[Luke]

THe only people that know enough about the KJB, and the reasons for people hating it, are hated by everyone for the simple fact that they teach truth (Riplinger, Gipp, Marrs and Ruckman). Others who claim to hold the KJB as final authority, admit to it being liable to additions and corrections (Cloud for example. While I have found many of his articles encouraging and informative, he has stated that he believes the King James Bible could be updated in some ways.)

also: Deborah Riplinger, I mean Gail, is a woman, and many would object to her debating a man (but that never stopped God letting a woman stand up when the men were too weak).

Originally Posted by Luke

Others who claim to hold the KJB as final authority, admit to it being liable to additions and corrections (Cloud for example. While I have found many of his articles encouraging and informative, he has stated that he believes the King James Bible could be updated in some ways.)

I think I've read every article on Cloud's site on the KJB and I have never heard him say that. That he has stated the King James Bible could be updated in some ways. The only thing he has said is that he thinks the Bible for Today's, (Dr. Waite's) defined King James Bible is great. Just bolds the harder to understand words and gives the definition below. I know Gail Riplinger says that we should just depend on the built in dictionary in the KJB. and this may be part of her beef with Dr. Waite and Cloud? To use the Defined KJB is not the same as wanting a revision. I like to look up the words anyway and it just makes it easier to have the definitions below the page.

That is quite a charge, (although a little vague) that you made about Cloud. I hope you can back it up with a quote of his.

Here are some articles written by Cloud re: the KJB. I think you will see he defends the KJB quite zealously.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/questionsanswered.htm

[Diligent]

Perhaps this is what Luke is referring to:

From http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kingjamesonlyism.htm

"I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and lovely translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors. (That is not to say that it cannot be updated or that things could not be translated differently.)"

Like you, (and Luke as he explained earlier), I find a lot of good stuff on Bro. Cloud's web site. His position is clearly better than the majority of fundamentalists on the issue of the Bible. I also have never seen him offer a correction for the KJV.

However, the simple matter is that I take it a step further. The KJV is final, needs no updating, and any translation that disagrees with the KJV is wrong.

Originally Posted by Diligent

Perhaps this is what Luke is referring to:

From http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/kingjamesonlyism.htm

"I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and lovely translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors. (That is not to say that it cannot be updated or that things could not be translated differently.)"

Like you, (and Luke as he explained earlier), I find a lot of good stuff on Bro. Cloud's web site. His position is clearly better than the majority of fundamentalists on the issue of the Bible. I also have never seen him offer a correction for the KJV.

However, the simple matter is that I take it a step further. The KJV is final, needs no updating, and any translation that disagrees with the KJV is wrong.

Thank you for the quote. I can see that he did say it and I'm glad I could see the entire article so I can see the whole paragraph. I was surprised when Luke said that about Cloud only because Cloud is continually defending the verses that the textual critics continually bring up and also he defends the King James English used and why we should not change the "archaic" words and the thee's thous and thines...... I can only come to the conclusion that in updates, he may mean spellings, (especially when we see that the 1611 needed that type of updating)? and when he says that there are passages that could be translated differently, I wonder if he means that yes could be translated differently, but not meaning that the KJV is translated incorrectly. He does say he does not believe that the KJB contains any errors, so this is how I draw my conclusion. and like you said he gives no example of any changes that he thinks should be made.

I think it's good that we clarify Luke's remark about Cloud a bit.

In the article he is describing all of the different categories of different KJVO's, which we see on this site. In black bold is the statement in question, with his statement about the KJB being free of error in red.

Here is the whole paragraph.

Let me also emphasize, because I know from past experience that some will misunderstand and misrepresent my position, that I am not encouraging the variety which exists among King James Bible defenders. I'm simply saying this variety is a reality which must be acknowledged. If I had my way everyone would hold the RIGHT position, which is, of course, MY position! (I say that tongue in cheek, of course. I am not so deceived to think that I am right in everything.) I believe the King James Bible is an accurate and lovely translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors. (That is not to say that it cannot be updated or that things could not be translated differently.) I believe that God had His hand upon the KJV in a special way because of the singular role it would play in the transmission of the Word of God during a long and crucial epoch of church history. (This is not to say that I believe it is some sort of “advanced revelation.”) In contrast with the modern English versions, I believe that the KJV is based upon a superior underlying text; it was produced by superior translators; it incorporates superior translation techniques; it demonstrates a superior theology; it embodies a superior English; it was created in a superior era; and it has a superior history.

I can't say that I disagree with anything in the entire article. Cloud is a true defender of the KJB. His knowledge of the issue is incredible.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Beth

I can only come to the conclusion that in updates, he may mean spellings?

That is unclear, he may be implying a bit more, such as alternative grammar, updating some words. One problem is that he is vague, and when you open a door, it can be a trap-door.

Originally Posted by Beth

and when he says that there are passages that could be translated differently, I wonder if he means that yes could be translated differently, but not meaning that the KJV is translated incorrectly.

That is the sense I got, that some alternative translations may be acceptable, not wrong. However why raise the issue at all ? If you fully accept the King James Bible the alternative translation will at best be "almost ok" and "not wrong". Why open the door to translating differently on an overall basis ? If you want to say that on a particular verse an alternative in a version is understandable and reasonable, do it when that verse comes up. And even those words can be misunderstood, what you are really saying is that the alternative is not technically, scholastically 'wrong', 'error'.

Originally Posted by Beth

I can't say that I disagree with anything in the entire article. Cloud is a true defender of the KJB. His knowledge of the issue is incredible.

This is true.

btw, his usage of "accurate and lovely" discomfits me. Accurate yes, but more .. precise, majestic and much more, including pure and perfect. Lovely without much more sounds a bit elitist and quaint, almost condescending as it would be used by an opponent, and even 'accurate' is only moderately strong.

Just telling you how I see it. I don't comment on these issues much, I really like David Cloud and appreciate his labors, so this should be in that context.

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

That is unclear, he may be implying a bit more, such as alternative grammar, updating some words. One problem is that he is vague, and when you open a door, it can be a trap-door.

Yes, I agree, I wish he would of explained this comment better.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

That is the sense I got, that some alternative translations may be acceptable, not wrong. However why raise the issue at all ? If you fully accept the King James Bible the alternative translation will at best be "almost ok" and "not wrong". Why open the door to translating differently on an overall basis ? If you want to say that on a particular verse an alternative in a version is understandable and reasonable, do it when that verse comes up. And even those words can be misunderstood, what you are really saying is that the alternative is not technically, scholastically 'wrong', 'error'.

This is true.

I'm not sure why he raised the issue. I think he is trying to explain to those that choose instead the MV why there is so much disagreement within the KJVO camp. It will be easy for him to say something not quite right depending on which KJVO camp a person belongs. I read a lot of his articles, so putting it all together I understand what he means and I know he is truly defending the KJB. Hopefully he will clarify further what he meant by that statement.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

btw, his usage of "accurate and lovely" discomfits me. Accurate yes, but more .. precise, majestic and much more, including pure and perfect. Lovely without much more sounds a bit elitist and quaint, almost condescending as it would be used by an opponent, and even 'accurate' is only moderately strong.

Just telling you how I see it. I don't comment on these issues much, I really like David Cloud and appreciate his labors, so this should be in that context.

Shalom,
Steven

I can't say that I like his usage of "accurate and lovely" either. But he did go on to say that the KJB was free of error. which is like saying pure and perfect, precise. Superior is like saying majestic.

The Defined King James Bible is not a correction to the King James authorized Text, only and explanation of words at the bottom. As far as I am concerned it is a fine piece of work
__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)