KJV The Received Text

[Iryssa]

In my opinion, this conversation has gotten too much to the point of tearing people down and too far from being valuable in understanding one another. Butero said:

As long as we can simply dissagree without getting angry at the other person, these debates are of value in understanding others.

Maybe everyone needs to cool off a bit and not get angry at eachother so that these debates can still have this value he spoke of.

"Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit

[Abigailwc]

I like the ESV

KJV is not the only correct or acceptable translation. KJV is nice, though.

I've seen ESV and it is great. My preferred's version is the NCV.

[Abigailwc]

The Word of God is not just some words copied from other words. It is alive and powerful and God can use any Bible versions to reveal His Word to us!

Thank you God that nothing can stop You from revealing yourself to us, from revealing Your truth to us. Help us to focus on You!

[KC02]

I have heard that too shiloh. I have a strong opinion of th KJV only folks because I used to have the same mindset because that is what I was taught. When the Sunday School material came out with NIV references, my old pastor started writing his own material. He nearly worked himself to death.

It was all over nothing. They were good people, but didn't understand the differences in the old and newer translations.

Tradition is a biggee. The 1611 has been good for 400 years and that is what we will use. The KVJ is still my favorite, but switching around has helped me understand the Bible much better. Newer translations should be used as a study tool, if nothing else, by the KJV only folks.

God's Word wasn't until 1611? Someone needs to inform God and the rest of the world: if you want to read God's Word, you had better learn English! Uh, the Old English.

I guess that makes the original manuscripts NOT THE WORD OF GOD. And translations more accurate than the source material.

Are these people crazy? Or am I crazy?

Well leaving all the bickering aside...and at the same time promoting the turn the other cheek teaching....

I would like to ask/know/understand that why is it, if the 1611 version of the Bible in its english translation is perfect, why every biblical scholar does not recognise this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?...why...ummm that will do for the moment.

I would also like ask why if the 1611 is the only true Bible and the only Word of God, why did God wait all the way until 1611 to provide the perfect Bible? Why did He allow the church operate from inferior texts of Scripture until 1611? And if the previous texts were not inferior, then what need did the 1611 fill that other previous texts equally valid, did not fill?

Well, to be fair to the KJV only folks...

Their assertion is that the KJV is the word of God to the English speaking people. Most KJV onlyists I have met do not oppose translations in other languages so long as they are from the exact same manuscripts as the KJV is taken from.

The problem is that the KJV is not the first English translation. So it it bears asking: Why didn't the Lord preserve His word in Englsh until 1611?

And if the other previous English translations were as accurate as the KJV, what need is the KJV filling that other equally valid prior English translations were not meeting?

[KC02]

Finally some truth! I wrote the same thing in another "KJV only" thread.

The Word of God is not just some words copied from other words. It is alive and powerful and God can use any Bible versions to reveal His Word to us!

Thank you God that nothing can stop You from revealing yourself to us, from revealing Your truth to us. Help us to focus on You!

[KC02]

I'm sorry. I really feel JW has a lot of good things to say but I don't have time to read his books. And when he looses an argument, he rewrites the question and starts over again.

I love all of my brothers! I just hope God doesn't put me next door to JW. Could you imagine checking the mail? It would take him 6 weeks to talk about the lawn

In my opinion, this conversation has gotten too much to the point of tearing people down and too far from being valuable in understanding one another. Butero said:

As long as we can simply dissagree without getting angry at the other person, these debates are of value in understanding others.

Maybe everyone needs to cool off a bit and not get angry at eachother so that these debates can still have this value he spoke of.

"Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit

[Botz]

Well leaving all the bickering aside...and at the same time promoting the turn the other cheek teaching....

I would like to ask/know/understand that why is it, if the 1611 version of the Bible in its english translation is perfect, why every biblical scholar does not recognise this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?...why...ummm that will do for the moment.

_______-

By that argument, why is it, if Christianity is true, why every one in the world does not recognize this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?.

Yes indeed, "..why...ummm that will do for the moment."

The LORD God of the Holy Bible, and His Christ, is rejected by most of the world, and, if the Bible's testimony is to be accepted at face value, He will continue to be rejected.

Popularity, nor recognition of it, does not determine truth-never has, never will. The truth goes on eternally, regardless if anyone believes it or not. Belief in objective truth, or lack thereof, in no way determines objective truth.

In Christ,

JW

Ok...I will rework my question, and leave out the relaxed style.

Godly biblical scholars from all over the world would not fail to recognise the alleged 'perfection' of the 1611 King James version of the Bible if such a phenomenon existed. So why has this revelation fallen on the shoulders or entered the hearts of so few apparently chosen/enlightened ones?

It would also indicate, that G-d spoke once again through the assembled 54 scholars who worked on the translation, and actually dictated by the Holy Ghost, just as He did when He spoke to those who penned His words in both Testaments...which would presuppose that there is no reason this could not happen again.

If indeed G-d did cause the 1611 KJV to be written word perfectly, how is it that obvious errors in printing and translation are seen by everyone except those that cling to its perfection?

[jmwhalen]

Well leaving all the bickering aside...and at the same time promoting the turn the other cheek teaching....

I would like to ask/know/understand that why is it, if the 1611 version of the Bible in its english translation is perfect, why every biblical scholar does not recognise this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?...why...ummm that will do for the moment.

_______-

By that argument, why is it, if Christianity is true, why every one in the world does not recognize this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?.

Yes indeed, "..why...ummm that will do for the moment."

The LORD God of the Holy Bible, and His Christ, is rejected by most of the world, and, if the Bible's testimony is to be accepted at face value, He will continue to be rejected.

Popularity, nor recognition of it, does not determine truth-never has, never will. The truth goes on eternally, regardless if anyone believes it or not. Belief in objective truth, or lack thereof, in no way determines objective truth.

In Christ,

JW

...and misdirection doesn't answer the assertion either. Stick to the question at hand. Prove your assertion or withdraw it. You can rant and rave all day long, you can insult me to your heart's content and you still will have not proven a thing. Where is your evidence that the KJV is the only English text acceptable to God? You have none and have not presented any because you cannot. The apostle Paul gave Timothy some good advice in 1st Timothy 6:20,21, "Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith." Seems to me like you've missed the mark, friend.

_________--

and where is your evidence that:

"Whatever Bible version Rufus identifies", which he has yet to identify,(fill in the blank) is the only English text acceptable to God? ="Rufus version ONLY-ISM"

"The original" text is the only scripture acceptable to God? Can you even "prove", from any version, that only the original autographs were "inspired"? No?

Prove that any translation, in any language, whether it be Hebrew, Greek, Chaldean.....is the only text acceptable to God.

And, while you are at it, prove, from scripture, chapter and verse, that the OT was written in "the Hebrew", and the NT, in "the Greek.

Prove, from scripture that only the current, widely accepted 66 books of scripture are the only ones acceptable to God?

Can you "prove", from any version, that we have the complete canon of scripture-66 books(39 OT,29 NT). No?.

1st Timothy 6:20,21, "Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge; by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith."

From what "the" Bible is this? Is it innerant? Prove it. If not, why are you citing a verse from a "the" Bible that has "weaknesses and errors, i/e., a corrupy source"? Tick, tick, tick.......

"Seems to me"

More "Thus saith man...", eh?-Judges 21:25

Now, we are still waiting for you to identify this "inerrant word of God." Name it.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[jmwhalen]

God's Word wasn't until 1611? Someone needs to inform God and the rest of the world: if you want to read God's Word, you had better learn English! Uh, the Old English.

I guess that makes the original manuscripts NOT THE WORD OF GOD. And translations more accurate than the source material.

Are these people crazy? Or am I crazy?

Well leaving all the bickering aside...and at the same time promoting the turn the other cheek teaching....

I would like to ask/know/understand that why is it, if the 1611 version of the Bible in its english translation is perfect, why every biblical scholar does not recognise this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?...why...ummm that will do for the moment.

I would also like ask why if the 1611 is the only true Bible and the only Word of God, why did God wait all the way until 1611 to provide the perfect Bible? Why did He allow the church operate from inferior texts of Scripture until 1611? And if the previous texts were not inferior, then what need did the 1611 fill that other previous texts equally valid, did not fill?

___

"I guess that makes the original manuscripts NOT THE WORD OF GOD. And translations more accurate than the source material. "

1. There is only one "original" of anything.

Look at the book of Jeremiah, for example. His "originals" were burned(Jer. 36:23). He had to rewrite them, and when he did, he added to them(Jer. 36:28,32)!

The "original" stone tablets(10 commandments) were broken and had to be rewritten-Exodus 34.

Shall we go on? Hence, the biblical promise of preservation.

2. God had no use for "the originals", as He let them crumple into dust years ago-nor should we. Scripture always refers to copies-not originals. The Lord Jesus Christ did not read from any "originals"-He read from copies. "Check it out"(Acts 17:11)

"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Luke 4:16-21

Timothy did not have any "the originals"-he had copies, "from a child":

"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." 2 Tim. 3:15

"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19 ( the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error-see also Deut.-notice he had them "all the days of his life"=preservation)

31:9-13)

"And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel." Joshua 8:32

"These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out." Proverbs 25:1

So much for the "scholarly" premise that "only the originals" 'were'(past tense) inspired"-copies, which he "read....all the days of his life". This tells us how God "did do things"-COPIES.

The doctrine of the divine preservation of the scriptures applies to more than the "original" manuscripts/autographs. Inspiration applies to the copies of the scriptures.

As another example(among many), in Daniel 10:20-21 , Gabriel is giving information to Daniel that will prepare him for the upcoming events of chapters 11 and 12, respectively. Verse 21 says "the scripture of truth"-these are copies of the Law and Prophets. Hence, Gabriel calls copies of the Bible "the scripture of truth", and Daniel is to understand them as such.

And no "scholar" could ever make this statement, for they believe that only the autographs is "the scripture of truth." This contradicts testimony after testimony of the Bible itself.

In Christ.

John M. Whalen

[jmwhalen]

I have heard that too shiloh. I have a strong opinion of th KJV only folks because I used to have the same mindset because that is what I was taught. When the Sunday School material came out with NIV references, my old pastor started writing his own material. He nearly worked himself to death.

It was all over nothing. They were good people, but didn't understand the differences in the old and newer translations.

Tradition is a biggee. The 1611 has been good for 400 years and that is what we will use. The KVJ is still my favorite, but switching around has helped me understand the Bible much better. Newer translations should be used as a study tool, if nothing else, by the KJV only folks.

God's Word wasn't until 1611? Someone needs to inform God and the rest of the world: if you want to read God's Word, you had better learn English! Uh, the Old English.

I guess that makes the original manuscripts NOT THE WORD OF GOD. And translations more accurate than the source material.

Are these people crazy? Or am I crazy?

Well leaving all the bickering aside...and at the same time promoting the turn the other cheek teaching....

I would like to ask/know/understand that why is it, if the 1611 version of the Bible in its english translation is perfect, why every biblical scholar does not recognise this? Why isn't it shouted from the rooftops, and sung about throughout the land...why has it only been revealed and endorsed by so few?...why...ummm that will do for the moment.

I would also like ask why if the 1611 is the only true Bible and the only Word of God, why did God wait all the way until 1611 to provide the perfect Bible? Why did He allow the church operate from inferior texts of Scripture until 1611? And if the previous texts were not inferior, then what need did the 1611 fill that other previous texts equally valid, did not fill?

Well, to be fair to the KJV only folks...

Their assertion is that the KJV is the word of God to the English speaking people. Most KJV onlyists I have met do not oppose translations in other languages so long as they are from the exact same manuscripts as the KJV is taken from.

The problem is that the KJV is not the first English translation. So it it bears asking: Why didn't the Lord preserve His word in Englsh until 1611?

And if the other previous English translations were as accurate as the KJV, what need is the KJV filling that other equally valid prior English translations were not meeting?

________________

It was all over nothing.

Defending the purity of the word of God is not nothing, according to scriptures testimony, which I have cited previously. The surety of our faith, the faith, depends on the surety of the word upon which it is established:

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Psalms 11:3

'That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. ' Luke 1:4

I honor, praise, glorify, what the LORD God praises, honors, and glorifies, according to the scriptures. And that same scripture testifies that it is w/o error, or it is not the word of God, and that there has been a concerted effort, since Gen. 3, to corrupt that same word of God, which I also documented.. And guess who is behind that? Very "subtil"

They were good people, but didn't understand the differences in the old and newer translations.

I have reviewed other "newer translations", and this much is certain, if the principle of reason(Is. 1:18) is an accepted biblical principle: the law of contradiction states, for example, that the NIV and the KJB(just one example) cannot both be, at the same time, the word of God. One or the other could be the word of God, but not both, at the same time.

Tradition is a biggee. The 1611 has been good for 400 years and that is what we will use. The KVJ is still my favorite, but switching around has helped me understand the Bible much better. Newer translations should be used as a study tool, if nothing else, by the KJV only folks.

"the KVJ is still my favorite"

So, we choose what we are to believe based on "preference", "likeability", and not on truth? I think that I will choose "a little of Muslim", and "a little of Judaism", "a little of Christianity". Although Christianity is my "favorite", I still "use" Muslim. Judiasm, Hinduism.......="one big, pious religious smorgusborg/buffet." And this is how we discuss the "which bible version" issue-based on preference and "usability", not truth.

Not me-I believe in Christianity because I found it to be true, not because I "like it" or "prefer it". As a matter of fact, there are many things I just don't like about Christianity, and would "prefer" to "use" another "religion", which is less demanding. And there are many demands placed upon me by this great Saviour of ours, the Lord Jesus Christ, which I just don't like, or "prefer." In many instances, He is not my "favorite."But I believe on Him, because I am convinced that He is the truth, and the book He is revealed in is the truth. "Preference" is quite irrelevant. I employ the same conviction(not preference) to the "which bible" issue, for I, nor anyone else, believes/is convinced of a bible they "prefer", for that presupposes an authority over it, and the bible is submitted to their approval/"preference. The infallible Holy Bible corrects me; I do not submit it to my fallible correction.. The Holy Bible establishes doctrine; my doctrine does not establish "what the Holy Bible is." If I do not "like", "prefer" a particular doctrine, I do not search for another "version" that fits my doctrine. It is me that needs correction, not the Holy Bible, and I need to "revise"(play on words)/submit my doctrine to the correction of the Holy Bible. I , John Whalen is the one that needs a "Revision", and not the objective words of scripture. It is my "understanding" of these objective words that need a "revision", not the objective words themselves. I am to leave the words alone, and believe them. Of course, that is what faith is -"taking God at His word."

Could anyone help me with verses Matthew 17:21 and 18:11 in the NIV?

In Christ,

John M. Whalen