[biblereader]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

My position is that any manuscript, even the Critical Text manuscripts and any translation, even the poor ones, teach salvation through the Blood of Christ alone, by faith alone and completely without works.

Do you believe a person can lose their salvation?
Or, are you a Calvinist?
Just asking, trying to get a feel for your position.

Originally Posted by biblereader

Do you believe a person can lose their salvation?

I very firmly hold a once-saved, always-saved position. I believe Scripture makes that position very clear.

Originally Posted by biblereader

Or, are you a Calvinist?

I believe that John Calvin was correct in some areas and dead wrong in other areas. However, I am not a Calvinist. I also have not devoted much time to reading Calvin becuase (to be blunt) I just don't care. My theological positions are built based on what I read in the Bible, not what some extra-Biblical writer has written.

Originally Posted by biblereader

Just asking, trying to get a feel for your position.

I can understand and appreciate that. I get the feeling that there has been some issues with people joining here just to attack and stir things up. However, I can assure you that is not my intention. I am here to learn from and fellowship with other Christians who hold views similar to my own and I have not been able to find too many places on the internet where that is possible. I am happy to answer any additional questions about myself or my views.

[biblereader]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

I get the feeling that there has been some issues with people joining here just to attack and stir things up.

There have been the usual attacks, that you find everywhere in forums.
I DO like to ask questions, that's one of the ways I learn.
I don't mean any offense, when I ask questions. I'm just curious, by nature.

Originally Posted by biblereader

There have been the usual attacks, that you find everywhere in forums.
I DO like to ask questions, that's one of the ways I learn.
I don't mean any offense, when I ask questions. I'm just curious, by nature.

No offense taken at all, I'm happy to answer questions.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

If the originals are always correcting the English, when will the English be correct? The choice is either 1611 onward or never.

I don't believe that as long as flawed humans are doing the translating the English of the AV (or any other translation) will be 100% perfect. Humans are not perfect, thus no human work will be 100% perfect unless God directly inspires their translation in the way that He directly inspired the original human authors He used to write the Bible in the first place.

Of course the AV is far and away the best English translation. By virtue of the manuscripts used by translators, the AV will be better than any translation that uses the Critical Text as a basis for translation. It is also better in terms of the form of English used, English was more precise in 1611 than it is today, so any translation from that era is going to be more precise than any modern version. It is better in terms of style, the English used in the AV is more august and fitting to the Almighty God who inspired it than any translation using our debased form of English could hope to be.

However, if God wanted to make a perfect translation He would not have produced a 1611 edition that needed to be corrected in 1769 and then needed further correction leading up to the so-called Pure Cambridge Edition of c. 1900

It is also worthy of note that the translators did not regard their work as perfect:

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgement not to be so sound in this point. For though whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostome111 saith, and as S. Augustine,112 In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity; yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their everywhere plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in His divine providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine,113 (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis: it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once,114 (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine115 saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus116 expressly forbiddeth that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favourers for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second117 bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege as the dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while: they find that he is subject to the same affections118 and infirmities that others be, that his skin in penetrable;119 and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace." The Translators to the Reader

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

However, if God wanted to make a perfect translation He would not have produced a 1611 edition that needed to be corrected in 1769 and then needed further correction leading up to the so-called Pure Cambridge Edition of c. 1900

Since there are no translation differences or changes in the King James Bible, but the same translation is there in 1769 as was there in 1611, this entire point is worthless.

it hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with St Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) ...: It is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.

This is talking about the textual and translational decisions the translators had to make, and is not a statement about whether they thought their work was imperfect.

Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.

This is talking about the margins showing the variety of senses, and is not saying anything about the KJB being imperfect. The reality is that there was different possible textual variations or translations at places, but that is all they are stating. They do not deny that they were able to choose right.

The truth is that the translators do indicate a number of times that they got it right, as various quotes of their own words reveal:

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.

neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey
Having said that, I do not believe that the AV is perfect, there are a few (very few as the case may be) things that I believe could have been translated better. There are also a few errors in translation (such as Matthew 23:24 which should read "strain out" as in "filter out" but not "strain at").

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish
I think you will find that most here are convinced there are no errors in the KJV, any error is in our understanding. This is usually going to be a sticking point on forums like this, you may want to check some of the introductory sections to get the lay of the land, so to speak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey
I believe that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are the Perfect Word of God and that they always correct the English.

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish
Well there it is, like a dead catfish in the sunlight.
Why would you use the Hebrew to pass judgment on our KJV when you don't even understand a word of Hebrew...?

Now please don't get offended brother, I sense you may be here for the right reasons. But you have to understand—this kind of thing comes up a lot here, and you have to see the problem with what I just confronted you with. It was not meant to derail you, again I suggest you tread softly here for a while and research the introductory areas before you proceed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey I don't believe that as long as flawed humans are doing the translating the English of the AV (or any other translation) will be 100% perfect. Humans are not perfect, thus no human work will be 100% perfect unless God directly inspires their translation in the way that He directly inspired the original human authors He used to write the Bible in the first place.

Well, I tried to warn him... looks like Howler got banned. Some people won't listen.
For any new members reading this, please be advised you cannot intentionally sit in judgement over the KJV on this forum, it won't fly here. Newcomers; please read the link below, probably should put a sticky like this over here on the Bible versions section, food for thought:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread....3173#post23173

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

For any new members reading this, please be advised you cannot intentionally sit in judgement over the KJV on this forum, it won't fly here. Newcomers; please read the link below, probably should put a sticky like this over here on the Bible versions section, food for thought:
http://av1611.com/forums/showthread....3173#post23173

New members are given a link via email to the forum posting guidelines (which you can read by clicking FAQ above). I have become more strict about the Bible correcting issue over time, because I have learned what it does. As is my privilege as the one providing this forum, I have recently made it even more clear what won't be tolerated with regard to Bible correcting here. I made an example out of a Bible corrector just a short while ago -- I guess Howlermonkey wasn't paying attention.

When someone comes in the forum and wants to correct the Book and tell us why their private translation is better than the KJV, they are not here to learn, they are here to be didactic and to put themselves in judgment over God's word. I'll put up with it on occasion, but not when it comes to the Bible.

Hey, it's a free country (well where I live, anyway) and they can say what they want about God's book -- just not here, just not on my dime!

[biblereader]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

No offense taken at all, I'm happy to answer questions.

YAY!

I do wish, though, that you'd accept the true, KJV word of God.