King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[pckts]

The KJV only people's final argument and hill they choose to die on is "I KNOW it's God's perfect word because when I READ it I CAN TELL!" Non-english speakers and those born prior to 1611 did not have access to this perfection.

But I guess you've spent too many pages arguing this point to back down now.

 

[KJV1611]

Don't answer my question with a question. Defend your position.

The parable is about the Holy Spirit going into me. Men are earthen vessels, not wineskins.

2 Corinthians 4:7 KJV
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

 

[pckts]

The parable is about the Holy Spirit going into me. Men are earthen vessels, not wineskins.

2 Corinthians 4:7 KJV
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

NO WRONG

The parable is in response to this:

Then John's disciples came and asked him, "How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?"

It's about changing the customs of worship and devotion toward God, rather than trying to build upon or continue to do so in the old ways. God was now among the people.

 

[J7]

The KJV only people's final argument and hill they choose to die on is "I KNOW it's God's perfect word because when I READ it I CAN TELL!" Non-english speakers and those born prior to 1611 did not have access to this perfection.

But I guess you've spent too many pages arguing this point to back down now.

Lol. It's a crazy belief when you deconstruct it like this.

 

[KJV1611]

Inspired and Inerrant are two different things.

Many bibles can be inspired.

Many translations can be inerrant; provided you capture and express the thought, it is an inerrant translation - why are you trying to make inerrancy exclusive?

I don't believe God inspires errors.

 

[J7]

I don't believe God inspires errors.

What is your definition of an error?

 

[KJV1611]

OK, but what you are saying is not "preservation", but "new word", inspired English version.

Psalm is talking about the word in that generation, i.e. Pentateuch. That generation did not have NT, Psalms, Prophets etc. And it was in Hebrew, not in English.

So... are you not taking it too much into extremw?

Whats new in the KJV that wasn't in the original old testament? The new testament doesn't introduce new concepts, those concepts were already hidden in the old testament, the new testament revealed what was hidden.

 

[pckts]

I don't believe God inspires errors.

In your own mind you will be committing blasphemy to criticize or acknowledge an error in the KJV.

 

[KJV1611]

Anyway, your theory is starting to look a bit more provable.

Ok, you pick a nominal amount of distinguishing features of the KJV.

Let's say, 100 Codes and Patterns.

You then check them against the 10 leading translations in the 100 leading languages in the world.

I suppose if in each of the 100 leading languages, you find 1 translation that faithfully replicates the KJV Codes and Patterns, then you may be on to something.

Come back to us in 20 (?) years

What will 20 years accomplish? If the codes are in the NIV then we should be able to see them now.

 

[Dino246]

Sure it affects your belief in what the bible says because you don't have an absolute to build your beliefs on. Example:

1 Timothy 2:12 KJV
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Do you believe this?

You are assuming what I believe, and how I have come to that belief. As I stated previously, my faith doesn't rest on the testimony of a pagan. My certainty that Jesus Christ is God does not reference this passage at all. The words of Nebuchadnezzar add nothing to and take away nothing from my belief.

I don't require certainty on that passage. There are others on which I do require certainty. That is not the same thing as asserting that I don't believe that passage is certain; I accept it as Scripture. The exact wording in that verse is immaterial to my understanding of Who Jesus is, again, because my faith doesn't rest on the testimony of a pagan.

Regarding the 2 Timothy passage, I believe it is Scripture. I also believe that taking one verse out of context and making doctrine from it is unwise. That is one of the most-contested verses on this forum, so let's not start another debate unnecessarily.

◄ Matthew 9:17 ►
King James Bible
Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

New Living Translation
"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the old skins would burst from the pressure, spilling the wine and ruining the skins. New wine is stored in new wineskins so that both are preserved."

New International Version
Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

Why is bottles better than wineskins?

I chuckle at this particular issue. One of the KJVo proponents argued a few months back that the "bottles" of the KJV were glass bottles like we have today. He apparently knew nothing of fermentation. I did a little research and discovered that "bottle" was the late-middle English word for what we know today as a wineskin. "Bottle" was a legitimate word in 1611, and is not the correct word today. It's a great example of how language changes, and how assuming that the KJV is perfect in every word can and does lead to misunderstanding. It's also called an "anachronism".

 

[pckts]

Lol. It's a crazy belief when you deconstruct it like this.

If you want to see someone crazy argue this point and someone deconstruct it:

[video=youtube;KL3mWM4TSh8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL3mWM4TSh8[/video]

I repeated what James White said to Anderson.

 

[J7]

What will 20 years accomplish? If the codes are in the NIV then we should be able to see them now.

No, your basic premise is that everyone everywhere has God in perfect form, correct?

 

[KJV1611]

Psalm 12:1. Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4. Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5. For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. (KJV)

In vv. 3-4, the LORD promises to “cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things….” In v. 5, the LORD promises to arise for the poor and needy, and to set them in safety. In v. 6., the truth and reliability of the promise is guaranteed by the fact that the “words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” In verse 7, the LORD promises to preserve the poor and needy from the perverse generation described in vv. 3-4.” This verse says absolutely nothing about the Bible and the preservation of it.

The antecedent of the pronoun “them” in v. 7 is NOT “the words of the Lord,” but the oppressed “poor” in verse 5. That the oppressed “poor” in verse 5 is the correct antecedent of the pronoun “them” in v. 7 is proven by the last part of v. 7, “shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Psalm 12 is a Hebrew poem, and the technical structure of it has been explained in several technical commentaries on the Hebrew text of the Psalms—and there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that v. 7 promises the preservation of the afflicted poor and needy. The NRSV translates the last part of the poem as a promise to us:

Psalms 12:7 You, O Lord, will protect us;
you will guard us from this generation forever.

God sure did a TERRIBLE job at protecting the poor and needy. The verse is talking about preserving his words, it's also found in Peter. I don't know of anything that comes from God that corrupts.

1 Peter 1:25 KJV
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

 

[trofimus]

Whats new in the KJV that wasn't in the original old testament? The new testament doesn't introduce new concepts, those concepts were already hidden in the old testament, the new testament revealed what was hidden.

I think you have that psalm wrong. Its not about Bible, but about Israel.

"Because of the misery of the poor, and because of the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord, I will set [them] in safety; I will speak [to them] thereof openly.

The oracles of the Lord are pure oracles; as silver tried in the fire, proved [in] a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou, O Lord, shalt keep us, and shalt preserve us, from this generation, and for ever."

LXX

 

[KJV1611]

NO WRONG

The parable is in response to this:

Then John's disciples came and asked him, "How is it that we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?"

It's about changing the customs of worship and devotion toward God, rather than trying to build upon or continue to do so in the old ways. God was now among the people.

It's your right to believe whatever you want.

 

[J7]

If you want to see someone crazy argue this point and someone deconstruct it:

[video=youtube;KL3mWM4TSh8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL3mWM4TSh8[/video]

I repeated what James White said to Anderson.

So Moslems are just misunderstood KJV onlyists?

 

[KJV1611]

In your own mind you will be committing blasphemy to criticize or acknowledge an error in the KJV.

No I don't consider it blasphemy. If I ever find an error I will admit and I will deal with it.

 

[KJV1611]

No, your basic premise is that everyone everywhere has God in perfect form, correct?

If you're talking about other languages, yes I believe the bible is inerrant in other languages.

 

[pckts]

So Moslems are just misunderstood KJV onlyists?

It's a 40 minute video I'm guessing you skipped into a place out of context.

 

[notbythesword]

No I don't consider it blasphemy. If I ever find an error I will admit and I will deal with it.

So then do you feel like the KJV has 1 John 5:7 accurately translated? Especially when we look at its historical evolution from earlier manuscripts?