Why I am KJV only

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#1 - It is based upon superior manuscripts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unprovable and therefore arguable. Cannot be used as proof until it is proven. It can be asserted and argued to be the case but for every argument put forward in defense of the position, there is a counter and an argument in favor of the other. This is where this debate should be taking place. Furthermore, you assume here that the KJV accurately reflects there "superior texts." It does not in all cases.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#2 - It is based upon superior scholarship<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unprovable and the preponderance of the evidence should lead us to conclude that 400 years of linguistic study has drastically improved scholarship.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#3 - It has withstood the test of time (390 years of God's blessing)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Straw man. The Latin Vulgate stood a much longer test of time. Length of time is no argument for anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#4 - It has withstood the test of truth (there are no proven errors in its text)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Demonstrably false. There are numerous places where the KJV includes text that has no Greek manuscript support as well as places where the English rendering in no way corresponds to the Greek text. These have been listed in other places on this forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#5 - It is the universal standard of Biblical authority (all modern bibles compare themselves to the KJV)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Demonstrably false. All modern Bibles do not compare themselves the KJV. The universal standard of biblical authority should be the faithfulness of the translation to the original language texts. The KJV is very good, though not perfect as mentioned above and demonstrated elsewhere.

I am not beating up on the KJV. I am only pointing out the flaws in method by which you have arrived at your conclusion.

 

I wonder if you expect this thread to bring out anything new... You have made the same basic assertions which have been argued over and over with the weight of the evidence coming down against KJVO's. Only Dr. Cassidy has even come close to presenting a rational argument in favor of the KJV and TR being superior...and he isn't KJVO.

Nonetheless, let's go: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
#1 - It is based upon superior manuscripts<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The KJV was derived primarily from earlier English versions, (indirectly by) the Latin Vulgate, and the TR. The TR does not strictly follow the Byzantine/MT line; if it did then you would have a stronger case.

Objectively, the TR only has merit in that it is representative of the BT.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
#2 - It is based upon superior scholarship<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My understanding is that the KJV translators were the best classical scholars in England at the time. They might arguably be superior man for man than modern translators but how do you prove this of men who have been dead for over 300 years? However, your point really falls apart when you consider that modern scholars can access a wealth of accumulated knowledge at the click of a mouse. It is foolish to ignore discoveries in archeology and ancient languages. The KJV is the product of superior scholarship only in the context of its time.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#3 - It has withstood the test of time (390 years of God's blessing)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Latin Vulgate reigned supreme for 1,000 years. I for one am glad that I do not need a priest...nor an Oxford dictionary to read scripture.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#4 - It has withstood the test of truth (there are no proven errors in its text)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I won't rewrite them here but there are whole threads that deal with errors in the KJV as compared with both the original languages and as compared with itself.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#5 - It is the universal standard of Biblical authority (all modern bibles compare themselves to the KJV)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the universal standard is the originals. The quest is to get as close as possible to that standard. Accuracy, contrary to the KJVO method of comparison, is not measured by how a version is similar or dissimilar to the KJV but rather how well the original languages and concepts are translated into English.

[ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
[QB#4 - It has withstood the test of truth (there are no proven errors in its text)
[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are no proven contradictions nor errors of spiritual truth; agreed. But the same can be said for the NASB, NIV and NKJV.

However, there are translational errors: You don't really believe unicorns is correct, do you?

 

Why, in all these discussions, doesn't anyone talk about the Preface to the 1611 version?

It holds the answers. The translators themselves shoot down the KJV only position.

Why don't the KJV only group talk about the Preface? Do they even know what it says?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
You don't really believe unicorns is correct, do you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, if you know what a unicorn is. If you have been under the mistaken impression a unicorn is a mythical horse with a single horn growing from its forehead, I can understand your charge of error (but the error is yours, not the bibles).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
[QB]WHOLE Bible verses deleted in the NIV

The following WHOLE verses have been removed in the NIV - whether in the text or footnotes...over 40 IN ALL!!!

[I have omitted a common list of textual variants with little or no actual support in the manuscript evidence which is the basis for the English versions of Scripture]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, why do you continue to cite these verses whose existence is at best debatable and most likely incorrect? You could cite the same list titled "Verses added into the KJV." These verses were most likely not a part of the original manuscripts and you have no way to prove that they were.

Your weakness is in your refusal to deal with the evidence at hand. Have you ever read Metzger's TExtual Commentary on the Greek New Testament? That little volume would answer many of your questions and show the fallacy of your argument here.

[ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
How can the "originals" be the standard when the "originals" don't exist?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pioneer, that is what bible preservation is all about. God inspired the autographs (original manuscripts) in, we presume, Hebrew/Aramaic, and Greek. Those original manuscripts have long since crumpled to dust, but that is where bible preservation comes in. God has preserved those original language texts for us today. I believe those original languages texts are preserved in the traditional texts of the Old and New Testaments. Other good and Godly men disagree with me (but they are wrong ) and believe God has either preserved another paradigm of texts, or that He has preserved all MSS (I agree with that) but there is no way to tell which of the variants is the original reading (I disagree with that).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but there is no way to tell which of the variants is the original reading (I disagree with that). [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Cassidy, you and I have had a rough time in starting off and again I appologize for any personal attacks I have said to you. I will attempt to control my emotions in this string.

Could you explain what you mean by the above statement and why? This is not a trick question. I think I know where you are going, but not sure how you are getting there.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Cannot be used as proof until it is proven. It can be asserted and argued to be the case but for every argument put forward in defense of the position, there is a counter and an argument in favor of the other. This is where this debate should be taking place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above is taken from Dr. Larry's reply to the statement that the KJV has better manuscripts. I agree with his arguments 100% on all counts and I would also like to see this debate turn this direction so that we and the KJVO crowd can learn a little about the original manuscripts used in all mainstream translations.
Alright you scholars out there, help me out:
It is my understanding that the KJVO only crowd tend to claim the texts for the KJV are supperior, but it is also my "understanding" that the KJV also referred heavily on existing English documents, the Septuagint and even Latin documents. Is this all true and how much so?

My second question is that the KJVO group maintain that the source of documents for the new translations (since about 1880) come from Alexandrian documents which are obviously tainted because of the "location" from which they came was considered "heathen" territory.

In my understanding, the actual manuscripts used were really the result of textual-criticism of many, many documents using comparisons in an attempt to determine what was true and what was added at a later date by well-meaning copy-writers, also considering the age of manuscripts found since the KJV (not to mention the higher level of scientific capability) As Dr. Cassidy said in another string, "textual-criticism" was also used in the KJV when I pointed out that 12 different Revelation documents had to be pieced together to come up with a complete KJV version of The Revelation of Jesus Christ. This means that the KJV used the same sort of scholarship. If this is true, and I believe it is, this brings our argument back to the "original" documents and which ones were actually used. Now, it is my understanding that many Jews left the Israel to stay in outlying areas during the Roman/Jewish wars and during destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Many of these Jews wound up in Alexandria where they worked with scholars to continue to make accurate copies of the manuscripts. Is this not true and does this mean that these manuscripts may NOT be tainted simply because of their source? I would think that these Jews were just as religious in their zeal for Jesus as were Christians elsewhere or they would not have even bothered to copy the documents; however, this is only a small issue because: also the Greek manuscripts used today (and Hebrew OT) come from textual criticism technicques applied to many, many different documents (not just a few Alexandrian) also including the septuagint, etc. Is this true? If all of this is the case, or even close, this should take away most of the largest argument used by the KJVO group. Am I totally off base folks? Help me out here!


[ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
Could you explain what you mean by the above statement and why? This is not a trick question. I think I know where you are going, but not sure how you are getting there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Generally speaking, textual criticism deals with probabilities. Most modern "scientific" textual critics believe their job is to reconstruct a lost text, or reconstruct a text that has been hidden in the plethora of manuscripts, readings, vernaculars, quotes of the patristics, etc.

I don't believe the text has been lost and needs to be reconstructed. I believe it has been there all along, for the most part in the vast majority of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and testified to all down through the ages of ecclesiastical history as the commonly accepted text.

Even Bishop Hort admitted that, prior to his formulation of the "pillars" of modern "scientific" textual criticism, the early compliers such as Erasmus did not practice textual criticism, as we know it today, but merely, in the words of Hort, "passed along" the commonly received text that had been in constant usage in Christiandom for well over 1000 years.

 

In Humble Apology to Dr. Cassidy and others et al...

An Open Letter To All On Baptist Board:

Matthew 5:22-24
22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

I must attempt to comply with the above passage, with a view to my submission to the authority of this organization, and it's several members, but expressly those who are charged with it's leadership, moderation, and administration.

I confess that I have been under conviction for sins I publicly committed against my brother in Christ, Dr. Thomas Cassidy.

I will not attempt to excuse myself, or clear my motives.

I am altogether guilty of non submission to authority, anger, hateful words, and lack of goodwill to our brother.

Also, in the commission of this sin, I have made a spectacle of myself before other members of this venue: Chris Temple, Scott J, Pastor Larry, Dr. Bob Griffin, and Phillip...I may be leaving someone out. If I have, I am sorry, it is not an intentional oversight.

I humbly apologize and beg Dr. Cassidy's and this body's forgiveness of acts I have committed in the flesh, and most certainly outside of the will of God.

This was, but not necessarily limited to:
Verbal Tirades, Lack of procedure or logic, a neglect of due process, or an allowance of response in a gentlemanly fashion.

My emotions placed my tongue, my fingers, my attitude, and my choice of harsh words in the drivers seat of my spiritual life.

On account of this, I have been out of fellowship, not only with my brethren and sisters, but also with my God.

Although, it certainly does not seem an adequate retribution, even to me, it is all I can contribute for the disgrace of my actions before this body of Godly men and women. Alas, it is all I have.

I request to be forgiven, full well knowing I cannot control your response or willingness to consider my overture in hopes of a restoration to fellowship.

For that decision, be it for good or ill, I humbly cast myself upon the mercy of the participants of this Forum.

In His Steps,

Alex Peterson

My life verse, which I have willfully ignored:
II Corinthians 10:5
"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"

 

Pioneer,

I disagree. I applaud Alex for his humble and bold action. I will also say that I find your demeanor in your posts to be unbecoming of a pastor. Perhaps you could learn from rather than criticize Alex.

Someone else said that we wouldn't talk to people face-to-face the way we do in this environment. I ask you, do you talk to your church members the way you do here? Now if I were face-to-face with you right now, I would say exactly what I'm typing, which is being said with love and a gentle rebuke from someone who has been mainly on the sidelines of this argument. This would be a much more civil place if we all keep in mind this thought.

In Christ,
John

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
I request that Alex's post be moved or deleted. It has nothing to do with topic at hand and it is a great distraction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


What a great, pastoral heart you have, Pioneer.

This is where Alex wanted it, and where it should be.

Alex, you show great character and humbleness. Thank you, brother.

 

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


Bro. Cassidy,

I whole heartily agree that Bible preservation is the issue here. I believe that the God who preserved His word in "the original language texts" (as they are called) also preserved His word in the English language (specifically in the King James Bible). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You may be taking comfort in thinking that the differences between your position and Dr. Cassidy's are minor. However, there is a chasm between them, not a ditch. Many of us may disagree with some or all of TC's conclusions. However, seldom are these disagreements over issues of fact. By and large, he differs with most scholars (at his level of expertise) only on the interpretation of the facts. (BTW, most of us here are probably not at his level.)

By his own testimony, Dr. Cassidy arrived at his position after years of scholarly consideration of the evidence. You have demonstrated nothing of the sort and in fact have denied or ignored facts without considering them at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just as God inspired His word without error I believe God also preserved His word without error.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In that you are talking about a particular set of English words and not the true, eternal Word of God, you believe in something that is totally contrary to biblical and historical truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Bible preservation means absolutely nothing to me without a perfect standard...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg you to reconsider this statement and consider what God has done and not what you wish that He had done. Are you really willing to second guess God like this?