King James Version 100% pure

[ZakDar]

Hey PR, I particularly like this excerpt from that site, (I go there a lot).

"The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500’s, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600’s. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian history’s greatest books, Pilgrim’s Progress. Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years...until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611. The original “1611” preface is deceivingly included by the publishers, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to found, because that might hurt sales. The only way to obtain a true, unaltered, 1611 version is to either purchase an original pre-1769 printing of the King James Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1611 King James Bible."

Therefore, if "purity" of the Word is in question, I would consider the KJV to be much more hybrid than the Geneva Bible, or the earlier Whycliffes and Tyndales.

Gees. What a waste of an argument. Better to monitor the integrity of any new version, than to put all others down over one!!!!

I like the Amplified version!! I guess that makes me some kind of heretic, eh? I sure am glad Jesus is the Judge!!!

[Soldier4Christ]

ZakDar,

Yeah, I liked that,too.

I have a copy of the Geneva Bible and occasionally use it. The original one is a bit difficult to read for most. Harder than the current KJV. There is a new Geneva available but it is basically a translation of the current KJV.

There is a Pastor David L. Brown, Ph.D. that is currently working on a version that puts the original Geneva into modern spelling. He claims it is the exact same wording just updating the spelling of the words. He calls it the "Modern Spelling Edition of the Geneva Bible’s text".

[cris]

For anyone that is interested in learning the history of English Bibles the following is an excellant source of information. It is a little biased against the Latin Vulgate but it does explain why they consider the Latin Vulgate a corrupt source with historical evidence to prove it.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

I've been to that site, not recently, in fact, I had forgotten about it.  Read it today again just to refresh my memory.  I think I must have been there reading at the same time as ZAK.  Thanks for posting it.  It's a good site.

[brandplucked]

Hi blackeyedpeas, I will repeat some of your statements and then comment.

Among the things you say are the following: "The KJV is obviously not complete, nor is it anywhere near accurate and true to the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. The KJV was and is ONLY A TRANSLATION!"

Bep, you never identify for any of us which Hebrew and Greek texts you are referring to.  The Greek texts vary wildly among themselves, and since you do not believe ANY BIBLE OR ANY TEXT IS now the inerrant words of God, you keep entertaining us with your pious sounding, but ultimately empty, rhetoric.


Here comes your usual pious sounding baloney -"The ancient Hebrew and Greek texts are the standard for comparison, NOT THE KJV!"

Bep, WHICH Hebrew and  Greek?  You never tell us.  Also, if it is the Hebrew, then why do the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman all frequently reject the Hebrew readings?  You never answer this either.

 Now, here is a brilliant statement: "The location of the complete and perfectly preserved Word of God is also not material because it couldn't possibly be the KJV."


Bep, you are so hardened against the true Holy Bible that your faculties have become unhinged.  What a ridiculous statement you make.  You tell us "it is not material where the preserved word of God is"  (Is this your "mystical and unknown bible"?), but you personally are sure it is not the KJB.   So, you admit you don't know or even care where the true words of God are, but it is your humble opinion that it definitely is not in the King James Bible.  But of  course you never do get around to telling us where the true words of God ARE found, do you?



 
Bep, the following statement proves that you have made your own mind and understanding the Final Authority. "Every translation of the Holy Bible has strengths and weaknesses."

If you know where all the weaknesses are, then why don't you write your own bible version and set the whole thing straight for us?  You sit in judgment on all versions out there, and you decide for yourself what parts you like and what you don't, what parts are stong and what parts are weak.  You are your own final authority.

 You close with this: "Finally for this 2 cents worth: we should be spending our time preaching JESUS, the CROSS, and the Gospel of God's Grace - not arguing about translations or preaching doctrines about translations."

Bep, again may I point out the obvious?  Most Christians confess and affirm that "The Bible" is the inerrant word of God.  If it really is from God, then it cannot lie or contain errors.  But the ONLY SOURCE we have that tells us anything at all about the Lord Jesus Christ, the cross, and His redemptive work, is The Bible.  But what do we have today in "the Bible"?  We have over 100 versions in English alone, and none of them agrees 100% with any other out there, and they are getting worse.

The NIV omits literally thousands of words from its texts.  The NIV teaches that the Son of God has origins and there was a day before which God was not His Father. The NIV frequently rejects all Hebrew texts and makes up its own readings.

The NASB teaches that God can be deceived (See Psalm 78:36) and that there are two Gods (See John 1:18).  The NASB also frequently rejects the Hebrew readings, and differs from the NKJV in thousands of words in the New Testament alone.

Yet, somehow  we are supposed to believe that all these multiple-choice, conflicting, and textually different "bibles" are the true words of God.  This god of yours appears to be really confused.  

If we have no infallible Book, and all have weaknesses and errors, and different texts, then how does anyone know that what it says about Christ and the cross are in any way true or not?  At what point does God begin to tell the truth?

Didn't God promise to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth?  If He lied about this, then what else did He lie about?

The bottom line is that you yourself do not believe The Bible (any Bible or any text in any language) IS the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.

Get all upset about this if you want, but it is the unvarnished truth of where you now stand.  You NEVER ONCE identify for us WHERE we can get ourselves a copy of the inerrant and wholly true words of God.  That's because you don't believe such a thing exists and "it is immaterial" to you.

Have it your way, Bep.  Go for it.  God will hand you over to the logical outcome of your present way of thinking.

Have a nice trip.

Will K

[ollie]

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/

"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."

How could a computer prove such. Did God program it?
A computer can only analyze to the extent of its inputed information. It is only as good as what man programs into it and man is capable of error. Even more so when feeding in "billions, multi billions of information".

It is faith upon hearing the word of God and being pricked in the heart by its power to act upon that faith that proves it is of God. That my friend can come from most translations.

Psalms 12:6-7

That power is in Jesus the Christ and the gift that God gives through Him to the world through believing.

ollie

[Soldier4Christ]

gotcha104,

First of all you need to cool down your rhetoric. It is taking on a very condesending, accusatory stance.

Second. I compared the writings of the KJV to verses you mention in the NASB.

NASB

 36But they (A)deceived Him with their mouth
         And (B)lied to Him with their tongue.

KJV

Psa 78:36  Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.

What do you think the word "flatter" means? It does not mean the same today as it did when the KJV was written. It means to deceive. Again it shows that you do not understand the language that the KJV was written in. It is explained in the adjoining verses that they did not succeed in deceiveing God, but that it was an attempt to deceive Him.

NASB

18(A)No one has seen God at any time; (B)the only begotten God who is (C)in the bosom of the Father, (D)He has explained Him.

KJV

Joh 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The only way that you can consider that this is talking about two Gods is that you do not believe that Jesus Christ is also God.

Your arguments are very weak and show a lack of comprehension of written words which is the case in most people that continue such arguments.

Didn't God promise to preserve His words in a Book here on this earth?

Where did God say that He promised to preserve His word in a "book here on this earth"? I know your answer will be in the following verses:

Psa 12:6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Rev 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


These are the verses that most KJV onlyists use to subtantiate their belief. First of all the verse in Psalms does not say anything about a book. It says that Gods word will be preserved and it has.

2Co 3:3  Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.


The verse in Revelations was talking about the book of revelations because the Holy Bible was not a book yet.

[ollie]

What do some of the men behind these modern versions actually believe about the Bible itself? I'm not talking about their character or their doctrinal stance on "the fundamentals", but what they actually believe about the Scriptures they are forming and translating into the modern versions.

The beliefs of Westcott and Hort have been well documented, so I will only mention in passing that never once did either of these men profess a faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God.

Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament criticism, March 4, 1890: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history ... I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did" (Westcott, Life of Westcott, II:69).

What about some of the men who are alive today and are responsible for the modern bible versions? Bruce Metzger is one of the chief editors of the Greek text of the United Bible Society, which is the basis for such versions as the NASB, NIV, Holman Christian Standard, and the ESV. What are his views of the Bible itself?

Bruce Metzger wrote the introductions to each of the books of the Reader's Digest Bible, and questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, and Peter. Consider some examples:

Genesis: "Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses."

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus: "Judging by differences in style and vocabulary from Paul's other letters, many modern scholars think that the Pastorals were not written by Paul."

1 Peter: "According to tradition, the apostle Peter wrote the letter from Rome, perhaps after the outbreak of persecution by the emperor Nero in A.D. 64. But this is questioned by some modern scholars, who prefer to date the letter nearer A.D. 100, with authorship unknown"

2 Peter: "Because the author refers to the letters of Paul as 'scripture,' a term apparently not applied to them until long after Paul's death, most modern scholars think that this letter was drawn up in Peter's name sometime between A.D. 100 and 150."

Bruce Metzger co-edited the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973), with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as the Oxford Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the Bible to be approved by a Roman authority. Mr. Metzger wrote many of the notes in this volume and put his editorial stamp of approval on the rest. Consider the folowing from the notes to this version:

NOTES ON GENESIS:

"Genesis 2.4b-3.24 ... is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2,4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman. ... 7:16b: The Lord shut him in, a note from the early tradition, which delights in anthropomorphic touches. 7:18-20: The waters covered all the high mountains, thus threatening a confluence of the upper and lower waters (1.6). Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local inundations, e.g. in the Tigris-Euphrates basin."

NOTES ON JOB:

"The ANCIENT FOLKTALE of a patient Job circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)."

NOTES ON JONAH:

"The book is didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of POPULAR LEGEND and put it to a new, more consequential use."

Notes from "How to read the Bible with Understanding":

"The opening chapters of the Old Testament deal with human origins. They ARE NOT TO BE READ AS HISTORY... These chapters are followed by the stories of the patriarchs, though THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS STRICTLY HISTORICAL. ... it is not for history but for religion that they are preserved ... When we come to the books of Samuel and Kings ... Not all in these books is of the same historical value, and especially in the stories of Elijah and Elisha there are LEGENDARY ELEMENTS ... We should always remember the variety of literary forms found in the Bible, and should read a passage in the light of its own particular literary character. Legend should be read as legend, and poetry as poetry, and NOT WITH A DULL, PROSAIC AND LITERALISTIC MIND."

Gleason "scribal error" Archer is one of the Hebrew scholars who worked on both the NASB and the NIV translations. He reveals a great deal about his own personal beliefs regarding the Bible itself in his book titled Bible Difficulties. This book is highly recommended by Hank Hannegraff.

Mr. Archer's book is full of statements such as these: "the Masoretic text has lost the number that must have been included in the original manuscript." (p.171); "the eye of the Hebrew scribe unfortunately jumped passing over 26 Hebrew words in between, but the LXX supplies us with all the missing words" (p. 40); "a word has been lost in the received Hebrew text. Sometimes this omission occurred before the third century B.C., and so not even the LXX can retrieve it for us" (p. 40); "probably a scribal error"; "in the course of transmission the notation was miscopied. The accurate preservation of statistics is notoriously difficult, and 1 Samuel has more than its share of textual errors." (p.173).

Mr. Archer recommends several "lost readings", including whole verses, that not even the NIV or the NASB adopt, but they are found in the more liberal RSV. All of these versions, the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV depart scores of times from the Hebrew texts and often not even in the same places as the others.

In the Scofield edition of the NIV we read these faith destroying words in a footnote at 1 Chronicles 11:11. "mistakes in numbers sometimes occur. Many disagreements between numbers in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are alleged. Actually, out of the approximately 150 instances of parallel numbers, fewer than one-sixth disagree...God gave us a Bible free from error in the original manuscripts. In its preservation, He providentially kept is from SERIOUS ERROR, although He permitted a few scribal mistakes...Some say that Chronicles has exaggerated numbers so as to enhance the reputation of ancient Israel."

Notice these words from the NEW KJV 1982 on page 1235: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

These footnotes in the NKJV generally have to do with the 3000 -5000 words that have been omitted from the New Testament in such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV. The NKJV editors are of the opinion that THE AVERAGE READER can DELETE something he FEELS is not part of the text.


Can't you see where this whole thing is headed?

None of you believe The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant words of God.  

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

Will K

"None of you believe The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant words of God."

Why?

ollie

[Sammi]

WOW!! gotcha104, I can't believe you just told Blackeyedpeas to go to Hell. I have absolutely no respect for you.

[Soldier4Christ]

WOW!! gotcha104, I can't believe you just told Blackeyedpeas to go to Hell. I have absolutely no respect for you.

I'm afraid I missed that implication. gotcha104, I suggest that you re-evaluate your own position and statements before you are judged accordingly by God.

Again this thread is locked and may stay that way.

[Shammu]

WOW!! gotcha104, I can't believe you just told Blackeyedpeas to go to Hell. I have absolutely no respect for you.

I'm afraid I missed that implication. gotcha104, I suggest that you re-evaluate your own position and statements before you are judged accordingly by God.

Again this thread is locked and may stay that way.

Right at the bottom, brother Roger. He posted at: Today at 02:43:35pm Aug 3 2005.

Have it your way, Bep.  Go for it.  God will hand you over to the logical outcome of your present way of thinking.

Have a nice trip.

Will K

I caught it, this is one of the reasons I locked the thread, in the first place. I think it should stay locked, permantly.

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

Psalm 10:6 He thinks in his heart, I shall not be moved; for throughout all generations I shall not come to want or be in adversity.

[Soldier4Christ]

DW,

I saw it but not until it was pointed out to me. That is why I locked this thread down again.