The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[tall73]

Joe answered:

The devil felt, and probably still does feel, his rebellion against God is valid...our feelings do not justify our beliefs, our beliefs do not justify our feelings. Only God can justify us. Feeling something is valid does not make it valid. Only the Word of God makes anything or anybody valid. That's why it's good to know God preserved His word. By His word we know what is valid. All rebellion against God is invalid. All casting of doubt on His word is invalid.

Joe, go learn the meaning of this verse:

Rom 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

- I have not questioned your salvation.
- I have not questioned your right to use whichever version of the Bible you are honestly convinced is best.

Yet you are here comparing my statements to the rebellion of Satan.

You have been talking out of both sides of your mouth. You keep saying you think everyone here is sincere, then you compare us to Satan.

Address the evidence of the texts actually preserved of God's word and stop posting your opinions about the posters here. No one is here to discuss Joe's view of other poster's salvation.

And then you talk about preservation. The example I gave is clearly one of preservation in all the Greek texts of a particular word. The KJV did not render that particular word correctly in this verse, though it did in every other instance.

Now you want to say that me pointing out that all the preserved manuscripts disagree with the rendering of the KJV here is like the rebellion of Satan?

No, it is pointing out that even when all the Greek texts agree, a very telling sign that this was the correct word in the autographs, you will still support an English translation instead when it differs. That is NOT preservation.

 

[revrobor]

Talking about comedy, and calling the NKJV an excellent translation less difficult to understand than the King James Bible, the following should be a barrel full of laughs for you...it sure is giving me a good dose of laughter which doeth good like medicine; the idea that you think translations other than the King James Bible are "excellent" and/or easier to understand.

Let's look at some of the differing translations in the New King James Version compared to the King James Bible and with a straight face tell me which is more difficult to understand. I'm trying not to laugh too much as I make these comparisons...seriously now, the hard translation first in all comparisons, and the easy translation immediately after....then at the end guess which one is the NKJV which they sold to you by making you believe it is easier to understand:

DO NOT CHEAT BY LOOKING UP THE VERSES BEFORE YOU GUESS WHICH IS THE NKJV BASED ON BEING THE TRANSLATION THAT IS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND.


I left out references to Hell which in the NKJV for some odd reason is always changed to hades in the entire New Testament. That one would show too easily which column is actually the NKJV.

Psalm 43:1 Vindicate vs. Judge
Romans 14:13 resolve vs. judge
Joshua 22:24 descendants vs. children
Hebrews 7:8 mortal men vs. men that die
John 6:7 denarii vs. pennyworth
Ezekiel 31:4 rivulets vs. little rivers
I Kings 10:28 Kevah vs. linen yarn
1 Samuel 13:21 pim vs. file
Isaiah 2:16 sloops vs. pictures
Lamentations 5:3 waifs vs. fatherless
Acts 27:17 Syrtys Sands vs. quicksands
Matt 5:40 tunic vs. coat
Matthew 20:2 a denarius vs. a penny
Matthew 27:7 garrison vs. a band of soldiers
Psalm 139:23 anxieties vs. thoughts
Isaiah 34:6 overflowing vs. fat

OK, NOW BASED ON WHICH TRANSLATION IS THE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND, GUESS WHICH IS THE NKJV.

Did you make a wise purchase based on which version is easier to understand, or did you fall for a bill of goods and buy into a lie?

As for the NKJV being an "excellent translation", let's compare some of it's variance with the King James Bible and try to keep a straight face as we ask ourselves which translation shows itself to be "excellent" in ascribing excellency to the Most Excellent One, Our Savior and KING. In the following verse comparisons, chose the excellent translation and then guess which is the NKJV, the former or the latter in each comparison:

DO NOT CHEAT BY LOOKING UP THE VERSES TO SEE WHICH IS THE KJV (though this quiz is easier to guess)


The Bible on the "excellency" of Jesus Christ

Luke 13:8................. Lord vs. Sir
Matthew 18:26............and worshipped him, saying, Lord vs. before him saying, Master
Matthew 20:20 ...........worshipping him vs. kneeling down
John 8:35...................The Son vs. a son
Isaiah 66:5.................(omitted) vs. he shall appear

Now considering the excellency of Jesus Christ as God incarnate, guess which side of the "vs." is from the excellent translation. Only one translation can be "the" excellent one, so which translation is THE excellent one based on the above comparisons? Would it not be the one which ascribes the highest excellency to our Most Excellent Savior?

This is an extremely brief and incomplete comparison between the NKJV and King James Bible showing the lie that the modern version is "excellent" or "easier to understand". Those lies are used as selling gimmicks and somebody who owned a Circus said something about people who will buy gimmicks....I forget exactly who it was or what they said, but I do remember it was funny.

This detailed and undeniable exposer can be done on any and all modern versions compared to the King James Bible. All modern versions prove by their own words that they cannot be the word of God, and a careful examination proves that none of them make the word of God easier to understand so they are not even useful as paraphrases and the changes in them obscure the teaching of God who glorifies His Son.

The examples you gave do not change the meaning of the verses but simply make them easier for todays English speaking reader to understand. And none of them are critical verses anyway.

 

[tall73]

The KJV translators did not think they were inspired to have the perfect reading on each point. They make this plain in the preface "The Translators to the Reader".

They also spell out why they include marginal readings when the various readings in the manuscripts are of such support that either could be true. There would of course be no need to do this if they were inspired on every point.

 

[tall73]

Some selections from the preface "The Translator to the Reader"

Preface to the King James Version 1611, Part 1 of 10


Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.


Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point.



Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.


Apparently the translators would not agree with those in this thread who say that no other translation in English can be the word of God. Nor would they think that they were inspired to be beyond error as they indicate that they do not want to be presumptuous and so included marginal readings so that people can decide for themselves.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The Bible stands thought the Earth may crumble,
And the mountains fall, and the hills may tumble.
I will plant my feet on it's firm foundation.
For the Bible stands.

God said it, and I don't need any scholar to tell me he didn't actually mean what He said. He keeps His word and it cannot change. If you use a version that has changes against God like every modern version changes and deletes passages against God's word, you are using a fake Bible. If you prefer a fake Bible, OK. They are not allowed in my house, and you won't take away my King James Bible except over my dead body. It was good enough for Tyndale to die for, it's good enough for me to die for.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The examples you gave do not change the meaning of the verses but simply make them easier for todays English speaking reader to understand. And none of them are critical verses anyway.

sure, it's not critical when a perversion of the Bible changes the Son of God to a son of God.
Sure, it's not critical when a perversion changes the Lord to "sir".
Sure, it's not critical when a perversion omits "he shall appear" speaking of the Lord.


What do you think would be a critical change? If they changed Satan into Jesus, or Jesus into Satan?

Did you know they do change Jesus into Satan and Satan into Jesus? But of course that's not critical to you. Why is that not critical? How many changes would it take in the word of God for you to think it is critical?

I don't think God appreciates people changing His word. If you don't care, that's on you.

 

[revrobor]

sure, it's not critical when a perversion of the Bible changes the Son of God to a son of God.
Sure, it's not critical when a perversion changes the Lord to "sir".
Sure, it's not critical when a perversion omits "he shall appear" speaking of the Lord.


What do you think would be a critical change? If they changed Satan into Jesus, or Jesus into Satan?

Did you know they do change Jesus into Satan and Satan into Jesus? But of course that's not critical to you. Why is that not critical? How many changes would it take in the word of God for you to think it is critical?

I don't think God appreciates people changing His word. If you don't care, that's on you.

None of those changes change the basic message of the Bible which is God loves you and has provided a plan where you can have eternal life. As far as John 8:35 is concerned John is making a comparison. The son John is talking about is us. Your defense of the KJV is getting to be ridiculous and I'm not going to discuss it with you and further.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

None of those changes change the basic message of the Bible which is God loves you and has provided a plan where you can have eternal life. As far as John 8:35 is concerned John is making a comparison. The son John is talking about is us. Your defense of the KJV is getting to be ridiculous and I'm not going to discuss it with you and further.

John 8:35...................The Son vs. a son


If you think this is not a change to the basic message of the Bible, I guess I can understand why you resort to insults by trying to make a laughing stock out of people like myself who believe God said exactly want He meant to say and He said it to me in my own language. I tried to humor your insulting manner of jocularity in a fun and quizzical way when I detailed the proofs of your pet fraudulent version being harder to understand than the King James Bible and key doctrinal changes in only a few of the hundreds of places your fake Bible changes God's word.

You guessed that the column of more difficult to understand words was from the King James Bible, didn't you????.......bbbbzbzzzzzzzzzz...wrong!

Do you hate to admit that you bought into a lie believing your modern version was easier to understand?


The New King James Version (which cannot possibly be the King James Version because King James authorized only one version and he is long dead and gone...common sense should tell you it's a fraud, claiming to be a new version from a dead man. If the publisher were honest, they would not have stolen King James' name for the title of their fake Bible) changes the Son, referring only to Jesus Christ, to a son making him nothing more than you or me. We cannot be saved by "a son". This critical change casts doubt on the divinity of Christ, so when His divinity seems to be upheld in one place, the other place implies His divinity is not really the intent of the passages which say He is divine. The King James Authorized Bible NEVER does anything like this with questionable doctrinal changes. ALL of the changes are critical because they ALL imply that God's message is unclear and subject to personal preferences. Many if not most of the changes attack basic doctrines of the faith of God in Jesus Christ and His Spirit who glorifies the Son of God. Modern versions are made for one purpose..to glorify their editors and publishers and you feed their egos by upholding their claims of "excellency" in their work.

You cannot discuss this topic with me because your are trying to defend heretical changes to the word of God. You pretend like you are making a joke but the things you are defending are no joke to God and no joke to me. What is a joke (not really a joke, it's serious but it's funny if you say it the right way) is the fact that you ignore the evidences which refute the lie you have bought telling you the modern versions are easier to understand, and the lie that they are "excellent" translations.

You come here with your comedian accusations talking like people who believe God preserved His word and gave it to them in their own language are laughing stocks. Because of your insulting mannerism which you again show by calling me "ridiculous", it won't bother me one bit if you don't talk to me.

If you keep coming here and saying people like myself are being ridiculous and you think we are a joke, I'm going to expose your favorite versions as the frauds they are and I'm going to expose the fact that you have bought into lies believing they are easier to understand and "excellent" translations.

The King James Bible is God's word preserved and translated by His guidance into English. All modern versions are fraudulent fakes and you can pay those con artists for their work if you want to, and you can believe their lies if you want to.

All versions can be changed. The King James Bible cannot be changed because it's God's word. If you want to change it, I don't want to be too close to you where the lighting bolt meant for you might take me out with you.

 

[tall73]

God gave me His word in English and I believe Him, I don't believe you, sorry.

I think the example you are using only shows that you do not understand the doctrine so you cannot understand what the correct translation is. I believe God so I know what His word is. If I can't understand what He is saying, I'll ask Him to change me so I can understand His word, not try to change His word to make Him fit my limited understanding. You can do whatever you choose as long as God permits.

A. The translators of the KJV do not claim their work was inspired. They listed marginal readings because they indicated in humility that they were not always sure which reading was best. Are you saying they would not realize they were being inspired in their translation? Paul was aware when he was speaking by inspiration:


1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (KJV) I Corinthians 2:1-5

B. If you claim that the theology presented in the example was incorrect then you should state the correct doctrine. You did not do so.


C. There is no difficulty with understanding, but with their poor translation choices.

 

[tall73]

Here is another example that indicates that the translators of the KJV were not given spiritual insight to exactly pick the correct word in English to represent the Greek (they never claimed to, this is other people's claim for them).

In the following verses Genesis 15:6 is quoted multiple times by Paul in the New Testament.

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. KJV

The portion that is quoted in three different places is "he counted it to him for righteousness."

Yet the King James Version translators use three different words to render "counted" in the New Testament, while translating the same underlying Greek text in each case.

This is not a case where context would necessitate different words. It is an Old Testament quote, from it's own context. I have shown the rendering in each case, and the Greek text below:


KJV:

Romans 4:3
it was counted unto him for righteousness

Romans 4:22
it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Gal 3:6
it was accounted to him for righteousness.




The Greek:


Romans 4:3
ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.

Romans 4:22
λογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην


Galatians 3:6
ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην


If the translators are given the perfect word in English, why did they need to render the same word three different ways, in the same OT quote?

The translators did not claim they were inspired to translate correctly. And the evidence bears this out.

 

[classicalhero]

Because the Greek is far more nuanced than the English and the translators were showing that by showing the slight nuances in the Greek.

 

[revrobor]

The KJV was the winner of a translating race. There were two groups translating the bible from other languages into English because King James wanted an English translation as he was breaking with the Roman Catholic Church. The group translating what we now call the KJV was done first and it was then "Authorized" by King James. There was no special divine inspiration from God.

 

[Jack Koons]

Because the Greek is far more nuanced than the English and the translators were showing that by showing the slight nuances in the Greek.

This is one of the issues where the "theological" expertise of the KJV translators shines through. God gave the KJV translators three gifts, which He then used to translate His words into the English language. 1) great spiritual theological understanding; 2) great understanding of both the original languages, and that of the English language; and finally, 3) a spirit of submission to God, where they would submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is NOT to be confused with "inspiration". This is the 'fall back' statement of those who cannot ( for what ever the reason) separate the meaning of 'guidance' by the Holy Spirit, and 'inspiration' of the Holy Spirit. They are NOT the same thing.

Indeed, God did guide the KJV translators through these nuances in the production of the English Bible.

Jack

 

[tall73]

This is one of the issues where the "theological" expertise of the KJV translators shines through. God gave the KJV translators three gifts, which He then used to translate His words into the English language. 1) great spiritual theological understanding; 2) great understanding of both the original languages, and that of the English language; and finally, 3) a spirit of submission to God, where they would submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is NOT to be confused with "inspiration". This is the 'fall back' statement of those who cannot ( for what ever the reason) separate the meaning of 'guidance' by the Holy Spirit, and 'inspiration' of the Holy Spirit. They are NOT the same thing.

Indeed, God did guide the KJV translators through these nuances in the production of the English Bible.

Jack

They included margin readings while noting that both readings could be true. They did not claim God led them to every correct reading. While they did acknowledge God's hand on them, they did not believe that this led them to any perfect reproduction as their own words make plain.

For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.

Some things they see the Spirit of God leaving questionable.

And they also added:

They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.

And this is just the point at which the argument breaks down for those who hold that the KJV is the perfect rendering of the autographs into English. First, the people who translated did not indicate that God's guidance meant that the Spirit revealed to them every correct reading. Rather they indicated that to tie oneself exclusively to a reading that may not be the correct one is to exclude another that may be the correct one. And this is the very thing that later people have tried to do with their own work, claiming something they never claimed. If they saw fit to put marginal notes on readings that could be correct, why would later generations say that God led them only the the correct readings and ignore the margin notes, and insist on only those readings?

 

[tall73]

Because the Greek is far more nuanced than the English and the translators were showing that by showing the slight nuances in the Greek.

Please explain those 'nuances' you refer to in the quotation from Genesis.

For them to see nuances of difference between the three verses the underlying Greek texts would have to differ. They do not. Apparently when I edited the post in the mobile application it changed the Greek, so it may not have been obvious then that they were the same. I now re-posted the correct Greek quotations. They are the same Greek phrase.


And since they are all quotations from the same Old Testament passage there is no difference in context. The context for the passage is Genesis. Paul simply quotes the passage on three occasions as part of his presentation. Whatever context Paul uses them in does not change the meaning of the OT quotation that he employs with the same Greek construction each time.

This idea of nuances cannot be sustained. It is the same phrase, quoted from the OT, three times.

 

[tall73]

Because the Greek is far more nuanced than the English and the translators were showing that by showing the slight nuances in the Greek.

There are no nuances that separate them because the phrases are the same. And the translators note that they tried to catch all such instances, but apparently they missed some. Here is what they said on the matter:

Another things we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified that same in both places (for there be some words that be not the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty.


This is clearly a case of that type as not just a word was the same but the whole sentence was the same, and was all taken from the same quote. They just missed it.

And of course, that by no means makes it a terrible translation. Counted, accounted and imputed could all be correct translations of the word. However, if one is the perfect one in English, they cannot all be. So for those who do not hold the view (and even the translators themselves did not) that the KJV is the autographs perfectly in English, it is an oddity to see them translate them differently in the same quote, but not a big deal.

However, if you hold that God guided them to translate everything perfectly into the best English phrase then it makes no sense to translate the exact same quotation from the Greek three different ways. There would only be one perfect English phrase for the same statement.

 

[tall73]

So some questions for Joe and for Jack, and others who hold their view.

- Do you accept the marginal readings as possibly correct readings, as did the translators?

- Do you agree with the translators that there are some things the Holy Spirit has left questionable?

-Do you agree with the translators that even the meanest translation into English before theirs would still be the word of God?

 

[tall73]

Along the same lines here is what they said about the translation of the LXX, the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek.

Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by. It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translations to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing a witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded.

and later:

Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) [S. Jerome. de optimo genere interpret.] that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance.



and later:

The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.


They did not demand that the LXX be perfectly free from error in translation before it was used and considered the word of God.

The church has always used what it had. It could not use what it did not have. Certainly there have been some translations that were not perfect, and some manuscripts that contained men's additions or subtractions. Yet God still used them to His glory, despite their failings.

The translators note that many of the translations of the past were helpful and useful Scriptures, but that anytime they can be improved they should be.

And the KJV was an improvement on the versions in English that came before in I would say many respects (some may debate that, which they can if they like).

For any who read the whole document that they gave to the reader it is clear that they did not look down on earlier efforts by improving them. Nor did they see that their efforts set every reading in place, as even they could not decide on every reading.

Now it is an open debate whether later English Bibles improved on the KJV. Some would say yes, some say no. Some would say the later manuscripts used were the wrong ones. That is all a valid debate. But we should not ascribe to the KJV what the translators did not ascribe, perfect leading of God to every correct reading.

 

[tall73]

This is one of the issues where the "theological" expertise of the KJV translators shines through. God gave the KJV translators three gifts, which He then used to translate His words into the English language. 1) great spiritual theological understanding; 2) great understanding of both the original languages, and that of the English language; and finally, 3) a spirit of submission to God, where they would submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is NOT to be confused with "inspiration". This is the 'fall back' statement of those who cannot ( for what ever the reason) separate the meaning of 'guidance' by the Holy Spirit, and 'inspiration' of the Holy Spirit. They are NOT the same thing.

Indeed, God did guide the KJV translators through these nuances in the production of the English Bible.

Jack

Can you show in their own words where they say that their finished work is a perfect rendering of the autographs into English? Because I cannot find it, and they in fact seem to say the opposite.

And if you cannot find them saying it, how do you come to that conclusion? And why would they go against God's leading if He did lead so and say that some things are left questionable by the Holy Spirit?

Once again we are 439 posts in and you have not spelled out the evidence for why you think your view is correct.

And then you have already said that you will not discuss individual examples of the translation of the Scriptures in the KJV. So you have made it plain you will not discuss in depth the evidence that puts to test the theory which you have still not explained. So even if you do explain the basis of your reasoning that the KJV is the autographs rendered perfectly into English, it will only be expressed as a theory without applying it to the text. You have stated you will not take time to look at examples to see if it is indeed the case.

Yet we have shown specific examples that we think show your view as untenable. And we have shown the words of the translators themselves that seem to argue against your view.

So what basis do we have to believe your view?

 

[classicalhero]

This is one of the issues where the "theological" expertise of the KJV translators shines through. God gave the KJV translators three gifts, which He then used to translate His words into the English language. 1) great spiritual theological understanding; 2) great understanding of both the original languages, and that of the English language; and finally, 3) a spirit of submission to God, where they would submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is NOT to be confused with "inspiration". This is the 'fall back' statement of those who cannot ( for what ever the reason) separate the meaning of 'guidance' by the Holy Spirit, and 'inspiration' of the Holy Spirit. They are NOT the same thing.

Indeed, God did guide the KJV translators through these nuances in the production of the English Bible.

Jack

It is basically a storm in a tea cup because all three words mean the same thing.