The King James Bible Defended

[Rob_0126]

Hey folks. I thought this might be a good thread to start, in regards to the King James Bible.

I thought of a good video sermon, explaining the origins of the Textus Receptus in regards to the kjv, and the counterfeit Alexandrian Text.

It is by pastor David J Meyer, and I thought it would be interesting to those who do hold the kjv in high regard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6gSkMtiurg

Also, if anyone could add to this teaching, this could turn to be a good resource for those who hold up the 1611/1769 KJV as the preserved Word of God.

[Off-Grid Organics]

How did this sneak in there? Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after EASTERG3957 to bring him forth to the people.

G3957
πάσχα
pascha
Thayer Definition:
1) the paschal sacrifice (which was accustomed to be offered for the people’s deliverance of old from Egypt)
2) the paschal lamb, i.e. the lamb the Israelites were accustomed to slay and eat on the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan (the first month of their year) in memory of the day on which their fathers, preparing to depart from Egypt, were bidden by God to slay and eat a lamb, and to sprinkle their door posts with its blood, that the destroying angel, seeing the blood, might pass over their dwellings; Christ crucified is likened to the slain paschal lamb
3) the paschal supper
4) the paschal feast, the feast of the Passover, extending from the 14th to the 20th day of the month Nisan


G3957
Total Occurrences: 29
πασχα (29)
Mat_26:2, Mat_26:17-19 (3), Mar_14:1, Mar_14:12 (2), Mar_14:14, Mar_14:16, Luk_2:41, Luk_22:1, Luk_22:7-8 (2), Luk_22:11, Luk_22:13, Luk_22:15, Joh_2:13, Joh_2:23, Joh_6:4, Joh_11:55 (2), Joh_12:1, Joh_13:1, Joh_18:28, Joh_18:39, Joh_19:14, Act_12:4, 1Co_5:7, Heb_11:28

[Rob_0126]

How did this sneak in there? Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after EASTERG3957 to bring him forth to the people.

G3957
πάσχα
pascha
Thayer Definition:
1) the paschal sacrifice (which was accustomed to be offered for the people’s deliverance of old from Egypt)
2) the paschal lamb, i.e. the lamb the Israelites were accustomed to slay and eat on the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan (the first month of their year) in memory of the day on which their fathers, preparing to depart from Egypt, were bidden by God to slay and eat a lamb, and to sprinkle their door posts with its blood, that the destroying angel, seeing the blood, might pass over their dwellings; Christ crucified is likened to the slain paschal lamb
3) the paschal supper
4) the paschal feast, the feast of the Passover, extending from the 14th to the 20th day of the month Nisan


G3957
Total Occurrences: 29
πασχα (29)
Mat_26:2, Mat_26:17-19 (3), Mar_14:1, Mar_14:12 (2), Mar_14:14, Mar_14:16, Luk_2:41, Luk_22:1, Luk_22:7-8 (2), Luk_22:11, Luk_22:13, Luk_22:15, Joh_2:13, Joh_2:23, Joh_6:4, Joh_11:55 (2), Joh_12:1, Joh_13:1, Joh_18:28, Joh_18:39, Joh_19:14, Act_12:4, 1Co_5:7, Heb_11:28

Do you mean why the kjv translators put the word Easter in, instead of passover?

Bro Meyer believed it was because the kjv translators considered easter a pagan holiday, hence herod was celebrating easter.

Another brother in Christ, that has done a little study into the word easter, believes that the kjv translators meant Easter to be the celebration of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
(William Tyndale used the word Easter, in the same place, in his translations.)

I'm not sure if Rome hijacked the term Easter, or if they are the originators of it.
Either way, the death, burial, and resurrection was somehow mixed in with a pagan holiday.

Easter is calculated by astrology. It can be as much as 3 weeks apart from Passover.
(Brother Meyer was an astrology primarily before his conversion)
At this point in time, I do not know exactly why they put it there, but it was certainly for good reason. It would be for a good study to find out exactly why.

If I were to give my opinion at this point and time, I would say it was for clarities sake, for the folks who celebrated the Lord's death at Easter time.

Does that detract from the kjv being the preserved Word of God?
Not to me.

[Rob_0126]

I checked the Wycliffe Bible, and here is:
Acts 12:4, "4 And whanne he hadde cauyte Petre, he sente hym in to prisoun; and bitook to foure quaternyouns of knyytis, to kepe hym, and wolde aftir pask bringe hym forth to the puple."

(Even though Wycliffe used the corrupted Alexandrian texts as far as I know, this still shows a possible origin.)

So it seems Wycliffe used the term 'pask' to refer to the passover. So this would seem that the term Easter, possibly wasn't used til at least Tyndale's time(1500's).

So did it originate with Tyndale?

If it did originate with Tyndale, then that would mean 'Easter' originally meant the Lord's Passover?

If that is true, then between then and now, when did Easter become tied to the celebration of Astarte or Ishtar?

[Sherree]

Hi. Rob! I am KJV only, and have several KJV Bibles with study helps. The one I use the most is the Hebrew-Greek Key Word study Bible/KJV.

As far as Easter goes. It is a pagan holiday, and we don't observe pagan holidays.

[CaryC]

IMHO most Christians, or even just people, think that Bibles are pretty much the same, some are just easier to read than others.

I would think the serious student would know better.

There are differences in two categories.

1) the method of translation, of which there are two
a) word for word
b) thought for thought

2) the manuscripts used, of which there are also two
a) The Textus Receptus (meaning the received text) and uses the Byzantine Text Type
b) The Alexandrian Text Type which in general were found in Alexandrian Egypt by Westcott and Hort and they published a NT in 1881.

The KJV is the only Bible to use the "word for word" method of translation, and only the TR. And it was not copywrited.

The American Standard Bible published in 1910 uses the "word for word" method of translation, however they use/include The Alexandrian Text Type and is noted in the margin where it differs from the Textus Receptus, as "in other manuscripts" or "in older manuscripts".

The Revised Standard Version used the "thought for thought" method, and the Alexandrian Text Type. As do all other publication of the Bible. There may be a couple of new ones that have recently come out that don't. I haven't kept up with the new ones coming out. It should also be noted that the RSV is a revision of the ASV and not the original manuscripts.

The New International Version which has jumped to no. 1 in sales by passing the KJV is "thought for thought" and uses the Alexandrian Text Type. There is a ....catch with this one.

In another thread some are running C. I Scofield down for his ....life style. However, all Scofield did was add COMMENTARY to the KJV, and included it in the margins. Sides and Bottom. As a side note Wescott and Hort their lifestyle included séance's in Lord Balford's residence to contact his wife.

With The New International Version (which is copywrited BTW) on the translation team there was a very open Lesbian. Who even appeared on the cover of the No. 1 Lesbian magazine in the country. So, how would you think, a Lesbian, using the "thought for thought" method translate Romans 1? Now, we're not talking COMMENTARY, but the actual Word of God itself.

It should also be noted that in the forward of The New International Version it states that it is the best translation ever done. And then they came out with a New New International Version which was better. Go figure.

You make your own choices. I'm going with word for word and the TR.

[Rob_0126]

Sherree and CaryC, I agree that the KJV is the way to go.

In the beginning of my searching, I basically wanted the preserved Word of God, and I believe I found it.

Years ago, I studied into Tyndales translations, even to the point of starting a side by side comparison, putting Tyndales translation into verse format.
After much pondering and the Lord giving me some wisdom on all of this, it seems that the KJV is the preserved Word of God.

Psalm 12:6-7,
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver
tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve
them from this generation for ever.

Gail Riplinger did some interesting research on the different bible versions, some years ago.
Their are other videos of her talking about this, but I just listed this one.

[CaryC]

Hey Rob,

I/we think the same way.

However, we don't condemn anyone for using a different translation. Even though it can get confusing, when everyone in a particular study doesn't have the same translation. This is the reason I switched to KJV initially. I was leading a Bible Study using the ASV, and everyone else was using KJV. I was getting a lot of "my Bible doesn't say that", and am glad I did. Then later I found out about the above.

We think God can use those other translations to reach people. Also think that once people get serious about studying they will gravitate towards KJV because it is word for word.

We hold this for a couple of reasons:

1) For thousands of years the Bible wasn't in the hands of regular people, and God still reached them, and worked the same way in them as those with the Bible.
2) As far as I know Bibles translated into foreign languages aren't KJV (meaning English).
3) There are multitudes today who don't have a Bible in any language, and God reaches them, and works in them as He does us.

BUT for the English speaking people it is the one I would recommend above the others.

[Rob_0126]

Hey Rob,

I/we think the same way.

However, we don't condemn anyone for using a different translation. Even though it can get confusing, when everyone in a particular study doesn't have the same translation. This is the reason I switched to KJV initially. I was leading a Bible Study using the ASV, and everyone else was using KJV. I was getting a lot of "my Bible doesn't say that", and am glad I did. Then later I found out about the above.

We think God can use those other translations to reach people. Also think that once people get serious about studying they will gravitate towards KJV because it is word for word.

We hold this for a couple of reasons:

1) For thousands of years the Bible wasn't in the hands of regular people, and God still reached them, and worked the same way in them as those with the Bible.
2) As far as I know Bibles translated into foreign languages aren't KJV (meaning English).
3) There are multitudes today who don't have a Bible in any language, and God reaches them, and works in them as He does us.

BUT for the English speaking people it is the one I would recommend above the others.

The problem with other translations is that they change the meaning of the verse most of the time.
The motives by the publishers is suspect at best, diabolical at worst.

The kjv translators were extremely meticulous about the words they used. Its fascinating, the detail of their work.

But it causes confusion and strife, when nobody is on the same page.


For example: In the kjv, when a word has 'eth' on the end of it, it means to continue to.
A lot of translations remove that prefix, thus changing the meaning altogether.

1 John wouldnt make any sense without those prefixes.

[CaryC]

IMHO I think the other translations are just in it for the money.

The Bible, in the all together, is the number one selling book in the world. And has been for years. Sounds like a lucrative business to be in. AND when publishers capitalize on the laziness of, at least Americans, and use the pretext, "It's easier to read". People will spend money on a copywrited book for that ease. Isn't that the reason we use debit cards?

Money wasn't so much the reason King James commissioned this translation. He commission this translation, without copywrite, for 2 reasons:

1) To have a Bible that would be accurate, so preachers, and scholars would gravitate towards it, so
2) they would move away from the Geneva Bible (I think that is the name of the one they were using) which had commentary in the margins which stated it was OK to over through a bad king. The KJV was published without commentary.
3) without copywrite meant others could publish the work without paying royalties, and thus as we would say flood the market, and get rid of that awful commentary.

I think God used, what some might say was, an evil intent to get His Word into the hands of the people.

And IMHO that is a principal that God uses, what one intents for evil, God uses for good.