KJV The Pure Word of God?

[reformed1689]

...emotional reaction...

LOL

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I have a question for the KJVO crowd. If the KJV is the "pure word of God" what was the pure word of God before the KJV? Please give us a timeline from 50AD to 1611AD what the pure word of God was in detail with support.

Thanks.

there is no such thing as "the pure Word of God". Period!

We do not have the Original Autographs of either the Old or New Testament, but only what the Lord as preserved for us, in copies of the Hebrew for the Old, and Greek, for the New Testamants.

As we do not have any of the Autographs, what we do have, are human-made translations, like the LXX, Syriac, Latin Vulgate, KJV, ESV, NIV, etc, etc.

 

[reformed1689]

there is no such thing as "the pure Word of God". Period!

We do not have the Original Autographs of either the Old or New Testament, but only what the Lord as preserved for us, in copies of the Hebrew for the Old, and Greek, for the New Testamants.

As we do not have any of the Autographs, what we do have, are human-made translations, like the LXX, Syriac, Latin Vulgate, KJV, ESV, NIV, etc, etc.

If me and @ByGraceThroughFaith agree on something you know it must be the truth!

 

[Truther]

there is no such thing as "the pure Word of God". Period!

We do not have the Original Autographs of either the Old or New Testament, but only what the Lord as preserved for us, in copies of the Hebrew for the Old, and Greek, for the New Testamants.

As we do not have any of the Autographs, what we do have, are human-made translations, like the LXX, Syriac, Latin Vulgate, KJV, ESV, NIV, etc, etc.

The OT was accurately copied in the 1st century and considered God's pure word by Paul(to Timothy).

 

[reformed1689]

The OT was accurately copied in the 1st century and considered God's pure word by Paul(to Timothy).

Yes, and nobody ever really disputes the OT. It's the NT right?

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

The OT was accurately copied in the 1st century and considered God's pure word by Paul(to Timothy).

not possible. all "copies" are human products that are not Inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot be Inerrant, as we all make mistakes. I do believe that what Jesus Christ and the Apostle and Writers of the New Testament used, was the Original Autographs of the Hebrew Bible, which perished. I do not believe that the Greek Old Testament, the LXX, was ever directly quoted by either Jesus or any of the NT Writers.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Yes, and nobody ever really disputes the OT. It's the NT right?

why?

 

[Davy]

I have a question for the KJVO crowd. If the KJV is the "pure word of God" what was the pure word of God before the KJV? Please give us a timeline from 50AD to 1611AD what the pure word of God was in detail with support.

Thanks.

The Hebrew and Greek texts the early Church fathers used and QUOTED.

This means NOT the Codex Vaticanus, NOT the Alexandrinus. The Codex Vaticanus was only discovered in 1475. The Codex Sinaiticus (also called Codex Aleph) was only discovered in the 1800's by Tischendorf, the first part in 1844 and the second part in 1859, which is very suspicious. It is claimed to date to the mid-4th century A.D. The Codex Alexandrinus has still yet to be authentically dated, even though textual critics 'claim'... it is one of the oldest. See the scholarly documentary Bridge to Babylon.

The most quoted Greek text of The New Testament by the early Church fathers were of the Byzantine texts, which make up the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts that exist. Those are NOT the Codex Vaticanus, nor Codex Sinaiticus, nor Codex Alexandrinus, which Wescott and Hort used for their new Greek text they presented to the 1881 revision committee upon which most later New Testament versions are based.

See Greek New Testament : The Majority Text Project | Greek New Testament Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη Novum Testamentum Graece

 

[reformed1689]

The Hebrew and Greek texts the early Church fathers used and QUOTED.

This means NOT the Codex Vaticanus, NOT the Alexandrinus. The Codex Vaticanus was only discovered in 1475. The Codex Sinaiticus (also called Codex Aleph) was only discovered in the 1800's by Tischendorf, the first part in 1844 and the second part in 1859, which is very suspicious. It is claimed to date to the mid-4th century A.D. The Codex Alexandrinus has still yet to be authentically dated, even though textual critics 'claim'... it is one of the oldest. See the scholarly documentary Bridge to Babylon.

The most quoted Greek text of The New Testament by the early Church fathers were of the Byzantine texts, which make up the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts that exist. Those are NOT the Codex Vaticanus, nor Codex Sinaiticus, nor Codex Alexandrinus, which Wescott and Hort used for their new Greek text they presented to the 1881 revision committee upon which most later New Testament versions are based.

See Greek New Testament : The Majority Text Project | Greek New Testament Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη Novum Testamentum Graece

I'm pretty sure the ECF didn't quote any manuscripts used by the KJV either lol.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

The most quoted Greek text of The New Testament by the early Church fathers were of the Byzantine texts

complete nonsense! The Byzantine texts dates to the Church father, John Chrysostom, who lived between, 347-407!

 

[reformed1689]

complete nonsense! The Byzantine texts dates to the Church father, John Chrysostom, who lived between, 347-407!

They will grasp at anything, claim anything, to hold onto their idol.

 

[Davy]

I'm pretty sure the ECF didn't quote any manuscripts used by the KJV either lol.

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.

 

[marks]

Yes, and nobody ever really disputes the OT. It's the NT right?

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!

 

[marks]

complete nonsense! The Byzantine texts dates to the Church father, John Chrysostom, who lived between, 347-407!

Not complete nonsense, only, "Byzantine text-types".

He missed a word. Do you understand now?

@Davy

Much love!

 

[Jim B]

Yes, Christianity is wrecked.

The KVJ stood as the authority for God's word alone for over 300 years.

If sinners repented, they picked up a KJV to teach themselves.

Rebel forces of anti-KJV persons began working on multiversionism projects, like Strongs etc, in the 20th century.

They started with a fraudulent Greek project via Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Alland and created the modern version spectacle we see today.

Now, this redefinition project of "God's word" causes sinners to see that Christendom is a joke with "man's word" instead.

We even have a gay "God's word".

None of this existed until the 1900's.

Now, it is over. Even the Acts 2:38 upholders are multiversionists.

What a disaster.

You (modestly) call yourself "truther", yet you are anything but.

You write that "The KVJ stood as the authority for God's word alone for over 300 years". Aren't you aware that there were versions that pre-dated the KJV? And who made the King James Version "the standard"? Clearly not those who fled King James' England becuase of religious freedom, their beloved Geneva Bibles in hand. Additionally, the KJV has been modified many times over the centuries.

"Many people do not realize how many times the King James Bible has been changed in some form or another. There have been changes made in the KJV in the following years: 1613, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1634, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1642, 1653, 1659, 1675, 1679, 1833, 1896, 1904." source: Bible Matters--Is the King James Bible "Inerrant?" (tentmaker.org) So which one of these nineteen versions of the King James Bible is the true Word of God"? Or in your words, "this redefinition project of "God's word" causes sinners to see that Christendom is a joke".

Additionally, there have been further revisions of the King James Bible since 1904. How about the New King James Version, for example?

Your slavish devotion to a single translation, created to bolster the religion of a secular king when his definition of Protestantism was being challenged, is tragic. It's just a smokescreen to hide your judgmental "holier than thou" opinion of other Christians.

Luke 6:37, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:" KJV

 

[marks]

Question #1: We can't understand God till we obey him and see the results of our obedience.

How wonderfully insightful and so simply stated!

Much love!

 

[marks]

The problem with the KJV is that over the centuries, the definition of words change. I will still refer to the KJV sometimes, because I do have great respect for it, but generally I prefer a Bible using today's English.

I've solved that by learning which words have changed, and how they were meant at that time. Becoming more versed in Elizabethan English.

So I can read what I feel to be the best translation, while keeping in mind the meanings of the words.

Much love!

 

[marks]

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.

And the fact is that thee and thou etc. give us plural and singular pronouns, something modern English doesn't do. So we get more information on the original that way.

Much love!

 

[Jim B]

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!

The OT in use at the time of the NT writers was the Septuagint, the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew OT. There were differences between the two languages. Even then there was no "pure" Bible. This clearly weakens the argument that the KJV is the pure translation of the Bible. There has never been such a thing, and never will be.

 

[marks]

It was in other faithful translations that followed the faithful underlying uncorrupted text.

Good answer!

Much love!