Is the King James Bible Infallible? King James Onlyism Exposed.

everready

New member
I wouldn't quote from David Stewart's site, the man is seriously strange.

I've heard that said before, peculiar is another word, kind of makes me remember this when i hear it.

I Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

His site has quite a few areas of information.

everready
 

Truster

New member
No, the KJV is not infallible, but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible.

As per 1 Corinthians 14:26

How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Interpretation can equally be translated as translation.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
As per 1 Corinthians 14:26

How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Interpretation can equally be translated as translation.

No-the bible is correct-the objective word is "interpretation." Leave the objective words alone. The bible is to correct you, not vice versa.




Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......word of God today? That is, the objective words of the book, not a commentary, i.e., interpretation? Does it have a name? Identify it.


I will wait..for an eternity.
 

kayaker

New member
Translation: Here are a bunch of fake, fallible bibles, and I will use them, to correct each other, to arrive at perfection.


=can't be done.

=log in, lose your mind.

Soooo, J Dubya... Which translation to you prefer? And my fallible rendering never suggested "perfection," but I did studiously provide both translations and renderings of Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. Then, I'm sure you can offer the clear, explicit path to utter and irrefutable Scriptural illumination, then? Your feeble post is a far cry from taking a shot at Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV... you didn't even provide YOUR preferred translation of these two verses, much less a rendering. So, quit shooting blanks and impress anyone besides yourself!

kayaker
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
My view:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3986847#post3986847

Just in case anyone is wondering, I am not a KJBOnlyist. ;) In fact, I readily admit that there are some places, such as some of the obvious archaic words, in the KJV that I think could be improved upon—indeed I even hope a day will come when the church will take up the task of creating a faithful revision of the KJV. Until that happens, I don’t see the harm in having to bear with a few outdated expressions for what I consider to be the best faithful translation of the inspired Holy Writ.

I own what I think are all the major translations of Scripture. I have studied them, as well as their underlying manuscripts, and consult them often. But at the end of the day I have to make a choice such that I will be judged by or I will judge—and judge I must. Why? When I am confronted with conflicting versions of Scripture translations, I am compelled to make a choice, for I believe the holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God (WLC-Q.157). If we are taught from Scripture to hear the Word of the Lord, that is, to hear and not bring up all manner of questions criticizing the Word of the Lord, then this convinces me that I cannot in good conscience hold conflicting versions in reverent esteem as if both versions are the word of God.

For me this begins with confession that the divine revelation of God is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that I and others who so confess the same are the real successors of Peter, all speaking by the influence of the Holy Spirit. When I examine what version was predominantly quoted from by the Reformers and the Puritans that have come before me, the KJV stands out for I believe, as it was similarly understood by the forefathers, that the KJV excels because the version

(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.

I recognize that some complain that the KJV uses English that was not spoken by English-speaking persons of any time in history.

Nevertheless, the KJV represents a written composition and there is no reason to argue that written composition need be something widely spoken—a fact that any student of English composition must admit.

Turretin, on the authority of translations of the Scriptures, writes that while the authority of a translation from its original is not to be made equal to the original, nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Clearly, the words and the sense of Scripture are to be distinguished. The words of any translation are not inspired words, but the sense that these words conveyed, when accurately translated is inspired.

Continuing, Turretin observes, Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to the terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources. On the foundation of our faith, I also note what Turretin has to say: Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity (authentia) of the things contained in the versions. (See: Francis Turretin Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:123-127, available here.

If Turretin was on to something here, and I believe he was, and that we believers should be building our faith upon the things contained in the version, I fail to see how a proper function of the ministry is to lay out contradictory views, or things that are to be believed. Furthermore, lest I be misunderstood, I have no argument with seeking to update the language of the Scriptures of the Reformation, if such an effort were for the goal of making that Scripture more intelligible. In fact, I would heartily commend such an effort.

Unfortunately, it is my opinion, having studied carefully for many years all the translations whose editors have claimed this very goal, that in pursuit of the goal, changes have been introduced that change the meaning of the English Scriptures, changing the things contained in the version, supra Turretin, and the very word of God, supra WLC-Q.157.

AMR
 

dialm

BANNED
Banned
AMR,

That makes a lot of sense. The popularity of the KJ started slow. It's popularity decline has also been slow. I don't want to let go. That is the old school in me.
 

Mocking You

New member
the KJV excels because the version

(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;

Drew upon the most popular manuscript available at that time.

(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;

Was translated with the goal of not offending the Church of England or the King.

(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;

Deployed the wisdom known at the time.

(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in dignified and very elegant English;

Was translated in the common tongue in use at the time. It only seems dignified and elegant in hindsight.

(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and

I don't think Olde English phrases are advantageous in order to be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness", er, I mean, "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.

Changes the meaning of the text by adding words to it, like in Matt 24:24
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

I recognize that some complain that the KJV uses English that was not spoken by English-speaking persons of any time in history.

Nevertheless, the KJV represents a written composition and there is no reason to argue that written composition need be something widely spoken—a fact that any student of English composition must admit.

Yet one of the main motivations for the KJV was to provide the Church of England with a pulpit Bible, one that would be a universal translation spoken aloud in church.

I used to be KJVO. But after a thorough study of it, I've come to realize it's filled with confusing prose, downright inaccuracies, clunky phrases, etc. It's not simply the archaic words. It's definitely not the translation you would want new converts starting out their walk with Christ to be burdened with.
 
Last edited:

kiwimacahau

Well-known member
I've heard that said before, peculiar is another word, kind of makes me remember this when i hear it.

I Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

His site has quite a few areas of information.

everready

No, that is not what I mean. He is dangerously strange.
 

Daniel1611

New member
Nick, the difference here between the KJV and the NKJV is a translational issue. Daniel1611 asserted, "The main problem is that the NKJV departs from the TR and the Masoretic" which must mean that the NKJV rejects the TR and Masoretic text in favor of a different text in certain verses. That's patently false.

Disagree about the differences in the translation of the TR between the KJV and the NKJV but Daniel1611 doesn't get to say that the NKJV doesn't use the TR.

The NKJV omits words that are in the TR and Masoretic, and changes words to different words. Therefore, it departs from the Masoretic and TR. If it omits words or changes them, it is departing. I use the KJV. I read the real thing. I don't have time for an imitation.
 

Daniel1611

New member
Translation: There is no pure, sound, true, certain word of God today, as all we have left is subjectivity(unless you are going to "argue" that all have the same interpretation): " but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible."

"but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible."

=Thanks for saying nothing, as we already know that men do not have a "100% accurate interpretation" of the book. If we did, we'd be God. The issue is the objective words in the scripture, not interpretation. Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......word of God today? Does it have a name? Identify it.

Jesus Christ said "My WORDS shall not pass away." His WORDS have not passed away. They have been recorded and passed down from generation to generation. Modern Bible translations have tried to cast doubt on Jesus' words and even to delete them from history, but they are preserved forever.
 

Mocking You

New member
The NKJV omits words that are in the TR and Masoretic, and changes words to different words. Therefore, it departs from the Masoretic and TR. If it omits words or changes them, it is departing.

Again, this is a translation issue, not a manuscript issue. The KJV adds words that aren't in the manuscripts. Anyway, name a verse where the NKJV does this.
 

Simon Baker

BANNED
Banned
Soooo, J Dubya... Which translation to you prefer? And my fallible rendering never suggested "perfection," but I did studiously provide both translations and renderings of Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. Then, I'm sure you can offer the clear, explicit path to utter and irrefutable Scriptural illumination, then? Your feeble post is a far cry from taking a shot at Genesis 4:23 KJV, Genesis 4:24 KJV... you didn't even provide YOUR preferred translation of these two verses, much less a rendering. So, quit shooting blanks and impress anyone besides yourself!

kayaker

Why Do You Insist john w "Take A Shot" @ Those Two Verses ? Perhaps You Respect And Appreciate His Wisdom. Ask Nicely, Not Adversarial, And Maybe He Will Answer.


View attachment 19362
 

kayaker

New member


Why Do You Insist john w "Take A Shot" @ Those Two Verses ? Perhaps You Respect And Appreciate His Wisdom. Ask Nicely, Not Adversarial, And Maybe He Will Answer.


View attachment 19362

I appreciate your comment, Simon. This was JW's response to my post:

Translation: Here are a bunch of fake, fallible bibles, and I will use them, to correct each other, to arrive at perfection.


=can't be done.

=log in, lose your mind.

I already didn't capture JW's alleged wisdom, Simon. JW had his chance. Now, maybe you didn't notice a bit of adversity in JW's response to my post. Possibly I should have responded, "=log in, gain a brain"? IF JW had any wisdom to share, he would have provided it. So, no... no I don't expect a reply from JW. But, I will accept his apology. And, I do sincerely appreciate your honesty.

kayaker
 

kiwimacahau

Well-known member
Jesus Christ said "My WORDS shall not pass away." His WORDS have not passed away. They have been recorded and passed down from generation to generation. Modern Bible translations have tried to cast doubt on Jesus' words and even to delete them from history, but they are preserved forever.

And not once did He mean an English translation of the Bible.
 

kayaker

New member
yeh, cuz when Jesus said "all ends of the earth", He knew everyone would learn aramaic, hebrew or greek - :patrol:

I do indeed admire your free spirit, Patrick! Much wisdom in your words, friend!

Essentially denouncing the KJV, Kiwi chooses the NASB, NIV, ESB, REB, NEB, RSV, NRSV, JB. I’m not readily familiar with those abbreviations. The NT began with the lineage of Jesus, with particular interest in Matthew 1:5 NKJV v. Matthew 1:5 KJV. Please note the distinction between RaHab, and RaCHab between these two translations. A harlot being in the ‘name’ of Jesus is contrary to Leviticus 21:1 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV. The Greek Septuagint maintained distinction such that the name “Rahab” pertaining to the harlot of Jericho was the same spelling as Paul mentioned in Hebrews 11:31, and James in James 2:25. Furthermore, the Septuagint distinguished RaCHab in Matthew 1:5 KJV, from RaHab the harlot found in the majority of translations as in the NKJV Matthew 1:5 NKJV.

The following translations begin NT with RaHab the harlot in Jesus’ ancestry, the ‘name’ of Jesus: NLT, ESV, HCSB, ISV, NET Bible, Aramic Bible in PLAIN ENGLISH, God’s Word TRANSLATION, KJ 2000 Bible, ASV, Douay-Rheims Bible, ERV, Weymouth NT, Word English Bible, and Young’s Literal

biblehub.com/matthew/1-5.htm

Furthermore, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also maintains RaHab the harlot was in the ancestry of Jesus.

www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1

The following translations, noted at biblehub, maintain the Greek distinction that RaCHab was the wife of Booz, and NOT Rahab the harlot: KJV, Jubilee 2000, American KJV, Darby, and Websters. There certainly may be other translations that do not deny the ‘name’ of Jesus alleging a harlot in His ancestry.

I do proffer that any translation beginning the NT with a harlot in Jesus’ ‘name’, His ancestry, that I do have to seriously question the ‘themes’ which dictated their diction in translation. Interestingly, Matthew excluded the written name of Bathsheba, wife of David, (Matthew 1:6 NKJV v. Matthew 1:6 KJV), which I gather a sense of disrespect. Then it stands to reason in my mind that Matthew would have tendered similar disrespect to the wife of Booz, had she been a harlot.

Those two verses, Genesis 4:23 KJV, and Genesis 4:24 KJV that I brought to this table are quite pivotal: Genesis 4:24 KJV was the last specific mention of Cain’s descendants in the OT. It’s like, poof, and they fell off the radar with the next verse, Genesis 4:25 KJV, being a most peculiar transition. In similar fashion, neither the manners of deaths, nor longevities of Cain & Co., are explicitly revealed in Genesis. And, Cain was a major character, while the longevity of Seth is written (Genesis 5:8 KJV). The mark of Cain was merely anonymity afforded to Cain’s descendants, including preserving their flesh existence, in God’s Word.

Therefore, the reason I brought Genesis 4:23 KJV and Genesis 4:24 KJV to this table is to illuminate the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant distinctions in translation, and rendering. The Jewish translation and rendering of these two verses are off base, a polite way of saying ‘uninspired’ (Isaiah 6:9, 10, 11, 12), as well as the Catholic Bible that RCLady ascribes to.

Maybe none are literally perfect, but some translations are distinctly better than others, in the ‘name’ of Jesus. I proffer the KJV is close enough for the Holy Spirit to ‘fill in the blanks,’ so to speak. So, I suggest Kiwi step up and take a closer look at those translations he would refer new ‘converts’ to that might be a little easier to read… like it’s easier looking for a lost ring at night under a street light, because it is dark in the yard where the ring was lost.

kayaker
 
Last edited:

dialm

BANNED
Banned
If the woman who lived on/in the wall is in The Linage then the City still lives.

That would make it the oldest living city.
 

Truster

New member
The main problem in translating the Scriptures into English is the fact that English was not a language or tongue that was given at Babel. English is illegitimate and is mostly made up or constructed from words or parts of words from other tongues, Latin, French, Greek and the list goes on.
Now Welsh is a tongue that was given at Babel as it the oldest European language and still keeps much of its purity. When I began ripping the scriptures apart and putting them back together again I discovered words that were lacking the force or power of the original Greek or Hebrew words and here is an example.
There was an old boy I used to visit who spent each and every day with his nose in the Bible. He died last year aged 98 and he had read the bible 60 plus times. He knew and recognised the scriptures, but was lacking in the true understanding.
I'd been stripping down Psalm 23 and the word follow as in ''goodness and mercy shall follow me....'' just didn't fit. I discovered that 'radaph' would be better translated as persue. The word itself is usually used to portray evil intent and would mean to run after. David used the term to ask Saul why he was exerting so much effort in 'pursuing' him.

Follow me all the days of my life does not convey the sense of pursuit and when I pointed this out to Jim he looked in the KJV and came up with 'follow', but then he picked up the Welsh Bible and he was amazed to discover that the word used was follow, but follow in a very strong manner and with extreme intent and purpose.

When I ponder on my day I often stop to be thankful that goodness and mercy are in pursuit of me and that they always catch me.
 
Top