The Error of KJV-Onlyism

There are five verses in the KJV that contain 'Noe' instead of 'Noah'. In bible translation terms, is this to be considered an 'error'? No, it is not. Why? Because, it does not change the essence of the meaning of the Word of God.

This is why @Nehemiah6 says it "has flaws" but not 'errors' - because, the simple 'typo' kind of copyist or printing "error" does not produce 'error' in the Word of God.

The blatent deliberate egregious errors of the modern versions change the very meaning of scripture.

And - you would rather have that in the swimming pool size than to believe and trust the KJV as the true inerrant Word of God and spend the effort to properly study the places where you do not fully understand its meaning???

Again - something is seriously wrong somewhere...

It is within human nature to want to swim in the pool - that is - to have a large [fleshly] "comfort zone" margin to buffer against the "strictness" of the plain simple truth - and, especially, the Word of God.

You want the swimming pool because you cannot swim in the bottle cap.

The bottle cap does not offer enough [fleshly] "comfort zone" for you.

The modern bible versions give you that "comfort zone" margin.

If you cannot believe and trust that you have the complete Word of God - to read and study with the attitude that it is correct - and that you must carefully-and-prayerfully discern what God is trying to tell you through scripture - instead of deciding for yourself what it is-or-should-be saying - you are in a bad place to be with regard to the significance and importance of properly understanding scripture.

In any case, I suggest that all of you stop wasting hundreds of posts arguing over the wrong thing until you get your definitions straight...

Instead of mud-slinging, how about trying to see what you can agree upon.

If I copy a passage of scripture, is my copy inspired? Yes. Is it scripture? Yes. But not because I was actively inspired during the process. It is inspired by virtue that the source of the material is the Spirit. It is God breathed. This is what makes something scripture...that it is actually the literal words of God Himself.

"An obscurity of fornication" What in the Webster does that mean?

Ruckmanism in Light of the Bible

You're probably sick of me! Here's another. How did they miss this one? Pretty important, right?

KJV
Exo 22~~28Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

NASB
28You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people.

א4ֱהִ ים (22:27) 22:28 aleim Elohim

What they refer to as a "cult" is the way all churches except for the Catholics used for hundreds of years. They hate the traditional Bible so they call us a cult for believing it.
It's like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons calling Baptists cult members. Anyhow, Alexander Scourby was an English actor known famously for his reading of the Bible. I think you said something about wanting to listen to the reading of it, so I posted an audio in my previous post for you. I had other readings but like his best by far.
Let me know what you think.

Have you not looked into this important issue for yourself?

Not to mention the umpteen times some have been pointed out to you before, already, again and again ad nauseum.

But like your KJ onlyist peers, you turn a blind eye. So predictable, alarming, and, oh, what's the word I am looking for?

Dishonest? Mendacious. KJ may have used that word himself!

I am not saying that Anderson agrees with Ruckman. I am saying that Anderson has some odd beliefs like Ruckman. The WayofLife article on Steve Anderson will show you what odd things he believes.

Do you see how BIZARRE your ideas are? Copies are copies of the original inspired autographs. Therefore they themselves cannot be "inspired". You do not know what inspiration means in 2 Tim 3:16. It is the Greek word theopneustos, which means God-breathed. And God did not breathe into the translations.

listend friend if there was anyone I could say to know the heart and aspect of God it would be @Magenta she shows his truth in tranguility kindness never upon her own vies or unde
I dot know why I have issues with cc lately I actually wrote n entire response to you but then the site went somehwere differen't

I am by no means sick of you or anyone else but if you were to ask me what translation
is the true one I would only respond in asking what is the word of God to you? it isn't about the transulation it is about how your own heart heart hears him many are called few are xhosen don't underestimate the importance of the words

You might want to check, but I think "Noe" is simply a transliteration from the Hebrew Noah. If I'm not mistaken, modern Greek even pronounces Noah as Noe'.
Why they did not simply use the same English spelling is still a mystery to me , but transliteration was a common practice.
As a teenager, I knew who it was from the context, so there's really no actual mistranslation.

I'm not in 100% either, but substantially so.
Since he's the most attacked preacher on the planet, there's more disinfo about his preaching than true .
A kid threw 4 blatant lies at me last summer and successfully deprived a lady of receiving a potential winning lottery. All he had to do was copy and paste, just like the other attacks I've gotten on here. I sent the kid on his way. Instead the lady decided to throw away a great future over nothing.
If you want it from the horses mouth, there's a link to his detailed sermon on the subject in the blue highlight posted previously.

Yeah,she is alright in my book! Sister has a wonderful heart and a straight shooter.

The etymology of translate is to carry or bring across...

Latin trānslātus
The etymology of translate is to carry or bring across123. The word comes from the Latin trānslātus, which is the past participle of trānsferō, meaning to transport, carry across, or translate12. The word also has the sense of removing from one place to another, or turning from one language to another12. The word displaced the Old English wendan, which also meant to translate, turn, or change1.

I say, wendan Rome speak as the Romans speak

origin of english

English is a West Germanic language that originated from Ingvaeonic languages brought to Britain in the mid-5th to 7th centuries AD by Anglo-Saxon migrants from what is now northwest Germany, southern Denmark and the Netherlands 1. The Anglo-Saxons settled in the British Isles from the mid-5th century and came to dominate the bulk of southern Great Britain. Their language originated as a group of Ingvaeonic languages which were spoken by the settlers in England and southern and eastern Scotland in the early Middle Ages, displacing the Celtic languages (and, possibly, British Latin) that had previously been dominant. Old English reflected the varied origins of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms established in different parts of Britain. The Late West Saxon dialect eventually became dominant. A significant subsequent influence on the shaping of Old English came from contact with the North Germanic languages spoken by the Scandinavian Vikings who conquered and colonized parts of Britain during the 8th and 9th centuries, which led to much lexical borrowing and grammatical simplification. The Anglian dialects had a greater influence on Middle English. After the Norman conquest in 1066, Old English was replaced, for a time, by Anglo-Norman (also known as Anglo-Norman French) as the language of the upper classes. This is regarded as marking the end of the Old English or Anglo-Saxon era, as during this period the English language was heavily influenced by Anglo-Norman, developing into a phase known now as Middle English

Elizabethan English[edit]

Title page of Gorboduc (printed 1565). The Tragedie of Gorbodvc, whereof three Actes were wrytten by Thomas Nortone, and the two laste by Thomas Sackuyle. Sett forthe as the same was shewed before the Qvenes most excellent Maiestie, in her highnes Court of Whitehall, the .xviii. day of January, Anno Domini .1561. By the Gentlemen of Thynner Temple in London.Elizabethan era (1558–1603)

• 1560 – The Geneva Bible was published. The New Testament was completed in 1557 by English Reformed exiles on the continent during the reign of Mary, and the complete Bible three years later, after Elizabeth succeeded the throne. This version was favoured by the Puritans and Pilgrims due to its more vigorous and forceful language. Its popularity and proliferation (due in large part to its copious notes) over the following decades sparked the production of the King James Bible to counter it.

Jacobean era (1603–1625)[edit]
Further information: Jacobean era

• 1609 – Shakespeare's sonnets published
• Other playwrights:
  • Ben Jonson
  • Thomas Dekker
  • Beaumont and Fletcher (Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher)
  • John Webster
• 1607 – The first successful permanent English colony in the New World, Jamestown, is established in Virginia. Early vocabulary specific to American English comes from indigenous languages (such as moose, racoon).
• 1611 – The King James Version was published, largely based on Tyndale's translation. It remained the standard Bible in the Church of England into the latter half of the twentieth century.
• 1623 – Shakespeare's First Folio published

You know who is totally absent in this thread? The HOLY SPIRIT.

As believers, we can be in fellowship with Him and He guides us in all truth. But I guess, some translation can do a better job.

I contend that all of us have, at some time, been 'on a mission' to find the facts of something. And we have many, many resources at our finger tips. Why not do the same thing with Biblical truths?

I like and use the KJV. I am tempted to bury it out in the yard after this thread.

That is partially what I am trying to get across. And, I chose to make a point with 'Noe' partially because it is 'Noah' in the O.T. and 'Noe' in the N.T. - by the same translators in the same translation. They had a reason.

Instead of folks being quick to screaming 'error in the KJV', their effort would be better spent determining what that reason was - especially, since that particular group of bible translators was the-best-of-the-best - then or now.

In bible translation terms, this type of thing does not really constitute an 'error' - because it does not alter the meaning of the Word of God.

I haven't followed you or her posts on this thread, so I'm not butting in now.
Just remember that this thread is a hit piece against God's Holy Word. I'm surprised that you would let someone convince you to bury God's Holy Word.
Do NOT let anyone undermine your faith in God's Word! They aren't worth it.

I'll tell you what I tell my friends, stay off the forums and get into a daily practice of reading your true KJV Bible.
Do it NOW!
It's the first day of a new year. You can easily get through it this year from cover to cover with 15-20 minutes / day. Hey, it's too easy to spend too much time on the forums. I regret doing that myself.
Let's let that time go to reading so our faith grows.
Ok?
📖🙂👍
There are all kinds of reading charts if you want to map it out and check it off.
Let me know if I can help get you started.

Psalm 119
140
"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."
103
"How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!"

The rules by King James was to follow the Bishops Bible. Then they were to look to the original languages if they felt a word needed correcting or an update. Yes, the Bishops Bible was in line of the Tyndale, but it wasn’t exactly the Tyndale. Tyndale did not even finish his Bible. So that’s not accurate to say that the 1611 is based largely on the Tyndale Bible. That simply is not true.

The rules by King James was to follow the Bishops Bible. Then they were to look to the original languages if they felt a word needed correcting or an update. Yes, the Bishops Bible was in line of the Tyndale, but it wasn’t exactly the Tyndale. Tyndale did not even finish his Bible. So that’s not accurate to say that the 1611 is based largely on the Tyndale Bible. That simply is not true.

Here's one:
NASB
Gen 49~~ 6May my soul not enter into their council; May my glory not be united with their assembly; For in their anger they killed men, And in their self-will they lamed oxen.

KJV
6O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill theydigged down a wall.

עִ קְּ רו oqru ~~~~they-~~~~felled

־ - שׁ)ר shur~~~~~~ bull : :

The NASB cleared it up for me. The more I look into this, the more I like the NASB. Maybe it is the inspired one?~~Put's on helmet~~