Is the King James Bible Infallible? King James Onlyism Exposed.

[6days]

My main problem with the NEW KJV is not that people say it makes it "easier to understand." Changing "saith" to "says" isn't a problem. They mean the same thing. The main problem is that it departs from the TR and the Masoretic. It has some different renderings than the KJV that don't agree with the Greek and Hebrew in the TR and Masoretic. I believe the KJV is the words of God in English. I don't want another version.

ok...
How about in Genesis 1:28
KJV says "replenish the earth"But the Englisg language has changed. That word used to mean 'FILL'... (not re-fill).
So the KJV 2000 and most modern translations say "fill the earth"
Anyways...No a biggie... We can still be brothers and followers of Christ.

 

[Nick M]

Of the Word of God is infallible.

Of course it is. His words are persevered. That doesn't mean people don't twist them. Look at all the versions (NIV). Look at TOL, where dead to sin doesn't mean dead to sin.

 

[Mocking You]

I'm still waiting for one example where the NKJV departs from the TR and Masoretic texts.

 

[intojoy]

I'm still waiting for one example where the NKJV departs from the TR and Masoretic texts.

Ahh you found another TOL garden.

 

[intojoy]

Is the New KJV ok with you?

Language change over the course of hundreds of years...

Meaning of words sometimes change.....

Why be opposed to change helps reflect more accurately the old Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?

Here's my list from dr Fruchtenbaum on closest translations
1. Asv 1901
2. NASB
3. NKJV
4. ESV
5. Kjv

 

[Daniel1611]

I'm still waiting for one example where the NKJV departs from the TR and Masoretic texts.

Titus 3:10, to name one. And aside from its variants from the TR, it's just not as good of a translation. The KJV is much clearer. I'll take the KJV any day.

 

[Nick M]

Why be opposed to change helps reflect more accurately the old Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?

Did you know....the Lord Jesus Christ did not reference Hebrew manuscripts? The gospels recorded him as saying something a little bit different and the Dead Sea scrolls showed why. And all along they thought he just got it wrong.

English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible

NKJV has mistakes also. Whose faith saves you?

 

[Mocking You]

Titus 3:10, to name one. And aside from its variants from the TR, it's just not as good of a translation. The KJV is much clearer. I'll take the KJV any day.

So you're saying the NKJV uses the Critical Text for that verse? Or what text do you assert it is using?

 

[Nick M]

I'm still waiting for one example where the NKJV departs from the TR and Masoretic texts.

Whose faith saves you? Scroll down for the real meaning and full definition. Not what people thinks it means.

Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty

b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

Romans 3

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

That is what makes sense. I trust and believe in his fidelity and allegiance. He cannot deny himself.

NKJV
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;

And that is a redundancy. Faith in Jesus Christ to all who have faith in Jesus Christ. Makes no sense.

 

[kiwimacahau]

The KJV is a dated translation. We have access to earlier copies of the mss than did the KJV translators thus modern translations are generally better than it.

 

[Mocking You]

Whose faith saves you? Scroll down for the real meaning and full definition. Not what people thinks it means.

Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty

b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

Romans 3

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

That is what makes sense. I trust and believe in his fidelity and allegiance. He cannot deny himself.

NKJV
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;

And that is a redundancy. Faith in Jesus Christ to all who have faith in Jesus Christ. Makes no sense.

Nick, the difference here between the KJV and the NKJV is a translational issue. Daniel1611 asserted, "The main problem is that the NKJV departs from the TR and the Masoretic" which must mean that the NKJV rejects the TR and Masoretic text in favor of a different text in certain verses. That's patently false.

Disagree about the differences in the translation of the TR between the KJV and the NKJV but Daniel1611 doesn't get to say that the NKJV doesn't use the TR.

 

[everready]

The King James Bible Defended

The King James Bible Defended

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." —Hebrews 4:12

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm

everready

I noticed translations becoming a big thing in the late 60's early 70's isn't that about the time Vatican II began?

 

[kiwimacahau]

I wouldn't quote from David Stewart's site, the man is seriously strange.

 

[dialm]

The RCC puts the bible on the level of an officer of the church. It is tradition for them. They are not really attacking the bible. Oh you get some crack pots out there who are over zealous. But the fact is that the RCC must have the bible. It is a control issue. The bible is powerful stuff. Sometimes I think that controlling access might be better. But those situations are very limited. No, for the most part free access is best.

As to which translation, KJ is my favorite but young people just don't seem to care for it.

Infallible: my that is a big four syllables. Where does God end and man begin? Does Satan have any input at all, or do we ignore his abilities?

I try to do what the bible says. And when I fail I place my faith in Christ. All I have ever really done with the bible is read it. I wouldn't even do that if someone didn't take the time to teach me how to read.

 

[Truster]

No, the KJV is not infallible, but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible.

 

[kayaker]

The problem here is obviously not the simple change from “saith” to “say”, as Daniel astutely brought to light in his post #18. The problem is renderings dictate diction, the choice of words, as opposed to broader themes dictating diction. Here is a comparison of two verses in Genesis from The Complete Jewish Bible, Catholic Bible, New King James Version, and King James Version. Following are some respective renderings impacted by translation, mine included:

The Complete Jewish Bible:

23 Now Lemech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah, hearken to my voice; wives of Lemech, incline your ears to my words, for I have slain a man by wounding (him) and a child by bruising (him). 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then for Lemech it shall be seventy seven fold.​

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8168/jewish/Chapter-4.htm

Catholic Bible

23 Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech, listen to my utterance: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for bruising me. 24 If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.​

Http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/4

New King James Version:

23 Then Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech! For I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”​

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?t=NKJV&Criteria="Lamech"#s=s_primary_0_1

King James Version:

23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, Hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.​

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?t=KJV&Criteria="Lamech"#s=s_primary_0_1

Now, lets take a look at various renderings from said translations…

Jewish rendering(s):​

Sixth Aliyah: Lemech accidentally killed his great-great-great-great-grandfather Cain in a hunting accident; the blood of Abel was finally avenged.

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/577241/jewish/Aliyah-Summary.htm

Tubal-Cain’s father, the sixth generation from Cain, was Lemech. Lemech grew old and became blind. One day Tubal-Cain, his youngest son, led him out into the fields to hunt for food. Far off, Tubal-Cain saw something moving that looked like a monstrous animal. He advised the blind Lemech to aim his arrow towards it, and Lemech shot. When they got closer, they discovered to their great sorrow that they had killed Cain.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/246607/jewish/Adams-Children.htm

Catholic rendering(s):​

Verse 23
Said. This is the most ancient piece of poetry with which we are acquainted. (Fleury.) --- Lamech may be considered as the father of poets. (Haydock) --- I have slain a man, &c. It is the tradition of the Hebrews, that Lamech in hunting slew Cain, mistaking him for a wild beast: and that having discovered what he had done, he beat so unmercifully the youth, by whom he was led into that mistake, that he died of the blows. (Challoner) --- St. Jerome, 9. 1. ad Dam. acknowledges the difficulty of this passage, on which Origen wrote two whole books. (Worthington)

Verse 24
Seventy times. A similar expression occurs, Matthew xviii. 22, to denote a great but indefinite number. God had promised to revenge the murder of Cain seven fold, though he had sinned voluntarily; so Lamech hopes that, as he had acted by mistake, and blinded by passion, in striking the stripling, the son of Tubalcain, he would deserve to be protected still more from falling a prey to the fury of any other. But many reject this tradition as fabulous, unknown to Philo, Josephus, &c. Moses no where mentions the death of Cain. Some, therefore, understand this passage with an interrogation; as if, to convince his wives that his sin was not so enormous as was supposed, he should say, Do not think of leaving me. What! have I killed a young man, as Cain did Abel, and still he is suffered to live unmolested; or have I beaten any one so that I should be punished? Onkelos, in effect, puts a negation to the same purport, "I have not killed, &c.:" (Calmet) others understand this passage, as if Lamech considered his crimes as much more grievous than even those of Cain. (Tirinus)

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/view.cgi?bk=0&ch=4

Various and sundry Protestant renderings:​

http://biblehub.com/genesis/4-23.htm

We can substantially agree “saith” translates as “says,” but where we go from there becomes rather tangential. Dictionaries do NOT dictate themes… themes dictate diction, the choice of words, while divine inspiration dictates themes. Translations are inspired by one’s theme, while other translations are inspired by their themes. Hence: one’s theme, of greater and lesser inspiration, dictates diction/translation. The simple question arises: Whose theme is more divinely inspired than another’s? How does one justify their theme, BEFORE justifying one’s diction/translation?

My rendering:​

The renderings of Genesis 4:23 KJV and Genesis 4:24 KJV are rather simple to my fallable rendering of the KJV translation, which I proffer is the most benign translation affording greatest individually inspired latitude. Cain’s punishment, already merciful, was no procreation (Genesis 4:12 KJV) achieved by Cain being a “fugitive and a vagabond in the earth” (Genesis 4:13 KJV). Therefore, Cain would NOT mix and mingle and die of old age being a fatherless fugitive and vagabond. Cain begged for mercy (Genesis 4:14 KJV) that someone would still find him and kill him, even though God mercifully didn’t. God set a mark upon Cain that he wouldn’t be found out and killed. Consequently, Cain received parole to mix and mingle among folk which opened the door to procreation that God forbade (Genesis 4:12 KJV). If Cain broke parole and sired children, then Cain’s lifespan would be limited to “sevenfold” generations. Cain sired Enoch, and built a city (Genesis 4:17 KJV) contrary to God’s parole (Genesis 4:12 KJV => Genesis 4:15 KJV).

Counting from Satan is generation #1, Cain generation #2, Enoch #3, Irad #4, Methujael #5, Mehusael #6… Lamech is the “sevenfold” generation from Satan, inclusively (Genesis 3:15 KJV, Genesis 4:16, 17). Lamech extended the mark of Cain for a total of “seventy and sevenfold” generations by executing Cain for violating parole (Genesis 4:17 KJV), not for the premeditated murder of Abel. Consequent to carrying out God’s sentence executing his beloved and relatively young great-grandfather (Genesis 4:23 KJV) (Genesis 5:8 KJV), Lamech extended the preservation of Cain’s lineage via the mark for a total of “seventy and sevenfold” generations. Lamech even named a son Tubalcain, which I proffer is in memoriam to Cain (Genesis 4:22 KJV). Furthermore, this opens up the issue of the flood, did Cain’s descendants survive the flood? If so, how?

Thereby, Lamech prophesied the “seventy and sevenfold” arrival generation of God’s Son who could ‘see’ through the veil without condemnation (John 8:15, 16, KJV, John 8:26 KJV), divinely discerning who were Cain’s descendants (John 8:44 KJV, John 8:47 KJV). Go to Luke 3:38 KJV and begin counting generations with God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth… Jesus is the “seventy and sevenfold” generation from Almighty God, inclusively.

I venture to say that few translations outside the KJV preserve sufficient individual spiritual latitude to grasp the greater themes of God’s Holy Word. I consider other translations and renderings, but the KJV leaves the floor open, so to speak, for the Holy Spirit to speak to INDIVIDUALS. To each their own!

kayaker

 

[Nazaroo]

NASB, NIV, ESB, ASV, REB, NEB, RSV, NRSV, JB, I could go on. Any of these are better than the KJV.

Every single one of these translations uses a critical Greek text
which mutilates the New Testament by deleting some 200 whole and half-verses.

They did this on the flimsy basis that these were added to the text by
editors and copyists, in part by accident but mostly by intent,
for explanatory purposes or to reinforce or invent favorite doctrines.


However, modern scientific scholarship has shown that these are almost
all simply scribal errors, and accidental omissions mainly by homoioteleuton,
that is, lines were dropped due to similar endings or beginnings.

For the real statistical knowledge about scribal errors, these articles
should be consulted, which show that the general tendency was to omit,
not add text to the New Testament.

General Articles on Errors:
 J. Wetstein (1751): Older MSS - Older not = Better!
 J. Burgon (1882): Haplography - mechanics of error
 B. Weiss (1887): Omissions - & most common errors
 F.W. Shipley (1904): Dittography - & omissions
 H. Gamble (1977): Interpolation - Identifying Marks
 L. Haines (2008): Scribal Habits - 'Shorter Reading'?
 J.Royse (2008) Shorter Reading? - & Griesbach
 W. Pickering (2009) Oldest = Best MSS? - early errors
 T. Holland (2009) "Oldest & Best MSS" - & Byzantine

Errors in Specific MSS:
 B.B. Warfield (1887): Haplography - examples from א
 S. F. Kenyon (1901): Haplography - more ex. from א/B
 H. von Soden (1911): Omissions - in Codex א/B
 H.A. Sanders (1912): Haplography - in Codex W
 E.C. Colwell (1969): Haplography - & P45, P66, P75
 D.A. Carson (1979) & homoeoteleuton - Lk 14:26
 Jongkind (2005): א - tests Singular Readings Method!
 J. Hernandez (2006): Errors of א in Rev - singular OMs
 J. Royse (2008): Scribal Habits - P45,46,47,66,72,75
 J. Royse (2008) homoeoteleuton - singular omissions
 J. Krans (2010) GA-3 - famous insertion: 2 Cor 8:4
 Scrivener (2010) homoeoteleuton - P-Oxy-1780 new!


For specific information on the actual verses that modern (per)versions
leave out, or place in the margin or footnotes, or bracket as if they were
unreliable or in doubt, or possible additions, look at these examples:



Chart Codes
h.a. = homoioarcton (similar beginning),  

h.t. = homoioteleuton (similar ending)
* = original hand but corrected,   c = corrector,  

uml. = marked with an umlaut
om. = omits text,  
sb. = single brackets around text,   db. = double brackets
WH = Westcott/Hort Greek Text (1882)  

UBS = UBS Greek text (2nd ed. 1965) & 3rd ed.,  
NAS NIV RSV = English translations









To get the full story on any one of these 76 examples, and many more, go to our webpage here:

http://pericopedeadultera.org/AF/Omissions.html

and also consult the Homoioteleuton Blogsite here, which documents many hundreds of examples
where critics have made the wrong choice because they misunderstood the evidence:

http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.ca/

 

[Nazaroo]

And as others have pointed out, its not just the 200 missing or mutilated verses in the NT that is wrong with modern versions:

(1) Anti-Semitic Bias from the German "scholarship"
has deeply and disturbingly affected both Catholic and Protestant modern translations:

How the Germans perverted the Bible
The NAZIs and the NIV (New International Version)
Kittel's AntiSemitism and O.T. Sabotage (cont.)


(2) Jewish Anti-Christian bias from modern "Jewish" scholarship
has also unduly influenced modern translations:

Modern Versions and Jewish Fables
The Sabotage of the Christian O.T. in favor of 20th cent. Judaism
The Sabotage of the Christian O.T.: (1550-1700) The Hebrew text

 

[john w]

No, the KJV is not infallible, but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible.

Translation: There is no pure, sound, true, certain word of God today, as all we have left is subjectivity(unless you are going to "argue" that all have the same interpretation): " but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible."

"but the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures for the heirs of promise is infallible."

=Thanks for saying nothing, as we already know that men do not have a "100% accurate interpretation" of the book. If we did, we'd be God. The issue is the objective words in the scripture, not interpretation. Where can we get a copy of the true, pure, certain, sound......word of God today? Does it have a name? Identify it.

 

[john w]

The problem here is obviously not the simple change from “saith” to “say”, as Daniel astutely brought to light in his post #18. The problem is renderings dictate diction, the choice of words, as opposed to broader themes dictating diction. Here is a comparison of two verses in Genesis from The Complete Jewish Bible, Catholic Bible, New King James Version, and King James Version. Following are some respective renderings impacted by translation, mine included:

The Complete Jewish Bible:

23 Now Lemech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah, hearken to my voice; wives of Lemech, incline your ears to my words, for I have slain a man by wounding (him) and a child by bruising (him). 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then for Lemech it shall be seventy seven fold.​

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8168/jewish/Chapter-4.htm

Catholic Bible

23 Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech, listen to my utterance: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for bruising me. 24 If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.​

Http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/4

New King James Version:

23 Then Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech! For I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”​

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?t=NKJV&Criteria="Lamech"#s=s_primary_0_1

King James Version:

23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, Hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.​

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?t=KJV&Criteria="Lamech"#s=s_primary_0_1

Now, lets take a look at various renderings from said translations…

Jewish rendering(s):​

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/577241/jewish/Aliyah-Summary.htm



http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/246607/jewish/Adams-Children.htm

Catholic rendering(s):​

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/view.cgi?bk=0&ch=4

Various and sundry Protestant renderings:​

http://biblehub.com/genesis/4-23.htm

We can substantially agree “saith” translates as “says,” but where we go from there becomes rather tangential. Dictionaries do NOT dictate themes… themes dictate diction, the choice of words, while divine inspiration dictates themes. Translations are inspired by one’s theme, while other translations are inspired by their themes. Hence: one’s theme, of greater and lesser inspiration, dictates diction/translation. The simple question arises: Whose theme is more divinely inspired than another’s? How does one justify their theme, BEFORE justifying one’s diction/translation?

My rendering:​

The renderings of Genesis 4:23 KJV and Genesis 4:24 KJV are rather simple to my fallable rendering of the KJV translation, which I proffer is the most benign translation affording greatest individually inspired latitude. Cain’s punishment, already merciful, was no procreation (Genesis 4:12 KJV) achieved by Cain being a “fugitive and a vagabond in the earth” (Genesis 4:13 KJV). Therefore, Cain would NOT mix and mingle and die of old age being a fatherless fugitive and vagabond. Cain begged for mercy (Genesis 4:14 KJV) that someone would still find him and kill him, even though God mercifully didn’t. God set a mark upon Cain that he wouldn’t be found out and killed. Consequently, Cain received parole to mix and mingle among folk which opened the door to procreation that God forbade (Genesis 4:12 KJV). If Cain broke parole and sired children, then Cain’s lifespan would be limited to “sevenfold” generations. Cain sired Enoch, and built a city (Genesis 4:17 KJV) contrary to God’s parole (Genesis 4:12 KJV => Genesis 4:15 KJV).

Counting from Satan is generation #1, Cain generation #2, Enoch #3, Irad #4, Methujael #5, Mehusael #6… Lamech is the “sevenfold” generation from Satan, inclusively (Genesis 3:15 KJV, Genesis 4:16, 17). Lamech extended the mark of Cain for a total of “seventy and sevenfold” generations by executing Cain for violating parole (Genesis 4:17 KJV), not for the premeditated murder of Abel. Consequent to carrying out God’s sentence executing his beloved and relatively young great-grandfather (Genesis 4:23 KJV) (Genesis 5:8 KJV), Lamech extended the preservation of Cain’s lineage via the mark for a total of “seventy and sevenfold” generations. Lamech even named a son Tubalcain, which I proffer is in memoriam to Cain (Genesis 4:22 KJV). Furthermore, this opens up the issue of the flood, did Cain’s descendants survive the flood? If so, how?

Thereby, Lamech prophesied the “seventy and sevenfold” arrival generation of God’s Son who could ‘see’ through the veil without condemnation (John 8:15, 16, KJV, John 8:26 KJV), divinely discerning who were Cain’s descendants (John 8:44 KJV, John 8:47 KJV). Go to Luke 3:38 KJV and begin counting generations with God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth… Jesus is the “seventy and sevenfold” generation from Almighty God, inclusively.

I venture to say that few translations outside the KJV preserve sufficient individual spiritual latitude to grasp the greater themes of God’s Holy Word. I consider other translations and renderings, but the KJV leaves the floor open, so to speak, for the Holy Spirit to speak to INDIVIDUALS. To each their own!

kayaker

Translation: Here are a bunch of fake, fallible bibles, and I will use them, to correct each other, to arrive at perfection.


=can't be done.

=log in, lose your mind.