1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Sound of Silence

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by robycop3, Dec 14, 2003.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 3
  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We've noticed that whenever we press the Onlyists for EVIDENCE to lend any veracity to their assertions in the versions issue, in any topic here, that topic quickly dries up, ending in a series of posts from anti-Onlyismists asking the Onlyists, "Where's the beef?" I'm assuming those KJVOs are Christians & Baptists & therefore don't want to tell a blatant lie, and so remain silent because thay cannot bring themselves to provide an honest answer which would be in opposition to their Onlyism doctrine. Any Onlyists care to discuss this?

    On other boards, I've received such answers as, "It's beneath me to discuss such stuff", which translates to, "I am clueless". Another fave answer they have is, "We've posted our proof a hundred times", but, when asked for the post #s where they've supposedly posted their proof, I'm greeted with either"You know where", or, the "sound" of silence.

    OK, I'll present one of your assertions and give you the chance to prove it right. In fact, I'll make it easy so any of you can check it out yourselves, right here on this board.

    Some of you assert we anti-Onlyismists are anti-KJV, that we wish to toss it out of the Baptist faith, and even that we don't consider it a valid Bible version. Quite recently, Askjo said we were KJV-haters. My challenge-Find and paste any post on this board where any legit member has said that he/she hates the KJV or says it's not a valid BV. If you cannot do it, then please, as Christians, be honest and admit that assertion is wrong.

    Please stick to the actual challenge and not paste sideshows such as, "I believe the NIV renders this verse better than does the KJV", or, "It's an Anglican Bible" or something similar. Please paste only those posts that match YOUR assertion, that we HATE the KJV, and/or consider it a bogus version.

    And while you're at it, here's your chance to disprove an assertion by ME(and quite a few other non-Onlyists). I assert that the Geneva Bible is as valid an English Bible version as any other. Can you prove me wrong-by EVIDENCE, and not by rhetoric?
     
    #1 robycop3, Dec 14, 2003
  2. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have you ever considered the possibility that the lack of response from the KJVO folks may be due to the "dog pile" mentality often exhibited by many anti-KJVO people?
     
    #2 skanwmatos, Dec 14, 2003
  3. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, I've considered both sides of the coin in my years of versions discussions because the truth from God is infinitely more important to me than "being right" in any debates with my fellow men. I have looked for signs that the KJVOs actually had some proof for their assertions, but they're simply not there. All I've EVER seen from them is guesswork and opinion, with not one scintilla of evidence, tangible, empirical, or circumstantial, to lend the slightest credence to their claims.

    Now, I'm not talking about those who PREFER the KJV above any other version; I'm talking about those who claim to believe the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. This has been clearly proven false, its origins clearly proven to have been man-made, and each and every one of this doctrine's points & arguments torpedoed.


    I remain open to any proof they can provide, & I'm giving them a chance here to prove JUST ONE of their assertions, and to disprove one of ours.
     
    #3 robycop3, Dec 14, 2003
  4. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean more like "where was the word of God in......" Just silly inmature rhetoric.


    Since when does being "Christians & Baptists" become a bullet-proof sheild for not lying???


    No,it's a nice way of telling you what Proverbs 27:22 says so well..

    And they probaly did;your problem is,you reject it;just like you will reject any evedence in this thread,you are simply instigating an argument so you can inject your GMO/BAO baloney..


    Most "closet" KJB haters are too much of a COWARD to ever admit they wish the KJB gone;which reminds me of an quote:"Cowadice is epidemic." Dont you think it is time to "come out?"


    OK.The Bible(KJB) is silent concerning Alexandria as being associated with the word of God;Antioch,however,is;read Acts 13.The KJB comes from Antiochan manuscripts.Also,God bears witness to the things pertaining to Him,as per john 16:13;Proverbs 22:17-21;1st Corinthians 2:9-13.


    The Geneva Bible is the word of God;it comes from the same foundation the it's successor(the KJB)does;anything from 1881 does not have the same foundation,and therefore cannot be put in the same catagory.
     
    #4 Anti-Alexandrian, Dec 14, 2003
  5. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct!

    What foundation did these MVs have?
     
    #5 Askjo, Dec 14, 2003
  6. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    The non-Biblical Alexandrian foundation which is built on sand(Matt7:26).
     
    #6 Anti-Alexandrian, Dec 14, 2003
  7. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm confused. Why does Antioch being mentioned mean that the only real texts are from Antioch? I can't find such an assertion made in Acts 13, no matter the version. Could you point it out?

    Second, it seems to me that there are many, many Christians who believe that other versions of the Bible contain as much of the Word of God as the KJV. It seems that they are led by the Spirit in their teaching, in their living, and in their witnessing. Personally, I find that the Spirit is clear in His speaking to me through the words of the NIV and other translations. So this is hard for me to understand. It would seem that you, as well as anyone else, could espouse a false doctrine and claim those passages of Scripture. Because of that, it would seem that the the passages are not really a strong proof of anything. Even David Koresh could have cited those passages as to why he was who he said he was.


    So then, you are not KJV-only? Is that what I'm understanding?
     
    #7 ScottEmerson, Dec 14, 2003
  8. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The non-Biblical Alexandrian foundation which is built on sand(Matt7:26). </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly! Correct! [​IMG] :D

    That's why God did not allow Paul to travel to Alexandria. The people at Antioch where Paul visited were called, "Christians."
     
    #8 Askjo, Dec 14, 2003
  9. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    The "onlyist" debate will go on for quite a while I figure. Is it really possible to answer the question? We're judging God's word in the court of the human mind!

    I'll take a step backwards! To me the KJV is the "best" English version - it's so beautiful and reverent in its phrasing and wording! The NIV and NASB are more "modern" in their flow but to me sound thoroughly ungraceful!! For me the KVJ is superior. But it seems this argument is not just about superior; it's about ONLY.

    There have been a number of points raised by "onlyists" in favor of the "only" position.

    The Alexandrian manuscripts are older but they did come from a weird place - we all know (I think) that Alexandria was home to alot of weirdos who expounded alot of weirdness!! Could the older manuscripts have been "weirdified"? Well, honestly yes they could have! But we do not know for sure.

    The Alexandrian manuscripts are fewer in number. This is indisputable. But most of the Eastern church preserved Greek as a language for alot longer than other areas so the picture gets a little muddy.

    God will preserve his Word - no argument here. Indeed the KJV was around for a while without the "modern translations". For this reason I'd have to deduce that God approves of it!

    We could go on and on!!

    We can surmise without a doubt that the KJV is God's Word. But can we say that the KJV - the KJV exclusively - is God's Word?

    I think that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls gave a great boost to our confidence in the preservation of God's word. The book of Isaiah was found in its entirety. There were a few letters and pronouns different than the masoretic text - but absolutely no SIGNIFICANT change! God has preserved His "imrah" or revelation. Is it this possible for two slightly different English translations to both be the "Word of God"?

    To the KJVO guys out there -
    here's my 2 stumbling blocks for the "only" position:

    1. Lots of people cannot understand the wording. Take Dan 11:34. "Now when they shall fall they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries." Find a teenager who can understand that! Most adults can't even get the thee, thou, thy thing straight.

    2. This debate has caused strife in the church! Since the bible does not unambiguously say that on the KJV is God's word than this whole thing may a good point for debate - but NOT worth splitting the brethren. Indeed even the tone in each of these past few postings has been a little testy!!

    So insummary I'd say that there are many reasons to be pro-KJV. But I honestly cannot see the facts to be more emphatic than that.

    Remember we're all on the same side!

    Any thoughts?? [​IMG]
     
    #9 Charles Meadows, Dec 14, 2003
  10. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please, would you define this term, "Only" for me?
     
    #10 Askjo, Dec 14, 2003
  11. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    A definition of "only" as it relates to this thread? I'm using it in the same context as "KJVO". By that I mean one who would adhere to the position that the KJV, and the KJV alone, is the word of God. [​IMG]
     
    #11 Charles Meadows, Dec 14, 2003
  12. gopchad

    gopchad New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree. I am KJV only for ME. I distrust the MV's, and find them to be extremely more difficult to memorize. This is my position based upon faith that God has preseved his word to me and other english speakers through the KJV. Does that mean there can never be another English version that will not adequately replace the KJV... I would have to say no. I have two KJV's that have minor differences between the wording found in each (presumably to differnt revisions). Under the KJVO argument, one of them cannot be the word of God, The Geneva Bible cannot be the WOG, but something had to be before the KJV, or else God did not preserve His word.

    The crux of the issue is that I am going to attend a church where the KJV is respected and used, others may not and that is between them and God. It does not make them any less saved or able to serve and be used of God.
     
    #12 gopchad, Dec 14, 2003
  13. gopchad

    gopchad New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    1
    One thing that I would like to add is that no one is saved when we refuse to get past these differences concerning translations, and I think that from the tenor of some of the replies that it is a bad testimony for Christians to attack Christians in an arena that is open to the world, such as this forum. I think that the best approach is to agree to disagree on the issue, or debate in a manner becoming the saints, then concentrate our efforts toward a lost and dying world.

    In Christ

    Chad
    A KJV loving Biblicist
     
    #13 gopchad, Dec 14, 2003
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And, as Roby said when he started this thread, no one comes up with EVIDENCE. They just side-step the issue, say it's beneath them to answer, make fun of questions like "Where was the Word of God before 1611?", etc etc.

    And as I just read the thread from the oily sect, that is what they've done here!

    But we who believe God preserved His Word in Greek/Hebrew so that ALL English translations that are faithful to it are valid are "suspect", "liars", "not to be trusted", and somehow (the lack of logic here is scarey) not even "Christian" like the Antioch crowd.

    KJVonly is an ignorant, divisive sect who hold an extreme liberal view of Scriptures in lower criticism (that make Wilhaussen and Graf look conservative in their higher criticism!)
     
    #14 Dr. Bob, Dec 14, 2003
  15. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    I wouldn't say personally that I distrust the modern versions - I just don't think they sound pleasing to the ears. I think the translations are pretty good. Sometimes they just don't have the umph of the KJV! But that's my opinion! It just seems like no one likes to discuss this in a friendly manner! [​IMG]
     
    #15 Charles Meadows, Dec 14, 2003
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Charles - Will share a little BaptistBoard history. We used to have just a couple forums. The KJV controversy (and the Calvinism) got so heated that it DOMINATED every thread.

    So decided to make some sections DICUSSION and FELLOWSHIP, where we have fun and discuss without casting doubt on the manhood of posters. And some DEBATE forums where we are civil, but little else.

    We don't call each other heretics and we don't judge the salvation of someone who believes differently. But the "gloves are off" and no holds barred in these DEBATE forums.

    Come on down to the Coffee House and I'll buy you a cuppa joe. I give no mercy to the onlies or to the semi-pelagian arminians; but they ARE my brothers and sisters, so I won't kill them.

    Yet. [​IMG]
     
    #16 Dr. Bob, Dec 14, 2003
  17. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Anti-Alexandrian said:

    The non-Biblical Alexandrian foundation which is built on sand(Matt7:26).

    I am curious. Has any KJV-onlyist ever quoted a Bible verse in a manner that showed the proper respect for its author and his intent?
     
    #17 Ransom, Dec 15, 2003
  18. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You mean more like "where was the word of God in......" Just silly inmature rhetoric.

    Well, then, where IS your Proof?


    Since when does being "Christians & Baptists" become a bullet-proof sheild for not lying???

    More evasion. You know full well that I'm referring to REAL Christians and baptists who live their lives for God.


    No,it's a nice way of telling you what Proverbs 27:22 says so well..

    Yep! That's EXACTLY what Onlyists say about themselves.

    And they probaly did;your problem is,you reject it;just like you will reject any evedence in this thread,you are simply instigating an argument so you can inject your GMO/BAO baloney..

    Once again...WHERE'S THE BEEF???


    Most "closet" KJB haters are too much of a COWARD to ever admit they wish the KJB gone;which reminds me of an quote:"Cowadice is epidemic." Dont you think it is time to "come out?"

    Once again...WHERE'S YOUR PROOF???


    OK.The Bible(KJB) is silent concerning Alexandria as being associated with the word of God;Antioch,however,is;read Acts 13.The KJB comes from Antiochan manuscripts.Also,God bears witness to the things pertaining to Him,as per john 16:13;Proverbs 22:17-21;1st Corinthians 2:9-13.

    More evasion. Just about every Apostle was sent to a specific place or places. Peter and Paul, both Jews, were sent to specific places among the GENTILES. Just because Paul wasn't sent to Alexandria doesn't mean God sent NO ONE there. Remember, Scripture is silent about most of the other Apostles. As for Alexandria and Egypt in general, God said,in Isaiah 19:25, Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, "**Blessed be Egypt my people***, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance."

    While I'm not saying that the KJV doesn't pertain to God, where does God say that only the KJV pertains to Him???


    The Geneva Bible is the word of God;it comes from the same foundation the it's successor(the KJB)does;anything from 1881 does not have the same foundation,and therefore cannot be put in the same catagory.     </font>[/QUOTE]What does that matter? What does that prove? How can you prove one "foundation" right and another wrong? generations of language scholars haven't done it; have YOU done what THEY haven't? Once again, WHERE'S YOUR PROOF???

    Thanx for bearing us out. You haven't provided any proof at all for ONE KJVO assertion. Par for the course.
     
    #18 robycop3, Dec 15, 2003
  19. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AA, I see you believe the Geneva Bible is the word of God. I suppose you know it differs from the KJV in quite a few places in the text(footnotes aside). Now, if you claim the KJV is perfect and inerrant, how can you also claim the GB is the word of God?

    Once more,we ask for PROOF.
     
    #19 robycop3, Dec 15, 2003
  20. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I gave you all the proof you need;your problem is,your so deep in the kool-aid that you dont know what flavor it is.
     
    #20 Anti-Alexandrian, Dec 15, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3
Loading...