View Single Post
Old 06-07-2009, 04:25 AM
premio53 premio53 is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 21

Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
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.

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.

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.

That is not Scripture, just a help.

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).

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.

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).

I think it was probably Cranston P. Roby, in description of the view which holds to the Pure Cambridge Edition.
Your position is no different than the Original Manuscripts Only crowd which insists that the word of God can be found only in thousands of manuscripts. Just as they say that God is powerless to preserve the Bible in any language other than Greek and Hebrew you say that the word of God can be found only in a language for another country (Britain) and that God is powerless to preserve it in American English or any other language! Just as the Original Manuscripts Only folks insist on going through thousands of manuscripts and never agreeing on anything since there are variations found throughout them so you insist on going through dozens of editions that never agree 100 percent and accuse other Christians of not believing the word of God.

You have made an idol out of some edition of a translation for another country in another language and it seems that your entire life's work is defending that position. I'm sorry but we will have to agree to disagree.