KJV translators weren't KJV only!

[John146]

Um, no. It is written, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12:9)

Perfect means whole, complete, not lacking....never sinless.

 

[John146]

we are greater then the bible.We are the living word.

That’s a dangerous assertion. God exalts His word above His own name.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

My contention with other versions is that they water down what I consider to be holiness preaching that is much more easily preached when one uses the kjv.

You would have to explain to me what this "holiness preaching" is.
There are peripheral doctrines that are not essential to our faith and there are dozens of church denominations.

Perhaps the KJV sounds "holier" to some because it's formal and old-fashioned.
I've never liked it for purposes of serious study myself.

 

[justbyfaith]

You would have to explain to me what this "holiness preaching" is.
There are peripheral doctrines that are not essential to our faith and there are dozens of church denominations.

Perhaps the KJV sounds "holier" to some because it's formal and old-fashioned.
I've never liked it for purposes of serious study myself.

The kjv uses the word "perfect" where other translations might translate the same word "complete" or "mature".

This may in fact be essential to our faith because without holiness no one will see the Lord.

If someone thinks that they can be a worker of iniquity and still be saved, for example, they do not understand the teaching of holy scripture.

And I think that some of the modern translations might indeed imply such a thing; in the whole of what they teach. For they water down verses that clearly speak of the need for holiness in the kjv....in some other translations it is not so clearly stated.

 

[Gideon300]

Can God's word be in error? When God speaks, does He ever speak in error?

No, God's word is not in error. Translations may be. One glaringly obvious mistranslation is Galatians 2:20. The literal, "I live by the faith of the Son of God" is fine as it is (slight paraphrase of Youngs) . Most translators change it to faith in the Son of God. This is wrong. The Berean Literal (for those who don't like Youngs) is "I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And that which I now live in the flesh, I live through faith from the Son of God, the One having loved me and having given up Himself for me."

I'd rather live by the faith that Jesus has than rely on my own faith. As a friend used to say, God gives us a measure of faith. We can invest that measure of faith in the measureless faith of Jesus! Sound complicated, but it's not really. We depend on the love of Jesus instead of our own, flawed human love. Depending on the faith of Jesus is the same principle.

 

[justbyfaith]

However, we must have a personal faith in Jesus in order to be saved.

It is our faith in the object of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that saves us.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

The kjv uses the word "perfect" where other translations might translate the same word "complete" or "mature".

This may in fact be essential to our faith because without holiness no one will see the Lord.

If someone thinks that they can be a worker of iniquity and still be saved, for example, they do not understand the teaching of holy scripture.

And I think that some of the modern translations might indeed imply such a thing; in the whole of what they teach. For they water down verses that clearly speak of the need for holiness in the kjv....in some other translations it is not so clearly stated.

That sounds like learned prejudice and divisiveness.
"Complete" or "mature" might have a closer or at least equal meaning to the original language in context of the passage.

I found this website.
http://www.holiness-preaching.org/ All the scripture passages are from the KJV.

 

[Gideon300]

The kjv uses the word "perfect" where other translations might translate the same word "complete" or "mature".

This may in fact be essential to our faith because without holiness no one will see the Lord.

If someone thinks that they can be a worker of iniquity and still be saved, for example, they do not understand the teaching of holy scripture.

And I think that some of the modern translations might indeed imply such a thing; in the whole of what they teach. For they water down verses that clearly speak of the need for holiness in the kjv....in some other translations it is not so clearly stated.

"Perfect" is problematic because perfection is not available in this lifetime. If I'm wrong, tell me who has attained to perfection. He is the only one to see the Lord.

If you are looking only at a person's life to evaluate their spiritual condition, you are wrong. Too many self proclaimed judges are quick to condemn struggling Christians. I know a number of critical types who ended up backslidden while the one they condemned went on with the Lord.

The KJV is excellent in some respects and a pain in many others. I use Bible Hub. It quotes the word for word translation as well as how the translators put it into readable English. Most versions are quoted. Some go too far in making the Word readable. Others are so clumsy that it's hard to know what they are actually saying. If I was only able to access one version, it would be the Amplified.

 

[justbyfaith]

I find that there is a promise in the kjv of Hebrews 10:14 that I seek to obtain;

While if I have obtained it, I do not consider myself to have apprehended it (Philippians 3:12-15).

So, yes, I believe that God is able, through the one offering of Jesus Christ on the Cross, to perfect us for ever. I wrote a thread, still awaiting approval, that may help you to understand my take on this. It seems to now be missing from the boards. But it may still yet show up again; because it may be being reviewed and then it will be set forth.

 

[Dino246]

Yes, the word for Passover, in Acts 12:4 is commonly used in Greek-speaking cultures to refer to Easter.

I bet you didn't know that.

Of course satan hates the idea of Easter (resurrection day) because it is the very thing that defeated him...he would love to wipe the idea from holy scripture entirely.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that arguments based on unbiblical speculations have no evidentiary value.

 

[Dino246]

2Co 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.,,,,So your saying that he's saying?.,,,that without our weakness his strength would not be perfect?,,Rather then that god refines us until we are made perfect?

I’m saying that you garbled the quotation.

 

[justbyfaith]

I’ll bet you didn’t know that arguments based on unbiblical speculations have no evidentiary value.

What unbiblical speculation?

The devil was most definitely defeated when Jesus rose from the dead.

And it makes perfect sense that he would hate the doctrine of Easter because of that.

 

[Dino246]

Of course it is a matter of faith.

Do you believe the modern translations that "maturity" is your goal; or will you believe the kjv and make perfection your goal?

And of course if you choose the former (the teaching of modern translations), you have to reject the teaching of the kjv.

My understanding is that such a thing is to heap to yourself teachers to tell you what your itching ears want to hear.

You hear what it says in the kjv, and say, I don't like that; what does this translation say?

Your argument is based on the assumption that the KJV is correct. That’s circular reasoning.

 

[Dino246]

What unbiblical speculation?

The devil was most definitely defeated when Jesus rose from the dead.

And it makes perfect sense that he would hate the doctrine of Easter because of that.

What “makes perfect sense” to you is not in Scripture for me.

 

[Evmur]

Unfortunately, the Preface to the 1611 KJV translation has been erased from KJV Bibles. In it, the translators explain their translation philosophy. They tell how it is their belief that all translations must of necessity have "imperfections and blemishes," but this doesn't disqualify them from being the word of God:

"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. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis [But where many beauties shine in a poem, I will not be offended at a few blemishes—Horace], .etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."​

To put it simply: the KJV translators were not KJV only!

How did we get to a place where people think only one version, and it alone, can be the word of God? In my opinion, this is a devilish idea inspired by the father of lies himself. If the KJV translators weren't KJV only, why in the world would someone think they understand their translation better than they did???

The full preface is available here, and elsewhere.

I love the KJV, I normally read the ARSV but of late have taken to reading the Living bible, a most excellent [if crass sometimes] paraphrase.

The RSV is tricky and I always check it against the KJV.

George Fox, a most remarkable man, a prophet and founder of the Quakers said this. "In order to understand the bible you must be possessed of the same Holy Spirit as they were who wrote it."

The translators of the KJV were Puritans, their theology was of a much more excellent sort to the translators of the RSV. Theology affects they way in which certain sentences are phrased. That's what [imo ... which is of course right ] makes the KJV the most excellent.

 

[justbyfaith]

What “makes perfect sense” to you is not in Scripture for me.

Col 2:14, Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15, And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Here we find that Jesus defeated the devil and his minions through the Cross;

However I think that this would be meaningless if Jesus were still dead.

You don't believe that the devil was defeated through the resurrection?

While there may not be scripture to substantiate the idea, I consider it to be a first truth that is logically based in scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

Your argument is based on the assumption that the KJV is correct. That’s circular reasoning.

And your argument is based on the assumption that the kjv is incorrect. is that not also circular reasoning?

 

[justbyfaith]

What “makes perfect sense” to you is not in Scripture for me.

I suggest that you also read Hebrews 3:7-8, 3:15, and 4:7.

 

[John146]

However, we must have a personal faith in Jesus in order to be saved.

It is our faith in the object of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that saves us.

We must believe...

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

 

[Dino246]

Sure, if I believe the KJV is the word of God. Modern translations contradict and are different than the KJV.

Which, consistent with the reasoning you employ, is evidence that the KJV is wrong.