introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

Hi Bibleprotector,
Iam a filipino, I have many friends and relatives in the Philippines who
Are Christians but do not know the English language therefore they use a Tagalog version of the bible. Tagalog is the official language in the Philippines does this mean that they Are sinning because they can't read the English version of the bible.

No. To commit sin is to break some law or the knowledge of the law. Since there is no law that says that the Bible in English ALONE is the law, how could it be a sin to use a foreign translation?

But what we do observe is that English is becoming more common. And people like myself see the KJB as perfect. Therefore, we see that 1. people providentially are being prepared for evangelism by the KJB, 2. that it would be beneficial to have English-teaching and KJB evangelism missionary work rather than the current foreign translations with modern versions, and 3. that since the highest levels of doctrine are coming with the KJB from the end of the Reformation era till today (e.g. good advances, proper revivals, increasing acuity), that the KJB should be the gift to the nations for the highest building of the Church and the greatest profession of the faith.

[bibleprotector]

So? The fact is that "The Pure Cambridge Edition" is not identical to the 1611 King James Bible as you have claimed. The fact is that there are many more differences IN MEANING between the two versions, but I can see that bringing them forth will make no difference to you.

It is not honest to claim that the KJB in 1611 is a different version to now. Not one "reading" is changed. If the word "not" was omitted by printers in one or other printing, that does not invalidate anything, as in, it did not actually change the Word of God, nor did it actually change the KJB either in the commission of the typographical error, or in the rectification of them.

You appear to have no interest in the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

Correct. (But then, we live in the present, so I don't think people bring to church with them on Sunday morning fragments of papyri in an unknown tongue, multitudes bring their KJB!)

You seem to believe that these do not reflect the original autographs, but that your "Pure Cambridge Edition" does, even though the New Testament of the latter was translated from much later Greek manuscripts which clearly have been altered.

All Greek manuscripts in existence today differ to some degree to each other, many are of parts of the NT, not the whole. And so while they are sufficiently as collective whole reflecting the original inspiration, they, nor the printed collations made from them (e.g. a critical text) is reflecting the contents of the autographs exactly.

Whereas, in the Reformation, the work was done in the English translations, which do NOT match to any single Greek manuscript, which took in a holistic view, including a purview of Latin, commentaries, etc. etc., and made the English Bible version in 1611 that is being identified as standard.

So, I am saying that the King James Bible has the readings of what was written in the Autographs, and is giving the exact sense of them in English.

until it eventually died out.

I agree that superstition is wrong, or blind faith. But the KJBO position is none of those two. It is based on the tangible reality of looking at the KJB in front of you, and it is based on the seeing faith of what the Scripture is actually saying.

To insist that the PCE KJB is a different version to the 1611 KJB, or that omitting the Apocrypha affects truth are actually examples of superstition and blind faith.

[Homer]

bibleprotector,

Here are the instructions King James gave to the translators:

KING JAMES’ INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS

(Sources: Lewis’ History of the English Bible and The Men Behind the KJV by Gustavus S. Paine).

The following set of “rules” had been prepared on behalf of church and state by Richard Bancroft, Bishop of London and high-church Anglican. “For the better ordering of the proceedings of the translators, his Majesty recommended the following rules to them, to be very carefully observed:--

“1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

“2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, according as they are vulgarly used.

“3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

“4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent 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 references of one scripture to another.

“8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter of chapters; and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinks good, all to meet together, to confer what they have done, and agree for their part 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, shall doubt or differ upon any places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be 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 directly by authority to send to any learned in the land for his judgment in such a place.

“12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of the clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before the king’s letter to the archbishop.

“13. The directors in each company to be deans of Westminster and Chester, and the king’s professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.

“14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishop’s Bible, viz. Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Wilchurch’s,* Geneva.”

*By “Wilchurch” is meant the Great Bible, which was printed by Edward Wilchurch, one of King Henry VIII’s printers.

Take note of "the analogy of the faith", item #4. What this means is that the translators were to translate words according to what was believed at the time, not according to what was the original meaning in Greek. Also #3 restricted them from translating "church" and "baptism". What do you think the word "church" meant to the translators, the "people" assembled or an institutional organization?

[bibleprotector]

Take note of "the analogy of the faith", item #4. What this means is that the translators were to translate words according to what was believed at the time, not according to what was the original meaning in Greek. Also #3 restricted them from translating "church" and "baptism". What do you think the word "church" meant to the translators, the "people" assembled or an institutional organization?

You are misreading their rules.

"4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of faith."

This means the original is understood by what various Christians have taught. The Greek would be known by received tradition. There is nothing there about ignoring the original meaning of the Greek.

"3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, namely, as the word church not to be translated congregation &c."

There is no reference here to "baptism".

There is a reference to baptism in their Preface, "Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put ‘washing’ for ‘baptism’, and ‘congregation’ instead of ‘church’:"

Notice that the substituted word "washing" is clearly doctrinally incorrect, as well as being mundane rather than spiritual.

As for the final question asked, what do I think "church" meant to the translators, I am sure it means the same to us today. On the other side, it is incorrect to assert that a person's personal doctrines must interfere with the setting forth of the Scripture. And this is no more evident than that the word "church" in the King James Bible did not mean narrowly "The Anglican Church".

[paulespino]

Bibleprotector wrote
This idea that God has left it up to man to try to fix up the variations in manuscripts which have crept in over time is incorrect. The entire assumption that we need to turn back to copies coming from the earliest years in the Greek language to somehow find the most accurate form of truth is actually a non-Biblical argument. It is non-Biblical because (1) the Bible says nothing about that ( page 2),

It is also unbiblical to say that KJV is the only true bible since None among the bible authors mentioned KJV.

you wrote
No. To commit sin is to break some law or the knowledge of the law. Since there is no law that says that the Bible in English ALONE is the law, how could it be a sin to use a foreign translation?

May God bless you for your own personal choice of KJV. I doubt that you will be able to convince others maybe a few.

[bibleprotector]

It is also unbiblical to say that KJV is the only true bible since None among the bible authors mentioned KJV.

This is the same argument to say that the Philippines is unbiblical.

May God bless you for your own personal choice of KJV. I doubt that you will be able to convince others maybe a few.

Thank you for approval, however, I don't receive your doubt. It is a blessing for all English-speaking Christians to use the KJB.

[paulespino]

Biblepotector wrote
This is the same argument to say that the Philippines is unbiblical.

Then YOU are saying that USA is unbiblical because YOU started this argument
You wrote
This idea that God has left it up to man to try to fix up the variations in manuscripts which have crept in over time is incorrect. The entire assumption that we need to turn back to copies coming from the earliest years in the Greek language to somehow find the most accurate form of truth is actually a non-Biblical argument. It is non-Biblical because (1) the Bible says nothing about that ( page 2).

You wrote

Thank you for approval, however, I don't receive your doubt. It is a blessing for all English-speaking Christians to use the KJB.

What happened to the English speaking Christians who lived prior to the publication of KJV they must have missed this special blessing.
So you are saying that people who do not speak and read English are missing this special blessing.
Again going back to your original argument this special blessing ( KJV ) is non-biblical because it was not mentioned in the Bible.

[steve7150]

Bibleprotector,

It would be nice if we had a definitive bible translation but in the KJV it says,

"Verily i say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt 18.18

I know as a WOF you think this verse gives you authority over Satan and other things if you command it, but in the greek it really reads that things already bound and loosed in heaven will be done on earth AS IT IS IN HEAVEN if it's in God's word first as delivered from the Apostles.

Any thoughts?

[Paidion]

In the King James Version, there are many errors in translation from the Textus Receptus in Greek into English. I will begin with just one example, and post many others from time to time. Some of you may wish to share examples which you have encountered:


In the King James Bible, the second sentence in James 5:11 reads:

Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

The mistranslated word is "ὑπομενη". This word was translated as "patience" in the sentence quoted above from the AV ("Authorized Version")

It is obvious from reading the book of Job, that Job was anything but patient! He cursed the day of his birth. (3:1) He said, "I am not at ease nor quiet." (3:26)
Job was not patient with his "friends". He said, "Worthless physicians are you all (13:14)
Job even indicated that he was not patient with the word "Why should I not be impatient?" (21:4 NKJV) Someone may say, "But the original King James reads, "Why should not my spirit be troubled?" That really makes no difference. The Hebrew word which the AV translates as "troubled" means "impatient".
Job was even impatient with God! He (mistakenly) thought God had brought all of these troubles on him, even though Job had done nothing to deserve them. So he said, "He [God] is not a man that I should answer Him, that we should come to trial together. (9:32 RSV) Neither is there any judge between us, that might lay his hand on us both. (9:33 AKJV)." Job thinks that if he and God could only be brought before a judge in court, the judge would rule in his favour since he had done nothing wrong, and thus there was no justice in his being punished by God.

No, Job was not patient in his trials. But he did have steadfastness or endurance. When his wife indicated that he might as well give up, praise God and die, he said, "You talk as one of the foolish women!" Difficult as it was for Job, he endured all that happened to him, the loss of his children, and his painful physical condition. So this is how the second sentence in James 5:11 should read:

You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful. (ESV)

Here are some other versions in which the word is translated correctly: "steadfastness": RSV, "endurance": HCSB, NASB, Rotherham, "perseverence": NKJV

The Greek word for patience is "μακροθυμια" and is found in the following verse:

Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (Romans 2:4)

This word is usually translated as "longsuffering" in the AV.

[Singalphile]

I'll add $.02.

The Biblical support for the "King James Bible only" teaching seems to rest on a few proof-texts (Psalm 12:6-7, Zeph 3:9, and others already cited).

When the Bible speaks of the "word of God", "words of that prophet", "lying words", etc, it surely refers to the message that is conveyed rather than a particular combination of sounds or markings (which would make no sense to most people). It is unusual to think that a particular mark or sound has special power that diminishes if altered, even when the underlying meaning does not, as if just the right inflection or flourish is necessary in order for the "magic" to work, Harry Potter-like.

Of course, one might just say that the King James Version has the combination of sounds/letters that convey the intended meaning most accurately (or perfectly) to a modern English speaker. That's a matter of opinion to some extent, I guess, but I would say that it's obviously not true in many or most cases. One can find lists of words in the KJV whose meanings have changed or are archaic. One might say that 1) the combination of letters is more important than whether or not their meaning is commonly understood or 2) God supernaturally makes a certain combination of English sounds/letters more powerful or understandable (to the true seeker).

Well..., fine. You'll forgive me for describing such views as unusual and extra-Biblical.

I do wonder about the majority of people on the planet who don't speak English at even a basic level, much less fluently. What is their perfect translation? It seems that the "King James Bible only" view needs to have this and similar points explained, that is, to be able to answer the many questions it raises. I hope that the answer is not, "I don't know. That's their problem."