Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

You can take issue all you want. But your blind belief in the KJV at this point demonstrates your unbelief in the Word of God. There was no taxation at that period. The Greek word means enrollment. Other translators agree. That is one of the reasons the Jews went so willingly "to be enrolled." A few years later when there was an actual taxation there was somewhat of a revolt, as is to be expected when any taxation occurs. There was no revolt here. Everything was peaceful. It was an enrollment, a registration. The same thing happens today in our country. Before an election actually takes place Census Canada takes an "enrollment" door-to-door, to make sure of the number of registered voters in each household. There is an enrollment, a registration before the election (of the elected government who then taxes us).

Most KJVO's believe in a secondary inspiration, that is, that a second inspiration took place in 1611 making the KJV just as inspired as the original. How else could it be infallible and inspired it that didn't happen? Look up some information on Peter Ruckman one of the founders of this KJVO movement. He believes that the KJV even goesa as far as to correct the Hebrew and Greek itself!!

Heb.4:12 says that Word of God is "alive" and powerful. It is the living word of God. I also believe that. But I don't have to believe that the translation is inspired to come to that conclusion. I believe that Word of God is alive and powerful and has the power to change lives, and through it men are saved, that is born of the Spirit, born into the family of God, and so forth. But that doesn't mean that the KJV is inspired. Inspiration and infallibility are traits that belong only to the original manuscripts. God has preserved his word. Why are you hung up on inspiration? Translations cannot be inspired because God only inspired the actual authors of the Scripture, not any of the translators. To be very precise he inspired their writings. It is their writings that were inspired, and the inspiration doesn't carry through. He used the prophets and the apostles. Study 2Pet.1:19-21.

Your dedication to the KJV is commendable. But God didn't tell us that he preserved his Word in the KJV. He said that he would promise to preserve his word. We know how he preserved it in the Old Testament, with the meticulousness of the scribes, and they way that they copied the Old Testament masoretic texts. But the problem is not so much in the Old Testament. The problem lies in the New Testament; mostly between the critical text vs. the majority text. God said he would preserve his word, but he didn't say how. He didn't say that he would draw a direct link between the KJV and the original writings of Paul and the rest of the apostles. You can't justify that statement. You can't make the assumption that the KJV is the only translation that is "inspired" and/or infallible. It isn't. It isn't inspired and it isn't infallible. No translation is.

By deduction all KJVO assers this. It is the great dilemma of their position which they can find no logical argument for. If the Bible is preserved only in the KJV (an archaic English langauge), then obviously it is not preserved in other languages. The KJVO position doesn't want to fairly look at this position, because, as I have pointed out, most of the translational work all over the world has been done by those who have held to the critical text, not the TR. As was inferred above, certain KJVO would say that one can only be saved through a KJV Bible, so let the rest of the world be damned to Hell. It is a very arrogant position to take, which completely ignores the Great Commission.

I never said anyone had a Bible that agreed with me. You don't know my position apparently. I am saying that people speak different languages. You can't expect to teach all the world Shakespearean English before carrying out the Great Commission. The Great Commission is not taking English into all the world. Since when did that become part of the Great Commisssion. We use the Bibles of the nations available to us, whether or not they are translated from the critical text or the TR. Most Bibles of other nations are translated from the critical text. Are you going to be a missionary to those people and pull the rug from under their feet, undermining their faith, by telling them that that book in their hands that they have faithfullly believed in is not the Word of God. Are you going to try and destroy them by teaching them that the KJV is the only Word of God. Is your pupose as a missionary to destroy or to edify and to win souls to Christ. The purpose of the KJVO is apparently to destroy the lives of others if you think it through.
DHK

 

Some of the OT law and some passsages which are directed to Israel only.

 

Much the same thing happened to me. When I became a Christian someone gave me a KJV which I found difficult to understand and didn't read it much. Later I was given Living Proverbs and then Living. . . . I read about one hour each day. Before that I read about ten minutes and understood very little of what I read. Then I bought an NAS and used the Living Bible to help me in some tough spots.

 

Is this the only excuse that you can give for not being able to refute the rebuttals that I gave to everyone of your objections of your previous post. I took your post and answered your objections/questions. You are now left with nothing to say. You know, for example that there is no way that the word "taxation" can mean anything else but "enrollment" or "registration." The KJV is simply in err. So when you can't refute the objections that you raise you lower yourself and call it irrelevant and strawmen. What is your problem?

State your question in a clear concise mamer without beating around the bush and I will endeavour to answer it for you.

At the point of being slandered I suggest you watch what you say. Such accusations are unwarranted and against BB rules.
1. I don't say anything under peer pressure.
2. I didn't say anything to fit "into modernist scientific thought."
3. It is very slanderous of you to infer that I am a modernist. I suggest you apologize.
4. I am not trying to look relevant; but my position is Biblical.
5. You have accused me of saying and believing that which is "an abomination in the sight of God."

What gives you the right to slander and accuse others of such. Others have been suspended and even banned for such. If you don't know my position then ask. If you are not able to answer objections or the points given then politely concede. You attitude is highly arrogant.

If you care to continue posting change your attitude. Thanks!
DHK

 

Are you so unfamiliar with the English language that you cannot formulate your question in a clear and concise manner as requested.

This is an honest question that the KJVO crowd, such as yourself, have trouble answering. You still avoid it. Would you mind answering it now. If the KJV is the only inerrant version of the Bible, does the rest of the world go to Hell? Is God the God of the English speaking world only? Think it through.

 

That is true. Have you bound yourself to a particular view, or are you open-minded enough to discuss issues without throwing insults?

You could say that, but do you? Is that your belief, whether or not the Bible was translated from the TR?

But is it? You can say it, but can you document it? The fact is that only 10% of the world speaks English. Yet, we do live in the end times.

You could say that, but only as a matter of opinion. It becomes a very arrogant opinion. It infers that God is the God only of the English, only of that 10% of the population of the world--and let the rest go to Hell. It presupposes that God's elect are all caucasion, or at least English speaking, the same attitude that the slave traders had. The fact is we don't have a universal English language. In fact if you want statistics, there are more people in this world that speak Sanskrit than English. Sanskrit is spoken by more people than any other language in the world. By your logic, if God were to inspire a Bible it ought to be in Sanskrit, not in English, and require you to learn Sanskrit in order to be saved.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Which Word of God, AV? The Word of God of the Maoris, the Crees, the Punjabis, the Hindis, or the Chinese? Which Word of God? It is unfortunate that many of those nations that do have the Word, have it translated from the critical text. Do they still have the Word of God, in your opinion?

For some it is a false god. Is it a false god for you. I would like to know. That is why I ask questions like the obvious mistranslation of "taxed" when it should have been "enrolled." Will you cling to the KJV and its "infallibility" theory, even when it is proven wrong?
God promised to preserve His Word. We can agree on that much, can we not? The question is then where is His Word preserved. Since the different translations differ from each other in shades of meaning, and even the English translations that are translated from the TR differ in places with each other, it is apparent that there is no perfert translation. Humans don't make a translation perfect, because they themselves are not perfect. As I have asked before I ask again:
If I translate the first chapter of John, will it be just as "inspired" as the KJV? Why or why not?
DHK

 

I think we have covered enough on the theoretical issues. From now on I would suggest the comparison between KJV and any other version, verse by verse.

 

Which English. The British will tell you that American English is butchered English.

It was not too many years ago that German was the major language among the educated scientists.

The final authority to the world is not a Bible but God. God will not judge the world according to the Bible they used but according to His judgment.

How does your authority for English speaking people stack up against Heb. 11:6 for the entire world?

Heb. 11:6, "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

 

I have been trying to steer the conversation that way Eliyahu by raising such contradictory statements as:
(Luk 2:3) And all went to be registered, each to his own city. (MKJV)
and,
Luke 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. (KJV)

Both versions come from the same text (the TR). Why the apparent discrpency? Here it is not the Greek that is in question. It is the translation. There was no taxation at the time of Christ's birth.
DHK

 

This is what I wanted to elaborate, as a matter of vocabulary.
Actually, apograpow should mean Register, even though its main purpose was taxation.

This is what should be addressed on KJV, which I agree. I already mentioned Kata-Luma is not Inn like Holyday Inn, but a guestroom in a private house, about which so many Bible misunderstand.
These types of vocabulary problems are not a few, not so many, but need elaboration.

The reason why I could not point out this is because, so many people attack KJV on the bases of wrong texts, not the MT-TR.

 

I answered every statement in your "connect the dot" post. And this condescending post of your is all you can do for a rebuttal? You are right in what you infer: if you don't have anything to say, then don't post.
DHK

 

How many verses? Is your point to throw out your point like throwing meat to wolves or perhaps to learn what you do not already know? The person who only comes to give out their point will learn nothing more than he does now which is usually very little. The person who listens and learns will learn more than he does now.

 

Well, there are always people who want to use big fancy words to explain a very simple thing.

The thing about the Bible is, that it is about faith. God did not tell us certain things on purpose. We have to take it by faith. Just read the 11th chapter of Hebrews.

There are certain things that we cannot prove. Like where did God come from, where is He, where is heaven, how could you get all those animals in a small boat the size of Noahs ark, etc,etc.

This is where faith comes in. We have to believe the Bible even though sometimes some things don't make sense to us.

Otherwise, we should not call ourselves Christians if we don't believe the Bible means what it says, and says what God means.

Hebrews 11-6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So I believe that the bible is true. Whatever it says happened at a given point in time, i believe to be correct.

I believe the Red sea was parted, and then came back in and drowned Pharoahs army. I believe that the axe of iron floated.

You see, it is not about our understanding, it's about the sovrenty of God. It doesn't matter to me if science can explain it or not
The KJV of the bible is what I prefer to use. If I were Spanish, there would be a version in that language that I would prefer. the same for any other language.

This dicussion about the Bible is one of the most senseless ones I have ever witnessed.

Working for Jesus,

Tam

 

So you would agree then, that by your study of the Bible, the Greek neuter noun "teleion" (1Cor.13:10) because it is neuter could never refer to Christ, or anything masculine. By virture of its gender and context it refers to the Word of God. That being so the gifts have ceased.
Thank you for proving my point in "such a senseless discussion."
DHK

 

DHK,

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what I said, so I will just say no. Don't put words in my mouth.

The perfect is Jesus, when He comes back, your favorite verse will be fulfilled!

Until then we will all continue to use whatever version of the bible that we want to.

Selah,

Tam