The AV1611: Purified seven times

Bible Believers Website ^ | 2003 | Laurence Vance

[fortheDeclaration]

And he was also a miserable "gay". (not that there's anything wrong with that)

First, that is an unproven rumor.

Second, it is irrevelant since he had nothing to do with the actual translation.

Third, we know for a fact at least two homosexuals were involved in the translation of the NIV.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

It is indeed amazing to watch the bitter reaction to the King James Bible.

Then they say that they are not reacting to it but to us and our claims that it is perfect.

If someone said a New Version was perfect I would not get bent out of shape.

I would debate the truth of the statement and see if it were true or not.

If it wasn't it should be easy enough to prove and discredit.

The problem the anti-King James crowd have is that they can't find an error in the King James that will stick.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

[fortheDeclaration]

I've noticed the "KJV only" battle raging here for a few weeks now but have not involved myself. Seeing this issue come up over and over again has raised my curiousity though. Do KJVist's believe that because the KJV is authorized by God that it is perfect in it's english form? Or, do you believe that it is the best english translation available based on a perfect greek text?

I can't speak for other King James Only people, but I would say that it is perfect in its English form.

However, if someone took the second position, I would find that acceptable.

What are your thoughts and opinions of the NKJV

The NKJ has the correct text in the NT.

However, while it does retain the correct readings, it negates them with footnotes calling them into question.

Moreover, it does follow the modern version readings (not textual readings, but translation changes) in such passages as 2Cor.2:17,(corrupt-peddle) 1Tim.6:10 ('kinds of' it to its credit puts the added words in italics) 1Tim.6:20 (science to knowledge), 2Tim.2:15 (study-diligence).

These changes are not footnoted, so one does not know that changes have been made from the King James.

It also does not use the correct Hebrew Text (Ben Chayim), so there will be some problems there.

Thank you for your thoughful post, I hope I was of some help.

If you would like more information on the King James or NKJ just let me know.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

That was the view of Tyndale, who believed that the translation he made was equal to the original languages.

Buynan felt the same way.

You are willing to change the Greek of 1Tim.6:10 with the English! LOL!

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

They were 2nd century gnostic manuscripts, rejected by the church.

[drstevej]

***That was the view of Tyndale, who believed that the translation he made was equal to the original languages.

Buynan felt the same way. ***

Quotes and source, please.

[drstevej]

***If someone said a New Version was perfect...***

Who would be so foolish to make such an irrational claim, except Joseph Smith?

***The problem the anti-King James crowd have is that they can't find an error in the King James that will stick.***

... stick in YOUR MIND, ftD.

[fortheDeclaration]

Here is a good, godly Calvinist explaining 1Tim.6:10

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil… Of all the evils before mentioned, and of others; not money itself, as silver and gold, which are God's creatures, and his gifts, and may be used to, and answer many good purposes; but the love of it, and not any love of it; for there may be a lawful love of it, and desire after it, so far as it is requisite to the necessaries of life, to answer the calls of Providence, the duties we owe to God and men, to serve the interest of Christ, and do good to fellow creatures and fellow Christians: but it is an immoderate insatiable desire after it, and an inordinate love of it, which is here meant, such as is properly idolatry: as when a man loves it, not only besides, but above God; serves it as if it was God, and places his trust and confidence in it, independent of God, and his providence; such love of it is the source and spring of all iniquity, as above; it was the sin of Judas, and the root of all his iniquity. The phrase is Jewish. So idolatry is said to be (twnwe lk rqye) , "the root of all iniquities" F17; see (Hebrews 12:15)

Note the passage does not say the love of money was the root of all evil, it is speaking in the present tense, about todays world system.

It does not state that the love of money was the cause of all sin (Ezek 28:12-15)

***If someone said a New Version was perfect...*** Who would be so foolish to make such an irrational claim, except Joseph Smith?

Gee, you think a Christian would at least think his Bible was without any errors.

***The problem the anti-King James crowd have is that they can't find an error in the King James that will stick.*** ... stick in YOUR MIND, ftD.

Well, I haven't seen any and you would think that since you are dealing with a book that is almost 400 years old you could come up without something better then 1Tim.6:10!

[drstevej]

***Note the passage does not say the love of money was the root of all evil, it is speaking in the present tense, about todays world system. ***

Oh, I see.

[1] The love of money wasn't the root of ALL evil, just the evil AFTER this verse was written.

[2] And "God is love." means He is love today but not in the past.

[drstevej]

***That was the view of Tyndale, who believed that the translation he made was equal to the original languages.

Buynan felt the same way. ***

Quotes and source, please.

[Conservative til I die]

It got its name the Authorized 1611 due to the authority it obtained in all the Christian churches. Except of course, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and since then, many other Protestant sects. But I guess by your logic, those groups are not Christians for not accepting the primacy of the KJV translation (as circular an argument as I've ever seen).

>>>>>First, we are speaking of a Protestant Reformation Bible.

>>>>>Second, yes, if the Roman and Orthodox churches do not use the Received texts they are not using the correct texts.

>>>>>Nothing 'circular' about it at all.

Well, if you're saying that "all the Christian Churches" recognized its authority, and you admit that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches don't and never have, then the only way for your statement to be true is to say that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not actually Christian. To me that is a bit circular, if you are in fact disqualifying as a Christian anyone who disagrees with your particular doctrine.

I guess what I'm really trying to get it is, do you feel that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not Christian? For that matter, anyone who doesn't hold to the KJV only doctrine?

No, it doesn't, but if we look for a common element on apostasy, the first sign of it is when the church gives up its Bible for alternative authorities like Popes, Councils, Priests,Creeds, Scholars etc.

Well, to bring up Popes, Councils, and Creeds (it was the Lutherans, Calvinists, and other Reformation-era Protestants who followed the priests and scholars) is just silly, since the Christian Church was following those for over a millennia, and nearly all Christian Churches still recognize at least some of the Councils and Creeds.

If you ask me, there are two common starting points when apostasy began. The first is the Reformation itself, for the rather broad reason that it gave approval to the idea that anyone who felt like it could start their own sect based on their own personal interpretation of Scripture. The second, is 1930 when the first Christian sect began endorsing artificial birth control. You can see that since then, the slide into moral equivalency has accelerated. To me, it's Christianity's need to "get with the times" that is hurting it.

[Conservative til I die]

It is indeed amazing to watch the bitter reaction to the King James Bible.

It's not bitterness towards the Bible or any version of it; it's a reaction towards a silly man-made elitist, exclusivist doctrine, whose proponents are basically saying "Unless you you love, read, and bow down before our translation, the KJV, you aren't a Christian."

I've seen this "bitter" reaction towards cultists like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who say "I cannot believe the bitterness of these people who will not believe the truth that Jesus is Michael the Archangel."

[Conservative til I die]

First, we are speaking of a Protestant Reformation Bible.

OK, what do you mean by this? Are you saying the KJV is only necessary for Protestants? Speaks only to Protestants? Isn't the word of God universal?

[drstevej]

well said

[maestro]

Great thread!!

Bookmarked...

Thank you!

Maranatha!!

(Romans 10:17)

BTTT

[asformeandformyhouse]

Why so much emphasis on the 'purified seven times'? Especially with the amount of hoop-jumping needed to get the number to seven. This is from one of the books of poetry. Since seven usually stands for 'completeness', might not the author be saying that the words of the Lord are 'completely' pure.

I've always considered this akin to Psalm 19, where it is stated:

Psalms 19:7  The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8  The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9  The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10  More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

Same idea, Perfect, clean, complete. Taking verse 10 in just such a literal manner, I should find that eating the pages of a KJV Bible is sweeter to my taste-buds than honey.

[lews]

First of all, I want to thank each of you for responding and making the issue a little clearer for me. I will continue to look into this issue in the future.

My chief concern has been wether or not the fact that a document is inspired implies that it is perfect. Does the fact that God inspired the translators mean that they were above the error that is prone to the human nature they possessed.

The application of infallibility to the KJV is somewhat puzzling to me because for many years there has been one verse that has always given me a chuckle because, I believe, it is an obvious mistranslation (an error). While I accept the obvious inspiration of the KJV I have a hard time with the concept of infallibility being applied to it. The verse that I have found humor in is Acts 12:4 which reads in the KJV

"And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

What has humored me is the fact that the greek word pascha is incorrectly translated as "Easter" instead of the correct word "Passover". Without going into the history of Easter I believe most of you will agree that it didn't exist as a holiday until much later in Christian history. I haven't seen that translation used in any other Bible and the NKJV has removed the Easter reference and replaced it with Passover.

Now, I have not studied much into this issue and am still forming my position. Currently, I do believe God has preserved his inspired Word for us. However, I'm having trouble accepting the inpiration = infallibility position or that the preservation of God's word stopped with the KJ version.

I'm not trying to be argumentative and my mind is open on the issue so your thoughful responses are greatly appreciated.

[Con X-Poser]

<< What has humored me is the fact that the greek word pascha is incorrectly translated as "Easter" instead of the correct word "Passover". Without going into the history of Easter I believe most of you will agree that it didn't exist as a holiday until much later in Christian history. I haven't seen that translation used in any other Bible and the NKJV has removed the Easter reference and replaced it with Passover. >>

I've got so much stuff defending the use of the word "easter" that you wouldn't have time to read it.

First of all, most of the pre-1611 English Bibles DID use easter, rather than passover. The English Bibles before the KJV also used the word Easter, so it is not a mistake of the KJV. In fact, the word Passover was invented by William Tyndale. If Passover was the proper word here, the guy who invented it would be the top authority on that - and Tyndale used Easter in this passage!

Second, passover proper is the first day of the celebration, the rest of the week is called the days of unleavened bread (although rarely the entire feast was referred to as pascha). But using the predominant scriptural definition, in this verse the passover had ALREADY HAPPENED (they were already in the days of unleavened bread), so if Herod was going to wait until "after pascha", he was going to have to wait a long time.

Third, easter was a reference to a pagan holiday, not the OT passover or the NT easter. Herod would have been more likely to be concerned about a pagan holiday than a biblical one. Easter was not originally a Christian holiday - it was a pagan holiday celebrating the goddess of fertility and the rites of spring, also called Astarte, Asteroth, Oester, and Ishtar. The Jews were pleased to see the Christians (James) killed. Herod would have had no reason to wait for a Jewish holiday - they killed Jesus during a Jewish holiday! He might have waited till after his own pagan holiday, however.

Fourth, ask any living Greek to wish you a happy easter, and they will respond "Kalee Pascha!"

Fifth, it is entirely possible that the early Christians did indeeed already celebrate the easter resurrection. A good article asserting that claim is at http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/easter_or_passover1.htm

Easter is not a mistake, it's the correct word.