Originally Posted by bibleprotector

But that is not saying that the translation is full or complete in English, that is, that the whole and all the meaning of the original words are exactly and fully presenting the full sense in the English.

"But thou hast fully known my doctrine" (2 Tim 3:10a). "Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear" (2 Tim. 4:17a). This requires that the full translation occur so that we (all Gentiles) may fully know the doctrine in English. Are the Gentiles going to hear only the full truth today if they go to the Greek? Or if it is yet being unlocked and revealed from the Greek? Is it not rather that God has providentially supplied and sanctioned the English Bible to take out from the scattered Greek and Hebrew one good Bible for all?

Originally Posted by Diligent

Is the King James Bible perfect and complete and without error? Do you believe there is something we can "gain" from the Greek and Hebrew that isn't evident in the KJB? I'm curious, because you and quite a few people seem to stop short of attributing the full and complete manifestation of Scripture to the King James Bible. Just wondering.

Like I said, it really does not matter, the more important thing is defining and defending the parameters of King James Only. Although, I thought I was manifestly clear in what I said. Be that as it may, I am in a good mood tonight and will acquiesce to your request.

In the words of Peter S. Ruckman (The Christian’s Handbook Of Biblical Scholarship p.460):

Use “the Greek” where it will magnify, apply, glorify, and explain the infallible English, and where it doesn’t, pass it like a beer can on the highway.

Interpretation: if “the Greek” contradicts the King James Authorized Bible, you have the wrong Greek.

__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

[bibleprotector]

I certainly agree the only valid use for the Greek is as a secondary and confirming witness to the English. However, it is an important issue as to the exact sense, that is, the full scope of God's message being present in English. By this I mean that by translation etc., we now (since 1611) have the full, exact and express message of God in English, which is fully and utterly in English. And reading the King James Bible now is as if God spoke English throughout the inspiration of the Scripture, for the manifest infallibility of it in English.

Burgon said concerning the translators, "When we find them turning ‘goodly apparel,’ (in S. James ii. 2,) into ‘gay clothing,’ (in ver. 3,) — we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English."

The argument is not whether or not the Scripture in English is sufficient for salvation, because very born again believer really will have to admit that. The issue is that God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added, is fully present in the King James Bible only".

After that is settled, one more thing needs to be addressed, namely, has God supplied a pure form of the King James Bible, free from printing errors and with standard spellings? I think that He has. While God has blessed various editions of the King James Bible, He has blessed one particular line, and brought it into a kind of acknowledgment that makes it the chosen form.

[Brother Tim]

I would encourage everyone to have a degree of tolerance when defining the KJBO position. As we can all see, there is not a clear dividing line. In my own life, I have never had the slightest sense that there was any Bible but the KJB. In practice and belief I have always rejected any other English version as useful for reading or study. However, in the past, I had some thought that the knowledge of the original languages would help me to better understand the meaning. At that time I would have considered myself King James Only in the simplest meaning or the phrase.

The issue grew through the 80's and 90's, when many new versions were being produced, and I began to look at the question of the translation being equal to the original more. More questions then began to surface. With each new question, the decision I made redefined my understanding of KJBO. At this time, the identification has taken on a wide range of meanings, as has been acknowledged by others here.

What I have now found to be best in my determination of who is and who is not KJBO (in my opinion) deals more with the boundaries than with the listing of what one believes. What does one NOT believe about the KJB is to me more definitive than what one believes. An example would be: A person says that he believes that the KJB is completely accurate. Another says that the KJB does not have any errors or mistakes. Are these two making the identical statement?

[Brother Tim]

Matthew said:

And reading the King James Bible now is as if God spoke English throughout the inspiration of the Scripture, for the manifest infallibility of it in English.

Amen! It could not be more simply worded!

Brother Tim and Bibleprotector are insisting on some sort of specificity in the following statements that distinguishes between attitudes toward the KJB that I've noticed in the discussion all along but don't accept:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

What does one NOT believe about the KJB is to me more definitive than what one believes. An example would be: A person says that he believes that the KJB is completely accurate. Another says that the KJB does not have any errors or mistakes. Are these two making the identical statement?

To my mind they are the identical statement.

Originally Posted by Bibleprotector

The argument is not whether or not the Scripture in English is sufficient for salvation, because very born again believer really will have to admit that. The issue is that God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added, is fully present in the King James Bible only".

I have no problem agreeing with this statement even though I believe the KJB should be updated from time to time, while I gather that others think updating is a form of "correction" or "alteration." To my mind properly-done updating is not correction, it's not change, it does not in any way undermine "God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added."

[bibleprotector]

An example would be: A person says that he believes that the KJB is completely accurate. Another says that the KJB does not have any errors or mistakes. Are these two making the identical statement?

I have read of a person who says something like the King James Bible is completely accurate, but then goes on to explain how that while the translation is accurate, there is always the possibility of further meanings in the original languages, because, according to this person, it is not possible to take over a 100% from one language to another. This person denies that the English Bible is inerrant, that is, without error.

A person says that he believes that the KJB is completely accurate. Another says that the KJB does not have any errors or mistakes. Are these two making the identical statement?

Therefore, these are not the same statement. The one who says the King James Bible is without any error is the one who is believing consistently. The one who just thinks it is completely accurate is a step short.

Of course, I do believe the KJB is completely accurate, but I also believe it is without error. It is exactly true, with no error even in one jot or tittle.

Of course, I do believe the KJB is completely accurate, but I also believe it is without error. It is exactly true, with no error even in one jot or tittle.

I also believe this, and I do not think that properly-done updating of the English in any way compromises this statement. I think clinging to the archaic words is a form of superstition. (There are some that are necessary to the sense, but others aren't). It is sheer superstition to hold that "abideth" is perfect but "abides" is not.

[bibleprotector]

If the text and translation are "God's full and utter truth, exact in words, full in sense, leaving nothing to be desired, having nothing added" then the text and translation cannot be altered.

Having said that, I will now show that changing one jot or one tittle is a change of the Word of God.

Every word has meaning. Every word, its sounding, its placed in the sentence, is exact, is perfect, proper, in its order. Yea, in the Pure Cambridge Edition, we may rely even on the very spellings, the punctuation, in short, in every whit whole.

Changing and altering even one letter, one sound, one word is going to alter these things (some to a greater degree than others):
1. The visual appearance.
2. The sound/rhythm.
3. The subtle associations of meanings, the impact upon the bowels (feeling).
4. The proper use of Biblical English.
5. The sense.
6. The truth.
7. Faith in something which was received as fixed, certain and sure.

Certainly “rasor” to “razor” is slight (the sense changeth not), “thinketh” to “thinks” is not slight, and something like “hewed” to “shown” is wild (New Cambridge Paragraph Edition).

“Forty years long was I grieved with this generation” (Psalm 95:10a) should never be made “For forty years I was grieved with that generation”.

Even a slight change, like one letter, is still a change. It may not be a change to the actual meaning, but it is a change nonetheless to the RECEIVED WORD as is now final. (There are lots of "differences" which may be discovered when comparing to 1611. Such things were needful and were occurring under the providential hand of the Lord. There is no way that any changes now can be God-led. The very desire for change now is really inspired by the spirit of error, because it is never going to accept that the state of the King James Bible as it now is, that is, its very presentation, is final. It will at least try and change spellings. But final is final. And that means no changes, not even of one letter.)

[bibleprotector]

It is sheer superstition to hold that "abideth" is perfect but "abides" is not.

It seems like superstition to those who do not know how intricate and exact Bible English really is. Unless one accepts and sees that it is final, rather than have all sorts of thoughts as to its "old fashioned" (perhaps even "inappropriate") "obscurities", then one will not really be fixed in their heart as to the fixedness of the Bible as it is.

The truth is that updated language will not make the King James Bible more acceptable, certainly not more acceptable to God, and neither to the spirit of antichrist who wants more changes/confusion.

If it is God's Word, God's Spirit will give the understanding of it, even to the simple. It is not a stumblingblock to have a hard and dark Word, because the Spirit of Truth is present to bring illumination.

Even Edward Hills realised that if the King James Bible were "updated" for supposed changes in the language, the same update would be equally out of date when further supposed changes occurred. The reality is that there is a fixed, unaltering core English language which is always existing now throughout the world, which is always going to be conversent with the Bible English. Therefore, there is no reason to ever change the King James Bible as it now is.

Moreover, just as it has been shown that there are seven major English Bibles, so are there seven major editions of the King James Bible. This accords with the prophecy of Psalm 12, which shows that the Word would undergo a process of seven purifications. This has happened within the internal history of the King James Bible. We have the Pure Cambridge Edition. That is "very pure". There is no need, nor precedent for an eight working, because, God has been able to get it right already, despite darkness, deception and ignorance.

I'm perfectly fixed in my heart as to the fixedness of God's word. I believe that the refusal to accept necessary updatings is what is feeding the proliferation of the false versions and making the antichrist happy.

“Forty years long was I grieved with this generation” (Psalm 95:10a) should never be made “For forty years I was grieved with that generation”.

I agree. There is absolutely no reason to make such a change.