The validity of the kj bible….for all you biblefags out there in no man's land…

sling those scriptures…i'll gladly take them all…

The Great Awakening…you've been duped….had….hook, line and sinker!

Oh son…..as Roland Martin used to say….

http://stellarhousepublishing.com/king-james-bible-history.html

How was the King James Bible created? Is the King James version of the Bible inspired and inerrant?

For the past several centuries since its creation in 1611, the King James Bible has been held up by devout Christians as an "inspired" and "inerrant" rendering into English, authorized by God himself. To this day, certain Fundamentalist Protestant Christians continue to believe this claim about the King James Version ("KJV"), regardless of the fact that the texts upon which it was based differ in many places from the earliest Greek manuscripts, which were not available during its translation.

In reality, the King James Bible was created using preceding English translations and Greek texts dating to the 12th to 15th centuries - the "Textus Receptus" - as well as "some influence from the Latin Vulgate," the edition by Catholic saint Jerome in the fourth century. The original Textus Receptus (TR) compiled by Dutch theologian Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536) was hurriedly put together and contained "thousands of typographical errors," as well as scribal commentary that was not in the original Greek. In 1550, the TR was eventually reissued by Parisian printer Robert Estienne, also known as Stephanus/Stefanus/Stephens, whose edition was the basis of the KJV, with a significant amount of the same problems intact. The fact that various versions of the Bible differ from each other is very significant and needs to be kept in mind, as does the realization of the flawed nature of the Textus Receptus, upon which the King James Bible is based.

In "Discovering and Classifying New Testament Manuscripts," fundamentalist Christian writer James Arlandson discusses the orthodox Christian belief that the four canonical gospels were inerrant and divinely inspired:

"The original authors were inspired, but we do not have their very originals… The original New Testament documents were transmitted by scribes, who were not inspired."

This more recent claim regarding only the originals being inspired essentially overrides the centuries-old, widely held notion that English translations such as the King James Bible are inerrant; yet, there remain King James inerrantists.

……….cont'd

Because such a position appears untenable, many Christian scholars and apologists today no longer adhere to the notion that translations themselves are inspired, claiming instead that only the "originals" are inspired, as noted. The rank-and-file believers, however, still frequently maintain - as they have been taught - that the King James translation, for one, is inerrant and its translators inspired. Regardless of whether or not trained apologists believe this claim anymore, the average Christian may not be aware of the debate regarding various translations and may indeed receive the impression that the Bible favored in his or her church is inerrant. In the words of evangelical Christian Gary Amirault:

"At an early point in my walk with Jesus, I was strongly under the influence of men and women who believed in the 'Inerrant Bible' doctrine. They believed the King James Bible was the only one Christians should use because it was inspired of God and without errors. They believed other translations were inspired of Satan, the "Alexandrian cult" and the Roman Catholic Church."

The reality is that even today many pastors continue to promote the purported inerrancy of the King James Bible. In fact, there remain ministries fervently dedicated to "defending and promoting the KJV." Within these organizations, the King James Bible continues to be held up as "inerrant," despite the scholarship that has revealed the Textus Receptus at its basis to be flawed.

One fundamentalist KJV defender, Brandon Staggs, comments on the debate thus:

"Almost every "fundamental" statement of faith reads that God's word is perfect and inspired in the original autographs.

"But isn't that a statement of unbelief? What good is God's word if it only exists in manuscripts which no longer exist? Why would God inspire Scripture just to let it wither to dust?

"Many modern scholars believe that the real ending of the Gospel of Mark has been lost and that we can not be certain how Mark concluded his Gospel. And yet these same scholars will boldly declare belief in God's preservation of Scripture."[2]

"It is my belief that the King James Bible is God's word in the English language without admixture of error."

Evangelicals like David Sorenson, in fact, go so far as to deem "apostates" those who follow the "critical text," such as the Revised Standard Version, as opposed to those who maintain the inerrancy of the "Received Text," i.e., the basis for the KJV.[3] Continuing with his apology for the KJV, Staggs states:

"It is my belief that the King James Bible, originally known as the Authorized Version, first published in the year 1611, is God's word in the English language without admixture of error."

Despite this indoctrination of inerrancy, an investigation of the translations of the New Testament into English reveals much, as to whether or not they could possibly be considered "inerrant" works by "infallibly" inspired scribes.

http://stellarhousepublishing.com/king-james-bible-history.html

>>6565965

Thank you for the level-headed response…..I appreciate that! Jesus was the Master Teacher….The ideal that we all should strive for….what I find more than curious is the notion that the wisdom of God is found in only one book…

much love to you fren….

Precisely 451 years after the June 19, 1566, birth of King James I of England, one achievement of his reign still stands above the rest: the 1611 English translation of the Old and New Testaments that bears his name. The King James Bible, one of the most printed books ever, transformed the English language, coining everyday phrases like “the root of all evil.”

But what motivated James to authorize the project?

He inherited a contentious religious situation. Just about 50 years before he came to power, Queen Elizabeth I’s half-sister, Queen Mary I (“Bloody Mary”), a Catholic, had executed nearly 250 Protestants during her short reign. Elizabeth, as Queen, affirmed the legitimacy of her father Henry VIII’s Anglican Church, but maintained a settlement by which Protestants and Puritans were allowed to practice their own varieties of the religion. The Anglican Church was thus under attack from Puritans and Calvinists seeking to do away with bishops and their hierarchy. Eventually, in the 1640s, these bitter disputes would become catalysts of the English Civil War. But during James’ reign, they were expressed in a very different forum: translation.

Translations of ancient texts exploded in the 15th century. Scholars in Italy, Holland and elsewhere perfected the Latin of Cicero and learned Greek and Hebrew. The “rediscovery” of these languages and the advent of printing allowed access to knowledge not only secular (the pagan Classics) but also sacred (the Bible in its original languages). The new market for translated texts created an urgent demand for individuals capable of reading the ancient languages. Its fulfillment was nowhere better seen than in the foundation at Oxford University in 1517, by one of Henry VIII’s personal advisors, of Corpus Christi College — the first Renaissance institution in Oxford, whose trilingual holdings of manuscripts in Latin, Greek and Hebrew Erasmus himself celebrated. At the same time, Protestant scholars used their new learning to render the Bible into common tongues, meant to give people a more direct relationship with God. The result, in England, was the publication of translations starting with William Tyndale’s 1526 Bible and culminating in the so-called “Geneva Bible” completed by Calvinists whom Queen Mary had exiled to Switzerland.

http://time.com/4821911/king-james-bible-history/