RE: The KJV Only Debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message

PeterAV -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 12:19:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gracewalk

You have to ask which version of the KJV the Chinese or Japanese would read.. Would the KJV only folks insist those be translations from the KJV English version rather than from the earliest manuscripts in their original language.. sometimes the KJV arguments come from a world view that only Britts or thier offspring read the word of God.. Do non english speaking nations switch to thees and thous when they pray.. must not be able to impress the Lord the way we can.. sometimes I really don't think folks listen to what they are really saying..

The King James used the correct manuscripts.Not ALL earliest manuscripts are really the best.So any language that is going to have the Holy Bible in their own,must use the same family of Manuscripts as the AV.They also should use the AV for translation purposes.Because the AV is the final authority.This is the final standard for the end time.

Actually the Thees and the Thous are very useable in other languages including the ending,such as eth and dst.

The many languages also use various endings that only the AV could show kinship with and would automatically be the ESL Bible of the world.

Actually the Thees and the thous are there for acuracy purposes more than for the way the folks spoke.
Even in the preface of the AV,you can see your Majesty and not Thy Majesty.Thy,being singular,and your,being plural.



PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.



PeterAV -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 1:48:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: died4meNu

Oh, how I know about the KJV only debate....I suggest any one who is involved read "The King James Only Controversy" by James R. White

Lots of little fibs in that one;over 70.It is only a controversy if you don't believe that God has preserved his pure word,just like he said.
quote:


The whole stance/issue is quite confusing to me. There are many hypocritical arguments made, and many judgements on other people who disagree with them.

It is all about final authority.Man's opinions,or God and his pure words,preserved and inspired.
quote:


It's a shame that this causes so much division, confusion, and anger amongst Christians....very sad

Yes,many lies trying to promote the new versions.This is the motivation for the books that these scholars would place on the ignorant.

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.



PeterAV -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 2:00:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 37818

I use the KJV as my principle Bible. But the KJVO debate is off base as to what the real issues are. It is the Devil's tool to discredit the KJV valid arguments. (The KJVO position being a lie.)

Many USE the Bible,but do you beleive it?
And now,according to you,if a person actually believes that the Holy Bible really IS the pure Holy Bible,it is considered a lie?
Amazing.
So I suppose you also don't believe that there is any such thing as a pure preserved Holy Bible?

Just consider your own words.Why would all versions compare themselves with the Holy Bible,and not the previous one that just came down the pike?

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.



PeterAV -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 2:18:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: figmentPez

It strikes me that holding to a KJV only position defeats the entire purpose of translating the Bible into English: making the word of God avaliable to the common man. Unless you've grown up in a church that uses the KJV, are a fan of Shakespeare or otherwise are familiar with older forms of English, it's highly likely you're going to have a difficult time understanding the KJV. If we didn't want people to easily understand the Bible, why not just leave it in Latin?

*******
Actually they wanted to have the very best translation,not a mere common translation.In other words the final standard.Little did they know that God would put his stamp of approval upon it as he did.
They did make it available to the common man,and believe it or not,the AV has an easier reading level than the modern versions.

If you take a look at the scientific results,the AV reads easier than the other versions 23 of 26 categories.The average word being a little over 3 letters.
My Mom never got past grade eight and she had no problems with the AV.
My five year old boy could read the Holy Bible even in the original font and spellings.Now he is seven and reads a chapter a day.

You only have a hard time reading the pure Holy Bible,if you believe the advertisements for the new versions.Or play the game of "I PREFER".

For God so loved the world,that he gave his only begotten Son,that whosoever believeth in him,shall not perish,but have everlasting life.

We have begotten and believeth=not hard to understand in its own context now,is it?
The modern versions,themselves are forced to use unusual words because of the copyright laws.

Your argument is only from preference and not from fact.

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.



phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 2:33:18 AM)

PeterAV:

quote:

The Alexandrains are built upon the backs of heretics like Origen,Jerome,Eusebius,Westcott,Hort,Nestles,etc.


I see you are continuing to bear false witness against others, even though you have been shown the evidence that your sources were filled with lies. You say you believe God's word, but when you were clearly shown that certain KJVO authors lied about men such as Wescott and Hort - that they did not do the things the KJVO authors claimed, nor did they believe the things that the KJVO authors claimed they believed - you did not stop repeating the false witness. You've been shown the scriptural commands against bearing false witness. Why do you continue?

quote:

Those that worked at preserving the pure Holy Bible,gave their lives for it.
The Alexandrian side were the murderers.


Can you prove this accusation? Name the Alexandrian murderers by name. Origen, whom you falsely accuse, was actually a martyr for defending the Christian faith!

quote:

They use corrupted manuscripts and are forced to be "substantially diferent" because of copyright laws.Plus they play the game of pick and choose.


The KJV translators played the game of pick and choose! That's why there is not even one Greek manuscript, ancient translation, or printed Greek NT or Hebrew OT that matches the text of the KJV. They played the game of pick and choose with all the available Greek editions, every existent English translation, and all the available translations into other languages.

quote:

We simply bel;ieve God's word.


If you do, then why did you not stop spreading false testimony when you were shown the proof that the testimony was false? Why do you continue to spread it?

quote:

And even if it is,which one.there is way more than one Greek,and one Hebrew.And they all differ.


That is exactly the point! The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts all differ. This has been the case since before the New Testament era, yet God's word tells us that His word is pure. From your own sig line:
Thy word is very pure,
therefore thy servant
loveth it.Psalm 119:140

Notice the "is". At the time of the Psalmist's writings, he was led by the Holy Spirit to say that God's word IS pure, even though all the copies at that time differed. Later, Paul wrote "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God...." and you yourself said that this refers to the copies, not the original. But, they all differed!

Since God's word tells us His word is true, how dare you call the modern translations perversions?

quote:

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Pr. 30:5
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim. 3:16


You say there can be only one, but that is clearly against scripture. Again, we know that all the Biblical manuscripts differed. You admitted that yourself. But, you yourself quote these two verses, and say you believe what God's word says about the word of God. Well, God's word tells us that EVERY word of God is pure, and ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God.



Sunnymom -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 7:13:03 AM)

I'm KJVO, but I don't get into these debates, because it always comes down to "My sources are right, and you're sources are wrong!" "NO! MY sources are right and YOUR sources are wrong!"[&:]

I think the biggest difference comes down to a difference in philosophy. I believe that God worked through time to bring certain things about as He saw fit. For hundreds of years, the OT saints had to use imperfect and incomplete sacrifices as their atonement for sins- until Jesus Christ came in His perfection.

I see the KJV as the Bible that He used men and time to bring to perfection as well, for about a gazillion reasons. I believe that the God who created the universe is fully capable of perserving His Word, and using imperfect man to do so. I blieve the KJV is the fulfillment of several prophetic Scriptures, one of which is Psa 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


Now back to our regulary scheduled fruitless argument.



cjwpastor -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 8:19:26 AM)

Sunnymom,

If I man, I believe your own philosophy negates you from being a die-hard KJVO. You say:

quote:

I think the biggest difference comes down to a difference in philosophy. I believe that God worked through time to bring certain things about as He saw fit.


Yet in practice, you really believe that God stopped working through time after the KJV was printed. If you are true to your philosophy, then logically you would need to admit that God has maintained His Word in today's modern translations.


quote:

I see the KJV as the Bible that He used men and time to bring to perfection as well, for about a gazillion reasons. I believe that the God who created the universe is fully capable of perserving His Word, and using imperfect man to do so. I blieve the KJV is the fulfillment of several prophetic Scriptures, one of which is Psa 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.



Which He has done. But it is silly to think this "prophecy" speaks only of the KJV. I highlighted something you said above, which again should negate any KJVO philosophy.

Chad

Now back to our regulary scheduled fruitless argument.



Sunnymom -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 8:42:34 AM)

No, cjw- I definitely qualify as a 'die hard KJVO' without apology. [:D] I believe that just as Jesus said on the cross "It is finished", that when the KJV was completed, the 'revelation', if you will, was also finished.

I was born in the morning, but not yesterday morning[8D]- I have studied manuscript evidence since I was very young, and what I have studied only confirms what I believe. But because I am willing to believe that there is ONE infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of God, I view much of what I read and study differently than those who believe that there CAN'T be an inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God today.

IMO, not believing that God could and did preserve His Word perfectly as He saw fit puts man, and what's worse, scholarship, in the driver's seat. Thank you very much, but I am not even getting on that bus.[;)]



cjwpastor -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 8:56:19 AM)

quote:

No, cjw- I definitely qualify as a 'die hard KJVO' without apology. [:D]


Sorry, but based on your quotes from the previous post then, it makes you logically inconsistent with your belief in God's providence.

I also find it interesting that adherents to KJVO, like yourself and others on this thread, continually debunk scholarship and yet appeal to scholarship to "prove" their own position.

Notice that I have not appealed to scholarship at all in my post - I readily admit that I have not read extensively on either side of this debate. What I do know, however, is that God's Word is more than just words on a page that KJVO'ers seem to idolize. God's Word is living, breathing and eternal and it is not your efforts or mine that make it right or wrong or come alive through this or that translation, but it is the work of the Holy Spirit that makes God's Word BE God's Word. Not dead scribes who penned it.

Blessings,
Chad



DaveW -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 9:10:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunnymom

. I believe the KJV is the fulfillment of several prophetic Scriptures, one of which is Psa 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Can you please explain how this can apply to the KJV and NOT to, say, the NASB?



Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 9:34:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyl2

PeterAV:

quote:

The Alexandrains are built upon the backs of heretics like Origen,Jerome,Eusebius,Westcott,Hort,Nestles,etc.


I see you are continuing to bear false witness against others, even though you have been shown the evidence that your sources were filled with lies. You say you believe God's word, but when you were clearly shown that certain KJVO authors lied about men such as Wescott and Hort - that they did not do the things the KJVO authors claimed, nor did they believe the things that the KJVO authors claimed they believed - you did not stop repeating the false witness. You've been shown the scriptural commands against bearing false witness. Why do you continue
Unfortuantely, he's not bearing false witness phyl2. There is tons of information on Westcott and Hort and all of it leads to them being less than believers in the fundamentals of the faith. The one website you provided in defense of them does not represent the majority.



Sunnymom -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 10:04:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjwpastor

quote:

No, cjw- I definitely qualify as a 'die hard KJVO' without apology. [:D]


Sorry, but based on your quotes from the previous post then, it makes you logically inconsistent with your belief in God's providence.

I also find it interesting that adherents to KJVO, like yourself and others on this thread, continually debunk scholarship and yet appeal to scholarship to "prove" their own position.

Notice that I have not appealed to scholarship at all in my post - I readily admit that I have not read extensively on either side of this debate. What I do know, however, is that God's Word is more than just words on a page that KJVO'ers seem to idolize. God's Word is living, breathing and eternal and it is not your efforts or mine that make it right or wrong or come alive through this or that translation, but it is the work of the Holy Spirit that makes God's Word BE God's Word. Not dead scribes who penned it.

Blessings,
Chad


NO- cjw, it does not make me logically inconsistent- sorry that you can't seem to understand my point.

And like I said, I don't usually contribute to these debates, because as soon as I do, you will pull sources that support your premise, and then I'll cite sources that support my premise, and you'll say my sources are wrong, and I'll say your sources are wrong. And then we have the whole mulberry bush thing going on.[;)]

My basic point is that there is a foundational philosophical difference between KJVO and those who embrace other/all versions. As I said before-
quote:

But because I am willing to believe that there is ONE infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of God, I view much of what I read and study differently than those who believe that there CAN'T be an inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God today.



cjwpastor -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 10:13:27 AM)

So you disagree then with this?:

quote:

God's Word is living, breathing and eternal and it is not your efforts or mine that make it right or wrong or come alive through this or that translation, but it is the work of the Holy Spirit that makes God's Word BE God's Word. Not dead scribes who penned it.


Also, I am not "pulling from sources," nor will I. How do you reconcile your using "scholarship" to "prove" a case when in other posts you debunk scholarship (at least any scholarship that doesn't line up with your theories). It seems grossly unfair to appeal to scholars to prove you are right and then when others do the same with oppossing views you dismiss it all at hand.

I am trying to understand how you (or any KJVO person) can claim that God can preserve His Word despite human blunderings and yet you, a mere human, can presume to declare where and when that work of God came to rest. It seems awfully presumptious and arrogant, if I may say so.

Chad



laura... -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 10:33:39 AM)

quote:

What I do know, however, is that God's Word is more than just words on a page that KJVO'ers seem to idolize. God's Word is living, breathing and eternal and it is not your efforts or mine that make it right or wrong or come alive through this or that translation, but it is the work of the Holy Spirit that makes God's Word BE God's Word. Not dead scribes who penned it.


Perfect.



Sunnymom -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 10:35:42 AM)

Where did I use scholarship to prove anything? I said my studies confirm what I believe, but I don't depend on scholarship.

A good example would be what I believe about creation- I think science confirms a 6,000 year earth and a worldwide flood. But I come to that topic believing the Bible account first and foremost, so this definitely has an effect on how I interpret scientific data- just as the evolutionist interprets everything in a way that supports his own foregone conclusions.

God can do whatever He wants despite human blunderings- if God can author the Bible using men, why can't He preserve it using men? I think it's arrogant to say God CAN'T preserve His Word in spite of man. Those who have declared that God did not preserve His Word (even though He promised to do so) have declared God inept, not me.



cjwpastor -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 10:45:20 AM)

quote:

God can do whatever He wants despite human blunderings- if God can author the Bible using men, why can't He preserve it using men? I think it's arrogant to say God CAN'T preserve His Word in spite of man. Those who have declared that God did not preserve His Word (even though He promised to do so) have declared God inept, not me.


Who is declaring that God has not preserved His Word? Certainly not I. In fact, what you say here is exactly my point. Who are you to say that it is only preserved in the KJV? What role to you give the Holy Spirit in presenting God's Word to its readers? Do you think God can speak just as clearly through the NIV as the KJV and teach and correct and lead a person to righteousness and salvation just as well?



Sunnymom -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 12:21:07 PM)

cjw,

I am giving my beliefs here, just as you are. I don't have to think I am someone in order to have an opinion or belief, even one you strongly disgree with.

I think God can use a donkey, a tree, or even Joel Osteen for that matter.[8D] But there is good, there is acceptable, and then there is perfect. IMO, the KJV is perfect.



makarizo -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 12:57:18 PM)

quote:

the KJV is perfect.

Thou hast madest thine point.

* gets commentary out to see what he just said *



figmentPez -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 1:02:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeterAV

The modern versions,themselves are forced to use unusual words because of the copyright laws.


So, you're saying there is a conspiracy keeping any other accurate translations from being published?



Sunnymom -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 1:14:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doer

quote:

the KJV is perfect.

Thou hast madest thine point.

* gets commentary out to see what he just said *


While yer at it, could you fetch me some ginger ale? My throat is parched.



cjwpastor -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 1:55:42 PM)

Sunny,
I can see why you think these conversations usually result in fruitless blabbering. I think this is because everyone is constantly talking past one another, and posts go on and on without any direct questions being answered (often times, at least).

Several times I asked this question: What role do you think the Holy Spirit play in reapplying and represting the Word of God to a person's heart?

Is it a significant role? A minor role? No role at all, the power is all in the words themselves?

This question is crucial and until it is answered I see no reason in continuing this "fruitless" debate.

Thanks,
Chad



Sunnymom -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 2:01:27 PM)

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

That is what I think the Holy Spirit's role is, and it is a significant role. Does that answer your question?



manwe -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 3:17:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeterAV

Did Jesus speak Greek? Nope. It was Hebrew & Aramaic.=Translation



This is highly debatable AV. Why wouldn't Jesus speak Greek? It was the lingua franca of the mediterranean world. Nearly everyone spoke at least a little Greek (like English today). Jesus was a stonesman, the disciples were fishermen, they did business of sorts to support themselves, most certianly their business in Galilee was not limited to only aramaic speaking people.

Why does it even matter? Had not Greek been the lingua franca of the NT world (thanks to Alexander the Great) the Bible would have been severely limited in its reach.

anyways,



cjwpastor -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 3:17:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunnymom

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

That is what I think the Holy Spirit's role is, and it is a significant role. Does that answer your question?



I knew we could find some common ground [;)]

With this very significant role of the Holy Spirit in mind, would you agree that whether a person is reading the KJV, the NASB, the NIV or other such versions, He (the Spirit) is able to perfectly communicate God's message of salvation and christian living to the reader?

Please note the focus I am intentionally making here, and I feel it is a very important one: I am trying to illumine the work and witness of the Holy Spirit (as you and I have both agreed is significant) in preserving and communicating the Word of God and lessen the focus on finite humans and static words found on the pages of relics.

However, in this debate, it appears to me that those advocating KJVO are by default minimizing the former and accentuating the latter (the words themselves). This may not be your (generally speaking) intent, but it is certainly what I am hearing. Whenever we raise up one version over the other, we are by default declaring: "I know best what God has in mind regarding His Word moreso than the Holy Spirit. Allow me to deem this or that as "perfect" so as to lessen the burden of the Spirit in this cause."

Make sense?
Chad



laura... -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/7/2006 3:31:06 PM)

Where and how did God declare that the 1611 AV KJV was the perfect, infallable English translation of God's holy scriptures?



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI