KJV Translators reject KJV only
 

After careful consideration of the Preface to the KJV (enclosed is an excerpt) do you really think the translators of the KJV had the same standard for certainty that KJV only advocates of today require? None of the original translators would affirm the KJV only position.

KJV Preface excerpt:

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?

They clearly did not mean that a translation whose base text has purposefully removed verses is the complete word of God, as the continuing text of their preface shows, seeing that they compare a translation of the word of God to a translation of the king's speech. If a translator translating the king's speech were to leave out whole sentences of what the king said in his speech, would we not call it a translation of an abridgment of the king's speech rather than a translation of the whole of the king's speech? Even so, they themselves say "set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet)." That is, a translation that is not of the complete word of God does not contain nor is the word of God, although a poor translation of the complete word of God can be said to be the word of God. How can you not see this? As TRO (Textus Receptus Only) I can accept their line of thinking here, and say that both the KJV and NKJV are the word of God in the sense in which they speak here. But the NIV does not contain Acts 8:37, and therefore it does not contain, nor is, the word of God. As they say of the Puritans, "wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet" so also I say of the modern translations. We have not seem a complete translation of the Bible from them, because they refuse to translate the whole thing (with the exception of the NKJV).

My argument is not against a TR only advocate; it is against a KJV only advocate. I disagree with the TR only view, but I have great respect for those holding that position. There are a number of good arguments in support for the TR only viewpoint.

There’s a kind of deception around that says that in order to get the translators’ “real” ideas, we have to read them in the print form of 1611. Why not accept the Translators’ Preface from a Cambridge Edition from the 1950s?

So here is the quote of the translators:

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: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for, In many things we offend all,) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand; yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express. Judge by an example or two.

The Roman Catholics argued against the King James Bible, saying that if the Bible was already given in English, why would they need to go again to correct it? If Tyndale or Geneva or whatever, why another new one?

And so it was to these that the translators (by the pen of Miles Smith) answered: “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”. He is talking about “our” works, meaning Protestant, saying that he had not seen theirs yet, meaning the Catholic Douay Old Testament (which appeared around the same time as the KJB did).

When he said “the very meanest”, he was referring generally to any historical Protestant English translation about which that accusation was made. He most certainly was not referring to modern versions. Yet this is what anti-KJB people read into it. How could the 1611 translators be said to be allowing modern versions when modern versions did not exist? Especially since that modern versions deny the Protestant tradition (the Textus Receptus), and embrace something of the Catholic, the very enemies of the 1611 translators!

When Smith wrote that such an English Version is the Word of God, this is quite correct. The Vulgate can be said to contain the Word of God. But because the King James Bible was designed to, and in reality did, supersede other English versions, and that now that English is the global language, we very well can hold to one Bible for the world, not because other versions were not Bibles, but because one Bible translation is superior to all. Providence has long worked and revealed one exact, extant form of the Word, which is superior to any single manuscript or printed edition of the original languages, and is supersucessionary to any Bible in the whole world. This is based on the principle of scattering and gathering, a process which God providentially used the King James Bible translators to finalise. Thus, while any old manuscript from the Traditional Text Family, or any Textus Receptus edition, or any Reformation English or foreign translation may be accepted and called “The Word of God” (or constituting some part thereof), non can be produced which is final in manifest form that is perfect in Canon, Version-Text and Translation altogether in one extant volume. Only the King James Bible can be so (which has lately been published without even so much as typographical errors).

Therefore, in all the time when there were improvements in English Bibles (the gathering process, and the refining process), it is true that “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word”. Again, that any should not be “forbidden to be current”. Yet, we know that because of the succession, eventually later better versions superseded the former, and eventually by various factors under the Providence of God, the King James Bible alone became current, as it should be this day.

Moreover, “some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it”, that is, any one of the Early Protestant English Versions. But as far and text and translation, this was all improved, and finalised with the King James Bible. It would be incorrect to argue that the King James Bible also had “imperfections and blemishes” in its text and translation, for Smith was speaking only of the former translations, which they were avowedly doing, saying elsewhere that “the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place”, and again, in the Dedication, “of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue”. Thus, they knew that the King James Bible was the truth, exactly correct and final.

A modernist is able to find common ground (that is, common error) between the TRO position and himself because both have accepted incorrect premises in their view of the King James Bible and of what the 1611 translators said in their Preface to the Reader.

Most specifically, both do not view the King James Bible as having representative authority. They both judge the correctness of the King James Bible on other sources, usually, what they think the original text reads as, and what they think those original words should mean. In other words, it is denying the received tradition as Providentially given for an endless quest for truth that can never be attained.

This may easily be judged so, because no such person can produce a final text and translation because their very methodology and principles which supposedly are to lead to "the best" always fall short, since they have as a basis the law of the spirit of error (i.e. that perfection is impossible). This is essentially saying to God that He is too weak, and that He cannot (or even is forbidden to) have one Bible for the world. In other words, they can accept perfect truth in the past (inspiration), they can accept it in the future (the Millennium), they can accept it in Heaven, they can accept it in the Spirit (in the heart of a believer), but they cannot accept it in natural form extant and observable right now on the Earth today.

The proper view, I think, is to believe the Scripture itself, which many times implies, promises and indicates that there should be, and is manifest for believers, a pure and perfect Bible.

If the objection is brought up concerning the past, that is, the same words existed in scattered form in the past before 1611, and believers existed before 1611, the answer is simple: God’s outworking in this manner has been progressive to a final point, He said that the Word is purified seven times, which is a process. He promised that the Scripture would be there throughout Church history and to the Gentiles, it is true, but the promise of a pure, final and exact form has only been understood as a doctrine after 1611. (How many true doctrines were restored to the Church after the Reformation!)

The King James Bible is of the same line as any good version that anyone could have ever used, or other contemporary good versions that have been used, but in the end, one has remained, one has stood above all, one has been chosen by God, because its very nature is supersuccessionary to all. This does not invalidate anything else, rather it confirms the others, for it is the one final form that replaces them (even a contemporary TR-based Spanish translation).

My faith, BP, is not in a bar-b-qued Christ, but the crucified Christ. Deny all you can, but that will forever be an error in the KJV. Jesus did not go to hell when he died. Yes, I realize that hell in 1611 was an ambiguous term, including within it Abraham's bosom as well as eternal punishment. But now, the word hell is taken to pretty much exclusively refer to eternal punishment. Therefore, it is not wrong, but quite proper, to use the very word the apostles used, hades, when and where they used it. Jesus was not a Calvinist and did not tell the thief "My physical death is worthless unless I fry in hell for three days" (oh the blasphemy!) but rather "Today you will be with me in paradise" and so. Therefore, Jesus' body being dead and buried, his soul descended to hades, to Abraham's bosom, to paradise, and he took the thief with him. Amen.

Where do you think Paradise was?

Jesus Himself says "as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mat 12:40) and Paul says "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" (Eph 4:9) By "lower parts of the earth" and "heart of the earth" is clearly not meant the sepulchre which by no means could go down so deep to warrant such descriptions, but rather hades to which his soul descended is meant.

What's hades, tr?

There we have it. This shows that the TRO and the modernist do agree on one thing, that the KJB is in error.

Rather than searching the Scripture, studying and believing, we observe that the interpretations and philosophy of man are put above the Scripture.

I believe that Jesus went to hell. This is what the KJB says. By hell, I mean the place of torment. This is what the KJB shows. However, I also know that he preached to the souls in prison, that is, paradise and Abraham's bosom, which is across some gulf in the middle of the earth. This is also what the KJB reveals in various references. Clearly Christ did suffer the wrath of God on sin in the pit of hell, because He did indeed become sin for us. This is the Gospel in the KJB. He went to hell so that I (and every believer) does not have to go there.

Notice that when we take the KJB, we find that we will have correct doctrine. The KJB does not contradict itself. It is indeed true.

"I believe that Jesus went to hell." Then that's where you're going, because Jesus Himself said he went to paradise. You don't believe Jesus, and John 3:36 says "he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," that is, he that does not beleive what the Son says.

"By hell, I mean the place of torment. This is what the KJB shows." Wrong. The KJV waters down the truth about hell by confusing the words gehenna and hades. It shows Jesus who told the theif "today I will be with you in paradise" as being in hell, thus turning hell into paradise. I suppose we shouldn't fear hell anymore, since it is a paradise according to the false doctrine of KJVonlyism. The fact is, that by properly distinguishing the difference between gehenna (Hell) and hades (not hell) the modern versions rescue the excruciating image of hell that the Bible gives from the candied paradise view of hell that the KJV gives to those who actually read it. Unlike you, BP, many actually read their KJV and notice that Jesus went to paradise and that paradise therefore must be hell since he also went to hell in the KJV. Some throw up their hands and say "contradiction!" and leave Christ. Others, make hell into paradise. Others see that the Greek word is hades and come to the truth on the matter. Others just blaspheme as you do.

Paladin54, hades is in the heart of the earth (Mat 12:40, Eph 4:9) and it is where souls go when they depart, and it is the word that the apostles use for where Jesus went. The word they use for eternal punishment is gehenna. That Jesus didn't go burn in hell for your sins is clear enough from that Paul never mentions anything about it. All we have is Peter quoting the Psalm that Jesus' soul was not left in hades, from which is is clear that Jesus soul went to hades first and then came out, which Paul also references in Ephesians 4:9 as that to ascend he must first have descended to "the lower parts of the earth." But nobody in Scripture ever says (as that heretic John Calvin) that "If Jesus had died a physical death merely, it had been nothing. It was necessary also that he suffer in hell." Such is mere blasphemy. Paul asks the Galatians who has bewitched them that they beleive another gospel when he set forth Christ among them as crucified (Gal 3:1) not as bar-b-qued. If Paul had set forth a roasted Christ for their salvation, why doesn't he say "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, charbroiled-in-hell among you?"?????

The prison is not Abraham's bosom, but where the wicked angels are held until the judgement (2 Pet 2:4), which brings us to yet another word translated hell in the KJV, which is tartarus. Jesus went to hades, specifically to Abraham's bosom, and he preached across the gulf to the angels in tartarus. But neither he nor they were in hell, because nobody is in hell until the end of time, because hell is one and the same as the lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet and the devil are cast at the end. Remember, Jesus said that hell is "prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Mat 25:41) but not that they are currently there!!! Nobody is in hell. Everyone who is dead is either in Abraham's bosom or tartarus, that is, either on the good side or bad side of hades, on one side of the gulf or another. But at the resurrection, then the righteous leave Abraham's bosom and return to their resurrected bodies and go to heaven, and the wicked go to hell (i.e. gehenna). By making hades, tartarus, and gehenna all one and the same, not only do you charbroil Jesus, but you also nullify the resurrection! Are the wicked resurrected from hell just to thrown back into hell? No. They are brought out of hades to be cast into hell. Why could the rich man see Abraham across the gulf when hell is called a place of outer darkness? (Mat 8:12) Because the rich man was in tartarus, in the bad side of hades, and not in hell yet. That place of torment the rich man was in was so weak that he was only tormented in one flame, a flame (go read the text!) and he just wanted one drop of water for his tongue, just one, only one. But the place he's going to after the resurrection is a lake of fire and a place of outer darkness! Do you not see how KJVonylism nullifies the horrors of hell? Sin all you want and go to a place with one flame where one drop of water is enough to quench your pain, say the KJVOs. Not so, says God, for indeed this place is only until the resurrection, and after that is a lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death, and it is a place of outer darkness. Not only so, but the rich man was in tartarus as a soul only, but in hell (gehenna, the lake of fire) you be cast in both body and soul, as Jesus says fear not him that can kill only but fear him who after he has killed can cast both body and soul into hell. But the rich man's body was not there, because he was not yet in hell. He was only in waiting for hell. So, all you sinners who take courage in your sins from the parable of the rich man as it stands in the KJV, saying to yourselves "aha! only one flame! only one drop of water needed!" disquiet your spirits and be confounded, for that's just hell's waiting room, after which you will be immersed in the lake of fire and it will be pitch black to where you can't see your hand and you will weep and howl and lament and there will be gnashing of teeth. That candied KJVO hell is not the reality of the thing.

Christ did go to paradise that day, but he also went to hell. It is about rightly dividing the word of truth, something which all the mumbo jumbo wordings cannot clarify, but which only serve to confuse the matter.

1. Some throw up their hands and say "contradiction!" and deny Christ.
2. Others, make hell into paradise, or vice versa.
3. Others go to the Greek words, and deny the truth of the King James Bible, but make doctrine match up with their own prefixed ungodly ideas.
4. Others come to the truth on the matter, and see that Christ went both to paradise and to hell, which indeed is the plain teaching of the King James Bible.

John Milton once wrote a book about Protestant Union. In it he said that Calvinists were in error, but were not heretics.

Why would Jesus preach to those devils who are kept in chains under darkness reserved for the future judgment? Surely, Abraham's bosom was the prisonhouse for the righteous in that they could not yet go to heaven.

No. Hell is present. The lake of fire is eternal. Hell itself will be thrown into the lake of fire.

This is serious misrepresentation of the King James Bible, and is not the doctrine held by various KJBOs.

Really? Why did he say "this flame", meaning that he had his own, as compared to every man upon whom the wrath of God abides, who also have their flames?

"Why would Jesus preach to those devils who are kept in chains under darkness reserved for the future judgment?"

To rub it in. "And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it." (Col 2:15)

You must have missed that the passage which speaks of him preaching to the spirits in prison (the very passage you are arguing about) talks about him preaching to the spirits who were disobedient during the days in which Noah was building the ark (which certainly is not talking about Abraham and Moses)?

1 Pet 3:18-22 (KJV) "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: {19} By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; {20} Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. {21} The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: {22} Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."

You will note that when referring to human beings, Noah and his family, he says "eight souls" but when speaking of those in prison to whom Jesus preached he says "spririts." Why? Dictringuishing human from non-human?

Yes, those in Abraham's bosom are included later on, but are not said to be in "prison," as we find in 1 Pet 4:6 "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." This one is spoken of the saved dead. But where does it refer to them as being in prison? It does not.

As far as my calling Calvin a heretic, BTW, I was referring to this specific statement "If Jesus had died a physical death merely, it had been nothing. It was necessary also that he suffer in hell." That is heresy. It is a denial of the cross. It says essentially that Jesus dying on the cross was just a necessary prereq to going to hell so he could burn and that salvation is actually accomplished by him frying not by dying on the cross. This contradicts the whole of the Bible, which does not say one word about Christ burning in hell, but only about him dying on the cross and going to hades (not hell) and being raised the third day.

Its an accurate portrayal of what a logical person would take from the parable as rendered in the KJV. He asked for one drop of water? "Must not have been too bad then." KJVOism makes a mockery of hell, turning hell's waiting room into hell itself, making hell into a walk in the park compared to what the Bible actually teaches it is.

I think you are saying, as it reads in the false gospel of Nicodemus, that Jesus fought with devils in hell. This is wrong. Jesus overcame the power of devils in the spirit realm at his resurrection, not in hell. Simply because devils are not in hell, but around on the earth and in the air. (There are a certain class of devils under darkness in chains, and a certain class in the shaft which leads to hell under Apollyon).

Actually, the passage in 1 Peter is talking about the righteous people from before the time of Noah who were “sometime disobedient”. That is, of the general nature of Adam’s sin, though good people, as may be applied to any person who was not obeying the law of God, though who was by nature following it, because they always had their conscience. It is also referring to any righteous person who died before the crucifixion of Christ. The connection between the mention of "Noah" on Earth is not absolute to the people dwelling in the prison, that is, that all Old Testament folk were there, as typified by Noah and his family. You will see that Noah did go and get drunk, or David commit adultery, thus being sometime disobedient, yet they were both there reserved of God.

Just because it does not mention Abraham means nothing. It doesn’t mention Abel either. But we know that Abel was there, and that it afterwards was called Abraham’s Bosom.

The eight souls that were saved on the ark is referring to Noah’s family, the spirits in prison is referring to all the pre-Crucifixion righteous. Obviously, souls are active on the Earth, but in Abraham’s Bosom they were having a rest (i.e. comforted, as dwelling in a bosom). The division between spirit and soul is complementary, not contradictory.

Thus, "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (1 Peter 4:6) means that the people were spiritually alive, but physically dead. This is in no way a contradiction. They all had a choice, those people, to believe or not to believe when Christ preached to them in prison (i.e. Abraham’s bosom). And they believed.

Since God concluded all people in unbelief, including those righteous he reserved from the Old Testament in paradise, it is clear that they all needed to make a faith decision to believe Christ when he preached to them there.

Unless Christ not only suffered in his physical body (on the cross) but also spiritually (in hell), salvation would not be true. Unless Christ actually conquered death (hell), he did not actually accomplish salvation for the spirit of a man. Unless Christ dealt with the power of sin itself by destroying it altogether, he did not really win the victory. What kind of weak salvation has a Christ who does not go to hell, and cannot overcome the very embodiment of the power of the wrath of God itself. Clearly, you are thinking that hell is Satan’s power. It is not. Hell is God’s power. You see, God made hell, and God has set up the sending of rebellious people to hell. Of course, people have a choice not to go there when they hear the Gospel.

As for a purposeful misreading the real event (not parable) of a beggar named Lazarus and the rich man in hell, why should I comment on that?

Clearly, a person who rejects a present hell, making it merely "hell's waiting room" is actually the one denying hell.

No. I'm saying he went to Abraham's bosom and from there preached across the gulf to the angels in prison, and rubbed it in.

Wow, you don't even know that "were sometime" is Elizabethan for "used to be"? It does not mean "were occasionally disobedient" but "used to be disobedient," and the context clearly establishes that these spirits who "used to be disobedient" during the time of Noah either (1) died in the flood, as only 8 souls were saved or (2) weren't human. But, of course, there's no point in further discussing anything with a KJVO knowitall who doesn't even know KJV English. Go learn what "sometime" means, then repent of trying to broil Christ in hell.

And here I thought that only KJBOs could be nasty. Better watch out TRO, your character is showing.

Sometime means “at a certain time ... in the past; once.”

Sometimes means “... in former times, formerly.”

Col 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
Tit 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

The words “sometime” and “sometimes”, which are near synonymous, both are not used in the King James Bible to mean (merely) “occasionally”. (Looking at Colossians 1:21, it is evident that the “sometime” state does exhibit specific fruits, that is, what might be called “occasions”, that is, “wicked works”. The teaching is that all men were concluded by God in unbelief, and all were of Adam’s sin, therefore all produced various particular sinful works. Christ’s salvation had to deal with the very root of the problem, the wicked heart, not just the fruits of sin.)

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Notice the words "a preparing".

“A” is placed before a participle, or participial noun; and is considered as a contraction of “at” (or “on”), when it is put before a word denoting some action not yet finished. Thus, “a dying” (Luke 8:42), “a fishing” (John 21:3) and “an hungred” (Matt. 4:2).

Related to this must be the use at 2 Chronicles 2:18, “to set the people a work.”

Also, “a readiness”, as at 2 Corinthians 10:6.

All the words of the King James Bible have particular meanings, and their meanings are right. It is clear that what appears to be similar words, say, "sometime" and "sometimes" have two different meanings. This is the case with all synonyms. John William Burgon also commented on this, explaining something which the translators themselves wrote about in their preface:

“Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of dictation which are rather to be felt than analysed, — any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject ‘purpose,’ ‘journey,’ ‘think,’ ‘pain,’ ‘joy,’ — in favour of ‘intent,’ ‘travel,’ ‘suppose,’ ‘ache,’ ‘gladness.’ But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a prophetic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation. Hence their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves ‘to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.’ We should be liable to censure (such is their plain avowal), ‘if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever.’ But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a somewhat novel consideration.”

It is altogether a mistake to think that words or jots and tittles in the Bible do not matter. They do indeed matter, because each different words imparts a particular meaning, or even just because of "Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of dictation which are rather to be felt than analysed".

A verse taken out of context is filled with an evil spirit!!!
 

I Totally disagree!!!! And I don’t have to go to the Greek to prove that this understanding is Biblically false. I would be careful reading ideas into certain text of Scripture. Context, context, context!!! Do not forget proper Biblical Hermeneutics.

__________________________________

- “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)

Geneva 1587: Which were in time passed disobedient, when once the long suffering of God abode in the dayes of Noe, while the Arke was preparing, wherein fewe, that is, eight soules were saued in the water.

Coverdale: which were in time past disobedient, when the long suffering of God abode exceeding patiently in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few (that is to say eight souls) were saved by water,

I think men that lived in old English times know more about it than you newfangling KJVOnly novices.

What exactly is your hair-brained argument here, BP? Are you really going to say that "while the ark was preparing" and "while the ark was a preparing" mean different things? Or that "I go a fishing" and "I go fishing" are totally different statements? If you want to assert something insane, I can't stop you, but I am surprised that you just offered it out of nowhere. Who was arguing against the participial use of "a"? Crickets? Spacemen? Crickets from outer space? Clearly English used to use "a" a lot like Spanish still does. So what? What is your actual point?

Pointing out that BP doesn't even know the language that he wants to lock the Bible in, is not nasty anymore than trotting out the recordings of the "Reverend" Wright and his hate speech is nasty toward Obama. If the shoe fits, wear it.

By the way, the accusation of "modernist TROs" is extremely funny, considering that TROs had to be around before the KJV. Otherwise, why wasn't the KJV based on the Vulgate? or on Vaticanus? Fact is, you KJVOs are the modernists.

Actually, conference of Scripture with Scripture is the principle, not merely context. (There is no real examples of so-called "context" interpretation of the OT in the NT.) And "Biblical hermeneutics" often is a way of making the Bible NOT relevant to today.

Well, "passed" is just the old spelling of "past". We see that in our pure and final KJB.

Yes. Similar, but different.

That the English of the KJB is perfect and exact.

TRO said:You might want to research your use of "hair-brained" before you criticize others of their lack of knowledge of language.

And, yes, you are using unnecessarily rude speech. Because I am a teacher of young students, I commonly use plain words like "nasty" which they comprehend better than "rude". Due to your immature language, I thought it appropriate.