Questions for those holding an extreme KJVO position

[Will J. Kinney]

Hallelujah, another Bible believer!

OK, yall chase the monkey all you want, but I've got to know this: If translations are not inspired, then why do we call any translation the "word of God"?

(monkey stops long enough to scratch his head pondering this thought) and POP! goes the weasel!:laugh:

The rationale behind the idea that translation did away with inspiration, lest we claim double-inspiration, leaves us with nothing more than words of men about God. Or there is no such double-inspiration and we have an inspired Bible.

To claim translations are not inspired goes against the words of God as being pure. But when the Bible is placed in the hands of men and it is left in their control, inspiration becomes a passing fancy and we no longer have His word. thus the KJV IS the inspired word of God unless you place God against His very word.

Either the words of the Lord are pure words. The pure words have been placed within a vacuum of man's languages in the original tongues. Or we DO have a complete Canon of 66 Books in the KJV.

OK, monkey, patch your head up and go back to chasing.:tonofbricks:

Cool! Another Bible believer speaks up with some sound thinking. Good to meet you brother.

Will K

 

[Trotter]

left us with NO complete inspired and 100% true Bible now.

I've got several inspired, 100% true bibles. Some are KJV, some are other translations. Each one was inspired by God through the penning of the originals and have been faithfully translated into English.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but God did not write the bible in English to start with, or any time after that. He gave men the knowledge and ability to translate it into other languages... and He didn't retract that knowledge and ability in 1612.

 

[Amy.G]

Excuse me. I just had to get that out of my system.

Carry on.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I've got several inspired, 100% true bibles. Some are KJV, some are other translations. Each one was inspired by God through the penning of the originals and have been faithfully translated into English.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but God did not write the bible in English to start with, or any time after that. He gave men the knowledge and ability to translate it into other languages... and He didn't retract that knowledge and ability in 1612.

To quote- "Cool! Another Bible believer speaks up with some sound thinking."

I left off the last part of the quote because I already have met you! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[RAdam]

How am I trying to please everyone? I've stated my stance. My stance is the KJ represents the best translation of the bible into english. I guess since I don't wander off into extremism I don't have a backbone. I can trust the KJ, use the KJ authoritatively, and defend the KJ without claiming things that aren't backed up by logic, the bible, or history. In fact, that's the better way to do things anyway.

The fact is, which bible to us it totally subjective. I believe the proof points to the KJ as the superior english bible. However, that's a subjective view point. Other folks on here disagree with me. They've judged that this version or that version is better. That's fine. I'll carry on a discussion, but in the end I probably won't convince them. I can assure you of one thing, you won't convince a single person with an argument that is really subjective but treated like fact, particularly one that is against logic and fact.

You still haven't been able to get around the existence of those alternate renderings.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Excuse me. I just had to get that out of my system.

Carry on.

where do you stand?

 

[rbell]

The scriptures were given by inspiration, we have them through preservation.

Very well put.

 

[Amy.G]

where do you stand?

Sorry. I figured everyone knew where I stand by now. I own several translations, my favorites being the KJV, NKJV and NASB.

 

[rbell]

OK, I'm done. Will...you definitely are in the running for the rudest BB poster I've met. If you are trying to convince people, you only have two weaknesses:

1. Content.
2. Approach.

Besides that, you're spot on.

I'm done. Hope you don't trip over the pearls on the floor, Will.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sorry. I figured everyone knew where I stand by now. I own several translations, my favorites being the KJV, NKJV and NASB.

Sorry its hard to keep everyone straight. I mean I like them all as well I even like the NIV. And think they all are the inspired word of God. But then theres the AV 1611 only. Or no matter what year KJB only. Then theres the TR as the only reliable source. Then theres the KJB preferers but thats about it. And multitude of others and some I would think lean one way actually lean another and get confused.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Sorry its hard to keep everyone straight. I mean I like them all as well I even like the NIV. And think they all are the inspired word of God. But then theres the AV 1611 only. Or no matter what year KJB only. Then theres the TR as the only reliable source. Then theres the KJB preferers but thats about it. And multitude of others and some I would think lean one way actually lean another and get confused.

You see, that's the whole problem with this issue. Who sez we gotta plug everybody into a niche based on Bible preference? It's just another minor issue that Satan uses to separate the brethren and keep us from focusing on keeping the main the the main thing.

I have a best friend that is KJVO and he knows we disagree, but I have preached for him. When I do I use the KJV, and I don't preach about Bible versions. No problem. If he should ever come to preach for me, he can use his KJV even though we use a multitude of versions here-and he has character enough to not preach about BV's here either.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Cool! Another Bible believer speaks up with some sound thinking. Good to meet you brother.

Will K

Yep, not tooting my own horn, but that one usualy gets little response from the negative type!

The LORD did inspire the original autographs, and through preservation the word of God remains the word of God/ INSPIRED!

When man adds his two cents into the mix and accepts anything that says "Bible" on it as the word of God he places himself in the role of authority and denies inspiration by caling it "double-inspiration".

No one can "re-inspire" what he could never have inspired. It's either God's word or it's man's words about God.

If it's the latter, and it's not, then we have no salvation due to God's willingness to let man have control over his words.

The KJ translators were as humble as they knew how, thinking themselves to be less than ordered of God to handle his word with accuracy.

Only one instigator attempts to deny accuracy by his failure to know their are many penmen to the word of God and refuses to undestand the different timelines infused in the word of God. This persuasion cometh not from above but is earthly, sensual, denying the Lord who bought them.

man "must" have his way in understanding the compilation of a thing so he can discect it into reason. That idea goes right against the very word of God too.

God's word is inspired and nothing man can do can take the inspiration away from it except by adulteration of it.

I found the KJV to be unadulterated. I cannot say that about quite a few other so-called versions.

Now, some contentious persons will want to know, by their desire for rationale, which versions do I think are adulterated.:sleep:

This contention will only increase to more ungodliness due to my stand on the word of God to be unadulterated and inspired in the KJV.:tear:

As a brandpluckt from the fire and thrown right back into it. My best regards!

 

[Harold Garvey]

I've got several inspired, 100% true bibles. Some are KJV, some are other translations. Each one was inspired by God through the penning of the originals and have been faithfully translated into English.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but God did not write the bible in English to start with, or any time after that. He gave men the knowledge and ability to translate it into other languages... and He didn't retract that knowledge and ability in 1612.

Are you saying God didn't inspire men to do so?

 

[Harold Garvey]

To quote- "Cool! Another Bible believer speaks up with some sound thinking."

I left off the last part of the quote because I already have met you! :smilewinkgrin:

A divisive pattern always manifests itsself no matter how hard ones tries to cover it up, eh?

he called me "brother". I've called you "brother". You left out the "brother" and is evidence of divisiveness, Brother.

 

[Harold Garvey]

When one says the KJV is the "best" then they ultimately demean other versions as being less than the KJV.

men by choice prefer the best, so why argue for less?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Samuel Owen]

If you don’t believe the KJV, to be the inspired infallible word of God. Then certainly those other concoctions are not!. So I guess we just need to throw them all in the river, and forget it. If you cant believe his word is inspired, and infallable how then can you believe in God. The answer is you cant. Because we are saved by the word, and washed by the word, if the words of the Bible are not inspired they are not the words of God, and cannot save a monkey.

I just had to get that off my chest. :BangHead: Go read Tom Sawyer.

 

[Deacon]

God had to sort it all out and that is what He did with the KJB translators whether you choose to believe it or not.

You do not have to agree with me at all, but I at least can confidently hold up a real and tangible Book in front of the world and tell them that this King James Bible IS the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible.

YOU, on the other hand, have no such Book and you know it. Now, before the other bible agnostics fly off the handle again and start calling me a false accuser or worse, all you have to do to prove my accusation wrong is to simply tell us where we can get a copy of your "original language texts" that you keep trying to make us think you actually believe are the inspired and 100% true words of God.

Will K

No Will, all that needs to be done to prove you wrong is to show you ONE err in the KJV, that would prove that the Authorized Version is not an inerrant bible.

Will, the problem lies not with the KJV, the modern translations or even the textus receptus. It lies with your insistence on an infallible translation.
It’s God’s word that is inerrant; mans transmission and translation of it is open to correction and err.

Regarding the Authorized Version: It is certain that the translation is not so sound and so perfect, it needed correction in many places;
Yet it seemed good to the holy Spirit to use that which the translators produced as a witness not to be disregarded.

Certainly the Authorized Version is a great literary masterpiece but to claim that the KJV (or any other translation) is inerrant is wrong.

The translators of King James Version knew this when they wrote in their preface:

"… we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

Rob

 

[Ed Edwards]

I love it when the KJVOs blow the 'nothing-but-the-non-existant-original's out of the water & the 'nothing-but-the-non-existant-original's blow the water out of the KJVOs. :type:.

Maybe now, someone will read the truth gleaned from the Bible:

All VALID English Language Bibles​

​

​

​

Collectively and Individually


contain and are​

the Inerrant and Perfect​

Written Word of God


preserved by Divine Appointment


for the generation in which they are translated.

​

​

​

​

As always, I offer anybody to agree with me on a couple of Biblical Truths (AKA: Doctrine -- the Five Fundamentals of Fundamentalism might be nice to use). I'll prove the above statement scripturally & spiritually & logically true. This should be done in another Thread, as this thread is about to die, being too long on words and short on truth.

 

[robycop3]

Now, GOD knew, when he originally gave His word to His chosen penmen, in THEIR languages, that they both spoke & wrote in, and when He made English & other modern languages, that there would be MANY possible meanings for MANY Greek or Hebrew words/phrases, and that many translators over many years would use various of those possible meanings in their translations.(Whew! World's longest sentence !)

NONE of this is lost on GOD! he presented HIS word to us as HE jolly well chose, already being aware of the differences in the languages before He ever made them! Thus, for some men to try to LIMIT GOD to just one translation in a language as complex as English, with so many translations & renderings being possible, is absurd. These men are subbing their man-made stuff for GOD'S WILL AND ACTIONS. Can anyone truthfully say He influenced the KJV to be made more than He did the NASV?

If God were limited to just one version, HE WOULDA SAID SO! When did He lose His ability to communicate? Do we see ANYTHING from GOD where He limits Himself to just the KJV? OF COURSE NOT! So, why do CHRISTIANS keep accepting this WHOLLY MAN-MADE IDEA that the KJV is the ONLY valid English version out there? I cannot answer, except to say they've been deceived by the devil somehow. If they heard it from their pastor, then their pastor was deceived, & unwittingly passed the deception on to his flock, i9ntending no harm. Same if they heard it from Granny, Uncle Joe, Aunt Sally, best friend Leroy, or whoever. THERE WAS A DECEPTION AT THE ROOT OF IT SOMEWHERE!

I
I've said this many times, & I'll say it again...If one wants to use only the KJV or any other one version alone from PERSONAL PREFERENCE, fine. But, if one wantsta use only that one version becausa some man-made doctrine, then one is WRONG! None of those "one-version-only" docs hold any water, nor are they from GOD!

Again, how can any CHRISTIAN, in good conscience, believe any MAN-MADE doc of worship?????

 

[DHK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi DHK. I am not the one who said his final authority was "the originals only" which no longer exist and no one living today has ever seen, and that "No translation is perfect". Remember, that was you; not me.



DHK post # 66 - No, there is not a single translation of the Bible that I believe is the complete and inerrant word of God, totally infallible in every word, without any error whatsoever.

If I have a question about the translation I can go back to the Greek or Hebrew which I believe God has preserved his Word in.

Only the originals were inspired.

No translation of the Bible is perfect. You do not have a perfect Bible.

DHK post # 50 - There is no perfect translation. It is an impossibility.

DHK post # 73 - I must point out the deficiencies in their translation when I am there. Tactfully, the best way, is: "Better translated, it would read something like this..." Or, "The Greek word used here has more this meaning..."


DHK post # 155 (corrected spelling and grammar)
You’re right, almost all know that the originals do not exist.


So, DHK, it should be obvious to anybody that has eyes to see and can read plain English, that your beliefs about "the Bible" have clearly left us with NO complete inspired and 100% true Bible now. I'm shocked....shocked...:smilewinkgrin:

Will K

Why are you so shocked Will. This is a Baptist Board. I doubt if there is a person on this board who would not subscribe to the Baptist distinctive that
The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.

That is what I said, I meant to say, and that is what I stand by.
If you have a warped definition of the word "Bible" that I cannot help.
If by "Bible" you mean KJV only, then you are wrong.

The person that led me to the Lord used "Good News for Modern Man", a paraphrase, and not a good one at that. Do you believe I am saved, Wil? Many in the KJVO say that I am not saved because of the "Bible" that was used when I was led to the Lord.
For almost two years after that God fed my soul on Kenneth Taylor's "The Living Bible." Did God speak to me during that time? Yes He did. He answered prayer. He guided me. He led me. He was with me. I talked to him in prayer; and he talked to me "through his word" as I had it.

The Bible was still my authority for faith and practice--even then. It is the reason that I left the Catholic Church.
You use a translation. I used a paraphrase. I have a pastor/friend in the city that reads straight out of his Greek NT. If anyone is reading out of the preserved Word of God, it would be him, not you. You only have a translation of what he is reading. How can you possibly have a more accurate rendering of what he reads when he reads the actual Greek NT, the very words, the language in which the writers spoke in. Your KJV is far inferior to the Greek. It has many mistakes compared to that Greek NT.
You will not admit it.
You will not admit the truth of 1Pet.1:21. Why not?