Tell it Like it is

Rev. Joshua · Jun 3, 2003

Let me see if I understand the question correctly - demonstrate that the KJV is not perfect without pointing to its (many) flaws...

Isn't there an implicit contradiction in what you are asking for?

Joshua

TomVols · Jun 3, 2003

Please show me what is wrong with believing that the King James Bible is the inerrant, infallible perfect word of God in the English language without saying something negative about the King James Bible or its translators.

True. But you can also say the ESV, NASB, NKJV are all inerrant, infallable, perfect Word of God in English. There, I said nothing negative about the KJV nor its translators.

Ransom · Jun 4, 2003

MV-neverist said:

Answering a question with a question.Now that's original!

I'm not trying to be original, I'm pointing out the inconsistency of the KJVers.

You can't do your KJV thing without being negative about the other Bibles. Why do you exempt yourselves from the standards you set for others?

Ransom · Jun 4, 2003

Arubian Baptist said:

I will never forget that you agreed with me that The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and the NASB are the perfect word of God!!

You, sir, are a liar, and I will not communicate with you further until I see evidence of repentance.

wizofoz · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by Ransom:
You, sir, are a liar, and I will not communicate with you further until I see evidence of repentance.

This is one reason I'm seriously considering leaving this board.
I've seen way too much of this sort of thing.

Pastor Larry · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by wizofoz:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ransom:
You, sir, are a liar, and I will not communicate with you further until I see evidence of repentance.

This is one reason I'm seriously considering leaving this board.
I've seen way too much of this sort of thing. [/QUOTE]Wiz,

What you have to understand is that there are some people around here who have no regard for the truth. Arubian Baptist told an out and out lie. Ransom, rather than simply overlooking the sin involved, called him out on it and rightly called for an apology. It is unfortunate that people care so little forthe truth, even in personal relationships. Yet this type of stuff must be confronted whereever it occurs.

Scott J · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by Miss_Abby_The_IFBaptist:
Posted By Scott J: No it isn't. The KJV was not inspired by God. It was not translated from the original documents that God did inspire.

Alright, if it wasn't translated by the original documents God inspired, what was it translated from? The King James Bible was from the original Greek and Hebrew.

The KJV was primarily based on the Bishop's Bible and other English translations. The underlying original language text became known as the "Textus Receptus" due to a printer's sales ploy in the 1620's.

This text originated with a Roman Catholic named Erasmus in the 1500's and was revised five times by him and a disputed number of times by others after his death. Erasmus initially used less than 10 mss to collate his text and lacked parts of the NT in Greek such as the last 7 vss of Revelation which he back translated from a late copy of the Latin Vulgate. For this reason, the TR has readings in the last 7 vss of Revelation that completely lack Greek mss support. The part Revelation he did possess was imbedded in a commentary. To be fair, Erasmus was probably the greatest scholar of his day though he never left the RCC and did not leave us a testimony of biblical salvation.

The TR is not a facsimile of the originals. It was collated from 6-10 imperfect mss that like all other mss disagreed with each other in various places. The first production of Erasmus was interlinear with the RCC's Latin Vulgate- which was its intended purpose. Erasmus knew of other mss but was under extreme time limitations to get his text to the printer before other scholars working in Spain so he did not access them.

And that's why I fight the MV's so much. They take away from major doctrines.

Two problems here. First, no biblical doctrine is lost. No one has proven this.

Second, you make theological error. The Bible text is not determined by what we accept as sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is determined by what the Bible says.

did you ever think it might be spelling or printing errers?

Currently? No. Spelling and printing errors have already been resolved. The error that are currently discussed relate to incorrect or weak translations and evidence showing that the KJV does not match what the originals said.

I am convinced I have God inspired word of God.

I am too. But the KJV simply isn't the only valid translation of it.

It testifies itself.

No more nor less than other faithful versions.

The meetings of George Whitefeild, Jonathon Edwards,

These men preached in a period when the oppressive British monarchy outlawed the printing, binding, and distribution of any English version except the "Authorized Version". During this same period, the state sponsored Anglican church was throwing Baptists in jail for preaching the gospel.

D.L. Moody,

Moody was not KJV only and approved of biblical scholarship.

C.H. SPurgeon,

Spurgeon was not KJVO. He approved openly of modern textual criticism's efforts to render the most accurate text possible. He preached some sermons from the RV. In fact, he preached a sermon based on a phrase omitted from the KJV. In I John 3:1, the KJV omits "and such we are."

...many others won countless souls using the KJB. Their revivals amazing, they shook up contries.

The KJV was not the first version used mightily by God and it probably won't be the last. Additionally, experential religion is contrary to scripture. We don't prove things by what we perceive the results to be alone. If our conclusions are not supported by the scripture then we have probably misunderstood what we observe.

The numerology in the KJB is amazing.

No scripture is of private interpretation. Numbers have meaning but carrying those meanings too far can lead to terrible theological errors. If the KJV gives a message over and above what the originals gave then you must believe that the interpretation is wrong or the KJV contains new divine revelations. Anything you get by using chapter/verse numbers falls into this category since the Bible wasn't divided into chapters and verses until about 1000 after the originals.

Count the letters in "King James"

Case in point. The English language didn't even exist in 100 AD. To draw any kind of message from "King James" either assumes advanced revelation or represents an abuse of scripture.

Look in Genisis 13:13 in your KJB.

Another case in point, "13:13" was not part of the originals.

Just as my mother birthed me into this world, my KJB helped birth me into God's family {I had to hear the scripture before I could know about salvation!}

You may think me to be splitting hairs but you weren't born into God's family by the KJV. You must be born of the Spirit. God's Word in many translations can be used to lead someone to Christ. God is responsible for your salvation- not a particular version of the Bible.

Now don't you think I would take a stand for the thing so precious to me that pointed clearly my sins, and showed me to an old rugged cross, where I plead the blood and was made a new creation, justified in God's sight?

That would be God's Word which is not limited to the peculiar wording of the KJV. It is manifest in several good, faithful English versions of the Bible.

Wouldn't I stand for it, since by faith I beleive it to be perfect?

What is the basis of that faith? Experience- the unreliable realm of Satan's deceits? Man- prone to his own fallibility and pride? The only sound basis for belief is the Bible and it simply doesn't support KJVOnlyism.

Good luck at answering Pioneer's question. I'd like to see if anyone takes his challange.
~Miss Abby

Luck is non-existant. Only truth is required.

The truth is that KJVOnlyism is a doctrine conjured up by vain men out of thin air.

tyndale1946 · Jun 4, 2003

Actually this is an exercise in futility... Wouldn't it be better to compare scripture with scripture... A face off... That is it!... KJV against all other MVs... I'm game

... Are YOU?... Brother Glen

Daniel David · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Actually this is an exercise in futility... Wouldn't it be better to compare scripture with scripture... A face off... That is it!... KJV against all other MVs... I'm game

... Are YOU?... Brother Glen

Sure Glen. I will go at it with the careful eye of TomVols as moderator.

You use your KJV. I will use a NKJV, NASB, or ESV. I don't use any of the others.

You start the first post and let me have it.

wizofoz · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by wizofoz:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ransom:
You, sir, are a liar, and I will not communicate with you further until I see evidence of repentance.

This is one reason I'm seriously considering leaving this board.
I've seen way too much of this sort of thing. [/QUOTE]Wiz,

What you have to understand is that there are some people around here who have no regard for the truth. Arubian Baptist told an out and out lie. Ransom, rather than simply overlooking the sin involved, called him out on it and rightly called for an apology. It is unfortunate that people care so little forthe truth, even in personal relationships. Yet this type of stuff must be confronted whereever it occurs. [/QUOTE]I just think he could have "called him on it" in a different, more civil manner.

Arubian Baptist · Jun 4, 2003

Ransom:

You, sir, are a liar, and I will not communicate with you further until I see evidence of repentance.

The reason I said this was because I mentioned before to you that the NASB and the jehova witness bible have the same underlying text, and most changes that the NASB did compared to the KJV are just the same as the Jehova witness bible. That is why I brought it up and told you so, and I also said that IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, you should refute me biblicaly.

Since The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is based on the same manuscripts as the NASB and they changend and took out and left out whole verese on the same places as the NASB, whether you like it or not, thats the case, I would say that The New World Translation of the Holy Scripturesis the perfect word of God...but okay, I am a reasonable man, both the NASB and The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures are THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD!!!!

And please if you do not agree, biblical reasoning please!!! But.......remember, both bibles are based on the same text, so you better watch it, you might give the reason why your NASB is NOT the perfect word of God

But all you ever did, was saying that you allready did by affirming a contrary position, that’s where I asked you;

Since when is saying the same thing except replacing the King James with another version, being biblicaly

…and by the way, I was talking about the Jehova Bible and the NASB agreeing with each other, go back and read my post carefully.

Ransom, this is what you said:

Refute me biblicaly

I have already refuted you by Biblically affirming a contrary position: that the New American Standard Bible is God's perfectly preserved Word in the English language. You have not answered my argument. I take this as an admission that I am right.

If you dispute this, then refute my Biblical argument . . . if you dare.

Once again I told you this,

Since when is saying the same thing except replacing the King James with another version, being biblicaly?

And...I told you before...I am a reasonable man, and I said that since bot are based on the same text, both are the Perfect word of God...since you did not refute me either, I can say that we are both right and we both agree and believe that The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and the NASB are the perfect word of God!!

Thank you , thank you...we finally reached a agreement!

What I did here is just the same TRICK you did!!!

Remember what you wrote???:

You have not answered my argument. I take this as an admission that I am right.

So what you did, I did it also...you did not refute me biblicaly, so I took it as an admission that I was right!!

We agreed!!

Are you saying now you do not agree with me, that both, jehova bible and NASB are based on the same text, and that most changes are the same in jehova bible and NASB???

Well, then refute me biblicaly, and stop accusing me please...you were playing a wordgame, and now that I am returning it you cry out; LIAR LIAR!!!

I am waiting.....

Pastor Larry · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Actually this is an exercise in futility... Wouldn't it be better to compare scripture with scripture... A face off... That is it!... KJV against all other MVs... I'm game

... Are YOU?... Brother Glen

Talk about an exercise in futility ... We have used the MVs constantly to show that these KJVO claims are unfounded. We will say what we have said before, and no one will listen anyway ...

Ransom · Jun 4, 2003

wizofoz said:

I've seen way too much of this sort of thing.

Suit yourself. Arubian is a proven liar, and unless he repents, any further argument with him is over.

Arubian Baptist · Jun 4, 2003

bla bla bla...keep accusing instead of biblical arguments....

wizofoz · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by Ransom:
wizofoz said:

I've seen way too much of this sort of thing.

Suit yourself. Arubian is a proven liar, and unless he repents, any further argument with him is over.

Johnv · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Actually this is an exercise in futility... Wouldn't it be better to compare scripture with scripture... A face off... That is it!... KJV against all other MVs... I'm game

... Are YOU?... Brother Glen

How about something less combative and more constructive: Versions and translations vs the texts they came from. Comparing one tralsation to another is fruitless, because no translation is a final authority: only the texts they came from can be considered such.

Dr. Bob · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by Johnv:
How about something less combative and more constructive: Versions and translations vs the texts they came from. Comparing one tralsation to another is fruitless, because no translation is a final authority: only the texts they came from can be considered such.

And that, John, is the rub, for the "onlies" will not believe that. For them, the AV1611 (whatever revision they use) is THE final authority.

Beat your ahead against a wall; you will see more results than to deal with that mentality.

BTW, is this thread about "dead"? I think closing it would do us all a favor!

Scott J · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by Arubian Baptist:
The reason I said this was because I mentioned before to you that the NASB and the jehova witness bible have the same underlying text, and most changes that the NASB did compared to the KJV are just the same as the Jehova witness bible.

The NWT and NASB are not the same. I challenged you before but to the best of my knowledge you failed to respond- prove what underlies the NWT. It was a closed committee and as best as I am aware, they have not released details. The only thing we know for sure is that their theology dictated their translation choices in numerous places.

The translation committee of the NASB is the only one required to sign a statement of faith that included an agreement with the divine inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible and the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as well. They are probably the most "fundamentalist" translation committee ever assembled.

Somehow you seem to think that this is strong argumentation. The JW's used the KJV long before they developed their own translation. In fact, they still use the KJV. I have personally been approached by them using it within the last two years.

When that particular lady approached me (I guess expecting me to be KJVO), I cited the NASB at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and destroyed her argument against the deity of Christ.

That is why I brought it up and told you so, and I also said that IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, you should refute me biblicaly.

That is what we have been asking for. If you don't agree with MV's then refute us biblically or stop pushing your man made opinion on us.

Deekay · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by wizofoz:
I don't see what the big flap is about, myself.
I use KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and others in conjuction with each other.
Makes it a lot easier for me to understand some things.

My friend, you seem to be a sensible and fair-minded person. I can understand why you're considering leaving this board. Those attributes aren't too popular around here.

Johnv · Jun 4, 2003

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
BTW, is this thread about "dead"? I think closing it would do us all a favor!

I would wholeheartedly agree. I don't mind discussing the issue, but I have yet to see a thread on the subject that is free of verbal assault. I often why I bother trying....

Tell it Like it is

<img src=/cjv.jpg>

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Administrator

Active Member

New Member

New Member