Europe in order to destroy them.

It is interesting to note that the Geneva Reformers--men such as John Calvin--expressed opinions in the marginal notes that would be simply unacceptable to the "scholars" of today. For example, the passage in Genesis 12:2-3, that reads:

"And I will make of thee a great nation, and will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing.I will also bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed."

Our ministers today tell us this refers to Jews. That isn't the way the Geneva translators understood it:
The world shall recover by thy seed, which is Christ, the blessings that were lost in Adam. 7

Twentieth century scholarly works, such as the Scofield Reference Bible, published by Oxford University Press, hold that the 38th Chapter of Ezekiel refers to an invasion of Jerusalem by Russian armies leading the Northern European powers. John Calvin and his cohorts, who annotated the Geneva Bible, understood it a little differently:

Signifying all the people of the world should assemble themselves against the Church and Christ their head. 8

The Reverend Scofield and his fellow "scholars" hold up Satan as some sort of boogey-man. The Geneva translators, as in Psalm 109:6, simply translated the word, "adversary." In Mark 8:33, Christ said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan." The Geneva translators understood exactly what the word meant and apparently didn't figure anyone else would be dumb enough to equate Peter with the Evil One. On that, the Geneva and King James translate the word the same.

James did not stop at censoring the Bible. He carried his "divine right of kings" to the point that he dissolved Parliament. That institution was to James simply a convenience he needed to raise money for his endless pursuit of pleasure and depravity. When Parliament balked at his requests for money James dissolved it Magna Carta and the liberties of Englishmen were mere frivolities in the mind of James. As an illustration of the loathing and contempt Christians of that era held for the government of James I, it is interesting to note that after the first bitter weather in New England, when half their number were dead, not one of the Pilgrim survivors wanted to be taken back to the England of James I aboard the Mayflower.

The last run of Geneva Bibles was printed in 1644. That was the year John Milton was invited to instruct the English Parliament on the actual teachings of the Bible regarding divorce (it was allowed). What Milton understood that none of our modern "experts" seem to was that "He who divorces his wife and marries another," was not a prohibition of divorce, it was a prohibition against throw-away people. As John Milton in his On Christian Doctrine and Martin Luther in his essay on Deuteronomy 21:15 pointed out, having more than one wife was Scriptural. You just weren't supposed to throw them away when you got bored with them.

Four years after the last Geneva Bible was printed, the Thirty Years War (the last of the great religious wars of Europe) ground to a halt. Millions had died. Germany was so depopulated it took her two centuries to recover. The Reformation had survived. It didn't survive for long.

After several generations of English speakers grew up without the stabilizing influence of the Geneva marginal notes, the "interpret it any way you want" school of thought came into fashion. The "charismatic" movement was in full swing by 1730.

A few men here and there tried to show people what the religion of their ancestors actually was. A man named Ferrar Fenton published his own translation of the Bible in 1906, complete with a history lesson at the beginning of each set of books in the Bible. Another man named George Lamsa wrote "Idioms of the Bible Explained," and tried to show the errors of the modem scholars. They were drowned by the works of others.

During the 16th Century and the one preceding it, the Spanish Empire, a colossus larger than the Roman Empire, had been unable to stamp out the Reformation with the world's finest and most well equipped armies. The Spaniards needn't have bothered. What the armies of Catholic Spain were unable to make a dent in, one sadistic sodomite, James I, did with a pair of censoring scissors.

The Reformation, and the blood of millions who fought for it, apparently went for nothing. Protestant churches of today hardly resemble the churches of the Reformation.

Today's preachers study the Scofield Reference Edition of the King James, a volume that contains marginal notes that would seem no more accurate to John Calvin and John Knox than Mother Goose. The blind are once more leading the blind.

Michael H. Brown - 1988

Footnotes:
1 Luther A, Weigle, The English New Testament, P.24.
2 Otto J. Scott, James I, Passim [back]
3 lbid [back]
4 Ibid, p. 212 [back]
5 Ibid, p. 211 [back]
6 Leviticus, 20:13 [back]
7 Genesis 12:2 note c 1599 Geneva Bible
8 Ezekiel 38:7. note e 1599 Geneva Bible
 

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
#11
No translation is perfect, and while im not a hebrew or greek scholar interlinears and multiple concordances and lexicons are the way to study the inspired text IMO.
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#12
No translation is perfect, and while im not a hebrew or greek scholar interlinears and multiple concordances and lexicons are the way to study the inspired text IMO.

Now it seems as though you just contradicted yourself. First you say that "No translation is perfect..." And then you say that "concordances and lexicons are the way to study the inspired text.."

Where is the inspired text? Where can we get a copy?


The King James Translation is perfect. It is the Absolute Standard and Final Authority.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#13
The bible as whole is inspired by God and the King James version is the only version ordered by a ruler. The Holy Spirit oversaw this as He will protect Gods word. Not to say that other translations are false, but those translations are translated from the King James. Now God puts perfect in imperfect hands and some of the original translatots were educated in the languages but not beleivers and chose words based on their intellect and not spiritual content. But the main theme gets through and that theme is Christ and Him crucified and the only thing that the Holy Spirit was concerned about. Now there are many other translation that were performed for money the king James was not.
 

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
#14
Now it seems as though you just contradicted yourself. First you say that "No translation is perfect..." And then you say that "concordances and lexicons are the way to study the inspired text.."

Where is the inspired text? Where can we get a copy?

The King James Translation is perfect. It is the Absolute Standard and Final Authority.
Weel I would say I disagree with that, yeah we can get our hands on microfilm of the oldest manuscripts, and yes concordances and lexicons and dictionaries etc to help us understand what the meaning of the priginal words are. I used to think the first bible I was told was the "best" was all I needed until I actually started studying. Why are words like "Ashera" translated "grove?"

This is 1 example, there are MANY more besides the 6,823+ times a rabbinical enactment is followed in the KJV and most all translations in the world.

Deuteronomy 16:21
Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee.

21[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5193 [e]
ṯiṭ·ṭa‘
תִטַּ֥ע
plant[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]lə·ḵā
לְךָ֛
-
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]842 [e]
’ă·šê·rāh
אֲשֵׁרָ֖ה
an Asherah[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]3605 [e]
kāl-
כָּל־
of any[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6086 [e]
‘êṣ;
עֵ֑ץ
of tree[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]681 [e]
’ê·ṣel,
אֵ֗צֶל
beside[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]4196 [e]
miz·baḥ
מִזְבַּ֛ח
the altar[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]3068 [e]
Yah·weh
יְהוָ֥ה
of the LORD[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]430 [e]
’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā
אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ
your God[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]834 [e]
’ă·šer
אֲשֶׁ֥ר
which[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6213 [e]
ta·‘ă·śeh-
תַּעֲשֶׂה־
shall make[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]lāḵ.
לָּֽךְ׃
-[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tablefloatheb"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Definitly not perfect

World English Bible
You shall not plant for yourselves an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of Yahweh your God, which you shall make for yourselves.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#15
The bible as whole is inspired by God and the King James version is the only version ordered by a ruler. The Holy Spirit oversaw this as He will protect Gods word. Not to say that other translations are false, but those translations are translated from the King James. Now God puts perfect in imperfect hands and some of the original translatots were educated in the languages but not beleivers and chose words based on their intellect and not spiritual content. But the main theme gets through and that theme is Christ and Him crucified and the only thing that the Holy Spirit was concerned about. Now there are many other translation that were performed for money the king James was not.
You do realise this was authorised by King James to honour him, not God. God used it for his glory though.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#16
You do realise this was authorised by King James to honour him, not God. God used it for his glory though.
It may have been, but it opened the word of God to those who had the ability to read as many did not. As you know before this you had to know the Latin language to read the word of God for yourself and you had to have money to attend college to even get a chance of understanding Latin. When I was a kid, the doctor wrote prescriptions in Latin so that we would not understand what he wrote and the pharmacist had to no Latin as well. The Catholic church fought the translation saying that common men should not know the word.

But still the only ranslation ordered by a ruler and what did it profit him? what did the NIV profit its investors?
 

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
#17
I agree Yahweh uses all to complete His plan.

Interesting thing about KVJ, the book of "James"

It was King James favorite book, so he named it "James"

The author of the book's real name was Yaaqob or Ya'kov, for the hebrew haters JACOB, but 100% not James.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#18
Kerry, the German translation actually opened the way for English translations. Who cares if the KJV was ordered by a ruler? That's all the more reason to be discerning with it. Especially these days, when most copies have excised the important Preface from the beginning.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#19
Kerry, the German translation actually opened the way for English translations. Who cares if the KJV was ordered by a ruler? That's all the more reason to be discerning with it. Especially these days, when most copies have excised the important Preface from the beginning.
I don't speak or read German so what did that do for me. The KJV translators were linguist in Hebrew and Greek, I don't think that a king of England would suffice on what Germania said.
 
K

Kerry

Guest
#20
Think tintin in a capitalist society who spend the funds for a translation if it did not mean profits. To profit you need a copy rite. To get a copy rite you must change the meaning of the text and not just a few words because that would be plagiarism.