"Sword Bible" KJV- Easy Reading ed.
 

Hello all.

I've been reading up on KJO, and the 'debate'. I've had the thought:

"Why can't somebody, some entity, just change the Elizabethan pronouns and verbs, and leave the rest alone?"

{ I realize there is some concern with the proper rendering of the plural forms of the pronouns when you do this. }

Well, I found just such a bible, YESTERDAY. The copyright is 2007, so I don't know how many even know about it. I searched here first and could find no prior reference to it.

The publisher's website is, apparently:

www.whitakerhouse.com

But, on the same page is the reference to King's Word Press

www.swordbible.com

Both sites seem to offer it for sale, and there are several on Amazon, also.


The cover reads:
Sword Bible
KJVER

The classic King James Version
Outdated words replaced with their modern equivalents

In so far as I can tell, this must refer only to verb forms an pronouns as I'd wished. A key feature is the inclusion of a superscript 'p' where the modern pronoun was originally rendered in the Elizabethan plural form.

There are still the archaic words present, such as John Baptist's head on a 'charger', and most certainly the cockatrice, dragon, and satyr mentioned in a recent post. Also, the [i]use of ITALICS[/] also seems to be true-to-form.

While I'm not a fan of Bible 'helps', I'm enamored with the few in this one. For the archaic words, they underline them, and include a possible modern equivalent succinctly at the end of each verse, or each column of versuses where the word/s appear more than once.

As with the words of Christ in red, they also do so for the words of God in the OT. As with possible word definitions after verses, they include the Hebrew renderings of the names of God in the OT.

Here's two Genesis examples:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Elohim

"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, I am the Almighty God, ...Jehovah - El Shaddai

(Yes, the preface covers tetragrammaton YaHWeH becoming 'Jehovah)

The version I found is hardback, and I intend to buy a large-print soft-cover today. So, I'm willing to send this one on to one of you for a review so that you could report back to those here on the forum. That way, no one will have to part with the money to buy one only to be disappointed, yet again, in a 'modern' rendering that leaves you wanting.

I'll include either a return box with postage on it, or a check for return postage as the recipient would like. Keep it for a few weeks/months until you've thoroughly wrung it out. With little KJV experience, I certainly am not qualified to so!:)

I would think the proprietor of this site and forum would be a logical choice. However, if there's another reader here in the CONUS, and you all agree that he/she would be a good reviewer, by all means. Please let me know here in this post.

Best,
Vic-pneuby

Whenever I hear Bible verse quoted with "thees", "ye's", and the "eths", it leaves me without a doubt that what I'm hearing is the Word of God. (Kind-a "trademark") I find no necessity of any more updating of the Biblical English of God's Word.

The most important thing is to know what the "thee's", "ye's" and "eth" endings mean. Once someone knows that, there is no reason to change the Bible.

Thee, thy, thine, etc. is always singular - referring to one person. Ye, you, your, etc. is always plural - referring to more than one person.

The "eth" ending on verbs means it is present tense, ongoing, continual - which makes more sense than when someone just puts an "s" at the end of a verb.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

A true believer will continue believing. Someone that says, "I used to believe in Jesus" but now is rejecting the faith was never a true believer.

Jerry gave an excellent and simple explanation for the thee's, ye's and eth endings. As you read through the Bible you can see the importance of determining whether the audience is a particular person or a group of people. The modern English language is lacking in this way. In the original languages you would also be able to tell if the audience were singular or plural. I didn't realize before the importance of the eth ending. Thanks Jerrry!

I just wanted to add that a better way to understand the archaic words would be to purchase a Defined King James Bible. The archaic words are in bold with definitions below the pages. This way you do not disrupt the integrity of the text of the KJB.

http://www.biblefortoday.org/kj_bibles.asp

I have a wide-margined Defined King James Bible. It is excellent for Bible study - margin big enough to write some notes and cross-references in, and definitions for hard words at the bottom of each page.

Thank you for that post, pneuby, and the links, which I have bookmarked.

I'm one who thinks we should have an updated edition of the King James, a very carefully updated edition of course (and preferably Church-authorized), and it sounds like it's worth looking into this one. Apart from the updated words, if it is identical to the Cambridge edition that is recommended by most at this site, it would be close to what I want.

Of course we all have our druthers, and personally I'd rather keep the thees and thous because they do have meaning (although the solution of the superscript "p" is an interesting one).

I don't see the validity of the argument Jerry gave for keeping the "eth" endings as it seems to me the modern plural "s" or "es" does mean the same thing -- just as ongoing and continual as the old form.

I don't personally have a problem with most of the archaic words, but some people do. I'd like to see them officially updated rather than defined in the margins. However, just because we are so used to the old language by now, most of them shouldn't be changed anyway -- there's no reason to change Thou shalt not to You shall not, it seems to me.

And, finally, I'm not a fan of the red letter versions, because, really, the whole Bible is God's word.

My druthers duly aired, I hope someone here who has the knowledge to evaluate the Bible will take you up on your offer.

(P.S. Yes, George, my "druthers" are irrelevant, I know. I could give an objective argument for all my recommendations if you like, but so could others who disagree with me.)

This says it all. You and almost everyone else are approaching this as if what anyone "personally" wants is relevant. It's not relevant.

Any English translation that omits the distinction between plural and singular pronouns is already flawed. Your personal "preference" is totally irrelevant. "Personal" desires and "preferences" just have no place in choosing a Bible.

It does not insert the superscript 'p' into those verses. Just changes the 'eth' to 's'. Guess that might be a deal-breaker?

(I inserted this 'rule' into the verses jerry quoted, below-pneuby)


Seems to me that it gets a bit awkward in those latter two. The Lord is now at the Father's right hand. It's not like we can continue to 'hear' him, nor 'see' him. The word remains for us to read, or hear from others like our pastors and teachers. We are encouraged to be become more Christ-like, so that others may 'see' Christ in us.

The 'keep on' rendering of the verses that you imply, and your last quote, imply a Lordship view of salvation. I believe the Word is pretty clear about free grace, despite the redundancy of that term. :) Yes, I think that some CAN, in fact, believe unto their salvation. Then, as in the parable of the wheat and the tares, squander God's opportunity for them in a Christian walk. I don't for a moment believe they've lost their salvation, nor that they simply never had it to begin with. I do believe that they will understand what it means to feel shame, up close and personal at the Bema Seat. :(

Does this sound okay for you?

"And whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Believe you this?"

Does this sound Bible?

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

Re: "Sword Bible" KJV- Easy Reading ed.
 

"Sword Bible" KJV- Easy Reading ed. - 04-28-2008, 06:56 AM
pneuby - Post #1

In 127 years - "THEY" NEVER HAVE! (Left "the rest alone")

Back in 1968 (when I first became aware of the “Which Bible” Issue) I had the same thought – but not for long. I guess that almost every one who first becomes aware of the issue “thinks” wouldn’t it be nice IF? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fill in the “blanks” for whatever you “prefer” as an “improvement” to God’s Holy Word – which He has honored for nearly 400 years now.

Here is the problem in a nut shell – You couldn’t find 50 Christians throughout all of “Christendom” who you could trust to “update” the King James Bible (if it “needed” it – which it doesn’t) and maybe, just maybe, God doesn’t want it “updated” – did you ever think about that? The “need” for “improvement” is only your perception of a “problem” that doesn’t exist.

The “Book” is what we have. It’s what God has provided for us. It’s what He has blessed the use of for these hundreds of years. Why would you “think” that you or anybody else could “improve” on that? Since 1881 there have been so many “bibles” (by now over 150) in English that have come out to “improve” on the “Old English” and the “Archaic” words; or that supposedly represent “older” or “better” or more “accurate” manuscripts that it is practically impossible to keep track!

Ask yourself – Why so many ENGLISH “bibles”? Why is this phenomenon (multitudinous “bibles”) only present in ENGLISH? There is no other language on earth that has had even 10% of the number of “versions” as there are in ENGLISH (check it out). Ask yourself WHY is that? Could it be that Satan (the author of confusion), unable to destroy God’s Holy word, has set out to confuse Christians with so many “versions” of the Scriptures that God’s people will in the end have no idea, which – if any – are true, holy, inspired, and infallible? Or which one to trust and rely on as their "Final Authority" in all matters of faith and practice?

If you have a problem with the “archaic” words get a good dictionary. In addition never trust any dictionary or "Strong's" Concordance to give you the correct definition of any words that are of any spiritual significance. Study the Scriptures – comparing Scripture with Scripture when it comes to words that affect doctrine.

There are lots of "helps" out there that can assist you in any difficulty with the "Old English", etc. The problem is - that's not what you want. You want to find a book that will suit your personal "needs" and "desires"; and I will guarantee you that you will "find" one (maybe more than one!) Good luck! As for me and my house, we will stick with God's Holy Bible; the one that I got saved by reading 50 years ago; the one that has instructed me; the one that has given me comfort and solace in times of trouble; the one that never has let me down - no not once.

God's word is not like a car, where you get a "new" model every year, or every 2 or 3 years. The Book that I preach and teach from is without error. My Bible is the Holy, infallible, preserved, and inspired word of God i.e. the Holy Scriptures. If you or anyone else "thinks" that you can "improve" on that then: Have at it brother. But in the end - will the "bible" that you choose or "prefer" be your "Final Authority"? I doubt it.
:(

Since the KJB is exactly sense for sense conceptually correct, any change, so much as of "sith" to "since" now is an act of corruption and error.

I love the KJV, but you have got to be kidding. I would not call updating the spelling of a word a corruption. Sith is just another spelling of since, and since since is the more widely known one, what would be wrong with updating sith to since? Sith only occurs in one passage anyhow (Ezek 35:6) unless perhaps my KJV is already "corrupt." Dude, why aren't you insisting on a KJV 1611 Fascimile, if out of date spellings are so integral to inspiration? Does your KJV in Ezekiel 35:6 read exactly letter for letter "Therefore, as I liue, saith the Lord God, I will prepare thee vnto blood, and blood shall pursue thee: sith thou hast not hated blood, euen blood shall pursue thee"? What's that, "bibleprotector," your KJV have replaced the "u" in "euen" and "liue" with a "v" and the "v" in "vnto" with a "u"? Shame shame! (sarcasm)

Personally I have a major beef with pronouncing words as spelled in the KJV when reading aloud at church, whether it be a 1611 or a 1769 or whatever. If you think that funky spellings are somehow sacred, then fine go ahead and leave "divers" (or euen "diuers") in there, but please for the love of God pronounce it as "diverse." Leave "instant" in there, but pronounce it "insistent." Fact is, I doubt that half the people (shoot 99.9% of the people) reading the KJV realize that "instant" means "insistent" in the KJV, as in Luke 23:23 "And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified." I'll bet most people (including THOU, oh "bibleprotector") think that this means "And they jumped on the bang-waggon really fast and got real loud requiring that he might be crucified" when it actually means "And they were insIStent with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified." And do you see how a thing like that could be solved by pronouncing the words correctly as they are pronounced today when you read the text out loud? (Also, don't read "haling" in Acts 8:3 as "haIling"--there ain't no "I" in there. It should be pronounced as "haughling.") The "instant" thing is even worse in Luke 7:4 because the adverb form is used "And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:" because I never realized for 25 years that "instantly" there means insistently" but it does! Thou probably thoughtest up to this very moment that this verse said "They besought him immediately" but it didn't. But if your way too over the top KJVO self is still not convinced that "instantly" means "insistently" in the KJV, then read Acts 26:7 "Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews." Were the 12 tribes of Israel immediately serving God or persistently, i.e. "instantly" in the modern sense or "instantly" in the Elizabethan sense of "insistently"? You will probably claim that this verse DOES mean the 12 tribes were immediately (rather than insistently) serving God, because that's the only thing that will let you keep your foolishness about the sacredness of spelling and pronouncing words in old spellings that even you don't understand anymore. Now, I do understand the old spellings! And yes, this is one of those internal dictionary things. If you read the KJV long enough you will figure out what these words mean even with the oddity of the spellings. You'll find that prevent means precede and all that via the internal dictionary capabilities. I'm not knocking the KJV at all, but only the ignorance of those who insist (even instantly! even euen instantly!) on mispronouncing these words (that is, on pronouncing them as they are written rather than in an understandable manner).

Now, bringing my rant to a close, here is my point. If there is a KJV out there (or if one can be made) that is exactly the same as the funky spellings KJV but that has proper modern spellings of words, if they are the same words but spelled to where modern people can understand them without having yet read the whole KJV a few times over, why is that bad and "corrupt"? You would rather them read an NIV, that's why! You have stock in Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, don't you? You're getting a kickback from the sales of the Holam CSB and the ESV, right? That's why you want to call a KJV with proper spellings corrupt, to turn away the kiddies from reading it so they'll read one of them other versions you are making your money off of. Say it ain't so "bibleprotector," say it ain't so!

The fact is, oh great and glorious "bibleprotector" (or should I call you biblecorrector? since you presume to reproach the KJV?) that you reproach the KJV, because the spellings have already been updated before, although they need it again.

Luke 23:23 KJV 1611 "And they were instant with loud voyces, requiring that he might be crucified: and the voyces of them, and of the chiefe Priests preuailed."

Luke 23:23 KJV modern "And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed."

So, is my modern KJV with "voices" corrupt because it doesn't say "voyces"? Should I read from a KJV that still spells voices with a "y" and seek to somehow pronounce the "y" as a "y" when I read aloud? And what about "prevailed," should it be spelled "preuailed" and should I pronounce it "prewailed" when I read aloud to the utter confusion of all who hear me?

Luke 23:28 KJV 1611 "But Iesus turning vnto them, said, Daughters of Hierusalem, weepe not for me, but weepe for your selues, and for your children."

Me oh my! Hierusalem? Should I take my magic marker to my modern KJV and change the "J" to an "Hi"? And should I try really hard to make an "H" sound when reading this verse? Since you are the great guardian of sacred crazy spellings, please help me out here.

Luke 23:35 KJV 1611 "And the people stood beholding, & the rulers also with them derided him, saying, Hee saued others, let him saue himselfe, if he be Christ, ye chosen of God. "

OH NO! An ampersand! Ampersand! But my modern KJV replaces that ampersand with the regular old word "and"!!! Whatever am I to do. There is something special about that ampersand, right biblecorrector? Isn't it some secret message that only you can interpret? Oh well, forget it, I'll just replace it with a regular "and": "And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God."

Luke 23:44 KJV 1611 "And it was about the sixt houre, and there was a darkenesse ouer all the earth, vntill the ninth houre."

Oh no! We've lost the secret uber secret message encoded in the missing "h" on "sixth"! Biblecorrector, quick to work, fix it!

Luke 24:30 KJV 1611 "And it came to passe, as hee sate at meate with them, hee tooke bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gaue to them."

Bibleprotector would say something like "Unless your KJV says 'sate' it is corrupt! Only the pure Cambridge this and that is the word of God. You may think that 'sate' is just an archaic spelling of 'sat' but you show that you are an ignorant moron when you think this. No, 'sate' and 'sat' are two completely different words and you can't know what magical secret coded message God is sending by the word 'sate' unless you have our super pure funky spellings original Cambridge text that we don't even have ourselves because nobody has it anymore just like the original autographs." Then "hee" rather "he" also must have some great significance.

What's my point? To bash the KJV? Certainly not. Only to bash mushminds who take the word of God away from people with stupid arguments. If your KJV spells the word "throughly" as "thoroughly" it isn't corrupt and you aren't going to hell for that.

You will notice a pattern here: The ultra KJVOs who insist on some non-existent Cambridge perfect text that is undefinable essentially run into the "only the original autographs were inspired" sort of thinking and speaking, but they are talking about the original autographs from the hands of the KJV translators not the apostles. What's the difference between the MVer who says we haven't found the original Greek autographs yet and the crazy over-the-top KJVO who is constantly looking for the original perfect Cambridge KJV original autographs? I say, do you have a KJV? Is the text of your KJV basically the same as all other KJVs, with some spelling variation that's to be expected from 400 years of changes in spelling in the English language and printing the text for all that time? You do? Good, so you've got the word of God then. The end.

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

You join this Forum for just one day (5 posts) and already you insult brothers in Christ with your Humanistic "claptrap"!

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Here is the one and only answer you will get from me: We have had other "SOPHISTS" come on this Forum and "spout off" and display their vast "Bible knowledge", and try to "bait" the brethren with specious arguments; fallacious logic; rhetorical reasoning; and ambiguous rationalizations (All Humanists & Sophists think the same!) and also with the same lousy attitude to boot (All Humanists & Sophists not only "think" the same - they also "act" the same!).

Blather on - you'll not get an argument from me, because I've dealt with enough "smart mouths" to know that:

Proverbs 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.

Proverbs 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

You can't change a "know-it-all" and you cannot reason with a Sophist! I wouldn't waste my breath on your kind! :mad:

sophronismos

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.E]

If not for the above verse I would call you "Thou Fool". But you know what, I am not in danger of hell fire. Thou fool!!! And I do have a cause to be angry.

In defense of God's Word,
Renee

Well, I was glad to catch those words “The end” by Sophro... Yet, I might use this opportunity to explain a few things to those who wish to be drawn from the milk.

I would call the so-called updating of a word in the KJB a corruption now. Notice the word “now”. I said, “any change, so much as of 'sith' to 'since' now is an act of corruption and error.”

Sith is not just another spelling of since. In fact, they are two different words with two different meanings. While the meanings are similar, they are not identical.

We of course recognise that the King James Bible was not made by inspiration, and have no problem in seeing that various words appear to have changed since 1611, as there has been a standardisation of the language after all. The problem is in any unauthorised, untraditional, unbelieving, neo-modern, departing-from-truth style changes which could (and do) occur.

Actually, “divers” and “diverse” are two different word forms. Both appear in the KJB. The same with “throughly” and “thoroughly”.

As for the pretend (even if factual) knowledge at some word pronunciations, knowing a few obscure facts (and I know numerous obscure facts, which I could lay out if I were into pride) does not amount to anything if it is but to be a ranter and railer against the truth.

Then I find I am the falsely called the champion (or was that champaign?) of 1611 orthography. Even though I emphasise the purification of the King James Bible, such as correction of typographical errors, standardisation of the language and the regularisation, somehow I am supposed to be standing for the impurities from 1611? (The changes in the King James Bible from 1769 were long before I was born, and even those from around 1900.)

I read the accusation that we “insist on some non-existent Cambridge perfect text that is undefinable...”

That is complete ignorance. Not only was the Pure Cambridge Edition printed millions of times in the twentieth century, but I have listed its contents in detail, and provided exact electronic copies of it. How could that be “non existent”?

Of course "only the original autographs were inspired". What kind of accusation is that? That’s like saying, “You believe the Bible!”

Again, there is a false accusation about “the crazy over-the-top KJVO who is constantly looking for the original perfect Cambridge KJV original autographs?”

That is complete foolishness which doesn’t make any sense. We have fair and easy the pure Word in front of us.

“Is the text of your KJV basically the same as all other KJVs, with some spelling variation that's to be expected from 400 years of changes in spelling in the English language and printing the text for all that time? You do? Good, so you've got the word of God then. The end.”

I could have concluded that we had the Word in a much gentler spirit. (And with accurate statements.)

“And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:12).

What vain and foolish person thinks that he understands all the Bible at once? Who instantly knows all the King James Bible words and their meanings? What man thinks he knows the thoughts of another man, but is lying? And what error is it to judge contrary to the Spirit!

The greater parts of the body of Christ were told told not to reject the rest. If any think he have his own knowledge, he has just rejected the Holy Ghost. If a man has understanding, let him instruct in meekness, not exalt himself as having Nicolaitan power with the Scripture.

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts." (Isaiah 28:9).

Yeah, Diligent, I already noted that my personal choice has nothing to do with it in my final note to George. I guess I'm going to have to use objective language here all the time then because all I meant by that was that I think it would be RIGHT to keep the thees and thous but that there is no Biblical reason to keep the "eth" endings. I'm KJV-only but I disagree with what I consider to be a superstitious attitude about the English language here. I believe God inspires translations as well as the original languages, but that doesn't mean every single word has to be retained as they used it in 1611. A Godly and cautious updating of the Bible is quite possible and necessary to reflect the fact that the English language has changed over time. I think such updating should be done by mutually recognized Godly men appointed by various churches who are in agreement with each other, rather than by self-appointed or publisher-appointed men.

Nah, he's saying "insist on some non-existant Cambridge perfect text that is definable..." He's saying there's no perfect Cambridge.

And I find this exchange amusing. Both of you have a point, but neither of you appear to understand what you're doing to yourselves. That's OK, both of you eventually learn from it. Sometimes the very things that need looking at (or, consideration) are the very words that come out of your mouths.

I am not saying that perfection is undefinable either.

“And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:12).

I believe that there are believers who DO have the Word. I am not one of those who denies perfection. I am not seeking and searching for the Word of God.

"Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them." (Isaiah 34:16).

Clearly the book of the Lord exists. Those who find it are not still seeking for it.

There is a superstitious clinging to the old English by some KJV-only people that is unnecessary. For the scriptures to be inspired and for their authority to be retained does not require us to have to labor over words that are no longer part of our language. I appreciate the following explanation:

George is absolutely right that Satan is the one confusing us about our Bible. However, it only plays into his hand to insist that we struggle over the old English and not seek prayerfully to have the Bible updated into the language we all now speak. It is ludicrous to insist that modern English-speakers learn Elizabethan English to the extent that seems to be required here. I'm sure THAT makes the devil very happy, that by dumping a ton of doubt on God's word through a spewing of dozens of bogus Bibles he's also got the KJB-only people insisting superstitiously on holding onto an archaic form of our language.

Yes, that is exactly what the devil has driven us to doing, George. Since the new versions were introduced we're all required to use dictionaries and other aids in order to understand ANY Bible, including the KJB which, if it had been updated regularly by God-appointed authorities, would have been accessible to all without such aids.

Sure, but I'd change the first sentence here...
To this:
"No language is capable of preserving this authority."
For some Hebrew/Greek words there are no suitably perfect English equivalent translation. So it's not the translation that's the difficult medium; it's the language. The rest of the excerpt above flows well with this.

Edit: and it's why some English words in the KJV are Italicized.

It is altogether incorrect to think that authority cannot be presented by the King James Bible.

1. Autographical and Canonical authority. Since the Word of God was not just true in the Autographs, and it is supposed to go forth to the whole world, and since the Autographs are lost, and we only have copies, the very same truth must be yet present today. God has worked through the setting up of proper traditions in the Church concerning truth.

2. Textual authority. If every word of God is pure, surely there must be one final text where this promise is actually manifest in the Earth. Since no present copy in the original languages is altogether the whole Bible perfectly, authority cannot rest on the original language presentations. However, there must be one Bible which is the correct text. This is because one Bible gathers together from all the copies and judges what is the exact text, and presents it altogether in one version.

3. Conceptual and translational authority. There is a lie which says that the exact meaning cannot go from the original languages into other languages. If that were true, the Word of God never went to the Gentiles, and never came to us. However, the full sense of the Scripture must be present today in English via translation. (There is only one correct English translation.)

4. Divine and Sovereign Authority. God is all-powerful, and able to get His Word to the whole world. There is no reason why He cannot use one Bible to reach the world in one language. (Therefore, the trend must be to get all Christians to use the King James Bible.)

5. Providential and manifest authority. God's works are perfect. God does things exactly right, and fulfils His promises. Therefore it is right and proper that the King James Bible, as the final form of the Word of God for the world which has English as its global language. God must actually manifest the exact and right Word for the world in one form because He promised it.

6. Scientific and reasonable authority. English is fixed globally. The English language has come into a broad place, where it is essentially fixed as the global language. Therefore, the King James Bible as it is is now and into the future conversant with a basically fixed language. English cannot now change beyond itself. Therefore, there will not be a time when the Bible as it is now finalised will not be conducive to an English-speaker. English is not evolving into another language, and now it cannot even alter beyond certain parameters. It must for ever remain constant enough for all the different cultures/dialects/individuals to be able to use it universally!

7. Final and spiritual authority. The King James Bible is final. Since the purification of editions of the King James Bible has finalised, there can never be another revision, alteration or change of even one punctuation mark from now on. Received tradition cannot be violated. There is never to be, as J. W. Burgon prophetically recognised in 1882, another authorised Version. The true Church historically accepted the King James Bible, and the true remnant today hold it. The purification and processes of refinement lead toward one final supersuccessionary thing.

Even if the KJB were to be "updated," study aids would still be indispensible for studying the scriptures. Weak argument.

Actually, language is no problem. God invented English, and has superintended over it through history. God got words into the language which would be used for the exact presentation of the Scripture, e.g. in His providence, got words like "Son", "Holy Ghost", etc. from Old English to have a special meaning, used words coming in via Latin such as "baptism", allowed for Tyndale to invent words where needful like "scapegoat", so in the end, the English language was ready for the perfect translation in 1611.

Italic words are either where there is a minority attestation to a reading in the original evidence, or when it takes more English words to convey the same sense of the original. (We have an English translation which does not add to, take from or in any way alter the sense of the true original.) Thus, italics have both a textual and a translational use. And they are right, and rightfully considered the "inspired word" in both uses.

This is just the opposite to the marginal "variant readings and translations" which are not the inspired word, and are never to be alternates or considered to be equal to Scripture. This is because the translators did choose to make the italic words stand as Scripture, and chose what would be marginal and what would be Scripture.

Every rendering is correct in the King James Bible.

I wouldn't say that. "Study" in 2Tim 2:15 isn't accurate; the Greek behind it means to be ernest, diligent. Has nothing to do with studying; however, studying scriptures is a part of diligence, but the diligence spoken of is not to the studying the Word part (by itself) but to the obedience of it. That naturally requires study, and that word "study" is below the superlative of "diligence." Hence, inaccurate translation.

There's more.

All those forms of authority listed by Bibleprotector belong to the King James, and nothing in the quote I provided denied any of it. The only authority that is altered is VERBAL authority, the exact meaning of individual words, and that is inevitable with translations because languages all differ from one another and languages change over time. It is silly to insist that we all learn Elizabethan English. MDOC is right about the word "study" as a case in point. It does not mean to us what it meant to them in 1611 and we often see people misapplying it for that reason. God cares a lot more about our understanding and obeying than He does about individual words, especially when we are saddled with archaic words that mislead us.

It's not inevitable at all -- who is the author of language?

You call it "silly" to hold to an exact and perfect presentation of God's word. That's "saddening" but not unsurprising. "Elizabethan English" is readily and easily understood by English speakers of today. There's nothing "silly" about sticking to it. All attempts at updating the language in the last century have been corruptions. It's "silly" to think this will change.

It has been made abundantly clear that he is wrong on this point.

Chapter and verse, please? What makes you think that the word God has magnified above his very own name is less important to God than your obedience and understanding of it?

You call yourself "KJV Only" and then bemoan being "saddled" with it. You flinched quite forcefully at being called a humanist in another thread, and yet continue to evince your humanism with this sort of reasoning time after time.

Refer to other thread for "study"
 

MDOC, there is ample information to counter your theory on "study" on the thread so-named. See http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210

Actually I agree with you, MDOC, about the need for study aids in any case. I suppose I went overboard trying to agree with George about how the new versions have imposed an unnecessary burden on Christians and got us relying on secondary sources that sometimes are more harm than help. However, I'm also thinking of a time when Christians had only the Bible, if that, and nothing else, which I think was the case for the majority of Christians at least since the Reformation. Of course illiteracy was also a problem for a lot of that time. They did have preachers, and if preachers were more reliable than they are today, that was their study aid.

Dilgent, you may be right that updating in the last century has all been corrupt, but that doesn't change the need for updating. It's just been done by the wrong people. It shouldn't be done by self-appointed people and publishers. You may also be right that this corruption won't change. For one thing there probably isn't time before the Lord returns. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change it so that we can have an uncorrupted updated Bible.

The word God has magnified above His own name is His Bible, Diligent, His inspired message to us, incarnate in His own Son, it's not every individual word. That in itself is a misreading of God's word.

Yeah, I'm a "humanist" though I spend most of my life fighting humanism and all kinds of intellectual mistreatments of the things of God. I guess I had to come to this site to learn just how far words can be misused even by people who start out pointed in the right direction.

The problem is that for all the good you guys do here, and you do a lot of good and I'm grateful for it, you commit sophistry yourselves and don't even recognize it.

It 's abundantly clear that no counter-argument has been levied yet, Bud.

The word that God magnifies above His name
 

This is not the literal individual word of any particular language, it's His communication to us, the conveyance of His truth to us.

Word = message, truth, communication, revelation.

For the sake of clarity, here's Diligent's answer to me for context, to show that he is insisting on "individual words":

Matthew Henry reads it as I read it:

For thou hast magnified thy word (thy promise, which is truth) above all thy name. God has made himself known to us in many ways in creation and providence, but most clearly by his word. The judgments of his mouth are magnified even above those of his hand, and greater things are done by them. The wonders of grace exceed the wonders of nature; and what is discovered of God by revelation is much greater than what is discovered by reason. In what God had done for David his faithfulness to his work appeared more illustriously, and redounded more to his glory, than any other of his attributes. Some good interpreters understand it of Christ, the essential Word, and of his gospel, which are magnified above all the discoveries God had before made of himself to the fathers. He that magnified the law, and made that honourable, magnifies the gospel much more.

Which is that verse referring to Jesus Christ or His Word? You can't have it both ways? Either it is referring to the written Word or the Incarnate Word (and the context shows that the written Word is in view - that would make it a reference to all that God has written, including individual words).

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Getting rude with the Admin of these boards is not going to get you anywhere - except for alienated and/or banned.

There was a time when the Patriarchs had nothing to study. They had only the relationship with God. But the study aids do help... and we do have the Word here. Makes you think: what are we missing here? Yeah, study aids might help, but it ain't to be equated with the scriptures as far as inspired. Good point.

I wasn't rude, and I'm not alienated or banned. :p

Aloha brother,

You will notice that since I joined this Forum I haven't commented on your posts. The reason is I figure that you have been trying to glorify our God and His Holy word(s) and edify the brethren (both of which I admire and appreciate).

It took me a long time (far too long - I'm a bit "thick") to understand that there are some "Christians" out there that have no more regard for God's word or God's words (the Holy scriptures of truth) than an atheist or agnostic. Pay no attention to them. We can't "change" them; "fix" them; or "help" them - no matter what we do or say:

Proverbs 29:20 Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

I appreciate your efforts to extol and uphold God's words - don't ever let the Sophists out there get you down or discourage you. :)

By the way: I got saved in 1958 reading a real "fancy" King James Bible; went to the Schofield & Thompson Chain; and then around 1970 or so I decided that I didn't want man's opinion mixed in with the Holy words of God so I opted for a Nelson Bible without references or "helps".

I went through two (2) Nelson's in the seventies (so-so quality bindings), and came upon a couple of "Cambridges" in the early to middle eighties, which I purchased for my wife and I. These are the same Bibles that we are using today!

Without knowing what you found out through hard study, we ended up with the very best there is - Praise God!

Keep up the good work and just ignore those who only know how to criticize and tear down.

Yours for the Lord Jesus Christ and for His Holy word,

Georeg