|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/7/2006 3:34:52 PM
|
|
|
Sunnymom
Posts: 1963
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Chad,
This is where we get into the philosophical differences I mentioned before. You choose to believe that God did not preserve His Words perfectly. I choose to believe He did.
I don't see that as focusing on man, nor do I consider the Bible static words or an ancient relic. I do think the Bible is a living, breathing, supernatural book.
The Holy Spirit can work with whatever is available, after all, 'the heavens declare the glory of God', right? So someone who doesn't have a KJV, NIV, ASV, or the Wordless Book can see the sun rise, and the sun set, and the cycle of death and life, and the Holy Spirit can reveal truth to that person.
Have you ever done a word study on the words 'word' & 'words'? 
< Message edited by Sunnymom -- 4/10/2006 1:28:10 PM >
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/7/2006 3:55:52 PM
|
|
|
cjwpastor
Posts: 503
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Chad,
This is where we get into the philosophical differences I mentioned before. You choose to believe that God did not preserve His Words perfectly. I choose to believe He did.
Then to echo laura's question, where do you find God declaring that the KJV is this perfectly preserved word? Before you are tempted to dip into scholarship, I would ask that you not. I have little interest in having a gun-fight where we all try to decide who's scholar is smarter and who has the longest list of mis-translations, etc. You say you "choose to believe" that he perfectly preserved His Words. I agree (though for some reason you think I don't). I, however, do not limit that to the KJV, as you do. Where is your authority in making such a claim? And if you really wanted the "perfect," why not read only Greek and Hebrew?
quote:
I don't see that as focusing on man, nor do I consider the Bible static words or an ancient relic. I do think the Bible is a living, breathing, supernatural book.
I am not so sure you do think this. You betray this line of thinking when you say this:
quote:
However, when it comes to understanding some of the riches of the Bible; cross-referencing doctrine, and principles, typologies and prophecies, one is spiritually crippled when using anything other than the KJV.
That is a claim that once again makes the Holy Spirit inept in His work of presenting truth and representing Christ to the world. Furthermore, practical evidence refutes this. If what you say is true, then we should expect all people who rely solely on the KJV to be more spiritually adept then those of us "cripples" who rarely if ever use the KJV. Unless, of course, we want to conclude that people can become spiritually mature without God's Word. But I don't think either of us wish to concede that point.
Chad
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/7/2006 4:08:53 PM
|
|
|
1love1God1way
Posts: 1931
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sunnymom
However, when it comes to understanding some of the riches of the Bible; cross-referencing doctrine, and principles, typologies and prophecies, one is spiritually crippled when using anything other than the KJV.
Shoot. I grew up with a crippled spirit. Sure hope I can still make it into heaven.... :S
Anyway, all sarcasm aside, I think you are really limiting the power of God and the Spirit to say that only the KJV is really the words that God wanted to convey. But I guess I forget about the verse that says "All King James scripture is God-breathed..."
_____________________________
-Ben-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/7/2006 4:11:42 PM
|
|
|
PeterAV
Posts: 28
Joined: 6/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: neuronstatic
The KJV has done much to create a popularized and common English Bible text for the world for about 400 years. It has served a great purpose. Yet it seems to have been overcome by events. Better and older original language manuscripts have been found, newer translation to modern English convey more clearly the intent of the original words, and other effects of the accumulation of years have demonstrated that the KJV is showing its age. Yet it still is a good translation, if one keeps in mind the way it was translated and the language it was translated into.
I take it then that you do not believe that there is such thing as a pure Holy Bible that we can read and hold in our hand?
Better and older manuscripts have been found?
Why didn't you name them?
In actuality thousands of manuscripts have been found after 1611 and the vast majority agree with the AV.
There are a couple,Vaticanus and Sinaiticus that are old,is for sure,but they are the worst manuscripts around.They are hard pressed to agree with each other any two verses in a row.[Their testimony agreeth not.]
Plus they have reams of missing portions.Corrupted verses abound on every page,they have deletions at will.It was produced by the heretic Origen.It is his fifth column of his Hexapla.The famous fabricated LXX[72].
Some of Origen's believe's straddled everything from baptismal regeneration,and purgatory.Real trustworthy guy huh?
He denied eternal hell,just like the other Arians like the JW's,He taught salvation by works.Nice guy huh?And he also held to Postmillenialism.
To stand behind his work is very suspect at best.There are more erronious teachings that he espouses to that are just as heretical,but this is enough for any honest searcher to get an idea of the slippery slope the Scholars of today have succumbed to.
Modern versions convey the meaning and original intent of the original words?Maybe in a few places they have,but that is a poor excuse to use corrupted manuscripts pumped out by heretics;diferent manusripts that those of the Holy Bible.They introduce a far more serious level of incompetence in so many verses,that the meanings are opposite of the original intent.They don't follow the same manuscripts at all times but jump around from here to there.
The AV will be around while the others fall of the wayside as usual.
Even the world understands that there must be a final authority and they will agree that the AV by and large is the trusted one.
quote:
The problem I have with the KJVO crowd is basically these 3 assertions of their membership:
[1] The KJV is the only word of God, all other translations are "of the devil" or "filthy"
Well if they are not faithful,are they of God?God's own words testify to the purity of his inpired,preserved word.Only those portions that are in agreement with the Holy Bible are the word of God in those places.
This is not an arbitrary accertion,however,concerning the Bible believers knowing that the other versions are not correct;it is plain fact.The other versions are tainted,some more than others,and it is the direction they are headed that concerns us.
quote:
[2] The KJV never contained any errors
That is simply not true.We all aknowledge that there have been printer's errors.
quote:
[3] The KJV translated words are the only accurate translations of the original language words.
This I do agree to.It is the only complete correct translation of God's exemplar.Many other versions do have many good verses also,but they have been tainted with many corruptions.The Arsenic is small in comparison to the pure food,nevertheless,it does its dastardly deed.
quote:
#1 is simply wrong. The word of God was as delivered to the original authors in the original tongues.
And what is that?Was it Greek?Really?Any proof?
quote:
All translations are but an instrument for us to access the word of God. And in reality, the original KJV of 1611 is quite different than the KJV common today. And the KJVO debate simply denies the correctness of translation of the original manuscripts to other human languages.
Yes all translations do give us access to the words of God,but most of them are tainted by heretics.Who would you trust as your oracles treasury,the heretics and those that would murder thousands and prevent the Holy Bible to be given to the publick;or those that gave their life for the publishing of God's word?My choise is the later.
They are the ones that used the correct family of manuscripts,the first company,not.
The original AV is no diferent than the AV of today,other than the odd typo error.Read Matthew 1,or Revelation 1.Pick any chapter in the Holy Bible and see how you are dead wrong.You will find them word for word.
There may be spelling diferences is all.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1
quote:
#2 is simply wrong. The KJV itself had many revisions in its history and used some source texts that have subsequently been proven to be less reliable than manuscripts that were discovered long after the original translation work of the KJV.
There,again,you are dead wrong.There have never been any revisions of the Holy Bible.The Bible has stayed the same all through the years.There have only been font changes and spelling changes and a few erroneous readings that got into the text that got corrected.They are less reliable according to whom?To the ones that want to make money on their new perversions;that's who.
In fact the AV readings are all throughout history.Right from the begining.Any manuscript you can get,even the ones that supposedly support the modern versions are in fact largely AV type readings.
The AV type readings outnumber the Alexandrian cult readings at every stage of history.Many of the earliest version and translations of the holy Bible all agree with the AV.They are even earlier than these two supposed OLDEST and BEST.[Aleph &B]
The AV readings are reliable for their consistency and agreableness,throughout and throughout time.
The Alexandrian readings are all over the map and can't agree on any two verses in a row.
quote:
#3 is simply wrong. The original KJV of 1611 had margin notes to offer alternative definitions/translations of words, but those margin notes were subsequently removed. I suppose this was so that the reader would have a false sense of certainty rather than an honest confession of doubt.
That's right,make sure to have doubt placed upon the Bible believer.
Ya,like the AV translators put the weakest reading in the cannon.Give me a break.It was only for comparrison purposes.Later,the text proved to be reliable and so many simply dropped the marginal references.Yet,you still can get it anyway,so that is a fake argument.
Real terrible to get the People to believe the Holy Bible is the Holy Bible,huh?Good grief.How dare they believe that God's word is pure just like he said.
quote:
I have no issues with anyone that regularly reads the KJV. My issues are with those who will not accept Scriptural proof from any other translation. This has led to numerous debates revolving around errors in exegesis propagated by the KJVO crowd.
OK give me your scriptural proof that you say you have that supports other translations.You see?The revolving door happens simply because you do not believe that God has preserved his pure inspired word in a book that we can read and preach and teach with.
We,however DO believe that God has provided us with a pure, preserved Holy Bible.
We,also have no qualms about you reading other versions.We just want you to know that those new fangled versions are tainted and not the Final authority.
Only one Holy Bible is that.
PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.
< Message edited by PeterAV -- 4/7/2006 4:13:59 PM >
_____________________________
Holy Bible
Inspired,infallible,imutible.
Preserved,purified,perfect.
Now know as the AV 1611
Thy word is very pure,
therefore thy servant
loveth it.Psalm 119:140
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/7/2006 4:24:36 PM
|
|
|
Saved34
Posts: 123
Joined: 1/5/2006
Status: offline
|
Amen Brother Pete!
_____________________________
"My friend, there is danger of just wanting the information and knowledge from the Bible but failing to translate it into shoe leather, not letting it become part of our lives" - J Vernon Mcgee
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/7/2006 5:24:40 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2660
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
The revolving door happens simply because you do not believe that God has preserved his pure inspired word in a book that we can read and preach and teach with.
You're using poor logic. You're assuming that those who are in favor of more modern tralsations consider the KJV to be fundamentally flawed and that it was not a preservation of God's word. The implications of this logic are far reaching, but most off it's a despicable attack on all those who disagree with you. I find the current tone of this thread to be appaling.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/7/2006 10:52:48 PM
|
|
|
PeterAV
Posts: 28
Joined: 6/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ter
Kjv is good because of the beautiful english but NAS is the best translation.
*******
The KJB is good because it is God's word to us.
Nas is not the best translation.
Here are just a couple examples of many.
Psalm 78:36 The pure Holy bible reads "...they did flatter him with their mouth,.."
But the Corrupted NASB reads "tried to deceive him with their mouth"Nope it doesn't say that,it is worse.It says "they deceived him with their mouth,.."
In Galatians 6:4 "rejoicing" becomes "boasting".
My Bible tells me "be not proud"
PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.
_____________________________
Holy Bible
Inspired,infallible,imutible.
Preserved,purified,perfect.
Now know as the AV 1611
Thy word is very pure,
therefore thy servant
loveth it.Psalm 119:140
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/7/2006 11:06:55 PM
|
|
|
PeterAV
Posts: 28
Joined: 6/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: manwe
This seems to be one of the only real reason people prefer the KJV, they think it reads like shakespere.
He was one of the translators.....
O he WAS,was he?
Here is a list that I did some research on some 20 odd years back.
*******
The Selection & The Committees
It's Inception & Execution:
Obviously enouph men pushed for another revision of the English
Bible simply
because they had private aims.A good example is Hugh Brouton,a
Puritan Hebraist
that wasn't chosen & so speaks out against the work.
Approximately 50 Hebrew and Greek scholars were chosen & appionted
for the
translation.The reveision work consisted of six groups;three groups
with two
committees.The three places were Oxford,Cambridge,& Westminster.They
each had
Committees.
King James divided the men into six panels;three of them to work
on the Old
Testament,two on the new Testament,and one for the Apocrapha.
The Three Heads & Groups.
The Head of the two Oxford groups was Dr.John Hardinge,Regius
Professor of
Hebrew.His group included Dr.John reynolds,the originator of the
project.
The Head of the two Cambridge groups was Edward Lively,Regius
Professor of
Hebrew,but he died in 1605 before the work really got under way.His
successor was
Dr.Robert Spalding.
Finally,the Head of the two groups at Westminster was Lancelot
Andrews,Dean of
Westminster.
Besides being Heads of the groups,these three men were Heads of
their own
Hebrew group,for the other three groups had heads also; the two Greek
groups of the New Testament & the final one for the Apocrapha.
List Of Translators
First Westminster Company [Gen.to 2 Kgs.]Old Testament
Head- Lancelot Andrews:Dean of Westminster;bishop of Chichester[1605];
bishop of Ely [1609];bishop of Winchester [1619].
Rest of Staff:John Overall:Dean of St.Paul's;bishop of Coventry &
Lichfield [1614];
bishop of Norwich [1618].He married a gorgeous woman,who
turned out to be a
flirt & left him.
-Hadrian a Saravia:prebendary of Westminster,Canterbury,&
Worchester:
vicar of Lewisham,Kent.
-John Layfield:rector of St.Clement Danes,London.
-William Bedwell:rector of St.Ethelburgh's,London.
-Richard Thomson:fellow of Clare Hall,Cambridge.
-Robert Tighe:archdeacon of Middlesex & vicar of All
Hallows,Barking,London.
-Francis Burleigh:fellow of Chelsea College,London.
-Geoffry King:fellow of King's College,Cambridge;regius
professor of Hebrew,
Cambridge,[1607].
-Richard Clarke:vicar of Minster on the Isle of Thanet,Kent.
First Cambridge Company [1 Chon. to S.O.S.] Old Testament.
Head-Edward Lively:regius professor of Hebrew.
Rest of Staff:John Richardson:rector of Upwell,Norfolk;regius
professor of divinity
[1607];master of Peterhouse [1609];master of Trinity College
[1615];
vice-chancellor of Cambridge [1617].
-Laurence Chaderton:master of Emanuel College.
-Francis Dellingham:vicar of Wilden,Bedfordshire.
-Thomas Harrison:fellow of Trinity College;vice-master of
Trinity [1611].
-Roger Andrewes:rector of St.Martin's,Ongar,Essex,master of
Jesus College
[1622].
-Robert Spalding:fellow of St.John's College;regius
professor of Hebrew
[1605].Succesor as Cambridge Head,after the death of Edward
Lively.
First Oxford Company [Isaiah to Mal.] Old Testament.
Head:John Harding:regius professor of Hebrew;president of Magdalen
College
[1607].
Rest of Staff:John Reynolds:president of Corpus Cristi
College.Founder of the AV
project.
-Thomas Holland:rector of Exetor College.
-Richard Kilby:rector of Lincoln College;regius professor of
Hebrew [[1610].
-Miles Smith:prebendary of Hereford Exeter;bishop of
Cloucester [1612].
Writer of the Tranlators To The Readers.
-Richard Brett:rector of Quainton,Buckinghamshire.
-Richard Fairclough:recot of Bucknell,Oxfordshire.
The Second Company [The Apocrapha].
Head:John Dupont:master of Jesus College.
Rest of staff-William Brathwaite:fellow of Emanuel College;master of
Gonville &
Caius College [1607].
-Samuel Ward:fellow of Sidney Sussex College [1610].
-Andrew Downes:regius professor of Greek.
-John Bois:rector of Boxworth,Cambridgeshire;dean of
Canterbury [1619].
-Jeremiah Radcliffe:vicar of Orwell,Cambridgeshire.
-Robert Ward:prebendary of Chichester [1606].
Second Oxford Company [Matt.to Acts,& Rev.] New Testament.
Head:Thomas Ravis:dean of Christ Church College;bishop of Glouchester
[1605];bishop of London [1607].
Rest of Staff:Sir Henry Savile:warden of Merton College;provost of
Eton.
-George Abbot:dean of Winchester;vice-chancellor of Oxford
[1605];bishop
of Coventry & Lichfield [1609];bishop of London
[1610];archbishop of
Canerbury [1611].
-John Harmer:regius professor of Greek;warden of St.Mary's
College,
Winchester.
-John Perin:regius professor of Greek.
-Giles Thomson:fellow of All Soul's College;dean of
Windsor;bishop of
Glouchester [1611].
-Richard Edes:dean of Worchester [succeeded by John Aglionby
or James
Montague.
-John Aglionby:princpal of St.Emond Hall.
-James Montague:dean of Worchester,succeeding Edes:bishop of
Bath &
Wells [1610].
-Ralph Ravens:rector of Great Easton,Essex [the inclusion of
Ravens is often
termed :"apparently an error.']
Second Westminster Company [Rom.to Jude].
Head:William Barlow:dean of Chester;bishop of Rochester [1605].
Rest of Staff:John Spencer:president of Corpus Christi
College,Oxford [1607].
-Roger Fenton:fellow of Pembroke Hall,Cambridge;prebendary of
St.Paul's
[1609].
-Michael Rabbett:vicar of St.Vidast,foster lane,London.
-Thomas Sanderson:rector of All Hallows the
Great,London;archdeacon of
Rochester [1606].
-Ralph Hutchinson:president of St.John's College,Oxford.
-William Dakins:professor of divinity,Gresham College,London.
*****************************
All of the preceding names,two rise above all the rest as to their
monumental work
in the revision.Both Downes & Bois contributed to almost the whole
work,& still did
much work with the works of Chrysostom.
Even though Bancroft wasn't involved in the actual work,he did
write a list of 15 rules
to be adhered to,which he sent to the King.
*******
I don't see his name anywhere,do you.I think your bold print is a bit over rated?
PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.
_____________________________
Holy Bible
Inspired,infallible,imutible.
Preserved,purified,perfect.
Now know as the AV 1611
Thy word is very pure,
therefore thy servant
loveth it.Psalm 119:140
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/7/2006 11:42:09 PM
|
|
|
PeterAV
Posts: 28
Joined: 6/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
My question to those who hold the KJV as the sole authorized standard is do they hold the Apocrypha as cannon-worthy since it books were included in the 1611 version of the KJV.
NOPE,it ain't canon nor is it canon-worthy.
Are the maps or the Marginal notes of any Bible canon?Nope,just a help for specific reasons.It is no diferent than having Scofield's notes inserted inbetween the text.It,itself is not part of the text.
Just because something is inbetween the cover,does not mean that it is canon.The Apocrapha was not written in Hebrew, the Apostles and Christ did not quote them.
They are not considered canon by the Anglican church,nor the translators.
The Catholics tried very hard to get it into the canon,but the King would have none of it.The Catholics had to settle for at least seeing that they were inserted inbetween the covers.
The Apocrapha was very quickly taken out by many that published the Bible as early as a few years after,despite authority by others and personal bias that would have them remain.
The Apocrapha simply gives you a look at the time period in between the testaments,is all.Plus they held it as good reading in those days as compared to today.
Plus if you check the Tittle Page of the official Holy Bible,you will see that the Apocrapha is not even mentioned.Then at the end of the Old Testament,it reads the End of the prophets.[position= 1004]The next page reads,APOCRAPHA.[position=1005]
Plus Apocrapha MEANS something does it not?Or are we ignoring the Tittle for some fabricated trumped up charge?Think about it.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1004
PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.
_____________________________
Holy Bible
Inspired,infallible,imutible.
Preserved,purified,perfect.
Now know as the AV 1611
Thy word is very pure,
therefore thy servant
loveth it.Psalm 119:140
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/7/2006 11:50:35 PM
|
|
|
PeterAV
Posts: 28
Joined: 6/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Virginia Mollenkott This is just one of many.
quote:
I don't mean to sound argumentative, but this is hardly a reason to discredit a translation of the Bible. If we discredit based on the logic that a person involved in the translation was a wicked sinner, then we had better stop reading all translations. In fact, old King James himself wasn't exactly a stellar guy (but neither are the rest of us) and many of the known literary authors he had translate the KJV were known to have been some of the most rampant sexual sinners around.
*******
Now why would you run to the rescue of a Bible translation that would allow a known lesbian on the staff.Don't tell me ya think she was saved?
Besides,Old King James was not on the translation staff,he simply gave it a go-ahead.
Matthew 5:22 in the NIV makes Jesus to be in a bit of danger here.
PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.
< Message edited by PeterAV -- 4/7/2006 11:56:40 PM >
_____________________________
Holy Bible
Inspired,infallible,imutible.
Preserved,purified,perfect.
Now know as the AV 1611
Thy word is very pure,
therefore thy servant
loveth it.Psalm 119:140
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/8/2006 12:25:30 AM
|
|
|
somebodyprayed
Posts: 1
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Kennesaw, GA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Goober_JIL
crazy as this may sound....
i find that reading the KJV to be the most understandable to me, when i read other versions and run into a verse that i can't quite seem to grasp, i grab the old KJV and it comes into focus and i have better retention. maybe, it's because i have to slow down and absorb/read/translate the text in a more thoughtful, detailed way.
It works that way for me, too.
_____________________________
Somebody Prayed, that's why I'm here...pray for someone TODAY!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/8/2006 1:58:15 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 226
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Sunnymom:
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. 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.
But, the OT saints were told that in a future time, they would receive a perfect and complete atonement for their sins. On the other hand, God inspired OT writers to tell us that the word of God IS pure, not that it would some day be pure.
quote:
I believe that the God who created the universe is fully capable of perserving His Word, and using imperfect man to do so.
So do I.
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.
I believe that God's word is inerrant, infallible, and inspired. I also believe it is pure, preserved and perfect. I am not coming at this from a position of unbelief or skepticism. There is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that God preserved His word. And, there is no doubt in my mind that He did so in several slightly different versions. I believe this because God showed me that He accepts, endorses and blesses the different versions of His word. At the time the New Testament was written, there were two versions of the Hebrew scriptures and a Greek translation. God inspired the New Testament writers to use both Hebrew and Greek scriptures in their OT quotes.
Saved34:
quote:
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.
Didn't you read that website? Didn't you see the quotes given in their edited form and then the full quotes straight from the books by Wescott and Hort?
A lie repeated 2,000 times is still a lie. The truth is still the truth even if it is only told once. There are textbooks by the hundreds, if not thousands, that teach that the universe was created by the big bang theory and evolution. The Bible teaches that the God created the heaven and the earth. The Bible, in this case, would not represent the majority either, but you and I both believe that the Bible tells the truth here, don't we?
back to Sunnymom:
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.
None of us are saying that God couldn't or didn't preserve His word. We just recognize that He didn't not limit His word to only one version, and He did it perfectly.
quote:
Where is your authority for claiming that all/many/most versions of the Bible are the preserved Word of God, when they often differ so greatly in content and doctrinal emphasis?
The Bible, God's word. God said "EVERY word of God is pure" (Pr. 30:5) and "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God" 2 Tim. 3:16 In addition to what God specifically said, what He did is also significant - inspiring the NT writers to quote from both Hebrew and Greek OT scriptures, even verses which differ in content and doctrinal emphasis.
PeterAV:
quote:
Plus they have reams of missing portions.Corrupted verses abound on every page,they have deletions at will.It was produced by the heretic Origen.It is his fifth column of his Hexapla.The famous fabricated LXX[72].
Missing portions and "corrupted verses on every page also describe the "Traditional Text" manuscript. These are merely copyist errors, the pre15th century version of printer's errors.
The LXX is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, not the New Testament. And, Origen did not "fabricate" it. There are manuscripts of it that date approximately 300 years before he was born! And, as far as the "Alexandrian" New Testament manuscripts, there are also some of those that date to before Origen was born (if I'm remembering my dates right), and anyway, there were early Christian writers who quoted that text before Origen was born.
quote:
They don't follow the same manuscripts at all times but jump around from here to there.
The KJV translators did that too.
quote:
In fact the AV readings are all throughout history.Right from the begining.
So are the modern version readings.
quote:
Any manuscript you can get,even the ones that supposedly support the modern versions are in fact largely AV type readings.
Any manuscript you can get, even the ones that supposedly support the KJV are in fact largely Alexandrian type readings! That's because 95-98% of the Bible text does not have variant readings.
quote:
Many of the earliest version and translations of the holy Bible all agree with the AV.They are even earlier than these two supposed OLDEST and BEST.[Aleph &B]
ALL of the earliest translations have a mixture of Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. But only the Old Latin and the Coptic predate those two manuscripts.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/8/2006 9:20:01 AM
|
|
|
cjwpastor
Posts: 503
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I found it studying the Bible- as I suggested, do a word study on the words 'word' and words'. Do another study on the concept of preservation.
Really? You mean to say that by studying the Bible itself, without any external resources, you uncovered that the KJV of 1611 is the pure, true, and perfect Word of God? No one influenced you to believe this outside the written words of the Bible itself? I would like to know how you came to that conclusion without any outside persuasion.
quote:
Examine the character of God, and see if you think it is consistent of Him to NOT have preserved one source of truth and revelation for the believer.
A study of the character of God tells me nothing about one human translation of the Bible 1600 years after the fact, nor does it anyone else if we are honest. What an understanding of God does do, however, is inform me that His will will not be defeated and that in the midst of numerous translations, His Word is true and will not return void. Your understanding of God's character seems to be very limiting, and only serves to set God in a position that honors your own preconceived doctrinal positions. This is what I would call "making God in our own image."
Do you realize that the "Word of God" was not even written down for centuries? The Torah, for instance, is no less the Word of God than the Gospel of John, do you agree? Yet the Torah was passed on for generations by word of mouth - oral tradition. If we use your logic and understanding of God's character, than we would have to say that only one "story teller" had it right, and it would be incumbent upon all listening to only hear the Torah from that one story teller, because God can only preserve His Word through one source.
ADDED: ALL truth is God's truth, not just "one" source of truth. To say that the KJV captures this one truth perfectly is to say that all things outside of it are untrue. Nothing that is true, pure and good exists apart from God. God is the ultimate source of truth. This is why it is all the more apparent that His truth is found in multiple versions of the Bible.
Ask Him why He preserved His Word in English- I assume it is because it is the common language of our time.
We all know what they say about assumptions. I am not willing to say to other Christians that they are "spiritually crippled" because they don't read the KJV over an assumption.
quote:
Where is your authority for claiming that all/many/most versions of the Bible are the preserved Word of God, when they often differ so greatly in content and doctrinal emphasis?
It is mere conjecture that they "differ so greatly in content and doctrinal emphasis." Do people come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through reading the NIV? The NASB? The NRSV? Yes! Do they mature in Christ as His disciples and become witnesses to the faith through reading these versions? Yes! That is my authority that the Word of God is preserved perfectly and is doing exactly what it is intended to do.
quote:
The Holy Spirit is not inept in His work of presenting truth. He is not the only spirit at work in the world, and we are to try the spirits, to see whether the spirit that is leading one is of God, or from 'somewhere else' <play Twilight Zone theme here>
So your saying that God, who brings people to repentance and salvation through other modern versions, is allowing Satan to also work in these same translations? Are you also saying that when these people come to know Christ, we ought to examine them to make sure they are truly of the faith? No modern translation exists to my knowledge that is intentionally pulling people away from Jesus Christ.
quote:
There are too many factors in becoming 'spiritually mature' - having a perfectly, inerrant, infallible Bible is only one very helpful factor of spiritual growth.
Not only one very helpful factor, but the very helpful factor. How else would you know how to live a life as a Christian without the Bible? Again, it is irrational to believe that all version other than the KJV are corrupt and then think that they can be just as healthy and mature Christians, as you seem to want to say. If I read an instruction booklet to put together my son's toys that is corrupted, how will I ever get it put together correctly? Only people walking around with the "true and perfect" booklet should have the best toys, right?
quote:
Pride in any man's heart will confound him- even those who leaned on the very breast of Jesus Christ got messed up on occasion.
Exactly. Bibliolatry is a form of pride and that is exactly what a KJVO doctrine is leaning towards.
Chad
< Message edited by cjwpastor -- 4/8/2006 9:58:05 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/9/2006 11:43:18 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3557
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: manwe
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 did He not speak greek? For one good reason: the Jews had fought a major war almost 200 years earlier to throw off the Greek occupiers. While He and the disciples probably understood Greek, His audience was specifically to Jews. At one point he called a gentile a "dog" and said He was only called to the house of Israel (Matt 15) If he was going after an exclusively Jewish audience He would not have used Greek.
quote:
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. Actually that would have been more thanks to Julius Ceasar, who idolized the Greek culture. Had he not been so enamored with all things greek, including the language, the lingua franka would have been Latin. That is the reason everything that is now NT was either written in Greek or early on translated into Greek. Personally I don't believe it was all originally greek. The gospel of Mark and the epistles to Romans and Titus quite possibley were originally in Latin and Matthew and Hebrews (and perhaps the epistles of John and Peter) in Hebrew or Aramaic. The rest probably was written originally in Greek. For proper distribution, all would have been put into Greek early on.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/9/2006 11:45:48 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3557
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
Where and how did God declare that the 1611 AV KJV was the perfect, infallable English translation of God's holy scriptures?
Yeah, I would like to see chapter and verse on that one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/9/2006 3:02:44 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 226
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why did He not speak greek? For one good reason: the Jews had fought a major war almost 200 years earlier to throw off the Greek occupiers.
It's not quite so clear cut as that. Yes, they did fight a major war to try to throw off the Greek occupiers, but, when that did not happen, there were many people who did begin to accept their situation. There were even some men who went so far as to try to "uncircumcize" themselves so that they could participate in the Olympic style games.
Nazareth was very close, a short walking distance, from a major Roman installation. Joseph very likely had many carpentery jobs there. All of Galilee was looked down upon by many Judeans because of the willingness of the Galileeans to assimilate gentile culture, including speaking Greek. Remember that Nathaniel, I think it was, stated "Can anything good from Nazareth?"
When Jesus went to the synagogue, I think at Capernaum, and read from the book of Isaiah, the scripture He read was quoted as from the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament.
Since so much of Galilee had accepted the Greek culture and langauge, it is not unlikely that Jesus used Greek at least during the Galilean phase of His ministry.
quote:
Actually that would have been more thanks to Julius Ceasar, who idolized the Greek culture. Had he not been so enamored with all things greek, including the language, the lingua franka would have been Latin.
No, Greek as the lingua franca was due to Alexander the Great, or perhaps his father Philip before him. Later, when the Romans came into power, they recognized the unifying force of Greek as the common language (which is why Alexander enforced it), and let that remain. Greek remained the language of business and commerce, but Latin was the language for legal and military matters.
quote:
The gospel of Mark and the epistles to Romans and Titus quite possibley were originally in Latin and Matthew and Hebrews (and perhaps the epistles of John and Peter) in Hebrew or Aramaic.
I am unaware of any evidence that any of the NT books were written in any other language than Greek, with the possible exception of Matthew. There is some ancient witnesses that state that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but I don't think there are any existing manuscripts. I don't know of any such testimony for any of the other NT books.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/9/2006 6:06:05 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3557
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
There is a very old Hebrew manuscript of Matthew that is in the hands of the Catholic church. It is called the DuTillet manuscript, It was found in Rome when the church declared all Hebrew scrolls contraband in trying to rid the Jewish community of the Talmud. A biship, DuTillet, who could read Hebrew recognized it was NT and grabbed it out of the pile to be burned. It was taken to his home parish in France, and is supposedly still there. Very old Semitic texts exist for every NT book but Revelation.
quote:
It's not quite so clear cut as that. Yes, they did fight a major war to try to throw off the Greek occupiers, but, when that did not happen, there were many people who did begin to accept their situation. There were even some men who went so far as to try to "uncircumcize" themselves so that they could participate in the Olympic style games.
That war was a success. Israel had a century (164-63 bc) of freedom from the Greeks until Pompeii came with the Roman troops and agan subjugated Judea. That win by Judah Maccabee and the subsequent redidication of the Temple is what the holiday of Chanukkah is all about, which was celebrated by Jesus. (John 10)
Yes some sought to "uncirc" themselves to blend in to the surrounding culture. Assimilation has always been a threat to the Jewish people.
Edited to add link:
http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/hebaram.html
< Message edited by DaveW -- 4/9/2006 6:13:10 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/9/2006 9:33:59 PM
|
|
|
amdntstr
Posts: 1
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote: | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
