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.

[Off-Grid Organics]

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

Yes, pretty blatant tampering, IMO. No matter what Scriptures you choose, you still remain at the mercy of the translators for what you are reading. Prove ALL things.

[Wiskey Reb]

Yes, pretty blatant tampering, IMO. No matter what Scriptures you choose, you still remain at the mercy of the translators for what you are reading. Prove ALL things.

We're doomed to using someones tradition, and if not someone else's, one we develop on our own. There just is no way around study and exogesis.

[ReticentEnigma]

What "KJV-onlyism" Is

Basically, KJV-onlyism is the belief that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the "true" Bible. That is, that it is totally inerrant, totally infallible, and totally inspired - not even one word was translated except as guided by the Holy Spirit and that any deviation of the words, even minutely, constitues changing God's word, as the text of the KJV is exactly how God intended the Scriptures. It equates the word of God, in the very real sense of the autographs, with the King James Version.

A large part of the KJV-only position hinges on "preservation". Supporters of KJV-onlyism say that God promised to preserve word-for-word the Scriptures, and that the KJV is the fulfillment of that promise. Unfortunately for both sides of the debate, we don't have ANY original manuscripts of the Scriptures, which would put an end one way or another to this whole debate. What we do have are copies and copies of copies, etc. The problem with the KJV-only position of "preservation" is that even the KJV differs from the Hebrew and Greek it was translated from, thus where are the "word-for-word preserved" Scriptures prior to 1611? Also, even if you believe God promised to preserve the Scriptures word-for-word, there is no mention in the Bible about this promise being fulfilled 1600 years after Christ, and then only in English, and only in one translation.

Basically, the common beliefs that define "KJV-only" are:

- the idea that there are no errors or problems of translation in the KJV.
- the idea that there are no internal errors or problems in the text of the KJV.
- the idea that any changes of words of the KJV constitutes changing God's word (and thus no other English translations are "the word of God")
- God promised to preserve the Scriptures word for word throughout the centuries.
- the idea that the KJV translators were divinely guided, and thus the words they used were given to them by the Holy Spirit to be implemented without any alternates.

There is a range of KJV-onlyism. The following beliefs are held by SOME, not all KJV-only supporters, but you'll run into these beliefs before long if you get into the issue in any detail:

- the idea that all other translations are inspired by Satan.
- the idea that all translators and readers of new versions have ulterior motives
- the idea that Christians who use other versions are spiritual cripples at best, and destined for Hell at worst.
- the idea that where the KJV differs from the Greek and Hebrew from which it was translated, the English is an improvement over the Greek and Hebrew.
- the idea that English is the language God chose to give us Scripture in, and if anyone on Earth wants inerrant Scripture, they must learn English so they can use the KJV.
- the idea that we no longer need the Greek and Hebrew.
- the idea that the KJV translators were "super-human" (i.e. much more qualified than any translators before or after them).
- the idea that the KJV translators were under divine inspiration when translating, but totally out to lunch when they wrote the preface, marginal notes, and cross-references
- the idea that someone who doesn't agree with them about the status of the KJV is automatically a "heretic" or an "apostate", and is certainly "unteachable".

Those views are not held by all KJV-only supporters, but they are quite common in the KJV-only side of the debate.

What "KJV-onlyism" Isn't

KJV-onlyism is not simply a preference for the KJV. Many people, myself included, use and love the KJV without being KJV-only. Nor is KJV-onlyism the belief that the KJV is simply superior to all other translations but still has problems.

Some people that support the KJV because they believe its underlying text base is the closest to the "originals". People that believe this are not "KJV-only" - they can be described as "KJV-preferred". They are people who simply prefer the KJV over all other versions, while agreeing that the ideas of the translation itself being "inerrant, infallible", exclusively "the word of God", etc., are not justified.

Dive right in...

So, if you're new to the issue and have an interest in it, dive right in. It is a wonderful medium to learn about Scripture, no matter which side you end up agreeing with. I encourage you to examine each specific argument from either side in as much detail as you can. Ask God for guidance. Ask you pastor for help. Also, remember that both sides are Christians and brothers and sisters in Christ - try to act like it! This is an important issue, and combining that with deep-running emotional attachments to ideas, people can take things personally and sometimes react in ways they shouldn't.

The issue is huge, and my pages only scratch the surface. I hope they are enough to whet your appetite and to get you thinking about the issue. If you want to discuss any aspect of the issue, email me or visit this great discussion forum. Above all, keep the right attitude and you will surely be blessed in your studies.

God bless!

This outline is designed to refute the view that the King James Version (KJV) is the only modern Bible on earth that is 100% accurate and error free.
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm
QUOTE FROM THE LINK ABOVE:
1.Foremost, we feel that the KJV is an EXCELLENT translation, but not the ONLY excellent translation.
2.In over 90 percent of the New Testament, readings are identical word-for-word, regardless of the family. Of the remaining ten percent, MOST of the differences between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or putting the word "the" before a noun. Less than two percent would significantly alter the meaning of a passage, and NONE of them would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-half of one percent of the Bible. The other 99.5% we all agree on!
3.Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament we can absolutely be confident of its accuracy. With this large number of manuscripts, comparing manuscripts easily reveals any place where a scribe has made an error or where there is a variation. There are approximately 150,000 variations in the manuscripts we have today. However, these variations represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament (if the same word was misspelled in 3,000 manuscripts, that is counted as 3,000 variations.) Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling in accord with accepted usage, grammatical construction, or order of words. Of the remaining variations, only 50 are of significance (such as two manuscripts leaving out Acts 2:37). But of these 50, not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages. There are some manuscripts that date as early as 130 AD, very close to the completion of the New Testament. These manuscripts are nearly identical to those dating 900 years later, thus verifying the accuracy of the scribes.
4.These advocates reject all others Bibles that post-date the KJV.
5.They believe that the KJV is not only inspired in the original language, but also in the translation process.
6.This claim of an inspired translation process is not made for any other Bible translation.
7.Only a very tiny fraction of people who use the KJV actually believe that the translation process was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
8.We feel that the KJV is to be classed as one of several major standards of Bible translations including, NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV. All these translations are equal in quality and all should be used for Bible study.
9.The TR itself was based on a very few, late scripts, not one of which contained the entire Greek New Testament and none earlier than the 12th century. In the matter of the book of Revelation, a missing page was translated from the Latin Vulgate BACK to the Greek. Acts 9:6 although found in the Latin Vulgate, and thus the TR is found in no Greek manuscript at all. In light of its obvious shortcomings, a greater number of older and more complete manuscripts were used in the translation of subsequent versions (post-1881)} (The KJV Debate: A Plea for Realism, D.A. Carson)

[Rob_0126]

Yes, pretty blatant tampering, IMO. No matter what Scriptures you choose, you still remain at the mercy of the translators for what you are reading. Prove ALL things.

Just because I dont know exactly why the kjv translators chose Easter, doesnt mean it was wrong.