The King James Bible

[Joseppi]

There is no scripture elevating a particular translation above another. I believe it goes back to comparing manuscripts to see the intent of the verses and words. And it shouldn't matter which side of the textual debate one finds themselves.

I also personally believe there is not one set of manuscripts (and thereby one set of translations) that should be worshipped; had God told us "use this translation and this translation only " - we'd be worshipping that particular Bible ... .. like ... it seems ... some rabid KJV onlyists ... do ... hmm.

All your presenting is philosophical.
Where is the scripture that agrees with your philosophy?
The scripture refers to "the book".
In the volume of the book it is written of me.
Well?
What book is it that in the whole volume thereof it is found that Jesus Christ is the subject?

Do you believe the Holy Ghost shall remind you of what Jesus said?

Or, do you think only the apostles were reminded of Jesus' words?

What I'm pointing out to you is that for many scriptures to be true, there must be the book of scriptures.

When we are told thrall all scripture is given by inspiration of God it is to inform us that God has his word written down in a faithful manner.

And when the scripture tells to study it requires a singular book that God approves the study of with faithfulness.

When Jesus says, Search the scriptures for they speak of me.
That is Jesus telling you to find and read the book of scriptures.

The Holy Bible is full of logical references to God's expectation that you study and believe what is written.

The idea that the scriptures have ever been lost is a man made hypothesis.

 

[Joseppi]

On the other hand, where in scripture is found the philosophy of God needing man's help for anything?

All I've heard is opinions of men that seem to wish the scriptures were lost?

 

[Dino246]

What reason does the scripture give for why men corrupt the scriptures?
Filthy lucre.

The Scriptures don't actually say that the reason people corrupt the Scriptures is for "filthy lucre". It says, "teaching things they ought not". If you're going to refer to Scripture, at least get it correct.

Do you realize that you're implicating Erasmus as well? He was so eager to get his edition printed (he wasn't giving it away) that he made up parts for which he had no sources. His work was a key source for the KJV translators.

 

[Joseppi]

There is no scripture elevating a particular translation above another.

That is because there exists only one HOLY BIBLE to be translated into all languages.
And the idea that versions of the scriptures exist is not scriptural.

 

[Joseppi]

The Holy Spirit hasn't taught you all the falsehoods you've been repeating.

Prove it with scripture.

 

[PeterJames]

I'm sorry Joseppi, but the onus is not on anyone to prove your extrabiblical revelations.

Instead, it's on you to prove that the Scriptures themselves have actually authorized the authorized version.

One of the problems with your narrow-minded view, unfortunately, is that you can't completely appreciate the King James version by insisting it is the only one that contains God's word. It has a majestic place in the translation history and, in my opinion, is still a viable translation today to be used.

But degrading the King James version is something even the KJV translators did not do, which can be easily discerned by reading their preface.

The KJV does have a legitimate place in translation history; by claiming it is 'God-breathed' by God or believing it is the only faithful translation actually does the translation a dis-service and surprises those of us who prefer its majestic cadence.

Prove it with scripture.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

That is because there exists only one HOLY BIBLE to be translated into all languages.
And the idea that versions of the scriptures exist is not scriptural.

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

[PeterJames]

Actually, I believe you are making errors in some of your statements. For instance, you quote John 5:39, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Before we jump to what do the scriptures mean to me, we need to ask - what did the scriptures mean to the original hearers. You skipped that step by suggesting that Jesus actually said "Search the perfect book which is now represented in the KJV, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ..." etc. etc.

When Jesus originally said these words, the hearers would have realized that it was the Old Testament scriptures Jesus was referring to. By no stretch of he imagination can you get KJV into that verse without reading into the text that which is actually not there.

I have no problems with you disagreeing with me or my 'philosophy'; I do take issue when we're putting words in Christ's mouth which He never said.

All your presenting is philosophical.
Where is the scripture that agrees with your philosophy?
The scripture refers to "the book".
In the volume of the book it is written of me.
Well?
What book is it that in the whole volume thereof it is found that Jesus Christ is the subject?

Do you believe the Holy Ghost shall remind you of what Jesus said?

Or, do you think only the apostles were reminded of Jesus' words?

What I'm pointing out to you is that for many scriptures to be true, there must be the book of scriptures.

When we are told thrall all scripture is given by inspiration of God it is to inform us that God has his word written down in a faithful manner.

And when the scripture tells to study it requires a singular book that God approves the study of with faithfulness.

When Jesus says, Search the scriptures for they speak of me.
That is Jesus telling you to find and read the book of scriptures.

The Holy Bible is full of logical references to God's expectation that you study and believe what is written.

The idea that the scriptures have ever been lost is a man made hypothesis.

 

[Joseppi]

The Scriptures don't actually say that the reason people corrupt the Scriptures is for "filthy lucre". It says, "teaching things they ought not". If you're going to refer to Scripture, at least get it correct.

You are right. The scripture I was remembering was II Corinthians, For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

And sincerely, Thank you for the correction.

Do you realize that you're implicating Erasmus as well? He was so eager to get his edition printed (he wasn't giving it away) that he made up parts for which he had no sources. His work was a key source for the KJV translators.

I don't have any interest in Erasmus.

 

[Dino246]

That is because there exists only one HOLY BIBLE to be translated into all languages.
And the idea that versions of the scriptures exist is not scriptural.

If you did not use "Holy Bible" to mean "KJV", I could agree with your first sentence.

Regarding your second, this means that you should be reading Tyndale or perhaps even Wycliffe, not KJV.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I'm sorry Joseppi, but the onus is not on anyone to prove your extrabiblical revelations.

Instead, it's on you to prove that the Scriptures themselves have actually authorized the authorized version.

One of the problems with your narrow-minded view, unfortunately, is that you can't completely appreciate the King James version by insisting it is the only one that contains God's word. It has a majestic place in the translation history and, in my opinion, is still a viable translation today to be used.

But degrading the King James version is something even the KJV translators did not do, which can be easily discerned by reading their preface.

The KJV does have a legitimate place in translation history; by claiming it is 'God-breathed' by God or believing it is the only faithful translation actually does the translation a dis-service and surprises those of us who prefer its majestic cadence.

I agree the KJV a good translation. It was a remarkable achievement for it's time and has great historical significance. It served well for a long time and is still thoroughly usable today. There would be no need for it to ever be done away with. Most importantly it's the The Word of The Lord. Sometimes I refer to it and I like some Bible verses in KJ English for their poetic expression. I'm still glad there are good modern translations available though.

 

[PeterJames]

I confess Queen Lucy that I have had to come to a point in my life where I accept that there are other great translations of the Bible, and when I see the love of Christ in many other believers, I realize that I have been wrong in my past beliefs.

But I honestly still struggle when I read more modern versions; I find I can't read them devotionally and always go back to the av. Even in seminary, I'm asked to use a modern translation. When I study for lessons, I know some of the students in my class are using other translations. So I deliberately try to read sections with other translations so I know what they are reading to and frankly - I've never come up a section that became problematic in teaching.

But what I know is that there are very many great translations and other great Christians and I pray God's success on their lives.

I agree the KJV a good translation. It was a remarkable achievement for it's time and has great historical significance. It served well for a long time and is still thoroughly usable today. There would be no need for it to ever be done away with. Most importantly it's the The Word of The Lord. Sometimes I refer to it and I like some Bible verses in KJ English for their poetic expression. I'm still glad there are good modern translations available though.

 

[Dino246]

You are right. The scripture I was remembering was II Corinthians, For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

And sincerely, Thank you for the correction.

And thank you for admitting your error, sincerely.

I don't have any interest in Erasmus.

That's your choice, but as his work went into the KJV, perhaps you should.

 

[PeterJames]

Aack! A Roman Catholic was involved? Say it isn't so, it's just supposed to be us indie fundie, devil stomping, sin hating, kjv lovin' Baptists!

And thank you for admitting your error, sincerely.




That's your choice, but as his work went into the KJV, perhaps you should.

 

[Joseppi]

I'm sorry Joseppi, but the onus is not on anyone to prove your extrabiblical revelations.

Instead, it's on you to prove that the Scriptures themselves have actually authorized the authorized version.

One of the problems with your narrow-minded view, unfortunately, is that you can't completely appreciate the King James version by insisting it is the only one that contains God's word. It has a majestic place in the translation history and, in my opinion, is still a viable translation today to be used.

But degrading the King James version is something even the KJV translators did not do, which can be easily discerned by reading their preface.

The KJV does have a legitimate place in translation history; by claiming it is 'God-breathed' by God or believing it is the only faithful translation actually does the translation a dis-service and surprises those of us who prefer its majestic cadence.

I have given scriptures that prove what God expects of the use of them.

I see nothing in your opinion given above that is related to scripture nor evidenced in scripture.

 

[PeterJames]

So when the KJV translators themselves say:

"• 2 Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."

That quote from them doesn't mean anything right? The fact that they simply wanted to contribute a fresh new translation, but they did not think they were trying to improve on someone else's work? Does this sound like the KJV translators believe in KJV-inspired translation or that they were part of some 'scriptural fire' cleansing?

I have given scriptures that prove what God expects of the use of them.

I see nothing in your opinion given above that is related to scripture nor evidenced in scripture.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I confess Queen Lucy that I have had to come to a point in my life where I accept that there are other great translations of the Bible, and when I see the love of Christ in many other believers, I realize that I have been wrong in my past beliefs.

But I honestly still struggle when I read more modern versions; I find I can't read them devotionally and always go back to the av. Even in seminary, I'm asked to use a modern translation. When I study for lessons, I know some of the students in my class are using other translations. So I deliberately try to read sections with other translations so I know what they are reading to and frankly - I've never come up a section that became problematic in teaching.

But what I know is that there are very many great translations and other great Christians and I pray God's success on their lives.

We all have our personal preferences and little comfort zones. I think God will continue to speak through the various translations. Just think one day we will see the living word! He promised his word would never pass away.

 

[Joseppi]

Actually, I believe you are making errors in some of your statements. For instance, you quote John 5:39, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You can't search what doesn't exist.

Before we jump to what do the scriptures mean to me, we need to ask - what did the scriptures mean to the original hearers.

You're philosophizing.
The Holy Ghost leads us into all truth
It is presumptiousness to suppose to knowvwhat others thought or think.

You skipped that step by suggesting that Jesus actually said "Search the perfect book which is now represented in the KJV, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ..." etc. etc.

Your using a man made step that presumes you have knowledge of what people once thought.
Also you're assuming that God didn't provide scripture as applicable applicable to all generations.

I'm saying that Jesus is referring to a book of scriptures that can be searched.

When Jesus originally said these words, the hearers would have realized that it was the Old Testament scriptures Jesus was referring to.

You are assuming that Jesus was only speaking to the people present when he spoke.
Jesus spoke to all men who would hear his him.
If that sounds strange to you then consider the fact that Jesus died on the cross for all mankind of all generations.
Jesus spoke what God told him to speak and God speaks to all generations.

By no stretch of he imagination can you get KJV into that verse without reading into the text that which is actually not there.

The book is titled The Holy Bible and the scriptures Jesus referred to are holy.
The title "The King James Bible" isn't correct and I consider that title as misapplied so as to hide the truth.

I don't accept the premise that God must say things as man demands them said.
I don't accept the premise that Jesus' words weren't spoken to every generation.
I don't accept the premise that the Holy Bible has to be named prophetically for man to know who authored the Holy Bible.

The only premises I accept are scriptural truths.

I have no problems with you disagreeing with me or my 'philosophy'; I do take issue when we're putting words in Christ's mouth which He never said.

I can accept that.
But, I'm saying that the scripture truths if followed faithfully will lead to the inevitable conclusion that there has always been and can only be one book of the scriptures of God.
I do make less than perfect quotes of scripture because I often have no searchable bible with me. And must use a phone.
Also I'm not without error myself, of course, but, I can always be corrected, edified, rebuked or reproved by scripture as found in the Holy Bible.

 

[Joseppi]

So when the KJV translators themselves say:

"• 2 Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."

That quote from them doesn't mean anything right? The fact that they simply wanted to contribute a fresh new translation, but they did not think they were trying to improve on someone else's work? Does this sound like the KJV translators believe in KJV-inspired translation or that they were part of some 'scriptural fire' cleansing?

I think that they are telling the truth as they saw it concerning their translation effort.
However, Jesus said, If I bear witness of myself my witness is not true. John 5:31
Also consider John 5:32, John 7:28 and John 8:17.
And that for two witnesses to be true requires to testimonies. (That aren't contradictory)

Jesus was referring to legal testimony requiring objective witnesses.

Thus, the translators can't validate their own work.

My understanding is that the Holy Ghost bears witness of the truth, the scriptures bear witness of the truth, and our spirit can bear witness of the truth.
In my experience the Holy Ghost bears witness of the truth by bringing to our remembrance the scriptures that can't be broken.

 

[Joseppi]

I conclude that the Holy Bible is identifiable by the witness of the scriptures in it being unbroken throughout.

What many consider error is not error but the expected differences that arise out of actual legal testimonies that don't contradict but often are incomplete to some extent.

Other assumptions of error can occur if readers apply their own notions of what the Holy Bible ought to contain or not contain, rather than comprehending what the scriptures state of God's intended use of scriptures.

Thus when the scripture states that all that was written before was written for our understanding of righteousness (not a quote I can perfectly provide now but shall later) it can be understood why many narratives are provided that include many evil personages. Or for an example the book Ecclessiastes which is not God's perspective but Solomon's wisest man perspective that isn't a spiritual perspective.
Or histories recorded by an actual historian are allowed in God's book.
Or things Job's carnal friends reasoned contrary to God's perfect wisdom and understanding as he said they darkened council rather than enlighten.

The Holy Bible is complex.
And it is deep.
And with it God tests the faith of its readers lest they be found to seek error and not truth with an insincere heart of unbelief.
Without faith it is impossible to please God.
And that means that scripture can't be studied as approved by God unless a man trust the Lord.