The KJV is a Roman Catholic Bible with respect to the Word Church.

[FSSL]

Calvin was wholly exonerated about the Trinitarian issue. Caroli lied. Had you read the books you found In Google, this would be clear. You just find phrases and run with them.

Calvin and Farel were banished two years later over DIFFERENT issues involving the eucharist and speaking against the council regarding the harsh treatment of their friend.

Your revisionism and conflations are entirely misleading.

If you had primary sources, you would know that Calvin took no issue with the theology of the Athanasian Creed... only the condemnation statements.

Your twisting, conflating and total misuse of history continues and continues... KJVOs are dishonest. NonTrinitarian ones even moreso!

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

bibleprotector, is it ok to substitute "you" for "thee" "think" for "thinkest" "go" for "goest" and so forth, since we no longer use those 1611 words in our generation? Would the King James bible be just as much inspired?

The versions that no longer use the older pronoun and verb forms are just as inspired but not as informative regarding the case, number, and person of the words in question.

The Greek language differentiates between the case and number of pronouns and the person of verbs. English used to do the same but as Middle English morphed into Early Modern English those differences were minimized. The translators kept the older forms in place of the new, commonly used forms, in order to convey the case, number, and person of the words in question.

Thee, thou, and thine are singular objective (oblique), singular nominative, and singular possessive (genitive).

Ye, you, and yours are plural nominative, plural objective (oblique), and plural possessive (genitive).

Simple way to remember: if the word starts with a "t" it is singular.
If it starts with a "y" it is plural.

Common spelling is first person (I walk), "est" or "st" indicates second person (thou walkest) and "eth" or "th" indicates third person (he walketh).

Simple way to remember: If the word ends in "eSt" S = second person. If the word ends in "eTh" T = third person.

The person of the verbs is not all that difficult to determine in modern English, but the number of the personal pronouns can be confusing when the generic "you" is used of all.

We, in Texas, don't have such a problem. You. You all. All you all. Works for us.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Either way. Tell me how you know 2 Timothy 4:22 is plural?

2Ti 4:22  The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen

"Thy" starts with a "t" and is therefor singular. "You" starts with a "y" and is therefore plural.

In Greek σου is 2nd person, genitive, singular, and υμων is a 2nd person, genitive, plural. 

The older English versions allow you to understand that without having to resort to the intensive study of Greek in able to discern the case and number of the pronouns.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Either way. Tell me how you know 2 Timothy 4:22 is plural?

2Ti 4:22  The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen

"Thy" starts with a "t" and is therefor singular. "You" starts with a "y" and is therefore plural.

In Greek σου is 2nd person, genitive, singular, and υμων is a 2nd person, genitive, plural. 

The older English versions allow you to understand that without having to resort to the intensive study of Greek in able to discern the case and number of the pronouns.

I applaud your answer. Even though you're being petty with your comments. I disagree entirely when it comes to the need of studying the original language of the texts. I expected such an answer from prophet but he entirely missed the point of my question.

The KJV doesn't perfectly relate the "case and number" of the pronouns. There are also textual issues that have to be addressed. For example, the Syriac is singular in 2 Timothy 4:22. Also, there are various Greek texts that differ. I'm inclined to believe the text should read "The Lord be with you, and with thy Spirit".  There is very little doubt that there were attempts to make Paul's letter to Timothy appeal to a larger audience than to whom it was written. There are several personal references in 2 Timothy that I doubt Paul intended to share to a mixed audience. Granted, I'm grateful we have it as part of the collection of the canon, but I'm certain it was Timothy's choice to share a personal letter among others of the faith.

Such study should be common place among brethren in Christ. You shouldn't rely solely on what you think a Early Modern English text relates.

 

[praise_yeshua]

We, in Texas, don't have such a problem. You. You all. All you all. Works for us.

"ye all" is found 13 times in the KJV. Thank God that's changed in modern versions.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Even though you're being petty with your comments.

Really? Petty? Giving you an honest and accurate answer is "petty?"

I disagree entirely when it comes to the need of studying the original language of the texts. I expected such an answer from prophet but he entirely missed the point of my question.

Why do you disagree with learning the original languages of scripture? I think every pastor should have at least a study knowledge of both Greek and Hebrew. Without such a knowledge we end up with idiocy such as KJVO!

The KJV doesn't perfectly relate the "case and number" of the pronouns.

Can you give me an example?

There are also textual issues that have to be addressed. For example, the Syriac is singular in 2 Timothy 4:22.p

Yes, so is the KJV. "Thy" is singular. The only real difference is the final "be with you." The Aramaic can legitimately be translated "be with all of us" which is also an inclusive plural. (See George Lamsa's translation.)

Also, there are various Greek texts that differ.

Both the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts read "σου" Singular and "υμων Plural.

I'm inclined to believe the text should read "The Lord be with you, and with thy Spirit".

So, you think every single Greek text is wrong for including "η χαρις  μεθ?"

There is very little doubt that there were attempts to make Paul's letter to Timothy appeal to a larger audience than to whom it was written.

So you believe the bible is wrong?

There are several personal references in 2 Timothy that I doubt Paul intended to share to a mixed audience.

I see.

Granted, I'm grateful we have it as part of the collection of the canon, but I'm certain it was Timothy's choice to share a personal letter among others of the faith.

As you seem to have a very different position on the inspiration of scripture than I do it would seem we no longer have a common basis on which to continue this discussion.

 

[Izdaari]

As you all know, I'm not much of a KJV fan. I tend to be KJVOALR (KJV Only as a Last Resort). But I don't think calling it Catholic is really a criticism at all.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Really? Petty? Giving you an honest and accurate answer is "petty?"

Sorry. I didn't read your response before to the original question. I thought you were being petty with the "t" and "y" comments.

Why do you disagree with learning the original languages of scripture? I think every pastor should have at least a study knowledge of both Greek and Hebrew. Without such a knowledge we end up with idiocy such as KJVO!

I wasn't disagreeing with knowing the original language of the Scriptures. I was disagreeing with what you said about it.

This is what you said "without having to resort to the intensive study of Greek "

"Thy" is singular. The only real difference is the final "be with you." The Aramaic can legitimately be translated "be with all of us" which is also an inclusive plural.

Gill, Etheridge and Murdock all witness "thee". Not "us" in the Peshitta. You're being selective in quoting resources.

As you seem to have a very different position on the inspiration of scripture than I do it would seem we no longer have a common basis on which to continue this discussion.

Get a grip. Recognizing the process of inclusion doesn't changing anything about God's inspired words from Paul to Timothy.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

This is what you said "without having to resort to the intensive study of Greek "

And I stand by that. The common ordinary Christian sitting in the pew should not have to learn to be fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in order to understand his English bible. I consider that a requirement for vocational ministry but not for the average person in the pew on Sunday morning.

Gill, Etheridge and Murdock all witness "thee". Not "us" in the Peshitta. You're being selective in quoting resources.

And you know for sure that those three translators were knowledgeable of Middle English to the point they knew "thee" was singular even though the Aramaic is clearly plural?

Get a grip. Recognizing the process of inclusion doesn't changing anything about God's inspired words from Paul to Timothy.

I have a grip. And the "process of inclusion" had nothing at all to do with Paul or Timothy. The scriptures were given by inspiration of God, not the whim of men, even men as great as Paul and Timothy.

 

[praise_yeshua]

And I stand by that. The common ordinary Christian sitting in the pew should not have to learn to be fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in order to understand his English bible. I consider that a requirement for vocational ministry but not for the average person in the pew on Sunday morning.

More evil has been concealed with such beliefs than just about anything in history. I don't tell others to let me do the work for them. I challenge them to ALL do the work themselves.

And you know for sure that those three translators were knowledgeable of Middle English to the point they knew "thee" was singular even though the Aramaic is clearly plural?

You misunderstood what I wrote. Gill, Etheridge and Murdock witnessed to the singular nature of the Peshitta. The Peshitta isn't clearly plural. You've selectively chosen Lamsa over the others.

Etheridge and Murdock both translate the verse.

Our Lord Jesus the Messiah be with thy spirit. Grace be with thee. Amen.

I have a grip. And the "process of inclusion" had nothing at all to do with Paul or Timothy. The scriptures were given by inspiration of God, not the whim of men, even men as great as Paul and Timothy.

I never said it was the whim of man. That is your judgement of what I wrote. Paul clearly wrote a personal letter to Timothy. Regardless of what you believe God's future plans for Paul's words were...... We must recognize the truth of the matter.

 

[logos1560]

In the Bible, nothing should be changed.

We should not change the Bible to current sensibilities (which is to reduce the Word of God to the will of man).

Yet you are evidently OK with the makers of the KJV changing the pre-1611 accepted and loved English Bible [the Geneva Bible] or the pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] to agree with the that day's current sensibilities of the Church of England and its Episcopal view of church government and with the divine right of kings view of James I.

The correct, accurate English renderings for an English translation of the Scriptures should not be determined by the will of an exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611.

The KJV is not the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles in which nothing should not be changed.

 

[Just Ben]

Bibleprotector, what about all the words that are in ITALICS that the KJV committee added to the translation which are not found in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that the 1611 KJV committee used to compile the KJV? What about all those words added for "clarity?" Would it be OK to remove those words that are in italics?

 

[bibleprotector]

Yet you are evidently OK with the makers of the KJV changing the pre-1611 accepted and loved English Bible [the Geneva Bible] or the pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] to agree with the that day's current sensibilities of the Church of England and its Episcopal view of church government and with the divine right of kings view of James I.

That is a loaded statement. You are assuming that the KJB is not an accurate translation, but was coloured by specific theology which may not be correct, and you are attempting to redefine doctrines and use emotive language, where such descriptions are not accurate.

The King James Bible is accurate, whereas, we find the idea of "colouring" the translation according to interpretive bias is common and manifest in various modern versions.

It is false to reject bishops, because that was the historical truth in the time of Timothy. What we are observing here is the fact that a specific branch of Protestantism is anti-bishop, but this also is used by those who had adopted modernistic sensibilities, since modernism has a strong anti-authoritarian streak.

Finally, while it is wrong to attempt to make out as if the KJB had some sort of chauvinistic "Divine Right of Kings" ideology, it is also wrong to misrepresent the facts (or deliberately not present some facts) and make out as though kings have not been called by divine authority, when that is expressly what the Scripture teaches (as with David, as with kings generally in Hannah's prayer and Daniel's statements, and as with what Paul taught in Romans 13 and what Peter taught in 1 Peter 2).

The correct, accurate English renderings for an English translation of the Scriptures should not be determined by the will of an exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611.

What we are observing here is a modern day person impose his will on what he thinks is wrong in the faithfully transmitted scripture, and therefore is actually an example of a person who, if he had his way, would falsely hunt out "bias" and "exclusive Anglican doctrines" which do not exist in the Scripture, in the KJB.

The KJV is not the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles in which nothing should not be changed.

The KJB was not made by inspiration, nor are copies in the original languages. What was originally inspired has endured through time, despite the scattering, and what was required is that the Scripture be translated from the original languages into English: this was the focus of the Reformation. And since this has occurred, and has been fully gathered, finalised and completed in English, we find that no changes should be made to this. This is because we have the Scriptures in English.

If someone was to argue that no changes should be made to the original writings, they must then identify what is the authoritative and exemplar representation of those writings without change. So far, logos1560 has not pointed to an authoritative standard in Greek. So, it appears that it is merely his opinion by which he judges what is or is not a change. That is the ultimate form of private interpretation.

 

[bibleprotector]

Bibleprotector, what about all the words that are in ITALICS that the KJV committee added to the translation which are not found in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that the 1611 KJV committee used to compile the KJV? What about all those words added for "clarity?" Would it be OK to remove those words that are in italics?

The words in italics were necessarily used in English, by both translators, and afterwards added by editors. These completed the sense, as Benjamin Blayney said, "Frequent recourse has been had to the Hebrew and Greek Originals; and as on other occasions, so with a special regard to the words not expressed in the Original Language, but which our Translators have thought fit to insert in italics, in order to make out the sense after the English idiom, or to preserve the connection."

The words in italics are exactly the Word of God, and are equal to words not in italics. Therefore words in italics should not be removed, nor is it proper to skip over them as though they are just additional, human intrusions. Rather, in order to preserve the very sense, they are necessary.

In reality, italics are more complex in their usage than just "completing the sense" as italics are also used for other purposes.
Scrivener made six points in regard to italic use (I summarise):
1. Words introduced from parallel passages,
2. The extreme compactness of Hebrew requiring more English words to express the sense,
3. Relating a particular concept to a specific object,
4. The change in grammar from the oblique to the direct form,
5. To indicate words of doubtful authority in textual criticism,
6. As words supplied in English to complete the sense of the original language.

I don't fully agree with Scrivener, but if you want to read a whole long discussion once had on this subject, look here:
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/74136-has-word-s-italics-correct.html

 

[FSSL]

... except for words like unknown tongue (1Cor 14) which is not completing the sense of Greek.

It is introducing a foreign idea on the text, now abused by those who promote speaking in tongues.

 

[bibleprotector]

... except for words like unknown tongue (1Cor 14) which is not completing the sense of Greek.

It is introducing a foreign idea on the text, now abused by those who promote speaking in tongues.

From your comment, I can see why you would have an objection to the word "unknown" there, but really, it was those Anglican editors who differed with you, and those Reformation scholars who used such terminology. Even the Geneva men had "strange" there.

 

[FSSL]

... which they got right in Acts 2

Inconsistent and wrong. They differed among themselves.

 

[logos1560]

... except for words like unknown tongue (1Cor 14) which is not completing the sense of Greek.

It is introducing a foreign idea on the text, now abused by those who promote speaking in tongues.

From your comment, I can see why you would have an objection to the word "unknown" there, but really, it was those Anglican editors who differed with you, and those Reformation scholars who used such terminology. Even the Geneva men had "strange" there.

The Geneva Bible translators obviously used "strange" as meaning the same thing as "foreign" as it is used in the KJV in "strange women" (1 Kings 11:1), "strange wives" [1 Kings 11:8, Ezra 10:2], and "strange language" (Psalm 114:1).

Would the Geneva Bible's rendering "strange language" (1 Cor. 14:4) be as open to misunderstanding or misinterpretation as the KJV's rendering "unknown" tongue?

 

[logos1560]

Yet you are evidently OK with the makers of the KJV changing the pre-1611 accepted and loved English Bible [the Geneva Bible] or the pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] to agree with the that day's current sensibilities of the Church of England and its Episcopal view of church government and with the divine right of kings view of James I.

That is a loaded statement. You are assuming that the KJB is not an accurate translation, but was coloured by specific theology which may not be correct, and you are attempting to redefine doctrines and use emotive language, where such descriptions are not accurate.

The King James Bible is accurate, whereas, we find the idea of "colouring" the translation according to interpretive bias is common and manifest in various modern versions.

I took your own accusation against modern translations and properly applied it consistently to test it.  Are you suggesting that your own assertion was "loaded" and used subjective, emotive language?

The assertion that there was "colouring" of the translating according to interpretive bias in the KJV would be just as manifest in the KJV as you claim it is in modern versions. 

English-speaking believers in the 1600's properly noticed and pointed out this interpretive bias in the KJV.  Clear, obvious examples can be given where the makers of the KJV changed renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles that were used to advocate either congregational church government or presbyterian church government and changed them to renderings that tried to take away the basis for the other views or that could be used to favor Episcopal church government.  Here is just one example of several that could be mentioned.

    In his 1593 book advocating that prelatic or Episcopal church government is apostolic, Bishop Thomas Bilson, who would be co-editor of the 1611 KJV, acknowledged that some use 1 Corinthians 12:28 as one verse that they cite for Presbyterian church government.  Bilson wrote:  “There remained yet one place where governors are named amongst ecclesiastical officers, and that is 1 Corinthians 12” (Perpetual Government, p. 197).  Bilson wrote:  “Why should they not be lay elders or judges of manners?  Because I find no such any where else mentioned, and here none proved.  Governors there were, or rather governments” (p. 199).  Bilson claimed that “Chrysostom maketh ‘helps’ and governments’ all one” (p. 212).  In 1641, George Gillespie maintained that “Chrysostom, expounding this place, doth not take helps and governments to be all one, as Bilson hath boldly, but falsely averred” (Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, p. 19).  The 1611 edition of the KJV does exactly what Bilson suggested by connecting the words “helps” and “governments” with “in.” 

David Norton pointed out:  “1611, uniquely and apparently without justification from the Greek, reads ‘helps in governments” (Textual History, p. 34).  Was this change deliberately introduced in order to attempt to take away a verse that had been used by those who advocated Presbyterian church government?   Did Bilson or other prelates take advantage of their position to attempt to undermine or obscure a favorite text used to support Presbyterian church government?  What truth of the original demanded that this change be introduced into the 1611? 

In 1641, Scottish reformer George Gillespie wrote:  “We cannot enough admire how the authors of our new English translation were bold to turn it thus, ’helps in government,’ so to make one of two, and to elude our argument” (Assertion, p. 19).  Andrew Edgar suggested that Gillespie “recognized in these words a covert attack on the constitution of the Church of Scotland” (Bibles of England, p. 299, footnote 1).    In 1646, Gillespie wrote:  “Whereas he [Mr. Hussey] thinks, helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles; antilepsis kubernesis was read thus, helps in governments:  but afterwards, the prelates themselves were ashamed of it, and so printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, governments” (Aaron’s Rod, p. 103). 

 

[FSSL]

You gotta love the constant deflection... We point out a problem with the KJV and he doesn't defend it, he just tells us what modern versions and other Bibles do.

If words are going to be added to the text, at least make sure they don't skew the meaning!