Why I am KJV only

<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>

Pioneer, This TOPIC is where the offended party is, this is where the witnesses are, this is where the offenses took place, this is where Alex knew he could get everyone's attention, THIS IS EXACTLY THE PLACE FOR HIS POST!

Luke
18:9
And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
18:10
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
18:11
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
18:12
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
18:13
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
18:14
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted

God bless you brother Alex. Your's is one of the best examples of Christian character that I have witnessed on this forum.

[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

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


Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to tell God, OUT LOUD, that these verses do not belong in the Bible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, although saying it out loud won't help it. The fact is that the evidence is simply not conclusive and you cannot possibly twist it enough to make it so. You have not dealt with the evidence. You have not dealt with any of the problems of your position.

The more appropriate question is, on what basis do you feel qualified to assert that additions to God's word are truly God's words? Don't you think if God had intended to say it, it would have been there in the first place?

Of course, it may have been. We simply do not know and there is no way to know.

On textual criticism, Thomas is right that we are dealing with probability. However, arguing that Erasmus and others just passed on what they received does not help the argument. The probability of existence in the orginal manuscripts is not increased by "passing it down." While the text has not been lost per se, it has in a sense since there is such a vast field of extant evidence that is not identical and therefore decisions must be made on what the most probably reading is. Even within the majority text family, there is not unanimity.

[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by petersonalexw:
In Humble Apology to Dr. Cassidy and others et al...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Forgiven and forgotten.

 

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


If the "true, eternal Word of God" is not found in "a particular set of English words" then God lied and we are of all men most miserable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Found" is an interesting choice of words. You can find the Word of God in several faithful translations of the Bible in English. As I think you know, I was stating that it is not exclusively found in the KJV.

God does not lie. He never promised to re-inspire translations in English or any other language. In fact, He never promised us a word by word perfect Bible. The originals had inspired "perfect" words to convey His revelation. What we have is the complete inspired message of those words. All current Bibles are factually accurate in as much as they agree with those originals.

I for one am not miserable for I have not chosen to question why God did not preserve His Word my way. I accept that He preserved His Word the way He chose to.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How do you define the "true, eternal Word of God" in reference to Bible preservation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Word of God is what God has chosen to reveal of Himself to mankind- His character, nature, plan, will, etc. Jesus was the perfect expression of the Word in flesh. The originals were the perfect expression of His Word in writing in that God actually inspired the very words that were used. Even though we do not have the inspired words, we do have the inspired message of revelation. If God had willed to have it another way, it would have been that way.

The Word of God existed before it was written; in fact, before the creation. It was progressively revealed over about 1400 years. The OT saints did not have the complete Bible but still possessed the Word of God. The NT church did not recognize the completed canon until sometime after 200 A.D.. The early churches mostly had copies of the gospels and some of the epistles. Since variants appeared very early in the manuscripts, the various churches would have had different words in their copies with some missing entire sections....yet they still had the Word of God using its power to go from an obscure, persecuted Jewish sect to the dominate religion in the known world.

We are unique in history. We have an abundance of Bibles in our language which we can personally own.

If all of the disputed passages were removed and if they all should have stayed in just the way the KJV has them and if all we were left with was Bibles derived from the Alexandrian text family, we would still have better resources to know the whole Word of God than any previous generation.

[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Let me try again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So what you are saying to God (and in front of all these witnesses) is that these many verses that are missing from the NIV <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These verses are not missing. The evidence indicates that most likely, they were never there. It is most likely that they were added in somewhere along the way, either by unintentional error, by the inclusion of a marginal note in the text, by an overzealous scribe, etc.

You have assumed that the KJV is identical to the originals. Yet as you yourself have pointed out, no one has the originals so you are making a statement without basis. For all you objectively know, the NIV perfectly reflects the originals. I can make that assertion and you have no basis to argue against it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(which I listed and which are support verses for the doctrine of the trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith alone in Christ, and many other important doctrines)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those doctrines are safe and unable to be contradicted from the MVs. The NIV is much more solid on the deity of Christ. On the trinity, soteriology, and other doctrines it is at least as clear if not more so. You appear to be parroting arguments rather than reading the texts in question. No doctrine is in danger from the MVs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... don't belong in the Bible because they are not the word of God? Is that what you are saying? Sure sounds to me like that's what you are saying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got it. Do you have any conclusive proof (something besides the opinions of a man) to contradict me? I am willing to change if you have the evidence. So far, I haven't seen it.

 

Pioneer said, "Sure sounds to me like that's what you are saying."

"Sounds" like you're hearing what you want to hear and ignoring what you do not want to hear. The message rang loud and clear why those passages are omitted, because they do not appear in the majority texts. So your argument is that you can add them and it's biblical, and other translators can not add them and it's unbiblical. Makes sense to me?

[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

Bro. Smith,
I am sorry, but I must disagree with you on deleting Alex's letter from THIS forum. The primary reason being that Alex and I are both guilty of the same thing and not accepting Dr. Cassidy as a brother in Christ in the way Jesus would look at him. In fact, I am probably more guilty than Alex for taking arguments that weren't meant as personal attacks and turning them into that and goading other people to back me.

Alex is trying to make amends on the SAME forum in front of the SAME people for which we "learned" from our own experiences that debating an issue can be done in brotherly love without personal attacks. Therefore, I as one, vote that we keep Alex's letter right where it is an pray for all of us to grow in Christ the way Alex has demonstrated.

I too take this opportunity to appologize to Dr. Cassidy and admit my wrongs to this very intelligent and wise Christian brother.

If you feel it is distraction then simply scroll past it.

I for one REALLY enjoyed his heartfelt honesty and sincereness. It is NOT a distraction because several strings had dissolved down to a mis-mash of hateful slanders and therefore he is correcting it in the very place it occurred and I was right in the middle of it.

Thank you for you inspiration Alex.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Changing the subject briefly--By the way, while we are all being distracted, let us not forget and take a moment to say a prayer for those families tonight who have lost family members and pray that more survivors will be found and that these people will find comfort through the Lord Jesus as he is the only comfort and hope when the buildings topple to the ground.
There is a lot of sadness tonight and if I distract anybody's train of thought on Bible translations, maybe we had all better get on our hands and knees and talk -- and pray -- right now! (800 feared dead in pentagon alone -- just announced -- MSNBC)

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would say that you are the one that appears to be parroting arguments rather than reading the texts in question. It is obvious that you have swallowed the Devil's lie hook, line, and sinker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read all of the versions in questions. I have read from Metzger’s Textual Commentary … have you? I have read James White … have you? I have read D. A. Carson … have you? I have read a host of other articles and books on this topic. These questions are not really new nor are they evidential. They are laughable. If you want to talk about specific passages that you think deny doctrine then talk about it. If you were doing any more than parroting arguments, you wouldn’t be saying the stuff you are saying because it is so far away from truth so as to not even be semi-credible. The truth is simply not on your side on this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is a well known established fact that 90-95% of all Greek manuscripts agree with the King James Bible. There are some 5,700 manuscripts in all. When you say "that the evidence indicates ..." you are lying. What you are doing is "parroting arguments" that rely solely upon 2 manuscripts out of 5,700 (the Sinaticus and the Vaticanus).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually this is a clear example of your lies.

Lie #1 -- 90-95% of the manuscripts agree with the KJV.

90-95% do not agree with the KJV (It is a version, not a Bible – Check the title page). The Majority Text family makes up 90-95% of the manuscript evidence. Of those 90-95% of the manuscripts, there is no unanimity. They all differ from each other in many places. No two manuscripts are identical. So even in the Byzantine textual family you must still make choices about what God’s words are.

However, in refutation of your statement, the TR on which the KJV is based, is substantially different (over 1800 places) from the Majority Text. The KJV has differences with absolutely no manuscript support. Out of those 5700 manuscripts (which is probably a bit high if my memory serves me correctly), the KJV is based on less than one dozen. If you do the math that is 0.0021% of the manuscript evidence that Erasmus actually had. And it shows in some of the choices he made.

Lie #2 -- The MVs are based on 2 manuscripts.

The MVs are based on 100% of the manuscript evidence. The statement that they are based on 2 manuscripts out of 5700 is demonstrably false because they include the OT which Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not have). Even in the NT, the MVs consider all evidence as evidence rather than simply discounting it. If you look at the textual apparatus you will see that. Metzger’s Textual Commentary also makes this clear.

You need to start backing your statements up with facts. You have none. If you want to talk Scripture, let’s get it on the table.

Lie #3 -- the NIV calls Jesus Satan

Then you persist in your next post with an old argument that has a thread devoted to it. The NIV gives the proper translation. Get our your Hebrew Bible and your Hebrew lexicon and you will see that the NIV is exactly right. However, if you can’t read Hebrew, just go find the thread that discusses this because it was shown to be wrong there and there is no need to hash it out again.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I'm KJV only and I read my Bible and follow Christ!

Whatever other version you read I will not argue, I know what brings me comfort and joy.

If what you read brings you comfort and joy is the only thing important and are you following Christ? That's all that matters!... EUGENE

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pioneer:
[QB]NIV Calls Lucifer, "Jesus"

(1) Just about everybody knows the word "Lucifer" as another name for Satan. The word "Lucifer" is found one time in the King James Bible. [QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the "one time" it is found it is incorrectly transliterated from the Latin. The word in Hebrew is helel, meaning a shining one, correctly translated (surprise) in the NASB and NIV as star of the morning. The KJV is incorrect.

BTW, Lucifer is not the devil's name, and Isaiah 14:12 is speaking of the king of Babylon, not Satan. Satan is no man (see v 16).

 

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


Then, according to you, Jesus is a man <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you denying that Jesus was a man??

 

Pioneer said:

Then, according to you, Jesus is a man (the king of Babylon) because the NIV also uses the name "morning star" in reference to Jesus. Your logic is illogical.

You make the mistake of assuming a symbol must stand for the same thing every single time it is used.

The morning star is a symbol of royalty. Both Nebuchadnezzar and Jesus are kings. Therefore the symbol is appropriate to both.

 

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


Then, according to you, Jesus is a man (the king of Babylon) because the NIV also uses the name "morning star" in reference to Jesus. Your logic is illogical.

Bro. Steve Smith<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello?? As Larry said, are you saying Jesus is not a man?

And by your "illogic", Ezekiel is God and Savior because he is called son of man .