Man, The Cross , and The KJV

[Dino246]

My "Circular" reasoning is far better than yours, Dino. Because at least my reasoning leads me to the confidence that I do have a perfect and finished Bible for today. Whereas on the contrary, your reasoning leaves you full of doubt. Since in your mind, you don't believe that there is a perfect, finished, infallible Bible anywhere on this planet.

I agree; yours is far better than mine, because I don't use it! Clearly, you don't know what the term means, or you wouldn't make such a claim.

Have I said that I am full of doubt? No; I have said nothing of the sort. That's your projection, and it's utterly worthless.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

What?? Revelation 5:1, "Then I saw in the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne a scroll written on the front and back and sealed with seven seals."

This is why it is important to have the right Bible, Jaybo.

What is in the right hand of God in Rev. 5:1 is not a scroll, but it is a book:

Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

How do you interpret that to mean the King James Bible? Seriously!

Jaybo, what other book could possibly be in the right hand of God in Revelation 5??

Wouldn't it make sense that the Book which is in the right hand of the Father is the very Finished Bible (His word) which Hath returned back unto Him? (see Isaiah 55:11)

 

[jaybo]

Because it makes sense that the all powerful God whom we love and serve is faithful and pwerful enough to keep His promise which He gave in psalm 12:6-7, that's how.

Now answer my question now, would you?

How does a sane, sound, rational Christian come up with the idea that there is no perfect, finished, inerrant Bible today???

It doesn't matter to you that this psalm was written thousands of years before the King James Bible was created? Do you really think that the psalmist was writing about your favorite translation before there was anything like a translation in existence.

Look, you think that the KJV is the only true Bible. That's just your opinion, nothing more.

IMHO you think that because it's the Bible used by your ancestors for about 400 years. There were Bibles before that (including the Septuagint, the Greek translation used during the time of Christ) and there will be new Bible translations as the art/science of translation continues to improve.

Get over it!

 

[breno785au]

No, what is foolish, unreasonable and illogical is to think that a Christian has to go back to the "Original" Greek and the "Original" Hebrew in order to find out and really know what God has said in His word.

Not quite true.
Translations at times don't quite flesh out the full meaning of what was penned in the original text.
For example the word 'blessed' in the Matthew 5 beatitudes is 'makarioj'. There is no real proper English translation for that word, when you find what that word meant back when it was spoken in the day, it's really quite mind blowing.

 

[jaybo]

I believe that chose to make a new translation under the providential working of God. God allowed His word to go through a process of purification, growth and maturity and ultimate perfection. Notice that it says in Psalm 12:6 that the pure words of the Lord are purified seven times:

(Psalms 12:6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.

The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.


Furthermore, check out the following from the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible."

These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."

Oy vey! There were many translations of the Bible -- a lot more than seven! -- prior to any English Bible be produced. Do you really interpret what a psalmist wrote many thousands of years before English was even a language as being applied to a single translation?

Are you aware that in the (lengthy) preface to the Authorized Version the translators acknowledged that the previous translations were "the Word of God"?

Why oh why are you so adamant about a single translation produced centuries after the Bible that Jesus used -- the Septuagint, itself a Greek translation of the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic -- is the true Word of God?

Why can't you just say that the KJV is the translation that you prefer? And that's all it is!

 

[posthuman]

I believe that chose to make a new translation under the providential working of God. God allowed His word to go through a process of purification, growth and maturity and ultimate perfection. Notice that it says in Psalm 12:6 that the pure words of the Lord are purified seven times:

(Psalms 12:6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.

i have some questions about your math.

1. Wycliffe_______________1382-1395
2. Tyndale_______________1525-1526
3. Coverdale_____________1535
4. Matthew's_____________1537
5. Great Bible____________1539
6. Geneva_______________1560
7. Bishop's_______________1568
8. Douay-Rheims_________1582-1610
9. King James____________1611
10. KJV revision 1__________1629
11. KJV revision 2__________1769
12. KJV revision 3__________1860
13. KJV revision 4__________1867
14. KJV revision 5__________1873
15. KJV revision 6__________1967
    

 

[jaybo]

It's best to worship God not a centuries-old translation of ancient writings into a form of English that doesn't exist any more.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

@posthuman


Noticed what he said. God allowed it to go through a process of purification. In other words, it wasn’t perfect when first written by those under the Spirit’s influence. What. A. Kook!

 

[posthuman]

i have some questions about your math.

1. Wycliffe_______________1382-1395
2. Tyndale_______________1525-1526
3. Coverdale_____________1535
4. Matthew's_____________1537
5. Great Bible____________1539
6. Geneva_______________1560
7. Bishop's_______________1568
8. Douay-Rheims_________1582-1610
9. King James____________1611
10. KJV revision 1__________1629
11. KJV revision 2__________1769
12. KJV revision 3__________1860
13. KJV revision 4__________1867
14. KJV revision 5__________1873
15. KJV revision 6__________1967

does the NKJV at least count as 'the seventh purification' of the 1611 KJV, which was the 9th English-language translation of the Bible i'm aware of?

 

[jaybo]

The scroll was “written on the inside and the outside” (an idiom for having writing on both sides). Clearly it's a two-sided scroll not a book. How much writing do you think there could be on the outside of a book?

 

[Dino246]

The scroll was “written on the inside and the outside” (an idiom for having writing on both sides). Clearly it's a two-sided scroll not a book. How much writing do you think there could be on the outside of a book?

Remember, you're debating a KJV-onlyist. Logic is not his strong point. His response will steer you away from a logical argument to a mystical one that supports his position.

 

[breno785au]

i have some questions about your math.

1. Wycliffe_______________1382-1395
2. Tyndale_______________1525-1526
3. Coverdale_____________1535
4. Matthew's_____________1537
5. Great Bible____________1539
6. Geneva_______________1560
7. Bishop's_______________1568
8. Douay-Rheims_________1582-1610
9. King James____________1611
10. KJV revision 1__________1629
11. KJV revision 2__________1769
12. KJV revision 3__________1860
13. KJV revision 4__________1867
14. KJV revision 5__________1873
15. KJV revision 6__________1967

You missed the part where he said the wycliffe and douay bibles aren't authorised so not counted, conveniently.. So it equates to 7 in the 7 times purified.

Also he claimed there's a KJV in heaven. I've never heard such tripe! Either he's trolling us or more deluded than I realised.

 

[jaybo]

Remember, you're debating a KJV-onlyist. Logic is not his strong point. His response will steer you away from a logical argument to a mystical one that supports his position.

I'm fully aware of that. There are others, including yourself, that read and post on this thread. His mystical interpretation is of no value to people who think.

 

[posthuman]

You missed the part where he said the wycliffe and douay bibles aren't authorised so not counted, conveniently.. So it equates to 7 in the 7 times purified.

Also he claimed there's a KJV in heaven. I've never heard such tripe! Either he's trolling us or more deluded than I realised.

well you know what they say, if the math doesn't add up, ignore stuff until it does

"alternative facts" smh

 

[jaybo]

You missed the part where he said the wycliffe and douay bibles aren't authorised so not counted, conveniently.. So it equates to 7 in the 7 times purified.

Also he claimed there's a KJV in heaven. I've never heard such tripe! Either he's trolling us or more deluded than I realised.

Clearly he is more deluded than rational.

 

[posthuman]

1611 KJV, which was the 9th English-language translation of the Bible i'm aware of?

*10th if we count John Colet's personal notes when he realized how corrupt the Vulgate versions of the gospels were, and began translating them himself from Greek into English & preaching from his own translations in 1496

 

[breno785au]

Clearly he is more deluded than rational.

I mean, if you're happy with reading KJV as your main translation, nothing wrong with that, I refer to it at times too! But the elevation of it that people do is scary.

 

[posthuman]

The scroll was “written on the inside and the outside” (an idiom for having writing on both sides). Clearly it's a two-sided scroll not a book. How much writing do you think there could be on the outside of a book?

not to mention how to wax-seal a book 7 times??

 

[Dino246]

not to mention how to wax-seal a book 7 times??

Wax on, wax off.

 

[Dino246]

These two quotes from the OP show clearly the depth of his delusion and error.

As a matter of fact, the King James Bible is superior to the Hebrew and to the Greek.

(post #44)

Hence, in addition to the King James Holy Bible translation being perfect, we also can know that it is even superior to the original autographs.

(post #46)

Nothing more need be said; he has said it himself.