[Forrest]

Originally Posted by tlewis3348

Since we know that there are some words in the original languages for which there exists no English word to fully describe, we must conclude that either one or the other is a fuller description of what was meant.

Therefore, if the English is the fuller description then that must mean that the originals were not as good of a description. Now God did inspire the original writers of the Bible (I think we can all agree on at least that); therefore, what they wrote is exactly the inspired word of God. Now as scribes copied the Bible there were differences that appeared (there are differences in the Greek manuscripts that exist, though very few). Does this mean that God has not preserved His Word? NO!

Do you believe that God, not man or scribes, kept and preserved His Word for us today in written form with no differences between what He "originally" meant and what we read today? Yes or no?

If so, do we have in our possession the written Word of God He originally meant to give us? Yes or no?

If so, which version do we have in our possession that contains what He originally meant to give us?

[JMWHALEN]

Originally Posted by tlewis3348

First, I would like to thank those of you who have pointed out my error in logic of saying that the KJV is "as close as we can get to the originals." Please let me clarify myself.

Stick with me on this.

If we take Shakespeare's Hamlet and translate it into Spanish, is this not still Shakespeare's work? I would submit to you that it is if and only if the translator did not add any of his own opinions to it. We had to do something like this in high school English. We were to take a quote from a famous work and paraphrase it without adding any of own ideas. I found this to be surprisingly difficult. Is it possible? Yes, of course. It especially is when one is very good at understanding language. Now when someone is translating a work of literature the idea is to translate it word for word and then rearrange those words into a reasonable thought (since the grammar of different languages call for different sentence structure). I believe that the KJV translators accomplished this when they translated the Bible. Now as we continue with this train of thought, we consider what happens when a translator comes to a word in the original that simply does not exist into which he is translating. What does he do in this situation? He chooses the word in the translation that most closely represents the original word. These are simple facts that must happen when something is being translated. I believe that the KJV translators did a superb job at this. Now some say that these men were unknowingly divinely empowered to choose exactly the right word in the English language. Since we know that there are some words in the original languages for which there exists no English word to fully describe, we must conclude that either one or the other is a fuller description of what was meant. Therefore, if the English is the fuller description then that must mean that the originals were not as good of a description. Now God did inspire the original writers of the Bible (I think we can all agree on at least that); therefore, what they wrote is exactly the inspired word of God. Now as scribes copied the Bible there were differences that appeared (there are differences in the Greek manuscripts that exist, though very few). Does this mean that God has not preserved His Word? NO! Historians say that we still have Homer when we only have a few copies of his work. We have several thousand copies of the scripture, as well as billions of Bibles in circulation. Yes God most definitely does preserve His Word. So although the Greek and Hebrew manuscript do contain differences they are very small and very few and we therefore conclude that they differ very little from the original manuscripts written by the original authors that were most definitely inspired by God. As we have already said, when translating a language there are some words in the original that have no exact translation in the new language. So therefore we see that there is a logical succession here. First there were the original autographs, then scribes copied those autographs, then translators translated from those copies into what we have today. We have many of those copies and we know that they differ slightly from each other and therefore they must differ slightly from the originals. We also know that any time something is translated into a different language there is a slight loss of meaning. Therefore, is it not logical to say that the closer we can get in that succession to the original autographs the more accurate representation we will have of what the originals said? I believe that this is a logical statement. I also believe that this does not remove any of the foundations of my Christian faith. Let me restate something here. I do believe that the KJV is God's inspired Word (just like a Spanish translation of Hamlet is still Shakespeare); however, I believe that the study of a compilation of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts can give a fuller understanding of what is being said in a certain passage. So while it is not necessary to have knowledge of what the Greek or Hebrew says it certainly is helpful. This knowledge can be had by anyone through the use of a Strong's Concordance.

__________

(bold is my emphasis)

"the translator... the KJV translators ...accomplished this ….when a translator comes to a word in the original ….What does he do in this situation? He chooses ..I believe that the KJV translators did a superb job at this...."

My comment: Wrong premise("supporting walls") -wrong conclusion. Your premise is that man is responsible for the preservation of the inspired word of God, i.e., secular humanism/moderism. Why is it(rhetorical question) that Christians can believethat LORD God created the universe, saved sinners, raised the dead....................but "just couldn't get this preservation thing down right."



"Does this mean that God has not preserved His Word? NO! Historians say that we still have Homer when we only have a few copies of his work. We have several thousand copies of the scripture, as well as billions of Bibles in circulation. Yes God most definitely does preserve His Word. So although the Greek and Hebrew manuscript do contain differences they are very small and very few and we therefore conclude that they differ very little from the original manuscripts written by the original authors that were most definitely inspired by God….We have many of those copies and we know that they differ slightly from each other and therefore they must differ slightly from the originals.

__________________________________________________ ________________________________
"they differ very little….differ slightly from each other"

My comment. This is incorrect. The 5000+ ms. differ in hundreds of places.

And Please define "slightly." Again, "slightly" wrong? "Almost the word of God"?



So, how do you explain the following(among hundreds of examples), i.e., if all the different the translators were all looking at "the" Greek, how can any reasonbally(Is. 5:20) prudent person ccome to this "differ slightly" conclusion?:

Ephesians 3:6

"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" King James Bible


"This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." NIV

In the NIV, the phrase that "the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel", the words "with Israel" are not found in any of the 5000+ manuscripts-nada. Someone else on this board can either verify this, or correct me. If this is so: One of the very "lynch pins"of a dispensational approach to understanding the Holy Bible, is the premise that there is a clear separation between Israel and the body of Christ=things that differ-scriptures which apply to Israel cannot be applied to the body of Christ in this mystery dispensation. Gentiles are not heirs "together with Israel." The King James Bible and the NIV cannot both be the word of God, if the logic of the law of non-contradiction as a tool, is a presumption in our/any discussion(The KJB and the NIV contradict each other in hundreds of places. I only focus on a dispensational aspect here).

And how do you explain, if these differences are just "slight", the following:

Galatians 2:7

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;" King James Bible


"On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews." NIV

"But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised ." NASB


Our faith("in") vs. the Lord Jesus Christ's faith("of")

Galatians 2:16
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." King James Bible

" knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." New King James Version

"know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." NIV
_____________________________
Galatians 2:20
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." King James Bible

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." New King James Version

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." NIV
_____________________________
Galatians 3:22
"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." King James Bible

"But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." New King James Version

"But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe." NIV
______________________________
Ephesians 3:12
"In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him." King James Bible

" in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him." New King James Version

"In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence." NIV
________________________________
Philippians 3:9

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:" King James Bible

"and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;" New King James Version

"and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith." NIV
___________________________________
Colossians 3:12
"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." King James Bible

"buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." New King James Version

"having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." NIV
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________




"the Greek... manuscript "

My comment: Are you sure you are not just restating what you read on other websites, i.e., have you done the research? There is no such thing as "the Greek manuscript." Please identify this "the" Greek manuscript.




"...differ very little from the original manuscripts written by the original authors that were most definitely inspired by God…. ... "

My comment: You continue to argue this point, but, as I asked you twice previously, how are you able to make this assessment/judgment, i.e., " differ very little from", without having "the original manuscripts written by the original authors."


Do you mean "the originals", or the 5000+ manuscripts? "Fess up"-have you seen/reviewed/studied either "the original manuscripts written by the original authors", or the 5000+ manuscripts? If no, how can you make this statement?. I believe you are confused on the terms "originals"/"original manuscripts"-there is only one "original"(of anything); there are 5000+ ms.

I assume you mean the 5000+ manuscripts, given your "We have many of those copies and we know that they differ slightly from each other and therefore they must differ slightly from the originals" statement. . If so, my question remains: how are you able to make this assessment/judgment, i.e., that "those copies" "differ slightly" from "the originals?

(I suggest you "tighten up" your teminilogy, i.e., be more precise.)


__________________________________________________ _______________________________
".... We have several thousand copies of the scripture, as well as billions of Bibles in circulation....

Vs.

"I do believe that the KJV is God's inspired Word "



My comment: You seem to distinguish/differentiate between "the scripture" and "billions of Bibles", i.e., your "as well as" phrase, and you seem to distinguish between "the scripture" and "the KJV." Are 'billions of Bibles" "the scripture"? I thought that "the" in "the Bible" is singular, as in "the book", "the volume of the book?"
___________

"I do believe that the KJV is God's inspired Word. "

My comment: Thank you!!!! Despite the preceding comments, I am happy to see your conviction, your "spine/backbone", in stating, on record, that you believe "that the KJV is God's inspired Word."




In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[bibleprotector]

The story about Shakespeare being in Spanish needs a bit of revision:

1. In English, there is not one "text" of Shakespeare. We do not have Shakespeare's autographs, but we have some early notes taken by people at the playhouse, and early printings, both unauthorised and authorised. These all contain varying readings between them. Therefore, editors have worked the text through history, and most importantly the best printed text in English is the Globe Edition (called the "Cambridge Standard Edition"), edited by W. Aldis Wright and some others.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_Editors

2. If we take "Cambridge Standard Edition" of 1864, and translate that to Spanish, we would certainly have the best textual basis for a Spanish Shakespeare. But the translation would have to be done properly. It would have to balance:
a. following the very literal meaning of the English words into like Spanish words;
b. convey the sense (what would strike an English reader's mind, would also have to likewise strike a Spaniard's); and
c. the feeling, felicities, grace and various stylistic rhythms and metres found in the English would have to be conveyed into the Spanish.

3. On this basis, even if a new text was formed superior to the "Cambridge Standard Edition" and this translated into Spanish with all poetic force, etc., it would just be impossible for it to be "right", in that there is no perfect edition of Shakespeare in English, and translation can never exactly convey a literary work in another tongue. (Conclusion: the best Shakespeare is in the Cambridge Standard Edition.)

4. To apply these textual critical phenomena of Shakespeare to the Scriptures is entirely wrong, because the Scripture directly speaks upon these topics.

A. TEXT
i. The promise of preservation (Psalm 12) ensures that in the original languages the true Scripture would yet exist, though scattered;
ii. The promise of preservation also allows for the utilisation of other witnesses and sources, e.g. lectionaries, other ancient translations, etc.
iii. The promise of preservation also allows, even requires, seven forms of textual gathering, as may be observed in the seven English Bibles of the Reformation.
iv. While the King James Bible has been identified as an independent form of the Received Text (the Textus Receptus editions all differ slightly), it is also, by virtue of the outworking of the promise of preservation, the final pure text.

B. TRANSLATION
i. The promise of world evangelisation (e.g. the Great Commission, etc.) does not require that the Scripture should stay in the original language to retain the power and message of truth.
ii. The Scripture has gone forth in many tongues.
iii. The Scripture actually is required to be in "another tongue" (see Isaiah 28:11), which is singular and particular, for the purpose of world evangelisation.
iv. There is power therefore to render the Scripture perfectly by translation that it might be in this other language, the Scripture therefore being made to be in a pure language (see Zephaniah 3:9).

C. PRESENTATION
i. The promise that not one jot nor tittle would fail (see Matthew 5:18), and of the inability of the Scripture to pass away, etc., all require that the entire Scripture, the entire Canon, to be present in one text and translation as a perfect standard, being the Book of the Lord, with nothing added or missing: This cannot and does not exist anywhere in one extant form in the original languages today, nor is any Bible Version in the world, including Reformation English ones, equal to the King James Bible in these regards, and other matters, such as its scope, influence, majesty and, very importantly, its being in a language which is conversant to the world's global language.
ii. That the text (or readings) of 1611, (being the text, not the margins) has not altered to this very day in the proper line of editions;
iii. And that the translation likewise has not been altered;
iv. But that we have in one standard form (for the correction of any and all printing errors, the standardisation of the language and the editorial regularisation) the very Scripture perfectly, utterly accurate and matching to the lost Autographs, being their very representative on Earth.

To conclude, we ask, where would we seek the Word of God? By running to and fro? By yet attempting to divine the original languages? By relying upon Aland or Strong? By being content with the "imperfect best", contradicting Deuteronomy 32:4? Or rather by having faith in God, that by His Divine Providence He has afforded to the world by His superintendence the Holy Scripture perfectly, exactly and totally in one standard form for all? (That "all" is coming to pass to include Spaniards, see Isaiah 18:3, Matt. 24:14, Rom. 16:26, Col. 1:5, 6, 23 and Revelation 14:6).

[PB1789]

Originally Posted by tlewis3348

First of all, I would like to say that I only use that KJV and refuse to use any of these other translations. That said I do not believe that the King James Version was inspired. If it were inspired then all other translations that have been used by the many faithful men before the KJV was finished as well as those that cannot understand English must have been inspired as well. Are we prepared to say this? How do we decide what has been inspired and what has not? If the KJV is the only thing that we have today that has been inspired then what are the Spanish and German and all the other languages supposed to do? Was God's inspired Word not in existence before 1611?

I believe that a much more logical thing to say is that God's Word has been preserved in the existing manuscripts of the Majority Text. I also believe that as a result of the extreme carefulness and great knowledge of the KJV translators that we can say that the KJV is as close as we can get to God's inspired Word in the English language. Therefore, I believe that it can be helpful at times to go back to the Greek or Hebrew to discover different shades of meaning to the words used (many times the English does not have an exact word or phrase to fully describe the Greek or Hebrew word). This can be done by simply looking up the word in a Strong's Concordance. This will give you the Greek or Hebrew word, its meaning and how it has been translated in different parts of the Bible. This makes it possible for anyone to be a Greek or Hebrew 'scholar' without actually knowing those languages.

I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I do not believe that any of the modern translations are good and I do believe that they all contain drastic contradictions as a result of being translated from the Critical Text. And while I do believe that it is theoretically possible to have a new translation based on the Majority text that would be better for us today as a result of being in our modern language, I believe that such a translation would not be as accurate because it would not use the various more precise forms of different pronouns and words that do not exist today. If anything were to be changed about the KJV today, I believe it should only be the punctuation and some spelling and capitalization (which should be done very carefully so as to be sure that the original meaning was not changed) because much of this has changed today and making those changes would make many passages more clear (the punctuation of a sentence can greatly affect its clarity and capitalizing pronouns and words referring to the deity could help clarify many passages that would otherwise take some study to understand). This very thing was done to the KJV that we have today. I understand that the people who did the NKJV tried to do this; however, I do not believe that they were as careful when they did what they did. Therefore, I am sticking to the KJV.

Well said, well phrased, and your thinking cap is on! Stick to yer guns young man! Don't let the nit-pickers get you down. The folks that claim the A.V./K.J. is "inspired" have not read The Translators to the Reader", which should be at the front of your A.V./K.J.. Those "Learned Men" never claimed to be inspired, but rather "to make a good translation ( primarily Tyndale's and also the Geneva) better."

Your point about the NKJV is "nail-on-the-head". IF they (Thomas Nelson Pubs.) had simply done things like taking off "est" and "eth" from the ends of certain words, AND had used the T.R. Greek New Testament, instead of their (Farstad and Hodges) special Greek Text,,, AND stuck with the Biblical Words concerning the San Fran/Hollywierdos types... It might have been a better work.

Your Bio says you are studying to be an Engineer---good! Keep at it and maybe someday we will see a bridge or building or an airplane that can run on H2O and fizzies tabs someday that you had a hand in . The Lord God gave us brains, and it is good to use them.

Here is a Psalm to read if you are feeling like Elijah in 1Kings 19.... A famous General once prayed this Psalm when he was feeling like Elijah; Psalm 63.

[bibleprotector]

PB1789,

The folks that claim the A.V./K.J. is "inspired" have not read The Translators to the Reader", which should be at the front of your A.V./K.J.. Those "Learned Men" never claimed to be inspired, but rather "to make a good translation ( primarily Tyndale's and also the Geneva) better."

I do not claim that KJB was made by inspiration 1604-1611.

IF they (Thomas Nelson Pubs.) had simply done things like taking off "est" and "eth" from the ends of certain words

Changing one jot or tittle of God's Word, including messing with His use of English, is not going to improve anything.

AND had used the T.R. Greek New Testament

Which Greek TR?

* * * * *

Let me now outline a few points to you:

Did the 1611 translators really doubt the exactness of their translation? Did they really think that their own work was not 100% the same as the original inspiration, though rendered in English?

Argument One:

The presence of marginal notes such as, at Luke 17:36, "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." does not mean that the translators were, in their final collective judgment, uncertain as to the text or translation of Scripture. If they were really uncertain, they would not have included that verse. Interestingly, they do not comment upon when they omit material found in the manuscript evidence, which indicates that while they made a show of uncertainty, they presented their work as to be judged on its merits. Telling the honest truth about the rareness of a reading is a lot different to saying that they thought it wasn’t Scripture.

As I shall explain yet again shortly, the presentation of the facts concerning the manuscript evidence is vastly different from actual doubt as to the content of Scripture.

Argument Two:

That whatever is in the margins is never an alternative to the Scripture, and that the 1611 men utalised their final collective judgment as to what stood as the text of Scripture, and what did not, thus being placed in the margins (i.e. centre column now).

Argument Three:

The utilisation of italics either to give a minority rendering, or to complete the sense in English, is not in any way an addition or subtraction of Scripture, nor is this method any way to doubt as to the very words of Scripture, but is an honest policy. That the italics read as part of the text is obvious.

Argument Four:

The existence of the word “but” in 1 John 2:23 in paranthetical marks is the completion of the sense of the original, and the second portion of that verse is found in minority attestation, however, that it is part of Scripture without doubt is obvious for the reason that the italic typeface in no way indicates anything different about Scripture itself. They are only a technical phenomena in both utalisations (minority readings or completion of the sense in English).

Argument Five:

Lack of regularisation in italic typeface in the printing of 1611 is primarily a sign of the haste of the printer, not the translators. However, since the use of italics in no way affects Scripture, nor changes the certainty of them in one degree in any place, the use of italics is better today than 1611. As for Scrivener and Norton, these men both were incorrect and ignorant on the proper use of the italics. (What standard was Scrivener comparing to when he attempt to so-called “correct” the italics? Since Norton assumes that the translators were wrong to begin with, any conclusion he comes up with is going to be equally flawed.)

Argument Six:

That true readings are found among the Alexandrian Family is not to be doubted, but all true readings were found and have been presented in the King James Bible. Of course, the Byzantine Family is a solid basis for true readings.

Argument Seven:

That the meanest of English Versions prior to 1611 was the Word of God.

“Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God”

This in no way casts doubt on the King James Bible, since it bettered, in the opinion of its own makers, all those Bibles referred to which came before them, and they do not give grounds that their own work could be improved. Therefore, they are indicating certainty as to their own work as the best and final form of the Word of God in English.

Argument Eight:

That the freedom of use of English words to best match the sense does not require an identity of phrasing of the same English word to the same original word in every place.

“For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?”

This does not mean that there is freedom in translating yet again and again, or freedom in editing the underlying text yet again and again. This was not even the subject they were addressing. Burgon said, “the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English” (Revision Revised, page 187).

Argument Nine:

That the information concerning other senses, which were not the exact Scripture, being shown in the margin (or information about other translations or readings) did not itself impinge upon the integrity of the text, translation or any thing of the Scripture which they wholly presented in the main text.

“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point.”

While there was a “show of uncertainty”, it was only an uncertainty to the unlearned. Those who thought that there must be a dishonest presentation that Bible preservation did not pass through a scattering, or that it did not require a gathering. On the other side, this does not allow for perpetuated doubt, uncertainty or any kind of actual shaking. Those who read this to mean that their is shakeableness regarding the certainty of the text and translation of the Scripture, and therefore, that the King James Bible is imperfect, are actually indicating that they are both unlearned and ignorant of God’s power. Sound judgment accepts that out of what seems to be a mass of possibilities and probabilities, that one final text can be presented, sense for sense identical to the originals, and given completely in English. The 1611 men did not indicate that their Scripture work that they presented was yet uncertain even in one place, but they did invite the Christian reader to check their work. And after about 400 years, the believers have always had consensus, both tacit and avowed, that the King James Bible is pure and perfect.

Argument Ten:

That there are places where the words or meaning of them were not known by all, yet the translators endeavoured to make things “complete as they should be”, for they studied and sought, so that they could finally “resolve” what would stand as Scripture and what was not, and that rather than present their final work as is, they did the honest thing and showed the other possibilities in various places, that is, the things which were rejected by the translators’ final collective judgment.

“it hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence”

This by no means indicates that the difficulty or doubt is more, or more powerful than what study and the Holy Ghost could do. Rather than yet have the Scripture not fully discerned and known, they went through it, with fearfulness, that is, deference to God, and without the confidence of man: “Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” (Jer. 17:5). This is not saying that men of God or the translators themselves remained or should yet be unlearned or ignorant, but that after putting confidence in God, that we may find our certainty there. This is exactly missing by those who reject the King James Bible, because they obviously have confidence in flesh, either in the power of corruption to remain, or in the power of flesh alone to just get the best that can be without ever achieving perfection (no perfect Bibles in either of those ways). But to defer to God is connected with getting a perfect Bible.

Argument Eleven:

That the translators consulted holistically the manuscript evidence, commentaries, etc., to find out the meaning of hard or rare original words.

“There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places.”

The translators’ study having been completed, they did indeed gain all the help by the conference of places, and thus gave a final, single correct Bible. No need to yet look at a variety to find the truth.

Argument Twelve:

That the marginal notes were supplied so that the reader might know the honest basis for the case of the technical aspects of the Scripture so presented, and be able to study himself to be satisfied.

“Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?”

Never did the translators come against concluding or dogmatising, only against doing so prematurely and presumptuously. One cannot start from a false authority in such matters (e.g. the pope). However, those who reject the King James Bible only have a false authority, namely, a law which states that one cannot be correct, and that the corruption they see in the evidence, men and the world around them must be the overarching factor as how to approach the Word of God, rather than to rely upon the imminence, providence and perfect workings of the Almighty through His vessels, e.g. the Church. Seeking further and studying are commended, but not to doubt, but rather to come to understand the truth.

Argument Thirteen:

To claim infallibility for the presentation and rendering of the Scripture on a false basis or without knowledge is incredulous, and the judgment of men alone is insufficient. Thus, the papist has no grounds. Moreover, those who presume that God cannot give His Word, and question everything or anything, even to the uncertainty as to what it is at any given point, is nothing to do with the Spirit of God’s work: the Spirit of God has made loopholes for those who will not believe, so that those who will believe may always find the truth, and those who do not believe that God would have one perfect Word in one Bible may always, according to God’s supply, always reject the evidence.

“For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”

The existence of many possibilities besides the King James Bible does not make the King James Bible false. Even the greatest judges in Christian history have been wrong, e.g. Luther or Burgon. This does not prohibit that Christians can be right, or that Christians are barred from access to the full counsel of God. The Holy Ghost has supplied the Scripture in such a way as it needs to be studied and believed, so that people who desire right judgment would actually have to act to find it. To presume something is true (as various modernists do who reject the King James Bible off hand) is as bad as claiming Papal Infallibility.

Argument Fourteen:

That the translators consulted a variety of sources, and formed their collective final judgment afterward was the most profitable method for finding and determine the true sense of the true Scripture which they subsequently presented.

“Therefore as St Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

We are not ourselves encouraged to begin from a position of doubt, and then to consult many places and many things in order to find truth, that is, we are not encouraged to do as the modern versions and their adherents do, but we are rather profited by the good work with the men of 1611 have already accomplished for us, in clearing up all things, and then where we might study such things (by their indicating margin notes) we ourselves may at any time confirm and agree with their judgment.

This does not mean that a Christian today has to go through every last margin note and thus satisfy himself. If he believes, and has but a general idea of the case, he has the sufficient equipment.

Argument Fifteen:

The policy of honesty of showing their judgment, i.e. the consensus of the collective of the translators’ final judgment, as to what are the final and settled readings of Scripture is manifest, and should be openly viewed, and at any time studied, and judged by the reader. It would be foolish to accept the inspiration of the 1611 translators, or, as many do, to regard them as subject to error, and that their work was liable to be false. That readings may be one or the other does not mean that, after the process of the translators’ work where they did select one over the other, that the one they chose was wrong. Every one of their choices can and should be vindicated by believers.

“They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”

There is not a continuing uncertainty, as the modern versions have, as to what is the Scripture and what is not. They have the belief that there cannot be a captivity to anything, in that it might yet be wrong. But this is not what the 1611 translators were indicating, they acted and spoke as if what they presented was the truth, which afterward would be found to be so. Thus, the captivity of God was not “forced” upon people, but as they willingly chose to captivate themselves to one reading and placing other material into the margin, so we today can yield to this, and captivate ourselves to the truth out of knowledge, and that by God.

Argument Sixteen:

That the translation into English was sense for sense accurate, despite whether different English words were used for the same original word in various places or vice versa. Thus, our ability to compare Scripture with Scripture is precise and accurate in English. (This could never be done before to this extent even in the original languages, because not one whole and total perfect extant complete BOOK existed at any time on Earth until 1611, and exactly presented in the Pure Cambridge Edition.)

"we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way.

This is no way deals with the inaccuracy of the King James Bible, but rather confirms it, as Burgon said, “If would really seem as if the Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression characterises the original Greek. 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.” (Revision Revised, page 190).

[JMWHALEN]

Originally Posted by PB1789

:) Well said, well phrased, and your thinking cap is on! Stick to yer guns young man! Don't let the nit-pickers get you down. The folks that claim the A.V./K.J. is "inspired" have not read The Translators to the Reader", which should be at the front of your A.V./K.J.. Those "Learned Men" never claimed to be inspired, but rather "to make a good translation ( primarily Tyndale's and also the Geneva) better."

Your point about the NKJV is "nail-on-the-head". IF they (Thomas Nelson Pubs.) had simply done things like taking off "est" and "eth" from the ends of certain words, AND had used the T.R. Greek New Testament, instead of their (Farstad and Hodges) special Greek Text,,, AND stuck with the Biblical Words concerning the San Fran/Hollywierdos types... It might have been a better work.

Your Bio says you are studying to be an Engineer---good! Keep at it and maybe someday we will see a bridge or building or an airplane that can run on H2O and fizzies tabs someday that you had a hand in . The Lord God gave us brains, and it is good to use them.

Here is a Psalm to read if you are feeling like Elijah in 1Kings 19.... A famous General once prayed this Psalm when he was feeling like Elijah; Psalm 63.

___
(bold is my emphasis)

The folks that claim the A.V./K.J. is "inspired" have not read The Translators to the Reader", which should be at the front of your A.V./K.J.. Those "Learned Men" never claimed to be inspired, but rather "to make a good translation ( primarily Tyndale's and also the Geneva) better."

A few comments:

Your argument(correct me if I am wrong), is that since the KJB translators did not claim "to be inspired", and did not "opinion" this, therefore, the KJB cannot be inspired.


I contend that the doctrine of divine inspiration does not necessitate that the people God used always understanding what they wrote or said, and is not dependent upon whether or not they claimed inspiration, or whether they had knowledge that they were, in fact, being used of God to pen scripture. To wit:.


1. "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" Romans 16:22

Now, is all of the book of Romans inspired? Did Paul write Romans? Did he claim authorship? Is Romans 16:22 inspired? Now, did anyone, does anyone claim perfection for Tertius?" Did Tertius claim he was "inspired", or is there any evidence that he was aware that he was penning scripture? Was Tertius "moved by the Holy Ghost"(2 Peter 1:21)? Yes, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness"(1 Cor. 3:19).

Or how about scribes that the LORD God used to preserve his word,by copies? Did they have to "claim perfection", or did they even know they were being used by God to preserve His word? Did their "opinion" matter? By that argument, the Levitical priests, fallible, uninspired men, who were used by God to preserve His word without error, had to claim perfection, and "inspiration knowledge"?:


"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them..." Deut. 17:18-19(see also Deut. 31:9-13, 25-26, Nehemiah 8, Malachi 2:7)

(And so much for the "scholarly" premise that "only the originals 'were'(past tense) inspired"-copies, which he "read....all the days of his life".)

2.I argue and believe that the LORD God can guide and/or inspire despite the intentions, "inspiration understanding or not", and "know-how of man"(or lack thereof).

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." 1 Cor. 7:12

To be consistent with your argument, i.e., since the KJB translators did not claim to be inspired, the Apostle Paul was not penning inspired scripture, i.e., because he is not claiming to be inspired. Scripture states that he is speaking, and not the Lord. Therefore 1Cor7:12 is not inspired scripture according to your argument????!!!!!!?


"That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2 Cor. 11:17

Is Paul not penning inspired scripture here either????!!!!!!! How can 2 Cor. 11:17 be inspired Scripture if Paul is speaking foolishly!? God inspires foolish speaking!!??

Can not the LORD God can guide and/or inspire, regardless of man's knowledge, or "opinion"???!!!!

3.Since when did man's "opinion", man's belief in objective truth, determine objective truth? By that logic, Christianity is false, since most of the world rejects it(and most of the world "corrects" it).


4."The Translators to the Reader"

Who said their "opinion" was inspired?

5."And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;.." John 11:49-51


Here, notice that a statement of inspired scripture was not understood by the one(Caiphas) saying it, nor was it recognized as part of Scripture by him. Caiphas did not even realize that he was speaking scripture, neither did he understand all that it meant.

The words are inspired, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God.


In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[Debau]

The words are inspired, not the instruments used by the author-the LORD God.

Amen to that.

[George]

"Well said, well phrased, and your thinking cap is on! Stick to yer guns young man! Don't let the nit-pickers get you down. The folks that claim the A.V./K.J. is "inspired" have not read The Translators to the Reader", which should be at the front of your A.V./K.J.. Those "Learned Men" never claimed to be inspired, but rather "to make a good translation ( primarily Tyndale's and also the Geneva) better."

It is very strange! Everyone that doesn't believe that the King James Bible is the Inspired, Holy, Infallible word of God always use the same "lame" arguments.

Just for the record, and to repeat what has already been said [Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Amos 3:12; Matthew 18:16; 2Corinthians 13:1] None of us who profess to believe in and trust in the King James Bible as being God's perfect word , and without error {that is: Inspired, Holy, and Infallible) have NEVER claimed "inspiration" for the translators! NOT ONCE! EVER!

We believe that the WORDS ARE INSPIRED and that GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORDS - just exactly as He promised in Psalm 12:6-7.

This issue is about "FINAL AUTHORITY"! It is now, and has always been about "FINAL AUTHORITY"!

Since PB1789 has come on to this Forum he has demonstrated (over & over again) that his "Final Authority" is his own "Humanistic Opinion" in all matters of faith and practice. But the "Icing on the Cake" is his lame attempt to twist and wrest our words ("nit-pickers") in regards to "inspiration"!

The record is clear. Many of us have stated it. And any attempt on the part of PB1789 to twist it any further will only prove just how disingenuous he really is! {And that is the major reason that I have "ignored" him and his Posts from early on.}

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by George

We believe that the WORDS ARE INSPIRED and that GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORDS - just exactly as He promised in Psalm 12:6-7.

This issue is about "FINAL AUTHORITY"! It is now, and has always been about "FINAL AUTHORITY"!

Great post, Brother George.

To tlewis. I am very curious how you would answer my questions on my previous post.

Do you believe that God, not man or scribes, kept and preserved His Word for us today in written form with no differences between what He "originally" meant and what we read today? Yes or no?

If so, do we have in our possession the written Word of God He originally meant to give us? Yes or no?

If so, which version do we have in our possession that contains what He originally meant to give us?

[JMWHALEN]

Originally Posted by George

It is very strange! Everyone that doesn't believe that the King James Bible is the Inspired, Holy, Infallible word of God always use the same "lame" arguments. :confused:

Just for the record, and to repeat what has already been said [Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Amos 3:12; Matthew 18:16; 2Corinthians 13:1] None of us who profess to believe in and trust in the King James Bible as being God's perfect word , and without error {that is: Inspired, Holy, and Infallible) have NEVER claimed "inspiration" for the translators! :( NOT ONCE! :eek: EVER! :mad:

We believe that the WORDS ARE INSPIRED and that GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORDS - just exactly as He promised in Psalm 12:6-7.

This issue is about "FINAL AUTHORITY"! :( It is now, and has always been about "FINAL AUTHORITY"!

Since PB1789 has come on to this Forum he has demonstrated (over & over again) that his "Final Authority" is his own "Humanistic Opinion" in all matters of faith and practice. But the "Icing on the Cake" is his lame attempt to twist and wrest our words ("nit-pickers") in regards to "inspiration"! :confused:

The record is clear. Many of us have stated it. And any attempt on the part of PB1789 to twist it any further will only prove just how disingenuous he really is! :eek: {And that is the major reason that I have "ignored" him and his Posts from early on.} :p

_______-

George "...hast spoken well...(Ex. 10:29- a "play on words" here-see below written vs. spoken).

I post an excellent article(in my "opinion") written by a brother named Moses LemuelRaj. I hope I have not misquoted him(left anything out?):


Before I proceed to explain what is meant by "All scripture is GIVEN by INSPIRATION of God," let us lay some foundation:

1. Scripture(s) means WRITTEN word of God (Deut 28:58; Ps 40:7; Ecc 12:10; Hosea 8:13; John 5:47; Rev 22:19). That is the plain meaning of the English word. Scribe, script, scripture, scribble, etc., are those words have to do with WRITTEN stuff.

2. All WRITTEN stuff is NOT Scripture (Eg. "book of Jasher" Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18). But ALL "Scripture" is WRITTEN.

3. These WRITTEN Scriptures are called the "WORD of God." We read about the "WORD of the LORD ...that is WRITTEN in this BOOK" (2 Chr 34:21; also see John 10:35).

4. The WRITTEN Scriptures are also called as God's "WORDS" (plural). "Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast WRITTEN from my mouth, the WORDS of the LORD in the ears of the people" (Jeremiah 36:6).
5. Many of these WRITTEN Scriptures were SPOKEN before they were WRITTEN. "Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, WRITE thee all the WORDS that I have SPOKEN unto thee in a BOOK" (Jer 30:2). Here the Lord Himself SPOKE. Some times, His prohets spoke. "Holy MEN of God SPAKE as they were MOVED by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet 1:21). David says, "The SPIRIT of the LORD SPAKE BY ME, and his word was in my tongue" (2 Sam 23:2).
6. Some times the "holy men of God" who SPOKE, did not WRITE it down themselves. Some one else did it. "BARUCH WROTE from the mouth of Jeremiah all the WORDS of the LORD" (Jer 36:4). "I Tertius, who WROTE this epistle, salute you in the Lord" (Rom 16:22). The epistle to Romans was written by apostle Paul (Rom 1:1).

7. All that is SPOKEN is not necessarily WRITTEN (Rev 10:4), and all that is WRITTEN, may not have been SPOKEN, but written directly (1 Cor 16:21; 2 Thess 3:17).

8. The Bible says, "All SCRIPTURE is GIVEN by INSPIRATION of God" (2 Tim 3:16). ALL that is "Scripture," is GIVEN by God. We are talking about the WRITTEN word of God, and the WORDS of God. Genesis to Revelation is Scripture. The 66 books are Scripture. They are GIVEN by God. And He gave it "by INSPIRATION of God." We will soon look into what is INSPIRATION.

9. "The Lord GAVE the word: great was the company of those that PUBLISHED it" (Psalm 68:11). The Lord Jesus Christ said, "For I have GIVEN unto them the WORDS [plural, words] which THOU GAVEST me; and they have RECEIVED them, and have KNOWN SURELY that I came out from thee, and they have BELIEVED that thou didst send me" (John 17:8).

10. Unless the SPOKEN words of the Lord are WRITTEN down, people in the later generations cannot KEEP the words of Christ. "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will KEEP my WORDS: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him" (John 14:23). In Rev 3:10, they "KEPT the WORD."

11. God has PROMISED to PRESERVE His WORDS (Ps 12:6-7; 1 Pet 1:23,25; Mat 24:35). "But the word of the Lord ENDURETH FOR EVER. And THIS IS THE WORD which by the GOSPEL is preached unto you" (1 Pet 1:25). "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him" (Ecc 3:14).

12. The Scriptures are HOLY (Rom 1:2), and they are TRUTH (Dan 10:21). "EVERY word of God is PURE ... Add THOU not unto HIS WORDS" (Prov 30:5). "Thy word is VERY PURE: therefore thy servant loveth it" (Ps 119:140). "For the word of the LORD is RIGHT; and ALL HIS WORKS are done in TRUTH" (Ps 33:4).

Scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God
==================================
1. Let us make it plain that the Bible DOES NOT say anywhere that any MAN is INSPIRED. Moses, Paul, John, Jeremiah and others WROTE the Scriptues, or some one else wrote when they SPOKE. But the MEN who wrote are NOT inspired. It is the SCRIPTURES that are given by INSPIRATION (2 Tim 3:16). The "holy men of God SPAKE as they were MOVED by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet 1:21).

2. Let us define INSPIRATION using the Scriptures. "But there is a SPIRIT in man: and the INSPIRATION of the Almighty giveth them understanding" (Job 32:8). That is the "spirit" in a man. He got it by the process of INSPIRATION. Inspiration is a PROCESS wherein God breathes IN the SPIRIT (BREATH) into something/someone, and the result is LIFE. "All the while my BREATH is in me, and the SPIRIT of God is in my NOSTRILS" (Job 27:3). You see there the Scriptures use the word SPIRIT instead of the word BREATH - "the SPIRIT of God is in my NOSTRILS."

3. First case of INSPIRATION - "And the LORD God FORMED man of the dust of the ground, and BREATHED INTO his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE; and man became a LIVING soul" (Gen 2:7). Adam was FORMED from the dust. But he did not start living until the Lord breathed INTO him. The Lord did not make Adam by ASSEMBLING living cells. A complete, FORMED body in a lifeless condition, was made living by God BREATHING INTO him. Inspiration is God breathing INTO something the "BREATH (a.k.a SPIRIT, Job 27:3) of life." The resulting product will be LIVING!!! That is "INSPIRATION" as defined by the Scriptures.
cont'd...

5. Inspiration explained by the Lord Jesus - "It is the SPIRIT that QUICKENETH; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE" (John 6:63). The SPOKEN words of the Lord are SPIRIT, they are LIFE. Because they contain the BREATH of the Lord. But they are WRITTEN (read John 6), and preserved for us.

6. "Knowing this first, that no PROPHECY of the SCRIPTURE is of any private interpretation. For the PROPHECY came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God SPAKE as they were MOVED by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet 1:20-21). It does not say "For the SCRIPTURE came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God WROTE as they were MOVED by the Holy Ghost." Please notice, the Holy Ghost MOVED some men, and they SPAKE, and the result was PROPHECY. These are the ORIGINAL SPOKEN WORDS. They are LIFE, they are SPIRIT (as in John 6). But 2 Pet 1 is NOT talking about how the SCRIPTURE came. It talks about how the SPOKEN prophecy came. 2 Peter 1 talks NOTHING about the SCRIPTURES. No ORIGINAL WRITTEN words are in the context of 2 Pet 1.

7. But the ORIGINAL SPOKEN words are WRITTEN down. The Lord instructed to make COPIES (Deut 17:18; Josh 8:32). Jeremiah WROTE down his own ORIGINAL SPOKEN words after many years (Jer 36:2). So he dictated, and Baruch wrote them (verse 4). Later, that ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH was cut by a pen knife and burnt by Jehudi (verse 23). The Lord later made Baruch write it again in verse 32. Later on, all the prophesies againt Babylon that were written in a book, were tied to a stone, and CAST IN THE MIDST OF RIVER EUPHRATES (Jer 51:59-64). There is NO RECORD of them written again in the book of Jeremiah, or elsewhere in the Bible. Then HOW COME you and me have the WRITTEN record of all the prophesies againt Baylon? They are "GIVEN by INSPIRATION of God" to us. Remember Ezek 37?

Conclusion: INSPIRATION is God breathing the SPIRIT INTO something, therby making it LIVING. Scripture is WRITTEN word of God, and WRITTEN WORDS of God. Whether in ORIGINAL, or in a copied COPY, or in a miraculously restored COPY, the SCRIPTURE - meaning the WRITTEN WORDS of God are "GIVEN BY INSPIRATION." They have the breath of God in them. 2 Tim 3:16-17 talks NOTHING about the ORIGINAL SPOKEN words, or ORIGINAL WRITTEN words, It talks about SCRIPTURE. And SCRIPTURE is some thing which the Lord Jesus commanded us to READ and SEARCH. The Bereans SEARCHED them. Timothy HAD them. They are PROFITABLE. "Scriptures" are not some non-existing non-available invisible ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS. God gave us the Scriptures. The OT in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek. The NT contains TRANSLATIONS of OT Scripture. God had said in Isaiah that He will speak in "ANOTHER tongue (Isa 27), and so God's word was spoken in VARIOUS tongues. Irrespective of what language it is in, Scripture is Scripture.

The AUTHENTIC MASTER COPY of the Scriptures was with the Levites. The king "shall write him a copy of this law in a book OUT OF THAT which is before the PRIESTS the LEVITES" (Deut 17:18). God's people are the STEWARDS of the TEXT of the Scriptures. The manner of TRANSMISSION of any truth of God is like this - "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received" (1 Cor 15:3; see also 1 Cor 11:23; 2 Tim 2:2). Faithful men DELIVERING what is RECEIVED from other faithful men. God has PRESERVED His words (Ps 12:6-7). The RECEIVED TEXT of the Scriptures is scattered in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the Greek Textus Receptus. God gave many gifts for the edification of the Church (Eph 4, 1 Cor 12), but He did not ordain one single GREEK or HEBREW PROFESSOR or SCHOLAR sitting in a theological college to determine the "WORDS OF THE SCRIPTURE AS CLOSELY TO THE ORIGINALS AS POSSIBLE." This is a bunch of nonsense. EDUCATION, and SCHOLARSHIP are NO REQUIREMENT in the MINISTRY of God. If any one quotes Paul, let him realize that Paul counted all his previous previleges as DUNG.

After the dark ages of AD 300 to AD 1500, the Lord was gracious to give us the AUTHORIZED VERSION in 1611, which after its SPELLING updation and correction of PRINTING errors, is preserved to us as it stands in the 1769 edition. The Lord has GREATLY use this version of the Scriptures. NONE of the versions stood the test of TIME. The RV came, and went off. Its tough to find a copy today. The Lord used the British around in the 1600s to go round the globe, and spead the word of God. They took the REFORMATION Bible (the Geneva/King James tradition), with them. Millions of souls were saved. Further, MANY people in this world speak English as second language. This version of the Scriptures was PROFITABLE in the truest sense of the word (2 Tim 3:16). Many TRANSLATIONS of the Scriptures were made from the AV into many languages. This Bible was a FRUITFUL Bible. "For every tree is known by his own fruit" (Luke 6:44). The modern English versions, and the Indian vernaculars come from the Critical Greek text (in the NT). The church has not been a good STEWARD of the Scriptures, nevertheless, the Lord left the AV uncorrupted, and greatly used for His purpose in the last days.

The two common objections to the AV are related to the TEXT, or the TRANSLATION. The AV is translated out of the Original Tongues (not Original Manuscripts), AND with the FORMER TRANSLATIONS (Gothic, Coptic, Old Syriac, Old Latin, Geneva, Great Bible, Bishops Bible etc) diligently compared and revised.

If a TEXTUAL objection comes from the "Greek", my answer would be - you cannot say for sure that the AV translators used the Greek text, or ANY Greek text for that matter, in the passage (word) under consideration. All corrupt Greek texts come from EGYPT, or VATICAN. The Lord said, dont go to Egypt for help (Isa 31:1).

If a TRANSLATION issue come up, my question is - Is the Greek Lexicon, or your "Professor of the Greek" INSPIRED that I should follow the meaning YOU supply, and reject the AV text? Please read the preface of Mr. W.E. Vine's work in the Greek. He says of HIMSELF, that the NEW meaning of the Greek words are figured out from the SECULAR Greek material picked up from the DUMPS and GRAVEYARDS of EGYPT!!!

I believe that the Scriptures as found in the AV is "given by inspiration of God." I believe all the words, and live by them. I will REFUTE all CORRECTIONS suggested to the Scriptures (as in AV) by ANY man, no matter who/what he is. I do not believe there are ANY ERRORS in the AV. The Scriptures (as in the AV) are my FINAL AUTHORITY in the matters of faith and practice. The Lord helped me to be PROFITED by them. And I solely depend on the Lord for its INTERPRETATION (Gen 40:8; 1 Cor 2:14).

Sincerely in Christ,
Moses LemuelRaj
____________-

In Christ,

John M. Whalen