The King James Only Debate

[hornetguy]

God specifically says he will preserve his word so i ask where is it? All these bible versions are out but they obviously do not say the sa,e things making only ONE infallible. The KJV took 7 years to complete & was the 7th English Bible to be published maybe that had something to do with the "purified seven times".

That little cultist idea has been soundly refuted several time on this forum by people that are MUCH more knowledgeable than I am about the lineage of Bibles before and after the KJV....

It would be just as valid to say that when they get to the 7th revision of the NLT, IT will be the perfect words of God....in MODERN English.

 

[trofimus]

The Sinaiticus is the Tischendorf one

Sinaiticus is a codex! No Bible is translated from one codex, every Bible translations are from critical editions of many codexes!
Tischendorf made such edition. It is not the same thing.
Erasmus also had to use from 5 - 10 codexes and even then he had to translate some places for Latin, because it did not exist in his Greek sources!

Please, remember that.

and why do all that hard work to compare and contrast when they 95% percent of the time do not agree with each other.

What are you talking about? You must be specific. What does not agree with what 95% of time?

Notice how all of them are catholic codexes when we already have the original greek texts. Is simple but ya make it dificult.

Nonsense. Where did you get this false info?

1. Catholics had highest influence on Textus Receptus. For example the Trinitirian formula in 1John is their requirement, it was not in any Greek manuscript Erasmus had, only in Latin Vulgate. So they paid some man to quickly copy one manuscript and add this formula to it. And they brought it to Erasmus.

2. I am not sure what you mean by "we already have the original Greek texts" - Textus Receptus? It is not the original Greek text.

 

[trofimus]

The JW are inspired by the catholics in their book

You must be joking.

JW do not believe Christ is God so they changed many verses regarding this.

The belief Christ is God is the essential doctrine of catholics, thats why they did the opposite extreme - added to their Bibles verses, that were not in the original.

 

[fredoheaven]

Sinaiticus is a codex! No Bible is translated from one codex, every Bible translations are from critical editions of many codexes!
Tischendorf made such edition. It is not the same thing.
Erasmus also had to use from 5 - 10 codexes and even then he had to translate some places for Latin, because it did not exist in his Greek sources!

Please, remember that.


What are you talking about? You must be specific. What does not agree with what 95% of time?



Nonsense. Where did you get this false info?

1. Catholics had highest influence on Textus Receptus. For example the Trinitirian formula in 1John is their requirement, it was not in any Greek manuscript Erasmus had, only in Latin Vulgate. So they paid some man to quickly copy one manuscript and add this formula to it. And they brought it to Erasmus.

2. I am not sure what you mean by "we already have the original Greek texts" - Textus Receptus? It is not the original Greek text.

1. You said: "every Bible translations are from critical editions of many codexes!
I said: No. KJV did not based from the "Critical" editions or the "science" of Higher and Lower Criticism. These are the products of the Philosophy of Naturalism and Empiricism that make the philosophical movement during "The Enlightenment" also known as the "Age of Reason" elevating the "reason" more than "revelation".

Notable men were among the leading deists and skeptics of this period:


1. (England John Locke (1632{1704), David Hume (1711{1776)
2. (France Voltaire (1694{1778), Diderot (1713{1784), Condorcet (1743{1794), Condillac (1715{1780)
3. (Germany Herman Reimarus (1694{1768)
4. (America Thomas Jeerson (1743{1826), Thomas Paine (1737{1809)


The fruits of The Enlightenment were skepticism in France, Deism in England and the United States, and Rationalism in Germany.

There are three distinct periods in the development of Textual Criticism: (1) The Period of Collection and Collation (1627{1831), (2) The Period of Critical Texts (1831{1881), and (3) The Period of Consolidation (1881 to the present)


2. Catholics certainly did not give us the right Bible. They are not the authors of the bible. Perhaps if you do some fair research of these New versions, some of the Committee might surprise you because of the presence of Jesuits.

3. I have to set the record straight that i John 5:7 is not basically a trinitarian formula as supposed. The trinatrian formula is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The record is Johanine style. It uses "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost". Now not to spoon fed, you should know the difference.

 

[trofimus]

1. You said: "every Bible translations are from critical editions of many codexes!
I said: No. KJV did not based from the "Critical" editions or the "science" of Higher and Lower Criticism. These are the products of the Philosophy of Naturalism and Empiricism that make the philosophical movement during "The Enlightenment" also known as the "Age of Reason" elevating the "reason" more than "revelation".

Notable men were among the leading deists and skeptics of this period:


1. (England John Locke (1632{1704), David Hume (1711{1776)
2. (France Voltaire (1694{1778), Diderot (1713{1784), Condorcet (1743{1794), Condillac (1715{1780)
3. (Germany Herman Reimarus (1694{1768)
4. (America Thomas Jeerson (1743{1826), Thomas Paine (1737{1809)


The fruits of The Enlightenment were skepticism in France, Deism in England and the United States, and Rationalism in Germany.

There are three distinct periods in the development of Textual Criticism: (1) The Period of Collection and Collation (1627{1831), (2) The Period of Critical Texts (1831{1881), and (3) The Period of Consolidation (1881 to the present)


2. Catholics certainly did not give us the right Bible. They are not the authors of the bible. Perhaps if you do some fair research of these New versions, some of the Committee might surprise you because of the presence of Jesuits.

3. I have to set the record straight that i John 5:7 is not basically a trinitarian formula as supposed. The trinatrian formula is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The record is Johanine style. It uses "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost". Now not to spoon fed, you should know the difference.

KJV is not based on one manuscript, but on the Textus receptus, who is made of several manuscripts + some places are taken from Latin Vulgate.

This Textus receptus had 25 reprints with editions, changes and corrections but still contains several big errors and hundreds of smaller ones.

The rest of your post has no impact on the discussion, I think.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Hi Sir,

Okay, I see your point. But historically does not fit what you are trying to draw. Wescott and Hort and others founded the” ghostly guild” to do just the opposite and to dethrone the words of God. The occult movement operates just like that.
Perhaps many are unaware and sometimes Christians get deceive by the works of the devil. “For we are not ignorant of his devices..” Also try to consider, not to put blame on KJVO’s for I know many KJVO’s who are humble to say “We love God and obey His words, the Bible, The true Bible” I should have re-think what our Lord Jesus Christ says in John 14 "if you love me, keep my commandments..."

God bless

As I said, Anyone who holds one version as the only one inpired and judges others is a cult. It does not matter if it is a KJV cult. A NASB Cult or whatever.

And I know many legalists who appear humble. It does not make them correct. or saved.

 

[KJV1611]

sounds like it's the actual message that's important... not particular words like mattocks or guns.

and I'm guessing you probably feel you have the right message - about gun control - because you feel that's what God has laid on your heart.

and it's possible that God has also laid it on your heart to trust only the kjv, because that's the best version for God to communicate the messages in the Bible to you.


Now, can you consider the possibility that for many of your Christian brothers and sisters, God might lead them to use other versions?

I don't understand that comment... "you probably feel you have the right message". There's not one meaning for me, another meaning for you and another for someone else. The passage says what it says, it just is, it's fact and not up to interpretation.

1 Samuel 13:19 KJV
Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears:

There was no smith in Israel. Why? Because the Philistines didn't want Israel to have weapons.
There are no gun smiths in Japan. Why? Because the government doesn't want it's citizens to have weapons.

From Wikepedia:
During the Tokugawa period in Japan, starting in the 17th century, the government imposed very restrictive controls on the small number of gunsmiths in the nation, thereby ensuring the almost total prohibition of firearms.[SUP][[/SUP]

 

[KJV1611]

No modern translation can be inerrant. The best of them are drawn from partial fragmented original manuscripts. Missing sections from one filled in with fragments from another from a similar time period.

Stop fearing newer translations and use them to strengthen what you have learned. Stay with the KJV but do not make it more than it is. Any honest researcher studies more than one test subject if he is to ascertain the truth.

You can cease with the red herrings as in which word the translators used for a given Greek word only illustrates my point. They are all translations and not original manuscripts. Unless you can find a manuscript written by the original writer you at best have a copy.

Here is where your faith in God comes into play. We believe that God preserved His word for us to have today. We can only speculate as to whether it is complete or not. We can trust that it is sufficient that we can be made wise unto salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I think I see where your coming from. You believe that the inerrant word of God is only found in the originals and any bible that comes after the originals is not really the word of God, it's only a copy and God chose not to give the rest of the world an inerrant bible.

Why was it necessary for the readers of the originals to have an inerrant bible but no one else really needs an inerrant bible?

You've accused me of using red herrings, which in plain English means that you are accusing me of misleading or distracting someone from the truth. So I want you to prove that that's really true... What is the difference between the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit?

 

[KJV1611]

Instead of flinging back accusations, how about responding carefully and honestly to the charge that the KJV added verses? You made the assertion that newer versions took away verses, and I have explained clearly how the charge is baseless without an external source against which to compare both the KJV and the newer Bibles. So... get some intellectual integrity and deal with the issue properly, instead of with silly blustering, avoiding, and bringing up other issues. Stop using this burden-of-proof reversal and back up your claims, or retract them.

Regarding Sinaiticus missing part of the Bible, I haven't read anywhere that anyone has claimed it is complete. Your point is moot.

I don't know about adding verses, but there is absolutely no doubt that KJV translators changed words, added words, and translated the same words differently in various places. And the KJV is in no way a direct translation from the original manuscripts.

The question is why. Were they incompetent, were they trying to mislead or did God direct them in their actions.

 

[trofimus]

I think I see where your coming from. You believe that the inerrant word of God is only found in the originals and any bible that comes after the originals is not really the word of God, it's only a copy and God chose not to give the rest of the world an inerrant bible.

Why was it necessary for the readers of the originals to have an inerrant bible but no one else really needs an inerrant bible?

You've accused me of using red herrings, which in plain English means that you are accusing me of misleading or distracting someone from the truth. So I want you to prove that that's really true... What is the difference between the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit?

Such reasoning with the words "inerrant", "God did not give others the inerrant Bible" etc is not very good one.

Example:

Let us say,that inspired John wrote "In the beginning was the word".
The copyist copied it: "In te beginning was the word".

Well, it is no longer "inerrant". But it is still the perfect word of God. Because the message is not lost at all.


Another example:

John wrote "Jesus went to other city".
Some religious copyist made copy: "Jesus Christ went to other city".

Is it inerrant now? Does it change anything? Will it make you corrupted when the word "Christ" will be removed as it was not in the originals? How?

 

[John146]

Such reasoning with the words "inerrant", "God did not give others the inerrant Bible" etc is not very good one.

Example:

Let us say,that inspired John wrote "In the beginning was the word".
The copyist copied it: "In te beginning was the word".

Well, it is no longer "inerrant". But it is still the perfect word of God. Because the message is not lost at all.


Another example:

John wrote "Jesus went to other city".
Some religious copyist made copy: "Jesus Christ went to other city".

Is it inerrant now? Does it change anything? Will it make you corrupted when the word "Christ" will be removed as it was not in the originals? How?

If that is how one would say it in the English language, then yes, it's without error in the English language.

What about the areas of truth?

 

[Dan_473]

Hi Sir Dan,

Okay, then there is no point of discussion. That’s the end. The argument of not understanding is weak. Why? That’s why we need to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to teach us and study His words. Of course we aren’t perfect but it is the Words of God that is perfect!

God bless

the kjv doesn't tell us what Jesus said in the temple, so it can't be the complete and perfect words of God.

ST. LUKE 2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them,
and asking them questions.
ST. LUKE 2:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding
and answers.

 

[KJV1611]

Such reasoning with the words "inerrant", "God did not give others the inerrant Bible" etc is not very good one.

Example:

Let us say,that inspired John wrote "In the beginning was the word".
The copyist copied it: "In te beginning was the word".

Well, it is no longer "inerrant". But it is still the perfect word of God. Because the message is not lost at all.


Another example:

John wrote "Jesus went to other city".
Some religious copyist made copy: "Jesus Christ went to other city".

Is it inerrant now? Does it change anything? Will it make you corrupted when the word "Christ" will be removed as it was not in the originals? How?

Sure there's no problem with those examples but I'm not talking about copyist errors I'm talking about men or groups of men trying figure out what God really meant in the original languages.It's impossible for men to do that unless they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Inspired men would translate the inspired inerrant word of God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Sure there's no problem with those examples but I'm not talking about copyist errors I'm talking about men or groups of men trying figure out what God really meant in the original languages.It's impossible for men to do that unless they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Inspired men would translate the inspired inerrant word of God.

If God was going to do this, He would do it for ALL languages, Not just one.

And the english bible would be about twice as large (if properly interpreted completely from the greek)

 

[KJV1611]

If God was going to do this, He would do it for ALL languages, Not just one.

And the english bible would be about twice as large (if properly interpreted completely from the greek)

I agree and I'm sure he did translate his word in all languages.

 

[trofimus]

Sure there's no problem with those examples but I'm not talking about copyist errors I'm talking about men or groups of men trying figure out what God really meant in the original languages.It's impossible for men to do that unless they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Inspired men would translate the inspired inerrant word of God.

Ok, you have no problem with the NIV omitting this or that word, then?

Is it a problem, for you, that the word "Lord" will be omitted from where it was not before the middle ages?

 

[trofimus]

If that is how one would say it in the English language, then yes, it's without error in the English language.

What about the areas of truth?

Not sure what you mean by that.

 

[John146]

Not sure what you mean by that.

You may not be able to get a word for word translation, but the English words we do have, are the exact words English speakers need from God's word.

There are obvious matters of truth that are different in the new versions from the KJV.

 

[trofimus]

You may not be able to get a word for word translation, but the English words we do have, are the exact words English speakers need from God's word.

There are obvious matters of truth that are different in the new versions from the KJV.

I think its highly subjective. For you some verse can be very important even though it was not in the originals. Thats why you think "new translations" are corrupted, because they do not have it.

Or some specific translation of the verse can be very traditional in KJV Christians/churches line so you are not able to give it up easily even though the different translations are also possible.

Or you can be right and some translation is really wrong on some verse.

It differs case from case...

 

[Dan_473]

I don't understand that comment... "you probably feel you have the right message". There's not one meaning for me, another meaning for you and another for someone else. The passage says what it says, it just is, it's fact and not up to interpretation.

1 Samuel 13:19 KJV
Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears:

There was no smith in Israel. Why? Because the Philistines didn't want Israel to have weapons.
There are no gun smiths in Japan. Why? Because the government doesn't want it's citizens to have weapons.

From Wikepedia:
[FONT=&]During the [/FONT]Tokugawa period[FONT=&] in Japan, starting in the 17th century, the government imposed very restrictive controls on the small number of gunsmiths in the nation, thereby ensuring the almost total prohibition of firearms.[/FONT][SUP][[/SUP]

yes, military weapons... rocket launchers are weapons... should every citizen be able to easily buy a bazooka?

my point is that we see different meanings in the passage.



(ever heard of the song that goes "If I had a rocket launcher, I'd make somebody pay"?)