The King James Bible

[trofimus]

God did not inspire men, He inspired His words. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

If we want to be really technical, God inspired Scriptures, neither His words nor men.

But generally speaking He inspired men to write Scriptures containing His words.

There were many events that these men wrote of that they were not even present. Luke wrote about the birth of Christ. Luke was not at the birth of Christ. The words that Luke wrote were inspired by God. Luke was in charge of preserving them down in writing.

You do not get my question.

When all three write about same events,they use different words put in Jesus´s mouth.

Therefore there is no need for some kind of "every word" perfection.

 

[John146]

If we want to be really technical, God inspired Scriptures, neither His words nor men.

But generally speaking He inspired men to write Scriptures containing His words.



You do not get my question.

When all three write about same events,they use different words put in Jesus´s mouth.

Therefore there is no need for some kind of "every word" perfection.

Do you not trust the Holy Spirit had a purpose? Do you not think there is a reason behind why they used different words? There is a specific purpose for each gospel book, if not, we would only need one, but God chose to give us four distinct books containing different words.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

So is the text the word of God or the footnotes? Which can be trusted?

That would be something for you to pray about if you are troubled by it.

 

[trofimus]

Do you not trust the Holy Spirit had a purpose? Do you not think there is a reason behind why they used different words? There is a specific purpose for each gospel book, if not, we would only need one, but God chose to give us four distinct books containing different words.

In that case there is a reason for various Bible translations and different Greek manuscripts.

The same logic.

 

[trofimus]

So is the text the word of God or the footnotes? Which can be trusted?

If it is really so important for your live, you can do both praying and fasting.

If the original text had only that praying is needed, you will do nothing wrong. You will just do something more.

 

[hornetguy]

So is the text the word of God or the footnotes? Which can be trusted?

Obviously, both.... since both were written down by men. Footnotes actually help in understanding, and add clarity to texts that are difficult to translate exactly from Greek into English.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Obviously, both.... since both were written down by men. Footnotes actually help in understanding, and add clarity to texts that are difficult to translate exactly from Greek into English.

Exactly, as an example, we say love.

The old Greek has

• Eros: Love of the body. ...
• Philia: Love of the mind.
• Ludus: Playful love. ...
• Pragma: Longstanding love. ...
• Agape: Love of the soul. ...
• Philautia: Love of the self. ...
• Storge: Love of the child.

 

[John146]

That would be something for you to pray about if you are troubled by it.

Actually, it's something you better know for sure in order you know which to trust.

 

[John146]

Obviously, both.... since both were written down by men. Footnotes actually help in understanding, and add clarity to texts that are difficult to translate exactly from Greek into English.

If both can be trusted why not add the footnotes as part of the verse?

 

[Dino246]

So is the text the word of God or the footnotes? Which can be trusted?

Please consider why the original 1611 KJV had marginal notes showing alternate wordings. When you have done that, then you will have your answer.

Further, please consider why the KJV translators added many words to the text of Scripture which now appear in italics in most KJV printings. Are such words "Scripture" or not? If so, how do you justify their presence as they aren't in the source material? If not, then how do you not consider the KJV corrupt for having them added?

 

[trofimus]

If both can be trusted why not add the footnotes as part of the verse?

I think amplified bible does something like that? Put every possibility directly to text.

But I think that the system "the most probable reading go to the text and all other important possibilities to notes" is better and more clean.

 

[Joseppi]

I'm ok with that. I believe God can take what was said in one language and have it translated into another language, and that translation be the very word of God.

On the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost translated into many languages and dialects, and did so instantaneously.
This reveals two things.
That God can and does easily translate into any language perfectly.
And that God knows what he said in the past.
Therefore, the only thing hindering the publishing of the Holy Bible is finding obedient men to serve him for that purpose.

 

[hornetguy]

On the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost translated into many languages and dialects, and did so instantaneously.
This reveals two things.
That God can and does easily translate into any language perfectly.
And that God knows what he said in the past.
Therefore, the only thing hindering the publishing of the Holy Bible is finding obedient men to serve him for that purpose.

umm... ok. What is your point?

 

[Joseppi]

Do you readers believe that God desired the publishing of all the scriptures as the Holy Bible?

If so, do you think he ordained the men to do so?

Or, do you think that men desired to publish the scriptures as a Holy Bible and God allowed them to do so without his ordination?

Do you think God ordained King James?

 

[Joseppi]

Genesis 3:4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!" In Judges 16:7, Samson said to Delilah, "If they bind me with seven fresh cords that have not been dried, then I will become weak and be like any other man." In 1 Kings 22:11, Zedekiah said, "Thus says the Lord, 'With these you will gore the Arameans until they are consumed.'" All three are lies. All three are in the Bible. I guess your god doesn't respect the Bible.

The Holy Bible consists of two legal ddocuments called testaments, and they each consist of legal testimonies validating God's covenants with man and the histories of man associated with God's purposes.
Therefore, all quotes are accurate and are legal testimonies of the words and actions of good and evil persons as God ordained to be included in his Holy Bible.

Jesus Christ as mediator established a new covenant between God and man. In doing so the New Testament is a legal document providing all required proofs validating that covenant.
The New Testament is the published will and testament of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, no one is legally authorized to tamper with that document, nor in any way misuse it in the furtherance of God's will.

 

[Lafftur]

The Holy Bible consists of two legal ddocuments called testaments, and they each consist of legal testimonies validating God's covenants with man and the histories of man associated with God's purposes.
Therefore, all quotes are accurate and are legal testimonies of the words and actions of good and evil persons as God ordained to be included in his Holy Bible.

Jesus Christ as mediator established a new covenant between God and man. In doing so the New Testament is a legal document providing all required proofs validating that covenant.
The New Testament is the published will and testament of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, no one is legally authorized to tamper with that document, nor in any way misuse it in the furtherance of God's will.

Hello Joseppi,

Well said! I actually work for a law firm and have never looked at the Holy Bible as legal documents. I can so relate to what you are saying! You are so right - they are binding legal documents. Great insight! Thanks for your post!

 

[hornetguy]

Do you readers believe that God desired the publishing of all the scriptures as the Holy Bible?

If so, do you think he ordained the men to do so?

Or, do you think that men desired to publish the scriptures as a Holy Bible and God allowed them to do so without his ordination?

Do you think God ordained King James?

Let's see....

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

I don't believe God "ordains" anyone to translate scripture. I believe man/men have felt the need/urge/desire to make God's word more "readable", or perhaps more accurate, and they set out to do a translation. I believe that most of the people involved in doing a translation pray earnestly for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.... and I believe the Spirit guides them in their quest.

 

[Dino246]

Do you readers believe that God desired the publishing of all the scriptures as the Holy Bible?

If so, do you think he ordained the men to do so?

Or, do you think that men desired to publish the scriptures as a Holy Bible and God allowed them to do so without his ordination?

Do you think God ordained King James?

As you use the term, "Holy Bible" to mean the KJV, the answers, in order, are No, No, Yes, and No.

I would suggest that nobody has ever been "ordained" by God to translate or publish the Bible. Has He enabled and guided humans to do so? Certainly.

The Holy Bible consists of two legal ddocuments called testaments, and they each consist of legal testimonies validating God's covenants with man and the histories of man associated with God's purposes.
Therefore, all quotes are accurate and are legal testimonies of the words and actions of good and evil persons as God ordained to be included in his Holy Bible.

Jesus Christ as mediator established a new covenant between God and man. In doing so the New Testament is a legal document providing all required proofs validating that covenant.
The New Testament is the published will and testament of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, no one is legally authorized to tamper with that document, nor in any way misuse it in the furtherance of God's will.

All this to establish what, precisely? Your statement was refuted, yet you didn't acknowledge that it was refuted.

You claim "accurate quotes" when it's convenient for you, despite the fact that they contradict. Your reasoning is inconsistent, and rationalized ... which is what you accuse me of doing.

 

[fredoheaven]

1. Antiquity is one of concerns.

2. Not very good sources for translation is another.

----

1.
"Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms."
Ez 13:20, KJV

"I am against your magic charms with which you ensnare people like birds and I will tear them from your arms."
Ez 13:20, NIV

First, you did not heed the admonition of studying God’s word (2Tiimothy 2:15)

Second, there was no counterpoint on your part so that “antiquity” could not work against the KJV.

Third, your “consistent” presentation of seeming errors in the KJV is a consistent error on your part. Of course, you could not correct the Holy writ. It will always correct us. Actually, your method has no bearing and serves no evidence to find fault with the KJV.

Fourth, to give you a fair play of something you posted of comparing two English Bibles, I have to assume with the following implications:

1. Translation error, however, the KJV is correct with translation concern. Evidence..
a. Internal evidence. The Hebrew word simply means pillow
b. Context means it’s a pillow that is being sewed. Your magic charm? No…

Magical Charms - Mystical Amulets Love Charms Money Magic Charms Success Charms Protection Charms Mystical Healing Charms

c. External evidence – shows the fact that Egyptian culture and magic involves pillows so we have “pillow magic”.

The Pillow Amulet ***

2. Antiquity:

Perhaps this may be your slightest chance to degenerate the “outdated /obsolete” 1611 English but antiquity could not work against the KJV! Let’s see your proposal:

Given 1611 English KJV considered by many here as obsolete, then what about the NIV where the NT was first published in 1973 and the OT was publish in 1978. I also assume that this must be a default English with a mock test for Ezek. Being the given text. According to my source, your “magic charm” is also out-dated! To break this spell out in your eyes…

Magic is first used in the late 14C yet the NIV used them, too old for me.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/magic

charm is first used was during 1300’s yet in this test, it is antiquated.


https://www.etymonline.com/word/charm

So in short and in plain language, the antiquity used against the KJV is definitely wrong and the argument is entirely no weight. I have to agree it’s a bogus claim!

 

[trofimus]

First, you did not heed the admonition of studying God’s word (2Tiimothy 2:15)

Second, there was no counterpoint on your part so that “antiquity” could not work against the KJV.

Third, your “consistent” presentation of seeming errors in the KJV is a consistent error on your part. Of course, you could not correct the Holy writ. It will always correct us. Actually, your method has no bearing and serves no evidence to find fault with the KJV.

Fourth, to give you a fair play of something you posted of comparing two English Bibles, I have to assume with the following implications:

1. Translation error, however, the KJV is correct with translation concern. Evidence..
a. Internal evidence. The Hebrew word simply means pillow
b. Context means it’s a pillow that is being sewed. Your magic charm? No…

Magical Charms - Mystical Amulets Love Charms Money Magic Charms Success Charms Protection Charms Mystical Healing Charms

c. External evidence – shows the fact that Egyptian culture and magic involves pillows so we have “pillow magic”.

The Pillow Amulet ***

2. Antiquity:

Perhaps this may be your slightest chance to degenerate the “outdated /obsolete” 1611 English but antiquity could not work against the KJV! Let’s see your proposal:

Given 1611 English KJV considered by many here as obsolete, then what about the NIV where the NT was first published in 1973 and the OT was publish in 1978. I also assume that this must be a default English with a mock test for Ezek. Being the given text. According to my source, your “magic charm” is also out-dated! To break this spell out in your eyes…

Magic is first used in the late 14C yet the NIV used them, too old for me.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/magic

charm is first used was during 1300’s yet in this test, it is antiquated.


https://www.etymonline.com/word/charm

So in short and in plain language, the antiquity used against the KJV is definitely wrong and the argument is entirely no weight. I have to agree it’s a bogus claim!

First, please, be consistent and when internal or external evidence is AGAINST KJV, accept it, too.

Second, the Hebrew word does not mean "pillow" in ancient Hebrew, but "band, amulet, fillet". It means "pillow" in later Hebrew, thats why the KJV translators in 17th century were confused. Their knowledge was not as good as is today. They also did not understand that souls do not fly, but that it means "as birds".

Third, there are so many antiquated words in the KJV that it is impossible to deny it.

Fourth, there are also wrong ideas of KJV translators, because of the lack of historical and scientific info, for example using words like "candle", unicorn etc.

Fifth, there are even wrong translations, simply because they were not perfect.

Sixth, the sources they translated from were not perfect - medieval masoretic text of Jews for the OT and Erasmus' critical text for the NT