[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Beth

I can only come to the conclusion that in updates, he may mean spellings?

That is unclear, he may be implying a bit more, such as alternative grammar, updating some words. One problem is that he is vague, and when you open a door, it can be a trap-door.

Originally Posted by Beth

and when he says that there are passages that could be translated differently, I wonder if he means that yes could be translated differently, but not meaning that the KJV is translated incorrectly.

That is the sense I got, that some alternative translations may be acceptable, not wrong. However why raise the issue at all ? If you fully accept the King James Bible the alternative translation will at best be "almost ok" and "not wrong". Why open the door to translating differently on an overall basis ? If you want to say that on a particular verse an alternative in a version is understandable and reasonable, do it when that verse comes up. And even those words can be misunderstood, what you are really saying is that the alternative is not technically, scholastically 'wrong', 'error'.

Originally Posted by Beth

I can't say that I disagree with anything in the entire article. Cloud is a true defender of the KJB. His knowledge of the issue is incredible.

This is true.

btw, his usage of "accurate and lovely" discomfits me. Accurate yes, but more .. precise, majestic and much more, including pure and perfect. Lovely without much more sounds a bit elitist and quaint, almost condescending as it would be used by an opponent, and even 'accurate' is only moderately strong.

Just telling you how I see it. I don't comment on these issues much, I really like David Cloud and appreciate his labors, so this should be in that context.

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

That is unclear, he may be implying a bit more, such as alternative grammar, updating some words. One problem is that he is vague, and when you open a door, it can be a trap-door.

Yes, I agree, I wish he would of explained this comment better.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

That is the sense I got, that some alternative translations may be acceptable, not wrong. However why raise the issue at all ? If you fully accept the King James Bible the alternative translation will at best be "almost ok" and "not wrong". Why open the door to translating differently on an overall basis ? If you want to say that on a particular verse an alternative in a version is understandable and reasonable, do it when that verse comes up. And even those words can be misunderstood, what you are really saying is that the alternative is not technically, scholastically 'wrong', 'error'.

This is true.

I'm not sure why he raised the issue. I think he is trying to explain to those that choose instead the MV why there is so much disagreement within the KJVO camp. It will be easy for him to say something not quite right depending on which KJVO camp a person belongs. I read a lot of his articles, so putting it all together I understand what he means and I know he is truly defending the KJB. Hopefully he will clarify further what he meant by that statement.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

btw, his usage of "accurate and lovely" discomfits me. Accurate yes, but more .. precise, majestic and much more, including pure and perfect. Lovely without much more sounds a bit elitist and quaint, almost condescending as it would be used by an opponent, and even 'accurate' is only moderately strong.

Just telling you how I see it. I don't comment on these issues much, I really like David Cloud and appreciate his labors, so this should be in that context.

Shalom,
Steven

I can't say that I like his usage of "accurate and lovely" either. But he did go on to say that the KJB was free of error. which is like saying pure and perfect, precise. Superior is like saying majestic.

Maybe this would help also:

Here is a list and description of many great books on this issue

A BASIC BIBLE VERSION LIBRARY

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/basic-biblevers-lib.html

[Luke]

Cloud also says

Let me hasten to say that I DO believe God had his hand upon the translation of the KJV in a marvelous way. I DO NOT believe there are any real mistakes in the King James Bible. The King James Bible has played a crucial role in the preservation of the Word of God in the last four centuries because of the importance of the English language. God gave the English-speaking people an accurate translation. I do believe there are places that could be translated more clearly. I do believe there are antiquated words that could be brought up to date. To say, though, there are changes which could be made in the KJV is entirely different from saying there are changes which must be made, or that it contains mistakes. To say that there are passages which could be translated differently is not the same as saying there are passages which contain error" (David Cloud, What about Ruckman?).

The problem with this is that passages translated differently will not mean the same thing, and so WILL contain error. I do not think that David Cloud is some wicked Bible Corrector who hates the King James Bible. Far from it. I learnt a lot from Cloud about the King James Bible (especially 1 John 5:7 and other verses). But I don't think he is right when he says archaic words could be updated.

Originally Posted by Luke

Cloud also says

Let me hasten to say that I DO believe God had his hand upon the translation of the KJV in a marvelous way. I DO NOT believe there are any real mistakes in the King James Bible. The King James Bible has played a crucial role in the preservation of the Word of God in the last four centuries because of the importance of the English language. God gave the English-speaking people an accurate translation. I do believe there are places that could be translated more clearly. I do believe there are antiquated words that could be brought up to date. To say, though, there are changes which could be made in the KJV is entirely different from saying there are changes which must be made, or that it contains mistakes. To say that there are passages which could be translated differently is not the same as saying there are passages which contain error" (David Cloud, What about Ruckman?).

The problem with this is that passages translated differently will not mean the same thing, and so WILL contain error. I do not think that David Cloud is some wicked Bible Corrector who hates the King James Bible. Far from it. I learnt a lot from Cloud about the King James Bible (especially 1 John 5:7 and other verses). But I don't think he is right when he says archaic words could be updated.

The fact of the matter is he says that the KJB is free of error and that there is no need to do any updating because it is free of error. I don't think it is wrong to say that archaic words could be updated but there is no need. I don't think it is wrong to say that there are places that could be translated differently, but since there are no errors so there is no need to translate anything differently. I don't think there is a group of people today that could take the task, with the same confidence we have in the KJV translators.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Luke

I don't know Thomas Holland, and as much as I appreciate and love Will Kinney and the research he has done into the King James Bible "issue" (it's only an issue with those who hate it :P ), I cannot stomach the calvinist influence that comes through on SOME (not many) of his pieces of writing.

Hi Luke. I do not push my belief in the sovereignty of God in salvation and the fact that we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. I believe the Bible clearly teaches these truths but it is not my hobby horse, and I rarely mention these Biblical truths in my articles. However I find it highly ironic that most of those who believe and defend the King James Bible as being the true words of God seem to overlook or ignore the obvious fact that the overwhelming majority of the men who were responsible for giving us the King James Bible were themselves "Calvinists".

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/CalKJB.html

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Hi Luke. I do not push my belief in the sovereignty of God in salvation and the fact that we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. I believe the Bible clearly teaches these truths but it is not my hobby horse, and I rarely mention these Biblical truths in my articles. However I find it highly ironic that most of those who believe and defend the King James Bible as being the true words of God seem to overlook or ignore the obvious fact that the overwhelming majority of the men who were responsible for giving us the King James Bible were themselves "Calvinists".

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/CalKJB.html

Just a thought.

Here's another thought. The Baptist at the time of the translation of the KJV were sent to jail for preaching the gospel message of Jesus Christ without a license. and sent to jail, (not to mention burned at the stake) for baptizing after one believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, as is exampled in the scriptures. God used those that were able to do the work without being sent to prison. Calvinism is just one of the errors that the reformers held onto. There has always been a narrow path of true believers that never joined ranks with the Catholic Church or the Church of England. Praise the Lord!!

The Defined King James Bible is not a correction to the King James authorized Text, only and explanation of words at the bottom. As far as I am concerned it is a fine piece of work
__________________________________

- “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)

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Beth

Here's another thought. The Baptist at the time of the translation of the KJV were sent to jail for preaching the gospel message of Jesus Christ without a license. and sent to jail, (not to mention burned at the stake) for baptizing after one believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, as is exampled in the scriptures. God used those that were able to do the work without being sent to prison. Calvinism is just one of the errors that the reformers held onto. There has always been a narrow path of true believers that never joined ranks with the Catholic Church or the Church of England. Praise the Lord!!

Would that Baptist who was sent to jail for preaching the gospel message happen to be the great and renowned John Bunyan, who wrote Pilgrim's Progress? If so, are you aware that he was a staunch Calvinist? In fact, if you look at almost any Baptist confession of faith in the 1800's, both here in the USA and in England, you will see that they were all 'Calvinists'. I'm not making this stuff up. Just do a little research.

Will K

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Would that Baptist who was sent to jail for preaching the gospel message happen to be the great and renowned John Bunyan, who wrote Pilgrim's Progress? If so, are you aware that he was a staunch Calvinist? In fact, if you look at almost any Baptist confession of faith in the 1800's, both here in the USA and in England, you will see that they were all 'Calvinists'. I'm not making this stuff up. Just do a little research.

Will K

There were many persecuted for preaching without a license and many persecuted for baptizing. This is what I am currently researching and in fact it hasn't come up at all that the Baptists, (named by our enemies) were Calvinist.