What Happens if you are Not KJB only?

[Will J. Kinney]

Dr. Bob writes:"you start with a faulty premise - that if we do not believe the KJV is the only Bible then we don't have one "


Well, Dr. Bob, then tell us all if there is any text, be it Hebrew or Greek, or any Bible in any language on the face of this earth that you believe in 100% that you would not change or alter in any way. What is this Bible called so we can all rush out and get a copy?


Dr. Bob continues:."And I feel genuinely sorry for you. You are leading others into error and will be so held accountable for your many words."

You know, Dr. Bob, I don't really feel sorry for you, but I do feel sorry for the people you are leading astray, and likewise believe that we will all be held accountable for the things we say. I guess we will just have to wait till we stand before the judgment seat of Christ to find out if either one of us will hear the words "Well done, thou good and faithful servant" or not.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

The original Geneva Bible of 1557 reads "entending after Easter to bringe him forth to the people" in Acts 12:4. You must be reading one of the later revisions of the Geneva Bible.

Hi Skanwmatos, Wow! That is cool. I didn't know that. Do you have any documentation for that? I would really like to have it if you do. I have a 1599 copy, and I also have read that the original Geneva contained the Apocryha as well. What do you know about that?

Thanks for the help,

Will K

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:



"Well done, thou good and faithful servant" or not.

Will K

I'd rather hear "Well done good and faithful servant" I wonder if those who don't speak English want to hear "Well done, thou ..."

 

[mioque]

Will J. Kinney
"God never promised to give every nation a Bible, let alone a perfect Bible - see Psalms 147:19-20 for this biblical principle. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.""
Sigh.. That is indeed a convincing argument.
So now having found out that God has ignored me, I'll be a good girl and go sulk in a corner somewhere.

Ransom
"Two whole sentences and you've already blown your own argument to shreds with a categorical error. Is that a BB record, by any chance?"
Close, but I once succeeded at making dr. Bob, pastor Larry and Jude foam at the mouth with just one sentence. So depending on once assesment of the gross stupidity of my remark, I'm possibly still the BB recordholder.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Hi Skanwmatos, Wow! That is cool. I didn't know that. Do you have any documentation for that?

Uh, well, yes. I looked it up in the library copy of the 1557 Geneva Bible and typed it out.

I have a 1599 copy, and I also have read that the original Geneva contained the Apocrypha as well. What do you know about that?

Yes, the Geneva of 1560 contained the apocrypha. I have access (in the Seminary library) to four copies of it (including a first edition first printing) and all four contain the apocrypha.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Will,
The only real question I have for you is:
Why do you waste your time with this group of reprobates?
Marty


Hi brother Marty, you ask an interesting question. From what I have read at this board, I don't think everyone here is a reprobate. There are some who do believe the King James Holy Bible is the inerrant, preserved words of God; there are some who are considering the issue with an open mind, and then we have those who, in my opinion, are deceiving others because they themselves have been deceived when they went eagerly away to some seminary and paid good money to have some unctuous professor rob them of both their money and their faith in an inspired Bible.

Besides, I learn things from the biblical relativists. In fact, many of my articles have been written after I learn of some new fanciful attack on the Book of books.

God is still the God of all mercy, and maybe He will use something I have to say to open the understanding of another brother or sister in the faith and renew the joy of having an inspired Bible we can hold in our hands and believe with all our hearts.

Until circumstances dictate otherwise or God apparently leads in another way, I will probably continue to drop in from time to time and share my thoughts on the Bible version issue.

God bless,

Will K

 

[mioque]

"and this does not apply to a translation, then God has lied to us all, hasn't He? Where are your "originals"? "
Who needs originals in this case?
A good copy in the original languages wouldn't have the problem all English translations face, the fact that English differs so much from Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaïc that perfect translations are impossible.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Archy says: It's customary when quoting someone in print either to cite the entire quotation or to indicate with ellipses (...) that something has been omitted. Failure to do so is at best shoddy research and at worst dishonesty and misrepresentation of the facts.

Oh wow, Arch, I now see the error of my ways. Shame on me. Mea culpa. How could I have been so slanderously obtuse? Why, any fool can easily see that I totally misrepresented what you believe by deleting the most essential part of your argument, can't they?

Will K

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
What Happens if you are Not a King James Bible Only believer?

I fyou are not KJVO, then you have the opportunity to believe what God taught about Scripture. A KJVO will never have that opportunity. </font>[/QUOTE]One real thing that you have the biggest problem is the truth. Why are you interested to focus on textual scholars/critics more than GOD?

I read a little book and interestingly found what this book said. It said:

The technique to sustain its power was simple: Control people's minds by controlling their education, and Control their education by controlling their language."

This quotation is true. What about you? There are 2 schools: the Alexandrian school and the Antiochian school. Which school did you attend?

In about 1500's the Tyndale Bibles were burned. Why were they burned? This little book said:

"The authorities claimed that they burned the Bibles because they were filled with errors; in fact, they were burned because they could find no errors."

This quotation is true. Today textual critics said the KJV has errors.

In 1500's Tyndale gave up his life for the Word of God because he was a martyr. Roman Catholic monks murdered him. Today W/H, closet Catholics produced their new modern version, namely ERV because they hated the KJV/TR.

This little book said:

"...martyrdom is no accident. A martyr is always made bt the design of God for his love of men, to warn them, and to lead them back to His ways."

This quotation is TRUE. What do you think of this quotation? The KJV derived from the Tyndale Bible - 90%. Tyndale was a BRAVEST man.

[ January 06, 2004, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Askjo ]

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Anyone here KJV"B" Only in 1610? It appears to me,and I do not want to misrepresent the KJVO view, but where was God's Word before 1610? My point is simply this: if the AV translators could compare the former translations and revise them, why can't we? Why can't we follow the advise of the AV translators and revise, the "Originals" as they called them? (even if you ignore W/H?)

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by doulon:
Will,

The only real question I have for you is:

Why do you waste your time with this group of reprobates?

Marty

Marty, we could ask YOU the same thing, worded slightly differently.

You've really gone downhill, Marty, from a gent who would at least try to defend the KJVO myth in a reasonable manner, to one who simply engages in namecalling in the tradition of some of those paragons of wisdom whom you incubate on the "which version" board.

Are you ever going to present any evidence in support of the KJVO myth, or are you going to regress further to the level of some of the people you once made fun of?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Greetings Everyone:

I am back from a much-needed return to my hometown of Tampa, FL.

The post that started this entire thread did not provide any justification for the rejection of all Bibles other than the Authorised Version. The Scriptural Passages quoted in the thread do not support the notion that there is only one English Translation of God's Holy Word.

Furthermore, I followed the links to the author's website, which did not offer any support for the belief in KJV-Onlyism. I am curious as to what the author's copy of the Authorised Version says in Ecclesiasticus 8:20. [Careful: that is a trick question.....]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Why are you interested to focus on textual scholars/critics more than GOD?

I am interested in God only. I have no more affinity fo textual scholars or critics than you do. Your own KJV was given to you by textual scholars and critics. Yet I don't accuse you of not being interested in God. Why?? Because i understand the truth about this issue.

The technique to sustain its power was simple: Control people's minds by controlling their education, and Control their education by controlling their language."

Cute ... So what??

There are 2 schools: the Alexandrian school and the Antiochian school. Which school did you attend?

Neither of those two. This is one of the most repeated false theories in the whole matter of Scripture. There are not two schools at all. In fact, there are no schools in the way it is used here. There are different text types, each with pros and cons, becuase that is the way God designed it to be. Get used to it.

Today textual critics said the KJV has errors.

And they are in fact correct, as we have demonstrated on numerous occasions.

What do you think of this quotation?

I don't think it has any relevance. Most people who have died for the faith have not died for the KJV.

The KJV derived from the Tyndale Bible - 90%.

So it really is the word of man??? Tyndale wasn't God. I am sure glad my Bible didn't derive 90% from a man.

The bottom line is once againg that you are basing your beliefs on what men have told you, rather than what God has said. You quote this little book, but who cares?? It simply doesn't matter what this little book says. It matters what God says.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Baptist in R says: "The post that started this entire thread did not provide any justification for the rejection of all Bibles other than the Authorised Version. The Scriptural Passages quoted in the thread do not support the notion that there is only one English Translation of God's Holy Word."

Hi Baptist, Does Matthew 5:18 where the Lord speaks of not one jot or tittle will pass from the law refer to the Old Testament being written in Hebrew? It is my understanding that the oracles of God (O.T.) were committed to the Jews (see Romans 3). Then it seems reasonalbe to conclude that if any version rejects the Hebrew scriptures or adds verses to them, or deletes or assumes some portions in the Hebrew texts have been lost, and translate according to these views, then this would disqualify the NIV, NASB, ESV as being God's true words. Your comments?


Baptist&gt;&gt;&gt;Furthermore, I followed the links to the author's website, which did not offer any support for the belief in KJV-Onlyism. (you must have poor comprehension skills) I am curious as to what the author's copy of the Authorised Version says in Ecclesiasticus 8:20.


My copy of the AV says nothing there. So what is the tricky part?

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Larry asks: "Just curious, where did you get the idea that God translated his words into another language? Did you get this idea out of the Bible?"


Hi Larry, Yes, I did. Did you read the article about Can a Translation be Inspired? The Bible is full of examples of where God translated His words into another language. If the Bible is our rule for faith and practice, then the Bible itself teaches that God can and does translate His words into other languages.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Kevin says: "I'd rather hear "Well done good and faithful servant" I wonder if those who don't speak English want to hear "Well done, thou ..."

That was really a substantial and well thought out comment, Kevin. I'm reasonably certain you too would rather hear "Well done THOU good and faithful servant", than "Depart from Me ye cursed", right?

By the way, you are an educated guy. Do you know the difference between "thee" and "ye" and why the KJB is actually more accurate for using these terms than the generic "you"? Can you explain for us the difference between these two (thee -ye) in 40 words or less? Did you also know that the NASB continued to use Thee, thy, and thou up through their 1977 editions, and that other modern Bible still use these more accurate terms?

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi skanwmatos, thanks for the info about the Geneva bible.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Kevin posts: "Anyone here KJV"B" Only in 1610? It appears to me,and I do not want to misrepresent the KJVO view, but where was God's Word before 1610?"


Gee, Kevin, I never heard that question before. Now you really have me stumped.

Did you by any chance read the article I wrote about Where was the word of God before 1611? Would you care to give us a better answer to both where it was before 1611 and where it is now? Let's see how You do with this one.


Kevin continues: My point is simply this: if the AV translators could compare the former translations and revise them, why can't we? Why can't we follow the advise of the AV translators and revise, the "Originals" as they called them? (even if you ignore W/H?) "

Kevin, I do not defend the KJB translators, their Preface, or their theology, though I do agree with quite a bit of it. They did not "revise the Originals", nor did they ever say they had, to my knowledge.

I know they were scholars as well as dedicated believing Christians, but my point is that God in His providence used those men as His chosen vessels to give us His pure, infallible words.

Why does it seem so hard for you biblical relativists to believe that God would have used fallible, sinful men to preserve His words for us? Aren't your modern day scholars supposedly trying to go through the same process of examining the evidence, selecting the proper texts, and giving the correct translation? (though they fail miserably)

God has already gone through this "scholarly process" and completed the work of having His pure words translated into the English language. I can tell anyone where they are found today. Can you? Do you think God's true words are "out there somewhere in the manuscripts", or are your faculties so unhinged that you would say something so inane as one of the bigshots at this board - "There are almost as many different versions of the Bible as there are different types of people-but we are all created by the same God, and all of our Bibles are written by the same Holy Spirit."?


"all our Bibles are written by the same Holy Spirit"!!??!! Boy, this Holy Spirit must really be confused. He can't seem to make up His mind as to what God said or didn't say, and He keeps contradicting Himself.

Is all your vast education leading you to promote the idea that "all our Bibles are written by the same Holy Spirit", but I can correct or alter them anytime I feel they are wrong?

And you fellows think the KJB Only position is weird! The irony is overwhelming.

Will K

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Did you read the article about Can a Translation be Inspired?[/qutoe]No.

The Bible is full of examples of where God translated His words into another language.

Actually not. The Bible is full of places where God spoke in the language of hte hearer in direct communication, or where God had a man translate his word into another language. God did not translate anything.

And more to the point, none of that has any bearing on the KJV. If anything, the use of translation in the Scriptures show that the KJVO position is wrong because it contradicts what we know of Scripture. In Scripture, when you see his word translated into other languages, you see that it is not "word for word" identical to the corresponding passage, as we have seen in Luke 4 compared with Isa 61, as well as other passages. What is clear from this is that God considers all faithful translations to be his word, not simply those translations that replicate the KJV.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Hi Baptist, Does Matthew 5:18 where the Lord speaks of not one jot or tittle will pass from the law refer to the Old Testament being written in Hebrew?

Indeed it does, and this provides no basis whatsoever for KJV-Onlyism.

It is my understanding that the oracles of God (O.T.) were committed to the Jews (see Romans 3). Then it seems reasonalbe to conclude that if any version rejects the Hebrew scriptures or adds verses to them, or deletes or assumes some portions in the Hebrew texts have been lost, and translate according to these views, then this would disqualify the NIV, NASB, ESV as being God's true words. Your comments?

I have a copy of the ESV, and I love it. I cannot find any Scriptural Passage in the ESV that has been changed as to alter the meaning of the Message. I cannot comment on the NIV and NASB, as I do not utilize them.

(you must have poor comprehension skills)

Actually, no: I don't, as you failed to prove your assertion. I challenge you to provide any Scriptural Basis for the complete and total rejection of all other English Translations of God's Holy Word. I saw nothing on your website that I haven't already seen at Chick's website, Cloud's website, Reagan's website, et al. Not one of the Passages you quoted provides any support for KJV-Onlyism. I have several Versions of God's Holy Word that are just as good as my fascimile copy of the 1611 Authorised Version.

My copy of the AV says nothing there. So what is the tricky part?

Okay, what does it say in Ecclesiasticus 8:5?