KJV-Onlyism Commentary

"cop-out phrase"? I guess this means you cannot produce one. That's ok, I knew you couldn't, because there aren't any. Go figure!

Who is it that decides which translations are "worthwhile"? Would that invovle God or only our "scholars"?

You have missd the whole heart of the controversy. It is NOT about using modern English. It is about changing God's message or deleting parts of it.

This is what the athiest say about God. They tell us because we say He is, then we must prove He is. We can say right back, prove that He isn't. But they cry foul! They say we proclaim the positive so we bear the burden of proof. It is a poor assumption to make. I don't have to prove God exist, the Holy Spirit does that. And I don't have to prove the KJB is the inerrant Word of God, the Holy Spirit does that as well.

Then who decides which words are in error? God or scholars?

You have a right to take this position, However I don't know how you could ever prove such a thing.

I cannot truthfully challenge you on this. Have you compared all 5000+ with each other, that would allow you to declare such an statement? I honestly don't know. Is this true, and how can I check it out?

This is a difficult one to explain for a KJVO advocate who claims that the KJV is a word for word perfect translation because here is where the translators used some liberty in hopes to let the reader understand just what passover the writer was reffering to.

Another good one the KJB correctors like to mention is the Holy Spirit being called an "It". If "Easter" and "It" are the most troubling problems that they can come up with, well I will just smile and concede that they are right and the KJB is just riddled with error.

God Bless!

 

Where is God in all of this?
Psalms 119:89 "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."

The word "settled" or preserved, does not mean in a translation, but, as it says "in heaven." God gave it to us, not through the KJV, but through the Apostles and the prophets. We don't have the originals any more. If we did, God knows that man would become "Bible-worshippers" or idolaters. Some, in respect to the KJV, come close to that position already. He plainly says that it is forever settled in Heaven, (not on earth), but He has been kind and merciful enough to give us a copy of His Word in various translations on this earth.

Only the Greek and the Hebrew are inspired.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

#1. The prophecy refers to that which the prophets spoke and wrote, and by extension, that which the Apostles spoke and wrote.

#2. "came not in old time by the will of man." It was not the will of man that the Word of God came. God's Holy Spirit was instrumental in telling which men to write what words, at what time, and in what age, to what people. God oversaw every detail.
This was not so with the KJV. With the KJV it was entirely "BY the will of man." King James decided on his own, according to the dictates of HIS will, that a new version of the Bible should be written. He gathered together the best scholars out of the land. They by, the will of the king, translated from the Greek and Hebrew an English translation of the Bible. This was by the will of man. It was not "the prophecy that came by "holy men of God."
As I have challenged you before, look up the biographies of these sinful men. They were not the holy men of God referred to 2Pet.1:21.

#3. "but holy men of God spake" As noted above the KJV translators were not the holy men of God spoken of in this verse. The holy men of God refer to the prophets of the Old Testament, and by extension the Apostles of the New Testament--no others. God spoke only through them when the Scriptures were being written. He spoke through Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and then, Matthew, Mark, Paul, James, John, etc., etc. They were the prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New Testament. They were not the translators of any translation or version.
"Holy men of God spoke. It was not the men that were inspired, but the words that they spoke. Thus a translation could never be inspired, for it was the very words that Samuel and Peter and John wrote down that were inspired. It was not them, (or any others), it was the words that were inspired. That rules out any other manuscripts but the originals being inspired.

#4. "As they were moved by the Holy Spirit" The word "moved" means "borne along," like a river does with a leaf or stick. It carries it along with the current. The Holy Spirit carried the words of the authors of the Bible, as they were being penned, and gave them life. The Bible is a living Book (Heb.4:12). It is alive because God breathed into it life. That is what the word inspiration means (God-breathed) --2Tim.3:16. The words of the prophets and Apostles were God-breathed, made alive by God the Holy Spirit as they were written down. They were written down in Greek and in Hebrew, not in outdated English.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All Scripture is God-breathed. Translations are not. God breathed into the words of the Apostles and Prophets life. He was kind enough to leave us a copy of that Word, and over 3,000 manuscripts in the Greek language alone. Do we have the Word of God today? Of course we do. Is it inspired? Only in the originals can it possibly be inspired, by the very nature of the word inspiration. Only God is perfect. Only God makes no mistakes. God breathed into the words of the original writings and they were without mistake, for they were the actual words of God.
Today we have copies, and translations, both of which have minor mistakes, none of which affect doctrine. We do not have an inspired Bible, but I do believe that God has preserved His Word for us.
If you want to know more accurately what the Word of God is saying to you, then you will have to know how God spoke to Peter and Paul, and the authors, in their language. For God inspired their words, not the KJV translators. If you believe that, then you have to back it up with Scripture.
God gave all the world a Bible (not the KJV), but each nation a Bible in their own language. He could only do that if there is one source. There is only one source. The Greek and Hebrew from which the prophets and Apostles spoke, not the KJV.
DHK

 

How can you prove God did not prompt the King to do the work?

God Bless!

 

That sure is a Great God! Amen! Makes me wonder why you believe God could not oversee any translational work. Maybe He got to busy!

God Bless!

 

Jason is in violation of his ever changing agreements. he has yet to post a link to the debate on his debate page, even though he "agreed" he would do so after the first round.

Say's a lot about Jason and how much truth and honesty mean to him.


I don't trust him to be honest and am surprised that anyone would.


Jim

 

Acts 17
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Romans 12
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

1 Thessalonians 5
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

2 Timothy 2
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

One does not have to "learn" a foreign language, but a recognition of original intent is necessary for correct exegesis. Don't fear scholarship. The KJV was a pinnacle of scholarship for its day. It would not have stood the test of time if it were not.

 

steaver said "This is what the athiest say about God. They tell us because we say He is, then we must prove He is. We can say right back, prove that He isn't. But they cry foul! They say we proclaim the positive so we bear the burden of proof. It is a poor assumption to make."

Sorry, but that's how it goes. Or else any man-made doctrine should be accepted simply because we cannot prove the contrary.

steaver said "And I don't have to prove the KJB is the inerrant Word of God, the Holy Spirit does that as well."

He does? How?

steaver said "You have a right to take this position, However I don't know how you could ever prove such a thing."

It's very simple: if any single document is exclusively "the word of God", then by definition "the word of God" did not exist until that document was published. KJV-onlyism inherently implies this, and this should be completely unacceptable for anyone claiming to be a Christian.

steaver said "I cannot truthfully challenge you on this. Have you compared all 5000+ with each other, that would allow you to declare such an statement? I honestly don't know. Is this true, and how can I check it out?"

I personally have not compared them, no. But they have been compared. Documentation exists for those who want to verify it for themselves. But the bigger point of all this is to demonstrate that since the KJV does not match 100% the texts it was translated from, let alone any other text, "perfection" of preservation did not take place, by definition.

steaver said "This is a difficult one to explain for a KJVO advocate who claims that the KJV is a word for word perfect translation because here is where the translators used some liberty in hopes to let the reader understand just what passover the writer was reffering to."

Yes, it is a difficult one for a KJVO advocate to explain. Because it is an error. Kinney would have us believe the absolutely ridiculous notion that Herod, a man who liked to to please the Jews (Acts 12:3), intended to observe and wait for the anniversary of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Kinney would have us believe the absolutely ridiculous notion that the Holy Spirit change the meaning of scripture. All this just to cling to a man-man, extra-Biblical doctrine. Unacceptable.

steaver said "If "Easter" and "It" are the most troubling problems that they can come up with, well I will just smile and concede that they are right and the KJB is just riddled with error."

The KJV is not riddled with error.

steaver said "How can you prove God did not prompt the King to do the work?"

Maybe he did. I have no problem at all with that concept. That does not have anything to do with exclusiveness or inerrancy though.

steaver said "Makes me wonder why you believe God could not oversee any translational work."

Maybe he did. How could you possibly know?

 

By the way, you may find a better way to refute the arguments put against you if you try using a lexicon. There are several on line.

http://biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/

For example, if you go to the link I just provided and wish to see where else in the New Testament the English word "mind" is used, just type the word into the window. The use of a Strong's Links will help you narrow your search. The word "mind" in the quotation I provided from Romans is Strong's #3563 (as opposed to #5427 as in Romans 8:27 or other nuances written into the original texts). Find that number in the lexicon and you will find a definition, the number of times throughout the New testament it is used and in what verses it is found.

It takes a little while to get use to using the tool, but after awhile it gets easier. You have not learned Koine Greek, you don't have to pronounce it or learn a new alphabet, but you are able to study the intent of the words when they are used in other contexts. It is far more profitable than a simple word search in a concordance.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, DHK did not say God commanded you to learn a foreign language. Read what he said again. He said that if KJVOs think people who do not speak English need to learn 17th century English to read God's word, wouldn't it make more sense if we learned Mandarin Chinese since more people in the world speak Chinese than English?

In other words, why do the KJVOs believe that God wants or requires non-English speaking people to learn 17th century English in order to have "God's word" (which KJVOs define as the KJV only)?

--------------------------------------------------

I would like to know where I stated I believed this? I am not talking about other countries and other languages. I am talking about this issue, which has to do with us and our language. Things we know of, not irrelevent things we (most of us) know mostly nothing about enouph to even discuss it.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
The word "settled" or preserved, does not mean in a translation, but, as it says "in heaven." God gave it to us, not through the KJV, but through the Apostles and the prophets. We don't have the originals any more. If we did, God knows that man would become "Bible-worshippers" or idolaters. Some, in respect to the KJV, come close to that position already. He plainly says that it is forever settled in Heaven, (not on earth), but He has been kind and merciful enough to give us a copy of His Word in various translations on this earth.

Only the Greek and the Hebrew are inspired.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

--------------------------------------------------

If God's word of truth is only settled in heaven, and not here also among his faithfull believers, then what was God's point in giving any of it in the first place? What good are dead languages to the common English speaking folk? We either have God's inspired words - the scriptures, or we don't and our faith is in vain. You can go ahead and believe this all you want, but I will not, nor can I, because the Lord has revealed to me and many others, and for generations, otherwise.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
If we did, God knows that man would become "Bible-worshippers" or idolaters.
--------------------------------------------------

No, in reality and truth, what is happening today, is that many are coming to idolize the Greek and Hebrew languages, and as a result their own mind. Then claiming those who believe we have the inspired word of God in our own language to be guilty of something they are not. You all are denying us the faith we have and the truth we know, and encourage others to doubt the truth, and put their faith in some miraculous but dead ancient languages and scholars who study it. Sorry, God's word of truth is living and breathing in his faithful churches, today and has been for generations.


Basically what many of you would have us believe, is that God is not involved, nor does he care about the translation of his inspired words into a language. That God has made it so that we must rely upon the scholars of the day to tell us what is and is not his word of truth, or to study some language other than our native tongue in order to find and study God's inspired word. Only those smart enouph, and able enouph to study these languages have access to God's inspired words. I think not. God has provided them to us, so that we common folk are not decieved by those who would prevert his word of truth.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
#2. "came not in old time by the will of man." It was not the will of man that the Word of God came. God's Holy Spirit was instrumental in telling which men to write what words, at what time, and in what age, to what people. God oversaw every detail.
This was not so with the KJV. With the KJV it was entirely "BY the will of man." King James decided on his own, according to the dictates of HIS will, that a new version of the Bible should be written. He gathered together the best scholars out of the land. They by, the will of the king, translated from the Greek and Hebrew an English translation of the Bible. This was by the will of man. It was not "the prophecy that came by "holy men of God."
As I have challenged you before, look up the biographies of these sinful men. They were not the holy men of God referred to 2Pet.1:21.
--------------------------------------------------

Please give me scriptural support for your claim that God's word of truth cannot also be in a translation? Please prove to me that it was not God's will for the translation of the KJB? Please explain to me, how a translation compares to a new revelation as you seem to be implying? Murrah in Bahasa Indonesian translates to angry in English. They are the same words, not new revelation, nor is a translation of God's word new scripture being given. It is the translation from one langauge to another with equal meaning.

The Anglican church and their actions have nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. But you want to bring up the life of these men? Why do you not check out the lives of those men responsible for copying the inspired words of God throughout history. Care to do that? Can you be so sure they themselves were holy men of God? Why is it different from copying the inspired words of God throughout history, but then different in the translation? And why would God not be providentially guiding his words in a translation? Please, I would like the scriptures that He couldn't or wouldn't. I would also like scripture to support your belief that God would preserve his inspired words only in the copies of Hebrew and Greek. How bout showing me scriptures where God has said his word would only remain in the Hebrew and Greek languages, but not any other.
I guess alot of us will be found guilty at the judgement seat of Christ for not learning these langauges in order to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. I guess only you, and a select few others have access to the inspired words of God.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Romans 3
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The origin of the Scriptures is, however, in those dead languages. Even at the time of the events of the New Testament, the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament was archaic. It had been replaced by an adulterated Yiddish and Greek called Aramaic. Stephen acknowledges that the Scriptures came from a language that was dead even to him, but is quick to say that the message was alive:

Acts 7
37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

 

--------------------------------------------------
Romans 3
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

--------------------------------------------------


Notice the word "were". NOW Jesus Christ is the Saviour of ALL MEN EVERYWHERE.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
Acts 7
37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
--------------------------------------------------

Wow! Isn't it amazing that you and I and all reading these posts have the same inspired scriptures in order to even be able to read and know this at all? God is wonderful. Praise HIS HOLY NAME.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

So the coming of Christ nullified the need for the Old Testament oracles? Then why have any Bible at all?

 

I agree, and it is in large part due to the work of the faithful Jews as mentioned in Romans 3, and Christian scholars that have taken on the trust of preserving the Scriptures for all the past two millinea. Their work, and often times their martyrdom, were the vehicle through which God preserved his Scriptures in order that we could have them today.

However, despite our agreement on this point, are you unwilling to address the issue of Stephen referring to Moses receiving the oracle in a dead language and how it measures against your statements of these languages being unneccessary?

 

--------------------------------------------------
So the coming of Christ nullified the need for the Old Testament oracles? Then why have any Bible at all?
--------------------------------------------------

Where did I say this? Why would I say this when I don't believe this. No, what is the truth, since the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Old testament, along with the New testament are for and to ALL MEN EVERYWHERE. Since the Old testament foreshadows and is about Christ's coming, and the New Testament is the witness or revelation of his fulfilment of the Old, the two go hand in hand and are NOW MEANT FOR ALL MEN EVERYWHERE. It is through the scriptures that we learn of Jesus Christ, and the revelation of Him, and his will for us. God did not box himself in these languages, but offers the Revelation of Himself to all everywhere.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
I agree, and it is in large part due to the work of the faithful Jews as mentioned in Romans 3, and Christian scholars that have taken on the trust of preserving the Scriptures for all the past two millinea. Their work, and often times their martyrdom, were the vehicle through which God preserved his Scriptures in order that we could have them today.
--------------------------------------------------


I guess that is the difference between you and I. You give men the glory. I give God the glory.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Partially true. Christ is the Savior of those who believe in Him. How do we believe? We believe by hearing:

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

and we learn this by study:

2 Timothy 3
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.