KJV The Pure Word of God?

[Jim B]

Truther wrote, "I was saved at 18 years old in 1979, and never had a problem understanding the KJV. I did not need modernists to define "thee" etc to me."

What nonsense! Judging by his posts, he still doesn't understand the content and meaning of the Bible. He uses the KJV as a "sledgehammer" to pummel other Christians.

If the King James Englyshe is so clearly understood, how come it's a dead language, i.e., it's not spoken anywhere on earth?

How come he doesn't use King James Englyshe in his posts? Does he want to be misunderstood?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Englyshe

The King James Bible has had updated spelling for a long while now.

Not sure why you keep intentionally misspelling words. My guess is to mock the great Bible of many centuries…

 

[reformed1689]

Actually there is some question over the OT also. Partly based on the quotes in the NT that differ from the readings in the OT.

Much love!

Right but again isn't that questioning the NT, not the OT?

 

[reformed1689]

Well, actually they did, because the KJV translators used the Textus Receptus compiled from various Greek texts by Erasmus. And that Textus Receptus was later revised several times by Erasmus, then by scholars Stephanus, and Beza. (see Wasn't the Textus Receptus based on just a few manuscripts? - Textus Receptus Bibles).

Erasmus had studied various Greek texts much of his life, so he was familiar with other Greek texts than just the ones he used for the Textus Receptus. Those earlier studies would include Greek texts going all the way back to Jerome (347-420).

The KJV translators also mentioned using various Greek texts, per their Letter To The Reader in the 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible.

Um, we are talking about manuscripts, specific manuscripts. The ECF would not have used the same exact manuscripts that Erasmus used and, by default, that the KJV translators used. So nice try but nope.

 

[reformed1689]

The King James Bible has had updated spelling for a long while now.

Not sure why you keep intentionally misspelling words. My guess is to mock the great Bible of many centuries…

Careful, your ignorance is showing.

 

[Jim B]

The King James Bible has had updated spelling for a long while now.

Not sure why you keep intentionally misspelling words. My guess is to mock the great Bible of many centuries…

I'm not mocking the Bible, I'm disagreeing with those who, for some unknown reason, consider a 411-year-old translation, written in a dead form of English, to be the pure words of God. They post their arguments in English, often citing sections of olde Englyshe. It's ridiculous!

Forsooth, why doest not thou writest thine postes in 17th Centurie Englyshe? If it was good enough for Jesus...

 

[marks]

Right but again isn't that questioning the NT, not the OT?

No. That's a matter of your perspective.

One of my favorite books is my Apostolic Polyglot, which translates the OT from the LXX, and the NT from the MMS. I think this is likely the closest to the originals that we have available. And in that book, these differences don't exist, the NT quotes are accurate from the OT.

So then the question, Is the Masoretic Text completely accurate?

Much love!

 

[Michiah-Imla]

a 411-year-old translation, written in a dead form of English

It’s alive to me.

It’s my sword.

Tried and true!

It has never failed me through many of my trials in life.

I will confidently go to battle against Satan with it!

 

[marks]

I'm not mocking the Bible, I'm disagreeing with those who, for some unknown reason, consider a 411-year-old translation, written in a dead form of English, to be the pure words of God. They post their arguments in English, often citing sections of olde Englyshe. It's ridiculous!

Forsooth, why doest not thou writest thine postes in 17th Centurie Englyshe? If it was good enough for Jesus...

I wot not a sufficiency of such words to carry on far in my pursuit of such vanities! My thankfulness I giveth to God according to His mercy towards me, the least of those who wouldst find humour in such trivial pursuits!

Much love!

 

[marks]

It’s alive to me.

It’s my sword.

Tried and true!

It has never failed me through many of my trials in life.

I will confidently go to battle against Satan with it!

I love the King James!

I mean, I'm purely layman, but I've studies this in some depth, I've compared Bible translations, manuscript families, textual variants, for quite a few years, and what I'm able to learn of Koine Greek, and at the end of it all, I love the King James.

Much love!

 

[praise_yeshua]

The pure Word of God was maintained in the traditional Hebrew Masoretic and Greek "Received" texts of the Bible. After the invention of printing in the 15th century, both texts were available in printed form. The Hebrew text was contained in the Great Rabbinic Bible (based on the Leningrad Codex) printed in 1524-25, and the Received Text was the printed 5th edition of the 1550 Greek text of Stephanus (called the Textus Receptus) based upon at least 30 manuscripts. Keeping in mind that these two traditional texts faithfully represent all the extant manuscripts (as far as those which have been collated), we can say with confidence that the King James Bible is based upon the pure Word of God as found in the original languages. That the Hebrew text goes all the way back to Moses is supported by the extreme care of the Jewish scribes in making copies of copies. That the Received Text goes all the way back to the apostles is seen in the general agreement of the majority of Greek manuscripts (including the Lectionaries which go back to the beginning of the Greek Orthodox Church). Therefore the Byzantine text and the Received Text are almost identical.

Wow.... Utter nonsense.

There is no Mosartes text before the 9th century. The MT is a reconstructed texts. Not a preserved text.

The KJV is horribly corrupt in Hebrews 13. So much so, it diverges dramatically from other English translation such as the Geneva as it promotes the belief of king james/jimmie in the "Divine rights of Kings".

Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

The Greek source of "rule" is not found anywhere in Hebrews 13.

Consider the Geneva Bible....

Heb 13:8 Remember them which have the oversight of you,

 

[praise_yeshua]

I love the King James!

I mean, I'm purely layman, but I've studies this in some depth, I've compared Bible translations, manuscript families, textual variants, for quite a few years, and what I'm able to learn of Koine Greek, and at the end of it all, I love the King James.

Much love!

Then prove from Koine that use of "ἡγέομαι" establish "rule"...... You can't.

King James was a despot monarchy full of sin. He plagiarized the style of the Geneva Bible and then banned the Scriptures in the Geneva. He was EVIL man seeking to establish Divine English rule in the entire world. He did his best to accomplish it. The monarchy still owns the KJV.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Careful, your ignorance is showing.
View attachment 22273

Looks fine to me

 

[praise_yeshua]

How does the KJV “glorify secular kingship”?

Why isn’t there any added footnotes in the KJV to glorify secular kingship?

Many footnotes in the modern Bibles take glory away from God!! This should concern you sir!

Read Hebrews chapter 13 and notice the word "rule"......

 

[praise_yeshua]

No, I said the enemy won.

Sinners think there is no pure word of God now, and they are off the hook.

Scriptural critics and redefiners wrecked Christianity.

That is what the KJV did..... King James rejected the Scriptures found in the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible was a much better translation. The Evil English monarchy caused extensive issues by injecting the KJV into this world.

I suppose you believe England should rule America?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

King James was a despot monarchy full of sin.

“Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.” (James 5:9)

He plagiarized the style of the Geneva Bible

King James was not a translator.

Read Hebrews chapter 13 and notice the word "rule"......

Nor did King James tell the translators how to translate.

 

[praise_yeshua]

“Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.” (James 5:9)

That verses work all the way the way around....

Are you a loyal subject of the British monarchy? King James was a murderous king. He killed those who opposed him. His descendents murdered countless American citizens in their sinful war to rule this earth. The KJV was their way of controlling their subjects. You FELL FOR IT....

King James was not a translator.

He owned the Archbishop. The Archbishop determined the final translation.

Nor did King James tell the translators how to translate.

Common lie from KJVOists. There are no surviving work from the commitees. All you have is what the Archbishop approved. We know that Hebrews 13 was corrupted due to the desire to show the "Divine rights of Kings"....

 

[Michiah-Imla]

We know that Hebrews 13 was corrupted due to the desire to show the "Divine rights of Kings"....

Who on the American Standard Version committee wanted to show “Divine rights of Kings”?

Look at the verse in the ASV:

“Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith.” (Hebrews 13:7)

 

[marks]

Then prove from Koine that use of "ἡγέομαι" establish "rule"...... You can't.

King James was a despot monarchy full of sin. He plagiarized the style of the Geneva Bible and then banned the Scriptures in the Geneva. He was EVIL man seeking to establish Divine English rule in the entire world. He did his best to accomplish it. The monarchy still owns the KJV.

We can find issues with any translation, I'm not really interesting in nit-picking through particular verses at the moment. I'm quite aware of the translations of leading and ruling and how in that verse the word is from "ago", I lead. Oversight is likewise not the literal translation. Personally I have less an issue with that than with the Bible versions which downplay what I feel to be much more important doctrines. Don't get me wrong, it's all important.

And you can look down on my all you like for my KJV stance, I couldn't care less than I do.

Personally, I've not found a single doctrine of Christianity that appears or disappears from one Bible translation to the next, I'm not talking about "Passion", "Voice", "Message", those sorts. I'm talking about real translations. Did you know the KJV translators said as much the same thing? That any actual translation, whomever does it, is still God's Word?

I've found actually precious little that appears in one, and is different in another, and is not reconcileable by other non-variant passages. And I've really only found one place that leaves something unanswered.

If you don't like the KJV, then pick another translation, but choose from those translated from the MMS, or the TR. Not Alexandrian. Older is not better. A few manuscripts, lost to the sands of time, found in suspect circumstances, and that have substantial disagreement with each other? That's better? Not to me.

Much love!

 

[Michiah-Imla]

@praise_yeshua

You have a lot of animosity.

I’ll pray for thee.