#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

DHK · Sep 21, 2004

Will,
Your defence of the definition of the word "conversation" is pitiful and makes little sense. We can both play the same game. My scholars are better than your scholars. HaHa! The trouble with your reasoning is that you quote old English sources instead of sources from the Greek. English sources do not define Greek words. It just doesn't happen that way. I am not concerned with old English meanings. I am concerned with the proper meaning of one word. The meaning of the Greek word, "politeuman" used in Phil.3:20 erroneously translated "conversation. Consider:

From Phil. 3:20 "conversation"
politeuma politeuma pol-it'-yoo-mah
from 4176; a community, i.e. (abstractly) citizenship (figuratively):--conversation.

1 Tim.4:12
anastrojh anastrophe an-as-trof-ay' from 390; behavior:--conversation.

The word "anastrophe" is used 13 times and every time is translated "conversation," everytime.
The word "politeumai" is used only once in the NT, and is translated "conversation." It has a different meaning as other translations show it does. The lexicons, Greek dictionaries, and commentaries show that the word has another meaning. It's primary meaning is citizenship. There is another word for "conversation," which was consistently used by the KJV translators, anastrophe. This word in Phil.3:20 is not anastrophe. The English reader would not know this. It is deliberate confusion, an error on the part of the KJV translators.

Our citizenship (hmwn to politeuma). Old word from piliteuw (Phi_1:27), but only here in N.T. The inscriptions use it either for citizenship or for commonwealth. Paul was proud of his Roman citizenship and found it a protection. The Philippians were also proud of their Roman citizenship. But Christians are citizens of a kingdom not of this world (Joh_18:36). Milligan (Vocabulary) doubts if commentators are entitled to translate it here: "We are a colony of heaven," because such a translation reverses the relation between the colony and the mother city. But certainly here Paul's heart is in heaven.
(Robertson's Word Studies)

Phi 3:20 - Our conversation - The Greek word is of a very extenslve meaning: our citizenship, our thoughts, our affections, are already in heaven. (Wesley)

Note I can use the same source (Wesley), by quoting the entire quote, and show how he believes that word means citizenship. Certainly it may have a variety of meaninngs. The primary meaning of the word is citizenship. The Greek has another word for conversation, which is not used here. The translators made a mistake, which you refuse to admit. I am certainly glad that we are able to check the meanings of words by the Hebrew and Greek where God has preserved his word. It is awfully embarassing to say that God's infallible Word is contained in a fallible translation such as the KJV. No translation is infallible. That is why we have the Greek and Hebrew to help us with the meanings of words and phrases, not just in the KJV, but in translations of the Bible in different languages all over this world.
DHK

gb93433 · Sep 21, 2004

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

The Greek word

There are differing opinions among scholars as to what this Greek word, both the verb and the noun, means. According to Kittel's nine volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume VI page 526, the verb means "to walk" rather than "to be a citizen", and the author says the noun politeia does not mean civil rights, constitution or state, but rather it is "the pious order of life". These definitions would agree more with the sense of the King James Bible reading.

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon lists several meanings for the Greek words used. Among them are: 1. to be a citizen or a freeman; 2. to take part in government, 3. to deal with others in private affairs, and 4. to behave - then it references Philippians 1:27 as an example of this use. The last two meanings would be the sense found in the KJB.

Will Kinney

It is quite clear that what you have done is a case of copy and paste from somewhere else. Page 526 in Kittel’s is under the heading of ...in the OT. You should read a bit further under point 3. You should also read on page 535 where Kittel directly addresses the word used in Phil. 3:20. In point number 4 the author writes, “The Basileia twn ouranwn is the politeuma of Christians.” In that same paragraph he also writes, “The commonwealth to which Christians belong, their “homeland,” is in heaven.

Then in Liddell & Scott 9th edition the word politeuma is not even listed. I loked at page 1434 wheer it should be listed and it was not even there.

Louw and Nida write, “
11.71: polivteuma, to" n : the place or location in which one has the right to be a citizen - `state, commonwealth, place of citizenship.' hJmw'n gaVr toV polivteuma ejn oujranoi'" uJpavrcei `our place of citizenship is in heaven' #Phil 3:20

Do you really expect people to believe you when you do not even quote the source and especially lift it out of context to say something it does not.

artbook1611 · Sep 21, 2004

Clint
You use such language as charlatan, poor witness,strutting like a rooster,no honor,defeated champion etc.
I think the truth lies in the fact that Will has done his homework on the version issue and is doing a commendable work and guys like you would like to silence him forever.
This is not much different from the serpents wishes back in Gen 3. "Yea, Hath God said"?

I am not a KJO because of Will or Ruckman, I come to this realization years before I ever heard of these men. I have read numerous articles by Will and have never ever found him to be rude or offensive unlike many on this baptist board.
Your remarks to him are out of place and if this board has any scruples, they would edit your posts for personal attacks.

Clint Kritzer · Sep 21, 2004

I think the truth lies in the fact that Will has done his homework on the version issue and is doing a commendable work...

See the post right above yours for just one example of Will's "homework".

I have read numerous articles by Will and have never ever found him to be rude or offensive unlike many on this baptist board.

His articles? Maybe not. If you are making this claim for his posts, then you are very selective in your reading.

This board does have scruples and allows a wide variety of views and opinions. I am merely holding Will accountable for his statements that can be proven false. He is breaking the 9th Commandment repeatedly and being called on it. Wouldn't you rather have an honest apologist championing your cause? (Though it is amusing to me that you put Ruckman and Will in the same category. Ruckman's the guy who claimed he found 200 "new" inspirations in the KJV that were not present in the Hebrew and Greek. His name makes most credible KJVOs cringe.)

I have no intention of editing my post! Again, I will urge you to watch the thread and see what techniques he may use next to avoid answering the questions I posed. He won't answer gb's either, nor will he address Natters question of the KJV differing from the Hebrew texts and the Waldenese Bibles. Hey! Maybe if YOU asked him, Art! Nah, he still wouldn't answer. Why would one who holds the truth withhold answers? How can one who holds a truthful position be effectively refuted with no response? Why would one who stands on the truth corrupt or make up his sources? Why does Will never cite his sources?

Throw your support behind the KJV, that all good and well. I know many strong, effective Christians who prefer it. Defend a position that is nonscriptural, you will be corrected but not chastised by me. We all have a right to be wrong. Lie and use unethical strategies in your debates, you will be called on it. Will has had two and one half weeks to show some credibility. He has not done so. To the contrary, he just keeps feeding himself more rope.

artbook1611 · Sep 21, 2004

What??
Just look at those pathetic rebuttals of Jason Gastrich. He too uses cheap shots and no matter "how many questions Will does answer", you guys just keep saying that he will not answer the questions and deny anything he says anyways. The fact is some of you guys have your mind made up and no amount of evidence will convince you. In this regard only, "the god of this world hath blinded your eyes".
Instead of looking for a sharp rebuttal to Artbook, why don't you guys think about the damage you are doing to a new born baby christian.
Do you tell them " well young christian , your KJ has errors in it and so do all the versions. You must learn greek and hebrew to find out the truth. But be careful , there are 1000's of manuscripts to study from and good luck finding the ones that are the most accurate."
If I were that young man, I would say to myself "why bother, it will take me a lifetime to learn greek and hebrew".
Meanwhile I had a post deleted on the debate page for personal attack. I said to Jason " you got some nerve"...
And you have said 10 times worse things to Will and refuse to acknowledge it. What kind of christian are you anyway?

Jason Gastrich · Sep 21, 2004

Originally posted by artbook1611:
[QB] Clint
You use such language as charlatan, poor witness,strutting like a rooster,no honor,defeated champion etc.
I think the truth lies in the fact that Will has done his homework on the version issue and is doing a commendable work and guys like you would like to silence him forever.

I don't think intends to silence anyone forever. This is awfully paranoid. On the contrary, non-KJV-Onlyists who are worth their salt are happy to have people like you and Will say anything and everything you want. It never makes your case any more believable or tenable. It's still an extreme minority viewpoint that strongly resembles the cults. The ungodly and unbiblical doctrine of KJV-Onlyism is its own worst enemy.

Your remarks to him are out of place and if this board has any scruples, they would edit your posts for personal attacks.

I disagree. I support the moderators at this board and I think they are doing a fine job. Despite your complaints, they are letting you and your KJV-Onlyist group say anything you please. It seems that you are the only one trying to silence anyone as you critize Will and the other people posting on this board.

Sincerely,
Jason

Jason Gastrich · Sep 22, 2004

Originally posted by artbook1611:
What??
Just look at those pathetic rebuttals of Jason Gastrich.

Tsk, tsk. YOU were the one who was just complaining about someone personally attacking you. You should practice what you preach.

In this regard only, "the god of this world hath blinded your eyes".

I see you are following in the pattern of the cults; using the scriptures as weapons to hurt people who don't believe like you regarding non-essentials, in fact, trying to make them seem as essentials.

Instead of looking for a sharp rebuttal to Artbook, why don't you guys think about the damage you are doing to a new born baby christian.
Do you tell them " well young christian , your KJ has errors in it and so do all the versions.

We are far more concerned with the truth than with how people think or feel about it; despite their age. You should check your priorities.

You must learn greek and hebrew to find out the truth. But be careful , there are 1000's of manuscripts to study from and good luck finding the ones that are the most accurate."

As far as I know, nobody has ever said this. This is a gross mis-characterization of the non-KJV-Onlyist inerrantist. There are only very small, inconsequential errors in the KJV. However, there are still errors.

People can get saved by trusting the gospel message in any English translation. This isn't necessarily the position of many of the people in your camp, though.

If I were that young man, I would say to myself "why bother, it will take me a lifetime to learn greek and hebrew".

By the way you are talking, you wouldn't or couldn't lead the kid to Christ. You would be telling him what he wants to hear because that's what means the most to you.

Meanwhile I had a post deleted on the debate page for personal attack. I said to Jason " you got some nerve"...

You should respect the moderators of this forum. They don't have to let you post here. Have you encouraged them, lately? If you hate them, then why are you here?

And you have said 10 times worse things to Will and refuse to acknowledge it. What kind of christian are you anyway?

This is a personal attack. Questioning someone's Christianity is rude and has nothing to do with KJV-Onlyism. If you want the moderators to let you stick around and post, I'd change my attitude if I were you. Plus, you should take this conversation regarding moderation to email. I doubt the owner of the Baptist Board appreciates you publicly questioning and criticizing the people who are volunteering their time as moderators.

Sincerely,
Jason

Clint Kritzer · Sep 22, 2004

Just look at those pathetic rebuttals of Jason Gastrich.

I am not Jason Gastrich. What exactly is your point?

Instead of looking for a sharp rebuttal to Artbook, why don't you guys think about the damage you are doing to a new born baby christian.

There is nothing damaging about the truth, at least not when it comes to recognizing that the KJV is merely a translation of the Scriptures, not the original. I would tell the new, baby Christian to put his faith in Christ, not in the ability of a team of 17th century scholars overseen by Anglican clergymen.

Do you tell them " well young christian , your KJ has errors in it and so do all the versions. You must learn greek and hebrew to find out the truth. But be careful , there are 1000's of manuscripts to study from and good luck finding the ones that are the most accurate."

I and others on these threads have repeatedly shown all the readers how to use commentaries, lexicons, and a variety of resources to discern the truth of God's word. You don't have to learn Greek or Hebrew, but to accept one source or translation as authoritative is folly.

Meanwhile I had a post deleted on the debate page for personal attack. I said to Jason " you got some nerve"...

The debate thread is supposed to be for no other participants than Will and Jason. That is my guess as to why you were edited, though, granted, it is just a guess. I did not do the editing.

And you have said 10 times worse things to Will and refuse to acknowledge it. What kind of christian are you anyway?

No, I acknowledge what I have said to Will and have a clear conscience in doing so. Will needs correction on his false doctrine before he drags more people down the wrong path. I am a Christian prepared to defend the truth. Small errors or debatable matters in doctrine slide by me every day ususally with no involvement. Others can answer for me on those matters and, as I said, people have a right to be wrong. Will Kinney is supporting a false doctrine with falsehoods and teaching others to do the same. It does not seem possible that one can gather so many sources on the subject and still not recognize the error of their ways. By not answering our questions he has confirmed that he sees the truth, but refuses to utter it. This requires correction. Paul said so:

1 Timothy 1
3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

artbook1611 · Sep 22, 2004

quote

And you have said 10 times worse things to Will and refuse to acknowledge it. What kind of christian are you anyway?

You call this a personal attack? Then what do you call Clints? I don't doubt Clints christianity at all,I assume he is a sinner saved by grace like you or I. But I am concerned how he can address a fellow believer in the way he has in an earlier post.

Clint Kritzer · Sep 22, 2004

Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:
If you want the moderators to let you stick around and post, I'd change my attitude if I were you. Plus, you should take this conversation regarding moderation to email. I doubt the owner of the Baptist Board appreciates you publicly questioning and criticizing the people who are volunteering their time as moderators.

Art's comments do not offend me and, as far as I am concerned, he is completely free to express his opinion of me. Even if I disagree with what he has to say, I fully support his right to say it. I am glad he is still reading along.

He recognizes that I have called Will to task and his comments merely allow me to further lay out my position. His posts are not a hindrance to me. To the contrary, they are a platform. When Will still won't answer the list of questions I posted, perhaps Art may reconsider his position about him.

Yes, the time for subtlety is past. Two-score pages of grasping at straws and falsifying resources has driven us past that.

Thanks for the thought, Jason, but I am made of sterner stuff than that.

michelle · Sep 22, 2004

--------------------------------------------------
I see you are following in the pattern of the cults; using the scriptures as weapons to hurt people who don't believe like you regarding non-essentials, in fact, trying to make them seem as essentials.

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

Jason,

If this is true, then why then did you do this very same thing in your round 7? Were you trying to hurt others? I think that you indeed were, but your accusation of art is false. As you called me, and many others cultists, foolish, uneducated, blind faith, etc. All these names however, are very untrue and quite slandering. How is it Jason, that you think you are serving others? How is it that your last round was edifying and glorifying our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? I find that your last round has proved how very wrong you are, and how much you boast and brag about yourself and how much you have placed the wisdom of your own mind above that of faith, and hopefully the faith of many other christians will not have been affected by your false claims.

1 Cor. 1

10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15. Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31. That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Will J. Kinney · Sep 22, 2004

Hi gb, you write: "It is quite clear that what you have done is a case of copy and paste from somewhere else. Page 526 in Kittel’s is under the heading of ...in the OT. You should read a bit further under point 3. You should also read on page 535 where Kittel directly addresses the word used in Phil. 3:20. In point number 4 the author writes, “The Basileia twn ouranwn is the politeuma of Christians.” In that same paragraph he also writes, “The commonwealth to which Christians belong, their “homeland,” is in heaven. "

gb, you are correct about Liddell and Scott adressing the noun in Phil. 3:20. What I was pointing out is that the lexicons give several meanings of the VERB from which this noun comes. As you pointed out, his examples in the O.T. have to do with the "walk" rather than the "citizenship".

The point being that the verb of this noun is used twice in the N.T. and both times it refers to ones life or behaviour, not to one's citizenship. Liddell and Scott also give the definitions of this verb as "to deal with (in private affairs) and "to behave" and they list Phil 1:27 as the reference.

My point is the word has several meanings and one of them is clearly "conversation" in the old sense of "manner of living" or "behaviour".

The KJB translators and others saw it one way and most modern versions see it another. I was providing the information that supports the KJB reading. I'm not writing a Doctorate thesis; I'm just showing why the KJB translated it the way they did. There is good reason for it.

Will K

Will K

New In Christ · Sep 22, 2004

So, as I was doing my Bible reading yesterday, I came across the following:

2Ti 3:14 But you keep on in what you learned and were assured of, knowing from whom you learned,

2Ti 3:15 and that from a babe you know the Holy Scriptures, those being able to make you wise to salvation through belief in Christ Jesus. (LITV)

(I actually read it in the KJV, but figured I'd post it in the LITV).

What were these "holy scriptures"? Presumably, they weren't the original Old Testament autographs. Were they copies...translations? What had Timothy learned from that Paul was confident enough to refer to as the "holy scriptures"? Obviously, Timothy was studying and learning something.

All this talk about errors in the translations is interesting and I'm glad to read the thoughts, but it seems to me that, at some level, the talk has to progress to highlighting the degree to which we are able to place our confidence in the Bible as Scripture. Like I said at the outset of my post, Timothy, most likely did not have the original manuscripts. He may have even been using a Greek translation of the Scriptures (correct?). Even so, Paul seemed confident enough in the scriptural authenticity of whatever Timothy had been exposed to to simply call it "Scripture"

I know I sound like I'm trying to make a KJVO point here, so I figured I'd use the LITV to show I'm not pushing KJVO, per se. But, at some point, it seems we have to see a translation as scripture. While not evaluating his arguments themselves, to me, Will's most compelling point is to stress that the KJVO's, at least, have a book that they can point to as being God's Word, without qualifications.

michelle · Sep 22, 2004

--------------------------------------------------
But, at some point, it seems we have to see a translation as scripture. While not evaluating his arguments themselves, to me, Will's most compelling point is to stress that the KJVO's, at least, have a book that they can point to as being God's Word, without qualifications.
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, and Baptists of the past also believed this, so this is not something foriegn, new, nor of false doctrine as many falsely claim:

http://www.pb.org/articles/mcfaith.html

http://www.pb.org/articles/lcf1689.htm#Chapter%20

http://www.ancbt.org/Beliefs/articles.pdf

http://carmichael/baptist.org/Articles%20of%20Faith/pcof1.htm

http://www.nationalbaptist.com/images/documents/z6.pdf

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Jason Gastrich · Sep 22, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
[QB] --------------------------------------------------
But, at some point, it seems we have to see a translation as scripture. While not evaluating his arguments themselves, to me, Will's most compelling point is to stress that the KJVO's, at least, have a book that they can point to as being God's Word, without qualifications.
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, and Baptists of the past also believed this, so this is not something foriegn, new, nor of false doctrine as many falsely claim:

Would you care to quote from the pages below? I just visited all of them and none of them mention the KJV or its inerrancy.

http://www.pb.org/articles/mcfaith.html

No mention of the KJV.

http://www.pb.org/articles/lcf1689.htm#Chapter%20

This page didn't even work.

http://www.ancbt.org/Beliefs/articles.pdf

There is no mention of the KJV.

http://carmichael/baptist.org/Articles%20of%20Faith/pcof1.htm

This page didn't even work.

http://www.nationalbaptist.com/images/documents/z6.pdf

This page didn't even work.

Did you just copy and paste these pages from some web site? Half of them don't work and the others don't even mention the KJV.

Sincerely,
Jason

DHK · Sep 22, 2004

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

My point is the word has several meanings and one of them is clearly "conversation" in the old sense of "manner of living" or "behaviour".

The KJB translators and others saw it one way and most modern versions see it another. I was providing the information that supports the KJB reading. I'm not writing a Doctorate thesis; I'm just showing why the KJB translated it the way they did. There is good reason for it.

Will K

Will K

That is where you are wrong. There was no good reason for it. There was every reason for them not to translate the word conversation. They erred in not doing so. You are persisting in defending a mistake, and for what reason may I ask--your own ego perhaps? Pride is a terrible thing. To admit, to say, "I have made a mistake," is very humbling. But that is what the KJV translators did, not once, but many times. Yet you blindly follow this cultish attitude that everything in this translation must be perfect and infallible, inspite of the fact that it is a translation, translated by sinful men. The Greek word does not mean conversation; it means citizenship. That is its primary meaning. Anastrophe is the word commonly translated as conversation.
DHK

gb93433 · Sep 22, 2004

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

The point being that the verb of this noun is used twice in the N.T. and both times it refers to ones life or behaviour, not to one's citizenship. Liddell and Scott also give the definitions of this verb as "to deal with (in private affairs) and "to behave" and they list Phil 1:27 as the reference.

The KJB translators and others saw it one way and most modern versions see it another. I was providing the information that supports the KJB reading. I'm not writing a Doctorate thesis; I'm just showing why the KJB translated it the way they did. There is good reason for it.

Will K

Will K

I have no idea where you got such an idea about Liddell Scott. The same word nor its root is listed. And I have the large ninth edition.

Most every word has several meanings. Just as the word bat does. But context will tell you what it often means. At other times how it was used in that day will also lend other clues to its meaning. For example today if we were to run over a cat or dog with a car and it was killed, we would not say it was murdered. If a person died we might say he passed away. Certainly we would not say murdered unless it was killing with mal intent.

My point was that you cannot proof text and use someone else as a source unless you quote them in context. You did not quote Kittel in context.

If you have talked with any JW's you will notice they do that all the time. They are quilty of quoting A.T. Robertson all the time out of context. In fact if one reads what he actually writes it very much disproves their assertions.

I get the impression you are trying to go into something you know nothing about. From what I see you know just enough to be dangerous and sound good to those who know nothing. you know just enough Greek to not really know.

Just as when I take my car to the expert because I don't know how to fix something so should you do the same thing with Greek until you do some more studying.

Clint Kritzer · Sep 22, 2004

Originally posted by New In Christ:
What were these "holy scriptures"? [2Timothy 3:14-15] Presumably, they weren't the original Old Testament autographs. Were they copies...translations? What had Timothy learned from that Paul was confident enough to refer to as the "holy scriptures"? Obviously, Timothy was studying and learning something.

A fair question deserving a fair answer.

I answered Steaver about the same issue on the first thread: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2767/11.html?#000159

it continued here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2767/12.html?#000177

I will add to those posts an analogy. If I were to ask you for a "dollar," and you were willing to give it to me, you would probably hand me a one dollar bill, or four quarters, or ten dimes, etc., etc. We would both recognize these as a "dollar." However, we both know that none of those representations are actually a "dollar." They are representations of that amount of currency. Until the 70s, the standard in the US was gold. When you handed me a dollar "bill", it was a promisary note for that amount of gold. The only difference between a one dollar bill and a twenty dollar bill is the artwork and the intent behind the note.

When we refer to the "Scriptures," we are usually referring to a representation of the originals, a faithful promise of what they are. The true Scriptures are the originals.

All this talk about errors in the translations is interesting and I'm glad to read the thoughts, but it seems to me that, at some level, the talk has to progress to highlighting the degree to which we are able to place our confidence in the Bible as Scripture. Like I said at the outset of my post, Timothy, most likely did not have the original manuscripts. He may have even been using a Greek translation of the Scriptures (correct?). Even so, Paul seemed confident enough in the scriptural authenticity of whatever Timothy had been exposed to to simply call it "Scripture"

Yes, if you are using a faithful translation, you can be confident that you are reading a good likeness of the originals. Study is important for discerning the finer points.

I know I sound like I'm trying to make a KJVO point here, so I figured I'd use the LITV to show I'm not pushing KJVO, per se. But, at some point, it seems we have to see a translation as scripture.

To the contrary, I think you have made a very valid point towards a multitude of translations.

While not evaluating his arguments themselves, to me, Will's most compelling point is to stress that the KJVO's, at least, have a book that they can point to as being God's Word, without qualifications.

The KJV translators made the same point:

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

http://www.bibleword.org/kjvlet2.html
First sentence under the Heading: AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES

Yes, the KJV is the word of God. Tyndale's version is the word of God. Wycliffe's translation is the word of God. The NIV is the word of God. The HCSB is the word of God. The LITV is the word of God. etc., etc., etc.

[ September 22, 2004, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

Clint Kritzer · Sep 22, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
Yes, and Baptists of the past also believed this, so this is not something foriegn, new, nor of false doctrine as many falsely claim:

Quite right, Michelle! Let's look at one of the working links you posted:

http://www.ancbt.org/Beliefs/articles.pdf

From page 2 of that source:

Article One:Of The Scriptures
We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired;that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter;and therefore is,and shall remain to the end of the age,the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct,creeds,and opinions should be tried.

1.By “The Holy Bible ” we mean that collection of sixty--six books,from Genesis to Revelation,which, as originally written does not only contain and convey the Word of God,but IS the very Word of God.

2.By “inspiration ” we mean that the books of the Bible were written by holy men of old,,as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,in such a definite way that their writings were supernaturally and verbally inspired and free from error,as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired.

Psalm 19:7-11;119:89,105,130,160;Proverbs 30:5-6;Isaiah 8:20;Luke 16:31;24:25-27,44-45;John
5:39,45-47;12:48;17:17;Acts 1:16;28:25;Romans 3:4;15:4;Ephesians 6:17;2 Timothy 3:16-17;1
Peter 1:23;2 Peter 1:19-21;Revelation 22:19

Clint Kritzer · Sep 22, 2004

DHK: The directives that the KJV translators had to follow were clearly spelled out for them. They were required to follow the old ecclesiastical terms already in use. Clint can quote some of the exact sources for you. Their hands were tied by political correctness.

Sorry for the delay in posting this. The list is quite abundant on the web:

1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, according as they are vulgarly used.

3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith.

5. The division of the chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for the fit references of one scripture to another.

8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinks good, all to meet together, to confer what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.

9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest to be considered of seriously and judiciously: for his Majesty is very careful in this point.

10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.

11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directly by authority to send to any learned in the land for his judgment in such a place.

12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of the clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before the king’s letter to the archbishop.

13. The directors in each company to be deans of Westminster and Chester, and the king’s professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishop’s Bible, viz. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Whitchurch, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

source 1
source 2
source 3

#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

<b>Moderator</b>

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member