10 Questions for KJVers

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
3. DP: Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?

Gina: Name which of these were BOTH completed and totally from the correct source. Some great work, but the KJV was the only one to be completed and from the correct source by people with the knowledge and ability to do it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gina: Could you elaborate on what you're saying here a little more? I don't know of any KJVOs who deny that the protestant Bible's prior to the KJV, all translated from the same basic texts as the KJV, were reliable, complete Bibles. Are you saying the Bible was not complete until 1611?? Prior to 1881, no one opposed an update to the KJV language. It was the use of a "new" text (Westcott and Hort) which caused the ruckus.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't know of any KJVOs who deny that the protestant Bible's prior to the KJV, all translated from the same basic texts as the KJV, were reliable, complete Bibles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seriously? I've encountered plenty of these folks.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:


Seriously? I've encountered plenty of these folks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You probably know better than I Tom. I always have read of the KJVO believing in a "tree of Good Bibles", ending in the KJV.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:

1. DP: Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not?

Gina: It comes from questionable sources. See answer to #2 also. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gina, Before you travel too far down this road of "questionable" sources, you need to do some research on the origins of the TR and KJV. I have never seen any evidence presented that demonstrated Erasmus to be a born again Christian. Further, the same Anglican Bishops who were responsible for translating the AV also ran the High Commission Court.

The HCC was responsible for trying religious dissenters and heretics- among them Baptists. Remember your US history. The primary motive bringing most of the early English settlers to America between 1600-1650 was escape from religious persecution. Who were they running from? Ans. The abuses of the Anglican church under the authority of the British monarch.

By the way, the English speaking Christians of this era that we would identify with preferred the Geneva Bible over the AV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. DP: Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?

Gina: Name which of these were BOTH completed and totally from the correct source. Some great work, but the KJV was the only one to be completed and from the correct source by people with the knowledge and ability to do it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not only were all of these versions the Word of God, we would not have the KJV without them. From all I have read, the Geneva Bible was not only a good translation, it was also a Bible translated by exiled Christians- less likely to be tainted by the expectations of a state church.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
9. Suppose you lived in the 10th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?

Gina: The same way I describe it now. What would be the difference? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, there would be a significant difference. For one, all of the Bibles of that time were hand copies creating many variants. Some were missing words, some whole verses. The demand of KJVO's that only an exact copy of one particular text can be the Word of God was not possible until the printing press. The dilemna is this: either you accept the fact that different sets of words can still constitute the Word of God or you must suppose that God denied His Word to Christians for about 1500 years then brought it back together in its perfect form when a group of Anglican scholars got together using the Greek text of a Roman Catholic scholar.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>10. DP: AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE BIG QUESTION:
The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority" in 1610 and prior? Explain.

Gina: The exact same place it is now. In God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So you agree with the liberals that scripture is "not the final authority for all matters of faith and practice?" How can anyone know God without the Bible?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If by that you meant the eternal question "Where was the KJV before 1611", your answer is that no translations in English were allowed for most of that time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is simply a false statement. There were several that were accepted by God's people and used to further His kingdom.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So it remained only in the Byazantine and Masoretic texts until the translation was allowed to take place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just to play along, which one out of the several thousand mss in the Byzantine family was THE ONE Word of God? Remember they all differ from each other in some way. Also, if by some means we can determine that ONE ms, why didn't the AV translators use it if they were being guided by God to produce THE Word of God for the english speaking people?

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

interestingly, if my recollection is correct, Spurgeon wasn't KJB-superior.

thus the Bible he defended is probably not just one version.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
my defense is much like Spurgeon stated, "I would defend the bible just as I would defend a lion. I would open the cage and let it loose!" I agree. The bible can take care of itself!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
interestingly, if my recollection is correct, Spurgeon wasn't KJB-superior.

thus the Bible he defended is probably not just one version.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe he did hold the KJV as superior, though not perfect. He pleaded to scholars to not needlessly alter the Common Version. While affirming the RV corrected some weaknesses of the KJV, he said that the RV was strong in Greek, and weak in English.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability. [Commenting and Commentaries from Lectures To My Students pg. 31] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> When the English Revised Version New Testament appeared in 1881, Spurgeon did not heap scorn upon it as some did then and as some do today. In fact, from 1881 on, Spurgeon not infrequently expressly referred to the Revised English translation, commending it either in text or translation or both. In 1881, the very year the revision appeared, Spurgeon preached a sermon in which he expressly refers to the new Revised Version, noting its difference in text from the KJV and acknowledging the RV as here correct; he then lays down some principles regarding the questions of the text and translation of Scripture to which all Baptist ought to give hearty assent. His sermon text is part of Isaiah 61:1, "He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted..." —

I intended to have preached from these words in Luke 4:18, but when I looked at the Revised Version and found that the words were not there at all I was somewhat startled. I began to ask whether the omission was a correct one or not — and without making pretence to scholarship — I feel convinced that the revisers are acting honestly in leaving it out. It was not in the original manuscript of Luke, but probably some pious person added it with the intention of making the quotation more complete. Whatever the intention may have been, and however natural the added words may appear, it is a pity that the unknown brother ventured to improve that which was perfect from the beginning...

...Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, & an accurate interpretation of the Old/New Testaments. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would comfirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them. All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit, as far as we can get it. Beyond all other Christians we are concerned in this, seeing we have not other sacred book; we have no prayer book or binding creek, or authoritative minutes of conference — we have nothing but the Bible — and we would have that as pure as ever we can get it. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, that so the Word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand. [from Heart-Disease Curable MTP Vol 27, Year 1881, pgs. 341, 342-3, Isaiah 61:1] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See Great Quotes on Bible Translations

 

Good post Chris.

On another subject, here we go again with the arguments, same subjects, same errors, same facts, different folks. hehe

Just one question for a KJVO. Does this mean that translations into other languages are not the inspired word of God? Such as Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, etc.

 

Phillip:Just one question for a KJVO. Does this mean that translations into other languages are not the inspired word of God? Such as Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, etc.

Phillip the kjvo have said the kjv is the bible for the "english speaking" people.

Scott: I have never seen any evidence presented that demonstrated Erasmus to be a born again Christian. Further, the same Anglican Bishops who were responsible for translating the AV also ran the High Commission Court.

Can you prove he wasnt? because it seems the Lord used his work and that to me would show signs of being a christian.
and would someone tell me about the other men who translated other english bibles, Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's did those men not come out of the rcc or the ac, because i don't think any of them were baptist in theology were they?

Scott:Just to play along, which one out of the several thousand mss in the Byzantine family was THE ONE Word of God? Remember they all differ from each other in some way. Also, if by some means we can determine that ONE ms, why didn't the AV translators use it if they were being guided by God to produce THE Word of God for the english speaking people?

just playing along. looks like they did jkv


[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: ddavis ]

 

Scott,
Of course I will still hold that the authority is in God and not in anything else. I don't understand your logic. The way your thinking, why do you believe in only a certain number of books in the Bible? Why aren't the rest of them included? There were more. You're still putting your faith in men, and if you're doing that you're going to have to admit they were given some kind of divine inspiration to determine what to put into what you're holding in your hands and reading.
The authority is in God, always was. And what the KJVO argument is always going to boil down to after all the arguments of logic is going to be faith. Faith in the preservation of His word and where it was preserved. That's what it is for me anyhow.
Gina

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
Scott,
Of course I will still hold that the authority is in God and not in anything else. I don't understand your logic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The logic is that the scriptures are the final authority for all matters of faith and practice for Christians; true now and true in 1600 A.D.. What truth we know about God, we know from the Bible. Without His Word, we are basically left with each person making up their own god. When you say that your final authority is "in God", is it the God of the Bible or the one who allows you to believe what you want in spite of so much evidence against it (KJVOnlyism)?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The way your thinking, why do you believe in only a certain number of books in the Bible? Why aren't the rest of them included? There were more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't quite understand your assertion here so I will just say that I believe that the Bible is made up of 66 books which make up God's complete Word (His revelation of Himself to mankind). I believe, as the evidence points to, that His Word is preserved and accurately presented in more than one set of words; english and obviously Greek.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You're still putting your faith in men, and if you're doing that you're going to have to admit they were given some kind of divine inspiration to determine what to put into what you're holding in your hands and reading.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No... and no. I am putting my 'faith' on this issue in the strength of evidence against KJVOnlyism- I do so knowing and having considered the arguments of both sides. Simply put, God did not promise to preserve His Word in the way that KJVO's demand. It is a presumption upon His sovereignty to suggest that He somehow chose the KJV above all other translations in English.

I further believe that men doing their scholarly best translated the KJV, NASB, ESV, etc. and produced books which are the Word of God for us in English. The words differ but the doctrines and message do not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And what the KJVO argument is always going to boil down to after all the arguments of logic is going to be faith. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very much to the contrary, the KJVO argument truly does place faith in an emotion-based, man made, false doctrine in direct opposition to logic and evidence.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Faith in the preservation of His word and where it was preserved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is not a matter of faith only. It is primarily a matter of evidence. God preserved His Word in the multitude of ancient mss and witnesses and there are logical processes by which the most likely words of the originals can be determined. And when this work is done, faithful translations reveal the same God, doctrines, plan for man, origin of man, sinfulness of man, holiness of God, etc. The faith comes in when we assert that God did promise to preserve His Word. The evidence shows us how He most likely did it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Scott: I have never seen any evidence presented that demonstrated Erasmus to be a born again Christian. Further, the same Anglican Bishops who were responsible for translating the AV also ran the High Commission Court.

Can you prove he wasnt?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No. However, he did leave writings which affirmed his Catholic beliefs. Also, during a period noted for men confessing their faith in Christ as prescribed in the Bible, Erasmus did not publicly confess his faith in having been saved by grace alone. Finally, there were many protestants as well as Catholics who would have loved to reveal him as a protestant either before or after his death. Their silence indicates that he did not make a private confession either. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>because it seems the Lord used his work and that to me would show signs of being a christian.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God used unbelieving Egyptians to preserve both Israel and the Christ child. God used the persecution of the 1st century church to spread the gospel. KJVO's routinely question the salvation of Wescott and Hort yet thousands of people have been led to Christ with Bibles resulting from their scholarship. Most of the mss we have today and much of the other evidence is directly attributed to the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Church. Neither of which have taught sound sotierology since the middle of the first millenium AD. I have read testimonials by people who have led Jehovah's Witnesses to Christ using the New World Translation!

I don't know whether Erasmus was saved or not. God most certainly used his scholarly work. My point is that God uses not only the work of the redeemed but unsaved people also.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In regard and would someone tell me about the other men who translated other english bibles, Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's did those men not come out of the rcc or the ac, because i don't think any of them were baptist in theology were they?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I honestly don't know but I am not aware of anyone saying that they produced the one and only preserved Word of God for the english speaking peoples either. However, it is a fact of history that the KJV was not well received among non-Anglicans. It became the predominate english Bible only after the binding, printing, and distribution of 'unauthorized' versions became illegal in the British empire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> why didn't the AV translators use it if they were being guided by God to produce THE Word of God for the english speaking people?

just playing along. looks like they did jkv


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know you're joking but on a serious note the TR nor the KJV perfectly match any single ms...nor do they perfectly match each other!! Like all other translations, the KJV is a unique creative work by its translators.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Scott J ]