genuineoriginal
New member
Can you confirm or deny the words attributed to you under the name WiKiLiD from The last post by Bob Enyart and Will Duffey?
Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
brandplucked
New member
Alleged "quotes" by WiKiLiD
Alleged "quotes" by WiKiLiD
Hi go and others. No. I did not say any of those things.
Here is the first one -
WiKiLiD: For BWQ1, I just didn’t want to answer this. If I deny this, I seem unreasonable because firstly, God is utterly competent. And if I admit that God is capable of producing a robust message that could remain effective even as reproduced by mere men without His further intervention, then clearly He could have chosen to communicate His word in that way. The three other examples that you guys gave seemed pretty strong. I remember them. That the fallen cosmos still declaring the glory of God; and of our human DNA still enabling us to bring kids made in God’s image into existence; and that a million species still filling the world with life even without divine intervention. So, if God could do all that, it seems that He probably could communicate His Word effectively, even through man’s imperfect transmission. But I didn’t want to think about that, and I sure wasn’t going to admit it."
Sorry, guys, but Will Duffy and Bob E. just made all this stuff up. I did not say any of it.
Does that set the record straight? Thanks.
Alleged "quotes" by WiKiLiD
Hi go and others. No. I did not say any of those things.
Here is the first one -
WiKiLiD: For BWQ1, I just didn’t want to answer this. If I deny this, I seem unreasonable because firstly, God is utterly competent. And if I admit that God is capable of producing a robust message that could remain effective even as reproduced by mere men without His further intervention, then clearly He could have chosen to communicate His word in that way. The three other examples that you guys gave seemed pretty strong. I remember them. That the fallen cosmos still declaring the glory of God; and of our human DNA still enabling us to bring kids made in God’s image into existence; and that a million species still filling the world with life even without divine intervention. So, if God could do all that, it seems that He probably could communicate His Word effectively, even through man’s imperfect transmission. But I didn’t want to think about that, and I sure wasn’t going to admit it."
Sorry, guys, but Will Duffy and Bob E. just made all this stuff up. I did not say any of it.
Does that set the record straight? Thanks.
I so enjoy your posts D.R. Thanks!
brandplucked
New member
Will Will Duffy or Bob Enyart answer the question?
Will Will Duffy or Bob Enyart answer the question?
If you have been following along, you will notice that both Will Duffy and Bob Enyart continue to dodge my questions.
Will Duffy said he believes the NKJV is the inerrant words of God. I then asked him if he believes 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture and belongs in the Bible or not. He refused to answer the question.
I would also like Bob Enyart to explain to us how his logic works when he tells us that he does not believe 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the KJB and his own NKJV that he uses and preaches out of is NOT inspired Scripture and wasn't in the originals. And yet he told us that this Hungarian Karoli bible was his standard for the inspired and inerrant words of God, but it clearly contains both Matthew 23:14 (which he called into question) and 1 John 5:7, which out of the other side of his mouth he told us was NOT inspired Scripture.
Both men continue to just ignore, dodge, avoid and refuse to answer this question.
Is 1 John 5:7 inspired Scripture or not? Yes or No?
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
1 János 5:7 Hungarian Károli (KAR)
7 Mert hárman vannak, a kik bizonyságot tesznek a mennyben, az Atya, az Íge és a Szent Lélek: és ez a három egy.
Will Will Duffy or Bob Enyart answer the question?
If you have been following along, you will notice that both Will Duffy and Bob Enyart continue to dodge my questions.
Will Duffy said he believes the NKJV is the inerrant words of God. I then asked him if he believes 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture and belongs in the Bible or not. He refused to answer the question.
I would also like Bob Enyart to explain to us how his logic works when he tells us that he does not believe 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the KJB and his own NKJV that he uses and preaches out of is NOT inspired Scripture and wasn't in the originals. And yet he told us that this Hungarian Karoli bible was his standard for the inspired and inerrant words of God, but it clearly contains both Matthew 23:14 (which he called into question) and 1 John 5:7, which out of the other side of his mouth he told us was NOT inspired Scripture.
Both men continue to just ignore, dodge, avoid and refuse to answer this question.
Is 1 John 5:7 inspired Scripture or not? Yes or No?
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
1 János 5:7 Hungarian Károli (KAR)
7 Mert hárman vannak, a kik bizonyságot tesznek a mennyben, az Atya, az Íge és a Szent Lélek: és ez a három egy.
Hello Will,
Can you please give me the details, with so many different printed versions of the KJB around, of what exactly the 'traditional King James Bible' is that you speak of above and that you use to tell if there is an error, so that I can go and buy one and then I will be able to tell whether some given Bible has any printing errors in it, or indeed any other errors (which you seem to think do exist in some Bibles)?
I must confess that I am having a change of heart and I would really like to find the 100% inerrant Bible that you have talked about so much, the one that has no printing or other errors. I am starting to feel actually jealous (in a positive way) that you have one and I don't. Or perhaps I do and don't know it? I mean I do have at least one KJB on my bookshelf but I wouldn't be able to tell from looking at it whether it is the 100% inerrant one. So if you know which one that is or know where I could get one, I'd be grateful if you could let me know.
Thanks in advance.
PS. I don't mind if it's not a Bible that I can actually buy anywhere or that such a Bible doesn't now or has ever existed, but in that case can you send me a list that starts with a version that is close to being 100% inerrant that I can buy, followed by a complete list of the changes I need to make to it (I am happy to do this by hand) so that I end up with this 100% inerrant one. I am just fed up with all my life having second best and I am already drooling at the mouth at the thought of having the real thing. Since I have been reading you, although I was initially skeptical, I am warming up to your idea. Or alternatively, if there isn't one in print, is there a soft copy you could email me or supply a download link to?
Last edited:
The KJV is not a book, it's a translation. And it's the translation that is the idol, not any particular set of pages in a binding.
The fact that you would answer that the physical book was the idol referred to, and not the translation, is another obfuscation that lends evidence to the idea that KJVO people are, or started out as, confused by the bible and created an "anchor" so as not to drift to any other book's authority. Now, I think that is a good idea on its surface, but it was something based on feelings which can frequently end badly. And it's ending badly. It has become nothing but something to mark the KJVO believers as causing division.
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, that helps.
I guess the biggest question I have after reading the words attributed to you is, "Do you prefer water or iced tea?"
heir
TOL Subscriber
Those who take God at His word believing we have the pure words of the Lord (Psalms 12:6 KJV) are NOT causing divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which we have learned (and that is, of Paul 2 Timothy 1:13 KJV):
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Many of us are upholding what Paul preached including that we have all scripture presently (is)!
2 Timothy 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Last edited:
heir
TOL Subscriber
Says the religious, but lost who believes not the glorious gospel of Christ and is blinded because of it (2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV) and therefore has no word of truth to study to shew thyself approved unto God by rightly dividing it (Ephesians 1:13 KJV, 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV).
journey
New member
I use a 1769 KJV English translation of the Holy Bible every day, but I know it isn't the most accurate word for word English translation of the Holy Bible. I use it the most because it's what I grew up with and am the most comfortable with. I use other translations in parallel when I study difficult portions of Scripture (i.e. ESV, NASB).
The KJV only folks lost the debate. It wasn't even close. The translators of the KJV even disagree with the KJV only folks. The KJV is JUST a good English translation of the Holy Bible, and we should all know that the Holy Bible wasn't written in English. Many of the arguments of the KJV only folks are just plain SILLY, and they manage to bash some other English translations of the Holy Bible that are more accurate word for word than the KJV.
I greatly dislike bashing any good translation of the Holy Bible, including the KJV. I enjoyed the debate and appreciate the work of those who participated. The readers got the truth about the KJV and the KJV only movement. Bashing good English translations of the Holy Bible is not God's Work.
The KJV only folks lost the debate. It wasn't even close. The translators of the KJV even disagree with the KJV only folks. The KJV is JUST a good English translation of the Holy Bible, and we should all know that the Holy Bible wasn't written in English. Many of the arguments of the KJV only folks are just plain SILLY, and they manage to bash some other English translations of the Holy Bible that are more accurate word for word than the KJV.
I greatly dislike bashing any good translation of the Holy Bible, including the KJV. I enjoyed the debate and appreciate the work of those who participated. The readers got the truth about the KJV and the KJV only movement. Bashing good English translations of the Holy Bible is not God's Work.
the debate is good because it highlights the differences
and
we should all be aware of them
Thanks for the thumbs up! Likewise!
brandplucked
New member
The King James Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God.
The King James Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God.
Bob. I have repeatedly said that the Cambridge printing of the King James Bible that I have right here in front of me and that I read every day, and the Cambridge printing of the KJB you can buy at any bookstore in your neighborhood IS the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.
You have yet to show us a real copy of any bible in any language that you honestly believe is the complete and inerrant words of God, and you never will. (Except for your faux pas blundering attempt with that Hungarian Karoli bible)
If you want, I can come to your church and show your congregation a copy of it and tell them where they too can get one for themselves.
The King James Bible is the complete and inerrant words of God.
Bob. I have repeatedly said that the Cambridge printing of the King James Bible that I have right here in front of me and that I read every day, and the Cambridge printing of the KJB you can buy at any bookstore in your neighborhood IS the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.
You have yet to show us a real copy of any bible in any language that you honestly believe is the complete and inerrant words of God, and you never will. (Except for your faux pas blundering attempt with that Hungarian Karoli bible)
If you want, I can come to your church and show your congregation a copy of it and tell them where they too can get one for themselves.
brandplucked
New member
Bible agnostics love to take "quote" out of context
Bible agnostics love to take "quote" out of context
Misusing the "Variety of translations" quote
Variety of Translations -
The Bible Agnostic crowd, none of whom believes that ANY Bible in ANY language IS now nor ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God, often yank a phrase found in the King James Bible Preface completely out of context and try to apply it to their multiple choice, contradictory and textually corrupt Bible Babble Buffet versions that NOBODY believes are God's infallible words.
They piously inform us that the KJB translators themselves said that a variety of translations are profitable. Well, let's actually take a look at the quote and what they were referring to, OK?
Variety of translations
One line from the Preface to the KJV is often cited by supporters of modern versions. It has to do with the goal of the KJV translators in making a good translation better. In his tract entitled, Pick a Bible, Any Bible, Mr. Terry Alverson cites Dr. Miles Smith of the KJV translation committee and states, "Obviously Smith and his co-workers did not undertake the task of translating the KJV with the intent that it was to be the only Bible. Quite the contrary. It appears the 1611 KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort to 'make a good translation better.' "(p.2).
One wonders if the claim that the KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort is correct in light of their full statement. The context of Dr. Smith's citation is given below:
Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk
but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.
The history of all the "good ones" which predated the KJV shows that they were all based upon the same Greek line of manuscripts; the Traditional Text. Further, it should be noted that the translators said their goal was NOT to make a bad one good, else the accusation from the Pope that the translators were feeding their people with "gall of dragons" might have some basis. Their goal was to make "one principle one" from the good ones which predated the KJV. Clearly, this is not an affirmation to alter the text based on either the Alexandrian or Western line of manuscripts.
Likewise, the KJV translators spoke of the need for many translations. Some have used this to justify the use of modern versions based on a differing line of manuscripts. (end of Mr. Alverson's comments)
Bible agnostic and professional liar, James White, who SAYS he believes the Bible is the infallible words of God, yet when asked to tell us where we can get a copy of this "infallible Bible" he professes to believes in, he immediately changes the subject, writes in his book: "When the very preface to the KJV says, 'variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures,' it is obvious that the KJV Only position is proven utterly ahistorical thereby. The position requires the translator to be something its own authors never intended it to be." (The King James Only Controversy, pp. 76-77).
The context of this statement was the use of marginal notes to explain the meaning of some Hebrew and Greek words which either carry several meanings or for rare animals or precious stones. Please note the full context of the phrase in question:
The King James Bible translators write: "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. AGAIN, THERE ARE MANY RARE NAMES OF CERTAIN BIRDS, BEASTS, AND PRECIOUS STONES, &c., CONCERNING WHICH THE HEBREWS THEMSELVES ARE SO DIVIDED AMONG THEMSELVES FOR JUDGEMENT.... 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? 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 judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. 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."
Obviously the KJB translators were referring to the variety of translations regarding specific names of certain birds, beasts and stones, NOT to the wholesale omission or addition of thousands of phrases, verses and words to the God inspired texts.
The modern version proponents like James White rip this quote out of context and apply it in an attempt to justify their rejection of the Traditional Greek Text of the Reformation Bibles, and their rejection of many Hebrew texts as well.
Will Kinney
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
Bible agnostics love to take "quote" out of context
Misusing the "Variety of translations" quote
Variety of Translations -
The Bible Agnostic crowd, none of whom believes that ANY Bible in ANY language IS now nor ever was the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God, often yank a phrase found in the King James Bible Preface completely out of context and try to apply it to their multiple choice, contradictory and textually corrupt Bible Babble Buffet versions that NOBODY believes are God's infallible words.
They piously inform us that the KJB translators themselves said that a variety of translations are profitable. Well, let's actually take a look at the quote and what they were referring to, OK?
Variety of translations
One line from the Preface to the KJV is often cited by supporters of modern versions. It has to do with the goal of the KJV translators in making a good translation better. In his tract entitled, Pick a Bible, Any Bible, Mr. Terry Alverson cites Dr. Miles Smith of the KJV translation committee and states, "Obviously Smith and his co-workers did not undertake the task of translating the KJV with the intent that it was to be the only Bible. Quite the contrary. It appears the 1611 KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort to 'make a good translation better.' "(p.2).
One wonders if the claim that the KJV translators would be the first to applaud a modern day effort is correct in light of their full statement. The context of Dr. Smith's citation is given below:
Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk
but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.The history of all the "good ones" which predated the KJV shows that they were all based upon the same Greek line of manuscripts; the Traditional Text. Further, it should be noted that the translators said their goal was NOT to make a bad one good, else the accusation from the Pope that the translators were feeding their people with "gall of dragons" might have some basis. Their goal was to make "one principle one" from the good ones which predated the KJV. Clearly, this is not an affirmation to alter the text based on either the Alexandrian or Western line of manuscripts.
Likewise, the KJV translators spoke of the need for many translations. Some have used this to justify the use of modern versions based on a differing line of manuscripts. (end of Mr. Alverson's comments)
Bible agnostic and professional liar, James White, who SAYS he believes the Bible is the infallible words of God, yet when asked to tell us where we can get a copy of this "infallible Bible" he professes to believes in, he immediately changes the subject, writes in his book: "When the very preface to the KJV says, 'variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures,' it is obvious that the KJV Only position is proven utterly ahistorical thereby. The position requires the translator to be something its own authors never intended it to be." (The King James Only Controversy, pp. 76-77).
The context of this statement was the use of marginal notes to explain the meaning of some Hebrew and Greek words which either carry several meanings or for rare animals or precious stones. Please note the full context of the phrase in question:
The King James Bible translators write: "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. AGAIN, THERE ARE MANY RARE NAMES OF CERTAIN BIRDS, BEASTS, AND PRECIOUS STONES, &c., CONCERNING WHICH THE HEBREWS THEMSELVES ARE SO DIVIDED AMONG THEMSELVES FOR JUDGEMENT.... 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? 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 judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. 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."
Obviously the KJB translators were referring to the variety of translations regarding specific names of certain birds, beasts and stones, NOT to the wholesale omission or addition of thousands of phrases, verses and words to the God inspired texts.
The modern version proponents like James White rip this quote out of context and apply it in an attempt to justify their rejection of the Traditional Greek Text of the Reformation Bibles, and their rejection of many Hebrew texts as well.
Will Kinney
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
brandplucked
New member
Another "quote" taken out of context
Another "quote" taken out of context
"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
“Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
As for the Preface to the Reader found in the King James Bible, many anti-KJB folks like to use certain quotes from the KJB translators (usually taken out of context) in an effort to prove that the translators themselves would approve of the multiple, conflicting and contradictory Bible Babble Buffet versions seen on the bible market today.
It should first be pointed out that we do not hold the King James Bible translators as our final authority. Neither their Prefatory remarks, nor their individual or collective theology (though I personally agree with much of it) nor their personal lives nor opinions form any part of our Final Written Authority.
They were not always right in what they said or did, just as king David, Solomon, Peter, Paul or John were not always right in what they did or thought. They were sinful and imperfect men, but they were all God fearing, blood bought children of God who believed they were handling the very words of the living God.
It is the TEXT of the Authorized King James Holy Bible that we believe and defend as the complete and 100% true words of God. If God cannot use fallen, sinful man as His chosen vessels in the process of preserving His inspired words, then we never would have had the inspired originals to begin with! Think about it.
They ask: “Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
This quote is always taken out of context by the KJB critics. Throughout the Preface there are repeated references to the contrast between between the Bible translation work of Christians of the Reformation faith and those of the Catholic church.
The whole quote in context is this. “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.”
It should be clear that Miles Smith (the man who wrote the Preface) is referring to the Douay-Rheims ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT here, which was published by the Roman Catholics in 1582, the Old Testament not appearing until 1610, some five or six years AFTER the King James Bible translators began their own work of translation. Thus the reason for Smith's notation that they had "SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET."
Even the Catholics themselves acknowledge that the King James Bible translators severely criticized and mocked the Catholic versions. Here is their own Catholic Cultur.org site where they talk about their Douay-Rheims bible.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=64452699&CFTOKEN=99023368
Here in their own words they mention: "Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators' preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. "We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full" ("The Translators to the Reader," King James Version, 1611 ed.).
“Men of our profession” refers to the Protestant, Reformation Christians and the “theirs” refers to the Catholics. In the previous paragraph to this quote we read them say regarding “the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined” that “all is sound for substance in one or other of OUR editions, AND THE WORST OF OURS FAR BETTER THAN THEIR AUTHENTICK VULGAR” (which refers to the various Latin Vulgate versions)
The context of the Preface by Miles Smith shows the contrast between early English Protestant translations and the "Bible" of the Roman Catholic Church. Translations like Tyndale's 1525, Coverdale's 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587 and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God."
Throughout the Preface there is a constant contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought. They also state in their Preface - "also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their asimes, tunike, rational, holocausts, praepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof THEIR LATE TRANSLATION, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.”
In another part they stated: "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness”.
The translators of the AV saw their task as the perfecting of the earlier English translations that followed the Traditional Greek texts as found in the Reformation bible translations of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible.
The supreme irony today is that these same modern versions most anti-King James Bible folks are promoting are in fact the new “Catholic” bible versions. See "Undeniable Proof the NIV, NASB, ESV are the new 'Catholic' versions" here- Please read both parts
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm
All of grace, believing The Book,
Will Kinney
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm
Another "quote" taken out of context
"the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
“Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
As for the Preface to the Reader found in the King James Bible, many anti-KJB folks like to use certain quotes from the KJB translators (usually taken out of context) in an effort to prove that the translators themselves would approve of the multiple, conflicting and contradictory Bible Babble Buffet versions seen on the bible market today.
It should first be pointed out that we do not hold the King James Bible translators as our final authority. Neither their Prefatory remarks, nor their individual or collective theology (though I personally agree with much of it) nor their personal lives nor opinions form any part of our Final Written Authority.
They were not always right in what they said or did, just as king David, Solomon, Peter, Paul or John were not always right in what they did or thought. They were sinful and imperfect men, but they were all God fearing, blood bought children of God who believed they were handling the very words of the living God.
It is the TEXT of the Authorized King James Holy Bible that we believe and defend as the complete and 100% true words of God. If God cannot use fallen, sinful man as His chosen vessels in the process of preserving His inspired words, then we never would have had the inspired originals to begin with! Think about it.
They ask: “Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
This quote is always taken out of context by the KJB critics. Throughout the Preface there are repeated references to the contrast between between the Bible translation work of Christians of the Reformation faith and those of the Catholic church.
The whole quote in context is this. “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.”
It should be clear that Miles Smith (the man who wrote the Preface) is referring to the Douay-Rheims ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT here, which was published by the Roman Catholics in 1582, the Old Testament not appearing until 1610, some five or six years AFTER the King James Bible translators began their own work of translation. Thus the reason for Smith's notation that they had "SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET."
Even the Catholics themselves acknowledge that the King James Bible translators severely criticized and mocked the Catholic versions. Here is their own Catholic Cultur.org site where they talk about their Douay-Rheims bible.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=64452699&CFTOKEN=99023368
Here in their own words they mention: "Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators' preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. "We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full" ("The Translators to the Reader," King James Version, 1611 ed.).
“Men of our profession” refers to the Protestant, Reformation Christians and the “theirs” refers to the Catholics. In the previous paragraph to this quote we read them say regarding “the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined” that “all is sound for substance in one or other of OUR editions, AND THE WORST OF OURS FAR BETTER THAN THEIR AUTHENTICK VULGAR” (which refers to the various Latin Vulgate versions)
The context of the Preface by Miles Smith shows the contrast between early English Protestant translations and the "Bible" of the Roman Catholic Church. Translations like Tyndale's 1525, Coverdale's 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587 and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God."
Throughout the Preface there is a constant contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought. They also state in their Preface - "also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their asimes, tunike, rational, holocausts, praepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof THEIR LATE TRANSLATION, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.”
In another part they stated: "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness”.
The translators of the AV saw their task as the perfecting of the earlier English translations that followed the Traditional Greek texts as found in the Reformation bible translations of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible.
The supreme irony today is that these same modern versions most anti-King James Bible folks are promoting are in fact the new “Catholic” bible versions. See "Undeniable Proof the NIV, NASB, ESV are the new 'Catholic' versions" here- Please read both parts
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm
All of grace, believing The Book,
Will Kinney
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm
heir
TOL Subscriber
I don't think we should call something that may overthrow the faith of some "good".
brandplucked
New member
Which King James Bible?
Which King James Bible?
Hi DesertReign. Sir, I have been saying the same thing since the beginning. No Bible version has been gone over with a fine tooth comb and checked for accuracy than the King James Bible. Those who maintain the purity of the KJB are the Cambridge printers, and I have also posted a couple of printing houses here in the USA that are very meticulous about weeding out the printing errors and maintaining a pure text.
Go to any bookstore and buy or order a Cambridge printing of the King James Bible. You won't find printing dates on most of them because they don't use them. You won't find copyright dates, because the KJB has never been revised. The specific underlying Hebrew and Greek texts that were used for this masterpiece, have never changed. This is in sharp contrast to versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.
I can't tell you a specific date because there is none. But any Cambridge King James Bible you can get in any bookstore today is the real deal.
Don't make this more difficult than it is. It is really quite simple.
I hope your expressed desire for an inerrant Bible is sincere. May God grant you the faith and understanding to believe it.
God bless.
Which King James Bible?
Hi DesertReign. Sir, I have been saying the same thing since the beginning. No Bible version has been gone over with a fine tooth comb and checked for accuracy than the King James Bible. Those who maintain the purity of the KJB are the Cambridge printers, and I have also posted a couple of printing houses here in the USA that are very meticulous about weeding out the printing errors and maintaining a pure text.
Go to any bookstore and buy or order a Cambridge printing of the King James Bible. You won't find printing dates on most of them because they don't use them. You won't find copyright dates, because the KJB has never been revised. The specific underlying Hebrew and Greek texts that were used for this masterpiece, have never changed. This is in sharp contrast to versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.
I can't tell you a specific date because there is none. But any Cambridge King James Bible you can get in any bookstore today is the real deal.
Don't make this more difficult than it is. It is really quite simple.
I hope your expressed desire for an inerrant Bible is sincere. May God grant you the faith and understanding to believe it.
God bless.