King James Version 100% pure

[PeterAV]

I was at another board,and some one show us the latest computer work done on the Bible Manuscripts.It took in muli-billions and billions of information.The result was that the King James Holy Bible is not 99.999999999999999% pure, but that indeed it is 100% pure.It passed the complicated computer analysis,with its reams of material to digest,and proved that the King James is the very words of God.
The site also showed that the scholarship level is steadily declining ever since 1611.
It reminds me of the prophecy in Daniel 12:4b ..even to the time of the end:many shall run to and fro,and knowledge shall be increased.
Even with all of the extra knowledge available we still fall short.I believe it has to do with faith in the BOOK.
 It reminds me of what the Bible says in II Tim 3;Ever learning,and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.That is because so many don't mix their learning with faith.Faith in God and his precious words.They would prefer to be a Bible critic.
But the simple Bible believer knows the truth of the matter,they know that
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect,throughly furnished unto all good works.II Tim 3:16,17.The site is at...
  http://biblicaltextualcalculus.com/

[AVBunyan]

Thanks Peter for your support ofthe AV - your type is rare and rapidly going off the scene - stay at it.

The AV we have in our hands today is perfect down to the italicized words - a lot of comfort in that!

God bless

[Allinall]

Thanks Peter for your support ofthe AV - your type is rare and rapidly going off the scene - stay at it.

The AV we have in our hands today is perfect down to the italicized words - a lot of comfort in that!

God bless

Except for the transliteration and mistranslation...

[joelkaki]

Honestly, I don't see how any computer test is going to decide something like that.  That is not really dealing with the issue.  

If you say that even the italicized words are inspired, then you are  saying that the KJV is more important than the original languages that the Bible was written in.  

In the margins of the 1611 KJV, there is a not that says Luke 17:36 was not in the majority of the manuscripts.  Which is right?  The margin, or the text?

In the preface to the 1611, the translators said that a variety of translations is necessary to make the proper sense of the words.

Joel

[elias3013]

I have found the AKJV to be the most accurate translation in existance today.

It could have been very close to a perfect translation of the original scriptures if the 1611 translators would have left their theology and the opinions of the church leaders in their day out of the work.

Too many times they added words for clarity that opened the door for poor interpretations to exist.

Thus we have hundreds if not thousands of different beliefs existing today because of poor interpretations that have developed many different doctrines adopted by the different churches.

That's the way I see it anyway.

Blessings

[AVBunyan]

1. Honestly, I don't see how any computer test is going to decide something like that.

2. If you say that even the italicized words are inspired, then you are  saying that the KJV is more important than the original languages that the Bible was written in.  

3. In the margins of the 1611 KJV, there is a not that says Luke 17:36 was not in the majority of the manuscripts.  Which is right?  The margin, or the text?

4. In the preface to the 1611, the translators said that a variety of translations is necessary to make the proper sense of the words.

Joel

Hi Joel

1. I agree but I still like the findings though?

2. Not more important but where do the scriptures say only the originals are inspired - I just posted an article on the originals.

3. This is easy - the text.  

4. Again, don't really care what they translators said - they have their opinions though but the issue is not what they said or hinted at but what God had them put down.

God bless

[joelkaki]

Hi Joel

1. I agree but I still like the findings though?

I'm sorry, but I highly doubt that those foundings really have any significance at all, particularly since I imagine it came from a very biased source.  Computer findings are really not the issue.

2. Not more important but where do the scriptures say only the originals are inspired - I just posted an article on the originals.

The originals were the Word of God which He gave to His people.  I don't think that point can be disputed.  I responded to your other article over there.

3. This is easy - the text.

Ok, so then the work of the translators was not inspired or directed by God?

4. Again, don't really care what they translators said - they have their opinions though but the issue is not what they said or hinted at but what God had them put down.

God bless

You have not proven in any way that what "God had them put down" is better than what "God had the ESV translators" put down.

Disclaimer:  I am not in favor of all new translations, some are wretched.  Nor I am simply wishing to bash the KJV.  Many people have been saved from it.  It has been used by God for many years.  But neither is it the only valid translation.

Joel

[Marcion]

I don't think any translation is pure, because there have been so much editing, altering, and re-editing to fit the views of the Catholic church. There are alot of Trinitarian alterations in the Gospels; I think they were just put in there to combat "heretical" views.  I believe we should just go with what the Holy Spirit discerns for us in each and every Biblical passage.  The essence is still there, because Christ would never forsake our yearning for spiritual knowledge, especially coming from him.

[jgarden]

If you read the interpreters notes at the beginning, no Bible claims to be divinely inspired and all have their mistakes and limitations.  Unless the computer has the original, what is there to compare it with?  Some JKV advocates believe other Biblical interpretations as Satanic.

"I further believe that Satan, counterfeiting every possible phase of God’s work he possibly can, will produce his counterfeit ecumenical Bible. It appears entirely possible that the NIV or a successor to it, founded upon it, may accomplish that objective. A false Christ will lead humanity into a false faith, based upon a false text acceptable to all, but with a distinctly evangelical face, in order to deceive the last holdout against the ‘New World Order’—the professing conservative ‘evangelical’ or fundamentalist Christian.}"

[Bronzesnake]

If you read the interpreters notes at the beginning, no Bible claims to be divinely inspired and all have their mistakes and limitations.  Unless the computer has the original, what is there to compare it with?  Some JKV advocates believe other Biblical interpretations as Satanic.

"I further believe that Satan, counterfeiting every possible phase of God’s work he possibly can, will produce his counterfeit ecumenical Bible. It appears entirely possible that the NIV or a successor to it, founded upon it, may accomplish that objective. A false Christ will lead humanity into a false faith, based upon a false text acceptable to all, but with a distinctly evangelical face, in order to deceive the last holdout against the ‘New World Order’—the professing conservative ‘evangelical’ or fundamentalist Christian.}"

 Here you go again. Please give examples of these satanic counterfeits in the KJV and NIV Bibles. Also, if you're going to knock these Bibles you really should tell us which Bible you read. Could it be the NWT?

 References to inspiration in the Bible:
In the Gospel of John, Jesus is recorded as referring to scripture as being fixed -- presumably because it comes from God:

John 10:35 "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken..." (KJV)

The Book of Acts refers to God speaking through the mouth of David:

Acts 4:24-25: "...Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?"
(KJV)

Paul describes the process of inspiration by the Holy Spirit in one of his Epistles:

1 Corinthians 2:9-13: "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: ...Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (KJV)

Paul refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as the "word of God," not of men:

1 Thesalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
(KJV)

A key proof text used by conservative Christians to support their belief in inspiration is in one of the Pastoral Epistles. It states that all of the Scriptures are "theopneustos" in the original Greek -- "breathed out by God:"

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV).

A second popular verse which supports the concept of inspiration is in one of the General Epistles:

2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)"

I believe the KJV is the most accurate Bible there is. The NIV has some very minor problems, though not major in my opinion - certainly nothing that changes any Biblical doctrine, and it certainly doesn't rise up to the level of satanic counterfeit. Holy exaggeration Batman!  

Bronzesnake

[Saved_4ever]

 

[AVBunyan]

The NIV has some very minor problems, though not major in my opinion - certainly nothing that changes any Biblical doctrine, and it certainly doesn't rise up to the level of satanic counterfeit. Holy exaggeration Batman!  :DBronzesnake

Minor problems??? No doctrinal changes??? How about this "minor" change from the NIV:

Micah 5:2  "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

Jesus had origins???  Ii thought Christ had no origins.

God bless

[M]

I wonder if Christians who speak languages other than English have the same problem with different translations of the Bible.  

I honestly would love to learn biblical Hebrew and Greek.  I think I would get some much more out of scripture more quickly.  Right now I have to look up each word separately in Strong's concordance and then look for the Hebrew or Greek.  It takes a long time but it really helps me understand the scriptures better.  

I don't understand why anyone can get so obsessed with the King James version?  I don't use it because I can't understand the Shapespearean English language used in it.  I am truly thankful that someone decided that the Bible should be translated into all languages so that everyone can read and understand the Word of God in their own written language.

[Bronzesnake]

The NIV has some very minor problems, though not major in my opinion - certainly nothing that changes any Biblical doctrine, and it certainly doesn't rise up to the level of satanic counterfeit. Holy exaggeration Batman!  :DBronzesnake

Minor problems??? No doctrinal changes??? How about this "minor" change from the NIV:

Micah 5:2  "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

Jesus had origins???  Ii thought Christ had no origins.

God bless

Typical - take one verse and use it out of context. This leaves the impression that the NIV depicts Jesus as a created being and not God. If you actually read the entire book, you'll come to the exact opposite conclusion.

 Like I said. It does have minor problems, but it does not change any biblical doctrine. This version does recognise Jesus as God in the flesh, so it can not be construed as an evil, deceitful version as you are making it out to be. I can find translation problems in any Biblical translation

 If we're going to approach any book as mindless zombies, then we'll fall into these traps. God gave us brains so we would actually use them.

 Save your condemnation and accusations of false, evil doctrines for the real deals such as the NWT - the Book of Mormon - Christian Science etc. You're doing more harm than good.

Bronzesnake

[Saved_4ever]

I wonder if Christians who speak languages other than English have the same problem with different translations of the Bible.  

I honestly would love to learn biblical Hebrew and Greek.  I think I would get some much more out of scripture more quickly.  Right now I have to look up each word separately in Strong's concordance and then look for the Hebrew or Greek.  It takes a long time but it really helps me understand the scriptures better.  

I don't understand why anyone can get so obsessed with the King James version?  I don't use it because I can't understand the Shapespearean English language used in it.  I am truly thankful that someone decided that the Bible should be translated into all languages so that everyone can read and understand the Word of God in their own written language.

It is far from Shakespearean english.  Shakespear's style is older than the KJV and "harder" to understand.  It takes but a little time to get used to and is much more acurate than current English which is not as direct and definate.  Like anything worth learning take some time to understand God's word.  There's nothing more important to learn.

If you were unfamiliar with terms and understanding a vocation or such you would take time to learn that.  How much harder is it to take time to understand and learn old English?