KJ-ONLYite claims: Enyart does not believe The Bible is inerrant

[robycop3]

KJVO big-top circus

KJVO big-top circus

brandplucked :Hi Roby, I posted and you commented:

See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

Roby posts: "Actually, no one valid translation is inspired more than any other, and you, Will, can prove no differently."

Roby, you and I know each other's position on the Bible issue quite well, but others here may not be aware of what it is you believe. Here you say "no one valid translation is more inspired than any other". OK, Roby, let's look at what you say here.

Which versions do you consider to be "valid" translations? Please list them for us. Is the King James Bible among the versions you consider to be valid?

Yes, the KJV and AV 1611 are both valid, as are the NKJV, NASB, NIV, Geneva Bible, and most likely a few others, some, older, some, newer than those I've listed.

Secondly, are you saying that God inspires errors and that God inspires a Scripture readinig and a non-reading for the same passages, and yet both the reading and the non-reading are equally "inspired"?

The glaring differences between the four "Gospels" should answer that question for you much more thoroughly and accurately than any man's words could. The Gospels have been part of the NT canon since it's existed, right? And every true Christian believes every word of all four, right? YOU believe every word of'em, right? But yet they're differing narrations of the SAME EVENTS.

While a police officer, I often had to read differing narrations of the same events more than once. Say four intelligent, honest, cooperative people saw a traffic accident & agreed to write what they saw. I would have four differing accounts of the same events. One person may have been paying more attention to the traffic down the strees, another may have been looking to cross the street, and all four people each have different writing abilities and powers of memory. Form this, the drivers'accounts, and the physical evidence of the damage to the vehicles involved, I had to re-construct the event as best I could.

Same with the Gospels. First, they were written years after the events. Next, each writer had different powers of observation amd memory, as well as different writing abilities. Each of them may or may not have been present at the occurrence of the various events, or close enough to have heard everything that was said. For instance, Luke was close enough to have heard the conversation between Jesus and the crooks on crosses beside Him, while Mark may have been farther back and not heard the one crook repent.

The standards used as the basis of belief of all four Gospels MUST BE APPLIED to the differences between mss and between Bible versions. The differences between the Gospels AS FOUND WITHIN THE SAME SET OF MSS is greater than the differences between the differing "families" of mss, whereas all logic says the OPPOSITE should be true. The TRUTH is, the various mss were written by various people at various times. But I TRUST GOD to have handed down His word to us in the forms and manners HE CHOSE, and i am confident that I read His word in the versions HE CHOSE for me to read. I try to avail myself of all the tools God has made available for me to use to perform the work He has for me. Do YOU?

And lastly for now, do you believe any Bible in any language is now today the complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible words of God? If so, please list it or them for us.

I have listed the English versions above. I don't know any other language well enough to base any such belief upon.

While each man-made version may have a few technical mistakes each is perfect for the uses God intended for it.

In Christ,

Cranston

 

[Peter A V]

Ever learning to get to the truth

Ever learning to get to the truth

Will,
As a final note, there have been a lot of posts here regarding beliefs, facts and experiences fron either perspecitve and these go beyond my knowledge of any translation. So there is something to be learned here and I'll continue to evaluate some of this information in study and prayer. I am interested in studying more about your post on the NKJV and differences between KJV and will follow with an email if I have further questions.

-Eric

Good post,We all desparately need the guidance of the Holy Ghost,reguardless of just what translation we use.Amen!

 

[robycop3]

Good post,We all desparately need the guidance of the Holy Ghost,reguardless of just what translation we use.Amen!

I agree, Peter. That's why I wonder about the motives of those who teach a One-Versionism doctrine, something not found in ANY version.

 

[brandplucked]

Psalm 138:2 magnified thy word above all thy name

Psalm 138:2 magnified thy word above all thy name

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

This is an example of a very poor rendering, given all the other verses where God says HIS NAME is supreme, & that He's given JESUS a name above all other names. It SHOULD read, "magnified Your word ALONG WITH all Your name." Call me a Bible-corrector if you wish, but when the TRANSLATION doesn't exactly follow its SOURCE BEING TRANSLATED, it calls for correction.

(Continued next post)

Hi Roby, in answer to this remark of yours, consider the following:


Psalm 138:2 Magnified thy word ABOVE all thy name

Psalm 138:2 "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for the lovingkindness and for thy TRUTH: for thou hast magnified thy word ABOVE all thy name."

Gary Hudson is a typical Bible corrector. He generally "prefers" the New KJV, but like all other Bible correctors who have placed their own minds as the final written authority, and do not believe that any Bible on this earth is the inerrant words of God, he is free to correct even his own preferred version whenever he chooses to do so.

Mr. Hudson says: "Psalm 138:2 is accurately translated in the NASB as "according to thy name." God's Word and God's name are equally holy, and both equally reveal His character and attributes. His Word is NOT "above" His own name, and never could be because HE IS GOD."

Here is a case of pure human reasoning placing itself above the very words of God, and thus in the place of God Himself who has given us His infallible words. What supreme irony!

Another typical King James critic recently posted at one of the Bible clubs: Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Then he says: "This is an example of a very poor rendering, given all the other verses where God says HIS NAME is supreme, & that He's given JESUS a name above all other names. It SHOULD read, "magnified Your word ALONG WITH all Your name." Call me a Bible-corrector if you wish, but when the TRANSLATION doesn't exactly follow its SOURCE BEING TRANSLATED, it calls for correction." (Caps are his, not mine)



The phrase in Psalm 138:2 "thou hast magnified thy word ABOVE all thy name" is found in the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew - English versions put out by the Jewish Publication Society, and the Hebrew Publication Company, New Youk, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Revised Version of 1881, Darby's 1870 translation, the American Standard Version of 1901, Webster's 1833 translation, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Youngs translation, the Italian Diodati, the Bible in Basic English 1961, J.P. Green's Modern KJV 1998, the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, The Updated Bible Version of 2004, and the NKJV of 1982. All these Bible versions tell us what the Hebrew text literally says.

The previous English versions like Coverdale, Bishops' and Geneva each gave a different meaning from each other and none of them got it right. The first English Bible to get this verse right was the King James Bible.

Most of the English Bible versions followed the King James reading until we get to the liberal RSV of 1952. The RSV is interesting in that it reads: "Thou hast exalted ABOVE everything thing THY NAME AND THY WORD." It reads basically like the NIV and the ESV do now, but the RSV tells us in their footnotes: - 'Hebrew "exalted Thy word ABOVE all thy name." The NRSV reads like the RSV, and its footnote tells us they have "corrected" the text (Cn), and that the Hebrew literally says what is found in the King James Bible. A similar footnote is found in the ESV.

Then the NASB came out and it changed even the liberal RSV meaning and now says: "For Thou hast magnified Thy word ACCORDING TO all Thy name". The Hebrew word is # 5921 - (al) - and it means "above" as in Genesis 1:7 "the waters were ABOVE the firmament" and Gen.27:39 "the dew from heaven ABOVE."

The NIV, and the 2001 ESV read: "You have exalted ABOVE ALL THINGS YOUR NAME AND YOUR WORD." Just by switching a few words around they have changed the meaning of the whole sentence. But at least they correctly translated "above" whereas the NASB did not.

It is of interest that the NASB has passages where the exact same verb (to magnify) and the preposition (above) are used in comparing two nouns in the same Hebrew construction as found in Psalm 138:2, and the NASB has translated them exactly as they stand in the King James Bible.

“And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and MAGNIFY himself ABOVE every god…”(Daniel 11:36:a AV)

“Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and MAGNIFY himself ABOVE every god…” (Daniel 11:36a NASV)

“Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any gods: for he shall MAGNIFY himself ABOVE all.” (Daniel 11:37 AV)

“And he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will MAGNIFY himself ABOVE them all.” (Daniel 11:37 NASV)



Please notice neither the NKJV, the NASB, or the NIV agree with each other as to the meaning of this verse.

If you don't like them, then maybe you could try another modern version like the New English Bible, the Holman Standard, or the Message, all three of which give yet different meanings still. The New English Bible of 1970 says: "I will bow down towards thy holy temple, for thy love and faithfulness I will praise thy name; for THOU HAST MADE THY PROMISE WIDE AS THE HEAVENS." - It matches neither the KJB (NKJV), the NASB, or the NIV's meaning.

The Holman Standard of 2003 says: "You have exalted Your name and Your promise above everything else."

The Message says: " "Thank you!" Thank you for your love, thank you for your faithfulness; Most holy is your name, most holy is your Word."

Or how about the NET bible by Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary? It says: "I will bow down toward your holy temple, and give thanks to your name, because of your loyal love and faithfulness, for you have EXALTED YOUR PROMISE ABOVE THE ENTIRE SKY."

Then in a footnote, Mr. Wallace says: "The Hebrew Masoretic Text reads, “for you have made great over all your name your word”... However, the statement is odd and several emendations have been proposed. Some read, “for you have exalted over everything your name and your word,” while others suggest, “for you have exalted over all the heavens your name and your word.” The translation assumes an emendation of “your name” to “your heavens”.

In other words, Dr. Wallace admits that the Hebrew text actually reads the way it is found in the King James Bible, but he doesn't understand it, so he suggests the "emendations" (changes of text) as found in such versions as the NASB and the NIV!!!

The so called Greek Septuagint (or the LXX) is of no help here because it differs from ALL other versions and the Hebrew text. The LXX says: "for thou hast magnified THY HOLY NAME ABOVE EVERYTHING." - thus omitting the Hebrew "word" and adding "holy", which is not found in the true text.

The Syriac Peshitta, translated in 1933 by Lamsa, gives us yet another meaning for the verse. It says: "for thou hast magnified THY WORD ABOVE EVERY NAME." Is God really this confused or unable to give us His sure words?

The fact is, both the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible are correct when they read; "Thou hast magnified THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME", but the new version editors have a much lower view of God's word, and this is but one example of hundreds where they have changed what God really said.

In what sense then can God magnify His word above His name? My understanding of this verse is that God Himself is subject to His spoken word and compelled by His very nature to fulfill what He has sworn to do. Let's look at some examples of this.

Hebrews 6:13-18 "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multplying I will multiply thee...For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which is was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us."

We see God's spoken words promising a seed to Abraham and making a mighty nation from his loins. See Genesis 15:5; 21:13. Yet later in Israel's history when they had grievously sinned, and God threatened to destroy them, Moses pleads with God in Exodus 32:7-14 "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom THOU SWAREST BY THINE OWN SELF, and SAIDST unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it forever." Then we read "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

Christ Himself was God manifest in the flesh, and when it came time for Him to go to the cross and become sin for His people, His soul was exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death. He prayed that if it were possible this cup of suffering might pass from Him. Yet He knew the Scriptures promised that these things must be so and He yielded to the Father's will and word. "The scriptures must be fulfilled"; and "Thus it is written, and thus IT BEHOOVED Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day." See Mark 14:49, Luke 24:46.

If God has sworn in His word to do something, then He is subject to this oath and bound by His word to fulfill it, no matter what the cost to Himself nor to His Son, and without regard to the sins and unfaithfulness of His people.


"I will worship toward thy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Psalm 138:2


Will Kinney

.

 

[brandplucked]

a humble and open spirit

a humble and open spirit

Hi brother Eric, thank you for your comments and your openness to consider these vital issues regarding The Infallible and Inspired Holy Bible, and whether one exists today or not.

It seems to me there are three possible positions to hold.

#1 There is no inerrant, inspired and complete Bible today. Only the non-existent originals WERE inspired, but we do not have an inspired Bible now. (Bob Enyart and most Christian scholars today)

#2 Several conflicting bible versions, which differ radically in both text and meaning are all equally the inspired and inerrant words of God. (This is patently absurd, and even the atheists, new agers, Muslims and the children of this world can see how utterly devoid of logic and reason this position is. It makes Christians look like utter fools, and I do not mean in the good sense of being fools for Christ. This is the position of Roby and a few others I have run into.

#3 There really is a preserved, inerrant, inspired and pure Book that we can with all confidence call the Holy Bible, inspired and inerrant, and it is the King James Bible. God can and does use imperfect translations to bring His people to faith in the only Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, but they are not His perfect words. God has kept His promises to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth, and His Providence and the internal evidence clearly point to one Bible as being His perfect words - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.


May God in His mercy open more eyes of His people to believe what the Book says about itself, and to accept no substitutes.

God bless,

Will Kinney

 

[Huldrych]

You'll need to address the assumption...

You'll need to address the assumption...

...regarding Biblical preservation, which plays a major role in how you, and other Onlyists, formulate your declaration that the KJV is the only "inerrant, inspired, and complete" Bible.

And for that, I refer to you again to what you said in Post #194:

The only logical position of faith is to believe that if God is true to His words, then He must have preserved His words in a translation of some kind. I believe He did this before the King James Bible as well, but His perfect words were not yet in the English language. From what I know of the historical evidence, the most likely place where the N.T. Scriptures were preserved was in the Old Latin (not the Vulgate) and in the Latinized languages of the Waldensians up until the time of the Reformation.

To which I respond: Have you examined Old Latin Bibles, Waldensian Bibles, and Reformation Bibles to see if God preserved His words the way a good many Onlyists say He did?

You mentioned knowing something about historical evidence on the matter. Has there to date been an older Bible found that lines up with the KJV 100%?

jth

 

[robycop3]

Will Kinney: Hi Roby, thanks for answering ahead of time and giving us a partial list of your "inspired" bibles. So, according to your understanding there are at least 6 or 7 versions that you consider inerrant. Yet, these various versions differ radically from each other in both text and meaniings in hundreds and even thousands of instances. You have a very interesting way of using the word "inerrant".

First, each is inerrant as far as GOD'S INTENDED USE for it goes. Are there ANY two versions alike? Are there any two Scriptural manuscripts exactly alike? Reality shows us that's the way GOD uses "inerrant" as applied to His word.

This may be over your head, but every non-KJVO here will catch it: If GOD had wanted us to have a word-for-word, 100% technically accurate copy of His word, He woulda preserved the original autographs & kept them before mankind from the day each was written. I accept the fact that God preserved His word AS HE CHOSE, and I TRUST HIM to have provided it to me AS HE CHOSE, same as He's done for YOU. He has a different job for each of us, and we each are surrounded by different sinners who need evangelized. Again, I TRUST GOD to have handled His own word as HE has chosen, and not the way some people tell Him how He shoulda done it.

You tell us that the King James Only believer is deceived by a man-made theory and is wreaking havoc on the body of Christ.

And I stand behind those words. The man-made origin of the KJVO myth is well-known & well-documented, and its results are plain to all. It has torn more than one church apart,and caused more than one babe in Christ to doubt his/her Bible(s).


Why? Is it because we really believe there is such a thing as an inerrant Holy Bible, and haven't yet lost our minds to the point where we call 6 or 7 conflicting bible versions, with hundreds of different readings and meanings "inspired and inerrant"?

Why? Because you(KJVOs in general, not just you personally, Will) profess to believe a doctrine PROVEN FALSE , totally man-made. You PROFESS it, but you cannot PROVE it any more than you can prove the earth is flat. But "wisdom is justified of her children", eh? Or in the case of KJVOism, it's "jestified".

I noticed you listed the King James Bible among your inspired and inerrant versions, and yet you continue to post example after example of what you consider to be errors found withiin this Bible. Does that really make sense to you? Something is inerrant and yet it has errors?

As i said above, it's perfect for GOD'S INTENDED USE. That doesn't mean it's TECHNICALLY perfect. Without the Autographs, you have no basis for comparison, and you rely upon GUESSWORK instead.

Roby, it is obvious that your thinking processes have degenerated to the point of being absurd and self-contradictory. If others here wish to end up thinking the way you do, then let them continue down the road they presently are following.

Actually, THIS is obvious: You are hawking a doctrine about Scripture that has ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, and that's been PROVEN FALSE time and again. And another thing that's obvious is that when you dwell upon a FALSE DOCTRINE for so long, it hardens into dogma & you cannot see the TRUTH if it smacked you on the nose. Whereas I and other non-Onlyists maintain an open mind and an independent thought process as GOD intended, the KJVO , after so long doting upon that false doctrine, sinks into the abyss of close-mindedness, allowing a false doctrine to pollute any attempt at rational thinking.

If DENIGRATING AN OBVIOUS FALSE DOCTRINE is "mind-degenerating", then may my cerebellum cease to exist! Let my mind be forever locked into JESUS' TRUTHS, and not into MAN'S LIES AND FALSE DOCTRINES.

Here is a response to the example of Acts 5:30. You never would have picked this one out except for James White.

Wrong. I picked it out by READING THE KJV, which is something its "onlyist" advocates often fail to do thoroughly.


And, for anyone interested in seeing the truth about the alleged LXX version, may I again recommend my site where I have 5 articles dealing with this subject. There was no widely accepted, Pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament that was quoted by the Lord and the apostles. The LXX is a giant myth on the same level of Evolution.

For a long time, Will, I've maintained that many KJVOs believe the KJV and its translators ONLY AS FAR AS THEY AGREE WITH THE KJVO MYTH. This has been proven many times when KJVOs ignore the translators' words in their preface, :Variety of Translations Is Profitable for the Finding Out of the Sense of the Scriptures". And here's another clear case...A few days back, I posted from the AV 1611's preface, their words concerning the LXX, that they believed it was made at the command of Ptolemy Philadelph in the 200s BC & that it became widespread in the ancient Greek-speaking world. Are you now saying they were WRONG? If they were THAT wrong about one of their SOURCES, how can you trust them to have made an accurate BIBLE?

But WAIT! You say the LXX was NOT one of their sources? Then why did they use the GREEK rendering in Isaiah 7:14? The HEBREW reads, "almah", which is 'young woman', not necessarily a virgin, could be a newlywed...while the Greek reads "parthenos", which in English means 'virgin', regardless of gender , age, or marital status....the very same word used in the NT to describe Mary before Jesus was born. This is much more accurate than "young woman", as those men knew.

This brings us to the issue of comparing, within the KJV, the readings of Isaiah 61:1-3 and Isaiah 42:7-8 with Luke 4:16-21 where JESUS READ ALOUD from the synagogue copy of Isaiah handed to Him. There's NO DOUBT that the words of JESUS as He read them closely match the LXX version of Isaiah and not the Masoretic Text version.(Though we cannot say with certainty that Jesus was reading from the LXX or not, of course.)

There are those who argue that Jesus changed the words by His authority. Bah! Humbug! Jesus was reading to a SKEPTICAL crowd who'd gone ballistic had He not read the Scriptures verbatim. Remember, they pictured Him as merely the son of Joseph, a carpenter like His surrogate father. The TRUTH is, He read from some other version besides the Masoretic Text.

Remember, this denial by the KJVOs is coming from people who tell us to believe EVERY WORD of the KJV! They don't practice what they preach, do they? Do I see the "H" word coming 'round the bend?

Faced with these FACTS, as recorded in his/her own KJV. the Onlyist goes into denial mode, desperately trying to invent excuses instead of merely facing up to the TRUTH as their own KJV presents it! This is yet more reinforcement for the statement that most KJVOs believe their KJVs and the translators ONLY as far as they agree with the KJVO MYTH.

Acts 5:30 "whom ye slew and hanged on a tree"

King James Holy Bible 1611

"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew AND hanged on a TREE."

I have cut most of your excuses here for brevity's sake, but I promise that I've read them carefully for the umpteenth time. But a few of them merit special attention:


In Acts 5:30 the word "and" does not refer to a sequence of events, but to an additional description of what took place. James White reads into the passage something that is NOT there, and then criticises the KJB for something it does not do. He said: "Peter did not say that the Jews HAD SLAIN Jesus AND THEN HUNG him on a tree." He is right; but neither does the King James Bible say this.

The KJV DOES SO say JUST THAT... unless you have a King George Edition or another which reads differently from all other copies of the AV or KJV. Your idea is pure conjecture and guesswork, IOW, an EXCUSE.

The use of "and" in this manner is common English grammar describing events which take place simultaneously. "We watched the college football game, and had a great time, and we ate hotdogs and drank Cokes, and clapped and yelled till we were hoarse."

Get real. All these things may have been done as subparts of the same event, but I don't know of too many people who can eat, drink, & yell simultaneously...and furthermore, I hope not to meet such a person in THIS world!

Let's look at your example..."had a great time". This describes the whole set of experiences and events.

"ate hotdogs & drank Cokes" This describes events in chronological order. They did NOT eat and drink simultaneously. That would definitely be hazardous to one's health, as well as messy.

"clapped & yelled"...these two actions CAN be done simultaneously, but NOT while eating and/or drinking. That WOULD make quite a mess!

All the Gospels describe Jesus as being ALIVE while hanging on the cross. & NOT slain & then hung.


The NASB not only adds the word "by" which also is not in any Greek text,

WHILE THE WORD "AND" ISN'T, EITHER ! ! ! !


but more importantly it translates the word xulon, which means "tree" or "wood", as "cross". The word for cross is staupos, not xulon, and by translating it as cross instead of the proper "tree", the NASB misses the whole point of what the Holy Ghost is saying through Peter.

Well, weren't crucifixion crosses made from WOOD? W asn't Jesus crucified on a CROSS? What does the very word, CRUCIFY, mean?(Hint...See Latin for "crux")And, throughout the Bible, didn't the penmen call almost every large wooden pole a tree? What's wrong with being ACCURATE? The Holy Ghost was speaking in the vernacular familiar to Peter and his audience!

Speaking of being accurate, from WHERE, in the KJV's OT, did its translators get "God forbid" from the Hebrew interjection 'chaliylah', which means, "far be it(from me)", or in the NT, when the Greek 'me ginomai" means, "not come to pass"? Nowhere in the old languages is God's name found in those expressions. So ya wanna holler about wood vs cross? At least "cross" is accurate for the event, the crucifixion of Jesus, while "God forbid" is an old BRITISH interjection or exclamation. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


Another excellent article dealing with this verse and James White's unjust criticism see Marty Shue's comments at http://www.avdefense.com/acts5-30.html

Couldn't get the link to work, but I'll search for it later, although I'm sure it's a clone of your article, or your article is a clone of Marty's, seeing as how you're Internet best friends, sharing the false KJVO myth.

Now, I've stepped onto the stage fearlessly and confidently, answering your queries forthrightly and honestly, without ducking any of them. Now, will YOU do the same & answer a question you've been avoiding for YEARS? That question is:

FROM THE KJV, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH, either from the text, or from the translators'own writings.

Please don't bother to quote the "preservation" verses. All Christians fully believe God has preserved his word, while the KJVO uses CIRCULAR REASONING to apply these verses to the KJV alone, assuming that ONLY THE KJV is the preserved WOG in English, while failing to provide one scintilla of supporting evidence.

The ball's in YOUR court now, Will. Have a nice day.

In Christ,

Cranston

 

[Peter A V]

More false accusations by a scholarship onlyite

More false accusations by a scholarship onlyite

Peter, you claim to be KJVO, but as many another KJVO does, you believe the AV translators ONLY to the point where they agree with your KJVO myth. Please read post # 201 of this thread to see the quote from the preface of the AV 1611 where the AV translators speak of the LXX.

And a CLEAR EXAMPLE of the AV men following the LXX instead of the Hebrew Masoretic Text is found in Isaiah 7:14 where they wrote, "virgin". The HEBREW for this verse reads, "almah", which is a young woman, including newlyweds and other non-virgins, while the GREEK of the LXX reads, "parthenos", which means, "virgin"(person or animal, male or female) and nothing else.

Levites? Wrong again. DAVID was a Jew descended from JUDAH, while PAUL was a Jew descended from BENJAMIN.

Once again, KJVO GUESSWORK is proven wrong by Scriptural and historical FACTS.

............................
??????Guess work?David and Paul?Good grief.Nice GUESS work,trying to falsly interpret what I said.
We get that all the time."Look at the Translators quotes."
Sorry,but when error is proven to be error,I then reject it as truth.That even includes pro-KJV stands.There is not one verse that the New Testament characters quoted,that came from the fabled LXX [72].It is just a STORY,false at that.
It has already been proven by other scholars that the LXX [72] did not even exist,until AFTER the New Testament was written.This is by both pro and anti-KJV scholars.

The LXX [72]sorry story is nothing but a fable,a myth.Yes,the Mythological Septuagint.
We all know that the LXX [72] is the work of none other than Origen's 5th column.He invented it.Even Ruckman put out the challenge to the scholarship onlyites way back in 1970,to see if they could actally come up with one shred of evidence for this [as they falsely claim it to be] 250 B.C. LXX [72].Guess what,they are still waiting for even one reply.
That is because is is a false claim.They can't even find one verse of one part of any verse of a Greek Old Testament written before A.D.200 [Origen].

Sorry to burst your pre-victory bubble,but the Holy Ghost shows you that there is more than ONLY ONE meaning for many given words.Besides,the translators got it right,so your argument is not against the King James now,but has SHIFTED over to the Hebrew.
We better not show you of the hundreds of times the other versions don't go by the Hebrew,even though it is the Majority Text.Gnat straigning again.Naughty,naughty,mamma gonna spank.
My literal translation of the Hebrew translates 5959 as Virgin,now imagine that.It seems that there are many that would disagree with you here.You are trying hard,but fall short again,for you are not promoting faith in the Holy words of God,but would like to ridicule and maligne them.Shame.

The only ones that have an issue with Virgin here are the LXX [72]crowd,that would cling to anything that would bolster their ill-conceived theory that a Greek translation is better than the Hebrew.What's up with that?

With logic like that you may end up thinking that ' who ' is better than 'God' in I Tim3:16.Even thought the manuscript evidence is like 300 to 2 in favour of the Texus Receptus,vs.the Alexandrain wanna bees.

alma means :virgin;maiden
..that alma can mean ' virgin ' is quite clear in SoS 6:8....and virgins without number...
Here we have all of the women of the court described.The word alma represents all those that are eligible for marriage but are niether wives [queens] nor concubines.
The word is used when the maiden is wooed.The young girl is to be considered a virgin.
Infact alma refers to virgin better than does maiden,yet always of a woman that has not born a child.Nelson's dictionary of the O.T.

 

[robycop3]

With all due respect, Peter, I suggest you delve into the history of the LXX a little deeper. Did you not see what the AV 1611 translators wrote about it? I believe those men had access to some sources of history no longer extant. They certainly had no doubts as to the antiquity and accuracy of the original Septuagint. Origen "modified" the Septuagint in his hexapla and the AV men recognized that revision.

Just ask any Jew proficient in Hebrew what an "almah" is, and what a "bathuwlah" is, and which term better conveys "virgin". And just any Greek speaker what a "parthenos" is. I believe the AV men chose the meaning which best fit the NT description of Mary before Jesus was born.

There's nothing wrong with "going against the Hebrew" in the OT. The oldest known ms of the Masoretic Text dates to C.916 AD. And we know ITS Hebrew is NOT the same as the Hebrew used a millenium earlier by the last of God's OT writers.

And you simply CANNOT get around the Luke 4:16-21 thingie where JESUS HIMSELF reads from a version of Isaiah whose words Jesus read aloud match the LXX and not the Masoretic Text. If the words read by OUR LORD aren't enuff, there's Acts 8:32-33 compared with Isaiah 53:7-8. And there are the frequent OT quotes by the other Apostles which match the Greek instead of the Hebrew. That's empirical, undeniable evidence as found in your own KJV.

I deal in FACTS, & not GUESSWORK as do most KJVOs. There's ya some facts straight from your KJV.

 

[Peter A V]

Which KJV ?

Which KJV ?

As a Christian I have only one question. Which version of the King James Version do you ascribe to? I also use the KJV but reference other translations from time to time to gain better understand of God's Word. John

..........................
Basically,all KJV's are much better than any modern version out there today.They agree with 99% of manuscript evidence,while the modern versions vasilate back and forth between their own favourite B and aleph,and others and so cannot agree with each other.
But if you look at any A.V.,from 1611,to 2005's rendition of the 1611,you will find it to be virtually word for word.
Both Oxford and Cambridge are the front runners in the desired actual text.But even the compromized Zondervan edition is miles better than their own NIV.

You will find that most KJV Bible believers use many versions,but they only believe one.Only one is the standard for all matters of faith and practice.
Sorry,but very seldom will you get a better understanding of God's word by going to the paganised defifnitions that the modern versions use for many words that are changed and altered.
It is study the Book,comparing spiritual with spiritual.If the two disagree,then only confusion reigns or you become your own god,by picking and choosing just what you prefer.This version,or that version.We have no rights,when it comes to picking and choosing God's words.His words are his words.THEY are the ones that are spiritual not some fairytail understanding that may or may not be right.One cannot say that ' It doesn't matter what version,because the Holy Ghost will teach us.' This may be right only in a limmited sense.But what is really right,God's word,itself tells us that the word itself IS the most important thing.

All things shall pass away,but my words shall not pass away.
Not one jot or tittle.
Add though not to his words.
Diminish not a word.

I don't know how many times I here people not teaching Bible truth,but only their prefered version truth.This is private interpretation.Peter warned of this.Private comes from idiotes.[Greek]
When we use our private interpretations,we become basic Biblical idiots,sad to say.
God's word is God's word,plain and simple.Even my 6 year old boy knows that.
Those were some good questions there,John.
Just don't be trusting those fake Bibles that are founded upon the Alexandrain 1% minority text.Just trust the Holy Bible sure and trustworthy in every verse ,word and letter.

 

[MartianManhuntr]

On the origins of the word "Easter"

From http://www.goethe.de/kug/ges/rel/thm/en101411.htm

The origins of the Christian Easter festival date back to the second century, when it evolved following the Jewish Pesach. This root is still apparent today, for in many languages, the name for Easter comes from the Hebrew word Pesach. In Italian, Easter is called "pasqua", in French, it is "pâques", in Russian "paskha", in Swedish "påskdagen" and in Icelandic, "páskar".

Of course, the German word "Ostern" and the English word "Easter" do not fit in with this etymology: instead, they have an Old High German root. At one time, it was believed that the word "Easter" derived from the name of a Norse goddess of light, Eostre. Indeed, this interpretation is often still put forward today However, academics dispute that this goddess was ever revered by the Germanic tribes. Instead, they assume that the word "Ostern" is derived from the Old German word "eastron", meaning "dawn".

from The Anglo-Saxon Version of The Gospel of John at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/4506/john.html

(John 213 And hit wæs neah Iudea eastron, and se Hælend for to Ierusalem, 14 and gemette on þam temple þa ðe sealdon oxan and sceap and culfran, and sittende myneteras. 15 And he worhta swipan of strengon, and hig ealle of ðam temple adraf, ge sceap ge oxan; and he ageat þara mynetera feoh, and towearp hyra mysan; 16 and sæde þam þe ða culfran cypton, ‘Doð þas þing heonon; ne wyrce ge mines Fæder hus to mangunghuse.’

A footnote also:

13 eastron. Et prope erat pascha Iudaeorum. Throughout the Version pascha, ‘the Passover, the feast of the passover,’ is translated by ‘easter’; this results in such expressions as ‘the easter of the Jews’ (also 11:55), and ‘to eat easter’ (18:28; Mk 14:12, 14; Lk 22:15; cf. 13:1, and Lk 22:1).

 

[Johnthebaptist]

The KJV Only group cannot accept the critical text or earlier manuscripts because they go against the KJV position. The earlier manuscripts expose the variations from the KJV. Which show it is not inerrant. So when they say show me the proof for the errors in the KJV they mean in the Textus Receptus because they reject the earlier text. They have to reject modern scholarship and the papyri finds and manuscripts finds of the last hundred years because it shows the variations from the KJV. The falsely accuse all scholars that do not agre with them as being heretics or not being in the inerrancy of Scriptures. But really KJV Only by rejecting the orignial manuscripts as important and even claiming them to be myths denies the bases for inerrancy even of the KJV.

God Bless
John

 

[Huldrych]

You don't even have to look that far...

You don't even have to look that far...

So when they say show me the proof for the errors in the KJV they mean in the Textus Receptus because they reject the earlier text.

You don't have to resort to those earlier MSS to show the holes in Onlyism (they wouldn't listen to you anyway when it comes to the Alexandrian mss). There is no manuscript or text--Byzantine or Alexandrian, that matches the KJV perfectly (even Scrivener's 1894 TR, which was custom-made to support the KJV, doesn't).

Then, you can look at other Bibles based on the TR--like those that preceded the KJV from the Reformation, for example. As far as I have seen (Luther, Zürcher, de Reina, Tyndale, Geneva), there isn't one that matches the KJV perfectly. And no Onlyist that I've come across has honestly done the homework to find some sort of "proto-KJV," even though finding just one would effectively shut up many of us who are constantly badgering Onlyists to positively identify a perfect Bible (according to their criteria) that appeared before 1611.

jth

 

[Johnthebaptist]

Huldrych

Yes I agree with you, I posted on a KJV Only website for a long time. they will not accept anything you say that is not KJV Only. Yes even the Majority text has many variations in it from the KJV. I have posted on KJV Only Website many these variations in the Byzantine text and they would not comment.

God Bless
John

 

[Rimi]

On the origins of the word "Easter"

From http://www.goethe.de/kug/ges/rel/thm/en101411.htm



from The Anglo-Saxon Version of The Gospel of John at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/4506/john.html



A footnote also:

All you've done, MM, is establish that the KJ translators incorrectly translated the Greek word Pasach. In fact, they didn't "translate" at all. They used a word from Old German that had come to mean that "time of year" for Gentiles/Christians. Ergo, it was an improper word to use since it was not actually in the Greek manuscripts. Thanks, again, for making the case for me.

 

[robycop3]

Peter A V: Basically,all KJV's are much better than any modern version out there today.

Not really.


They agree with 99% of manuscript evidence,while the modern versions vasilate back and forth between their own favourite B and aleph,and others and so cannot agree with each other.

The KJV, the Textus Receptus, and the "Majority texts" do not agree among themselves.

But if you look at any A.V.,from 1611,to 2005's rendition of the 1611,you will find it to be virtually word for word.

I beg to differ. I have the Oxford, the Cambridge, and two repro AV 1611s. Oxford & Cambridge are in slight disagreement, while both differ greatly from the AV 1611. An example of the difference between Oxford & Cambridge is that at Jeremiah 34:16, Ox has "whom he" while Cam has "whom ye". The differences between those two editions and the AV 1611 are many, and easy to see. Let's provide just one example: 1 Corinthians 12:28...And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helpes in gouernmets, diuersities of tongues.(AV 1611)

(same verse, 1769 KJV)And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.


Both Oxford and Cambridge are the front runners in the desired actual text.But even the compromized Zondervan edition is miles better than their own NIV.

Unfounded opinion. You have absolutely no proof.

You will find that most KJV Bible believers use many versions,but they only believe one.Only one is the standard for all matters of faith and practice.

More unfounded opinion, based upon guesswork, not fact.


Sorry,but very seldom will you get a better understanding of God's word by going to the paganised defifnitions that the modern versions use for many words that are changed and altered.

Pure conjecture.

It is study the Book,comparing spiritual with spiritual.If the two disagree,then only confusion reigns or you become your own god,by picking and choosing just what you prefer.

That's just what the KJVO does. The KJVO has erected his/her own final authority.



This version,or that version.We have no rights,when it comes to picking and choosing God's words.His words are his words.THEY are the ones that are spiritual not some fairytail understanding that may or may not be right.One cannot say that ' It doesn't matter what version,because the Holy Ghost will teach us.' This may be right only in a limmited sense.But what is really right,God's word,itself tells us that the word itself IS the most important thing.

So you choose to be KJVO by the propaganda of the KJVO authors, without bothering to check out the VERACITY of their work. The rest is pure guesswork.

All things shall pass away,but my words shall not pass away.
Not one jot or tittle.
Add though not to his words.
Diminish not a word.

I don't know how many times I here people not teaching Bible truth,but only their prefered version truth.This is private interpretation.Peter warned of this.Private comes from idiotes.[Greek]

That's EXACTLY what a KJVO does, GUESSING & HOPING he/she's right.

When we use our private interpretations,we become basic Biblical idiots,sad to say.

But that's EXACTLY what you do when you choose to follow the KJVO myth.


God's word is God's word,plain and simple.Even my 6 year old boy knows that.
Those were some good questions there,John.
Just don't be trusting those fake Bibles that are founded upon the Alexandrain 1% minority text.Just trust the Holy Bible sure and trustworthy in every verse ,word and letter.

You just CANNOT deal in FACT, can you? WHERE in the KJV does GOD tell us to use only the KJV? WHEN did He stop overseeing and supplying His word? Did he retire in 1611?

We're dealing with GOD'S WORD here, "THE" most important thing we'll ever read. Therefore, you need to stick with FACT and stop parroting those hollow KJVO authors, and quit imagining and guessing things about His word. Since Scripture is our highest written authority, any doctrine about it MUST BE SUPPORTED by it. And NOWHERE in Scripture is there ANY support for such garbage as the KJVO myth. Therefore, it's automatically wrong on that point alone...not to mention that virtually EVERY point of that myth has been shot down individually.

A few posts back, you mentioned GAIL RIPLINGER. Her garbage has been categorically proven wrong, even by fellow KJVOs such as David Cloud. When you quote her, or show any belief in her stuff, your credibility croaks right then, and not just with me. Please take the time to study her works for VERACITY.


Riplinger, and others such as Ruckman, Gipp, Marrs, Grady, Reagan, Moorman, Watkins, Faust, Brady, & Waite, to name a few, are trying to milk their respective "cash cows" for all they can. Never mind their cows have been eating LOCOWEED.

 

[robycop3]

Without going into a convoluted explanation, Will, let me say that the Hebrew "'al" can mean many things beside just "above". It can mean, "beside, on account of, in addition to, together with, for the sake of" among many other meanings. It's a busy little word in Hebrew.

Don't believe it? Just ask any Jew proficient in Hebrew.

Therefore, the KJV, by the context of several other verses regarding God's name, does NOT have the best rendition of "imrah 'al shem". God did NOT say, "You shall not take My WORD in vain."

 

[robycop3]

Hi brother Eric, thank you for your comments and your openness to consider these vital issues regarding The Infallible and Inspired Holy Bible, and whether one exists today or not.

It seems to me there are three possible positions to hold.

#1 There is no inerrant, inspired and complete Bible today. Only the non-existent originals WERE inspired, but we do not have an inspired Bible now. (Bob Enyart and most Christian scholars today)

#2 Several conflicting bible versions, which differ radically in both text and meaning are all equally the inspired and inerrant words of God. (This is patently absurd, and even the atheists, new agers, Muslims and the children of this world can see how utterly devoid of logic and reason this position is. It makes Christians look like utter fools, and I do not mean in the good sense of being fools for Christ. This is the position of Roby and a few others I have run into.

#3 There really is a preserved, inerrant, inspired and pure Book that we can with all confidence call the Holy Bible, inspired and inerrant, and it is the King James Bible. God can and does use imperfect translations to bring His people to faith in the only Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, but they are not His perfect words. God has kept His promises to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth, and His Providence and the internal evidence clearly point to one Bible as being His perfect words - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.


May God in His mercy open more eyes of His people to believe what the Book says about itself, and to accept no substitutes.

God bless,

Will Kinney

Will, you've said this same thing now for YEARS, but you have yet to offer the FIRST valid PROOF. You're merely operating upon conjecture and guesswork. You've built your own little artificial "final authority" from straw while denying we have any. You use circular reasoning in all your arguments, assuming the KJV is always right while trying in vain to prove it, and that all other English versions are wrong, your only proof being, "It reads differently from the KJV; therefore it's wrong".

You KNOW that I and many others have proven you wrong many times, but you simply refuse to face the truth. You CANNOT provide any SCRIPTURAL basis for the correctness of the KJVO myth. You're often caught with your pants down when you do your versions comparisons and someone takes the time to check your stuff against the sources being translated & finds the "other version" actually has a BETTER rendition of a given word or phrase than the KJV has. I've just posted one of them; YOU tried to limit the Hebrew word 'al to just one meaning-"above"- to fit your KJVO fantasy, while that little word actually means MANY things in Hebrew, the meaning often dictated by context. And the context of the whole Bible does NOT point to God's magnifying His word ABOVE all His name, but instead, ALONG WITH all His name.

Are you hoping to hone your writing skills enough to milk the KJVO "cash cow" which has been feasting on Jimsonweed since 1930?

 

[robycop3]

No proof

No proof

And I must note, Will's original argument has not been answered. I will restate it in my own way....Show forth THE BIBLE you use that is without error....just give us the name of the book, that is: which version? If it is any other than the AV , we can show you the errors. And since you cannot show a bible other than the AV that is without error, then you have no bible lest you use the AV. You have no final authority and are your own judge of right and wrong...or put another way...you are your own final authority....as it was in the days of Noah....

I beg to differ...I posted a small list of English Bible versions I believe are valid...and I know there are more in English, but I haven't read 'em all. And EACH IS PERFECT for God's intended uses.

And the KJV DOES have errors...the KJVO myth advocates just keep making EXCUSES for them, trying not to hafta admit they ARE errors.

As for this "final authority" thingie...The KJVOs have built an ARTIFICIAL one, made from the straw of the KJVO myth instead of a brick structure made from SCRIPTURE. WHERE'S THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH?

 

[robycop3]

After thinking it through again maybe your technical term is "Personal Gnostic Revelation." - but my scriptural term would be faith.

God bless

Faith based upon WHAT? Biblical faith is belief in the unseen, BASED UPON THAT WHICH IS SEEN. There's nothing to be seen to justify faith in the KJVO myth, but there's PLENTY seen that justifies faith that the KJVO myth is phony as a Clinton dollar.