[bibleprotector]

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.

[premio53]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

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.

[Luke]

Just responding to Premio above...

The word savior is a generic word for someone that saves.

The word Saviour is a title. It has a capital S. It is reserved only for Jesus Christ.

[Samuel]

I just posted this reply, on another forum where the same question was asked.

"I have both the Oxford 1769 KJV, and Pure Cambridge KJV Bibles. Also a 1967 Scofield NRB-KJV, that Bible up-dates a lot of words, and does not remove any. But is by anyone in the know, not considered a KJV.

So how could an easy reading KJV, which probably does more than the 1967 Scofield in changing words, be considered a trustful KJV."

[bibleprotector]

The KJB is the Word of God for America. Many people who uphold the name of the "Saviour" and believe the KJB are in the USA. I know God has no problem communicating to the Americans with the KJB as it stands, with no need to resorting to unauthorised modernisation.

[magicref]

I have a few different copies of this edition of the Scriptures, but I haven't cared much for the physical presentation. The "full" one is very large and the pages so thin the print shows through from the other side of the page, making it hard to read. The smaller editions are so small they're hard to use. For some reason the publisher didn't seem to make a medium sized edition.

As to the modernization, I do find it "smoother" to read. They index whether a "you" is plural or not, so even though it is easier to read, you can still see if it is a singular or plural usage of the word. The large version includes a list of every "modernized" word.

I certainly like it better than J.P. Green's Modern King James version, which is very wooden and has what seems to me a few strange translations (though it has been so long since I've read from it that I can't recall any right now).

I do know that when reading the Scriptures before my children (now ages 10, 12, and 14), that they seem to comprehend better when reading from the NKJV (in general). While I tend to stick with my KJV Bible, there are portions that leave my head reeling. This is a good thing, though, as it makes me look into Scripture all that much harder! Also I (usually) be sure to read the KJV before using the NKJV and will point out where the NKJV is using inferior wording.

Hope this helps. If what BibleProtector claims is true, that the KJV is the perfected Word of God in English, then we really should work harder at just using that version, though...

Doug A.

[PaulB]

Hi Premio
I admire your honesty and willingness to understand the concerns that you hold to but for me there are just some things that are set in stone. If the subject of the “Word of God” is approached from a mere collection of historical documents that hold valuable spiritual lessons, then yes, I would feel free to communicate them as I could word them. But if a king gave me his word to go and proclaim then I would be miss quoting him if I put it into my own words.

It is one thing to go and preach the gospel to all creation, but another altogether when we try and reword “the Scriptures”. I have written one or two articles explaining my position and don’t want to run through them all again for the sake of anyone else who may read this.

Who understands words such as; “holy” - “Propitiation” – or even the concept of a blood sacrifice? When we “update” we are doing more than we realise, and the question is – who gets to determine the need for updating? If it is the believer then I am sorry, I don’t think that the KJB is written in mandarin Chinese it is in a form of English that is understandable. Yes, I admit that it isn’t as easy as I would like in places but my desires are not the determining factor of what God has put into the Bible.

I don’t understand everything that I come across in maths, does that mean that it needs to be changed so that I can benefit – or should it remain as it is and challenge me to answer its demands upon my mind?

If I made the archaeological find of the century and unearthed the Ark of the Covenant, looked inside it and found the two tablets of stone. And just for arguments sake, I discovered that it was written in olde English (I speak hypothetically). I wouldn’t dare to think of taking a hammer and chisel so that I could reword the 10 commandments to those who don’t speak like that any longer. It would be sacrilege to do so.

If the KJB is seen as a mere outdated translation then this site is nothing other than a forum without a purpose, but if it is seen (and it is) that it is the work of God then it is a totally different ball game. There is no way that anyone can convince me that “the message” or the NIV etc are the work of God, as the issue is far greater than updating archaic words etc. If we are to say “it is written” then on what authority can we do that unless it is written?

We are either guardians of truth who believe in the promise of preservation or we aren’t – if we are, then we guard it – if we aren’t we change it! The question is this; did anyone at any point in time possess the Scriptures where they could call out in total confidence that “It is written” or did they not? If so then that is the side we stand with – if not then there is no word of God in written form today!

God bless

PaulB

[PaulB]

Just an after thought - Many today don't understand that a lamb's blood (especially that of Christ) is substitutionary. Does that mean that we just preach that Jesus passed away so that it is easy to understand that He died for them? No,we declare the whole council of God - thus we trust that God will work with that. but if we change it, we don't have that promise!

God Bless

PaulB