New world order Bible Versions (NIV ESV NKJV etc)

  • 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.

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
"The Translators To The Reader" is the preface of the original KJV published in 1611. In it I find some of the best arguments against KJV-onlyism around. What makes these arguments even stronger is that they came from the KJV translators themselves.

As you read these quotes, ask yourself: Are these things the translators would say about a divinely inspired word-for-word inerrant Bible?

...About producing a new translation

"It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it does not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be miscontrued, and in danger to be condemned."

...About alternate versions

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." (emphasis added)

...About word-for-word inspiration and alternate translations

"For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?"

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point." (emphasis added)

"...it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence..." (emphasis added)

"There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places."

"doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption." (emphasis added)

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." (emphasis added)

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

"...we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way." (emphasis added)

...About an inerrant, infallible translation (the need for correction of a translation)

"Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?"

"But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, out not to object infirmities to others. [Horat.]"

...About the need for Scripture in vulgar (common), everyday language, not some archaic language or dialect

"Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11]"

"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."

...About the Greek Septuagint

"But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal."

"It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translations to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing a witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded."
"The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doeth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did comdemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it...which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and comment it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God." (emphasis added)

The full translators introduction to the KJV can be found online here:

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Can any of you show biblical evidence that the word of God corrupts? Like where does the doctrine that the word of God corrupts come from in the bible?
In the KJV its very easy to show.

You have the OT and then the OT quotation in the NT. Original texts were separated by several hundreds of years.

Its got so corrupt to the time of the KJV that you must actually say "it is not a quotation", even though there is "it is written" and other contextual indicators it is a quotation.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Actually my posts have demonstrated that I have done my homework
You did your homework in a wrong way.

You believe everything you find on the internet. You do not have skills to recognize the reliability of sources, evidently.

Its very similar to, for example, JW guy, who will do "his homework" and read everything the JW.org says.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,788
3,569
113
One good thing about this thread at least we know who they are. I'm sure there iare some still in hiding.
There are bible correctors and their are bible believers. Which one are you? That's the question. Do you have a bible you can read and trust every word to be your final authority or is your scholarship your final authority?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
There are bible correctors and their are bible believers. Which one are you? That's the question. Do you have a bible you can read and trust every word to be your final authority or is your scholarship your final authority?
Your final authority is the scholarship of the KJV translators and your understanding of old English.
 
Apr 23, 2017
1,064
47
0
why cant u guys overstand that the KJV dropped outta heaven to the hands of the apostles????????
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,848
13,453
113
Actually my posts have demonstrated that I have done my homework, and I am fully conversant with the issue.
You got your facts wrong regarding the sources used in the translation of the KJV.

Your questions were answered fully and properly, but you rejected the answers because they did not suit you. So that's your problem, not mine.
My only question was to John146. If I ask, "What time is it?" and you say, "28 litres," you have responded, but you have not answered my question. I did not ask John146 for an explanation, but for his source. That is a question only he can answer. He has avoided the question, and continues to do so.

... Since the historical, textual, and spiritual facts support the KJV and the traditional texts, you can either choose to go back to it, or choose to use any corrupt translation you please....
What are "spiritual facts"? This whole sentence sounds like high-minded babble designed to sway the ignorant.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,848
13,453
113
There are bible correctors and their are bible believers. Which one are you?
This is a false dichotomy, and is without merit on that point alone. It is based on your personal definitions (or perhaps those borrowed from other KJVo's) rather than generally-accepted terms. Additionally, it employs an implied equivocation of terms, given that, in your view, "bible" means "KJV", therefore, "bible believer" means someone who accepts without question the KJV and all its particular terms. I have addressed this equivocation previously in response to your use of it.
 
Jul 23, 2017
879
31
0
why cant u guys overstand that the KJV dropped outta heaven to the hands of the apostles????????
come on this isnt what we mean. we are saying that God can preserve His word even if its translated to another language. like he did with da septuagint. the jews of jesus' day trusted it
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
come on this isnt what we mean. we are saying that God can preserve His word even if its translated to another language. like he did with da septuagint. the jews of jesus' day trusted it
There are some obvious errors even in the Septuagint.

For example the age of Methuselah is too high. He would survive the flood.

So your view of preservation is a wrong one.
 
Last edited:

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,848
13,453
113
come on this isnt what we mean. we are saying that God can preserve His word even if its translated to another language. like he did with da septuagint. the jews of jesus' day trusted it
We have no issue with the assertion that God "can" preserve His word even through translation. What we don't accept is the assertion that God "did" perfectly preserve His word into the KJV, and that therefore we must accept the exact wording of the KJV without question.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,788
3,569
113
This is a false dichotomy, and is without merit on that point alone. It is based on your personal definitions (or perhaps those borrowed from other KJVo's) rather than generally-accepted terms. Additionally, it employs an implied equivocation of terms, given that, in your view, "bible" means "KJV", therefore, "bible believer" means someone who accepts without question the KJV and all its particular terms. I have addressed this equivocation previously in response to your use of it.
If you do not have a bible you can trust every word, then you must trust in your own scholarship. There are no other choices. Which bible do you trust?
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
If you don't have a doctor you can trust then you must trust in your own surgical skills.....hahahahhaha
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,848
13,453
113
If you do not have a bible you can trust every word, then you must trust in your own scholarship. There are no other choices. Which bible do you trust?
... and you trust in the scholarship of some late-16th-century Englishmen, or in God's re-inspiration of them. By the way, those are mutually exclusive. Either they were re-inspired, which is unlikely, or they were smart but fallible men who did the best with what materials they had on hand and under the orders they were given. There have been discoveries made since 1611 which show that, in places, the KJV is incorrect.

Patently, there are other choices: the scholarship of people other than just the KJV translators, for one. Again, your absolute statement is easily refuted.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,788
3,569
113
... and you trust in the scholarship of some late-16th-century Englishmen, or in God's re-inspiration of them. By the way, those are mutually exclusive. Either they were re-inspired, which is unlikely, or they were smart but fallible men who did the best with what materials they had on hand and under the orders they were given. There have been discoveries made since 1611 which show that, in places, the KJV is incorrect.

Patently, there are other choices: the scholarship of people other than just the KJV translators, for one. Again, your absolute statement is easily refuted.
Refuted with no answer. What is your answer? Is there a bible you trust? Or, do you trust in your own scholarship?

The Scripture is inspired, not man. God preserved His inspired Scripture in English. There are many evidences that have been shown. The KJV has never been incorrect. It always proves itself, over and over.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Refuted with no answer. What is your answer? Is there a bible you trust? Or, do you trust in your own scholarship?
You have no answer. Because no matter how you call it, you trust the KJV translators and your knowledge of old English.

God preserved His inspired Scripture in English.
Like in every language where the gospel is spread. The only problem is that you try to push your idea of what a preservation is and that this idea is so obviously wrong.

There are many evidences that have been shown.
Actually, none.


The KJV has never been incorrect.
Actually, its incorrect very often.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,788
3,569
113
You have no answer. Because no matter how you call it, you trust the KJV translators and your knowledge of old English.


Like in every language where the gospel is spread. The only problem is that you try to push your idea of what a preservation is and that this idea is so obviously wrong.


Actually, none.



Actually, its incorrect very often.
Psalm 126 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 (the pure words of the Lord) from this generation for ever.

Where are the pure words of the Lord preserved? If not the KJV, then where? Where do you go to find the preserved pure words of God?