KJV The Pure Word of God?

[reformed1689]

I have a question for the KJVO crowd. If the KJV is the "pure word of God" what was the pure word of God before the KJV? Please give us a timeline from 50AD to 1611AD what the pure word of God was in detail with support.

Thanks.

 

[reformed1689]

Wow no takers? @Truther

 

[Jim B]

I have a question for the KJVO crowd. If the KJV is the "pure word of God" what was the pure word of God before the KJV? Please give us a timeline from 50AD to 1611AD what the pure word of God was in detail with support.

Thanks.

There is no "pure word of God" in English (or in any other language other than the originals). a) The originals don't exist (or have never been found). The earliest texts are copies and, because they were created by humans, differ from each other, sometimes significantly. b) It is impossible for several reasons -- meaning of words, verb tenses, idioms, etc. -- to create a perfect translation into the destination language.

Translation is (and always has been) the work of fallible people. There is no reason to doubt that they try their best to give us the best results possible in our language, but there will never be a perfect translation from the sources to the destination language. Modern translations (almost without exception) try to give us the best rendition of the words and meaning of the earliest and best sources, derived from multiple sources that are carefully examined and compared with each other. Claims that they are based solely on The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, including the latest version are nonsense, as are claims that they promote the ideas of the Catholic church.

Regarding the King James translation, it was created for a specific purpose: to "correct" the work of earlier translators so that the result would be to glorify a secular monarch and codify his personal brand of Christianity. In other words, "what King James says is the pure truth". It's laughable that some people see his personal opinion of what the Bible should say as being God's truth. King James never was God (although he liked to think of himself in that manner).

 

[Enoch111]

I have a question for the KJVO crowd. If the KJV is the "pure word of God" what was the pure word of God before the KJV? Please give us a timeline from 50AD to 1611AD what the pure word of God was in detail with support.

The pure Word of God was maintained in the traditional Hebrew Masoretic and Greek "Received" texts of the Bible. After the invention of printing in the 15th century, both texts were available in printed form. The Hebrew text was contained in the Great Rabbinic Bible (based on the Leningrad Codex) printed in 1524-25, and the Received Text was the printed 5th edition of the 1550 Greek text of Stephanus (called the Textus Receptus) based upon at least 30 manuscripts. Keeping in mind that these two traditional texts faithfully represent all the extant manuscripts (as far as those which have been collated), we can say with confidence that the King James Bible is based upon the pure Word of God as found in the original languages. That the Hebrew text goes all the way back to Moses is supported by the extreme care of the Jewish scribes in making copies of copies. That the Received Text goes all the way back to the apostles is seen in the general agreement of the majority of Greek manuscripts (including the Lectionaries which go back to the beginning of the Greek Orthodox Church). Therefore the Byzantine text and the Received Text are almost identical.

 

[Jim B]

Wow no takers? @Truther

I don't think you'll get any of the KJVO crowd to admit that there was a pure word of God before the KJV, or after for that matter. They actually believe that their King James version is the only pure, infallible translation and will never admit that it was created for one purpose: to justify the power of a secular king. It isn't a pure translation, it's a political tool.

 

[quietthinker]

I have a question for the KJVO crowd. If the KJV is the "pure word of God" what was the pure word of God before the KJV? Please give us a timeline from 50AD to 1611AD what the pure word of God was in detail with support.

Thanks.

ohhhh, that was the OVJK, Only Voice Jesus Knew

 

[Truther]

I have a question for the KJVO crowd. If the KJV is the "pure word of God" what was the pure word of God before the KJV? Please give us a timeline from 50AD to 1611AD what the pure word of God was in detail with support.

Thanks.

Just saw this.

The pure word of God was original manuscripts that were copied by skilled copyists over the centuries as the originals disintegrated. They are now copies and copies of copies.

 

[reformed1689]

Just saw this.

The pure word of God was original manuscripts that were copied by skilled copyists over the centuries as the originals disintegrated. They are now copies and copies of copies.

So which copies are pure and WHY?

 

[Enoch111]

So which copies are pure and WHY?

The majority of copies are pure, and the reason "why" is because God watches over His Word, and has preserved it in thousands of copies over hundreds of years through faithful scribes.

 

[Truther]

So which copies are pure and WHY?

The ancient manuscripts that neither of us have access to are purely copied, or rejected as needed.

Because they did not have a copier back in those days.

 

[Bob Estey]

I have a question for the KJVO crowd. If the KJV is the "pure word of God" what was the pure word of God before the KJV? Please give us a timeline from 50AD to 1611AD what the pure word of God was in detail with support.

Thanks.

I'm wondering what would lead someone to believe that this particular translation is the one, and only, pure word of God. My memory is foggy, but I believe translations preceded this one, and many have come since.

 

[Truther]

I'm wondering what would lead someone to believe that this particular translation is the one, and only, pure word of God. My memory is foggy, but I believe translations preceded this one, and many have come since.

It was special because of the election process via 50 ancient translators.

 

[Bob Estey]

It was special because of the election process via 50 ancient translators.

How many translators does it take to make a perfect Bible?

 

[Truther]

How many translators does it take to make a perfect Bible?

More than the modern bibles used.

If I had a PHD, would you trust me to make you a perfect translation?

If not, who is your favorite modern translator?

 

[Bob Estey]

More than the modern bibles used.

If I had a PHD, would you trust me to make you a perfect translation?

If not, who is your favorite modern translator?

Question #1: We can't understand God till we obey him and see the results of our obedience. Therefore, your PHD wouldn't impress me unless I knew you obeyed God.

Question #2: I have little knowledge regarding which translations are the best. I would prefer those that translate word for word to those who might interpret while they translate. I still use my (old) Revised Standard Version, the version I was given as a child in my church.

 

[Truther]

Question #1: We can't understand God till we obey him and see the results of our obedience. Therefore, your PHD wouldn't impress me unless I knew you obeyed God.

Question #2: I have little knowledge regarding which translations are the best. I would prefer those that translate word for word to those who might interpret while they translate. I still use my (old) Revised Standard Version, the version I was given as a child in my church.

I only use the KJV for reading and teaching. It was translated in ancient times before all the Greek "redefinitions" came along to slice up the Bible's meaning into bite sized segments. It stood alone for 300 years, then along came "you know who" to create hundreds of translations to stump mankind into doubting God's pure word for the last days.
Now, nobody believes they possess God's pure word.

The enemy is crafty.

 

[Bob Estey]

I only use the KJV for reading and teaching. It was translated in ancient times before all the Greek "redefinitions" came along to slice up the Bible's meaning into bite sized segments. It stood alone for 300 years, then along came "you know who" to create hundreds of translations to stump mankind into doubting God's pure word for the last days.
Now, nobody believes they possess God's pure word.

The enemy is crafty.

The problem with the KJV is that over the centuries, the definition of words change. I will still refer to the KJV sometimes, because I do have great respect for it, but generally I prefer a Bible using today's English.

 

[Truther]

The problem with the KJV is that over the centuries, the definition of words change. I will still refer to the KJV sometimes, because I do have great respect for it, but generally I prefer a Bible using today's English.

I was saved at 18 years old in 1979, and never had a problem understanding the KJV.

I did not need modernists to define "thee" etc to me.

Since then, I have never met a student of mine that could not understand it either.

I think folks that go around saying it is too hard to read are just blowin smoke(making excuses for promoting multiversionism).

Hey, why let the homosexuals steal the word, "gay" from us anyway?

We can correct the modernists, rather than have modernists fix our Bibles.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

If the KJV is the "pure word of God" what was the pure word of God before the KJV?

It was in other faithful translations that followed the faithful underlying uncorrupted text.

 

[Jim B]

It was in other faithful translations that followed the faithful underlying uncorrupted text.

Where does one find "the faithful underlying uncorrupted text"? Since the originals don't exist and the copies differ from each other, your statment is without merit.