Version Smursions?!

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

sojourner4Christ

sojourning non-citizen
May 23, 2014
388
8
18
I don't know about all that. I just know your link sent me to a discussion about KJV only with a 2 hour video on the topic. I thought that is what you were pointing me toward. If you have a specific post in a discussion you want me to read, fine. I am not about to read a dozen threads with dozens or hundreds of posts.
You asked if I “have any actual evidence for [my] claims?” Thus, the documentation will necessarily be found in my posts.

In any event, I have heard so far are conspiracy theories about the Bible....Your conspiracy theories are a bit much.... Anyway, even if your conspiracies were somehow able to be proved true...
They’re not my “conspiracy theories;" the word is found 30+ times in the Holy Bible.

There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof. Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain.

...it still doesn't prove that the KJV is the authoritative Bible. Suppose you can prove the NIV is straight from the fires of gehenna. It doesn't, by default, make the KJV God's authoritative version.
The criteria for determining truth can never be determined via a “default” position.

What I need, my dear friend, is something that represents a rational argument that somehow the KJV was dubbed by God to be an inerrant version...
It’s not a “version” -- it’s the wholly Holy Bible.



..on par with the original autographs and all other versions
There is no “on par with;” our God is a jealous God.

...(which is really unfortunate for non-English speakers)...
Not at all. The inspired word of God exists in many foreign language Bibles. It always has, since Acts 2. His inspired word, for English speakers, happens to be the King James Bible.

You’re wasting your valuable God-given calling trying to romance the stone. You don’t need another “rational argument;” you need a Rock-Solid confirmation that God has kept his promise to preserve his pure inspired word for ever, for us; and that you, my brother, have been given it and are not required, nay, are commanded not, to trust any man for that. Ask the King, my friend, which means being willing to lay down all your learned, scholarly, opinions and advisements and doctrines, and possessions, tangible and intangible, on the altar before the King -- and then do just that i.e. LAY IT ALL DOWN BEFORE HIM (and no other). The body of Christ needs you full-on; the question is, are you willing to give it up to him?
.
.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You asked if I “have any actual evidence for [my] claims?” Thus, the documentation will necessarily be found in my posts.
Ok, well, I don't have time to track down everything you have written on here in order to understand the nuances of your view and begin a dialogue.

There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof. Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain.
Yeah, well you see, that's the problem. You are quoting verses about false prophets in Israel and applying them to Bible translations today, making the assumption that God feels the same way about both. This is the kind of stuff that comes across as dishonest to me. You are taking God's Words about one situation and applying them to another, making it sound as if God is speaking about the KJV only debate. What if what is profaning God is people who cast a dark cloud of uncertainty over translations that have been used to bring millions of people to faith in Christ, and malign translators who seek to honor God by providing texts that most closely reflect what the original authors wrote? Didn't Jesus say, "for whoever is not against us is for us"? So here we have versions like the ESV and NIV that clearly proclaim John 3:16 and other verses that bring men to hope and faith in Christ...yet you would claim such works to be a conspiracy and an attempt to destroy souls? Im not buying it. I think if the devil wanted to twist a translation, he would attack the nature of Christ or the work of Christ (like the NWT and others)...not just remove a few verses that are missing from the earliest manuscripts.

The criteria for determining truth can never be determined via a “default” position.
Exactly, which is why the burden of proof is with you to show that your default position is truth.

It’s not a “version” -- it’s the wholly Holy Bible.
Yes, that is your view. However, this is a baseless assertion, just as if I were to claim that the ESV is the wholly Holy Bible. Johnlove asserts that he has Jesus speaking directly to him and he doesn't even need a Bible. I am not interested in baseless assertions.

There is no “on par with;” our God is a jealous God.
So by this you are saying the KJV is more accurate than the original writings of Peter, Paul and the others???

You’re wasting your valuable God-given calling trying to romance the stone. You don’t need another “rational argument;”
Oh, so I just need to take your word for it? Funny, the Mormons tell me the same thing. Why is it that those who claim to have all the answers demand that others just blindly accept their claims? Why is it that because I disagree with you, I therefore, haven't been "asking the King" or I am not fully committed to Christ? This is quite a harsh accusation and judgment upon me, and you don't even know me. You think that because I disagree with you, I am somehow not committed or prayerless. I think I have been asking the King for many, many years about His Word. I have yet to have him tell me the KJV is the only accurate English version of it. Has it ever occurred to you that YOU could be the one in error? So much for that "consider others better than yourselves" verse I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron Lindahl

sojourner4Christ

sojourning non-citizen
May 23, 2014
388
8
18
.
Ok, well, I don't have time to track down everything you have written on here in order to understand the nuances of your view and begin a dialogue. “Nuances”? Rather, you asked for documentation; I provided it. The onus is on you, my friend, to invest the time.
What if what is profaning God is people who cast a dark cloud of uncertainty over translations that have been used to bring millions of people to faith in Christ, “What if”??? You are commanded to do better than that. If you don’t seek the King, rather than the approbation of other men, you’ll never know. The “dark cloud” has already been cast by the spirit behind the new versions’ wolves in sheep’s clothing. We’ve already exposed the new age agenda re: modern versions in another thread, which was, of course, eventually closed under a pretense. If the Lord can use an arss to speak, then he can certainly use counterfeit bibles. But that’s not the point. Why eat junk food when you can feast on the pure word of God? The NIV and all modern version of the Holy Bible contain some of the word of God. The Holy Bible itself is the word of God. Satan knows those who have been fed a depleted diet are no threat to his kingdom. Satan changed a single word back at the garden; he’s not about to change a game plan that works. We’re even to the point now where many, who would say with their lips they are saved, are actually workers of iniquity. The Holy Bible describes this time in detail. These people are smug in their deception.

Yeah, well you see, that's the problem. You are quoting verses about false prophets in Israel and applying them to Bible translations today, making the assumption that God feels the same way about both. This is the kind of stuff that comes across as dishonest to me. Well, at least you're honest about feeling dishonest. God could not care less about any translations per se. The Holy Bible itself chronicles for us several translations (scrolls tossed into the fire, etc.). It’s not about any translation, it’s about whether or not you believe that God has kept his promise to preserve his inspired words for ever. Presently, you (and virtually everyone else here) has a fear of man, of standing on that word of God you would profess to love and agreeing with God that it is inspired -- here, now, today, and not “lost” and dependent on fallible men to guide you to their “version” of it. As you’re reading this right here, right now, you can’t tell me that you believe you have the inspired word of God available to you, NOW, as God has promised you would. What a miserable state to be caught in; men will ALWAYS supplant you if you look to them to define what God’s word is. You are taking God's Words about one situation and applying them to another, making it sound as if God is speaking about the KJV only debate. lol The “KJVO debate” is a new arrival in the arsenal of the ‘textual critics’ -- those whose fun is in criticizing the word of God. God’s domain is a little bit larger than the “KJVO debate...” What if what is profaning God is people who cast a dark cloud of uncertainty over translations that have been used to bring millions of people to faith in Christ, “What if”??? And what millions? Please show us those millions, along with the missionary who is forced to RETURN the modern “version” because of its depravity. “The dark cloud of uncertainty” was already cast when the enemy used prideful men to resurrect corrupt manuscripts that tickled ears and exalted themselves rather than exalted Christ. and malign translators who seek to honor God They’re not about ‘honoring God,’ they’re about money, power, control -- just like their master. I’ve given you the documentation that proves , for example, two ‘beloved’ ‘recommended’ ‘editors’ were necromancers and spiritualists; five have lost their ability to speak; some found guilty in heresy trials; others in mental institutions. Mess with the word of God and suffer the consequences. by providing texts that most closely reflect what the original authors wrote? Only men care about any “originals.” And you’re following the blind down their rabbit hole. We’ve already exposed the origin, the who, when and why, of the "originals-only" heresy. Why do folks cling to that relatively new heresy? Because they are afraid of men’s opinions of them; because they look to men to describe their status, rather than to God to define their character. Didn't Jesus say, "for whoever is not against us is for us"? So here we have versions like the ESV and NIV that clearly proclaim John 3:16 and other verses that bring men to hope and faith in Christ...junk food again. Anyone who would contend that these new versions contain the truths of the faith, somewhere in them, does not really understand that the Bible is more than our necessary food. “Men shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4). Is that in your NIV, NASB, TNIV, HCSB, or ESV? Sorry, it is gone. We need every word! And plenty Luciferians proclaim portions of God’s scripture in their worship of their master; Satan changed only one word of it in the garden. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. So your claim that it’s ok because the gospel can be found, somewhere in the new versions, does not scripturally hold up. yet you would claim such works to be a conspiracy and an attempt to destroy souls? “Conspiracy” is a biblical word, appearing over 30 times. Im not buying it. Surely you have ‘bought’ into it; how many “versions” do you currently possess? Webster defines an idol as a false god. Having more than one version is idolatry. With one version, God is the authority. When there are conflicting authorities, as there were when the serpent challenged God’s words in the garden, man becomes the arbitrator, choosing which “authority” to follow. Hence man usurps the authority of God. Your argument’s not with me; it’s with God’s word. Actually, it is scandalous for rich Americans to have ten versions of the bible (and then brag about it, too), instead of just one. Four million dollars was invested in the New King James Version; subsequent to that, several million dollars was spent on advertising campaigns. Many tribes and peoples around the world have no King James type Bible at all; the Albanian Bible was destroyed during the communist regime. Many of the tribes in New Guinea do not have a complete Bible in their language, since these countries have no money to pay the publishers. The publishers are not interested in giving these people Bibles; they are just interested in making bibles that can produce a profit for their operation. I think if the devil wanted to twist a translation, he would attack the nature of Christ or the work of Christ (like the NWT and others)...not just remove a few verses that are missing from the earliest manuscripts. Both have already been done, but that is only a small part of his plan. Apparently, you are out of the loop on the new age’s agenda and how they are manipulating and changing the word of God to accomplish the introduction of their christ.

Jesus said, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). Only a living thing can reproduce itself. That is why new versions die when their copyright holder dies. The text type of the KJB is alive and keeps going from generation to generation. New versions are like school science textbooks, which change every few years. Only the word of God “abideth forever.”

...the burden of proof is with you to show that your default position is truth.
Again, I have no "default position." A default is a failure to perform an act or obligation. I provided what you requested, but you have falied to act on it; that's your de-fault.

So by this you are saying the KJV is more accurate than the original writings of Peter, Paul and the others???
Again, "accuracy" is God's end, not yours or the textual critics or their "versions" of it. It's not always easy to shake firmly held deceptions e.g. the "originals-only" heresy. Rather, do you believe God when he says that his word is pure and inspired, and that he has preserved his pure inspired word for ever? Do you possess his pure inspired word? I do.

Yes, that is your view. However, this is a baseless assertion, just as if I were to claim that the ESV is the wholly Holy Bible.
The corrupt origin of the ESV, as with virtually all modern versions, is well-documented.

Johnlove asserts that he has Jesus speaking directly to him and he doesn't even need a Bible.
The King speaks to me, as well. And that's between the King and me. Miracles don't save anyone, and hearing from God benefits only the receiver. I've had people accuse me of communing with devils; such incredulity is to be expected. One does not need to possess a Bible to become born again in Jesus Christ. But for those who have been provided access to God's pure inspired preserved for ever word, the Holy Bible, and yet still choose men's textual criticism, they are without excuse and will be held accountable.

I am not interested in baseless assertions.
Then read the documentation I provided at your first request.
.
.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
“Nuances”? Rather, you asked for documentation; I provided it. The onus is on you, my friend, to invest the time.
I asked for "evidence." I don't know if your comments on this board necessarily qualify. I was thinking more like research, books, scholarship...you know...factual data that supports the idea that KJV is the only true inerrant English version of the Bible. I will invest time in things I find worth my time. I tracking down all your comments on this board does not seem like a valid use of my time...especially since I have seen no comments from you that would suggest that you a firm foundation for your opinions.

If you don’t seek the King, rather than the approbation of other men, you’ll never know....Why eat junk food when you can feast on the pure word of God?
You are making an assumption that my lack of zeal for the KJV is a lack of seeking the King. This is a faulty and ridiculous assumption. Your statements only make sense to the already convinced s4c. What I am asking you to do is show me why you think the KJV is the "pure word of God" and my NA27 and ESV are "junk food." You have yet to do anything but throw out more baseless opinions.

What a miserable state to be caught in; men will ALWAYS supplant you if you look to them to define what God’s word is.
Um, I think if you look in the mirror you will find that YOU also are a man (or woman). So, why is it that listening to you about your views on the KJV is not also being supplanted by men? The double-talk here is mind-blowing. "Listen to me, the KJV is the only true word of God. Don't listen to the words of men. Listen to me!" Um, unless you are an angelic being, your argument makes zero sense.

What if”??? And what millions? Please show us those millions, along with the missionary who is forced to RETURN the modern “version” because of its depravity. “The dark cloud of uncertainty” was already cast when the enemy used prideful men to resurrect corrupt manuscripts that tickled ears and exalted themselves rather than exalted Christ.
Ahh, so the thousands being converted each day in America in churches that do not use the KJV are invalid and do not exhibit true life change? I know of a church that has about 20 baptisms a week and they do not use the KJV. According to you, these are not true converts? Again, you words are like a clanging gong. I could spout the same meaningless opinions that the KJV is corrupt and does nothing but "tickle" the ears of the corrupt, depraved of mind, brute beasts, scoffers and all kinds of other neat biblical insults. It sounds neat because of all the little bible phrases...but its still baseless opinion. Still waiting for something more than ranting and raving.

They’re not about ‘honoring God,’ they’re about money, power, control -- just like their master. I’ve given you the documentation that proves , for example, two ‘beloved’ ‘recommended’ ‘editors’ were necromancers and spiritualists; five have lost their ability to speak; some found guilty in heresy trials; others in mental institutions. Mess with the word of God and suffer the consequences.
Yeah, King James was no gem either. Look, there have been thousands of scholars who have contributed to the major translations. No doubt someone will find a few crack posts (although I think the necromancy thing falls in line with the ridiculous illuminati theories) in the bunch. That doesn't discount the work as a whole. And again, the only "evidence" you seem to be putting for FOR the KJV is to try to discount other versions (which is really no evidence FOR the KJV). You don't seem to be getting it.

Webster defines an idol as a false god. Having more than one version is idolatry. With one version, God is the authority. When there are conflicting authorities, as there were when the serpent challenged God’s words in the garden, man becomes the arbitrator, choosing which “authority” to follow.
Let me ask you, when a preacher gets up to expound upon a text, is he creating a false god? After all, he is discussing God's word in words that are not exact to the KJV. What if someone rephrases a verse or even summarizes a verse...are they guilty of idolatry? Your argument suggests that anything other than standing up and reading word-for-word the KJV each Sunday in church is to promote idolatry. Because, we certainly would not want to discuss God with words other than the very KJV itself! You sound just like the Pharisees. You are more interested in jots and tittles than you are actually doing what God says. I don't care if we say, "lovest thy neighbor" or "love your neighbor" or "ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου." What matters is actually DOING it, and not the grammar an syntax of the language involved. You are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel here my friend.

New versions are like school science textbooks, which change every few years. Only the word of God “abideth forever.”
Well, "forever"... after 1611 of course. smh

Again, I have no "default position." A default is a failure to perform an act or obligation. I provided what you requested, but you have falied to act on it; that's your de-fault.
Try the other definition of "default." A preselected option that you revert to automatically. Why don't you slow down and try to understand and appreciate what someone else is saying without diving into this bunker mentality that everyone else is Satan and trying to attack you. Sheesh.

The corrupt origin of the ESV, as with virtually all modern versions, is well-documented.
Yeah, so is the fact that many of the verses in the KJV didn't exist in the first 400 or so years of the early church. But I am sure those "well-documented" sources are all part of the conspiracy eh? Ahh, there goes the default again. Anything that disagrees with you is part of the enemies grand scheme. This is why its impossible to have this discussion. There is no reason here. There is your opinion and any other opinion is part of the Devil's work. Jesus himself could appear to you and say you are wrong and you would somehow tie it to a plot of the NIV translators and a one world order. sigh.

The King speaks to me, as well. And that's between the King and me. Miracles don't save anyone, and hearing from God benefits only the receiver. I've had people accuse me of communing with devils; such incredulity is to be expected. One does not need to possess a Bible to become born again in Jesus Christ. But for those who have been provided access to God's pure inspired preserved for ever word, the Holy Bible, and yet still choose men's textual criticism, they are without excuse and will be held accountable.
Yeah, well the I am not accusing you of anything. Im just looking for something other than, "KJV is God's true Word. If you don't believe that you don't love God and are diluted by antichrists and necromancers."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron Lindahl

sojourner4Christ

sojourning non-citizen
May 23, 2014
388
8
18
re: the documentation I provided at your first request, I forgive your refusal to perform due diligence. Another may not...
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
[SIZE=medium]Arguments that attempt to draw textual conclusions from a prejudicial selection of not immediately relevant data, or from a slanted use of terms, or by a slurring appeal to guilt by association, or by repeated appeal to false evidence, are not only misleading, but ought to be categorically rejected by Christians who, above all others, profess both to love truth and to love their brothers in Christ.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The practices against which this thesis contends are so common that detailed documentation would immediately double the length of this book. I offer but a few examples.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]One brief pamphlet before me condemns the 1881 revisers as Romanists because some of their readings are akin to the Roman Catholic Vulgate. Why does it not point out that Erasmus, unlike Luther and Calvin, never left the Roman Catholic church? Besides, if the argument of this pamphlet were rigorously applied, I suppose I would have to give up singing hymns written by the famous nineteenth-century writer F. W. Faber (1814–1863), who followed John Henry Newman into the Roman Catholic church; and I confess to a certain reluctance in abandoning hymns like “My God, how wonderful Thou art,” “Souls of men, why will ye scatter,” “There’s a wideness in God’s mercy,” and “Faith of our fathers.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Another little book in front of me slates such expressions as “intrinsic probability” and “transcriptional probability.” The author thinks they belong to methods that are “not accordind to sound rules of Bible interpretation.” He asks, “Do you want to trust your soul to a probability?” No, of course I do not. I prefer to trust my soul to Christ. However, I should point out that deciding which manuscripts within the Byzantine tradition are to be followed at any variant reading involves questions of transcriptional probability.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Westcott and Hort are regularly portrayed in nearly diabolical garb; and Origen fares even worse, as the genesis of the non-Byzantine texts is regularly ascribed to him. The fact remains that all the text-types except the Byzantine antedate Origen. That is historical fact. Westcott and Hort, especially the latter, were not quite as conservative as modern conservative evangelicals. Both made some statements I regret. Nevertheless it is difficult to find a first-rate turn-of-the-century commentary on John’s Gospel more conservative than that of Westcott. And his little book entitled The Revelation of the Father: Short Lectures on the Titles of the Lord in the Gospel of St. John is superb. Can we not recognize the contributions of such men without writing them off?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]What shall we say too about the vast majority of evangelical scholars, including men in whom were found the utmost piety and fidelity to the Word along with scholarship second to none? These men hold that in the basic textual theory Westcott and Hort were right, and that the church stands greatly in their debt. A conservative like Samuel P. Tregelles anticipated Westcott and Hort and their work, and a conservative like Warfield confirmed that work.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I have tried to write this volume without heat or rancor, but I confess I must either laugh or weep when I read merciless diatribes that speak of “apostate texts”; or that “many of our good, fundamental ministers of the gospel, have been caught in the Satanic ‘Religious Trap,’ i.e., the idea that there are better manuscripts than those used in the translation of the King James Bible in 1611”; or that “even Dr. C. I. Scofield was brainwashed” because he omits Acts 8:37; or that “the orthodox view of the New Testament text” is the one that believes divine providence has stamped the majority text with special approval.47[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I am upset too by arguments that leap from fourteenth-and fifteenth-century attacks on the Bible per se, to the theory of Westcott and Hort, in order to tar the latter with the brush of the former. I am upset by arguments that take the worst examples of loose paraphrasing in the Living Bible and on that basis attack all modern versions. I am equally upset by the sloppiness or the lack of integrity found in arguments that cite authorities like Warfield and Robertson in favor of an inspired and infallible Bible, and then plunge into a defense of the Byzantine tradition in such a fashion as to give the erroneous impression that these men defended the TR. To cite one example: In Which Bible? David Otis Fuller, immediately after concluding an argument in favor of the Byzantine text, cites Montgomery’s remarks concerning the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the New Testament, as those remarks appear in his The Suicide of Modern Theology.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The uninformed reader might well be pardoned if he mistakenly thought that Montgomery favors the TR. As far as I know, he does not. Then Yigael Yadin is cited in his remarks concerning the Masada discoveries. The scrolls found correspond “almost exactly” to the text of the biblical books we use today. But Fuller does not point out that only the Old Testament books are in question, not the New Testament books; and Old Testament textual problems have nothing whatever to do with the four familiar text-types with which the New Testament textual critic must busy himself. Again, the uninformed reader might be pardoned if he came away with the impression that Yadin favors Fuller’s position. Of course every person who writes very much sometimes conjures up erroneous impressions quite unwittingly; but it troubles me when this sort of argument appears scores of times in Which Bible? I am forced to conclude that some of its writers are either extraordinarily imprecise thinkers or simply dishonest; and of course I prefer the former alternative.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I am far from arguing that all defenders of the KJV are equally intolerant. I do not object to vigorous debate and forceful writing. Even those who use the devices outlined here no doubt feel they are doing so in the cause of truth, although there is no doubt in my mind that many of the inquisitors felt the same thing. What I am saying rather is that debate among Christians ought to be characterized by “speaking the truth in love.” I confess I am far from certain that anyone who cannot in principle set his “Amen!” to this thirteenth thesis has come to grips with the most rudimentary content of Scripture. This is so regardless of whether he stands in the succession of the TR or in the succession of an eclectic text.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I am reminded of this poem:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] Zeal is that pure and heavenly flame[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] The fire of love supplies;[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] While that which often bears the name[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] Is self in a disguise.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] True zeal is merciful and mild,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] Can pity and forbear:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] The false is headstrong, fierce and wild,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] And breathes revenge and war.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] While zeal for truth the Christian warms,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] He knows the worth of peace;[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] But self contends for names and forms,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] Its party to increase.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The author of these lines is not usually thought of as an apostate or a bleeding-heart liberal. His name is John Newton (1725–1807).[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), 74–78.[/SIZE]
Your quotes are misleading and out of context. The little you have actually provided in support FOR the KJV is misguided at best. Most of your "evidence" is still nothing more than an attack on the NIV and other versions. Still waiting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron Lindahl

sojourner4Christ

sojourning non-citizen
May 23, 2014
388
8
18
Your comment is a non sequitur -- an off-topic excuse, a diversion away from the fact that you have chosen to not research the requested primary and secondary documentation I directed you to. Your tactic, the hackneyed attempt to preemptively dismiss, a cover for refusing to perform due diligence, is an old and worn deception.

The documentation I provided, and which you refuse to address, indeed provokes grave silence, as none can answer it, except with trite and tiny vagaries. It may provoke the backbiting bark of watchdogs who cared not to read it thoroughly and be unsettled in their baseless opinions. The devil does not want those in a position of authority or influence (pastor, professor, amateur writer, forum poster) to read those posts. The “king over all the children of pride” would like the prince of Grecia to crown their minds with thoughts such as,

‘Some of this is too dry to read and my flesh is too lazy to ‘work’ through it. It would be easier simply to call Dr. ‘so and so’ and see what he thinks.’ [If he has made his living using Greek lexicons, do not count on him to thoroughly read the material or to have a humble reaction to it if he does. He has too much to lo$e.]

‘I am a solid fundamental Christian, therefore I could not be wrong about anything; God wouldn’t give this writer this information before giving it to me.’ [Maybe it was given to this writer because you were rightfully busy doing important things which this writer cannot do.]

‘I must quickly skim for some small error to prove this wrong. I couldn’t have been wrong all these years. I must find something somewhere in the post to show that I know something that this author does not seem to know.’ [This may be a test of your humility. “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God...” (1 Peter 5:6).]

‘What will so-and-so think? Will this put me “without the camp” or denomination I currently follow?’ [Maybe God has plans for you to help them.]

‘I don’t believe that Greek and Hebrew study is wrong (although I have not read this post, documenting its problems, nor can I refute it).’ [“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” (Prov. 18:13).]

If you have questions about the primary and secondary documentation I have already provided, then raise them. Otherwise, there are plenty of seats still available before the monuments of men..

.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your comment is a non sequitur

How so? I was reading your "evidence" and found the "old and worn" arguments about Westcott and Hort. The quote I provides showed the fallacy of such demonizing. I think it fits quite well.


-- an off-topic excuse, a diversion away from the fact that you have chosen to not research the requested primary and secondary documentation I directed you to. Your tactic, the hackneyed attempt to preemptively dismiss, a cover for refusing to perform due diligence, is an old and worn deception.
First, how am I supposed to "research" all the "documentation" you provided with your copy and pasted notes. Are you wanting everyone to purchase all those resources and read them all before they can have a conversation with you? I am not preemptively dismissing anything. This is not my first rodeo s4c. I have been studying the Biblical text for many years. Your demonizing of Westcott and Hort and smear tactics on the translators of the NIV as "evidence" for the KJV being infallible is both unchristian and entirely unrelated! Talk about non sequitur! Ha! Your logic is... NIV was translated by the occult and Westcott and Hoyt were evil and translators bought into their conclusions (which is not accurate as the very apt quote above reflect).....therefore the KJV is the only infallible English version! smh

The documentation I provided, and which you refuse to address, indeed provokes grave silence, as none can answer it, except with trite and tiny vagaries.
Maybe there is grave silence because it is all accusation and defamation. There is no actual scholarship behind it. You claimed that Carson "admitted" that Hort and Westcott were essentially blindly followed in their embrace of non-Byzantine texts. The quote above shows that this is CLEARLY not what D.A. Carson believes! Their views have been supported because there is actual evidence behind it. If anyone is being trite, it is you. You seem to think you have a water-tight argument...but so far I have yet to see one shred of evidence. The only thing I see are accusations and false representations of what scholars actually teach.

‘Some of this is too dry to read and my flesh is too lazy to ‘work’ through it. It would be easier simply to call Dr. ‘so and so’ and see what he thinks.’ [If he has made his living using Greek lexicons, do not count on him to thoroughly read the material or to have a humble reaction to it if he does. He has too much to lo$e.]
I am in awe of your humility and grace towards others (yes, add sarcasm there). Here is yet another example of your "evidence" and scholarship. Its all a conspiracy and all the scholars that disagree with me are getting a pay-off by the evil translation publishing companies. This is almost comical if it wasn't so sad.

‘I must quickly skim for some small error to prove this wrong. I couldn’t have been wrong all these years. I must find something somewhere in the post to show that I know something that this author does not seem to know.’ [This may be a test of your humility. “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God...” (1 Peter 5:6).]
Yes, we all know it wouldn't be a test of your humility. After all, you couldn't have been wrong all these years either. I have humbly asked for evidence so I could look to see if you have valid reasons for your claims. Yet, so far all I have received is a smattering of links to unorganized thoughts in that are part of other conversations that I have no interest to trace. I am still willing to be corrected if you could provide some actual material that does more than attack people's characters and demand that if I really loved God, I would agree with you.

‘What will so-and-so think? Will this put me “without the camp” or denomination I currently follow?’ [Maybe God has plans for you to help them.]
Ahh, more accusations I see. Nothing like shooting first and asking questions later. I would likely be more apt to listen to you if your ranting was not so filled with venom and hate. I can see nothing of Christ's likeness in any of your comments. For your information, I do not belong to a "denomination" and no one in my church fellowship would really care if I read or taught from a KJV. Ahh, but what does the truth matter? Its so much easier just to make stuff up.

‘I don’t believe that Greek and Hebrew study is wrong (although I have not read this post, documenting its problems, nor can I refute it).’ [“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” (Prov. 18:13).]
This supposed quote about my inner thoughts makes no sense. I posted a very lengthy quote from a scholar that you misrepresented. Simple as that. It shows what I have been claiming...that your proof is nothing more than a list of smear tactics and claims of guilt by association. Essentially, your arguments boil down to calling all those who disagree with you and textual critics as money-hungry jerks and antichrists. Then you claim it to be irrefutable. Such comments neither need to be "refuted" or even addressed. Which is likely why no one answers such charges. No one wants to slop around in the mud with you.
 

sojourner4Christ

sojourning non-citizen
May 23, 2014
388
8
18
I was reading your "evidence" and found the "old and worn" arguments about Westcott and Hort. The quote I provides showed the fallacy of such demonizing. I think it fits quite well. What we “think” doesn’t hold air with the King. A youngster can read their biographies for himself and discern they are purveyors of wickedness. They demonize themselves; it’s all there in their documented biographies.

First, how am I supposed to "research" all the "documentation" you provided with your copy and pasted notes. Now you’re backpeddlng again. I have the documentation. Getting up-to-speed would cost you less than what you’ve spent on your “versions“ library. Are you wanting everyone to purchase all those resources and read them all before they can have a conversation with you? That’s between you and the King; ask him (not men!), then do what he says. You’re not interested in a conversation; you want your ears tickled, a “rational dialogue” born of men that doesn’t rock your boat. If you’re out here promoting this over that (and you are), then you‘re accountable and then yes you need to get up to speed or get out of the way of those who do love the truth more than the backslaps of men. I am not preemptively dismissing anything. And here we are again, with you still whining, and this AFTER I provided what you requested. Amazing, the spirit of iniquity. This is not my first rodeo s4c. I have been, studying the Biblical text for many years. What “text” would that be? There are countless counterfeits. And it matters not how many rodeos you’ve attended, a cowboy without cattle is still a poser. Your demonizing of Westcott and Hort and smear tactics on the translators of the NIV as "evidence" for the KJV being infallible is both unchristian and entirely unrelated! Another straw of yours. They are unrelated; as a part of the deception package, I merely showed everyone, from the works of the perp’s themselves, what they’re all about. The point there, is men will always let you down. You want to continue trusting necromancers and spiritualists and worse, then by all means you can do that. I simply showed everyone, from the men themselves, just how wicked they are and that’s the bag you’re buying into when you seek the approbation of men rather than the truth. Talk about non sequitur! Ha! Your logic is... NIV was translated by the occult and Westcott and Hoyt were evil and translators bought into their conclusions (which is not accurate as the very apt quote above reflect).....therefore the KJV is the only infallible English version! IOW, their fruit stinks; obviously, the truth is not forthcoming from them; the truth comes from the King himself. smh

Maybe there is grave silence because it is all accusation and defamation. There is no actual scholarship behind it. Thank God there isn’t! Neither God nor I need ANY of your yes-men to expose the wicked thing for exactly what it is. They’ve exposed themselves. It’s a worldly protection racket based in vain deceit. You keep on looking to men, trusting men, rather than God’s word i.e. the pure inspired preserved for ever word of God, like he’s told us, or, you get wicked men like W & H and demon infested Philips as your mentors. Your choice. You claimed that Carson "admitted" that Hort and Westcott were essentially blindly followed in their embrace of non-Byzantine texts. The quote above shows that this is CLEARLY not what D.A. Carson believes! Their views have been supported because there is actual evidence behind it. It’s a sad situation, as the appeals and poems of men is all you’ve got. Where’s your primary and secondary documentation? You don’t have any. Conversely, I have the pure inspired preserved for ever word of God. I’ll trust his word over you and the yes-men every time. If anyone is being trite, it is you. You seem to think you have a water-tight argument...but so far I have yet to see one shred of evidence. You’re not looking for it - can’t be bothered. That’s because your interest lies with men, rather than with God’s inspired word, which I possess and you do not (you, too, could have it, if only you revered the truth). The only thing I see are accusations and false representations of what scholars actually teach. You’re spewing hearsay. You got something bothering you? Then put it out here -- not your opinion of the sitch, but the doc’s, etc. We’re not going to engage in speculation. Or, you can simply continue as you have been, attempting to vilify, to preemptively dismiss, while squirming to avoid facing the music.


I am in awe of your humility and grace towards others (yes, add sarcasm there). Here is yet another example of your "evidence" and scholarship. Its all a conspiracy and all the scholars that disagree with me are getting a pay-off by the evil translation publishing companies. You’re presuming again, because you have yet to state who or what “agrees with” you. You’re too busy trying to make this a non-event so you don’t have to actually DO anything. This is almost comical if it wasn't so sad. Again, just more diversionary cheap talk, worthless ad hominems.

Yes, we all know it wouldn't be a test of your humility. After all, you couldn't have been wrong all these years either. I have humbly asked for evidence You were given directions to it, but refused the journey. so I could look to see if you have valid reasons for your claims. Yet, so far all I have received is a smattering of links to unorganized thoughts in that are part of other conversations that I have no interest to trace. I am still willing to be corrected if you could provide some actual material that does more than attack people's characters and demand that if I really loved God, I would agree with you. To make this crystal for you, what you need to do, as I intimated previously, is to ask a clear question -- not keep trying to obfuscate, misdirect, and otherwise cop out, like our buddies in the other thread and their circuitous pap.

Ahh, more accusations I see. Nothing like shooting first and asking questions later. I would likely be more apt to listen You never were apt to listen; that’s not your intent. The plan is to preemptively dismiss, to cast doubt on my character so you can go your intended way. If that floats your boat, then hey, go your way, keep on sailing.
to you if your ranting was not so filled with venom and hate. I can see nothing of Christ's likeness in any of your comments. You’d need discernment to be able to “see” that. For your information, I do not belong to a "denomination" and no one in my church fellowship would really care if I read or taught from a KJV. Ahh, but what does the truth matter? Its so much easier just to make stuff up.

This supposed quote about my inner thoughts makes no sense. I posted a very lengthy quote from a scholar that you misrepresented. Simple as that. It shows what I have been claiming...that your proof is nothing more than a list of smear tactics and claims of guilt by association. Tell that to W & H who called themselves heretics -- documented fact. Essentially, your arguments boil down to calling all those who disagree with you and textual critics as money-hungry jerks and antichrists. Then you claim it to be irrefutable. Such comments neither need to be "refuted" or even addressed. Which is likely why no one answers such charges. No one wants to slop around in the mud with you. Too late; you threw mud, disguised as "scholarship;" you got dirty.

Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sigh. I have asked clear questions. Such as, can you provide any actual evidence to show that the KJV is an infallible translation? There is no obfuscating here. I don't know how I can be more clear. Your answers seem to be...

Listen to God, not men. (So I guess I should stop listening to you)
Seek the King. (I have for decades and never once heard Him say, read only the KJV)
The translators of various versions are all evil, just read their biographies. (Which ones? There are about 100 translators for the ESV. Should I do a Google hunt on each one to see if I can dig up some dirt? Do you think King James was a sinless saint?)

That's about it. So again, none of this points to the KJV as infallible. Smearing other translations does not necessitate that your translation is infallible any more than smearing the KJV makes the ESV infallible.

In sum, let me clarify this the best I know how. I will not listen to any more rambling that I would agree with you if I loved God or that my NA27 comes from necromancers. I want something that resembles a reason why the KJV is infallible. Otherwise, you can keep your conspiracies and venom to yourself.
 

sojourner4Christ

sojourning non-citizen
May 23, 2014
388
8
18
.
Since you've come back to reply again, I will do likewise.

You've been trying hard to slam dunk this thing before it even had a chance to get off the ground. I deal with this kind of "venomous" attack all the time. It's sneaky, it's unfair, it's deceptive, it's dishonest, and most people, living in fear of man, believe they cannot afford to lose their tenuous grip on the approbation of other men, so they don't even consider pursuing the truth of the matter.

And I'm calling you out again on it.

Stop dealing presumptuously. Ask the forthright question, and you can expect to receive a cogent reply.

Your entire exchange with me in this thread has been hypocritical.

Listen to God, not men. (So I guess I should stop listening to you)
Seek the King. (I have for decades and never once heard Him say, read only the KJV)
The translators of various versions are all evil, just read their biographies. (Which ones? There are about 100 translators for the ESV. Should I do a Google hunt on each one to see if I can dig up some dirt? Do you think King James was a sinless saint?)
Total mischaracterization, misrepresentation, presumption! What a load of rubbish!

Is that character assassination attempt really the best you can muster?

What's your game? Upsetting me enough so I'll start playing your game and thus be worthy of banning? Or are you gaming for a mere smear (damage control)?

For one final example of the fruit of aligning oneself with other men who highest opinion is of themselves, go back a page in this thread and witness the following propaganda, with all its loaded words and undocumented presumptions, the entirety of your post #23:

When we say "more accurate" it is because the KJV is based on less reliable Byzantine manuscripts. Its still a good Bible, but there are definitely verses and phrases used in the KJV that are not found in the earlier and more reliable Alexandrian texts.
I rest my case.

In sum, let me clarify this the best I know how. I will not listen to any more rambling that I would agree with you if I loved God or that my NA27 comes from necromancers. I want something that resembles a reason why the KJV is infallible. Otherwise, you can keep your conspiracies and venom to yourself.
There you go again with the presumptive tongue. I don't care if you read ANY documentation I've posted (and you haven't, else this discusssion would not be occurring). Life does not consist of what you "want."

For the benefit of the truth seekers, I will re-post here something relevant to the above come-lately "question."
.
.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
S4C,

I am scratching my head at your latest post.

You've been trying hard to slam dunk this thing before it even had a chance to get off the ground. I deal with this kind of "venomous" attack all the time. It's sneaky, it's unfair, it's deceptive, it's dishonest, and most people, living in fear of man, believe they cannot afford to lose their tenuous grip on the approbation of other men, so they don't even consider pursuing the truth of the matter.
How have I attacked you? What did I say that was "sneaky" or "unfair"? You are the one who is labeling translators as necromancers and scholars as taking a pay-off from publishing companies as some kind of conspiracy to undermine the KJV. I have never made a personal attack against you. I have asked for evidence for your position.

Total mischaracterization, misrepresentation, presumption! What a load of rubbish!
Is that character assassination attempt really the best you can muster?
Total mischaracterization??? Really? Ok, all me to post my summation of your arguments with your actual statements:

My summation of your arguments
"Listen to God, not men"

Your quote If you don’t seek the King, rather than the approbation of other men, you’ll never know.
You keep on looking to men, trusting men, rather than God’s word i.e. the pure inspired preserved for ever word of God
"Seek the King."

Your quote That’s between you and the King; ask him (not men!), then do what he says."
"The translators are evil"

Your quote They are unrelated; as a part of the deception package, I merely showed everyone, from the works of the perp’s themselves, what they’re all about. The point there, is men will always let you down. You want to continue trusting necromancers and spiritualists and worse, then by all means you can do that. I simply showed everyone, from the men themselves, just how wicked they are and that’s the bag you’re buying into when you seek the approbation of men rather than the truth.
They’ve exposed themselves. It’s a worldly protection racket based in vain deceit. You keep on looking to men, trusting men, rather than God’s word i.e. the pure inspired preserved for ever word of God, like he’s told us, or, you get wicked men like W & H and demon infested Philips as your mentors. Your choice.
So, how exactly have I mischaracterized or misrepresented you? I try very hard to properly represent those I am in discussion with and feel what I said properly summarized your claims to this point. So, is there some evidence here for the infallibility of the KJV that I am missing that you shared? If so, please point it out. I have been waiting. However, the only thing I have seen is a continual repetition of the above categories.

What's your game? Upsetting me enough so I'll start playing your game and thus be worthy of banning? Or are you gaming for a mere smear (damage control)?
This is what makes your position so terribly unconvincing. Here I have genuinely asked you for evidence for your position and you are accusing me of some kind of plot to get you banned or smear you. It seems you want to make everyone who disagrees with you part of a satanic plot. I have never banned anyone on this site, nor have I attacked or smeared you in any way. I have asked you to provide evidence...and evidence for the KJV does not include attacking the character of other translators. This is not an attack on you. It is simply a definition of what constitutes evidence FOR your position.

I rest my case.
You rest your case because I believe the KJV is based on less reliable manuscripts? I think that is where all the evidence points. I have half a dozen books on Greek transcripts and parchments that have been found throughout history. All of them show that the manuscript evidence used by the KJV translators was based on material that was far older and less reliable. We have found parchments that date to within 100 years of the original writers of the NT documents. I could post dozens of books, references and testimonies if you like. However, I imagine your response will be that I am listening to "men" as opposed to God. I guess if God wants to give me an audible voice that I should only read the KJV, then I would happily comply. Until then, I will follow where the evidence leads. Unless you can show me some other material that shows that the KJV is divinely inspired or is based on the actual autographs themselves, I dont know how it can be claimed to be the ONLY true Word of God. You haven't shown yourself capable of providing an answer to this point.

Life does not consist of what you "want."
For the benefit of the truth seekers, I will re-post here something relevant to the above come-lately "question."
Who said it did? I thought we were having a discussion about the reliability of the KJV...not life. Life doesn't consist of what you want either. So lets look at the evidence. I am looking forward to your relevant post.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
sojourner4Christ, with all due respect, anything that disagrees with you is branded as mischaracterization, just as was done with the usage of KJVO. I'm still uncertain of how KJV only, which is a factual descriptor can be rendered a pejorative when it accurately describes the defense of the KJV as more or less the only inspired version.

I mean at issue is that most every proponent of the KJV as the exclusive inspired version links to or quotes from the same set of videos and/or websites and attempts to "fact-dump" anyone who disagrees. Wormwood here has a background in learning the languages that outpaces most other posters in this community. There is a lot of Bible-believing scholar done on the issue that goes beyond Strong's or what 17th century translators knew at the time. In fact, we know that a significant portion of the book of Revelation was back-translated because it was not available at the time.

So thus, we fall back to the same argument that it's God's word versus man's word even though I am pretty certain men translated both the KJV and all modern versions. In fact, it's recycling the arguments somewhat, but what's so bad about it was that the charge made by Geneva Bible opponents to the KJV was that the KJV changed words and sought to remove the Geneva Bible notes which were not the most favorable in the view of the English Crown.

It was also published with the Apocrypha which I do not see you defending.
 

Aaron Lindahl

Veritatis Amans
Dec 8, 2014
141
4
0
53
Seattle, WA
Hi everyone! Just injecting a little history on English translations of Scripture here for those who are interested:

Partial translations of the Bible into languages of the English people can be traced back to the end of the 7th century, including translations into Old English and Middle English. More than 450 versions have been created over time.

Although John Wycliffe is often credited with the first translation of the Bible into English, there were, in fact, many translations of large parts of the Bible centuries before Wycliffe's work. The English Bible was first translated from the Latin Vulgate into Old English by a few select monks and scholars. Such translations were generally in the form of prose or as interlinear glosses (literal translations above the Latin words). Very few complete translations existed during that time. Rather, most of the books of the Bible existed separately and were read as individual texts. Thus, the sense of the Bible as history that often exists today did not exist at that time. Instead, an allegorical rendering of the Bible was more common and translations of the Bible often included the writer’s own commentary on passages in addition to the literal translation.

Toward the end of the 7th century, the Venerable Bede began a translation of scripture into Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon). Aldhelm (c. 639–709) translated the complete Book of Psalms and large portions of other scriptures into Old English.

In the 10th century an Old English translation of the Gospels was made in the Lindisfarne Gospels: a word-for-word gloss inserted between the lines of the Latin text by Aldred, Provost of Chester-le-Street. This is the oldest extant translation of the Gospels into the English language.

The Wessex Gospels (also known as the West-Saxon Gospels) are a full translation of the four gospels into a West Saxon dialect of Old English. Produced in approximately 990, they are the first translation of all four gospels into English without the Latin text.

In the 11th century, Abbot Ælfric translated much of the Old Testament into Old English. The Old English Hexateuch is an illuminated manuscript of the first six books of the Old Testament without lavish illustrations and including a translation of the Book of Judges in addition to the 5 books of the Pentateuch.

The Ormulum is in Middle English of the 12th century. Like its Old English precursor from Ælfric, an Abbot of Eynsham, it includes very little Biblical text, and focuses more on personal commentary. This style was adopted by many of the original English translators. For example the story of the Wedding at Cana is almost 800 lines long, but fewer than 40 lines are the actual translation of the text. An unusual characteristic is that the translation mimics Latin verse, and so is similar to the better known and appreciated 14th-century English poem, Cursor Mundi.

Richard Rolle (1290–1349) wrote an English Psalter. Many religious works are attributed to Rolle, but it has been questioned how many are genuinely from his hand. Many of his works were concerned with personal devotion, and some were used by the Lollards.

Wycliffe's Bible is the name now given to a group of Bible translations into Middle English that were made under the direction of John Wycliffe. They appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1395. These Bible translations were the chief inspiration and chief cause of the Lollard movement, a pre-Reformation movement that rejected many of the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. In the early Middle Ages, most Western Christian people encountered the Bible only in the form of oral versions of scriptures, verses and homilies in Latin (other sources were mystery plays, usually conducted in the vernacular, and popular iconography). Though relatively few people could read at this time, Wycliffe’s idea was to translate the Bible into the vernacular, saying "it helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence".

Long thought to be the work of Wycliffe himself, the Wycliffite translations are now generally believed to be the work of several hands. Nicholas of Hereford is known to have translated a part of the text; John Purvey and perhaps John Trevisa are names that have been mentioned as possible authors. The translators worked from the Vulgate, the Latin Bible that was the standard Biblical text of Western Christianity, and the text conforms fully with Catholic teaching. They included in the testaments those works which would later be called deuterocanonical by most Protestants, along with 3 Esdras which is now called 2 Esdras and Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans.

Although unauthorized, the work was popular. Wycliffite Bible texts are the most common manuscript literature in Middle English. More than 250 manuscripts of the Wycliffite Bible survive.

The Tyndale Bible generally refers to the body of biblical translations by William Tyndale. Tyndale’s Bible is credited with being the first English translation to work directly from Hebrew and Greek texts. Furthermore it was the first English biblical translation that was mass-produced as a result of new advances in the art of printing. The term Tyndale's Bible is not strictly correct, because Tyndale never published a complete Bible. Prior to his execution Tyndale had only finished translating the entire New Testament and roughly half of the Old Testament. The chain of events that led to the creation of Tyndale’s New Testament possibly began in 1522, the year Tyndale acquired a copy of Martin Luther’s German New Testament. Inspired by Luther’s work, Tyndale began a translation into English using a Greek text "compiled by Erasmus from several manuscripts older and more authoritative than the Latin Vulgate" of St. Jerome (A.D. c.340-420), the only translation authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. Tyndale made his purpose known to the Bishop of London at the time, Cuthbert Tunstall, but was refused permission to produce this "heretical" text. Thwarted in England, Tyndale moved to the continent. A partial edition was put into print in 1525 in Cologne. But before the work could be completed, Tyndale was betrayed to the authorities and forced to flee to Worms, where the first complete edition of his New Testament was published in 1526. Two revised versions were later published in 1534 and 1536, both personally revised by Tyndale himself. After his death in 1536 Tyndale’s works were revised and reprinted numerous times and are reflected in more modern versions of the Bible, including, perhaps most famously, the King James Bible.

Tyndale's Pentateuch was published at Antwerp by Merten de Keyser in 1530. His English version of the book of Jonah was published the following year. This was followed by his revised version of the book of Genesis in 1534. Tyndale translated additional Old Testament books including Joshua, Judges, first and second Samuel, first and second Kings and first and second Chronicles, but they were not published and have not survived in their original forms. When Tyndale was martyred these works came to be in the possession of one his associates John Rogers. These translations would be influential in the creation of the Matthew Bible which was published in 1537.

Tyndale used a number of sources when carrying out his translations of both the New and Old Testaments. When translating the New Testament, he referred to the third edition (1522) of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, often referred to as the Received Text. Tyndale also used Erasmus' Latin New Testament, as well as Luther’s German version and the Vulgate. Scholars believe that Tyndale stayed away from using Wycliffe's Bible as a source because he didn’t want his English to reflect that which was used prior to the Renaissance. The sources Tyndale used for his translation of the Pentateuch however are not known for sure. Scholars believe that Tyndale used either the Hebrew Pentateuch or the Polyglot Bible, and may have referred to the Septuagint. It is suspected that his other Old Testament works were translated directly from a copy of the Hebrew Bible. He also made abundant use of Greek and Hebrew grammars.

The Coverdale Bible, compiled by Myles Coverdale, published in 1535, was the first complete Modern English translation of the Bible (not just the Old Testament or New Testament), and the first complete printed translation into English (cf. Wycliffe's Bible in manuscript). The later editions (folio and quarto) published in 1539 were the first complete Bibles printed in England. The 1539 folio edition carried the royal licence and was therefore the first officially approved Bible translation in English.
Coverdale based his New Testament on Tyndale’s translation. For the Old Testament, Coverdale used Tyndale’s published Pentateuch and possibly his published Jonah. He apparently did not make use of any of Tyndale’s other, unpublished, Old Testament material (cf. Matthew Bible). Instead, Coverdale himself translated the remaining books of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. Not being a Hebrew or Greek scholar, he worked primarily from German Bibles—Luther’s Bible and the Swiss-German version (Zürich Bible) of Zwingli and Juda—and Latin sources including the Vulgate. Although Coverdale was also involved in the preparation of the Great Bible of 1539, the Coverdale Bible continued to be reprinted. The last of over 20 editions of the whole Bible or its New Testament appeared in 1553.

The Great Bible was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England. The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale, working under commission of Thomas, Lord Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. includes much from the Tyndale Bible, with the objectionable features revised. As the Tyndale Bible was incomplete, Coverdale translated the remaining books of the Old Testament and Apocrypha from the Latin Vulgate and German translations, rather than working from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it is known by several other names as well: the Cromwell Bible, since Thomas Cromwell directed its publication; Whitchurch's Bible after its first English printer; the Chained Bible, since it was chained to prevent removal from the church. It has also been termed less accurately Cranmer's Bible, since Thomas Cranmer was not responsible for the translation, and his preface first appeared in the second edition

The Geneva Bible is one of the most historically significant translations of the Bible into English, preceding the King James translation by 51 years. The first full edition of this Bible, with a further revised New Testament, appeared in 1560, but it was not printed in England until 1575 (New Testament) and 1576 (complete Bible). Over 150 editions were issued; the last probably in 1644. The very first Bible printed in Scotland was a Geneva Bible, which was first issued in 1579. In fact, the involvement of Knox and Calvin in the creation of the Geneva Bible made it especially appealing in Scotland, where a law was passed in 1579 requiring every household of sufficient means to buy a copy. Some editions from 1576 onwards included Laurence Tomson's revisions of the New Testament. Some editions from 1599 onwards used a new "Junius" version of the Book of Revelation, in which the notes were translated from a new Latin commentary by Franciscus Junius.

The Bishops' Bible is an English translation of the Bible which was produced under the authority of the established Church of England in 1568. It was substantially revised in 1572, and this revised edition was to be prescribed as the base text for the Authorized King James Version of 1611. The translators of the King James Version were instructed to take the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible as their basis, although several other existing translations were taken into account. After it was published in 1611, the King James Version soon took the Bishops' Bible's place as the de facto standard of the Church of England. Later judgments of the Bishops' Bible have not been favorable; David Daniell, in his important edition of William Tyndale's New Testament, states that the Bishops' Bible "was, and is, not loved. Where it reprints Geneva it is acceptable, but most of the original work is incompetent, both in its scholarship and its verbosity"

The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611. First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker, this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities. The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII (1535), and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568. In January 1604, King James VI and I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament. By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version had become effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English-speaking scholars.

The Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature. It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation.

He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge. To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

The KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).
 

sojourner4Christ

sojourning non-citizen
May 23, 2014
388
8
18
Wormwood and Hammerstone,

Let’s bring everyone into the same room here.

The evidence is clear that the nexus of your angst rests with my reply, my first in this thread, to ccfromsc’s post #30. For convenience, I’ve re-posted his quote here:

Was this not mostly covered in the recently closed debate on KJV Only?

For you KJV which version are you using? there were over 28 revisions to the KJV. Even today are you using the Cambridge or Oxford?
And I have re-posted a portion of my response here::

Their first attack is their attempt to preemptively pigeonhole you by pejoratively labeling you as King James Version Only which, of course, has nothing to do with the truth that ‘God has preserved his pure perfect inspired word for ever,’ that 'every word of God is pure,' and that he has 'magnified his word above his name.' Thus we do have that Holy word today. They HATE the truth that God has always provided the common man with the common Bible in the common language of the day. These Nicolaitans are 'afraid of losing both their place and their nation' i.e. their status and their stuff. So they enjoy nothing more than to make sport of your firm belief in the extant inspired word of God.
Now fast forward to the present.

Indeed, the tactic I had predicted has come to pass. That is, the ‘Scholarship-Only’ crowd pulls out the only pretext they have (because they don’t have the inspired word of God) -- the inflammatory pejorative “KJV-Only” pretext.

There is no “King James Bible Controversy.” What we are actually witnessing is the “No Perfect Bible Controversy.”

Wormwood here has a background in learning the languages that outpaces most other posters in this community. There is a lot of Bible-believing scholar done on the issue that goes beyond Strong's or what 17th century translators knew at the time. In fact, we know that a significant portion of the book of Revelation was back-translated because it was not available at the time.

So thus, we fall back to the same argument that it's God's word versus man's word even though I am pretty certain men translated both the KJV and all modern versions. In fact, it's recycling the arguments somewhat, but what's so bad about it was that the charge made by Geneva Bible opponents to the KJV was that the KJV changed words and sought to remove the Geneva Bible notes which were not the most favorable in the view of the English Crown.
Again, just more of the same agenda-driven pap -- meaningless without documentation.

It was also published with the Apocrypha which I do not see you defending.
...because you did not read the link I provided back at post #36 in this thread.

You posted, among other things, this:

...can you provide any actual evidence to show that the KJV is an infallible translation?
...which comment looked promising -- until you subsequently sabotaged yourself with this:

What I need, my dear friend, is something that represents a rational argument that somehow the KJV was dubbed by God to be an inerrant version on par with the original autographs...[underline emphasis mine]
Your statement indicates a naïveté about what the word of God itself says about “originals” and purity and inspiration and preservation. I will reprise a pertinent portion of it here...

The Starting Point:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Your decision:

You must decide whether or not you believe God has kept this promise. Did he preserve his words throughout the generations? Or did he not? That decision will lead you to one of two Bible texts.

Please answer that question.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes, God's Word has been preserved. I believe we have an accurate reflection of the autographs, even in the KJV. I think the problem, s4c, is that you can only see something as "pure" or "preserved" as a matter of exact grammar or specific words. According to this view, God must inspire a translation in EVERY language known to man if he is to be able to communicate with all peoples. So, not only do we need to determine if the KJV is a divinely inspired translation (which I don't know how someone plans to prove such a thing without some miraculous works to verify God's evidence for such a claim...other than that its just meaningless declarations someone can make about any English translation), but we need to find the equivalent in Spanish, Russian, German, etc. After all, not everyone speaks English. So, do you have such a list to show that God has been able to keep his promise, not only to English-speaking people, but to the Russians, Egyptians, Africans, etc?

Language is simply a matter of being able to accurately communicate ideas into symbols and sounds. The issue at hand is, "are the ideas that God put into the minds of his Apostles and original writers of the Scriptures accurately portrayed in modern translations?" I believe this is absolutely the case. I mean, how far are you willing to take this concept of perfection? Does perfection of a translation imply also the spacing between letters? How about the punctuation? If a comma is missing, does it cease to be "perfect"? Page numbering? How about if someone translates lithos as rock rather than stone?

The Psalm you are quoting was written during a time when copies of the Scriptures were written by hand. With all the precaution and care that was taken in copying these parchments, there was invariably a spelling error or word left out on occasion. Such a mistake did not render the book imperfect and therefore no longer God's word. You are missing the forest for the trees here. God is faithful. His Word is true and reliable. He has preserved it from generation to generation and language to language. We can clearly see that as we look at the accuracy of it throughout the ages. The same message has been proclaimed and the same message has been believed...regardless of language.