Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

God’s “Take” on the Originals and the KJV Editions


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Hey guys, I updated my blog with this, I thought it might be a blessing to some of you.




I’m sure we’d all agree that if we want God’s opinion on something, the best place to look is in the Bible, right? If the controversy surrounding the new versions, original languages, and preservation of the words of God is so important, wouldn’t it make sense that God would have something to say about it? Anyone who is honest with himself is going to admit that in modern Christianity today there is a heavy emphasis made on what “the originals” say. Shouldn’t we put the same emphasis on the originals that God does?

To find out what God thinks about the originals, let’s go to the book of Jeremiah.


1. First Original.

Jer. 36:1-4, “And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
[2] Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.
[3] It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.
[4] Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.”

So we see here that God tells Jeremiah to write down a message of condemnation against the nations. This is scripture, and we have what was written down here in Jeremiah 45-51. We’re talking about seven whole chapters of the Bible here. To clarify, look at Jeremiah 45:1.

Jer. 45:1, “The word that Jeremiah the prophet spake unto Baruch the son of Neriah, when he had written these words in a book at the mouth of Jeremiah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying,”

You see, what we have in Jeremiah 45-51 is what Jeremiah spoke and it was written down as scripture by Baruch. No one would ever dispute that those chapters were the inspired word of God as the originals.

There’s a couple prOBlems though.

Those “originals” didn’t last too long. Back to Jeremiah 36 we go…

Jer. 36:21-23, “So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king.
[22] Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him.
[23] And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.”

Those originals were cut up and thrown into the fire! Now what? Original #1 is destroyed.


2. Second Original.

Jer. 36:32, “Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.”

Very simple, God just has Jeremiah do it again.

God then tells another man, Seraiah, that he is to take this original with him to Babylon, and read it out loud as a message of condemnation.

Oddly enough, God then tells Seraiah to throw it away once he’s done reading it.

WHAT??? Throw the originals away? How terrible! That’s blasphemy!

No, that’s what God told him to do. Original #2, destroyed.

Jer. 51:63, “And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates:”


3. Third Original.

If you have Jeremiah 45-51 in your Bible, it got there because of a copy or original #3.

Nowhere is it recorded that a third original was written, but it’s OBvious that one was. That, or a copy was made of the second. Either way, the second one was thrown in the brink, as commanded by God.

Why do you think God did that?

Don’t you at least think it was a little odd?

I’d submit to you that God did it to teach us something. Not that we should take our Bibles and throw them in the nearby canal, but that we shouldn’t be overly impressed with the originals. God willfully threw away the originals and chose to use a copy here. It’s almost as though God in His omniscience knew one day there would come a time when people tried to correct and usurp his word, by referring to “the originals.” We shouldn’t put any more emphasis on the originals than God did.

This isn't new material I'm presenting here. First of all, OBviously it's been in the Bible for thousands of years, and King James Bible teachers have been teaching this stuff for decades.


Now on to the subject of the KJV editions.

Critics like to say that the idea of preservation is nonsense because there have been “thousands” of changes in the King James text through “revisions.” First of all, there’s no such thing as a revision of the King James, there are editions. These editions updated the typeface, going from Gothic (Where “s” looked like “f”, etc) to Roman as we have it today. When the 1611 was written, you could spell any way you wanted. From the e-mails I get from friends, I’m sure there are many people who wished it was still that way. When standardized spelling was introduced, the King James was updated. The last update came in 1769, and except for a few tricky words here and there, it’s so easy a child can read and understand it. I know, because I was a child once, and I read and understood it.

Critics will ignore all this, and say “See! See! You don’t have the 1611, therefore what you have can’t be perfect!”

Well, that’s a stupid thing to say.

Look at the first passage by original number 2. Do you see the part where God added some words? “…there were added besides unto them many like words” If God makes a couple changes along the way, that’s perfectly fine.

The Bible I use today, the Authorized Version, is the one that came from the Majority Text. If the history of the New Testament church will teach you anything, it will teach you that the faithful Christians, who were out soul winning, were the ones carrying and using what came to be the Majority Text, or the TR. They were burned at the stake for this, flayed alive, put on the rack and had their insides ripped out, and quartered.

Other versions are not the word of God, they are corrupted versions of it. If you are using something else, you’re using a bible that came from the Critical Text introduced by Wescott and Hort in 1881. The people in history who used that text were the ones who were killing the Christians. It is not the word of God, it is a corrupted version of it.

You tell me which one is the fulfillment of this promise:

Ps. 12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

Thank you for posting this history of the Word of God. " Forever settled in heaven." :)


Glad it was a blessing. I highly recommend Sam Gipp's little book, Is Our English Bible Inspired?. It's under 80 pages, very easy to read and understand, and covers a lot of ground. It's cheap too, I got mine at our church's bookstore for five bucks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Glad it was a blessing. I highly recommend Sam Gipp's little book, Is Our English Bible Inspired?. It's under 80 pages, very easy to read and understand, and covers a lot of ground. It's cheap too, I got mine at our church's bookstore for five bucks.


Brother, sometimes it's best not to mention Gipp or Ruckman when posting this stuff in some forums because it will be rejected outright. If you want the truth to get out sometimes you unfortunately need to avoid the names of the men who are workers for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother, sometimes it's best not to mention Gipp or Ruckman when posting this stuff in some forums because it will be rejected outright. If you want the truth to get out sometimes you unfortunately need to avoid the names of the men who are workers for it.


True, but I believe we should be honest and offer folks the option to check the original and look into an author if they wish.

Some folks get negative over various others, whether it be Hyles, MacArthur, Rice, Stanley, Spurgeon or whoever. Even so, we should site our sources and if there is material we believe others could benefit from it's best to make it known allowing those who are interested to check into it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...