Question for KJ only crowd

Paul, regarding the Old Testament Scriptures would have taken the same position as I. Peter certainly did. Again, I challenge you to read 2Peter 1:20,21, and give an objective truthful meaning of it. There are no copies that are inspired. Whether Old or New Testament, Peter says only the words of the writers were inspired. That is not what I say; it is what God says. Take your argument up with God.
DHK

 

If anyone's interested there's an article relating to this topic at http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/bible/goddoesn.htm

 

Very good article, Bible Answer

 

Then the copies of the originals are without error, is this correct?

God Bless!

ps. sorry I don't have much time to respond to all the post and questions to me. I should have some more time this Sunday...very busy daylight to dark!

 

No, not necessarily. No man is perfect. To say so would to be to contradict the Bible. See 1John 1:8,10. We all make mistakes. We are fallible, not perfect. Thus through the process of time there have been copyists mistakes--mostly minor spelling mistakes, printing errors, and the such. But sometimes there are greater errors than that. For instance, some times it seems to be as great as the substitution of God for Lord. How do we know which is correct? Remember we have over 5,000 existing manuscripts. Through a prcess of lower textual criticsm (I use the word "lower" for "higher" refers to those who would destroy our Bible), we can compare the manuscripts and see which copyist has made the mistake. The majority is usually the right one. There, of course, are other factors that are considered. I believe that the text has been faithfully preserved in the Received Text, or what has otherwise been termed the Majority Text. It is that text which has been used historically down throughout the ages by the churches. It has a history behind it. Majority means that the majority agrees with it. There is no question in my mind that God has preserved his Word, not in any translation, as the KJV, but in the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. The translated languages (KJV English) can never be more accurate than the language from which it is translated. That is an absurd stand to take. Thus the Word is preserved in the original languages, not the translated languages.
DHK

 

To whom it may concern...

Here is a very good article that has researched the reasons for translating "unicorn" in the KJB and many other bibles. As you will see, all the facts in a situation must be considered before we pass a judgment of "error". And sometimes all the facts are long lost as well. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html Sometimes when one is shown that they were wrong about one "error", they then take a step back and realize that maybe they could be wrong about other "errors" as well.

God Bless!

 

Another common "error" that seems easy to convince folks of is Easter. But if we take a step back and research all the facts we can find that it is not quite as simple as it appears on the surface. Here is some good research on this "error" as well http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Easter.html For those seeking to know the truth of the matter, you should consider all of the history behind "Easter" before you conclude that it is flat out wrong.

God Bless!

 

Will Kinney (BB Member number 1023) also known on some
boards as "brandplucked" is IMHO much better than other
KJV Onliests. He at least reads the MVs and posts what
they say. He used to post here. All of his ideas have
been countered here for many years. These counter-arguments
are in the archives or long since passed away.
Nevertheless, his arguments pale compared to mine

Ed's Argument:
The English Versions individually and collectively
constitute the inerrant
written Word of God in English: THE HOLY BIBLE,
preserved perfectly for our generation.

And may God bless Brother Stever DOUBLE!

 

Thanks Ed,

God's Speed to you as well!

 

By logical conclusion then, God has automatically condemned all non-English speaking nations (most of the world) to Hell!!
Only the English have the Word of God!?
Pretty narrow view of the Great Commission don't you think? Or was William Carey and Adoniram Judson's work (et.al.) all in vain?
DHK

 

It's not convincing. No matter which way you cut it, pascha means passover. It is unjust to translate a word that means passover any other way but "passover." That is what the word means. In every other place it is translated that way. They had no reason other than their own bias and political expediency to translate it Easter. It was their deliberate mistake, Will Kinney's lame arguments notwithstanding.
DHK

 

If I get what I deserve, it will be more than double the distress. I remain hopeful though, for God promisses to wipe away all tears at the end. I pray you do very well brother at the judgment seat of Christ. Say a prayer from your heart for me and I will as well for you.

God Bless!

 

DHK: //By logical conclusion then, God has automatically condemned all non-English speaking nations (most of the world) to Hell!!//

That is a very illogical conclusion.
What does this phrase of mine mean to you?
" ... in English ... "

The phrase "in English" allows for God's word to exist in
other languages.

 

The assumption "in English" means "only in English," since you have made no allowance for any other language to have God's "inspired" Word. Where is God's inspired Word? The answer is in the KJV. Correct? Thus, by inference it cannot be in any other translations. I already informed you that most other translations have been translated from the Critical Text which differs greatly from the Received Text from which the KJV was translated. Are you then going to insist that these nations do not have the Word of God? I pity you if you take that stance. Most of the world would then never be saved, or have the chance to be saved.
BTW, I was led to the Lord by someone using the Good News for Modern Man.
DHK

 

DHK,

You are lumping us guys all into one heap. Ed is not a KJV onlyist nor a English onlyist and niether am I as you have defined the term. You are laying preconcieved charges upon others. Many things that you have declared I believe are simply false. I came into the discussion defending the translation unicorn and suddenly I was a KJV onlyist in the most strick definition of the term. In fact this term is so broad that it is hard to even know what it means anymore. This is why I like to just take one "error" at a time rather than get into the accusative dialogues that often create strife rather than informative conversation and education.

God Bless!

 

This can only be an opinion and you have that right to it. But if this is true, then this was an evil act, and if I believed that these translators did their work without regards to what God would think about this "deliberate mistake", then I would not spend another momment teaching or preaching from the KJB. I wouldn't trust any of it.

God Bless!

 

This can only be an opinion and you have that right to it. But if this is true, then this was an evil act, and if I believed that these translators did their work without regards to what God would think about this "deliberate mistake", then I would not spend another momment teaching or preaching from the KJB. I wouldn't trust any of it.
God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]It's not necessarily evil. They had to work within the restraints that were put on them. Most of the translators were high Anglican/Catholic. Some of them may not have even been saved. Granted, they were the great scholars of their time, but that doesn't speak for their walk with God. There are many that simply assume they were very Godly men, when the very opposite may very well could be true. I have a book that points to this evidence.

But the reality of the situation was a matter of political correctness. They were bound by their religion, as well as the other religions to be politicall correct. I mentioned some of the more obvious examples before:
church should be assembly.
baptism should be immerse.

Our concepts in ecclesiology would be greatly cleared up and much different in many people's minds if those two words had been translated properly. But instead of translating baptidzo they simply transliterated the word into baptism, which has a wealth of meanings and is very ambiguous. It accomodates all the religions, and certainly would not go against the Anglican or Catholic forms of baptism. Had they faithfully translated it immersion, as the word means, what an uproar it would have caused in those two churches for whom they were working for!!
Call it dishonesty and evil intent if you like. They were bound by political expediency; the political climate of the day. Many words were translated with the bias of their own religious background, and/or because of the political restraints that were put on them at the time. I hope that makes some sense to you.
DHK

 

Steaver: "Ed is not a KJV onlyist nor a English onlyist and niether am I as you have defined the term. You are laying preconcieved charges upon others."

Yep. I wonder why i'm receiving a full frontal attack?
Didn't i come in this topic on the same side as DHK?
AH, maybe a case of aerobatic 'jumping to conclusion's ???

Caveat: using 'aerobatic' to modify 'jumping to
conclusions' does NOT imply in any manner that
DHK is NOT doing some other form of 'jumping to
conclusions'.

 

Perhaps it sounds like I am jumping to conclusions. I can't help but to jump to a conclustion that one would be KJVO, or very close to that position when they would be defending words such as "unicorn" and "Easter." If you defend such errors in translation (and I know you hate the word "errors"), and are not KJVO, then what are you?
DHK