Posts Tagged ‘Religious text’

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.

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.