Has the KJV been proven to be based on a superior text?

[Logos1560]

Logos, as I see it, you're asking questions that always seem to shed doubts on the TR, but to me you never ask these very same questions about the CT.
Why not?

I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Text.

I have read the KJV over 50 years so I am properly interested in knowing about the accuracy and reliability of its underlying texts.

I wrote my first book on the KJV-only issue, accepting the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.

In checking out KJV-only claims, I had learned that their claims for the KJV were not too reliable and accurate. Since then, I have also learned that a number of claims for the Textus Receptus are not so reliable and accurate.

 

[Dave G]

In checking out KJV-only claims, I had learned that their claims for the KJV were not too reliable and accurate. Since then, I have also learned that a number of claims for the Textus Receptus are not so reliable and accurate.

I recognize that and I realize that I've asked you this before...
But have you checked out claims from the other side, and put them under the same microscope?

If not, then why not?

I understand wanting to prove or disprove the "KJV-Only" rhetoric.
What I don't understand is the reluctance from the many people who will not tackle the very important issues being raised when the two collated texts are compared side by side and the many translations being developed using one of them to the near-exclusion of the other.
There's a problem, and it's with God's words.

Is it me, or are few people, especially these days, unwilling to deal with it?

 

[Conan]

To me, supporters of the "Critical Text" and most modern English translations have not offered sufficient, sound evidence or proof for their unproven assertion that the KJV is not based on a superior original language text.

Every handbook on Textual Criticism shows occasional flaws in the Textus Receptus. These flaws are behind the occasional flaws in the KJV. It is only a few occasions. But in those spots it is proven to not be based on superior original language texts. True, it is only in a few spots. But in those few spots the TR is wrong verses Critical Texts (the TR is a critical text) and all other Texts, including the Greek Byzantine Text of which most of the time The TR is a part of. Also, sometimes the TR rejects its Greek Byzantine parent and agrees with the critical text.

The TR is more accurate than the critical texts, but not in all cases. The KJV may still be the very best English translation in existence. But it is proven that it is not always correct.

In addition, they do not back up their unproven assumptions that "older-is-better" with sufficient sound evidence, and they assume that just because a Greek manuscript is older than, say, 40 other ones, that its reading should have more weight than the majority.

While your statement IS true in the majority of cases, it is not always true. While the TR/KJV usually have the support of the excellent Majority, it does not always have it. And what about when the TR/KJV and Critical Texts agree against the Majority/Byzantine Text. What then?

They also conclude that a Greek manuscript's age should automatically make its readings of more accuracy than a Latin or Syriac translation of equal ( or even greater ) age...
or writings from early professing Christians that clearly show certain passages being referred to, when few existing Greek manuscripts do.

When few existing Greek manuscripts do??? Do you mean you are willing to throw away the backbone and character of the TR/MT/KJV for Onlyism?

 

[Logos1560]

What I don't understand is the reluctance from the many people who will not tackle the very important issues being raised when the two collated texts are compared side by side and the many translations being developed using one of them to the near-exclusion of the other.
There's a problem, and it's with God's words.

Is it me, or are few people, especially these days, unwilling to deal with it?

KJV-only advocates or TR-only advocates seem to be unwilling to deal with it using consistent textual measures/standards applied justly.

KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates refuse to apply the same exact measures/standards to the two collated texts, and they for the most part ignore the third collated text (majority text or Byzantine text) unless when they attack it using unjust divers measures. KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates will not name and identify any textual measures and standards that they are willing to see applied consistently and justly including to the twenty to thirty textually-varying Textus Receptus editions.

There is way too much clear indication or evidence of the use of unrighteous judgments based on use of unjust measures [double standards] in KJV-only and in TR-only allegations against the Critical Text and against a Majority Text.

 

[Logos1560]

Every handbook on Textual Criticism shows occasional flaws in the Textus Receptus. These flaws are behind the occasional flaws in the KJV. It is only a few occasions. But in those spots it is proven to not be based on superior original language texts. True, it is only in a few spots.

What is your definition of few [fewer than 10, fewer than 100, fewer than 1,000, fewer than 2,000]?

Some have identified as many as 1800 differences between the Textus Receptus and a majority Byzantine text although some or perhaps many of those may be minor or may have little effect on the translating. Do you consider 1800 to be a few?

 

[Conan]

What is your definition of few [fewer than 10, fewer than 100, fewer than 1,000, fewer than 2,000]?

Some have identified as many as 1800 differences between the Textus Receptus and a majority Byzantine text although some or perhaps many of those may be minor or may have little effect on the translating. Do you consider 1800 to be a few?

I was speaking about a few open and shut cases were it is certain that the TR/KJV is in error. I was speaking of less than 10. There are more errors than that, but I was thinking of a few select places were the TR was based not on the Greek, but Latin Vulgate.

1. The vast majority of the time all three Greek Texts agree
TR MT NA.
2. TR MT agree against NA.
3. MT NA agree against TR.
4. TR NA agree against MT.
5. All three disagree.

 

[Logos1560]

I was speaking of less than 10. There are more errors than that, but I was thinking of a few select places were the TR was based not on the Greek, but Latin Vulgate.
.

Jan Krans referred to "the many instances in which he [Erasmus] inferred Greek readings on the basis of the Latin" (Beyond What Is Written--Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, p. 11) so that number may be greater than ten although he does not define what he means by "many".

Besides the passages Revelation 22:16-21 and Acts 9:5-6, Jan Krans later commented "in most cases the peculiarities are restricted to a single word" (p. 62).

The "many" suggested by Jan Krans may include any minor cases where Erasmus may have changed a Greek verb tense from what was found in his Greek manuscripts based on the Latin, may have changed the spelling of Greek words as found in his Greek manuscripts, or may have added or omitted a Greek article.

Jan Krans has a chapter on "Erasmus' Conjectures" [Chapter five] with the first subheading being "Conjectures inspired by the Vulgate" (pp. 91-108). He identified and discussed claimed examples at the following verses (Matt. 15:5, Matt. 21:20, Mark 7:3, John 4:46, John 10:26, Acts 27:14, 2 Cor. 1:6-7, 2 Pet. 2:12), and the second subheading being "Pure Conjectures" (pp. 108-133).

Adding together the readings added from the Latin Vulgate plus the textual conjectures introduced by Erasmus and Beza would number more than ten.

 

[Dave G]

KJV-only advocates or TR-only advocates seem to be unwilling to deal with it using consistent textual measures/standards applied justly.

Consistency by whose standards?
The scholarly community at-large, most of whom is made up of unbelievers ( and those who hold to and teach things that the Bible does not, such as Carlo Maria Martini, who until he died was a Roman Catholic Cardinal, Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Martini) ?

Or the relatively small number of born-again believers who stay out of the limelight, trust God and His word implicitly and see the spiritual problems inherent in this issue as well as many others?

KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates refuse to apply the same exact measures/standards to the two collated texts, and they for the most part ignore the third collated text (majority text or Byzantine text) unless when they attack it using unjust divers measures.

As I see it, Critical Text advocates refuse to acknowledge that there are problems, and cannot even agree among themselves as to what those measures and standards should be.
Simply ask them and I think that you will get some widely varying opinions when compared to TR-Only advocates.

KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates will not name and identify any textual measures and standards that they are willing to see applied consistently and justly including to the twenty to thirty textually-varying Textus Receptus editions.

I suspect that it wouldn't make any difference if they did, Logos.
To me, you'd still oppose anything that they had to say as has been your position since I joined this board over 2 years ago.

 

[Dave G]

There is way too much clear indication or evidence of the use of unrighteous judgments based on use of unjust measures [double standards] in KJV-only and in TR-only allegations against the Critical Text and against a Majority Text.

Since the TR ( in its several variants ) differs far less than the CT ( and it's many variants, NA1 through NA28, and UBS1 through UBS 5 ) when compared to the MT, I think the burden of proof rests upon CT advocates to prove that there's nothing wrong with their collated text as opposed to the TR and to other witnesses that are just as old and yet are composed of some older translations even in other languages.

That means that yes, there is a need to prove not only the negative, but also the positive.

That said, I can see that as in other threads your position is rather obvious...
Despite your admissions to not recommending or advocating the Critical Text, you sit firmly against the idea that the "Textus Receptus" ( Received Text ) could be the representative of God's preserved word in the Greek.

The simple fact that when compared with each other, both the TR and CT differ sometimes greatly ( and when compared to the MT the TR differs less than the CT does ) seems lost on you, Logos.

Respectfully,
To me there is way too much of a clear indication that you are biased against it, and not "neutral" as you are claiming to be, sir.

As I've said before,
If you were indeed neutral, you'd apply the same standards of investigation and questioning to both sides of the issue and you would indeed focus your efforts at disproving their standards to advocates of the CT as well;
Which I do not and never have seen you actually do.

In fact, whenever this subject is discussed, you always seem to take the side of opposing those who see the TR as the preserved word of God in the Greek, and you never address their opponents.
When you start doing that, I'll believe that you're genuinely neutral.

This is my last reply in this thread.



Good morning to you, and may God bless you this day with peace and good health.

 

[Logos1560]

you sit firmly against the idea that the "Textus Receptus" ( Received Text ) could be the representative of God's preserved word in the Greek.

Your opinion is incorrect as you misrepresent or misunderstand my scripturally-based position.

 

[Logos1560]

The simple fact that when compared with each other, both the TR and CT differ sometimes greatly ( and when compared to the MT the TR differs less than the CT does ) seems lost on you, Logos.

.

Your assertion or allegation is clearly wrong. I accept the fact that the TR and CT differ much more than the TR and the MT differ.

I do not advocate and recommend the Critical Text, but I do admit the truth that it would be wrong according to the Scriptures to apply unjustly different measures/standards to it than would be applied to the Textus Receptus and to a Majority Text. How would it be just to condemn the Critical Text for minority readings and conjectures while accepting, rationalizing, excusing, or defending minority readings and conjectures in the Textus Receptus?

While I once was basically TR-only, I am now inclined to lean towards a Majority Text or Byzantine Text priority view.

My position is to advocate the applying of the same exact measures/standards justly as the Scriptures themselves would teach, and it is the scriptural teachings concerning making righteous judgments and applying the same measures justly that would lead me away from the inconsistent TR-only position.

 

[Logos1560]

Consistency by whose standards?

Consistency according to scriptural truths or scriptural standards or consistency according to the Scriptures' advocating the applying of the same exact measures/standards.

 

[Logos1560]

To me, you'd still oppose anything that they had to say as has been your position since I joined this board over 2 years ago.

Your assertion is clearly incorrect. Many times I have favorably quoted assertions by KJV-only authors and TR-only authors when I find those assertions to be correct and true.
I have even quoted them to support points that I raise so it is clear that I do not oppose everything that KJV-only authors and TR-only authors assert.

 

[rlvaughn]

Your assertion is clearly incorrect. Many times I have favorably quoted assertions by KJV-only authors and TR-only authors when I find those assertions to be correct and true.

Could you give us a few examples of what you mean (i.e., where this occurred)? Thanks.

 

[Logos1560]

My posts would provide plenty of examples. One example is where I favorably quoted KJV-only authors and TR-only authors concerning their statements about the doctrine of inspiration.

In the preface of the book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro, H. D. Williams wrote: “The false application of ’is given,’ to translations throughout the centuries must stop. Inspiration of translations is a false doctrine concocted by men to justify a position when they were caught proclaiming a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the Scripture; by the grammar of passages in question, or by history” (p. v). Phil Stringer asserted: “The verse does not say that the words that God gave are preserved, transmitted, or translated by ‘inspiration’” (Brown, Indestructible Book, p. 394). D. A. Waite contended: “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning on Gail Riplinger’s, p. 32). D. A. Waite observed: “The accurate view of Bible inspiration is found in 2 Timothy 3:16. That verse refers to the way that the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words were produced by God’s true plenary verbal inspiration” (p. 20). Dennis Kwok asserted: “No translation can claim to be 100% equivalent to the original language Scriptures” (VPP, p. 19). Charles L. Surrett wrote: “There is no theological reason (no statement from God) to believe that a translation into any language would be inspired in the same way that the original writings in Hebrew and Greek were. No translation has been ‘God-breathed,’ as 2 Timothy 3:16 says of the originals” (Certainty of the Words, p. 75). Homer Massey wrote: “No passage of Scripture tells us that God ever performed or planned to perform the operation of inspiration on any copier or translator. Again: Bible proof nowhere extends inspiration, the inerrant work of the Holy Spirit, to acts of copying the Greek manuscripts or to tasks of translating Scripture into other languages” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, October, 1980, p. 2). Phil Stringer asserted that “there is not the slightest hint of any such doctrine [that God repeated the miracle of ‘inspiration’ in 1611] anywhere in the King James Bible” (Unbroken Bible, p. 15). Phil Stringer noted that “when God wanted to describe the means of inspiration He chose to call it ‘God-breathed’” (pp. 60-61).

D. A. Waite wrote: “God never once caused any human writers or translators to operate any more under his DIVINE INSPIRATION of the words in any translation or version throughout human history thus far (nor will He in the future) in the same or even in a similar sense as He did when He originally gave His Word under DIVINE INSPIRATION” (Dean Burgon News, August, 1980, p. 1). H. D. Williams wrote: “Inspiration refers solely to the original and preserved God-breathed Words, which were recorded by the prophets and Apostles” (Pure Words, p. 20). H. D. Williams asserted: “The Greek word, graphe, in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the autographs” (Hearing the Voice of God, p. 193). In the preface of Kirk DiVietro’s book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite concerning the three Greek words that make up the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16. Waite noted that “these three Words refer exclusively to God’s miraculous action of His original breathing out of His Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Old and New Testaments” (p. iv, also p. 2). Waite added: “These Words do not refer to any Bible translation in any language of the world” (Ibid.).

H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite as noting: “Theopneustos is a compound adjective which comes from two Greek words, theos (God) and pneustos (an adjective meaning ’breathed’). Pneustos comes from the verb, peno ’to breathe.’ It does not come from nor is it synonymous with the noun, pneuma. It comes clearly from the verb, pneo (to breathe)” (Cleaning-Up, p. iv). Ralph Earle asserted that the Greek word “literally means ‘God breathed’--theos, ‘God,’ and pneo, ‘breathe’” (Word Meanings, p. 409). Marvin Vincent also maintained that this word comes from the Greek noun for God and the Greek verb ‘to breathe’ and meant “God-breathed” (Word Studies, IV, p. 317). E. W. Bullinger defined the Greek word as “God-breathed, God-inspired” (Lexicon, p. 414). Waite asserted: “Gail Riplinger and others are totally in error to claim that an adjective (pneustos) could be taken as a noun (pneuma). This is contrary to all Greek grammar, whether classical or Koine. It is clearly false teaching and false doctrine” (DiVietro, Cleaning-Up, p. iv).

David Sorenson asserted that “the need of the hour is for God’s people” “to rise above the emotional attachment and inaccurate assumption that a given translation of Scripture has been directly inspired” (God’s Perfect Book, p, 210). KJV defender Ian Paisley noted: "And let me emphasize that inspiration has only to do with the writing of the original Scripture and is divinely limited to that. Inspiration has not to do with the translation of the Bible into English or any other language" (Fundamentalist Digest, January/February, 1995, p. 15). Charles Kriessman asserted: “The proper interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is that it refers solely to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that were originally given by God” (Modern Version Failures, p. 48). Thomas Strouse wrote: “The word behind ‘is given by inspiration of God’ is theopneustos, meaning literally ‘is God-breathed.’ Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa [original autographs] is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (The Lord God, pp. 42-43). Solomon Caesar Malan wrote: “Strictly speaking, ‘verbal inspiration’ as it is called, can apply only to the inspired autographs of the holy men who wrote the canon of Scripture” (Gospel, p. xiii). Homer Massey wrote: “No passage of Scripture tells us that God ever performed or planned to perform the operation of inspiration on any copier or translator. Again: Bible proof nowhere extends inspiration, the inerrant work of the Holy Spirit, to acts of copying the Greek manuscripts or to tasks of translating Scripture into other languages” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, October, 1980, p. 2). Homer Massey added: “Strictly speaking, the inspiration (as it has been discussed) only took place when God moved upon the human writers of Scripture in their original writings. No claim should be made for that which cannot be clearly proved by Scripture” (Ibid.). Robert Sargent noted: “The inspiration of the Scriptures was miraculous” (English Bible, p. 231). After discussing the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, John William Burgon asserted: “Our remarks apply in strictness only to the sacred autographs” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 64).

 

[paul kirkpatrick]

My posts would provide plenty of examples. One example is where I favorably quoted KJV-only authors and TR-only authors concerning their statements about the doctrine of inspiration.

In the preface of the book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials by Kirk DiVietro, H. D. Williams wrote: “The false application of ’is given,’ to translations throughout the centuries must stop. Inspiration of translations is a false doctrine concocted by men to justify a position when they were caught proclaiming a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the Scripture; by the grammar of passages in question, or by history” (p. v). Phil Stringer asserted: “The verse does not say that the words that God gave are preserved, transmitted, or translated by ‘inspiration’” (Brown, Indestructible Book, p. 394). D. A. Waite contended: “There is no scriptural proof that any translation of God’s Words is inspired of God” (A Warning on Gail Riplinger’s, p. 32). D. A. Waite observed: “The accurate view of Bible inspiration is found in 2 Timothy 3:16. That verse refers to the way that the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words were produced by God’s true plenary verbal inspiration” (p. 20). Dennis Kwok asserted: “No translation can claim to be 100% equivalent to the original language Scriptures” (VPP, p. 19). Charles L. Surrett wrote: “There is no theological reason (no statement from God) to believe that a translation into any language would be inspired in the same way that the original writings in Hebrew and Greek were. No translation has been ‘God-breathed,’ as 2 Timothy 3:16 says of the originals” (Certainty of the Words, p. 75). Homer Massey wrote: “No passage of Scripture tells us that God ever performed or planned to perform the operation of inspiration on any copier or translator. Again: Bible proof nowhere extends inspiration, the inerrant work of the Holy Spirit, to acts of copying the Greek manuscripts or to tasks of translating Scripture into other languages” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, October, 1980, p. 2). Phil Stringer asserted that “there is not the slightest hint of any such doctrine [that God repeated the miracle of ‘inspiration’ in 1611] anywhere in the King James Bible” (Unbroken Bible, p. 15). Phil Stringer noted that “when God wanted to describe the means of inspiration He chose to call it ‘God-breathed’” (pp. 60-61).

D. A. Waite wrote: “God never once caused any human writers or translators to operate any more under his DIVINE INSPIRATION of the words in any translation or version throughout human history thus far (nor will He in the future) in the same or even in a similar sense as He did when He originally gave His Word under DIVINE INSPIRATION” (Dean Burgon News, August, 1980, p. 1). H. D. Williams wrote: “Inspiration refers solely to the original and preserved God-breathed Words, which were recorded by the prophets and Apostles” (Pure Words, p. 20). H. D. Williams asserted: “The Greek word, graphe, in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the autographs” (Hearing the Voice of God, p. 193). In the preface of Kirk DiVietro’s book Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials, H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite concerning the three Greek words that make up the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16. Waite noted that “these three Words refer exclusively to God’s miraculous action of His original breathing out of His Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Old and New Testaments” (p. iv, also p. 2). Waite added: “These Words do not refer to any Bible translation in any language of the world” (Ibid.).

H. D. Williams quoted D. A. Waite as noting: “Theopneustos is a compound adjective which comes from two Greek words, theos (God) and pneustos (an adjective meaning ’breathed’). Pneustos comes from the verb, peno ’to breathe.’ It does not come from nor is it synonymous with the noun, pneuma. It comes clearly from the verb, pneo (to breathe)” (Cleaning-Up, p. iv). Ralph Earle asserted that the Greek word “literally means ‘God breathed’--theos, ‘God,’ and pneo, ‘breathe’” (Word Meanings, p. 409). Marvin Vincent also maintained that this word comes from the Greek noun for God and the Greek verb ‘to breathe’ and meant “God-breathed” (Word Studies, IV, p. 317). E. W. Bullinger defined the Greek word as “God-breathed, God-inspired” (Lexicon, p. 414). Waite asserted: “Gail Riplinger and others are totally in error to claim that an adjective (pneustos) could be taken as a noun (pneuma). This is contrary to all Greek grammar, whether classical or Koine. It is clearly false teaching and false doctrine” (DiVietro, Cleaning-Up, p. iv).

David Sorenson asserted that “the need of the hour is for God’s people” “to rise above the emotional attachment and inaccurate assumption that a given translation of Scripture has been directly inspired” (God’s Perfect Book, p, 210). KJV defender Ian Paisley noted: "And let me emphasize that inspiration has only to do with the writing of the original Scripture and is divinely limited to that. Inspiration has not to do with the translation of the Bible into English or any other language" (Fundamentalist Digest, January/February, 1995, p. 15). Charles Kriessman asserted: “The proper interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is that it refers solely to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that were originally given by God” (Modern Version Failures, p. 48). Thomas Strouse wrote: “The word behind ‘is given by inspiration of God’ is theopneustos, meaning literally ‘is God-breathed.’ Paul’s claim then, is that only, and all, of the autographa [original autographs] is inspired by God, or is God breathed. The process of inspiration extends to only the autographa, and to all of the autographa” (The Lord God, pp. 42-43). Solomon Caesar Malan wrote: “Strictly speaking, ‘verbal inspiration’ as it is called, can apply only to the inspired autographs of the holy men who wrote the canon of Scripture” (Gospel, p. xiii). Homer Massey wrote: “No passage of Scripture tells us that God ever performed or planned to perform the operation of inspiration on any copier or translator. Again: Bible proof nowhere extends inspiration, the inerrant work of the Holy Spirit, to acts of copying the Greek manuscripts or to tasks of translating Scripture into other languages” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, October, 1980, p. 2). Homer Massey added: “Strictly speaking, the inspiration (as it has been discussed) only took place when God moved upon the human writers of Scripture in their original writings. No claim should be made for that which cannot be clearly proved by Scripture” (Ibid.). Robert Sargent noted: “The inspiration of the Scriptures was miraculous” (English Bible, p. 231). After discussing the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, John William Burgon asserted: “Our remarks apply in strictness only to the sacred autographs” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 64).

 

[rlvaughn]

My posts would provide plenty of examples. One example is where I favorably quoted KJV-only authors and TR-only authors...

I was thinking particularly of an example of something posted on the BB. That appears to be something from your book, but maybe was posted here as well.

 

[rlvaughn]

...

paul kirkpatrick, I see this is your first post, so welcome to the Baptist Board. I hope you find it helpful here.

Looks like that was an abortive attempt quoting Logos with no comments. If we can help, let us know, or contact a moderator.

 

[paul kirkpatrick]

I'm not as well-versed as many on BB seem to be, & at age 75, I'm not so sure that my remaining years on planet earth ought to be spent in acquainting me with all the intricate details of "Which translation is T H E BEST ONE?" since the answer to "T H E BEST ONE?" is as varied as there are BB posters. As one who only has a limited training in finding out which translation is T H E BEST ONE?, to me, is merely a pretty much waste of my time. OTOH, please bear with me while I ATTEMPT to TRY to put "things such as this in MY rather limited knowledge of "THE KJV vs ALL the other ones!" (1) Romans 10:17 tells us, "So faith comes from hearing, that is, hearing the Good News (i.e., the Gospel) about Christ." I conclude that one's salvation is, therefore, dependent on the Gospel about Christ. Which Gospel? Deductive reason (IMHO anyway) seems to imply that if the 1611 KJV IS the ONLY Gospel, by what means were people saved before 1611? (2) Some KJVO advocates insist on pointing to the fact that the KJV is "AUTHORIZED," but "Authorized" by whom? History tells us that the only one who "Authorized" the 1611 KJV was, as its name implies, the Stuart King James VI of Scotland who became King James I of England after Tudor Queen Elizabeth I died without designating any of her offspring (Kinda hard for her to do since she was "The Virgin Queen.") as the only heir to England's throne. History also suggests that KJ wasn't so much a person who spent untold hours pondering over the text that his translators would use as he was hounded by Scottish reformers pointing out the less-than holy antics many of the OT kings took pleasure in pursuing. (3) I am NOT a 1611 KJV "hater." In many places its wording does emphasize some truths that really emphasize (to me at least) what God has/is done to secure our salvation. EX: In Gen 22:7 where Isaac asked Abraham where the sheep for the burnt offering was, in v. 8 Abraham replied, "God will provide HIMSELF as a lamb for the sacrifice!" And so God the Son DID become that perfect sacrifice! (Insert "Amen" here.) (4) OTOH, in James 2:2-4 where the 1611 KJV talks about someone wearing "GAY" clothing, one could easily question that individual in the light of our modern English usage of "GAY." English is a living language &, as such, some words tend to have somewhat of a different interpretation as compared to that of the early 17th century. (5) Acts 12:3's usage of "Easter" is, at best, a mistranslation for the Passover, since "Easter" wasn't what the Jews celebrated in the 1st century. IOW, to me at least the 1611 KJV at times can lead a person somewhat confused when he/she takes it at a "wooden," word-for-word understanding of some things. Besides, do all 1611 KJVO really have a "conviction" over the 100+% literal accuracy of what they hold in their hands, or is it merely a "preference"? In a court of law, a CONVICTion means one would be willing to DIE for whatever she/he is contending. OTOH, a PREFERence is merely what she/he "prefers." EX: I might prefer tea over coffee, but I probably would not stand before a firing squad and order them to shoot. Thanks for reading my rant! In this lost and hell-bound 21st century we're in, don't we have better things over which we seem to spend more of our limited life here on earth than this? Why quibble over one's deck furniture arrangement when women, men, & children are about to perish and spend an eternity in hell? If I were lying along a dark road side, I don't think one's brand of flashlight would be something over which I'd choose to come to my aid & lift me up, would you? Selah.

 

[paul kirkpatrick]

paul kirkpatrick, I see this is your first post, so welcome to the Baptist Board. I hope you find it helpful here.

Looks like that was an abortive attempt quoting Logos with no comments. If we can help, let us know, or contact a moderator.