KJV The Pure Word of God?

[praise_yeshua]

This comment displays your total ignorance about this matter. If there was no Masoretic Text before the 9th century then the Isaiah scroll found with the Dead Sea Scrolls (from c 200 BC) would not have been an exact replica of the Masoretic Text.

That is your lie. The Isaiah Scroll isn't an exact replica of the MT. That is ridiculous claim. The MT is a reconstructed text. Nothing more. The Dead Scrolls witness to 3 or more streams of ancient sources. The LXX is superior in every way to the MT.

Obviously you have no idea about the extreme care taken by the Hebrew scribes to transmit the text from generation to generation in its purity. Furthermore you are attacking the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture by God Himself (through the scribes).

That is ridiculous rubbish from fundamental liars. The KJV doesn't exclusively follow the MT. THe KJV contains LXX renders and old Latin renderings as well.

And even the Lord Jesus Christ gave His stamp of approval to the Hebrew Bible as it existed in His time and that meant 1500 years of faithful transmission. He even spoke of the four main division of the Hebrew Bible as (1) the Law of Moses (5 books), the Prophets (8 books), and the Psalms or Writings (11 books) for a total of 24 books.

Your pontificating by stating the obvious to sell your lies.......

The oldest extant witness to the MT is no earlier than the 9th century. The LXX was used exclusively in all early Christian manuscripts including the best surviving witness to the canonical collect of Scriptures found in Codex Alexandrinus.

 

[Bob Estey]

How wonderfully insightful and so simply stated!

Much love!

Thanks.

 

[Jim B]

Nobody here addresses what I consider to be the foundational belief of the KJVOs: they believe that modern scholarship is inferior to the scholarship of the early 1600s. Actually, on a deeper level, they believe that anything modern cannot be as good as something produced more than 400 years ago. Somehow or other, they believe, Protestantism was pure back then and has subsequently become polluted by modern thinking.

Of course, there is no way of disproving them because they will not listen to reason. They come up with all kinds of excuses, none of which hold up under careful scrutiny, but that doesn't matter because => their conclusions are not based in fact <= The King James wording is, to them, somehow more holy and/or pure, forgetting that when God became human, He spoke Aramaic, a simple dialect of Hebrew.

Can you imagine Jesus speaking to thousands of people, who were almost exclusively rural and illiterate, in some archaic language, saying the equivalent of...

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Think of a stadium today filled with people with only a very limited amount of education hearing "English" phrases like "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" and "why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye" and "Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye" and "then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye". KJV It's absurd to think they would understand what the person was saying! Of course, the person would then translate "on the fly", saying "now what this means is..." and put their own spin on it in modern conventional English.

Or they could say, “The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye?" NLT I'm sure they would still be a little perplexed but at least they would understand the words because they would be hearing the message in their own language. That is the way that Jesus spoke to the crowds: in Aramaic, the language of the people.

I'm waiting for the day when the KJVOs will let go of their pomposity and false holiness and realize that the words of the Bible are meant to be understood by all. But I don't think that will ever happen.

Proverbs 11:2, "When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom." or better, "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom."

 

[praise_yeshua]

Nobody here addresses what I consider to be the foundational belief of the KJVOs: they believe that modern scholarship is inferior to the scholarship of the early 1600s. Actually, on a deeper level, they believe that anything modern cannot be as good as something produced more than 400 years ago. Somehow or other, they believe, Protestantism was pure back then and has subsequently become polluted by modern thinking.

Of course, there is no way of disproving them because they will not listen to reason. They come up with all kinds of excuses, none of which hold up under careful scrutiny, but that doesn't matter because => their conclusions are not based in fact <= The King James wording is, to them, somehow more holy and/or pure, forgetting that when God became human, He spoke Aramaic, a simple dialect of Hebrew.

Can you imagine Jesus speaking to thousands of people, who were almost exclusively rural and illiterate, in some archaic language, saying the equivalent of...

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Think of a stadium today filled with people with only a very limited amount of education hearing "English" phrases like "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" and "why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye" and "Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye" and "then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye". KJV It's absurd to think they would understand what the person was saying! Of course, the person would then translate "on the fly", saying "now what this means is..." and put their own spin on it in modern conventional English.

Or they could say, “The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye?" NLT I'm sure they would still be a little perplexed but at least they would understand the words because they would be hearing the message in their own language. That is the way that Jesus spoke to the crowds: in Aramaic, the language of the people.

I'm waiting for the day when the KJVOs will let go of their pomposity and false holiness and realize that the words of the Bible are meant to be understood by all. But I don't think that will ever happen.

Proverbs 11:2, "When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom." or better, "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom."

It is definitely maddening at times to try to deal with the ignorance involved in KJVOism.

The very purpose of language is lost upon the KJVOist. Language is a means to communicate thoughts and information accurately to others.

That is often impossible to do this properly with the KJV. Take for example "concupiscence"......

It is maddening to watch a KJVOist quote the KJV in using "concupiscence" only to end up having to use the exact same word used in modern translations to explain "concupiscence".......

KJV Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

ESV Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.

Yet that is exactly what they will do. They quote the KJV and insist you quote the KJV and then tell others that concupiscence means "covetousness" just as translated in the ESV......

It is maddening how disconnected a KJVOist is from reality.

 

[Jim B]

It is definitely maddening at times to try to deal with the ignorance involved in KJVOism.

The very purpose of language is lost upon the KJVOist. Language is a means to communicate thoughts and information accurately to others.

That is often impossible to do this properly with the KJV. Take for example "concupiscence"......

It is maddening to watch a KJVOist quote the KJV in using "concupiscence" only to end up having to use the exact same word used in modern translations to explain "concupiscence".......

KJV Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

ESV Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.

Yet that is exactly what they will do. They quote the KJV and insist you quote the KJV and then tell others that concupiscence means "covetousness" just as translated in the ESV......

It is maddening how disconnected a KJVOist is from reality.

Great post!

 

[marks]

It is maddening to watch a KJVOist quote the KJV in using "concupiscence" only to end up having to use the exact same word used in modern translations to explain "concupiscence".......

KJV Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

ESV Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.

Yet that is exactly what they will do. They quote the KJV and insist you quote the KJV and then tell others that concupiscence means "covetousness" just as translated in the ESV......

Covetousness isn't the best translation or understanding, though. When people have asked me this question, I've given a real answer, and that's not it.

This is what I mean about learning the meanings of the Elizabethan English. The original word, epithumia, matches with concupiscence more than covetousness. "Desire for forbidden things", or, "desire for evil things". It has a darker tone to the meaning.

But then, when do we not benefit from expanding our vocabulary? If you learn the meaning of the KJV word there, you'll have a much better idea from reading the KJV what the original is saying than you will from the ESV.

Where Paul says, I would not have known coveting, he used a related, but different word there. The KJV maintains the distinction between these two words, while apparently the ESV blurs that distinction, treating them as the same word, by giving the same translation.

This is partly what I mean when I say reading the KJV feels more like reading the Greek to me than other translations, little things like this.

And when you read "concupiscence" somewhere else, you'll recognize it's using this word instead of the other word in that place.

Much love!

 

[praise_yeshua]

Covetousness isn't the best translation or understanding, though. When people have asked me this question, I've given a real answer, and that's not it.

This is what I mean about learning the meanings of the Elizabethan English. The original word, epithumia, matches with concupiscence more than covetousness. "Desire for forbidden things", or, "desire for evil things". It has a darker tone to the meaning.

But then, when do we not benefit from expanding our vocabulary? If you learn the meaning of the KJV word there, you'll have a much better idea from reading the KJV what the original is saying than you will from the ESV.

Where Paul says, I would not have known coveting, he used a related, but different word there. The KJV maintains the distinction between these two words, while apparently the ESV blurs that distinction, treating them as the same word, by giving the same translation.

This is partly what I mean when I say reading the KJV feels more like reading the Greek to me than other translations, little things like this.

And when you read "concupiscence" somewhere else, you'll recognize it's using this word instead of the other word in that place.

Much love!

More nonsense from KJVOism....

The issue is not with the Greek. The issue is with the English word "concupiscence". Concupiscence is a doctrine. It comes from Latin concupiscentia. It has its origins all the way back to the Early Church fathers in men such as Augustine. The Douay–Rheims Bible was the inspiration for the use in the Geneva and KJV. The Douay–Rheims Bible is an English translation of the Vulgate. Yes. The KJV is greatly influenced by Latin sources.

The word has no place in as a proper translation of anything. To use the word is to INJECT doctrine into the translation.

Covetousness is a proper translation of ἐπιθυμία. The Greek source simply means "desire".....

ἐπιθυμία has a long history in Greek and it is used often in the LXX. For example "longedst" found in the KJV.

Gen 31:30 And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father's house, yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?

 

[Davy]

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.

Same exact does not mean 'same copies' silly. Erasmus lived in the 1400's. Erasmus used something like seven (?) Greek Byzantine manuscripts to produce his Greek New Testament. Although the Codex Vaticanus was available then, he did not use it, which is odd, since the textual critics who support Wescott and Hort claim it is one of the 'best'. Erasmus chose the Byzantine texts instead of anything from Alexandria, which also is a pointer that he did not trust the texts that sprang from Alexandria. I wouldn't either, because all one need do is read a little bit of writings of those like Origen of Alexandria who relied heavenly on allegory for his interpretations of The Bible. Although God's Word does use allegory as a tool, not all of it is an allegory. The Christian school at Alexandria, Egypt was apparently influenced by the Greek philosophers of the day, and Origen's unorthodox interpretations eventually got him denounced after his death by Pope Theophilus of Alexandria. (Origen: The Father of Allegorical Interpretation)

The evidence of what the early Church fathers used is the fact that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts are of the Byzantine text type. The Alexandrian texts are few in number, revealing they were not as widely used. That put in modern bookseller terms, if your publication isn't selling, there won't be as many copies made, nor distributed.

 

[Truther]

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

My point, it is accepted by Paul that copies also qualify as God's pure word, not just the original autographs.

 

[Truther]

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.

Copies...

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

[Truther]

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

I have no problem with pre-1611 versions, except they were not translated via the election system.

The KJV was, so it is perfect.

The revisions are not changes.

The modern versions are changes because they use a completely different group of manuscripts from a garbage can.

These modern versions are garbage too.

It has nothing to do with being holier than thou.

Obey Acts 2:38 if you even want to qualify as holy at all.

 

[reformed1689]

I have no problem with pre-1611 versions, except they were not translated via the election system.

So let's talk about the election system. Who elected the electors?

 

[praise_yeshua]

My point, it is accepted by Paul that copies also qualify as God's pure word, not just the original autographs.

I don't know of anyone that would argue against some form of derivative inspiration. However, it is ridiculous to say such is true for any translation.

 

[Truther]

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!

Amen, praise God for giving us His pure word in the last days and not leaving us stranded in limbo with the modern translators.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Copies...

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Oh the irony..... Timothy used the LXX.

KJVOist like yourself, deny the very existence of the Greek OT.

 

[Truther]

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?

How does the 1611 translation into English cause England to rule America?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Amen, praise God for giving us His pure word in the last days and not leaving us stranded in limbo with the modern translators.

Mark is lying.

"You" is understood in both a singular and plural based upon context. In fact, the KJVOists would have you believe that the word "you" isn't found in the KJV. It is. THOUSANDS of times.

 

[Truther]

I don't know of anyone that would argue against some form of derivative inspiration. However, it is ridiculous to say such is true for any translation.

Timothy was reading a translation(septuagint) that Paul called the holy scriptures.

 

[praise_yeshua]

How does the 1611 translation into English cause England to rule America?

Did you forget what the monarchy of England did to this country? How many Americans did the English monarchy kill believing that an English "King" was rightfully "the servant of God" over all Americans?

The KJV is a product of the "Church of England" wherein the "King" leads all men both in Church and State......

You KJVOists are really ignorant people.

 

[Truther]

So let's talk about the election system. Who elected the electors?

I don't know because I was not born back then.

No doubt it was a referral system.

They had not internet for applying or advertising.