KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[KJV1611]

You are assuming that God did not preserve His word even in the original languages and suddenly has given it perfectly in 17th century to some far away island. This is a hard thing to swallow.

I'm sure if I were to take the time (which I am not) then I could trace it back. I don't believe it just popped into existence in the 17th century.

 

[KJV1611]

If He didn’t preserve them in their original languages, how did the KJV translators get those Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek mss?

I believe the KJV translators got it from Wycliffe but I haven't researched where Wycliffe got it from.

 

[trofimus]

I'm sure if I were to take the time (which I am not) then I could trace it back. I don't believe it just popped into existence in the 17th century.

I did not say that comma johanneum popped into existence in the 17th century.

Its older, but I do not suppose it is authentic.

I meant that its a strange idea generally to say that God did not preserve His word in original languages but suddenly popped a perfect version in the 17th century on some far away island.

 

[KJV1611]

I did not say that comma johanneum popped into existence in the 17th century.

Its older, but I do not suppose it is authentic.

I meant that its a strange idea generally to say that God did not preserve His word in original languages but suddenly popped a perfect version in the 17th century on some far away island.

God is telling us right here that he did not preserve his word in the original languages.

[h=1]1 Peter 1:24-25 King James Version (KJV)[/h][FONT=&quot]24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.[/FONT]

 

[KJV1611]

In the first three verses it says nations will take Israel captive. But then those nations will become Israel’s servants. The Babylonian king will be cut down and ppl will taunt this game once mighty king. It’s about a once mighty Babylonian king.

Isaiah 14 King James Version (KJV)

14 For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

Here is the question I believe needs to be asked about verse 1.

When did the Lord simultaneously have mercy on Jacob, choose Israel again and join Israel to strangers? I say this happened when the gospel was preached to the Gentiles and they became one with Jacob in Israel... Israel being saved Jews and saved Gentiles.

When do you think verse 1 is talking about?

 

[trofimus]

God is telling us right here that he did not preserve his word in the original languages.

[h=1]1 Peter 1:24-25 King James Version (KJV)[/h][FONT="][FONT=Arial][B]24 [/B][/FONT]For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.[/FONT]

I see nothing like that in that verse.

 

[KJV1611]

I see nothing like that in that verse.

The originals were written on vellum and papyrus... flesh and grass.

 

[trofimus]

The originals were written on vellum and papyrus... flesh and grass.

Uhm... he says that all flesh, everything that is material, is like a graass, i.e. has a short life-span.

But gospel is forever.

 

[KJV1611]

Uhm... he says that all flesh, everything that is material, is like a graass, i.e. has a short life-span.

But gospel is forever.

Ok even in your words you are saying that the originals disappear because they are material but the word of God is forever... You're just using different wording to say the same thing.

 

[trofimus]

Ok even in your words you are saying that the originals disappear because they are material but the word of God is forever... You're just using different wording to say the same thing.

While you are talking about originals, I am talking about the preservation of God´s word in the original language.

I find it very strange to say that God´s word was not preserved in original languages but was suddenly popped to existence in a perfect state in the 17th century on some island.

As you do not have originals of the KJV translators, we do not have autographs of apostles. But that does not matter.

 

[KJV1611]

While you are talking about originals, I am talking about the preservation of God´s word in the original language.

I find it very strange to say that God´s word was not preserved in original languages but was suddenly popped to existence in a perfect state in the 17th century on some island.

As you do not have originals of the KJV translators, we do not have autographs of apostles. But that does not matter.

Why do you limit preservation to the originals, don't you think people of the languages below translated God's word into their languages? Why couldn't God use some Greek, some Hebrew and some of many other different languages to preserve his word down through the years?

Acts 2:10-12 King James Version (KJV)

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God

 

[trofimus]

Why do you limit preservation to the originals, don't you think people of the languages below translated God's word into their languages? Why couldn't God use some Greek, some Hebrew and some of many other different languages to preserve his word down through the years?

Acts 2:10-12 King James Version (KJV)

[FONT=&]10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,[/FONT]
[FONT=&]11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God[/FONT]

I am saying that its a very strange idea that God would not preserve His word in the original language that has been used for 2000 years in some churches and, on the other hand, would give it suddenly to some small far away island in a perfect shape.

Of course, I have nothing against the idea that God preserved His words in various languages, both original ones and translations.

But thats something you fight against.

Also, consider the meaning of the word "preserved". If you believe in new inspired additions, its not a preservation. Preservation means its the same from originals to today.

 

[KJV1611]

I am saying that its a very strange idea that God would not preserve His word in the original language that has been used for 2000 years in some churches and, on the other hand, would give it suddenly to some small far away island in a perfect shape.

Of course, I have nothing against the idea that God preserved His words in various languages, both original ones and translations.

But thats something you fight against.

Also, consider the meaning of the word "preserved". If you believe in new inspired additions, its not a preservation. Preservation means its the same from originals to today.

I don’t fight against that, on the contrary I believe God gives his word to all people in all languages. There’s even a foreshadow of that in the book of Esther.

 

[trofimus]

I don’t fight against that, on the contrary I believe God gives his word to all people in all languages. There’s even a foreshadow of that in the book of Esther.

BTW, did you know that there is no mention of God in the masoretic book of Esther, but there is in the LXX?

Why do you think that your version of Esther is perfect and not mine...?

 

[KJV1611]

BTW, did you know that there is no mention of God in the masoretic book of Esther, but there is in the LXX?

Why do you think that your version of Esther is perfect and not mine...?

Which version of LXX are you using?

 

[trofimus]

Which version of LXX are you using?

Various.

For online discussions, I use traditional version of the Greek church and its English translation by lord Brenton, just because its online, easy to copy and paste.

For "home reading" I am using printed English translation called NETS, simply because there is no other option.

And if I want to see variants, I am looking at the critical edition by Alfred Rahlfs which I also own in a printed format.

 

[John146]

While you are talking about originals, I am talking about the preservation of God´s word in the original language.

I find it very strange to say that God´s word was not preserved in original languages but was suddenly popped to existence in a perfect state in the 17th century on some island.

As you do not have originals of the KJV translators, we do not have autographs of apostles. But that does not matter.

We should look to the "originals" themselves for our example. There are translations all throughout the "originals" from one language to another that make up the "originals". How original...

 

[trofimus]

We should look to the "originals" themselves for our example. There are translations all throughout the "originals" from one language to another that make up the "originals". How original...

That does not imply that the word of God is perfect only in one specific translation from the 17th century.

 

[John146]

That does not imply that the word of God is perfect only in one specific translation from the 17th century.

What we should learn is God is not bound to any "original" language when it comes to His pure and perfect word and that a translation can be just as pure and holy as the original language spoken.

 

[trofimus]

What we should learn is God is not bound to any "original" language when it comes to His pure and perfect word and that a translation can be just as pure and holy as the original language spoken.

God is not bound by anything except of His own character.

That does not imply that His word is perfect only in one specific translation from the 17th century.