History of the KJV

[Ed Edwards]

Mauraeen: // ... we all know holding whatever version
of Bible in our hands will never save us,
or be the route of our Salvation. Amen//

Amen, Sister Mauraeen -- you are so RIGHT ON!

Mauraeen:

What has holding a Bible version in your hand
when getting saved, got to do with 'talking to those
denominations that practice separation so much
that many married couples are in differant churches
in the same neighborhood?

don't get the connection brother.

Iit is obvious you aren't following the converstation.
We are in agreement -- the version used while getting
saved doesn't matter. I was trying to prove that
logically. But maybe you don't understand logic?

Let me rephrase:

Sorry about my 'lead to the Lord' talk,
I thought I was talking to Evangelical Baptists
and Kindred Jesus Lovers - I did not know
I was talking to people who don't understand
simple logic. (Logic is a branch of Mathematics)
and aren't interested in winning souls.

Does anybody else have any axioms or other logic
(could be a proved statement from the basics
listed before) about Bible Versions?

 

[Janette]

Um actually...

I used to could find in the Apocrypha the part that
says the gestation period for Humans is
Ten Months -- really it is Nine Months, assuming proper
nutrition. It seems hard for me to put the 'Inerrant'
mark on Apocrypha. There are only 66 Books in
the Real part of a Bible.

Well I didn't question Luther's authority to separate 14 books out. I didn't question Jerome's...I guess I won't question yours either.

With respect to your attempt to invalidate the entire Apocrypha based on the possible scientific inaccuracy of one verse in one book, I have this to offer:

1) The human gestation period is about 9 of our modern months long. It is however, exactly 10 lunar months in duration.

2) The Hebrew calendar is based on a system of lunar months.

However this only proves that the Apocrypha accurately mentioned that the human gestation period is 10 months (using the calendars of the day).

You really don't want to base whether or not something is Inspired on scientific accuracy. We'd have to scrap the whole Bible based on the textual accuracy of bunnies being referred to as animals that chew cud, or bats being birds (to name just two examples), or epilepsy being cured by someone speaking because all of those things are scientifically impossible.

---

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to use science to scrap the Apocrypha, I could use science to scrap the entire Bible. We'll both lose because our belief is supposed to be based on faith in the Word, not slavish fanaticism about words.

Trust me, the way to God is not through the letters on any page of any book, but through accepting the Grace given in the blood of the Lamb of God. That requires faith, and true faith survives independent of textual precision.

I'm always fascinated when people go out of their way to validate one Bible over another. I especially like the old saw of taking the Masoretic over the Septuagint (for example) when the vast majority of the quotations from the OT which are present in the NT actually come from the latter. Were those disciples...or Jesus...quoting from the wrong one by mistake? Or did that "Alexandrian" Bible have something to offer us after all? Nothing about God is as simply cut and dried as which biblical text you use.

I won't make the Bible my idol any more than anything else.

There are versions which are good and versions which are better, and I'd even argue that the KJV is probably one of the best, if not the best.

Every Bible published faithfully with a goal of transmitting God's message is "perfect" in its construction to reach the audience God has targeted with that particular version.

But there is no textually "inerrant" Bible on Earth.

God describes His word as eternal, binding, sufficient, complete, consistent, relevant and true. But He doesn't claim inerrency for it because He understood that the human command of language is imprecise and incomplete.

Why must we be stuck having small minds and being afraid that we've got a God who allows textual errors into His book?

Rather let's have big hearts and be humbled and amazed that despite (or perhaps in concert with) anything mankind has ever managed to mess up in the change of this word or the loss of that letter from translation to translation, our God has made sure His message got through.

 

[Maureen]

our God has made sure His message got through.[/B].

Amen and Amen sister.

As for that other post Ed 'But maybe you don't understand logic? that wasn't a very nice comment to make.

I don't see what all that has got to do with our Holy Bible anyway.
We accept it as the inspired, infallible word of God, and by faith we believe it.

As for 'versions' personally I prefer KJV but I repeat, personally, as that's how we walk with Jesus, our own 'personal' walk.
Don't let's make a real BIG issue out of all this, do you really think our Lord is impressed?

Let's read and believe and glorify our Creator. Amen

 

[Ed Edwards]

Sister Janette:

Trust me, the way to God
is not through the letters on any page of any book,
but through accepting the Grace given in the blood
of the Lamb of God. That requires faith,
and true faith survives independent of textual precision.

Amen, Sister Janette -- you are so RIGHT ON!!

I do note however, that I'm the only one that has
offered a FAITH based axiom concerning the
English Translations and their validity.

I also note that while I believe English Bibles to
be inerrant, I do note that our doing of the word
is NOT inerrant. And our understanding of what
the Written Word of God (the Holy Bible) says
is never inerrant. In fact, I have a dozen or so commonly
misunderstood passages in the KJVs about which
The Holy Spirit has given me a message I've
written up, if anybody is interested.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Sister Maureen:

Let's read and believe and glorify our Creator. Amen

Amen, Sister Maureen -- you are so RIGHT ON!!

Sister Maureen:

As for that other post Ed 'But maybe
you don't understand logic? that wasn't a very
nice comment to make.

How so?
If my 2-year-old was going to play with a scorpion,
I'll not let my ward do it.
So there is a danger in eschewing Logic, for the
in understanding the Bible, one must always know:
the Written Word of God cannot be understood
to be illogical.

Here is what the Holy Spirit taught me about 'words versus the message':

-----------------------------------------------
RE: The Words vs. the message
Unfortunately, there seems to be some ignorance
(not knowing, not a judgemental term) regarding
MAGIC.

magic - the use of words, spells, and rituals in
seeking or pretending to cause or
control events, or govern certain natural or
supernatural forces

'Magic' is a Pagan religion.
A 'witch' is female of the magic religion.
A 'warlock' is a male of the magic religion.

Deuternomy 18:10-12 (KJV1611 Edition):
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his sonne,
or his daughter to passe thorow the fire,
or that vseth diuination,
or an obseruer of times,
or an inchanter,
or a witch,
11 Or a charmer,
or a consulter with familiar spirits,
or a wyzard,
or a Necromancer.
12 For all that do these things,
are an abomination vnto the Lord: and because
of these abominations, the Lord thy God doth
driue them out from before thee.

So I damn in The Lord's Name (on
the Lord's behalf) such Pagan abominations
as to suggest that God's Holy Written Words contain
mere 'magic', mere 'words' when, in fact, the
very message of God, the message of eternal life;
the Living Word of God: Messiah Jesus, is the
beginning, end and means
of Salvation for mankind. The individual words contain no
magic, but the message the words relay is from God to we
who have accepted the message leading to our own
individual salvation.
--------------------------------------------------

For example:

Cossians 3:17 (KJV1611 Edition):

And whatsoeuer yee doe in word or deed,
doe all in the Name of the Lord Iesus,
giuing thankes to God and the Father, by him.

It is illogical to mean 'Name of the Lord Jesus' here
means 'Jesus'.

It is logical to mean 'as Lord Jesus would do'.

Once at work I was the boss. I had a stamp with
his signature on it. I did NOTHING with the
stamp except that which I was 110% that my
boss would approve (including things he had
already approved). It is logical to say
that in 'the name of the Lord Jesus' means
'on behalf of Jesus'.

I remember when I was 13 somebody was teaching
my sister (11) and some others about how to pray.
The teacher said "Ask in Jesus'es name" so my
sister prayed: "Dear God, ... Ask in Jesus'es name."
Being older, I reacall what others did who prayed
aloud and said "Dear God, ... In Jesus'es name do ask."
Anyway, to avoid being mere magic - we need to
know logically what 'name' means.

Speaking of History of the KJV - I note that in the
KJV1769 Col 3:17 says " ... name of the
Lord Jesus ... ". The KJV was improved from
the KJV1611 to the KJV1769 -- and avoided one of
the Pagan 'hints'.

 

[Janette]

huh?

So there is a danger in eschewing Logic, for the
in understanding the Bible, one must always know:
the Written Word of God cannot be understood
to be illogical.

Mkaaaay, I agree here. God is certainly logical. His teachings make logical sense. If we but had the knowledge, I'm sure even His teachings or bits of the Law that we may not understand would also make sense.

Here is what the Holy Spirit taught me about 'words versus the message':

-----------------------------------------------
RE: The Words vs. the message
Unfortunately, there seems to be some ignorance
(not knowing, not a judgemental term) regarding
MAGIC.

magic - the use of words, spells, and rituals in
seeking or pretending to cause or
control events, or govern certain natural or
supernatural forces

'Magic' is a Pagan religion.
A 'witch' is female of the magic religion.
A 'warlock' is a male of the magic religion.

Deuternomy 18:10-12 (KJV1611 Edition):
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his sonne,
or his daughter to passe thorow the fire,
or that vseth diuination,
or an obseruer of times,
or an inchanter,
or a witch,
11 Or a charmer,
or a consulter with familiar spirits,
or a wyzard,
or a Necromancer.
12 For all that do these things,
are an abomination vnto the Lord: and because
of these abominations, the Lord thy God doth
driue them out from before thee.

Mkaaaaay I'm not entirely sure what this had to do with anything, but I'm familiar with this passage.

So I damn in The Lord's Name (on
the Lord's behalf)

I don't suppose you'd mind kindly quoting the Scripture that places the authority to damn anything into your hands?

Last time I checked, God (not we mortals) defines a thing as sinful or not, and God (not we mortals) chooses at the end of Time to pass judgement on those who have without remorse or Salvation committed such acts.

The individual words contain no magic, but the message the words relay is from God to we who have accepted the message leading to our own individual salvation.

Which is all quite lovely and true...what does it have to do with the conversation at hand?

Did I miss a post?
Who said the words of the Bible were magical?
Or that the Word of God (meaning the living Christ) was?

Cossians 3:17 (KJV1611 Edition):

And whatsoeuer yee doe in word or deed,
doe all in the Name of the Lord Iesus,
giuing thankes to God and the Father, by him.

It is illogical to mean 'Name of the Lord Jesus' here
means 'Jesus'.

It is logical to mean 'as Lord Jesus would do'.

I don't see the two ideas as mutually exclusive, but ok.
Throughout the Bible there are admonitions to manage one's speech carefully. Speech is the mechanism by which we were taught that God brought all of creation into being. Speech is the mechanism the Devil uses to whisper evil into the minds and hearts of those who will entertain him. As such, speech should be seen as a tool of power, granted to mankind alone of all the creatures that usually inhabit the earth.

While it would be rediculous to treat any name of God like a magical incantation (which was done in the middle ages if not before), it *does* make sense that those are names we should not speak casually nor carelessly. It may also follow that God wants His name upon our lips when we pray, lest we forget to Whom we are speaking.

God bless you,

Janette

 

[evangeline]

I don't understand why people are giving Ed such a hard time. I think he is making some excellent points, perhaps these points are not being correctly understood.

Thank you for your grace Ed.


evangeline

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thank you, Sister Evangeline for your words of
kindness. May God's best blessing
be unto Sister Evangeline, her family, and her ministry this
very day. Amen.

Does anybody want me to do a logical proof
that I have God given authority to bless
Sister Evangeline or call down blessings from
God upon her, or whom ever else the Holy
Spirit might lead me to bless?
To be topical, I'll, of course, use one of the
several KJVs to show that I have the authority,
yea DUTY, to bless others: verbally, with cash, or
with other good works.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Luke 9:1 (KJV1611 Edition):
Then he called his twelue disciples together,
and gaue them power and authority ouer
all deuils, and to cure diseases.

So I have to authority from God to condemn
(not people) but my specific example of
God's general commandment against Magic.

Here is what I said:

magic - the use of words, spells, and rituals in
seeking or pretending to cause or
control events, or govern certain natural or
supernatural forces

'Magic' is a Pagan religion.
A 'witch' is female of the magic religion.
A 'warlock' is a male of the magic religion.

Deuternomy 18:10-12 (KJV1611 Edition):
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his sonne,
or his daughter to passe thorow the fire,
or that vseth diuination,
or an obseruer of times,
or an inchanter,
or a witch,
11 Or a charmer,
or a consulter with familiar spirits,
or a wyzard,
or a Necromancer.
12 For all that do these things,
are an abomination vnto the Lord: and because
of these abominations, the Lord thy God doth
driue them out from before thee.

So I damn in The Lord's Name (on
the Lord's behalf) such Pagan abominations
as to suggest that God's Holy Written Words contain
mere 'magic', mere 'words' when, in fact, the
very message of God, the message of eternal life;
the Living Word of God: Messiah Jesus, is the
beginning, end and means
of Salvation for mankind. The individual words contain no
magic, but the message the words relay is from God to we
who have accepted the message leading to our own
individual salvation.

Compare the bolded parts of my writing with
the underlined portions of the book below.

Romans 1:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
For I am not ashamed of the Gopel* of Christ:
for it is the power of God vnto saluation,
to euery one that beleeueth, to the Iew first,
and also to the Greeke.

* this is what it says in the paper reproduction
and the electronic e-sword copy. The
Geneva Bible before it (1587 Edition) has
'Gospel' so that was the correct spelling.
In the paper format it literally says:

Go-
pel

That is the word is split between two lines,
the 's' has disappeared, the dash (-) has appeared

'POWER OF GOD' comes along with the
authority to nanny-nanny-poo-poo demons
and condem specific examples
(not people) of what God
condem's in the Holy Bible.
Yes, we are talking about the Written Word
of God: the Holy Bible, the form that
the Gospel of Christ comes today.

BTW (by the way): the KJV1769 new, improved
KJV has 'Gopel' as 'gospel' -- the 's' was put back in
where it belongs & 'gospel' no longer is capalized.
Doesn't change the reading, doesn't change
the gospel therein either.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I studyed this site suggested in the OP (opening post):

WHICH BIBLE IS PRESERVED OF GOD? at:

Which Bible is Preserved of God?

It is by Otis Fuller, A fully qualified minister of the Gospel
and Brother in Christ and pastor in the REGULAR BAPTIST
denomination.
Wikipedia sez:

Fuller dedicated much of his life to the defense of the Byzantine textual tradition as embodied in the Textus Receptus (King James Version). In February 1988, Fuller died at Blodgett Memorial Medical Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

However, the article has enough errors I could spend until the
end of this thread (how long can threads get here at
Talk Jesus?) debunking his errors, oversights, mistakes,
boo-boos, etc.

(BTW, the Textus Receptus /plural, more than one
docume0nt/ that was used by the KJV Translators
of 1605-1611 does not exist today. The source notes
of the Byzantine family of source Language New
Testament work was burned by fire /unintentional/.
But those who study difference source language
texts of the Bible can fairly well figure it out.

He also seems to have an unspoken Axiom:

God is limited to preserving His word
in English to one-and-only-one Bible.

From which, of course, we can easily
PROVE that if one takes the best
of all the English Bibles, the KJV1769 Edition
(but usually not the other KJVs) and
declares that is the one-and-only-one that
God preserved.

However, on might as well have the Axiom:
The KJV1769 Edition is the one-and-only Version
in English that God has Preserved.
It is a logical error NOT to admit that your
supposed PROVED Statement is an Axiom
statement (now called 'assumption').

Part of the History of the KJV is the
history of how & why people went from:

"the KJV1769 is the best English Version"
(which I agree with)

to

"The KJV1769 Edition is the ONLY English Version
that God has preserved". (i don't agree)

Sorry, it isn't 100s of English Versions that confuse
people -- it is this baseless, un-Biblical leap-of-faith
from 'best' to 'only'.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know the King James Version is the only Bible that came from Antioch? All the other versions came from Egypt. Should we read versions that have Egyptian roots? Take a look at the link below and lets see what the Bible says about Antioch and Egypt.

Antioch Bible or Alexandrian Bible?

---------------------------------------------------------------

...

I know no such things:

The fine Bible Versions in English that
were fore-runners of the KJVs were
based on Antioch sourced, Byzantine text-types:

1384 Wycliffe Bible
1526 Tyndale Bible
1535 Coverdale Bible
1539 Crammer Bible
1568 Bishops' Bible
1576 Breeches Bible
1583 Beza Bible
1608 Geneva Bible
Etc. (there are others)
(note that the invention of printing
in the early 116th Century /1501-1600/
caused an outbreak of English Versions)

I'm on my 6th commonly used Bible
(the paper ones wear out, you know,
now electronic is the way to go, it is right
there alongside the bb /bulletin board/ ). The one's
based on the Antioch sourced, Byzantine text-type
are starred (*) below;, a minus (-) indicates
a so-called Alexandrian text-type;
an up-carot (^) indicates a paraphrase.

* KJV1769 Edition
- NIV (New International Version, 1965+)
^ TLB (The Living Bible)
* nKJV (new King James Version)
* HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/
* KJV1611 Edition

I dare say I'm Byzantine text-type preferred
(which includes the KJVs)

 

[Anchovy]

All Ed is doing is looking for a debate, of which, debating the word of God falls under the catagory of sin.

 

[Anchovy]

Mauraeen: // ... we all know holding whatever version
of Bible in our hands will never save us,
or be the route of our Salvation. Amen//

Amen, Sister Mauraeen -- you are so RIGHT ON!

Mauraeen:

Iit is obvious you aren't following the converstation.
We are in agreement -- the version used while getting
saved doesn't matter. I was trying to prove that
logically. But maybe you don't understand logic?

Let me rephrase:

Sorry about my 'lead to the Lord' talk,
I thought I was talking to Evangelical Baptists
and Kindred Jesus Lovers - I did not know
I was talking to people who don't understand
simple logic. (Logic is a branch of Mathematics)
and aren't interested in winning souls.

What a horrible accusation!

 

[stephen]

Thanks to everyone for their input and comments on this subject.

I am closing the thread for the moment. The subject has been well discussed and there is much to for everyone to reflect upon.