- This topic is empty.
- Posts
edj
Quote Hi Pierre, You are the one asserting bias,
therefore the proof of it falls on your shoulders;
not the lack of it on mine. Do you not understand how proof works?Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
have a look;
The Truth About The King James Only Controversy
——————————————————————————–
Ben Rast
Contender Ministries
——————————————————————————–
At Contender Ministries, we’ve had some interesting discussions and received some interesting emails. Not surprisingly, while we have been blessed to receive some wonderful, encouraging notes from visitors to our site, we’ve also received our share of hate mail. Among the most virulent and spiteful of the comments we’ve received were those that came not from Muslims, Mormons, or Catholics; but rather from Christians in the KJO (King James Only) camp. The KJO crowd believes that the only “authorized” version of the Bible is the King James Version (KJV), and all modern translations are perversions of the Word of God. I’ve even had one KJO apologist tell me that the KJV is the “only true Word of God.” The fact that many of the verses on our website have been taken from the New International Version (NIV) proved to him that we have been deceived by Satan. This caused me to undertake a serious study of the history of the KJV and other translations of the Bible. I present to you now, the fruits of that study.
First, let me reassure the KJV users that nothing in my study has caused me to consider discarding my copy of the KJV. I have always used it and will continue to do so, in conjunction with other translations. It is not my intent to cast aspersions on the KJV translation, nor upon its translators, who were good, God-fearing men who did a wonderful service for the Lord. The focus of this article is not any particular version of the Bible, but rather the contention that the KJV is the only “authorized version” of the Word of God. There are many people who prefer the KJV over any other version, but would not be considered KJO, as they make no claim that the KJV is the only authorized Word of God. This article does not address preferences for one version over another, but rather it speaks to claims of the absolute and exclusive supremacy of the KJV. My wife has informed me that I have a habit of prefacing too much in daily conversation, but I think for this article it is necessary. Having sufficiently prefaced, let us now examine the history of the KJV and modern translations. Let us also discover if some modern translations have removed precious truths from the Bible.THE AUTOGRAPH S
The whole issue of Biblical accuracy could be quickly put to rest if we had in our possession the original writings of the prophets and apostles. These original writings, called “autographs”, have not been discovered. Yet it is they that were penned under the direct and inerrant inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us that “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16, KJV). 2 Peter 1:21 tells us that “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.” In this verse, the Greek pheromene refers to being carried along, like a ship moved by the wind. In other words, the Holy Spirit directly influenced what was originally written by Moses, John, Paul, etc.
Sometimes I think it would be nice if we were in possession of the autographs, but perhaps it is best that we aren’t. If we had the actual texts penned by Luke, Paul, or John, they could become revered to the point of becoming idols in the faith. After all, it is not the written word that is the object of our worship, but rather the living Word – Jesus Christ.
THE EARLY MANUSCRIPTS
The Old Testament autographs were written primarily in Hebrew (except for Daniel, which was written in Aramaic – a cousin to Hebrew). The New Testament autographs were written in Koine Greek. In order for the Word of God to spread across the globe, to reach people of different languages and carry on through time, it became necessary for the autographs to be copied by scribes, and translated into other languages. These scribes hand copied the original writings onto papyrus and parchment manuscripts. In fact, the word manuscript means “hand copy.” There are many early manuscripts in existence today. The main concern with the copying and translation process was maintaining accuracy. Many of us will remember the children’s game of “Telephone”, and recall how, after several transmissions, there were inaccuracies from what was originally spoken. That is true even with the biblical manuscripts. Among the multitude of manuscripts, we find one to two percent of the Bible has relevant variations. However, these variations do not alter the main messages in the Word of God. God promised His Word would be preserved. Jesus said “The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). He also said, “heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Peter stated that the living and abiding word of God is imperishable (1 Peter 1:23). Isaiah said that “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever” (Isaiah 40:8). This great promise of God stands fulfilled. After twenty centuries of copying and translating, the key points of the Word of God stand as they always have.
THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
A Dutch Roman Catholic Priest and Greek scholar named Desiderius Erasmus published his first Greek New Testament in 1516. Erasmus put this text together quickly and haphazardly, and numerous revisions followed. From a preface to one of the revisions we get the name “Textus Receptus.” The TR was collated from a relatively small collection (about five or six texts) of Byzantine-era Greek texts dating back to about the twelfth to fourteenth century AD. In his haste to beat the competition to press, Erasmus made the mistake of including some margin notes from the Byzantine texts into the verses of the TR. It is largely from the TR that the New Testament of the KJV was translated.
A ‘MODERN’ TRANSLATION – CIRCA 1611
In 1611, under the rule of King James, a modern translation of the Bible was produced. It was the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible. The purpose of this new translation was to provide a version of the Bible written in the common language of the time. It was to serve as a Bible that everyone could understand. As a preface to the 1611 KJV, the translators wrote a message entitled “The Translators to the Reader.” In it, they said, “happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture and thrice happy that meditate in it day and night. But how shall man meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close [veiled] in an unknown tongue?… [Contemporary] Translation it is that opens the window, to let in the light….indeed, without translation into the vulgar [common] tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with…” (pages 3,4). This being said, it is apparent that the KJV translators would not object to modern translations if the intent were the same – to produce a translation understandable in the common language. The translators made no claim that the KJV was to be the only authorized version of the Bible. In fact, they stated, “a variety of translation is profitable for finding o
ut the sense of the Scriptures.” From their own words, it is apparent that the KJV translators would not be among the ardent KJO crowd.EARLY MISTAKES
Contrary to what some in the KJO camp believe, the 1611 KJV was not without errors. In fact, it took several subsequent editions to arrive at the version that is in use today. For instance, in the 1611 edition, Matthew 26:36 said, “Then cometh Judas”. Today, the KJV renders that verse as “Then cometh Jesus.” This is a rather significant difference. The first edition also contained the Apocryphal books, which were removed in subsequent editions. The 1613 edition inadvertently left the word “not” out of the seventh commandment, thereby encouraging people to commit adultery. This edition became known as the “Wicked Bible.” Another edition earned the nickname “Unrighteous Bible” because it stated that the unrighteous would inherit the kingdom of heaven. Furthermore, in using Erasmus’ TR as the basis of the New Testament, many of Erasmus’ additions of margin notes into the text of the verses found their way into the verses in the KJV. We’ll go more into this quirk shortly.
LATER TRANSLATIONS
In the years since the KJV came about in 1611, and even since the most recent major revisions in 1769, some wonderful discoveries have come to light. In 1859, Count Konstantin von Tischendorf discovered nearly 350 pages of an early Greek text containing all the New Testament works. He discovered this volume in St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai, and it became known as the Codex Sinaiticus. This Greek New Testament was dated to the mid 4th century AD. Another discovery, the Codex Vaticanus, is a volume of 757 vellum sheets containing most of the works of the Bible, and it dates to the early 4th century AD. Other papyri fragments have been discovered that date to the early 2nd century AD! In fact, literally thousands of pieces of the Bible have been discovered dating earlier than the Byzantine texts that were the foundation of the Textus Receptus. These earlier texts formed the foundation for many of the modern translations in use today, including the NIV and the NASB. Thinking back to the game of Telephone, wouldn’t you consider someone who was twice or three times removed from the original messenger a more reliable source than someone who was ten or twelve times removed? If we can’t get to the original autographs, we would want to at least get to the earliest manuscripts available. The purpose behind many of the modern translations was the same as the purpose behind the 1611 KJV translation – to provide an accurate rendition of the Bible in the common language of the day. A benefit the NIV and NASB translators had that the KJV translators did not have was access to earlier manuscripts.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN KJV AND MODERN TRANSLATIONS
I received an email from a young man I’ve been discipling, and he was quite distressed that some verses are not found in the NIV that are in the KJV. He wondered why the NIV translators would have left those verses out. Indeed, there are several verses that seem to be missing from the NIV (partial list: Matt 17:21, Mark 7:16, Mark 11:26, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:6). There are other verses that seem much shorter in the NIV. In the KJV, John 6:47 reads, “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” In modern translations, the same verse reads, “He who believes has eternal life,” with the words “on me” left out. Did the NIV and NASB leave verses and portions of verses out? Well, not exactly. The earliest manuscripts found do not contain those verses and extra phrases. Those are, in fact, additions to the KJV, rather than subtractions in later translations. Some of those words and verses do appear as margin notes in some early texts, but were clearly not part of the verses. Does this make the KJV a bad translation? Of course not. The addition of those verses and phrases do not alter the doctrines of the Bible; rather, they clarify the text. Insofar as these additions do not compromise the key messages of Scripture, and serve to clarify or explain them, I have no objections to these KJV additions to Scripture. But we must not fall for the KJO argument that the NIV or NASB translators removed Scripture. If that is the case, then the scribes who wrote the earliest known manuscripts committed the same error.
Other differences between the KJV and modern translations are due to translational differences. One example of this is John 3:36. In the KJV, this verse reads, “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life,” whereas the NASB says, “He who does not obey the Son shall not see life.” Are we talking about disbelief or disobedience? This difference comes from the translation of the Greek word apeitheo. In English, many of our words have many possible meanings. In Greek, this is even more prevalent. However, most Greek words will have a primary meaning, and other secondary meanings will be construed based on context. Apeitheo can mean either unbelief or disobedience. However, the NASB translators chose the primary meaning for the word. The KJV translators also applied this meaning to apeitheo when it appears in 1 Peter 3:1, 4:16, and Romans 2:8. Does this difference in translation cause an important doctrinal discrepancy? I contend that it does not. True faith or belief in the Son will naturally result in obedience to the Son. The key doctrines of grace and salvation are not affected by this translational difference.
It is clear from a study of the earliest known manuscripts, that the NIV and NASB translations are closest to the original text. The addition of verses and phrases in the KJV are mostly explanatory in nature, and do not cause doctrinal discrepancies. The differences between the KJV and modern translations amount to about one percent of the text. Yet the KJO proponents are often virulent and spiteful in the arguments that the KJV is the only authorized Word of God.
THE MODERN TRANSLATORS
Some KJO proponents complain that the NIV translation committee was loaded with homosexuals. They argue that this sexual sin that pervaded the committee must have skewed the translation in favor of homosexuals. Is this true?
It is true that lesbian sympathizer Virginia Mollencott was involved with the NIV development. However, she was not a translator, and had nothing to do with the translation. She served on the literary (stylistic) committee of the NIV for a few months. Once her sexual views were known, she was promptly asked to resign. At no time did her work impact the translation of the NIV. Any reasonable person reading the NIV can see clearly that homosexuality is condemned as a sin.
AN ISSUE OF READABILITY
As stated earlier, the purpose of the KJV translators was to produce a translation that was understood in the common language of the day. That is also a driving force behind many of the modern translations. This is, in fact, why we cite verses from the NIV in our articles more frequently than we cite verses from the KJV. Tests show that reading and comprehending the KJV requires a 12th grade reading level. In contrast, the NASB requires an 11th grade reading level, and the NIV only a 7.8.
I still use the KJV quite a bit for my own use, and when witnessing to Mormons and others who are more familiar with the KJV. Yet some of the words that were common language 400 years ago are not so common today. Consider the following words and phrases from the KJV: “ceiled” (Haggai 1:4), “clouted upon their feet” (Joshua 9:5), “cotes” (2 Chronicles 32:28), “sackbut” (Daniel 3:5), “brigandines” (Jeremiah 46:4), “wen” (Leviticus 22:22), “tabret” (Genesis 31:27), etc. That’s not including other KJV words such as almug, neesing, chode, habergeon, etc. Even as I write these words, my spell-checker is creating a sea of red in this paragraph!
CONCLUSION
We have demonstrated that from the standpoint of accuracy,
modern translations stack up as well as the KJV, and better in some areas. From an issue of readability, each is left to his or her own preference. For me, I will continue to use both my NIV and my KJV in my studies and witnessing.This article is not meant to change anyone’s preference for which Bible translation they use. The KJO debate is not about preference. Rather, it is about claims of exclusive “authorization” of the KJV as the Word of God, and perceived heresy of modern translations. Yet having read both versions, I can attest that no doctrine is compromised in any way in my NIV. This controversy has split congregations and denominations…all because of one percent of the Bible that presents no doctrinal discrepancies. This is akin to pummeling your neighbor for saying to-may-to, when you say to-mah-to. Is this really a battle the bride of Christ should be fighting within herself?
Pierre
Hi Pierre,
You still have not proven any bias in the Authorized AKJV Bible; do you have any evidence of your assertion?
Quote (Ed J @ June 29 2011,18:11) Hi Pierre, You still have not proven any bias in the Authorized AKJV Bible; do you have any evidence of your assertion?
edjit is all there
Quote (Ed J @ June 28 2011,05:57) Quote (terraricca @ June 28 2011,10:29) Quote (Ed J @ June 28 2011,16:21) Quote (terraricca @ June 28 2011,06:17) edj The “Authorized” version (KJV
ok for that translation but it is not perfect and it as some bias
in truth it was apparently never authorized, someone just put that word there for a reason but certainly not for the truth of God.
Pierre
Hi Pierre,Where is your proof? …1Thess.5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
God bless
eD j (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjthere is no scripture that I have to correct men errors
I do that for me and sometimes I share it with others,
if you feel that translation is good for you and as no need to be corrected ,then why are you going to the Hebrew or Greek version of it ??
do not be silly
Pierre
Hi Pierre,Errors and bias are two different things. Perhaps you didn't know this?
God bless
eD j (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J.Either those who translated the so called authorized version did so while being carried along by the spirit of God or they did not. If the earlier then you should be an Anglican but if the later then how did they correctly understand the common Greek language in order to translate it?
Hi Kerwin,
What is an Anglican, and why
would you assert I should be one?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orga little more
history of the king james version
July 26, 2008
ByAuthor: Dr. Laurence M. Vance
As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: “An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar anslated from the original.” The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible.Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by
James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 “for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church.” Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, “moved his Majesty, that there might be a new
translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original.”
The king rejoined that he: “Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other.”
Accordingly, a resolution came forth:
“That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.”
The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had “appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible.” these men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that “there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn.” Other men were sought out, according to James, “so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom.”Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.
Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:
1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.
2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.
3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.
4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.
5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.
6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.
7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them
severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.
9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.
10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.
11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.
12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.
13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.
14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.
15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.
The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:
“Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation,
nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,…but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor.”
They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:
“We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's…or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.”
And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: “Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch.” The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all
accessible, as were the COmplutensianand Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.
Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:
Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered:
but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.
The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.
The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:
“THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.”
The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:
“THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert
Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio.”
The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with
small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.
A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that “there should
be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue.” The translators expressed that they were “poor
instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known” while at the same time recognizing that “Popish persons”
sought to keep the people “in ignorance and darkness.”
The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were
that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and
Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The
most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin
Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to
a printing of 1632.
The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the
notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the
Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still
accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic
priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his
time:
“The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by
foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to
constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent.
Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and
expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.”
As to whether the Authorized Version was ever officially “authorized,” Brooke Westcott, one of the members of the
committee that produced the Revised Version, and the editor, with Fenton Hort, of an edition of the Greek New Testament,
stated that:
From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking
nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of
labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital
authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.
This article was taken from the book A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.
Dr. Laurence M. Vance's Publications are available from:
Vance Publications
P.O. Box 11781
Pensacola, FL 32524
850-474-1626
Credit Card Orders Only: 1-800-363-96042 Responses to history of the king james version
Archie H. N. Terrace on December 27, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Because as in all of the Providential Works of its compilation, there is only one author, , I be compelled thus, to admonish you and your associates, for failing to note and publish with singularity of purpose, the obviously blatant reality of NONE other than the original Tyndale version, having and retaining IN-CONTEXT confirmation of being The ONLY Providentially Inspired Work that FROM which, all of the others have been maligned OUT of, , which fact of historical reality is further confirmed by the many times resolved professional conclusion that only two percent of Tyndale’s original work, is not easily recognized in the AuKJV thereof. This submssion is in the NON-maligned Ariel FONT/Typeface, NOT in that of the maligned, Times-Ro
“The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by
foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to
constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent.
Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude;
and expressed , either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.Hi Pierre, excellent quote!
They certainly went the extra mile to prevent any bias in the “AKJV Bible”(74)!
YHVH has even encoded his existence within the most accurate “English”(74) translation. (Link)God's Signature
The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74)יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ June 30 2011,00:19) “The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by
foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to
constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent.
Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude;
and expressed , either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.Hi Pierre, excellent quote!
They certainly went the extra mile to prevent any bias in the “AKJV Bible”(74)!
YHVH has even encoded his existence within the most accurate “English”(74) translation. (Link)God's Signature
The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74)יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjwhere do you find Gods name in that version,it suppose to be written about 7000 time and i could not see it ones,
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ June 29 2011,17:33) Quote (Ed J @ June 30 2011,00:19) “The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by
foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to
constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent.
Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude;
and expressed , either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.Hi Pierre, excellent quote!
They certainly went the extra mile to prevent any bias in the “AKJV Bible”(74)!
YHVH has even encoded his existence within the most accurate “English”(74) translation. (Link)God's Signature
The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74)יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjwhere do you find Gods name in that version,it suppose to be written about 7000 time and i could not see it ones,
Pierre
Hi Pierre,Link <– Sixth Post
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ June 30 2011,00:38) Quote (terraricca @ June 29 2011,17:33) Quote (Ed J @ June 30 2011,00:19) “The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by
foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to
constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent.
Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude;
and expressed , either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.Hi Pierre, excellent quote!
They certainly went the extra mile to prevent any bias in the “AKJV Bible”(74)!
YHVH has even encoded his existence within the most accurate “English”(74) translation. (Link)God's Signature
The Bible(63) → AKJV Bible(74)יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjwhere do you find Gods name in that version,it suppose to be written about 7000 time and i could not see it ones,
Pierre
Hi Pierre,Link <– Sixth Post
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjit does not show me the name of God in you AKJV
this is bias
All: Jesus said, “I am the resurrection”! In the same way that the “Baptism of John” painted a mental picture of death (to the old testament way) with an awakening to “new life/spirit” in Christ. The resurrection is the same as “born again” or “born anew”. Born again is the same picture of death and resurrection. Death of the old testament and resurrecting to new awareness and new spirit truth and new perfection given as a gift by God through Jesus!! The old man and the old way of attempting to “be good” or “do good” by following laws, works, and deeds was changed with Christ Jesus, to a new way of life/spirit. This is the “Gospel”! By believing God has done the work for us! The new way is “Faith” in what you have been made by God through the words of Jesus. This is the resurrection of the dead, those dead in sin & trespasses. When they hear the truth, believe and accept that truth of enlightenment which resurrects them to true life in God. When they hear the truth from God, through Jesus, saying,…I have made you clean, taken away your sin, made you whole unto God, if the accept and believe, that faith makes them whole! This is the resurrection to new life! It is for “whosoever” will believe here on earth. IMO, TK
all
a resurrection can only be if we die ,but there is two dead's we can have , literally die or in a symbolic way,
if we die in a symbolic way in Christ ,it means that we have commit our self to God and will from now on not live for our self or for the flesh,but do all things in line with the will of God our father ,then and only then have we past from dead to live in Christ sacrifice,
the word of God being our guide all the bible ,
Pierre
Pierre: Anything can be resurrected from non-functional to functional. Ignorance to awareness. Sin/death to life/Christ. Anything not living is dead. A car whose engine is not running we say my car is dead. A battery that has no charge needs to be recharged to come alive and functional.
We were dead in our sins and transgressions until Jesus came and told us the truth of who we are. He resurrected our minds to new awareness of thought, of life and peace with God. Jesus washed away the wrong thinking(sin) we had with the truth, a new way to think. A clean way a pure way, a way of peace, knowing that our “sin” or errant thinking has been removed as far as the east is from the west. So far have our transgressions been removed through Christ Jesus. Now we walk in newness of life and peace having been resurrected in Jesus, the resurrection of life. IMO, TK
TK In a sense you are correct we are born again by Gods Holy Spirit and are under the New Covenant in Jesus blood…. but I don't believe Pierre was talking about that…. She was saying when all is done and Christ returns, who will be in the first resurrection and who will be a Spirit Being and who will be the meek that inherit the earth,…?
Those that will again die for Christ ,and it is still going on for instance in China, man and woman die for their believe in God and Christ…. I believe those will be in the first resurrection…. Then we have those who stand in front of the Throne of God and serve God day and night.,.Rev 7:9 ¶ After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
They too will be Spirit beings…in the present of God…..Do we qualify for that position???
Irene
Irene: Bless you! In my opinion you have many doctrines built on the revelation that are not accurate. I don't believe you will be able come to certain Godly truths unless you are at least willing to relinquish some of those doctrines.
You make reference to when Christ returns which must mean you do not believe Christ is here now. He either is here now, or he must return. This would have to mean that you don't believe that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, Jesus, the Christ the anointing of God or God himself is not here. They are everywhere. The only come and go in ones mind. If one thinks they were bad and God is mad they might feel that he went away from them but in truth they are within and without and every other possible place. You are never alone, God will never leave you. Christ, Jesus is here now. He need not come again, he is here. That's how you can talk to him. How close could he be if you can whisper a prayer and he hears.
We are in a war of truth of God vs lies and deceptions of the darkness of this world, in our minds. It all takes place in the mind IMO, TK
Quote (ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,00:31) Irene: Bless you! In my opinion you have many doctrines built on the revelation that are not accurate. I don't believe you will be able come to certain Godly truths unless you are at least willing to relinquish some of those doctrines. You make reference to when Christ returns which must mean you do not believe Christ is here now. He either is here now, or he must return. This would have to mean that you don't believe that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, Jesus, the Christ the anointing of God or God himself is not here. They are everywhere. The only come and go in ones mind. If one thinks they were bad and God is mad they might feel that he went away from them but in truth they are within and without and every other possible place. You are never alone, God will never leave you. Christ, Jesus is here now. He need not come again, he is here. That's how you can talk to him. How close could he be if you can whisper a prayer and he hears.
We are in a war of truth of God vs lies and deceptions of the darkness of this world, in our minds. It all takes place in the mind IMO, TK
Tim, Tim! The Holy Spirit is not Jesus….. The Holy Spirit is Gods Holy Spirit…. And several Scriptures say so….. I will list some at the end of my post…if Jesus would be here right now, things would look a lot different… He will strike the nations with the wrath of God…. That is not happening at all…. Look around you… Gays are practicing their lifestyle openly, Pornography is on the Internet… Anything you want you can get… Young girls are being kidnapped, and sold in other Countries… No that is not what Jesus will aloud to happen…. You would hear of Jesus doing away with it…. And it is getting worse by the hour….. And I suppose you don't ever get angry? Do you??? If you do, do you go to the Throne of God and ask Him for the forgiveness of that sin, or do you think all goes automatically????y My friend it does not…. and Satan will be chained and put away… He is still around… otherwise the Gays would not be around….. So your theory is not according to Scriptures…Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
1Jo 4:1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Eph 4:4 [There is] one body, and ONE SPIRIT, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.
IreneIrene: You quote
Quote Eph 4:4 [There is] one body, and ONE SPIRIT, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
and contradict your self with
Quote The Holy Spirit is not Jesus….. The Holy Spirit is Gods Holy Spirit…. …One God and Father….Jesus gave us the spirit of God, the words of God, the “whole” spirit, undivided, ONE! There are many names but ONE spirit. Jesus is all and in all.
I am astounded that you say Jesus is not here. Jesus said, (John14:21)….He that hath my words(spirit) and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be love of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
V22:….they questioned him, lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us…..and not unto the world? His answer V23….If a man love me….he will keep(believe) my words….and my father will love him, and WE WILL COME UNTO HIM, AND MAKE OUR ABODE/HOME/TEMPLE/CHURCH….IN HIM!
If you believe God/The Father/Jesus/Gods words-the Holy Spirit dwell inside of you then they are here, now! If one loves Jesus! IMO, TK
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
