Tell it Like it is

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

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.

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

No more nor less than other faithful versions.

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.

Moody was not KJV only and approved of biblical scholarship.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

This is one reason I'm seriously considering leaving this board.
I've seen way too much of this sort of thing. </font>[/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. </font>[/QUOTE]I just think he could have "called him on it" in a different, more civil manner.

 

Ransom:

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.

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

…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:

Once again I told you this,

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

Remember what you wrote???:

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.....

 

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 ...

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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....