One thing I am and that is consistent and sincere. How about you?

You asked:

Was God's hand in the making of Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, and Bishops' Bibles of which the KJV was a revision?

Yes.

Was Tyndale's from God or not?

Yes.

Was the Geneva Bible from God or not?

Yes.

Do you claim that your definition for the word of God does not apply to the pre-1611 English Bibles?

I apply my definition of the word of God consistently.

Well, Rick, none, no not one, of the Bibles you mention ever reached the stature of the AV. None, no not one, of the Bibles you mention had a consensus of belief of born again Spirit filled Christians like the AV. Hence, whatever virtues the Bibles you mention have and there are many, none of them reached the excellancy of the AV in English. The AV is the greatest English Translation ever. The English speaking Church of God recognized the AV their STANDARD and believed it accordingly.

I have no real objection to any of the Bibles you mentioned. Not even the NKJV. But as I have said countless times - the AV is CLEARLY the word of God in English and should be treated as such by you! Instead of wasting your time trying to get people, including me, to doubt, deny and disbelief words, phrases and verses in the AV, and by implication all the Bibles you mentioned above, why don't you get into the Lord's work and get people to try to believe ALL that the Bible says, instead of "almost all the Bible"?

Do you believe the Geneva? Do you believe the NKJV? Is your position that they "are the word of God also"? Great! Then get people to BELIEVE them instead of doubt, denying and rejecting words, phrases and verses found in them.

You mistakenly believe that a "revision" is proof that the previous version was not "the word of God". Your belief crumbles in the light of the fact that the "autographs" were revised numerous times.

Really? Do you stop to ponder what you write? If all the versions above are translations of th WORD OF GOD then why do you dispise words, phrases and verses in translations of the WORD OF GOD? You falsely claim that the AV translators forced their biases into their translation and then born again Spirit filled Christians were duped into believing such words as bishop, baptism, church, etc. for 400+ years. When you attack words, phrases and verses in the AV, and you do blatanly and unabashedly attack such things, you by extention pour your vile contempt on the same words in all the versions you mentioned. You would do well to repent of your contempt for those words, phrases and verses as found in the word of God.

Yes. The AV was THE BIBLE of English Christiandom for 450+ years. When the Scriptures mention "the Scriptures" it is a reference to THE STANDARD which Spirit filled born again believers recognize as the word of God. The AV CLEARLY has that quality.

Yes.

__________________
In Jesus' Name,


Brent Riggs
www.preachinginpoland.com

Do you have eternal life (Jn 3:15)? Have you been born again (Jn 3:1-8)? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so for whatever reason, I will have no compelling reason or need to respond to your post.

If you don't want people to doubt the KJV and that is what you stated your goal was, then keep your doubt to yourself. Keep your mistaken belief about errors and bad ("more good than bad") in the KJV to yourself. The word of God (Scriptures) is perfect, pure, holy, inspired by definition. If the Word's word is not perfect then how can He be perfect? To cast doubt upon His word is to cast doubt upon His character. The Holy Spirit guides us by the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The AV is CLEARLY the Scriptures in English.

I duly note your point and retract the word "snide" with apologies. You stated previously that cults "stick to the KJV" and my response is:

No cult that I know of "sticks to the KJV" they ALL doubt words, phrases and verses as found in the English Scriptures. They ALL make a habit of correcting the KJV with "the original". Sound familiar? The implications are startling. The inuendo that "the AV is the cause of cults" sort of backfires doesn't it? Cults come about because they DOUBT, DENY and REJECT words, phrases and verses as found in the word of God. The AV is CLEARLY the word of God in English. JW's only believe the AV as "far as it agreeth with the original". The same with the Mormons. The same with the Catholics. The JW's reject 1 John 5:7 - "it's not from God", "it's an addition due to doctrinal bias", "it was added by Erasmus under pressure", etc. They reject 1 Timothy 3:16, John 3:13, etc. in the same manner. Some spirit is working amongst them. I'm not shocked when I hear things like the above from JW's and Mormons, but I am shocked when I hear it from professing "Fundamentalists".

And to this I add - yes, good and bad groups use the AV, because it is THE STANDARD. Your point about "good and bad groups using the AV" only verifies my argument, thank you! The fact is ALL groups use the AV! Just as ALL GROUPS used the Scriptures in Jesus' day - the good and the bad groups! The pharisees and the saducees, the apostles and Jesus (the Word, God manisfest in the flesh) Himself used the recognized Standard in their day and called it SCRIPTURE. So, of all the Bibles in English, one thing is clear, everyone, the good and the bad, recognizes, or at least professes, that the AV is the word of God in English. That is no small mark of authentication. If a scrap of papyrus can give Textual Critics goose bumps, what should the recognition, belief, and use of the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures by Spirit filled born again Christians for 400+ years do for us non-critics? I'll tell you what, it should inspire affiance in every word, phrase and verse. And it does! I believe every word of the AV for it is indeed the English Scriptures - the word of God in English. When I stand up to preach I expect people to believe every word of the English Scriptues and obey it. I don't attempt to make people doubt ALL OF IT by casting doubt on portions of it!

Out of time again. I appreaciate the friendly dialogue.

__________________
In Jesus' Name,


Brent Riggs
www.preachinginpoland.com

Do you have eternal life (Jn 3:15)? Have you been born again (Jn 3:1-8)? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so for whatever reason, I will have no compelling reason or need to respond to your post.

So Mitex what your saying is that if someone doesn't agree with you and your views perfectly, then there pretty much a heretic?

__________________
Matthew 6:34
"So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

A post that starts off with so many straw men arguments and inaccuracies is surely not to have a fighting chance in making its point, whatever it may be.

Ummm...OK.

I guess you can just call me the Scarecrow (from the Wizard of Oz).

Not really sure on the whole "strawman" thing. I feel my argument is lagit. If you do not, well, you have every right to feel that way.

God Bless!

__________________
Eph 4:32 Be ye courteous one to another, & tender hearted, freely forgiuing one another, euen as God for Christes sake, freely forgaue you. - Geneva

Here is a great site. I may not agree with it all but I have found it very helpful with the KJVO issue...
http://www.kjv-only.com/

I look forward to your reply.

__________________
Eph 4:32 Be ye courteous one to another, & tender hearted, freely forgiuing one another, euen as God for Christes sake, freely forgaue you. - Geneva

Here is a great site. I may not agree with it all but I have found it very helpful with the KJVO issue...
http://www.kjv-only.com/

I don't call people who disagree with me a "heretic" . And your false accusation reveals more about your character than you intended.

__________________
In Jesus' Name,


Brent Riggs
www.preachinginpoland.com

Do you have eternal life (Jn 3:15)? Have you been born again (Jn 3:1-8)? Please take this opportunity to give the reason of the hope that is in you (1Pt 3:15). If you fail to do so for whatever reason, I will have no compelling reason or need to respond to your post.

Since you say that the 1560 Geneva Bible was from God and that God's hand was in its making and since your definition for the word of God is that it is perfect and inspired, on what consistent basis do you claim that the KJV translators were right to remove, change, and revise a number of good renderings in the pre-1611 English Scriptures?

Since you stated that the 1560 Geneva Bible and Tyndale's were from God, does that not mean that the words "by election" at Acts 14:23 found in the pre-1611 English Scriptures were from God? Baptist pastors and authors in the 1600's defended those words and appealed to them in their confessions of faith. The 1600's Italian Bible by John Diodoti also had words with that same meaning. Do you support the removal of those two words "by election" at Acts 14:23 in the KJV when their removal helped Church of England Episcopal Church government claims?

At Acts 14:23, the words "by election" found in Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Geneva Bible, and Bishops' Bible ("ordained them elders by election"). Dexter noted: “So Acts 14:23 retained in the English versions, until the hand of Episcopal authority struck it out, the recognition of the action of the membership of the churches in the choice of their elders” (Hand-Book, p. 15, footnote 1). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill asserted that Acts 14:23 was one of the fourteen places altered “to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24).

On the fourth page of the preface to his 1641 book, Baptist Edward Barber referred to “the great wrong done in putting out some Scripture, as in Acts 14:23, where election is left out, by which means people are kept from knowing” (Small Treatise, p. iv). Concerning Acts 14:23 in his 1647 book, William Bartlett wrote: “The original reads it otherwise than the Translation [the KJV]: the Translation reads it ordained, but the Greek word is cheirotoneesantes, that is, they chose elders by the lifting up of the hands of the people, which is different from ordination, as coronation is from the election of a king” (Ichnographia, p. 36). In his 1659 book, Baptist William Jeffery (1616-1693) referred to Acts 14:23 and then stated: “where the word election is left out in the new translation, but it is in the old, and cannot be denied to be in the Greek” (Whole Faith, p. 98). In his Annotations, John Diodoti translated his Italian Bible into English at Acts 14:23 as “when they had by common votes ordained.”

William Fulke asserted: “Our translation is true, ordained by election, and answereth the Greek word, which we translate” (Confutation of the Rhemish Testament, p. 158). Thomas Cartwright maintained “it must needs be, that as he wrote, so he meant the election by voices” since the word “signifieth the lifting of them [hands] up“ (Confutation, p. 291). John Owen (1616-1683) noted that Erasmus, Vatablus, Beza, and all of our old English translations indicated that the choice of elders was "by election or the suffrage of the disciples" (Church & the Bible or Works, XVI, p. 60). Theodore Beza (1519-1605) contended that "the Christians of Asia gave their votes by lifting up their hands (Acts 14:23, Cheirotoneo)" (The Christian Faith, p. 104).

I don't believe anyone here has said or implied what you state, since all responsibly-produced versions/translations may be properly considered the Word of God.
Has anyone here said otherwise? No.

Rather, in contending for the most accurate and precise understanding of what the Scriptures do actually say, those of us believers who love the Bible and are interested in such details, actually look carefully and scrutinize the available evidence, both as to original-language source documents and as to translation, rather than merely accepting that all of the English translations, or that one in particular (the KJV is essentially the only one thus argued) are somehow perfect.

I read your comments as reflecting a view that none, or at least none here, have the right or the competence to do this, and that you believe that all who seek to thus criticize versions of the Scriptures ("criticize" in the scholarly sense) have exceeded their proper place.

While I understand and agree with your perspective that we should all reverence and respect the Bible in whatever version and language as the Word of God (but perhaps the AV of 1611 especially, due to its long and approved usage), it also appears that you take the arguments of anyone not in entire agreement with you to reflect an improper attitude toward the Scriptures, which perception on your part I believe to be thoroughly in error.

What in the world kind of logic is that? Over 200 years after the KJV is published some cult leader heretic decides to use it and that automatically makes it a cult book? I think your hatred for the KJVO has migrated into hatred for the KJV. It's the Bible for cryin out loud!

__________________
"I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, (like necromancy?) will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms." -your buddy, Brooke Foss Westcott (Life, Vol.1,p.454)