Posts Tagged ‘KJB’

Where was the standard for the “Word of God” before 1611?

July 23, 2013

The Word of God did surely exist somewhere as promised, say, in 1610, in one collection, possibly in Hebrew for the O.T. and Greek for the N.T. Possibly in Latin. There was not one known copy with evidence based on preservation. But the truth is I don’t know except for the promises.

That was nothing new in the history of Scripture. There was a time when a king inherited the throne, and ordered the Temple to be restored, and the priests found a copy of scriptures, hidden in the walls of the structures they were restoring. This righteous king called for repentance and to lift the scripture up again across the land.

No one could have pointed you to them, but there they were. In the case of the KJB

Casiodoro de Reina de Proel En el dominio públ...

Casiodoro de Reina de Proel

, God chose a different way to restore a collection of inspired Canon that you could point to. Therefore I agree with the use of the term Restoration Bible used by Stephen to (I presume) refer to the KJB. That’s why I also agree with the terminology of “restore God’s perfect Word” because it had lost its place.

The Word was certainly restored to its proper residence in one recognized Canon, that not only met the test by fire of its use by Spirit-filled people for more than three centuries in its language with no other translation even contemplated.

The fact of the scripture’s restoration to its place of honor with the KJB is seen in the fact that it quickly supplanted what you could call other “competing” translations, even beyond the reach of British or Anglican authority, and even beyond the “spirit-filled”. It was quickly dominant I believe even by the Calvinists of the day, the Puritans, and others.

Another evidence is the way it dominated the English language. Isaac Asimov once wrote that it was Shakespeare who stabilized the English language because the KJB was “just a translation”, which shows he doesn’t know so much about history as he puts on, or that he is “willfully ignorant”. Not for nothing he even says it, because it shows he recognized the Authorized Version/KJB as having dominance in the English language.

I can’t speak for Polish or Chinese, but Spanish certainly shows this as well. I’ve read the Casiodoro de Reina from times more or less contemporary to the KJB, and the Spanish is very, very different from the 1960 Revision, or even the 1905.

Advertisements

Understanding the Bible, getting help, and translations

February 26, 2012

Someone wrote elsewhere:

….I have a son that has the same issues. He gets 2 verses read and has a headache and during that reading the words move and letters do jumping jacks. I have a question for you. Are you going to let MAN tell you what translation of the Bible to read and cause you to no longer be able to take comfort in the words of God Most High?


Rich has nothing to be frustrated about. I’ve had my own frustrations.

I tested out for gifted classes and was always good in spelling and vocabulary, and I am sure I was saved a child in the church where my Dad was pastor. But I went back to reading the Bible after I met some “Jesus people” and could not understand almost anything that I opened up random until I actually joined full-time and had some Bible classes.

You want to see confusion? Go to www.blueletterbible.org and open up almost any chapter, and click on the “V” for version comparison, now THAT is confusion.

And one of the most unrecognized truth in this discussion is that the KJB is the still the silent standard in the background, because Christianity in the English-speaking world was stabilized with it and the modern versions are now done with a sideways glance to the wording in the KJB, but even more so, the doctrines that were brought to light by it. (Trinity, Great Commission, Salvation by Grace, the Mark of the Beast, much more).

There are no perfect translations of ANY WORK of any author. There are better thans. The KJV has some really good sections over some others and then some really bad ones.

—-
I have seen hundreds of “examples” of “bad” sections in the KJB so-called and they turned out to be silly, or stupid, results of ignorance of the English language, ignorance of doctrine, and other gaps in knowledge and understanding.

There are dozens passages in the scripture in fact that were obviously translations from other languages into the Hebrew. There is NOT ONE verse in ANY version that says God will NEVER anoint a translation from original languages for the future.

The NASB is a literal translation as well.


Of the proven corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts, which are as varied among themselves as the modern translations as well, but most likely use a Nestle-Aland Greek for the NT, based on the Westcott-Hart.

My recommendation for you is either an audio of the Bible or buy as used Kindle on Ebay. It has text to speech and will be read for you.


Here you have free downloadable audio of the King James, book by book, you can listen on-line too:
http://www.audiotreasure.com/indexKJV.htm

You find an audio read here too. Looks like they used to have the narration by Alexander Scourby online but the copyright holders of that recording revoked permission:
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html

That’s really too bad, because (1) Scourby’s rendition was, in my opinion at least, anointed because it was perfect, and you could not distinguish Scourby from the reading of it. In other words, you were listening to the scripture itself and Scourby was not in the way.

That is what my son has and it is wonderful. Let the Spirit of God lead you into all truth. To say the KJV is the only Bible to read is absolutely ridiculous and leaves all people who do not read English without the ability to get the “perfect” words of God! What kind of God is that?


That would be your “kind” of God more than that of KJB advocates because the idea of “original languages”, because since there is such variation in copies today extant in “original languages”, that HAS to lead by direct logical mathematics to the idea of “original autographs only”, which of course are out of reach of all of us.

And yet 95 percent of the modern translations in English from the “original autographs” are based on 5 percent of the copies that exist today (with all the inconsistency and contradictions among them), while 95 percent of the oldest copies are the basis for the King James Bible.

Not to mention that until English became a language – no one on the planet could have access to God’s words. Does this not make sense to you? Who has the right to declare any book perfect? The Bible is the plumb line by which you test which spirit is talking to you.


In the times of Moses and the prophets, there was only ONE TRIBE that had “access” to God’s words based on that speculation, why would it not be a problem for the “original languages” and be a problem today?

If you “Try the spirits”, you will abide by the spirit of the word, not the letter. By their own admission, the modern translations trust in the letter of the law, meaning the pick it apart with man’s wisdom and they give priority to the world’s ideas about translation techniques instead of giving first respect to the Word itself.

The modern translations even brag about their knowledge of the letter, and it loses spirit. A Haitian-born co-worker said she could tell that the KJB did have more spirit than the other one she had used (that her pastor used). I met a gal from Brazil at a shop in a mall reading the KJB who said the same thing. (Her pastor uses the NIV). She could not stand the other bland versions.

We already have some people preaching that the mark of the Beast cannot be an implanted chip (like the one they already market) because of the mis-translation in all the MV’s (modern versions) of the word “in”, preferring the Harvard-grad translation “on”.

We already have some people (including Christians) claiming Biblical basis for believing in Darwinian evolution because man’s worldly language wisdom says Genesis One has “ages” instead of “days”.

We have Sodom getting fire and brimstone for “lack of hospitality” instead of sodomy.

We have Jesus Christ expelled from congregations for being “divisive” instead of the heretic getting expelled. Democracy rules, even if the majority is heretical.

We have John’s gospel saying jesus is “a god” instead of just “God”.

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. – Matthew 4:4Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. – Proverbs 30:5

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 0 2 Corinthians 3:6

Also, look up words and there meanings by using a simple thing like the Strong’s Concordance (it is not perfect either but it is a start) at www.blueletterbible.org

These are just my thoughts when I saw your struggle. God is more concerned that you get to enjoy the records He had others write down, rather than who published it or which king commissioned it or other silly man made rules.


Those objections are owned by the anti-KJB demagogues that have Ms. Raylene confused as well. And backwards apparently.

They are the ones who claim to know best about “who published it”, they pick their words based on “other silly man made rules”, and everybody knows that the “records [God] had others write down” do not exist anywhere today, and we only have old copies of them through many copies of copies. And some of them are likely translations from other languages but treated as God’s word. By the anti-KJB demagogues themselves.

Bible Believing Ministries John Hinton

February 19, 2012
A bible from 1859.

Image via Wikipedia

Bible Believing Ministries John Hinton:
http://www.kjv-asia.com/bible_believing_ministries_john_hinton.htm

This is a deserving ministry.

The Devil has spread a flood of lies in all the world against the truth, and he’s using the most respected book of Christians to do it to Christians too.

But the truth will prevail, and the Gates of Hell will not stand against the truth.

Scriptural grounds for and against KJBO

February 19, 2012

The points they use against the KJB (‘What about generations past”) exposes their own bankruptcy on that very issue. How do they know which one of these has the “original Greek”? Well, they have their own “priestly scholars”, meaning the scribes and Pharisees they trust to tell them what the Greek means.

That is, they have to pick one and say “That one reference standard proves the KJB is wrong”.

Oh yeah? They can’t prove anything, because they claim that the only acceptable true standard to say XYZ is excactly what the Word of God says, are the long-gone “original autographs”.

Besides, they cannot point to any scripture at all that they can use to say that God would never preserve his word in later eras, in times to come, in a new language. Nor can they point to even one scripture that hints that God would be happy with one hundred “acceptable” variations from his Word to be used to cite “scipture”. Not one.

But I’ve seen enough examples here & elsewhere from people who do know Koine Greek (hundreds, maybe thousands) that even the Greek doesn’t help them.

There’s nothing conclusive on their side but the relevant verses are:

(1) the verses that promise preservation in Psalms,
(2) “Not one jot or tittle shall pass away till all be fulfilled” (*See note),
(3) “God is not the author of confusion”,
(4) No prophecy…is of private interpretation
(5) But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
(6) “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (I Corinthians 1:10)

KJBO-Deniers Have Affirmative Positions They Have to Defend Too

February 19, 2012

KJBO advocates do have affirmative positions, but so do the deniers.

One thing KJB critics always say is that the KJBO position is against scripture.

But they never give a scripture to support this claim.
But KJB defenders have an abundance of scripture to support the idea that God would have arranged for just ONE “version” of his word at any time, but above all for OUR times, since we are obviously living in the times of world history that occupy of in as much as half of Biblical prophecy. And prophecy is half to two-thirds of the whole Bible.

But the anti-KJBO deniers do not have even ONE scripture to back the two parts, implicit and explicit, that comprise their position.

#1, They deny that there is any one standard that stands above all the rest in a way that is independent of personal opinion.

#2. If there is any perfect standard criteria, the KJBO does not fit it.

To deny KJBO based on #2, they have to assume that there are principles by which we may determine that a version is wrong or right, or better or worse in some passage than another “version”.

What’s amazingly informative to me in all these discussions is that once anyone decides that God would want to have one standard bearer of his Word, and not a confusion of voices, it doesn’t take long for them to land with both feet on the KJB.

“Problems” with the KJB? Think again, look again, be a Berean

November 15, 2011

The NIV and other translations and the accusations of “problems” with the KJB I have seen have provided excellent occasions to show why I am a KJBO defender. Two-thirds of the Bible-gone! The accuracy of a different second-person singular–Gone! The cardinal order of the six days of creation –Gone! Not one jot or tittle shall fail–Gone with thousands on thousands of jots and tittles. Jots and tittles were an obvious allusion to the tiniest nuance of meaning in the prophecies, and they are lost first in all the dynamic-philosophy translations, and lost in unnecessary “language modernization” in the others.

For God is not the author of the confusion of a hundred different translations. I have yet to see ONE BIBLICAL REFERENCE that says God would never intervene to ensure one accurate standard for his word, down to jot and tittle.

By their fruits ye shall know them. Claiming that the gospel of Mark leaves Jesus in the tomb and never left us the Great Commission (profusely quoted by the earliest Christian leaders) reminds of me of Job’s comment: “If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me”. What can we expect from the Greek base compiled by a pair of reprobates about whom their own sons wrote that they did not believe Jesus was God, that Charles Darwin was right and the creation narrative in Genesis was myth, that Jesus’ sacrifice for sins was a “bloody horror”, and that belief in the miracles was stupid.

Yeah, I can believe they were almost incredulous at the request from the Bishop for their help.

Where is the verse that says God said he would never ever make sure the words in the original autographs were understood the way he wanted them to be understood ages later? With all he said about his word, why oh why would he trust in us mere men for the job??!

Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

King James Bible translators: Inspired or not? What about marginal notes?

October 2, 2011

The King James Bible translators don’t have to know they are inspired. King David didn’t stop and think about his famous words to Goliath, they just poured out. In fact, if they had been of such a mindset they might have been tempted to replace the unknown Hebrew word “behemoth” into a best prayerful guess from what they know instead of using a transliteration like they did. Modern translators make a pure guess especially the Creation-doubters.

What, you don’t think God can inspire a translation like the Hebrew and Aramaic translations in the Tanukh of conversations in Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian and Latin tongues?  Is God’s tongue cut off to leave us without a standard, without the  “original autographs” of all 66 books, and let us depend on man’s faulty wisdom?

The rebuttal from advocates of a confusion of translations is that believers in the KJB as God’s choice today do NOT trust the translators of the time any more than we trust the prophets of old. We just know that according to God’s own word, his word is the most important thing because it’s the standard by which all truth and doctrine is measured, and he would not leave us dependent on Harvard Divinity grads and the like for even its wording.

Entropy, Adam and Eve, Seth’s sisters, genetics and in-breeding

October 2, 2011

n-breeding was not a problem for the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. From the Law of Entropy and the knowledge that today all species incorporate some “genetic defects” within, products of mutation, and from the knowledge that Adam and Eve were “very good” creations, perfect in fact, directly fashioned by God, inbreeding was not a problem for the first generations, neither for the grandchildren of Noah.

Besides which, the genome is built by God with mechanisms for adaptation to changing conditions, including great numbers of “spare parts” –which used to be called “junk DNA” by the clueless arrogant smarter-than-thou Darwinian pagans.
That’s right, many superstitious tribes of Old Testament times also believed of a stock “Thou art my father”, and of a stone, “Thou hast brought me forth”.
Read Jeremiah 2:27, it’s right there.

Thee thou thine

October 14, 2010

Our language is muddy in the English language when it comes to the 2nd singular pronoun. Meaning, we use the same word for both singular and plural. The best “translation” of the Bible is one that avoids muddying, rather follows a Biblical standard from the word of God. The word of prophecy is not of private interpretation. It is absolutely impossible to do the Bible justice by “translating” it into the usage applied in street vernacular.

The Bible is not so muddy. See this next link to understand how distinguishing you-singular and you-plural in the KJB makes it much more understandable, whereas others are much more ambiguous:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/thou.html

More than one dictionary will inform you that these words were gone from everyday speech long before the KJB came along.

Even at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou you’ll find this:

One notable consequence of the decline in use of the second person singular pronouns thou, thy, and thee is the obfuscation of certain sociocultural elements of Early Modern English texts, such as many character interactions in Shakespeare‘s plays. In Richard III, for instance, the conversation between the Duke of Clarence and the two murderers takes on a very different tone if it is read in light of the social connotations of the pronouns used by the characters.[11]

and…

As William Tyndale translated the Bible into English in the early 16th century, he sought to preserve the singular and plural distinctions that he found in his Hebrew and Greek originals. Therefore, he consistently used thou for the singular and ye for the plural regardless of the relative status of the speaker and the addressee. By doing so, he probably saved thou from utter obscurity and gave it an air of solemnity that sharply distinguished it from its original meaning.[2] Tyndale’s usage was imitated in the King James Bible, and remained familiar because of that translation.[13]

They say it’s still used in some places. Here next is a link to a simple conjugation table:

http://alt-usage-english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html

Peter admonishes us to desire the “sincere milk” of the word. We go right by that verse, I always have until I discovered the issue of Bible versions.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

See the dictionary definition of “sincere” below. Diluting the singular-plural distinction is an adulteration of the Bible in English.

sin·cere (sn-sîr) adj. sin·cer·er, sin·cer·est 1. Not feigned or affected; genuine: sincere indignation.
2. Being without hypocrisy or pretense; true: a sincere friend.
3. Archaic Pure; unadulterated.

1 Peter 2:2  As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

Jesus the Word of God

September 19, 2010

Why does John refer to Jesus Christ as “the Word” in John 1?

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Both Jesus in the flesh, and the word of God are called “truth” (as an object). Not just that they are true, but they ARE truth.

Teno Groppi said: “I’d say the KJB is the written version of Jesus Christ.” http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/kjv.0

That sounds like a good way to put it.

God wrapped up his identity inside the word of God. You could say he “conflated” (“to bring together; meld or fuse”) the two (himself and his word), and the word of God was made flesh, the Word of God.

Not “just” the KJB, since God was from before he even said “Let there be light” of course. But even of the beginning we have John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God is of course independent of each “manifestation” of his word, whether the Torah at the time of Moses, or the historical books and the prophetic books as they were written, and the New Testament books as they were also written.

But he has made plain that God the Son is “embodied” in the written Word, the word of God.

God made it as plain as he could. We are told from the scripture that he has magnified his word “above all his name”.

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

In Isaiah he tells us that if anyone speaks anything “not according to this word”, there is no light in them:

Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Okay now.

If John 1:1 and John 1:14 and I John 5:7 (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost”) have nothing to do with the scripture, then what do you think they are doing there?

And if God made such an important issue –above all others!– of his written word, as being the “scriptural manifestation” for us of the “person” of Jesus Christ, how can anyone claim that he had no interest in supervising its integrity throughout the ages?

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

But, now “Phantom-Originals-Only” (aka “POO”) defenders have to look for “the basic essential doctrines” in the corruptions of man, by the admission of all “Phantom-Originals-Only” (aka “POO”) defenders.

Jeremiah 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

For many years as a Christian I had no idea about the importance of the versions issue and did not even think about it, although I always used the AV (KJB), and of course did realize there were some verses in other versions like the NIV with suspect wording.

It’s a significant factor that people who actually consider it a central issue tend to go in one direction. In other words, anyone who thinks God would have only one Bible today without confusion, settle on just one of the “choices”.

Compare it for understanding to the situation in creationism–evolution debates. True agnostics are rare that both (1) say they are undecided and don’t know if there is a God, and at the same time (2) are studying the subject intensely. That’s because they almost always spend little time finding themselves in the camp of believers.

The Word is the final authority for deciding among doctrines.

Deviations from “the Word” (aka “the word of God”) in POO-versions based on the false POO doctrine (Phantom Originals Only) have already been used to support deviations of doctrines from “the faith of our fathers”.

—trutherator