I would like to ask...

Homebound, I would tend to agree with you as to the purity of language issue. That is one of the main reasons I like the KJV and use it a lot. I am not going to try to convince you otherwise, as you are convicted by the evidence to conclude what you have and I have concluded something different. I think it would be best to agree to disagree. I do thank you for the kind tone and friendly conversation. See, it is possible.

I pray that I will (and more importantly, my child) be so blessed. That is truly a gift to have one's entire life ahead to serve the Lord.

In Christ,
Neal

 

The MVs "came around" to do the same thing that the KJV did ... put the word of God in the common tongue. So someone has it done this.

Because the Greek and Hebrew were not confined to the originals. They are available to today, and modern language tools has made them very accessible. God has seen fit to preserve this for us.

But you bring up a problem for yourself. If you don't have the originals, how do you know that the KJV is perfect? The obvious answer is that you don't. You take someone else's word for it (who also has no way of knowing because he doesn't have the originals either).

Having ministered exclusively from an MV for seven years, I can say with no fear of contradiction that there has been no confusion. The only confusion came from someone who was indoctrinated like you. After a couple of conversations when I explained the issues to him, there was no more confusion. Your side is the one causing confusion.

No, this is simply untrue. Chaos didn't reign in the day when the KJV was a modern version and people said we didn't need it. Churches such as mine are preaching the perfect word of God. We simply do it from a modern language translation that makes preaching able to be more direct since we have to spend less time explaining words and structures that are already clear in the MVs.

 

The KJV was a modern version at one time.

 

May the Lord continue to bless your ministry!

God Bless You Sam,
Neal

 

But why is it different from the King James Bible if all that was changed was the "out-of-date" words.?

I don't understand, the text is taken from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, right.?

I believe by faith.

If other people are using your bible, then I'm sure that there were no confusion. But, when that one person came along who held true to God's word, you tore their faith to pieces.

Just to let you know, my church does not spend time explaining words and structures unless that person asks the pastor afterwards, which I'm sure every church has that one person. Though direct it may be, what about the conviction held in preaching God's word. When was the last time someone came up to you and said, "Thanks preacher for preaching that message, it really convicted me.?" Though the Gospel message can be preached from a modern version, I think it lacks in power where the King James does not.

 

It would be OK if the MVs weren't from Papal manuscripts.They "came around" to oust the KJB!! A foiled attempt!!!!

 

Why is your present day KJV different than the original KJV and the revisions in between??

I did not say that all that was changed was out od date words. In reality, nothing was "changed." They translated from the original language texts. They did not "change" the KJV. The KJV has been changed by others, not by the modern translators.

In the 300 or so interevening years, a truckload of manuscripts were discovered that gave us greater understanding into the preservation/transmission process. The MVs are based on the belief that everything God has preserved should be considered and weighed. Erasmus and teh KJV translators were apparently of hte same conviction, since that is what they did. The KJVOs of today have a different conviction than Erasmus and the KJV translators.

Yes, but the same Greek or Hebrew phrase can be translated in different ways.

But not be revelation, which means that you cannot use your faith to minimize or marginalize the faith of others.

PEople use a variety of translations and there is no confusion. This person's faith was strengthened through that encounter when he learned that the word of God was not trapped in one version that used outdated language. It is your side that is telling people that the word of God is not really the word of God.

Lives are being transformed every week. Rarely does a week go by without some significant change taking place in someone's life as result of the power of the word of God. I have never been in a KJV church where the power was being seen as it is here. The KJVO church I was in was dead as a doornail. I was there for three years and there were few salvations than you can count on your two hands. Where was the power?? There were more problems in that church than I have seen in MV churches. I have an explanation that has nothing to do with what translation was being used. I am convinced that the translation was a problem. A big deal was made out of what you were reading but it was no big deal whether or not you were living by it.

There is no lack of power in the modern versions. If your pastor doesn't spend time explaining words and structures, then he is not preaching the text. I have to spend time doing that. That is what preaching is, explaining the text and giving teh sense of it. It is simply much easier to do it from a modern translation because you start with a commonality of language.

 

How can we compare them to the texts from which they came when those things are gone/destroyed.?
They're not. The texts which bible translators used, including the KJV, are still in existence today. Many bibles have references to the MSS text and the like.

I’m saying that I believe that the devil is behind all the modern versions of bibles out there.
Do you have any scriptural support for that? Does that include non-English modern versions as well? Was Satan behind translational errors in the KJV as well? Or did the Holy Spirit allow the KJV translators to change the bible?

 

You forgot one:
That the KJV is reasonably correct, and most non-KJV's are reasonably correct, TRANSLATIONS of the texts from which they came, but that no translation is a perfect translation.

 

You forgot one:
That the KJV is reasonably correct, and most non-KJV's are reasonably correct, TRANSLATIONS of the texts from which they came, but that no translation is a perfect translation. </font>[/QUOTE]Right. MV-neverist list aren't the only possibilities. The other one, which I believe (by faith!) is entirely correct, is that the KJV is reasonably correct, and most non-KJV's are reasonably correct, and KJV-onlyists *misunderstand* the promise of preservation, thrusting into those verses their own person preference of what form that preservation took, rather than consider preservation took place in a different sense.

 

The only corrections that I know of is spelling and printing errors that have been found. No scripture meaning has been changed.

Yes, but just because it is old does not make it the best.

If other people are using your bible, then I'm sure that there were no confusion. But, when that one person came along who held true to God's word, you tore their faith to pieces.

I very serioulsy doubt that the King James Bible had anything to do with that church being "dead as a doornail." What happen is probably like some churches today, you have "comfort zone" Christians, meaning that where they are in their Christian life is where they are going to stay. It's like having a car with no gas in it, in order to go forth, you have to put something in it.

BTW, your church is not charismatic is it? Just a curious question, do you use hymns or todays modern Christian music?

Why not preach the text like it is. Sure, my pastor gives examples on some things, but the majority of the texts is relied on the Holy Spirit to prick their hearts.

[ June 18, 2003, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: HomeBound ]

 

NNE from "our side" has ever said this, nor believes this. I think this misconception is part of the problem of the whole debate.

 

If I understand it correctly the orginials are gone.

I’m saying that I believe that the devil is behind all the modern versions of bibles out there.
Do you have any scriptural support for that? Does that include non-English modern versions as well? Was Satan behind translational errors in the KJV as well? Or did the Holy Spirit allow the KJV translators to change the bible? [/QB][/QUOTE]

No, I don't have a verse for you. This is what I believe. All versions except the King James Bible.

 

Based on *what*???? You just pulled that idea out of thin air? By what authority do believe this? Do you routinely make up doctrines and believe things with *no* justification other than your own personal whim?

 

NNE from "our side" has ever said this, nor believes this. I think this misconception is part of the problem of the whole debate. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, BrianT, but I did not say this. Pastor Larry from "your side" said this.

 

Sorry, my mistake. You may want to edit your previous post, as the quoting is misaligned and makes it look like you said it.

 

Based on *what*???? You just pulled that idea out of thin air? By what authority do believe this? Do you routinely make up doctrines and believe things with *no* justification other than your own personal whim? </font>[/QUOTE]From the same air that you choose your bible.

 

Homebound, I am not making claims I cannot back up. I am not holding on to contrived doctrines, with "by faith" as my only reason. And lastly I am not deviating from the orthodox and accepted view of scripture through the entire history of the church. When someone makes a new claim contrary to the universal position, they need to back it up with more that what you've been providing! Now, I admit that sometimes the universal position is wrong, but the onus is still on the person making the new claim to back it up. Otherwise, someone could claim "The tooth fairy is real!" and when challenged, could simply say "Oh yeah? Prove she *doesn't* exist!" You see, we should NOT simply believe a new teaching without support. Until someone does this, KJV-onlyism will remain a fairy tale.

Seriously, think about it: you're making claims, trying to support your idea of the "final authority", but using your own whims as the "authority" by which to make decisions about what to believe. What, from a logical point of view, is different between this and how Joseph Smith started the Mormons, with his claims of angel visitation and gold plates (which he never provided any evidence for!) by which to make the book of Mormon?

Once we start accepting doctrines "just because", with no support, who can tell what the truth is? We'd be making it up as we went!

 

Sorry about that, alot of "Q's."