Is the KJV inaccurate/should it be treated as legitimate?

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
stan1953 said:
Well based on the Greek and Persian loanwords that date from the mid 6th century BC and the use of the word "Chaldean" plus the fact that the main language used was Aramaic of the 6th century BC, I would have to disagree whole heartily that it was written 400 years after it occurred. I'll stick with the 6th century dating thanks. This is the most recent and accepted historical view.

:cool:

I'm not sure what "most recent and accepted" means.

I'll go with the later dating view with, say, John Goldingay. This thread doesn't need a tangential debate on the point.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,428
26,868
Pacific Northwest
✟731,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I don't care if the apostle Paul was his uncle or father - historical evidence shows he doubted the fundamentals of the faith including the deity of Christ. He may have been a brilliant man but so was Einstein and he died and went to hell with all his knowledge.

False. Origen did not deny the Deity of Christ.

"...of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father." - Origen's Commentary on John, Book II.2

Where Origen's Christology has been called into question is not in regard to the Deity of the Son, but in that he has been seen to teach a form of Subordinatism. However insofar as he says that the Son/Logos is God, and God not of Himself but God of His Father, eternal and uncreated he is in agreement with Christological orthodoxy which asserts that the Son is eternally generated of the Father, without beginning, of the same substance with the Father, and is therefore God of God; having His Deity from the Father being Himself of and in the Father--again, without beginning, eternal and from everlasting.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

WinBySurrender

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2011
3,670
155
.
✟4,924.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
If one even imagines that Daniel was written in the 6th century and not the mid 2nd.
Not hard to imagine a fact. It was written in the 6th century. Just because you find it difficult to believe that Daniel could prophecy so precisely what became history is no reason for the rest of us to not accept it as God's wisdom, glory and power.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
WinBySurrender said:
Not hard to imagine a fact.
Some facts are very hard to imagine. Some falsehoods very easy.

It was written in the 6th century.
So you say.

Just because you find it difficult to believe that Daniel could prophecy so precisely what became history is no reason for the rest of us to not accept it as God's wisdom, glory and power.
Interesting what you presume my reasons are.

I dare say God could have done a lot of things.

Giving people detailed historical prediction of the far future that are useless to them is not usually one of them.
 
Upvote 0

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
I'm not sure what "most recent and accepted" means.

I'll go with the later dating view with, say, John Goldingay. This thread doesn't need a tangential debate on the point.

Then why bother commenting in the first place?

:cool:
 
Upvote 0

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
Just to make clear that the dating of Daniel is not a settled question.

Right, so hence my response. If you notice I never said when it was written, I said when it happened. You brought up when it was written and I replied.

:cool:
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Thanks for the time you put in to your response.

1. Dr. Reagan in his book on the revisions covers these "changes"
The Modern King James Bible - Many others documented these "changes" also.

The authorized edition of the English Bible (1611) : its subsequent reprints and modern representatives (1884) by FREDERICK HENRY AMBROSE SCRIVENER documents some of them.

2. Just google "doctrinal changes in the modern versions" or similar wording and there is enough on this subject to keep one bus for months. Mic. 5:2 is enough for me to toss any modern version out.

I wouldn't consider a variant reading (or omission which might be in the translator notes for example) which might effect a doctrine in one place, while at the same time the doctrine is clearly expressed in other places as a "doctrinal change". I wouldn't toss out the baby with the bathwater. IOW, one "bad" modern English translation doesn't spoil the whole bunch. The translation philosophy of translators has a great deal to do with the quality of a translation. Personally, I prefer a "mostly literal" translation to translations where the translators are liberally seeking to express the meaning of a text in words a modern reader can better understand and at lower reading levels.

3. What is so great about being a "textual critic" - what are saints doing critiquing the bible any way?

Let me first say that I do believe in Biblical inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Second let my say that inerrancy applies only to the original autographs. God never promised perfect extant copies, nor translations of the copies. Now, more to the question, let's say you are Origen and you can read and write in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Now, let's say in front of you are two manuscripts both in Greek, both are copies of the Gospel of John. After reading them both, you observe slight differences between them, in other words they're not identical. In making note of this, you've performed the task of textual criticism. You didn't throw one out assuming foul play and you didn't assume one to exactly represent the original autographa, you merely brought to attention whatever discrepancies, copyist error or whatnot. Unless you had a known original autograph in front of you, you would not have a choice but to do textual criticism. The field of "lower" textual criticism has ever been the friend of Biblical inerrancy. It is the modern so-called "higher criticism" which has come from the enemy of the faith, casting doubt upon Scripture and spreading seeds of doubt even if it were possible to the Saints of God.

Who considers Origen the greatest biblical scholar? - other bible critics who don't believe the bible?

Not the greatest, but greatest of the Early Church, and after Jerome. I do not know the basis, the writer of the article formed that statement, perhaps because of the shortage of textual critics during that time? Or perhaps the writer of the article has some kind of denominational bias? I do not know, but I do know Protestants should not reject the writings of Catholics simply because they are Catholic, or not consider the importance of the Early Church Fathers. Protestantism does not entail total rejection of Catholocism. In fact we agree on the essentials, such as the Trinity, which the Early Church Fathers explained, expounded, and defended against the early heretics. If I said Origen is the greatest biblical scholar of the Early Church does that make me a Catholic or no longer an inerrantist? It shouldn't because I am not a Catholic and I am an inerrantist, even if it's not popular.

Liberal scholars pat each other on the back all the time. As I mentioned before Einstein and Thomas Jefferson were both brilliant men but died and went to hell with all their worldly knowledge.

Perhaps it is not your intention, but I do not think it is wise or healthy to boast of the condemnation of others. Also, much can be learned, even from unregenerate sinners who suppress the truth of God. The great revivalist Johnathan Edwards is considered by many to be one of the most brilliant men throughout the history of America, and lived and died a Christian. I say these things because what you said can be taken as a broadbrush "liberals are all going to hell" and as an insult to the notion of a Christian intellectual. Reality is this, neither liberalism nor conservative has the power to save a soul, Christ alone can save souls. Also, for every liberal scholar, there are conservative scholars, and it would be wrong (even deceptive) to lump conservative scholars who are not KJV-Onlyists or do not support that position with liberals.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AVBunyan

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2003
1,131
74
70
Visit site
✟17,676.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Second let my say that inerrancy applies only to the original autographs.
1. Can you show from scripture that only the originals can be inspired?

2. Let's' take it another step shall we? We all take it for granted that the originals were inspried but can you even prove that from scripture? Show me a verse that clearly states the originals were insprired.

Regarding your statement we can't throw out the baby with the bath water - The fact that a fundalmental doctrine is in place in one verse doesn't mean it is ok to attack it in another. I use Mic. 5:2 as my example because in Mic. 5:2 in all the newer versions the eternality of Christ is attacked by changing from everlasting to ancient of days (or something to that affect). My friend -that change may be acceptable to you becasue in other places it is not attacked still leaves one with conflicts and error and an attack on Christ is still an attack regardless how subtle.

The first thing the devil said in scripture was, "Yea, hath God said?" He questioned what God had said. The common saint never used to question the word of God but in the last 100 years or so since 1881 the word of God has been questioned by more than just the intellectual bible critic. Now with the introduction of all these newer versions the average saint doesn't know what to believe.

Regarding Origen - I've read to much about his beliefs to believe he was even a regenerated man.

God bless :wave:
 
Upvote 0

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
1. Can you show from scripture that only the originals can be inspired?

2. Let's' take it another step shall we? We all take it for granted that the originals were inspried but can you even prove that from scripture? Show me a verse that clearly states the originals were insprired.

Regarding your statement we can't throw out the baby with the bath water - The fact that a fundalmental doctrine is in place in one verse doesn't mean it is ok to attack it in another. I use Mic. 5:2 as my example because in Mic. 5:2 in all the newer versions the eternality of Christ is attacked by changing from everlasting to ancient of days (or something to that affect). My friend -that change may be acceptable to you becasue in other places it is not attacked still leaves one with conflicts and error and an attack on Christ is still an attack regardless how subtle.

The first thing the devil said in scripture was, "Yea, hath God said?" He questioned what God had said. The common saint never used to question the word of God but in the last 100 years or so since 1881 the word of God has been questioned by more than just the intellectual bible critic. Now with the introduction of all these newer versions the average saint doesn't know what to believe.

Regarding Origen - I've read to much about his beliefs to believe he was even a regenerated man.

God bless :wave:

Hello!

I am a common and average saint. I KNOW what I believe and I think it is the best thing that has ever happened to EXEGESIS, that all the tools we have today are available to us common folk!
What had happened for MANY years was that preachers and priests TOLD the common people what the Bible said, instead of people "studying to show THEMSELVES approved." If it's a one-on-one relationship with Jesus, don't you think we should have a one-on-one relationship with His Word?
What is greatly required in the body these days, is humility and a REAL hunger for the Truth of His Word.

:cool:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
35
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟23,842.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The first thing the devil said in scripture was, "Yea, hath God said?" He questioned what God had said. The common saint never used to question the word of God but in the last 100 years or so since 1881 the word of God has been questioned by more than just the intellectual bible critic. Now with the introduction of all these newer versions the average saint doesn't know what to believe.

I'm pretty positive that the average saint does know what to believe, you give them too little credit, probably in much the same way that I did when talking about 17th Century English and the average saint.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
1. Can you show from scripture that only the originals can be inspired?

Inspiration and inerrancy are two different concepts derived from Scripture. The problem with your question is you seem to want internal evidence to prove something externally. IOW, the doctrine of inspiration is based on internal evidence. Let me throw the ball back in your court and ask by the same token, can you show from Scripture that anything more than the originals can be inspired? You'll have to argue externally and say that God inspired only the copiests of the Byzantine texts and further all the translators behind the translation from original languages into English.

2. Let's' take it another step shall we? We all take it for granted that the originals were inspried but can you even prove that from scripture? Show me a verse that clearly states the originals were insprired.

Sure, there is plenty of internal evidence to support inspiration and inerrancy, I will quote a few..

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. – NKJV

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. – NKJV

Isaiah 40:7 The grass withers, the flower fades, Because the breath of the LORD blows upon it; Surely the people are grass. 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.” - NKJV

Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ” – NKJV (cf. Luke 4:4)

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled..” – NKJV

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. – NKJV (cf. Mark 12:24)

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. - NKJV

Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. - NKJV

John 2:22 “Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.” - NKJV

John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” - NKJV

John 10:35 “ ...to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be broken” - ESV

Acts 18:28 “for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.” - ESV

Romans 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - NKJV

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,” - ESV

Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

1 Thess 2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. - NKJV

2 Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” - ESV

1 Peter 1:19 “And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” - ESV

2 Peter 3:15 “And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” - ESV

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - NKJV

Hebrews 6:18 “so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.” - ESV

Revelation 22:18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. – NKJV

While we turn to Scripture for internal evidence, textual criticism deals with external evidence...

Regarding your statement we can't throw out the baby with the bath water - The fact that a fundalmental doctrine is in place in one verse doesn't mean it is ok to attack it in another. I use Mic. 5:2 as my example because in Mic. 5:2 in all the newer versions the eternality of Christ is attacked by changing from everlasting to ancient of days (or something to that affect). My friend -that change may be acceptable to you becasue in other places it is not attacked still leaves one with conflicts and error and an attack on Christ is still an attack regardless how subtle.

How is it an attack on Christ if the same doctrine is taught elsewhere? John 1:1 for example teaches the eternality of Christ.

The first thing the devil said in scripture was, "Yea, hath God said?" He questioned what God had said. The common saint never used to question the word of God but in the last 100 years or so since 1881 the word of God has been questioned by more than just the intellectual bible critic. Now with the introduction of all these newer versions the average saint doesn't know what to believe.

I will agree that the flood of new versions has created much confusion, not only different translations but different types of study Bibles etc. I think for many new believers it must be like a maze. But still, I have found the greatest defenders of the Bible, like B.B. Warfield were not KJV-Onlyists.

Regarding Origen - I've read to much about his beliefs to believe he was even a regenerated man.

Quotes?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
hi ebia,

You responded to someone's post: Giving people detailed historical prediction of the far future that are useless to them is not usually one of them.

You did think that through before you wrote it down, right?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
miamited said:
hi ebia,

You responded to someone's post: Giving people detailed historical prediction of the far future that are useless to them is not usually one of them.

You did think that through before you wrote it down, right?
Yep
 
Upvote 0

AVBunyan

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2003
1,131
74
70
Visit site
✟17,676.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
1. Let me throw the ball back in your court and ask by the same token, can you show from Scripture that anything more than the originals can be inspired?

2. Sure, there is plenty of internal evidence to support inspiration and inerrancy, I will quote a few

3. How is it an attack on Christ if the same doctrine is taught elsewhere?..
1. My point is the fact that I believe the AV to be inspired does not contradict sripture so I'm safe in my stand on the AV being inspired.

2. Good verses but I don't see where any of those verses are referring to the "originals". You are reading in to these verses. Again - prove from the scriptures that the originals are inspired - not there.

3. Mic. 5:2 - It is still an attack. Yes, John 1:1 and other places teaches the eternality of Christ but in Mic. 5:2 it doesn't so what is the unsuspecting reader going to do? Who decides which verse is right? Mic. 5:2 in the newer verses teaches Christ was from ancient of days - this does not teach the eternality of Christ. Many other verses obscure the doctrine of Christ. Origen questoned the deity of Christ and his "version" (5th column of the hexaphala) reflects this.
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
35
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟23,842.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single

He has a good point in that most Christians are not defenders of their Bible whether it be a modern translation, but from my understanding, a lot of White's issues are with those who do militantly defend the KJV as divinely inspired and from what I know of his interaction and even in my own interaction with other people who have that position base so much on it.

And in answer to his question about scriptural inerrancy, if I was to hold an inerrantist view then I'd probably believe that the autographs are inerrant and through the critical examination of the whole of the tree of MSS types and we can get to the original, and God was working through history to provide us with such a wealth of manuscripts today.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,178
1,226
71
Sebring, FL
✟664,582.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
“Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing; the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.”
--Psalm 5:6 KJV


Fortunately, I decided to check another translation before blowing up the nearest leasing office.


“Thou destroyest those who speak lies; the Lord abhors bloodthirsty and deceitful men.”
--Psalm 5:6 RSV


“You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors.”
--Psalm 5:6 NIV


In a nutshell, the KJV is the only translation that makes it sound like we are being commanded to “destroy” landlords, realtors, salesmen or leasing agents. As far as I know, this is not a feature of Elizabethan language. It just seems to be a mistake.


All other translations are much more clear that the problem is not leasing, but deceit. They are also more clear that any destroying will be done by God.





*


*
 
Upvote 0