View Single Post
Old 06-07-2009, 12:47 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587

Originally Posted by premio
I don't quite follow your argument.
Honestly? I thought it was quite clear. Let me summarise:

1. We should have fear of God concerning the words of God’s Word.

2. Little changes (leaven) opens for big changes (the whole lump).

3. Changes are not required, and how would they be made anyway?

4. The historical editing in the KJB has been finalised.

Originally Posted by premio
I have always believed the King James and never correct it but how can you honestly say that only some edition of the King James published over a hundred years ago is the only perfect word of God?
I don’t say that. The King James Bible was correct in 1611, 1769 or today. There is one edition which is presenting the KJB without perpetuated printer’s errors, and that edition has been published many times and can be obtained today.

Moreover, God’s Word was perfect when He first gave it, and was perfect at any time in any good and normal Bible, and is perfect today. Of course, the KJB is the final form of the Received Text and the best translation in the world. Thus, perfection of Scripture is not limited to one Bible one hundred years ago.

Originally Posted by premio
If a preacher (King James Only or otherwise) stands up and updates words which obviously are no longer used in this generation and gives the contemporary meaning why not just publish it in the text like the Easy Reading King James does?
There is no problem with explaining things —

“So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” (Nehemiah 8:8).

There is a problem with deliberately changing or altering the KJB during reading it, and there is also a problem in having a new modernised edition which changes things (as I have outlined in several points above).

Since the good old KJB exists in the PRESENT, and its words are PRESENTLY believed and used, it follows that there is no “updating”, because the KJB is up to date.

A “contemporary meaning” is really a slight against the exactness, fixedness and perfection of the KJB as it has been received, and as it now stands. It is one thing for editors to do their authoritative work, such as Dr Blayney of Oxford, but it is a whole other matter to have some present day “scholar” come along and attempt to “revise”, “update”, “contemporise” the KJB.

Originally Posted by premio
Does putting the words in a glossary make it less evil?
That is not Scripture, just a help.

Originally Posted by premio
Millions around the world are lost and going to hell and could care less if Saviour is Americanized or if "shew" is modernized to "show."
Actually, it seems as if many people care nothing about the Lord Jesus Christ. At least those who have care for the Lord would actually (I would think) want to have care for His Word. Now, I doubt whether anyone’s salvation would be false because they believed on those altered words, as such, but it really does create a dangerous precedent, and is something which requires reversal, especially if we believe that the sanctuary (the Church) should be cleansed, and without spot and wrinkle before the Lord’s return. Millions around the world should grow in their love for God’s Word being exact and perfect, not look for excuses to change little things, or to say that it is not important. Remember Jesus said that jots and tittles were so important that those who go against them are in danger of being “called the least in the kingdom of heaven” and there are some who “shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (see Matthew 5:18–20).

Originally Posted by premio
Of course the kicker must be if Geber is spelled as Gaber in some editions showing beyond all doubt that Satan is corrupting the Bible.
It is not as you say. First, because you get the word wrong, and second, because it is not Satan (or some evil conspiracy) that is responsible for this. Now, surely, there is evil corruption going on, but the historical differences within the King James are nothing like the kind of modern changes in new revisions (or modern versions) which must be suspect. Of course, accidental corruptions could be devilish in origin, but they are not insurmountable. The God who inspired is able to preserve. The God who preserves is able to purify the presentation.

Originally Posted by premio
I'm not trying to be facetious but the logic escapes me.
If you reason based on your own lack of knowledge, of course you will be saying foolish things. You cannot reject or say something is “illogical” if you do not properly understand the view being put forth.

Let me quote some Scriptures:

“Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2).

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

“Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” (1 Timothy 1:7).

Originally Posted by premio
Who invented the phrase "Perfect Cambridge Edition?"
I think it was probably Cranston P. Roby, in description of the view which holds to the Pure Cambridge Edition.