KING JAMES VERSION (KJV)
Holiness.com Response
Rather than send an individual response to our brother
providing the comment below, a response has been provided in
the following pages for the benefit of those who are
interested in reading a general summary of the Holiness.com
position on Bible translations.
Hello & Praise God,
In your correspondence to Holiness.com you wrote:
I'M VERY
PLEASED SO FAR AT THE STAND TAKEN AGAINST SIN FROM WHAT I CAN
SEE. HOWEVER I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE BELIEFS SUPPORTED
BY THIS GROUP. ARE YOU THE OLD TIME PENTACOSTAL, HOLY GHOST
FILLED CHRISTIANS? I NOTICED A GREAT FLAW IN THAT THERE WAS A
QUOTATION FROM A NEW PERVERSION OF THE BIBLE. IF IT'S NOT THE
ORIGINAL KJV 1611, IT'S HELLISH, TWISTED TRASH THAT DECEIVES.
PLEASE RESPOND WITH MORE IN DEPTH INFORMATION TO MY PO BOX [XXXXXXXXXXXXXX]
! LOVING JESUS..…
Dear Brother,
In your comments to Holiness.com you asked whether we are "Old
Time Pentecostal, Holy Ghost Filled Christians" We do believe
that being filled with the Holy Ghost is still relevant and
needed today as it was for those Christians at Pentecost in
the second chapter of the book of Acts. As for "Old Time", I
believe I understand what you mean, but will for the moment
call our stance "Bible Based" (I make this minor
differentiation of words to reinforce for those not raised in
a particular church that we are trying to base our teachings
on God's standard, not unpredictable passing fads and fashions
of society) . I would also like to direct you to the "Doctrine
Proclaimed" page of Holiness.com for our beliefs. Further
writings concerning Holiness.com beliefs are in production and
will be published to the site as resources permit.
KING JAMES VERSION
(KJV)
I applaud your holy
zeal for the sacred scriptures, but I am not quite clear on
your comments regarding the "original" 1611 KJV (King James
Version) Bible translation. Are you saying that you have a
copy of the original edition? I am impressed if you do. Yes, I
have versions of the Authorized KJV. However, my versions
don't have all of the components that are signatures of being
an exact replica of the original 1611 KJV. For example, I
looked at two of the later KJV editions that I possess and
they don't have the statement made initially by the KJV
translators regarding their heavy reliance on and utilization
of previous English Bible translations. The statement of the
KJV translators on the first page of the original KJV is
reported as follows:
"…with the former translations diligently compared and
revised."
If you doubt what I am saying, go to your local Seminary
library and research how the KJV translators did their work.
I am not trying to state the obvious, but of course, you may
know that manuscripts used by the KJV translators included
meticulously hand-reproduced copies of the original Hebrew(&
Aramaic) and Greek scriptures contained in the Old and New
Testaments of the Bible. Use of these manuscripts was
necessary since we do not have the original scrolls that the
biblical authors produced. Actually, the study of these
manuscripts is a very interesting study/science in itself. It
is the science and analysis of this wealth of biblical
manuscripts that allows the host of serious translators to
ascertain whether a given translation is true to the essence
of the doctrines and teachings of the inerrant words
originally written by the "holy men of God" (II Peter 1:20-21)
by means of God's direct inspiration. As with any translation
of the Bible, the KJV's value is determined by whether it is
true to the teachings contained in the original inerrant Word
of God. Based upon what the scholars have concluded and the
comparison of the KJV to the manuscripts mentioned above, the
KJV is to be trusted as an honorable and faithful translation.
Next
Page
|
