KJV The Received Text

November 6, 2008

I mean they used the best possible word or words necessary to make the translation.

I listned to a missionary who was ministering to some African tribe near the equator, and they were trying to translate from English into this trib's language. They happened upon a difficulty:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

(Isaiah 1:18)

The problem was when they got to the above verse, the tribe had no word for "snow." They had never seen snow. No one ventured far from their land and so the parcel of land they lived on was all they knew. There was a flower in the area though that was pure white both in the center and on the petals. The missionary asked one of the tribesmen what they called that flower. The missionary used the name of that flower in place of the word snow.

Botz · November 6, 2008

I mean they used the best possible word or words necessary to make the translation.

I listned to a missionary who was ministering to some African tribe near the equator, and they were trying to translate from English into this trib's language. They happened upon a difficulty:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

(Isaiah 1:18)

The problem was when they got to the above verse, the tribe had no word for "snow." They had never seen snow. No one ventured far from their land and so the parcel of land they lived on wall they knew. There was a flower in the area though that was pure white both in the center and on the petals. The missionary asked one of the tribesmen what they called that flower. The missionary used the name of that flower in place of the word snow.

That makes perfectly good sense to me. In that case, the name of the flower would be the appropriate word. That was the argument I was making about Easter. It has a pagan meaning to some, but not those in the English speaking world.

Hang on Butero...Come now, and let us reason together...so you are willing to believe that the poor dumb english speaking people were too thick to understand what Passover was and so G-d had to drop the word Easter into their Bibles, just the one time, and yet the other times the word is translated refers always to the real Passover.... that my friend has got to be the funniest thing I have heard in ages

November 6, 2008

I mean they used the best possible word or words necessary to make the translation.

I listned to a missionary who was ministering to some African tribe near the equator, and they were trying to translate from English into this trib's language. They happened upon a difficulty:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
(Isaiah 1:18)

The problem was when they got to the above verse, the tribe had no word for "snow." They had never seen snow. No one ventured far from their land and so the parcel of land they lived on was all they knew. There was a flower in the area though that was pure white both in the center and on the petals. The missionary asked one of the tribesmen what they called that flower. The missionary used the name of that flower in place of the word snow.

That makes perfectly good sense to me. In that case, the name of the flower would be the appropriate word. That was the argument I was making about Easter. It has a pagan meaning to some, but not those in the English speaking world.

Yeah, but there is no way you can get "Easter" from the Greek word Pascha. The English word "Passover" is the best word, as it is the exact English equivalent. Easter is totally different holiday and has its origins in the worship of the goddess of fertility and would never have entered the mind of Luke as he penned the book of Acts. Easter, as we know it, did not exist at the time Luke was writing, so to use that word in place of Passover is a translational error, as it does not reflect the object the author had in view.

It has a pagan meaning to some, but not those in the English speaking world.

That may be true, but that is not an accurate basis for coming up with an accurate translation. When you are translating, you are communicating the thoughts of the author, and not necessarily what the word(s) mean to you. The idea is to be as objective as possible and allowing as little personal bias as possible enter into the process.

jmwhalen · November 6, 2008

As to Shiloh's comments, why did God wait as long as he did to make his Word available in any given language as he did? I don't see this as much of an argument either. Why did he wait so long to inspire men to make the 66 books that make up the cannon our Bible?
That completely evades the question I asked. I have noticed that when you can't answer a question, you dismiss it as almost not worth discussing.

Why didn't God presevere the first English translation? Why is it that the 1611 version the first English translation God chose to preserve and why was He unwilling to perserve earlier editions?

It speaks to the whole "perserved" fallacy.

Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?

____________-

One point at a time(Is. 28:10)-

"Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?"

To refute an argument, we must "knock down" the premises, the "supporting walls", upon which the "foundation" of the argument rests. "What saith the scriptures" re. "the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired, and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired."?

1. Notice 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is, not was, given by inspiration-the scriptures are inspired, not the writers(the subject of another post).

2. "Check it out in the Book-don't take my word on this"-Acts 17:11:

I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:.

- "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22

Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19).

Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word, by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?:

"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy(and notice he wrote a "copy", which he had available all his life-so much for the "originals only" 'were'(past tense) inspired"--copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)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(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7)

-I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof).

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12

To be consistent with this argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to this argument????!!!!!!?

"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17

Is Paul not penning inspired scripture here either????!!!!!!! How can 2 Cor. 11:17 be inspired Scripture if Paul is speaking foolishly!? God inspires foolish speaking!!??

-Simarly, "The Translators to the Reader" "opinion" argument

Who said their "opinion" was inspired?

-"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;.." John 11:49-51

Here, notice that a statement of inspired scripture was not understood by the one(Caiphas) saying it, nor was it recognized as part of Scripture by him. Caiphas did not even realize that he was speaking scripture, neither did he understand all that it meant.

The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God.

The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God.

So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing. as does the doctrine of preservation.

Cannot the LORD God can guide and/or inspire, regardless of man's knowledge, or "opinion"???!!!!(rhetorical question)

Since when did man's "opinion", man's belief in objective truth, determine objective truth? By that logic, Christianity is false, since most of the world rejects it(and most of the world "corrects" it). Wrong premise-wrong conclusion. You presume(your premise) that both the "original" transmission, communication, revealing of the inspired word of God, and its subsequent scriptural promise of preservation, depends on translators(man), i.e., fallible men="experts", instead of the promise and power of God. We call that secular humanism.

"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." Jeremiah 17:5

"Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints.."Job 15:15

No, we are all in "the same company:

"in good company":

The Hebrews Chapter 11 "Hall of Faith":

Abraham(verses 8-10, 17):He offered his wife's "services" to save his own hide-twice(Gen. 12,20). And in between, he succumbed to the flesh by falling for Sarah's scheme to go into Hagar the handmaid. After a great victory given to him by the LORD(Gen.14), Abraham shows a faltering faith and doubt(Gen. 15:2).

Sarah(vs. 11-12): She laughed at when the LORD told her she would conceive at her old age, and lied about laughing. Her child was named "Isaac", meaning "laughter," to remind Sarah.

Isaac(vs. 14-20): He was a liar and a schemer like his "old man"(how is that for "the Modern English"?) Abraham.

Joseph(vs. 21-22): Noble as he was, he deceived his brothers.

Moses(verses 23-32): He hedged, murdered, smote.

Israelites(verse 29): they murmured constantly(complained).

Vs. 30-32: Gideon hedged, Barak under women, Samson lusted, Jephthah sacrificed daughter, David committed adultery and murder.

_______

Notice builds on ark, and then gets drunk(Gen. 9:21).

Lot was considered righteous(2 Peter 2:7)-look at his involvement with Sodom., and look at his daughters..

Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and then cursed and swore he never knew or saw the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul was a murderer, John Mark "bolted"/"punted" when the "going got tough". The church at Corinth was filled with drunks, immorality, favoritism.

King Saul committed suicide, as did Sampson, and yet scripture testifies they went to be with the LORD.

Welcome to the club!

As an example, I often hear , the common, supposed "scholarly, expert" objection to the notion of biblical inspiration is that scripture was only written by men, containing human ideas, and all human ideas are fallible/flawed. Therefore, the scripture/Bible is flawed. Pose this statement to the next person who says this(maybe a Jesus Seminar member): If all human ideas are fallible/flawed, then the idea that all human ideas are flawed is also a flawed idea. This is what is known as a "self destructing" argument, or an argument that "commits suicide". Those who use this argument have "sawn off the branch they are sitting on"!

Taking it one step further re. any posts on this board: You are a fallible human being, therefore your post is fallible-it cannot be true since you are "fallible."

To those who embrace this mindset, I say: You are calling God a liar-He promised to preserve His Word, which, by definition, is without error. I suppose most miss the fact that even portions of the non-existent inspired "originals", originals that no one living has ever seen or touched, and would not be able to recognize even if they appeared, were written/copied by fallible, uninspired men-even the non-existent "originals" are a work of man; the scribes were fallible men; all the manuscripts we have now were/are written by fallible men (the scholars are continually "revising" manuscripts), and thus, by this "logic", we have no infallible word of God today. This is the inevitiable conclusion of this supposed argument(it really is an assertion, not an argument).

None of us are "qualified", or even "worthy" to be used by an omnipotent God to physically write, physically preserve/translate the word of God, nor are any of us "qualified" to preach, teach, and proclaim the word of God.

And what possible "credentials" would an all powerful, self-sufficient God really "need"? "Infallibility"? Scripture's testimony is clear: The LORD God needs nothing from me, or any one of us, as all is His, and He needs no service from us.

"...as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.." Acts 17:25

" If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?" Job 35:7

"The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts."

Gee, I guess the LORD God had to "interview" these fallible men in order to ascertain their "credentials"! Yes, God is so impotent! What an impossible task He had in trying to find those who were "qualified", those who had "the credentials", to "help Him out" in preserving His inspired, without error word! Where are the "scholars", LORD God(1 Cor. chapter one)? Help!

Gee, I am a sinner, I am not qualified here. God requires perfection, "infallibility", in writing, preserving, and preaching/teaching His Word. I'm outta here........Balaam's ass is more qualified...."

The KJB were not infallible, nor was Moses or any other transmitter of God's word. The temple wasn't perfect either, but it was filled with the glory of God.

The words are(not past) given by inspiration, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God.

So, tell me, when did the Holy Bible lose its inspiration? And if no" the" Bible is inerrant today, then inspiration as a doctrine means nothing, as does the doctrine of preservation.

"Why didn't God presevere the first English translation?"

By that argument, why did not God preserve the NT in Hebrew?

How about Joseph in Genesis 42:23:?

"And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter."

He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation. Why did the LORD God not, through Moses as an instrument, write/preserve it in Egyptian? Translation "not inspired"?

Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All these conversations that took place between Moses and Pharoah were in Egyptian. And yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all these conversations were written in Hebrew-thety were "translations". Why not "the Egyptian"? Translation "not inspired"?

Why didn't God preserve "the original" 10 commandments, which Moses broke?

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

traveller · November 6, 2008

How about Joseph in Genesis 42:23:?

"And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter."

He spoke in Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet Moses wrote it down in Hebrew-a translation. Why did the LORD God not, through Moses as an instrument, write/preserve it in Egyptian? Translation "not inspired"?

hmmmm.... that has never occurred to me.

jmwhalen · November 6, 2008

"I can understand that many people might find the King James 1611 version to be more accurate, and contain less faults and corrections than many/all more modern translations...I certainly would not touch many new versions with a barge pole because they are not faithful translations...they deliberately change, insert or leave out words in an effort to promote their own agenda. (I am not talking about paraphrases which are what they are, and serve their purpose, although I never read any of them)"

" more accurate, and contain less faults"

This is one of the "cruxes" of the issue: Are we reducing the integrity of the LORD God, the LORD God of truth, who cannot lie, and who told us, in no uncertain terms, that His word is true, perfect, sure, right...........................................................................

..(see my scriptural references), to this mindset:

"Revising" "Thy word is true from the beginning....the scripture of truth...thy word is true........................" to:" "Thy word is true from the beginning....the scripture of truth...thy word is true........................, but no translation is true...all 'the' Bibles have 'errors and weakness', although some translations are 'good', and 'more accurate', and 'contain less faults', and need 'less corrections'. they basically say the same thing, but they all have 'shortcomings, some better than others........................"

When did the LORD God lose His masterpiece, and when did He "delete", "revise", "correct" His promised doctrine of preservation of His inspired word? And since when did "fallible man" redefine, "correct", "revise" the plain words "pure, , sure, true, certain" to "almost", "less faults".....? Is that like "almost a word of God". or "almost a Christian"(Acts 26:28)?

____

"I can understand that many people might find the King James 1611 version to be more accurate, and contain less faults and corrections than many/all more modern translations...I certainly would not touch many new versions with a barge pole because they are not faithful translations...they deliberately change, insert or leave out words in an effort to promote their own agenda. (I am not talking about paraphrases which are what they are, and serve their purpose, although I never read any of them)

What I do find astonishing, is an assertion such as my brother in the L-rd Butero makes about the use of the word Easter (pascha in the greek), when it is completely non-sensical...I would have to suspend my understanding and commit intellectual suicide to step over the line and join his team... I don't believe that G-d requires that of me or anyone else. Surely it is blatantly obvious that 'Easter' is a Christian celebration, derived from a pagan one, and was certainly not inaugurated at the time of the New Testament, and it is distinct from Passover. Not to mention the inconsistency in translating it Easter just once, and then Passover all the other times.

Now I understand that there are things we cannot intellectualize about because they are spiritually discerned, but this is not one of them. Easter is but one significant word that is a mistake in the KJV 1611 translation....G-d has not made a mistake, the translator's have...there are quite a few more but I suppose to be consistent those that hold Butero's positions would apply the same blind faith to its accuracy ( I do not use the term, blind faith in a derogatory way...I cannot think of any other way to explain what I see)

Here are just three other examples...not to try and knock the KJV, or cast doubt into the heart of those that trust the Bible, but just to show that we can better understand some things through more accurate/honest translation.

......

1. As stated earlier: The Holy Bible is to correct us, not vica versa. You are taking the following approach:

I, a "fallible" human being,have found have found alleged errors in the Bible-it is not consistent with my doctrine.. I have subjectively corrected these errors with my fallible judgment, because I do not understand them. There is no possibility than I could be wrong, nor the "scholars, experts.....", and "the majority is always right", and the Holy Bible true. Therefore, the Holy Bible, which the LORD God provided as objective truth, through objective words, is wrong, so I will correct/revise it with my subjective interpretation. That is, my doctrine determines "what the Holy Bible is", and not vica versa. I will thus find a version, or versions, that fit my doctrine-my "favorite" which I "use", but don't believe. .

2, Given the above, I suggest that it is your misunderstanding of the above verses that need "correction", "revision", not the objective words. But most do not do this-they submit the objective words of the Holy Bible to their fallible assessment/judgment, and they are the final authority. No one believes a bible they can correct, revise, "prefer", for that presupposes an authority over it.

3. "many new versions with a barge pole because they are not faithful translations...they deliberately change, insert or leave out words in an effort to promote their own agenda."

"not faithful translations"

The word "faithful" is a judgmental/discerning term, and, by its internal definition, "Exlusionary". Discernment, by its very nature, is exlusionary.

So, you do EXCLUDE some versions? You agree that "all mushrooms are not good-some will kill you"? Are you a "only the translation I consider faithful are the word of God ONLY-IST? How are you different than a KJVO? In number? Are you not a "Christian ONLY-IST? You make my point-EVERY ONE EXCLUDES. If you do not, then you are a subjectivist:

"All Bibles are the word of God."= "all mushrooms are good."

Anyone can say "These are faithful translations." A JW can say that re. the NWT, and does.

Of course, it does not dawn on bible correctors that the very reason the "authors" of each and every "bible translation" have issued their "respective" versions, is because they consider their version "faithful."

This has been my point all along. If you are not a subjectivist, you EXCLUDE, and this is a biblical command:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Is. 5:20

And thus, the hypocrisy:

If you do exclude versions, then you are playing a shell game by accusing KJVO proponents of EXCLUSION, when you, and EVERYONE, except subjectivists, in fact, do the same.

"Thy word is true from the beginning...thy word is truth....the scripture of truth...but, in all probability, thy word is not infallible.... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ....... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ....... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ....... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ......".

"Thus saith my opinion."

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

November 6, 2008

There is no way this could be a mistake by the translators.

It was not a mistake. It was deliberate.

They put a lot of time and thought into what they were doing, and chose to use the word Easter.

Yes, and it was a deliberate mistranslation.

I believe Easter is the word that belongs there

Based on what textual evidence?

Most commentators who wrote BEFORE any modern translations came into existence, like Matthew Henry, John Gill, all admit that the correct word is Passover. John Gill (1697-1771) states in his commentary that Passover is the correct Word and even Albert Barnes and Adam Clarke state that it is an absurd and unfortunate translation of Pascha in Acts 12:4. They then go on to explain why it cannot be Easter.

I find it interesting that No one prior to the 20th century holds to this radical view that the KJV is inspired. The translators made no such claim. None of their contemporaries made any such claim. None of the greatest preaches to live since 1611 have made such a claim.

This claim is a 20th century phenomenon and even then it is usually found only in rural, evangelical circles. Why is it that God did not make sure to let people know in the 18th and 19th centuries that the KJV was an inspired translations. Why didn't He tell the translators?

jmwhalen · November 7, 2008

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

Sarcasm is not evidence. Invective is not evidence. The burden of proof remains with you. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that the KJV is perfect? Or are you merely engaging in wishful thinking? Answer, if you can.

____________-

Evidence? Post after post, and Rufus has yet did identify this "inerrant word of God" he "feigns" he believes in.

Edited November 7, 2008 by traveller

jmwhalen · November 7, 2008

"I can understand that many people might find the King James 1611 version to be more accurate, and contain less faults and corrections than many/all more modern translations...I certainly would not touch many new versions with a barge pole because they are not faithful translations...they deliberately change, insert or leave out words in an effort to promote their own agenda. (I am not talking about paraphrases which are what they are, and serve their purpose, although I never read any of them)"

" more accurate, and contain less faults"

This is one of the "cruxes" of the issue: Are we reducing the integrity of the LORD God, the LORD God of truth, who cannot lie, and who told us, in no uncertain terms, that His word is true, perfect, sure, right...........................................................................
..(see my scriptural references), to this mindset:

"Revising" "Thy word is true from the beginning....the scripture of truth...thy word is true........................" to:" "Thy word is true from the beginning....the scripture of truth...thy word is true........................, but no translation is true...all 'the' Bibles have 'errors and weakness', although some translations are 'good', and 'more accurate', and 'contain less faults', and need 'less corrections'. they basically say the same thing, but they all have 'shortcomings, some better than others........................"

When did the LORD God lose His masterpiece, and when did He "delete", "revise", "correct" His promised doctrine of preservation of His inspired word? And since when did "fallible man" redefine, "correct", "revise" the plain words "pure, , sure, true, certain" to "almost", "less faults".....? Is that like "almost a word of God". or "almost a Christian"(Acts 26:28)?

____

"I can understand that many people might find the King James 1611 version to be more accurate, and contain less faults and corrections than many/all more modern translations...I certainly would not touch many new versions with a barge pole because they are not faithful translations...they deliberately change, insert or leave out words in an effort to promote their own agenda. (I am not talking about paraphrases which are what they are, and serve their purpose, although I never read any of them)

What I do find astonishing, is an assertion such as my brother in the L-rd Butero makes about the use of the word Easter (pascha in the greek), when it is completely non-sensical...I would have to suspend my understanding and commit intellectual suicide to step over the line and join his team... I don't believe that G-d requires that of me or anyone else. Surely it is blatantly obvious that 'Easter' is a Christian celebration, derived from a pagan one, and was certainly not inaugurated at the time of the New Testament, and it is distinct from Passover. Not to mention the inconsistency in translating it Easter just once, and then Passover all the other times.

Now I understand that there are things we cannot intellectualize about because they are spiritually discerned, but this is not one of them. Easter is but one significant word that is a mistake in the KJV 1611 translation....G-d has not made a mistake, the translator's have...there are quite a few more but I suppose to be consistent those that hold Butero's positions would apply the same blind faith to its accuracy ( I do not use the term, blind faith in a derogatory way...I cannot think of any other way to explain what I see)

Here are just three other examples...not to try and knock the KJV, or cast doubt into the heart of those that trust the Bible, but just to show that we can better understand some things through more accurate/honest translation.
......

1. As stated earlier: The Holy Bible is to correct us, not vica versa. You are taking the following approach:

I, a "fallible" human being,have found have found alleged errors in the Bible-it is not consistent with my doctrine.. I have subjectively corrected these errors with my fallible judgment, because I do not understand them. There is no possibility than I could be wrong, nor the "scholars, experts.....", and "the majority is always right", and the Holy Bible true. Therefore, the Holy Bible, which the LORD God provided as objective truth, through objective words, is wrong, so I will correct/revise it with my subjective interpretation. That is, my doctrine determines "what the Holy Bible is", and not vica versa. I will thus find a version, or versions, that fit my doctrine-my "favorite" which I "use", but don't believe. .

2, Given the above, I suggest that it is your misunderstanding of the above verses that need "correction", "revision", not the objective words. But most do not do this-they submit the objective words of the Holy Bible to their fallible assessment/judgment, and they are the final authority. No one believes a bible they can correct, revise, "prefer", for that presupposes an authority over it.

3. "many new versions with a barge pole because they are not faithful translations...they deliberately change, insert or leave out words in an effort to promote their own agenda."

"not faithful translations"

The word "faithful" is a judgmental/discerning term, and, by its internal definition, "Exlusionary". Discernment, by its very nature, is exlusionary.

So, you do EXCLUDE some versions? You agree that "all mushrooms are not good-some will kill you"? Are you a "only the translation I consider faithful are the word of God ONLY-IST? How are you different than a KJVO? In number? Are you not a "Christian ONLY-IST? You make my point-EVERY ONE EXCLUDES. If you do not, then you are a subjectivist:

"All Bibles are the word of God."= "all mushrooms are good."
Anyone can say "These are faithful translations." A JW can say that re. the NWT, and does.

Of course, it does not dawn on bible correctors that the very reason the "authors" of each and every "bible translation" have issued their "respective" versions, is because they consider their version "faithful."

This has been my point all along. If you are not a subjectivist, you EXCLUDE, and this is a biblical command:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Is. 5:20

And thus, the hypocrisy:
If you do exclude versions, then you are playing a shell game by accusing KJVO proponents of EXCLUSION, when you, and EVERYONE, except subjectivists, in fact, do the same.

"Thy word is true from the beginning...thy word is truth....the scripture of truth...but, in all probability, thy word is not infallible.... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ....... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ....... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ....... There is no perfect 'the bible'.....All 'the Bible's have errors ......".

"Thus saith my opinion."

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

The problem is, you're claiming things for, and teaching as doctrine, something the editors of the KJV never claimed for themselves. Read the preface to the 1611 printing - "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes do goods, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded." You're claiming a double revelation of God's Word.

__________

"The problem is, you're claiming things for, and teaching as doctrine, something the editors of the KJV never claimed for themselves. Read the preface to the 1611 printing....."

1.I will repost my answer to this-post #142:

Again, who said the preface "is given by inspiration..."?(2 Tim. 3:16)

"Why don't the translators make the same claims that KJV only propoents make. According to the translators, they were obeying the commission of their King to make a translation. They do claim to have received any visions, they do not claim inspiration or any of those things that KJV onlyists ascribe to the translators?"

To refute an argument, we must "knock down" the premises, the "supporting walls", upon which the "foundation" of the argument rests. "What saith the scriptures" re. "the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired, and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired."?

1. Notice 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is, not was, given by inspiration-the scriptures are inspired, not the writers(the subject of another post).

2. "Check it out in the Book-don't take my word on this"-Acts 17:11:

I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:.

- "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22

Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19).

Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word, by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?:

"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy(and notice he wrote a "copy", which he had available all his life-so much for the "originals only" 'were'(past tense) inspired"--copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)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(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7)

-I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof).

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12

To be consistent with this argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to this argument????!!!!!!?

"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17